The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

If CAMM can be quadpacked it would still match the number of warshots carried by the outgoing T23. However I would agree that more is better.

I've just looked at the latest image of a model from 2010 and that was sporting two pairs of 8, which if representative, and if the Harpoons were amidships, would be 32 cells - which would be a *bit* more like it - that's a big old bit of space behind the gun..looked like the Phalanx had been moved to a similar position as the ones on the Darings, but not so high off the waterline.


I dunno, if this works out okay, we'd have a very "young" Navy of quite capable ships, all with margins for growth. Much smaller than of old but of a fairly even quality.

Fingers crossed eh? I suspect the space on the Darings will never be used for TLAM - *possibly* they might get fitted for Aster 30 Block 1 or a similarly long length, ABM capable missile.


Ian

 

[swerve]

Aster Block 1 is Aster 30 with software & maybe changes to enable it to shoot down SRBMs (up to 600km range). It's what's used in SAMP/T. Aster Block 2 is the serious ABM missile, & AFAIK it's the same length as Aster 30, but with a second stage the same diameter as the booster, & a new kill vehicle.

Aah - here we are. Article, with picture. I've seen a bigger version of the picture. Aster Block 2 should fit in an A50 silo - "The Block 2 missile is intended to be compatible with both land and naval launchers for the Aster 30.".

 

[StobieWan]

Aster Block 1 is Aster 30 with software & maybe changes to enable it to shoot down SRBMs (up to 600km range). It's what's used in SAMP/T. Aster Block 2 is the serious ABM missile, & AFAIK it's the same length as Aster 30, but with a second stage the same diameter as the booster, & a new kill vehicle.

Aah - here we are. Article, with picture. I've seen a bigger version of the picture. Aster Block 2 should fit in an A50 silo - "The Block 2 missile is intended to be compatible with both land and naval launchers for the Aster 30.".

Fank'oo veh much sah! A50 into the Type 45 as a mid life update would be potentially quite useful as I understand it can handle both SCALP and the various other strike bits but if IRBM/ABM just needed A30...might be a drop-in option.

Fantasy fleet material til we see the full run of Type 26's mind - they'll be the backbone of the fleet and if we get shorted on 'em, that'll totally bugger things up.

Ian

 

[swerve]

Aaah - I think you need to check out your Sylvers.

A35 - for VL Mica, quad VT1, maybe CAMM in future.
A43 - for Aster 15
A50 - for Aster 30.
A70 - for Scalp-N. Equivalent to strike length Mk 41
There's a DCNS photo out there with them all lined up. Numbers relate directly to missile length, IIRC.

Type 45 already has A50. A70 or strike length Mk 41 should also fit.

Of course, the bigger ones can also fire the smaller missiles.

 

[StobieWan]

Aaah - I think you need to check out your Sylvers.

A35 - for VL Mica, quad VT1, maybe CAMM in future.
A43 - for Aster 15
A50 - for Aster 30.
A70 - for Scalp-N. Equivalent to strike length Mk 41
There's a DCNS photo out there with them all lined up. Numbers relate directly to missile length, IIRC.

Type 45 already has A50. A70 or strike length Mk 41 should also fit.

Of course, the bigger ones can also fire the smaller missiles.

Sorry, brain-off moment - sadly I've been picked up on this one before so clearly my marbles are going !

<repeat after me..A50..A50...>

Any bets on if the Darings will get any of the for/not with stuff?

Ian

 

[Systems Adict]

...Any bets on if the Darings will get any of the for/not with stuff?

Daring's already got Phalanx (& I think that it will probably be flowed across ALL T45's as that's the most logical course of action, now half the fleet's being de-comm'd).

Then again, wot about this, as an upgrade...?

Adaptiv video - BAE Systems


SA

 

[StobieWan]

It's an interesting development but I wonder how much weight it brings and I wonder how relevant it is when most of the threat comes from radar guided weapons or from dual mode seekers looking in multiple parts of the spectrum?


Nice to have Phalanx on board and I wonder if we'll see the Harpoon launchers from the 22's recycled into a block refit for at least some of the 45's? I believe space is reserved for Harpoon and frankly, while the Darings have no direct business in shooting it out with opposing ships, we can't always choose the way we open an engagement.

Ian

 

[riksavage]

Daring's already got Phalanx (& I think that it will probably be flowed across ALL T45's as that's the most logical course of action, now half the fleet's being de-comm'd).

Then again, wot about this, as an upgrade...?

Adaptiv video - BAE Systems


SA

Bring back the WW1 dazzle camouflage. Recent tests reconfirmed it actually does work in confusing the naked eye!

As the T26 will receive equipment from the upgraded T23's (CAMM etc.), I don't see why at least 4 x T45's can't be retrofitted in the same way with T22 Harpoon launchers when they are scheduled to be upgraded with Phalanx. Not sure how long the fit-out would take, but they are supposed to be 'fitted for' already so why not. The recent T42 deployment to Libya witnessed a limited engagement against surface assets, so who knows what the future may bring. With such small numbers the more GP a T45 can be the better should the main gun not be an option.

 

[AndrewMI]

The next Gen of Harpoon (or whatever the USN settles on) may be more suited to T-45 but could be unaffordable...

No Harm in recycling the T22 Harpoon... better than it sits in a warehouse...

 

[StevoJH]

The next Gen of Harpoon (or whatever the USN settles on) may be more suited to T-45 but could be unaffordable...

No Harm in recycling the T22 Harpoon... better than it sits in a warehouse...

I assume that would depend on its use by date.

 

[StobieWan]

I assume that would depend on its use by date.

For the missiles, yes, but as they'd be sharing stock with the Type 23 fleet, I'm assuming they're either fired off in tests or refurbished periodically. Moving the launchers over would be useful and *reasonably* cheap if they're already fitted "for" and there's not a lot of hacking about to do, or any major integration work.


Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Bit of a stunner this one, despite announcements to the contrary, here we have the announcement we've waited for - EMALS for the POW:

Defence Security Report

 

[riksavage]

Bit of a stunner this one, despite announcements to the contrary, here we have the announcement we've waited for - EMALS for the POW:

Defence Security Report

Two EMAL cats at least for POW as a minimum, or does a 'set' refer to four? Once JFK is fitted out I'm hoping a second 'set' will be fitted to QE once POW is commissioned and up and running.

Separate but connected issue - unless the RN commit to a pallet mounted surveillance radar for Merlin I can't see MASC being realised in the near future due to severe cost constraints. With the French PA2 slipping further back and the possibility of sharing a UK carrier there might of course be an opportunity to host French E2's when CdG is in refit.

However should the RN have to go to war without the French/US minus an upgraded MASC platform I was wondering what T45 plus F35C's (flying picket) would bring to the table considering their advanced surveillance, detection and target processing abilities when compared to previous generations of RN ships/STOVL, and whether this leap in technology is enough to offset the loss of any replacement rotary MASC against the current generation of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and 4 or 4.5 gen fighters equipped with anti-ship missiles?

 

[kev 99]

Two EMAL cats at least for POW as a minimum, or does a 'set' refer to four? Once JFK is fitted out I'm hoping a second 'set' will be fitted to QE once POW is commissioned and up and running.

Separate but connected issue - unless the RN commit to a pallet mounted surveillance radar for Merlin I can't see MASC being realised in the near future due to severe cost constraints. With the French PA2 slipping further back and the possibility of sharing a UK carrier there might of course be an opportunity to host French E2's when CdG is in refit.

However should the RN have to go to war without the French/US minus an upgraded MASC platform I was wondering what T45 plus F35C's (flying picket) would bring to the table considering their advanced surveillance, detection and target processing abilities when compared to previous generations of RN ships/STOVL, and whether this leap in technology is enough to offset the loss of any replacement rotary MASC against the current generation of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and 4 or 4.5 gen fighters equipped with anti-ship missiles?

I'm pretty sure there would not be room for 4 catapuilts on a CVF, at least not without taking up space reserved for other things (hanger space etc).

AFAIK - MASC has never actually been properly funded., which seems rather stupid to me.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm pretty sure there would not be room for 4 catapuilts on a CVF, at least not without taking up space reserved for other things (hanger space etc).

AFAIK - Masc has never actually been properly funded., which seems rather stupid to me.

I think Rik's referring to the fact that a "set" for a Ford would be four cats, we'd need two per CVF, so a few folks have been wondering if that's a "right, we've got all the catapults we need" situation or if we've just gotten the kit for the PoW.

MASC not being funded probably makes some sort of sense in that none of the kit it's meant to fly from or protect was funded either so..why bother?


I'm still honestly taking this as a sign we'll end up buying an MOTS solution but I'm maybe still light headed and dizzy with relief on hearing someone pushed the "add to cart" button on the CVF catapult order.

Most of the way things are working out so far are happy signs, perhaps there is a Plan B involving E2's from some place or whatever. rays:


Ian

 

[StevoJH]

I don't see any current operators giving up their E-2's, and since the airframe isnt exactly still being built, I doubt the RN will be getting E-2.

 

[StobieWan]

I don't see any current operators giving up their E-2's, and since the airframe isnt exactly still being built, I doubt the RN will be getting E-2.

I thought E2-D was new build aircraft? Which might leave some E2-C's available as they're replaced, airframe status and airtime dependent.

Either way, MASC needs sorting before very long, either bring the existing stuff forward into Merlin or something else, RSN.

Ian

 

[riksavage]

I thought E2-D was new build aircraft? Which might leave some E2-C's available as they're replaced, airframe status and airtime dependent.

Either way, MASC needs sorting before very long, either bring the existing stuff forward into Merlin or something else, RSN.

Ian

The RN may be hanging out for a cheaper UAV option. I seriously wonder whether a large enough surveillance radar could be mounted aboard a rotary UCAV and data-linked to a small ground station aboard CVF. This would not meet E2 standards, but by flying high above the fleet inside the T45 protective screen it would extend the detection horizon far enough to warrant serious consideration. Being unmanned means no life support systems allowing for a higher operational ceiling. A small blimp might even be suitable, after all it only has to keep pace with the fleet.

The RN does not have the money for a manned fixed wing platform, so it will be Merlin or UAV based IMHO.

Does anyone know the gap between the detection ranges (sea skimmers and fixed wing) of PAAMS and the current T42 fit? Is the difference so great the RN are prepared to accept a gap (short-term) if (when combined with the F35C advanced systems) it will give the fleet enough of an engagement window to allow for MASC to sit on the back burner until a E2 replacement arrives or a UAV platforms becomes viable?

In a nutshell will T45/F35C technology mitigate the loss of MASC based on the current range of likely threats?

 

[StevoJH]

I thought E2-D was new build aircraft? Which might leave some E2-C's available as they're replaced, airframe status and airtime dependent.

I'm not sure now. I thought they were rebuilds before, but going through google books and article references, its not made all that clear.

I do know that i've heard people continually state that C-2 is not in production, and I always figured that if C-2 (people suggesting the MN & RN get some) were not available as new builds then presumably E-2D wasnt as well. Don't they use the same basic airframe?

 

[StobieWan]

I'm not sure now. I thought they were rebuilds before, but going through google books and article references, its not made all that clear.

I do know that i've heard people continually state that C-2 is not in production, and I always figured that if C-2 (people suggesting the MN & RN get some) were not available as new builds then presumably E-2D wasnt as well. Don't they use the same basic airframe?

This is the thing - if E-2 production relies on picking over C-2 aiframes, then the E-2C frames won't ever be available secondhand and there's no way the RN can afford E2-D brand new.

Rik's earlier comments about a UAV capability may bear fruit as sticking the processing end of things into a CIC on a ship, or better yet, fusing it seamlessly with the ship sensors using CEC seems sensible.

Right now, we need something cheap as chips that gets out beyond the horizon at sea level, or we're in for an exciting time if we get into a shooting war.

Ian