The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Hambo]

Loving the latest bonkers idea 1805, that we should build a stealth UCAV based in a pegasus engine.

Ummm yep, a really low risk low cost solution there. Develop from scratch a harrier sized stealthy UCAV, with internal weapons to remain stealthy, master the complexities and cost of automated VL landings, control the heat issues of the 4 pegasus nozzles on a stealthy UCAV. Shouldn't take UK industry long to do that should it?

Makes you wonder why the USMC want a stealthy F35B that is supersonic with a better range than the AV8B and uncomparible in avionics. Why didn't they see they could have developed a pegasus based UCAV instead? oh well, their loss!

Not to mention buying 300 cruise missiles for your converted RFA with a flex deck blah blah blah.

 

[1805]

Loving the latest bonkers idea 1805, that we should build a stealth UCAV based in a pegasus engine.

Ummm yep, a really low risk low cost solution there. Develop from scratch a harrier sized stealthy UCAV, with internal weapons to remain stealthy, master the complexities and cost of automated VL landings, control the heat issues of the 4 pegasus nozzles on a stealthy UCAV. Shouldn't take UK industry long to do that should it?

Makes you wonder why the USMC want a stealthy F35B that is supersonic with a better range than the AV8B and uncomparible in avionics. Why didn't they see they could have developed a pegasus based UCAV instead? oh well, their loss!

Not to mention buying 300 cruise missiles for your converted RFA with a flex deck blah blah blah.

I am well aware that you don't think any idea that has not come from the establishment is worth considering. OK focusing on a VSTOL UCAV might be a bit much for you. Can you just say why, is it because: you don't think it can be done, don't think we can do it, or don't think a VSTOL UCAV adds any value?

However I can't see the issue with a ship that can carry enough cruise missiles to mitigate the need for Tornado to carry them....far cheaper I would have said. Also by reloading you can save on the number of VLS cells. By storing them as cargo, if you are not in the war fighting role, the space can be used for other purposes?

I know why you don't like the idea, no one else is doing it yet, you would be happy to see them in service once they have done 10-20 years with the USN and are being built by most other navies....but then you will call it hindsight!

 

[StobieWan]

I am well aware that you don't think any idea that has not come from the establishment is worth considering. OK focusing on a VSTOL UCAV might be a bit much for you. Can you just say why, is it because: you don't think it can be done, don't think we can do it, or don't think a VSTOL UCAV adds any value?

However I can't see the issue with a ship that can carry enough cruise missiles to mitigate the need for Tornado to carry them....far cheaper I would have said. Also by reloading you can save on the number of VLS cells. By storing them as cargo, if you are not in the war fighting role, the space can be used for other purposes?

I know why you don't like the idea, no one else is doing it yet, you would be happy to see them in service once they have done 10-20 years with the USN and are being built by most other navies....but then you will call it hindsight!

I'd ignored the whole thing but since Hambo's lit the touchpaper, I'll point out that there's simply no conflict in which we'd have to do a first day of the war strike with 300 missiles on the horizon. That's a world war III option and we just have no plans to deal with that. Neither can your suggestion actually launch that many missiles on a first day as the time taken to reload your small number of tubes will choke off your ability to strike many targets simultaneously. All you've done is put all your TLAM's into one lightly protected and visible basket.

No-one's done it because the concept has no military merit at all, neither do we have any credible scenario in which we'd need to squirt off that many TLAMS at one target.

Yes, it could be done, but it's not a sensible capability, and would be less useful than existing arrangements.

Ian

 

[1805]

I'd ignored the whole thing but since Hambo's lit the touchpaper, I'll point out that there's simply no conflict in which we'd have to do a first day of the war strike with 300 missiles on the horizon. That's a world war III option and we just have no plans to deal with that. Neither can your suggestion actually launch that many missiles on a first day as the time taken to reload your small number of tubes will choke off your ability to strike many targets simultaneously. All you've done is put all your TLAM's into one lightly protected and visible basket.

No-one's done it because the concept has no military merit at all, neither do we have any credible scenario in which we'd need to squirt off that many TLAMS at one target.

Yes, it could be done, but it's not a sensible capability, and would be less useful than existing arrangements.

Ian

No, it would have the capability to hold large numbers of missiles in storage, I wasn't suggesting firing them off on one day...that would be £150m+ up in smoke in one go.

But by holding large numbers it would be capable of remaining on station. While we have no carrier strike option, this could take on much of the Tornado role. (not including the Apaches which would be reserved for the CAS/interdiction). Not sure how many Storm Shadow the RAF fired, didn't the USN fire 100 in first few days?

Great to put a couple of 155mm guns on the front for cheaper fire support, maybe ever a MLRS. One or two such ships of the coast of any country would make a powerful but not necessarily that expensive statement.

 

[Hambo]

No, it would have the capability to hold large numbers of missiles in storage, I wasn't suggesting firing them off on one day...that would be £150m+ up in smoke in one go.

But by holding large numbers it would be capable of remaining on station. While we have no carrier strike option, this could take on much of the Tornado role. (not including the Apaches which would be reserved for the CAS/interdiction). Didn't the USN fire 100 in first few days?

But it might be worth considering why no one currently reloads a VLS at sea? The VLS contains allsorts of fire suppression equipment in case of a missile getting stuck at launch, the loading has to be done with some precision and I have read that after a firing the tube would need to be inspected quite closely to check for damage, any debris that might have fallen off and careful tested before you load several thousand pounds of dangerous rocket fuel and warhead back in. That seem to require a port. It maybe an advantage of CAAM using a cold launch, perhaps you can reload them at sea?

So you need to find a suitable vessel, design and fit a safe magazine system to store missiles, a system to handle them, a method of reloading them and adding a communications and weapons data system to allow the accurate launch of them. Then request more TLAM from the USA, pay for them (10 year shelf life?) might mean ditching many unused ones if no major conflict, or develop our own , a storm shadow-ER or Scalp-ER.

I would suggest by the time you do all that we would already have POW in service with some F35s flying from them that could have some stand off weapon integrated on them around 2020.

In fact compared to that cost the RAF study for future strike of dropping cruise missiles on pallets from the rear of a hercules or A400M may have been more cost effective, but that also seems to have been quietly dropped.

Adding a multi ton gun mount to the front of a merchant vessel? Nothing is that simple, huge strains and loads on a structure for one. then add an MLRS? then you put it in range of return fire, so you need something to defend the ship with, or a goal keeping frigate to tag along as well, so take said merchant vessel, add a fortune in design changes, then the frigate cost of an air defence system and you have an expensive ship that would have poor survivability from even a near miss. Lewis Page suggested it but he seems a bit odd, has an axe to grind because he wasn't fast tracked to Admiral.

 

[Hambo]

I am well aware that you don't think any idea that has not come from the establishment is worth considering. OK focusing on a VSTOL UCAV might be a bit much for you. Can you just say why, is it because: you don't think it can be done, don't think we can do it, or don't think a VSTOL UCAV adds any value?

I can see the benefit of a VSTOL UCAV, but can't see the technological challenges being solved for some decades, by which time pegasus would be a 70 year old engine, out of production , so yes your pegasus UCAS is a very stupid idea. The lift jet from the F35B might make a suitable platform once they master having a computer land and take off safely, but then you have to wonder if we already have CTOL carriers in operation why you would need VSTOL,? I think a CTOL jet UCAV is more likely to be developed before VSTOL mainly because the USN might want one at some point.

anything COULD be done, bung enough money at a prolem and they even got men on the moon , but thats the key, money, or lack of.

 

[StobieWan]

No, it would have the capability to hold large numbers of missiles in storage, I wasn't suggesting firing them off on one day...that would be £150m+ up in smoke in one go.

But by holding large numbers it would be capable of remaining on station. While we have no carrier strike option, this could take on much of the Tornado role. (not including the Apaches which would be reserved for the CAS/interdiction). Not sure how many Storm Shadow the RAF fired, didn't the USN fire 100 in first few days?

Great to put a couple of 155mm guns on the front for cheaper fire support, maybe ever a MLRS. One or two such ships of the coast of any country would make a powerful but not necessarily that expensive statement.

See, this gets worse. A simple freighter or RFA with VLS would be relatively cheap to implement and you'd never need to worry about it being attacked as it can hang off the coast out in deep ocean, well out of harms way. Now you're parking it twenty km off the coast and doing fire missions with it, so it needs point and inner layer missile defence and really, it needs an AWD to handle wider area cover - or do you want to fit it with SAMPSON as well?

Tell you what, I've a better idea, fit the Darings with the 155mm gun they were talking about and sixteen strike cells. It'd be cheaper and much more survivable.

Reload VLS at sea? Best of luck - the US tried it and found you needed so much additional support, you might as well tie up alongside.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

I think a CTOL jet UCAV is more likely to be developed before VSTOL mainly because the USN might want one at some point.

anything COULD be done, bung enough money at a prolem and they even got men on the moon , but thats the key, money, or lack of.

They've trialled Predator at sea I believe, or at least suggested it can be done easily enough. The autolanding systems for the F35 are already well up to snuff for getting a UCAV down either vertically or horizontally and the UK had some good input into that I think. It's doable, I just can't see why the hell you'd want to install Pegasus. Stick some more money at finishing off F136 for the UK maybe, that'd be money I'd not object to very much.

Ian

 

[1805]

But it might be worth considering why no one currently reloads a VLS at sea? The VLS contains allsorts of fire suppression equipment in case of a missile getting stuck at launch, the loading has to be done with some precision and I have read that after a firing the tube would need to be inspected quite closely to check for damage, any debris that might have fallen off and careful tested before you load several thousand pounds of dangerous rocket fuel and warhead back in. That seem to require a port. It maybe an advantage of CAAM using a cold launch, perhaps you can reload them at sea?

So you need to find a suitable vessel, design and fit a safe magazine system to store missiles, a system to handle them, a method of reloading them and adding a communications and weapons data system to allow the accurate launch of them. Then request more TLAM from the USA, pay for them (10 year shelf life?) might mean ditching many unused ones if no major conflict, or develop our own , a storm shadow-ER or Scalp-ER.

I would suggest by the time you do all that we would already have POW in service with some F35s flying from them that could have some stand off weapon integrated on them around 2020.

In fact compared to that cost the RAF study for future strike of dropping cruise missiles on pallets from the rear of a hercules or A400M may have been more cost effective, but that also seems to have been quietly dropped.

Adding a multi ton gun mount to the front of a merchant vessel? Nothing is that simple, huge strains and loads on a structure for one. then add an MLRS? then you put it in range of return fire, so you need something to defend the ship with, or a goal keeping frigate to tag along as well, so take said merchant vessel, add a fortune in design changes, then the frigate cost of an air defence system and you have an expensive ship that would have poor survivability from even a near miss. Lewis Page suggested it but he seems a bit odd, has an axe to grind because he wasn't fast tracked to Admiral.

I know you like to list problems, but this is what engineers do, they just overcome them... None sound that expensive or complex. I suspect the reason no one reloads at sea is because the few countries that deploy them have large numbers of VLS.

If it is possible to change a GT on a carrier it can't be impossible to reload a VLS? Try and be a little open minded.

I know you hate the lego approach to ships but the RN needs to build ships that are more innovative and combine roles.

Well I didn't mention it as I knew you would sound off, but if you are building a ship 12-18,000t I would fit a PAAMS system (well you got the VLS anyway and with a magazine of c200-300 you could afford for a few to be Aster 30s. The radar would be so much higher than even a T45?

I would go with SCALP, if we ordered large numbers c1000 (not all at one time, initial batch then feed them in over 5-8 years) we would get a good price.

Hanger for 2 Merlin would be easy....just to really annoy you I would add a dock (actually I would add one)!

But as such a ship would be out of the question at the moment, I would consider a conversion of one of the LPD (just for the SCALP no PAAMS or 155mm gun to much of a rebuild). But I would add a full width hanger for say 3-4 Merlin and turn it into a multi role dock, with engineering/tender facilities for small craft, such as CB90h and larger patrol craft.

 

[swerve]

.... Then request more TLAM from the USA, pay for them (10 year shelf life?) might mean ditching many unused ones if no major conflict, or develop our own , a storm shadow-ER or Scalp-ER.....

While I agree with you in general about this freighter/missile ship proposal, there'd be no point in us developing our own VLS-capable & extended range Storm Shadow/Scalp, since the French have kindly done it for us.

The only rational way I can see of getting a lot more cruise missiles to sea relatively (stress the 'relatively' - VLS don't come cheap) cheaply is to develop some kind of palletised VLS that could be inserted into freighters with minimal modifications to the ship, with a containerised communications & control system which would accept targeting data from existing off board systems.

Fitting PAAMS to a 'cheap' ship, as has been suggested here, automatically negates the cheapness argument. PAAMS is expensive.

Converting one of the LPDs would leave us with only one LPD, i.e. a part-time capability.

Building a single arsenal ship, as proposed, would also give us only a part-time capability.

 

[1805]

See, this gets worse. A simple freighter or RFA with VLS would be relatively cheap to implement and you'd never need to worry about it being attacked as it can hang off the coast out in deep ocean, well out of harms way. Now you're parking it twenty km off the coast and doing fire missions with it, so it needs point and inner layer missile defence and really, it needs an AWD to handle wider area cover - or do you want to fit it with SAMPSON as well?

Tell you what, I've a better idea, fit the Darings with the 155mm gun they were talking about and sixteen strike cells. It'd be cheaper and much more survivable.

Reload VLS at sea? Best of luck - the US tried it and found you needed so much additional support, you might as well tie up alongside.

Ian

16 Cruise missiles is just not enough if the RN wants to have a serious go at the deep strike role.

But agree that is no reason why they should not be fitted as it would make them much more useful. One of the troubles with all these destroyers and frigates apart from patrol work they are rarely seen firing, this is an issue as people do not see the value they add.

Yes SCALP are not cheap but at least you know you will not have the same number as you started with in 10 years....unlike Harpoon.

 

[1805]

While I agree with you in general about this freighter/missile ship proposal, there'd be no point in us developing our own VLS-capable & extended range Storm Shadow/Scalp, since the French have kindly done it for us.

The only rational way I can see of getting a lot more cruise missiles to sea relatively (stress the 'relatively' - VLS don't come cheap) cheaply is to develop some kind of palletised VLS that could be inserted into freighters with minimal modifications to the ship, with a containerised communications & control system which would accept targeting data from existing off board systems.

Fitting PAAMS to a 'cheap' ship, as has been suggested here, automatically negates the cheapness argument. PAAMS is expensive.

Converting one of the LPDs would leave us with only one LPD, i.e. a part-time capability.

Building a single arsenal ship, as proposed, would also give us only a part-time capability.

The LPD would lose some of its capability, but in doing so would be much more valuable to the RN, which would secure its long term future. Currently one is in/heading for extended reserve....how long for...before a buyer is found??

Better to have a reduced but retained capability.

The RN would get a good deal on SCALP the French would bite our hands off.

I was not suggesting one ship, build 3-4 a decade, as they go on prehaps more naval build than RFA. Ultimately replace the T45s with them.

The trouble with ships like the Type 26 is they are to big to be built in numbers, but to small to carry a really heavy load.

 

[Hambo]

1805, "16 Cruise missiles is just not enough if the RN wants to have a serious go at the deep strike role."

Does the RN currently aspire to have a really serious go at the deep strike role? is there a current need to abandon its current restructuring programme for your plans. The RN is trying to return to operating CTOL carriers, replace T42, upgrade the frigate force and introduce a new surface combatant, whilst introducing the astute class etc etc in the face of budget cuts. I don't see the admirals arguing that we need to be able to swamp a shore line with 100's of cruise missiles.

Is there a need for 12,000-18,000 £1.5 billion supership white elephants that you propose? and will those ships mean more or less of those exportable cheap light frigates that you normally aspire to. I suspect you could have fitted nicely into the old soviet navy, spending vast amounts of money you didn't have on Kirovs and other mutant vessels that in practice are less than ideal.


Yes, engineers try and overcome problems, normally at great expense and not always for a worthwhile gain.

If you pop onto a forum and propose something that is ridiculous you can't really be surprised when it's pointed out. It's a common trend that those on here with some professional nous (and i do not include myself in that), always run rings around you . Fair play you keep going, I just wish you would get your crayons out and show us some sketches of your chitty chitty bang bang creations, it would make my day.

 

[1805]

1805, "16 Cruise missiles is just not enough if the RN wants to have a serious go at the deep strike role."

Does the RN currently aspire to have a really serious go at the deep strike role? is there a current need to abandon its current restructuring programme for your plans. The RN is trying to return to operating CTOL carriers, replace T42, upgrade the frigate force and introduce a new surface combatant, whilst introducing the astute class etc etc in the face of budget cuts. I don't see the admirals arguing that we need to be able to swamp a shore line with 100's of cruise missiles.

Is there a need for 12,000-18,000 £1.5 billion supership white elephants that you propose? and will those ships mean more or less of those exportable cheap light frigates that you normally aspire to. I suspect you could have fitted nicely into the old soviet navy, spending vast amounts of money you didn't have on Kirovs and other mutant vessels that in practice are less than ideal.


Yes, engineers try and overcome problems, normally at great expense and not always for a worthwhile gain.

If you pop onto a forum and propose something that is ridiculous you can't really be surprised when it's pointed out. It's a common trend that those on here with some professional nous (and i do not include myself in that), always run rings around you . Fair play you keep going, I just wish you would get your crayons out and show us some sketches of your chitty chitty bang bang creations, it would make my day.

Actually nothing I have suggested here is that radical. It would have been cheaper and better for the RN if the missiles that had hit the Libyans had come from RN ships off shore than RAF aircraft using up the entire tanker fleet.

You think you win arguments but then event change, but you still try and defend them.

My argument is stop fitting weapons that will never be used (like Harpoon) and buy something useful.

BTW I have been semi discribing a cheap version of a DDG1000, I thought you would have guest it, when I mentioned the 2 x 155mm guns. More USN than Soviet I'm afraid.

 

[Cadredave]

Actually nothing I have suggested here is that radical. It would have been cheaper and better for the RN if the missiles that had hit the Libyans had come from RN ships off shore than RAF aircraft using up the entire tanker fleet.

You think you win arguments but then event change, but you still try and defend them.

My argument is stop fitting weapons that will never be used (like Harpoon) and buy something useful.

BTW I have been semi discribing a cheap version of a DDG1000, I thought you would have guest it, when I mentioned the 2 x 155mm guns. More USN than Soviet I'm afraid.

"STOP"
enough your ideas are classic Jacky Fisher what doctrine are you following or proposing, what force construct is this ship to fit into to from what you are proposing it now sounds like a classic Jacky battle cruiser huge overarmed lightly armoured with no practical use or application this so called ship would last how long in a real life situation.

 

[Hambo]

Actually nothing I have suggested here is that radical. It would have been cheaper and better for the RN if the missiles that had hit the Libyans had come from RN ships off shore than RAF aircraft using up the entire tanker fleet.

You think you win arguments but then event change, but you still try and defend them.

My argument is stop fitting weapons that will never be used (like Harpoon) and buy something useful.

BTW I have been semi discribing a cheap version of a DDG1000, I thought you would have guest it, when I mentioned the 2 x 155mm guns. More USN than Soviet I'm afraid.

What have you got against Harpoon? Can we rule out any chance of ship vs ship action? Some will be recycled onto newer ships anyway so not really much cost eg T22 Harpoons might end up on T45. Also, with a data link and some tinkering a single use antiship missile could provide some limited land attack capability if needed, the future might be to have a seeker that could do both jobs, something that can discriminate a hostile land target from a friendly one, or target a surface vessel. I'm not sure being hostile to a system like harpoon boosts your arsenal ship argument, I assume we will use up existing stocks, but is there any plan to replace them at present?

 

[1805]

What have you got against Harpoon? Can we rule out any chance of ship vs ship action? Some will be recycled onto newer ships anyway so not really much cost eg T22 Harpoons might end up on T45. Also, with a data link and some tinkering a single use antiship missile could provide some limited land attack capability if needed, the future might be to have a seeker that could do both jobs, something that can discriminate a hostile land target from a friendly one, or target a surface vessel. I'm not sure being hostile to a system like harpoon boosts your arsenal ship argument, I assume we will use up existing stocks, but is there any plan to replace them at present?

As long as they buy no more, why not put them on carriers....actually thats is a joke...that said the RN has been know to send a carrier out with not aircraft on it....holding the record of the only navy to lose a carrier to a battleship!

 

[1805]

"STOP"
enough your ideas are classic Jacky Fisher what doctrine are you following or proposing, what force construct is this ship to fit into to from what you are proposing it now sounds like a classic Jacky battle cruiser huge overarmed lightly armoured with no practical use or application this so called ship would last how long in a real life situation.

Hmmm Jacky Fisher since you mention it. He did build the Dreadnought as well as the battlecruiser so not all bad ;-)

It would really be a crusier capable of independent operation, well with small ASW focused frigates to protect it. 1 or 2 of these ships arriving would completely change the military position. I guess you might call is a LCS, not designed for blue water conflict but we not going to fight one now and if we did it would be the SSNs doing the fighting.

BTW I would still expect these ships to cost £1bn a piece, so not really that cheap.

 

[Cadredave]

Hmmm Jacky Fisher since you mention it. He did build the Dreadnought as well as the battlecruiser so not all bad ;-)

It would really be a crusier capable of independent operation, well with small ASW focused frigates to protect it. 1 or 2 of these ships arriving would completely change the military position. I guess you might call is a LCS, not designed for blue water conflict but we not going to fight one now and if we did it would be the SSNs doing the fighting.

BTW I would still expect these ships to cost £1bn a piece, so not really that cheap.

Mate
and where are JF BC ships now at the bottom of the ocean, again what force construct and doctrine is this ship fulfilling. If its a cruiser then fine it stays with QE class to provide protection if its LCS then fine it stays in the littoral zone. A 1bn pound ship to fight it out against SSK, surface sea skimmers & fast movers for what? so it can launch cruise missles and provide NGFS im sure that ship called a frigate.

If you want something to launch TLAMs then use the SSN im sure they are more than capable of providing deep strike and have done it for real. Capability must be tied to doctrine or they end up being misused (JF Battle cruisers) or end up with a ship with no clear purpose or use and become a very expensive training ship followed by the breakers yard(HMS Vanguard BB).

The RN has provided some outstanding ships because they were tied to a clear purpose (Doctrine), have you wondered why your ideas have been attacked so fast and by numerous people? just saying slow down and think before you give us your ideas then maybe we can have an orderly disscussion about them.

CD

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As long as they buy no more, why not put them on carriers....actually thats is a joke...that said the RN has been know to send a carrier out with not aircraft on it....holding the record of the only navy to lose a carrier to a battleship!

In trying to understand why 1805 posts so much nonsense on this forum this post is a good starting point. Perhaps the historical situation 1805 is referring to is the loss of HMS Glorious during WWII?

This carrier was sunk by two German battleships as it returned to Great Britian from Norway in 1940. It was NOT sent to sea without an air wing. In fact it had almost 20 Gladitors, five Swordfish and a squadron of RAF Hurricanes onboard. Due to the incompetence of the Captain she did not have a combat air patrol, ready to launch aircraft or even lookouts in her crow's nest. So she was surprised by the German squadron and destroyed without capacity to fight back beyond the heroism of her escorting destroyers.

Seeing that 1805's basis of knowledge for these things is so perverted from reality its little surprise he is constantly posting extremely weird and unrealistic ideas for future force structure.