The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

The joke is Australia managed to fit Ikara in the stern of our Type 12 based River Class Destroyer Escorts / Frigates while keeping the 4.5" turret, Seacat and also fitting a pait of triple ASW torpedo tubes. No helicopter though, not because it didn't fit but because we didn't specify them.

Yes, but I think MATCH ultimately was a more flexible concept than Ikara; you could argue one of the RN great innovations post war. I think where Ikara was superior was it's: all weather capability, response time and despite the need for a heavy electronics fit, the ability to be fitted to much smaller ships.

The Type 12 although superior for speed than the diesel powered Type 11/41/61 was probably not the best ship to fight a Battle of the Atlantic in the 50/60s. I guess it created a universal escort merging the commercial/convoy with fleet types.

Incidentally I was reading up on the Mk 6 3" twin and apparently it was originally planned for the post war escort fleet but was not available so the 4.5" was fitted?

 

[STURM]

Yes, but I think MATCH ultimately was a more flexible concept than Ikara; you could argue one of the RN great innovations post war. I think where Ikara was superior was it's: all weather capability, response time and despite the need for a heavy electronics fit, the ability to be fitted to much smaller ships.

Whats the mean reason Ikara was taken out of service? Isn't/wasn't Silex and MILAS similar in concept to Ikara?

As torp tubes on ships are really a last ditch weapon and that there are only so many MPAs and helicopters to go around and that there is always the possibility that an undetected sub could appear out of nowhere in close proximity, wouldn't a newer version of Ikara be useful?

 

[1805]

Whats the mean reason Ikara was taken out of service? Isn't/wasn't Silex and MILAS similar in concept to Ikara?

As torp tubes on ships are really a last ditch weapon and that there are only so many MPAs and helicopters to go around and that there is always the possibility that an undetected sub could appear out of nowhere in close proximity, wouldn't a newer version of Ikara be useful?

Ikara was one of these systems developed as the range of sonars began to increase, in many ways it's a logical extension of Heghog, Squid etc, as was MATCH. I think the reason such systems went out of fashion was that the helicopter offered more flexible and could do a lot more than just deliver the ASW kill vehicle, i.e. ASW detection, recon, logistic, personnel transfer/insertion, carrying ASM...

That said ASROC in a VLS would be a useful fast/all weather option? I guess the reason Ikara did not survive was it's main sponsors (RAN/RN) were not prepared/able to finance further development in addition to a helicopter based approach. The RN in particular favoured very big helicopters in the detection and attack role.

 

[STURM]

I think the reason such systems went out of fashion was that the helicopter offered more flexible and could do a lot more than just deliver the ASW kill vehicle, i.e. ASW detection, recon, logistic, personnel transfer/insertion, carrying ASM...

I think it also has to do with doctrine. The Russians still use the RBU series of rocket launchers and the Swedes the ELMA. My only problem with both is that if a sub is within range of your rockets or torps from the triple tubes, she's also well within range of hitting back at you.

If cash wasn't an obstacle, the ideal solution would be to have 2 Merlins or Super Lynxs on board for ASW.

 

[1805]

I think it also has to do with doctrine. The Russians still use the RBU series of rocket launchers and the Swedes the ELMA. My only problem with both is that if a sub is within range of your rockets or torps from the triple tubes, she's also well within range of hitting back at you.

If cash wasn't an obstacle, the ideal solution would be to have 2 Merlins or Super Lynxs on board for ASW.

Also the Swedes do operate in shallow/coastal waters.

 

[StobieWan]

also from an R&D and production prospective a single missile makes more sense.

Surely Rapier on both ship and shore is what the French did with Crotale, US with Sparrow and what we eventually plan to do with CAMM. That said I don't know the performance history of it so well and if was so crap agree makes less sense as for either the Navy or Army.

Nothing wrong with reusing an existing system from a land or air based missile - I'm all for it - I still like RAM for it's sheer simplicity and approach of using working components (Chapparal motor, sidewinder warheard, Stinger seeker)

Rapier wouldn't be it however for me - if you're into fantasy what if's then I'd wonder if we could have employed Red Top ? All angle engagement capability, stonking warhead, fire and forget, job's a good 'un - if you were talking 1960's point system instead of say, Sea Cat. Stick that on the back of an Amazon and I think you'd have given the Argentinians pause for thought.

Marking Seawolf down for not being useful for retrofit is a red herring in my opinion - very few missiles ever have been. SM-2 didn't retrofit to SM-1 platforms, nor did SM-1 work with Talos or Terrier fit, SD didn't go into the Counties, the list goes on. In point of fact, Sea Wolf was better than most as it had a light weight launcher option that went straight into the existing four round Sea Cat launchers, which sadly was dropped as part of cuts to the budgets.

Looking back over the Falklands fleet, there's little to suggest that this lack of a retrofit made much real impact. Of the ships there, the largest class represented was the Type 21's - and they were built to be light and cheap, with limited armament and features to satisfy a perceived need for hull numbers. They were built during a timescale where they could have been fitted from the outset with Sea Wolf - they were however built to a budget.

Of the remainder of the ships, that's what, five Leanders, one of which was fitted with SW, two counties, which had plenty of scope for refit, but never were.

That leaves a pair of Rothesay which were lighter yet than the Leanders so I can rule those out for conversion on top weight issues.

Effectively of the ships carrying Sea Cat, the bulk were built that way to a price, the remainder were not converted for reasons that were not technical.



Ian

 

[Hambo]

I like the sound of a Seadart County.

You could use the forward section of original missile magazine for your computer racks and additional diesel generators then sink the Seadart magazine and launcher into the after part where the original hanger and director was situated. Type 909 located fore and aft and a helo hanger replacing the missile loading / prep area with the flight deck replacing the original Seaslug launcher, space and weight permitting you could work in a single Seawolf inplace of B turret or even a pair arranged one on each beam between the funnels with the directors arranged fore and aft but away from the 909s.

On frigate upgrades I personally believe the UK botched the Type 12 mid lifes, you only need to look at the Dutch Van Speijk upgrade to see what I mean. Forget Seawolf, Exocet and Ikara, just copy the Dutch and have a capable, GP frigate ready in time for the Falklands. The PDMS is still a problem but there is a decent DP gun and a pair of Seacats to use against low flying stike aircraft.

On PDMS maybe the Sea Chaparral could have been a reasonable stopgap for ships too small for Seawolf. It could have been quite useful to improve the self defence capability of the Leanders and Amazons and even been shipped on LPDs, LSLs and other selected RFAs. It could have served until replaced with RAM in the early 90s.

Warships build post Falkland could have been 7000 to 10000 tonne DL replacements for the Counties with Seadart, Seawolf and Goalkeeper while other platforms could have been fitted with Chaparral (then RAM) and Phalanx. Imagine a 2000 to 3000 tonne GP frigate with a 4.5" gun, Harpoon, RAM, Phalanx, a towed array and facilities for a helicopter instead of the Dukes.

Just looking at Sea Chapparral, it would appear to be a poor choice. An all aspect version doesn't seem to appear for the land based systems until 1978. The Naval version was only ever used by Taiwan which might say something about its effectiveness, the USN looked at it and turned it down. If you were looking to bring that in during the 1970's I assume without an all aspect seeker it would be a pretty poor choice for protecting ships? seems it was vastly improved by the addition of stinger technology later down the line but by that time Sea Wolf would have been battle proven.

How do heat seekers blend in with a naval picture when you own helos are acting as ASW screens or exocet decoys? Wouldn't they present a hazard friendly helos in comparison to a SARH or CLOS missile that gets locked on quite rigidly to the incomer? Can someone advise? If you fired one in an environment such as San carlos, would there be a danger it could lock onto a ships funnel or other heat source should it lose lock?

 

[Hambo]

StobieWan


Speaking of Type 21, somewhere in my garage are a stack of my old Battle and Warlord annuals, Its bugged me for years in which issue year its in but there is/was a feature on a Type 21 upgrade , must have been either before 1982, possible the same edition that featured "skyhook" cranes launching Sea Harriers from a destroyer.

Anyway it was a frontal illustration, the 4.5" had been removed and the exocets and structure the exocets were mounted on, in its place was a VL cluster for Sea Wolf with a director fore and aft, it may even have harpoon or sea eagle tubes infront of Sea Wolf. I only mention it to show that had the money been there, relatively small 113m frigates could have been given a useful upgrade. Fort Victoria was also going to carry VL Seawolf, the spots for the cluster can be seen on aerial shots.

So as far as the RN goes, SW could have and should have been employed much wider and in hindsight it was a good fit for the era and has given excellent service.

 

[1805]

How do heat seekers blend in with a naval picture when you own helos are acting as ASW screens or exocet decoys? Wouldn't they present a hazard friendly helos in comparison to a SARH or CLOS missile that gets locked on quite rigidly to the incomer? Can someone advise? If you fired one in an environment such as San carlos, would there be a danger it could lock onto a ships funnel or other heat source should it lose lock?

Isn't this one of the reasons the RN did not proceed with the RAM following the trial on a T42.

 

[1805]

Nothing wrong with reusing an existing system from a land or air based missile - I'm all for it - I still like RAM for it's sheer simplicity and approach of using working components (Chapparal motor, sidewinder warheard, Stinger seeker)

Rapier wouldn't be it however for me - if you're into fantasy what if's then I'd wonder if we could have employed Red Top ? All angle engagement capability, stonking warhead, fire and forget, job's a good 'un - if you were talking 1960's point system instead of say, Sea Cat. Stick that on the back of an Amazon and I think you'd have given the Argentinians pause for thought.

Marking Seawolf down for not being useful for retrofit is a red herring in my opinion - very few missiles ever have been. SM-2 didn't retrofit to SM-1 platforms, nor did SM-1 work with Talos or Terrier fit, SD didn't go into the Counties, the list goes on. In point of fact, Sea Wolf was better than most as it had a light weight launcher option that went straight into the existing four round Sea Cat launchers, which sadly was dropped as part of cuts to the budgets.

Looking back over the Falklands fleet, there's little to suggest that this lack of a retrofit made much real impact. Of the ships there, the largest class represented was the Type 21's - and they were built to be light and cheap, with limited armament and features to satisfy a perceived need for hull numbers. They were built during a timescale where they could have been fitted from the outset with Sea Wolf - they were however built to a budget.

Of the remainder of the ships, that's what, five Leanders, one of which was fitted with SW, two counties, which had plenty of scope for refit, but never were.

That leaves a pair of Rothesay which were lighter yet than the Leanders so I can rule those out for conversion on top weight issues.

Effectively of the ships carrying Sea Cat, the bulk were built that way to a price, the remainder were not converted for reasons that were not technical.



Ian

It would have been easlier to have retrofitted the originally VL Sea Wolf, if a compact radar could have been found. Your count of escorts is actually is actually 15 ships not a insignificant propotion of the fleet? Also you have not counted the LPD etc and RFA (although I think they were unarmed in those days for access to neutral ports?).

Never considered your Red Top idea, I don't know much about the missile, if that was a serious "might have been" sounds interesting.

A 3" mount would have help a lot mind.

 

[StobieWan]

How do heat seekers blend in with a naval picture when you own helos are acting as ASW screens or exocet decoys? Wouldn't they present a hazard friendly helos in comparison to a SARH or CLOS missile that gets locked on quite rigidly to the incomer? Can someone advise? If you fired one in an environment such as San carlos, would there be a danger it could lock onto a ships funnel or other heat source should it lose lock?

Yeah - thinking about it, firing heat seekers as part of a fleet in San Carlos would have been a teensy bit exciting. There are some navies out there that use IR seekers but they're all of the sort that have one ship in the area - Israel, Germany etc.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

It would have been easlier to have retrofitted the originally VL Sea Wolf, if a compact radar could have been found. Your count of escorts is actually is actually 15 ships not a insignificant propotion of the fleet? Also you have not counted the LPD etc and RFA (although I think they were unarmed in those days for access to neutral ports?).

Never considered your Red Top idea, I don't know much about the missile, if that was a serious "might have been" sounds interesting.

A 3" mount would have help a lot mind.

I'd just counted up the escorts that were armed and weren't carrying Sea Dart or Sea Wolf already. It is a large chunk of the fleet but I've tried to illustrate that the reasons they didn't carry anything more advanced than Sea Cat or Slug was due to reasons that would have precluded much else being fitted. A lighter weight radar set and the light weight Sea Wolf set would have been great - I think the gear went from 9 tons to 6 in the end.

Rapid fire 3 inch mounts would have been rather more useful than a lot of the stuff available at the time - I really admire the punch the Tigers could deliver in AAA for instance and a really interesting "what if" is to ditch the Sea Cat for something like it.

At the time however, missiles were all the new fangled rage, but never really delivered on their promise til much later on.

Red Top was by all accounts a useful missile - it has one shoot down to it's name, a Gr1 Harrier


Ian

 

[swerve]

Yeah - thinking about it, firing heat seekers as part of a fleet in San Carlos would have been a teensy bit exciting. There are some navies out there that use IR seekers but they're all of the sort that have one ship in the area - Israel, Germany etc.

Ian

And I think they use IR seekers with much greater discrimination than any which were around in 1982, such as imaging seekers.

The French use Mistral, but that's been updated with new seekers.

BTW, ever hear the story about a Malaysian demo of new Russian IR MANPADS some years ago? Some were fired against flares, & missed every one. The Malaysian brass were furious.

Of course, if they'd read the specs, or condescended to listen to a technical briefing, they'd have known in advance that the missiles would ignore flares because their heat signatures didn't resemble those of anything you might want to shoot down . . . .

 

[StobieWan]

BTW, ever hear the story about a Malaysian demo of new Russian IR MANPADS some years ago? Some were fired against flares, & missed every one. The Malaysian brass were furious.

Of course, if they'd read the specs, or condescended to listen to a technical briefing, they'd have known in advance that the missiles would ignore flares because their heat signatures didn't resemble those of anything you might want to shoot down . . . .

That's priceless DOH...etc.

Ian

 

[Palnatoke]

Yeah - thinking about it, firing heat seekers as part of a fleet in San Carlos would have been a teensy bit exciting. There are some navies out there that use IR seekers but they're all of the sort that have one ship in the area - Israel, Germany etc.

Ian

The question is whether the missile is fully autonomous or not. If you can't direct it, then it's up to some sort of onboard AI to figure out what to hit or not to hit.

Given that a missile doesn't carry a super computer, and the speeds and reaction time involved (F.eks. the mistral works at 800 m/s so I'll quess it will need to make decessions on milisec scale or faster), the AI is likely quite limited.

My guess is that f.eks. the mistral (simbad etc) is fired with the target "in the back", if it looses this target it won't try to reacquire, but will self-destruct.
it can maybe make some differentiation based on initial target profile (f.eks heat signature, which will be simple stuff like temperature of target) in order to defeat a flare and such.

The mistral has a range of some 6km and at 800 m/s the engagement is over in, say, 7-8 sec, other units won't move much in this time span, so from the missiles' perspective other units (other ships and slow flying helicopters) will appear frozen (as it speeds by them), maybe except it's fast moving target. So the risc of the missile acquireing an unintended target during autonomious flight, appear limited.

 

[riksavage]

The UK Gov has announced the purchase of 14 new customized CH-47F Chinook (taking the number to 60 in total), this should clear the way for Merlin to be transferred across to the RN/RM allowing for the final retirement of SeaKing. The new Chinooks will be fully operational by 2017.

The new buy Chinooks should be spec'd with the QE's in mind, folding rotors etc. With 60 airframes in service a permanent flight aboard a QE class when supporting the Commando Brigade is not an unrealistic proposition, plus they can act as the carrier on board delivery aircraft.

Deploying Chinook from the sea would allow the RM to deploy kit normally confined to the LC's - 105mm light gun + the new generation of light MRAP's as underslung loads.

Mutterings afoot that both Carriers will now be activated both with EMALS reversing the earlier stance that one will be put on extended readiness. Fingers crossed we don't suffer another financial meltdown around 2015. Finally a small glimmer of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17241

 

[1805]

The UK Gov has announced the purchase of 14 new customized CH-47F Chinook (taking the number to 60 in total), this should clear the way for Merlin to be transferred across to the RN/RM allowing for the final retirement of SeaKing. The new Chinooks will be fully operational by 2017.

The new buy Chinooks should be spec'd with the QE's in mind, folding rotors etc. With 60 airframes in service a permanent flight aboard a QE class when supporting the Commando Brigade is not an unrealistic proposition, plus they can act as the carrier on board delivery aircraft.

Deploying Chinook from the sea would allow the RM to deploy kit normally confined to the LC's - 105mm light gun + the new generation of light MRAP's as underslung loads.

Mutterings afoot that both Carriers will now be activated both with EMALS reversing the earlier stance that one will be put on extended readiness. Fingers crossed we don't suffer another financial meltdown around 2015. Finally a small glimmer of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

UK 'may keep both aircraft carriers' - Defence Management

Is the purchase of the Chinooks really the best use of scarce resources? They will arrive after the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan. If more lift helicopters are really needed would we have been better buying more Merlins and supporting the British defence industry...or does that argument only apply to BAe.

 

[riksavage]

Is the purchase of the Chinooks really the best use of scarce resources? They will arrive after the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan. If more lift helicopters are really needed would we have been better buying more Merlins and supporting the British defence industry...or does that argument only apply to BAe.

Chinook can carry 40 troops or ten tons of cargo. It's fast and has great range on a par with Merlin - short of buying a tilt-rotor airframe it's the next best thing. Plus you need the same crew foot-print to fly/operate Chinook as Merlin, so why not buy big and keep crew costs/numbers down? Albion, Bay and T45 can all lilypad a Chinook, the lifts on the QE class are big enough so in opinion the value of having a large versatile airframe deployed at sea can't be underestimated.
RM will get Merlin anyway, Chinook can be used to supplement this to bring in the heavy-kit should the environment not permit an amphibious landing (coastline has zero suitable beach landing zones for example), another tool in the box. 105mm, Viking (I think) can be underslung - you can't do that with Merlin. Chinook can also land in water to pick-up and/or disgorge an SF troop utilising ribs, something Merlin can't do.

Downside being can the rotors be folded, or do they have to remove them everytime for storage? How difficult would it be to redesign the rotor head to allow for folding and stowing aboard ship. I could never undestand why the USMC went for Sea Knight over a marinized Chinook, the latter has a much bigger payload with over a thousand airframes produced.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Mutterings afoot that both Carriers will now be activated both with EMALS reversing the earlier stance that one will be put on extended readiness. Fingers crossed we don't suffer another financial meltdown around 2015. Finally a small glimmer of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

UK 'may keep both aircraft carriers' - Defence Management

Rik,
The original article unfortunately complicates that hopeful POV somewhat.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/lo...ters_reconsider_mothballing_carrier_1_2987052

"As previously reported, HMS Queen Elizabeth will not be kitted out to fly the navy’s latest jets when it comes into service.

Those building the carrier say it was ‘too late’ to alter the design to accommodate the type of plane the government wants for the new warships.

This means the £2.6bn ship will be left as a four-acre helicopter landing vessel when it comes into service.

The government will then have to stump up an estimated £1bn tearing the ship apart to fit catapult and arrestor gear – known as ‘cats and traps’ – to enable F-35C jets to fly from her flight deck.

Mr Hancock, who sits on the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, said: ‘If the first one does not have cats and traps then why are we building it?

‘It’s a complete shambles. Why are we spending more than £2bn for a helicopter landing ship?’ " quote ends.

There's a bit more in the article, elsewhere it's suggested the delay is to suit the Govt. funded 'Emcat' research timeline instead of buying US EMALS equipment.

As I'm not on BAE's top secret mailing list, I have no idea how possible fitting the angled deck is at this stage but saving the mooted 1bn pounds retro-fit should be an incentive to some-one.

Change of subject. I'm pretty sure I've seen Chinooks with folded rotor blades, don't know the system used though.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[1805]

Chinook can carry 40 troops or ten tons of cargo. It's fast and has great range on a par with Merlin - short of buying a tilt-rotor airframe it's the next best thing. Plus you need the same crew foot-print to fly/operate Chinook as Merlin, so why not buy big and keep crew costs/numbers down? Albion, Bay and T45 can all lilypad a Chinook, the lifts on the QE class are big enough so in opinion the value of having a large versatile airframe deployed at sea can't be underestimated.
RM will get Merlin anyway, Chinook can be used to supplement this to bring in the heavy-kit should the environment not permit an amphibious landing (coastline has zero suitable beach landing zones for example), another tool in the box. 105mm, Viking (I think) can be underslung - you can't do that with Merlin. Chinook can also land in water to pick-up and/or disgorge an SF troop utilising ribs, something Merlin can't do.

Downside being can the rotors be folded, or do they have to remove them everytime for storage? How difficult would it be to redesign the rotor head to allow for folding and stowing aboard ship. I could never undestand why the USMC went for Sea Knight over a marinized Chinook, the latter has a much bigger payload with over a thousand airframes produced.

Well aware of the heavier lift over the Merlin, but as I think we are already the largest operator outside the US of Chinooks, is it really necessary to increase the fleet by 25%?

With defence orders likely to be very thin on the ground, if we want to have a UK helicopter industry then surely, Merlin would have been more than capable?[/