The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

B

Belesari

New Member
Yep. Hopefully neither the US nor the UK get stuck with the tab for european defense.

Britain should focus mostly on the RN and RM. As a island nation these are its best contribution. Just my opinion.

Plus being american i might have a soft spot for em but the queen elizabeths are going to put them Far ahead of anyone else in the field of naval power.

StobieWan said:
Quick roundup of European spending cuts overall so far:

EuroDefense - UK: Defence spending plans of major European nations

We're all taking a large chunk off,

Ian
Click to expand...
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Belesari said:
Yep. Hopefully neither the US nor the UK get stuck with the tab for european defense.

Britain should focus mostly on the RN and RM. As a island nation these are its best contribution. Just my opinion.

Plus being american i might have a soft spot for em but the queen elizabeths are going to put them Far ahead of anyone else in the field of naval power.
Click to expand...
The QE's put us back to where we were in the early 70's where we could sail a carrier alongside the US, plug right into their forces and deliver capabilities (if not quantities) that were of an even match. I'll have question marks until I know how many F35's we will get and what AWACS solution we get.

If we get a reasonable force of aircraft and E2, I'd say we'd be 2nd in the world, just nudging out France - more probably we'd get a Merlin version of the heliborne system we're currently using.

Either way, being able to hang the RN around a large, capable carrier with some fairly advanced features (EMALS, and the automated munitions system) will be a big leap forward from the CVS fleet. It's just a shame we'll have such a long gap in the middle :(

Ian
 
R

Repulse

New Member
RFA Largs Bay has just got an upgrade including installing temporary air shelter. Why don't they just install a permanent one and be done with it... Surely, this would increase significantly the capabilities of this class...
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Repulse said:
RFA Largs Bay has just got an upgrade including installing temporary air shelter. Why don't they just install a permanent one and be done with it... Surely, this would increase significantly the capabilities of this class...
Click to expand...

NOPE !

By installing a perm Hangar, they'ed remove the flexibility to carry more iso-containers & allow for onload of veichles onto the flight deck. It could also limit helo ops, by not allowing x2 large helo's to land / operate at the same time...
:nutkick


SA
 
R

riksavage

Banned Member
Repulse said:
RFA Largs Bay has just got an upgrade including installing temporary air shelter. Why don't they just install a permanent one and be done with it... Surely, this would increase significantly the capabilities of this class...
Click to expand...
The BAY's role is to carry in the heavy kit and containers needed to support amphibious operations. The RN has Ocean and 1 remaining Invincible class to carry the Junglies. If a BAY deploys alone acting as a mothership to MCM (as it did in Iraq)or littoral patrol craft (future CB90's on order) then a temporary shelter can be fitted for Merlin or a couple of Wildcats. Why reduce the flexibility of the BAY by fitting a permanent hanger?

Plus the UK has committed to a 60 Chinook fleet, they will need to be able to lillypad off the BAYS and move equipment ashore. Build a permanent hanger and you could remove or restrict this ability to move say 105mm's, ammo, etc ashore should an LCM lift not be an option due to an obstructed beachhead (natural or man-made) forcing an all helo assault and logistics tail.
 
Last edited:
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Repulse said:
RFA Largs Bay has just got an upgrade including installing temporary air shelter. Why don't they just install a permanent one and be done with it... Surely, this would increase significantly the capabilities of this class...
Click to expand...
I assume you mean ADF ship Choules right? Soon to be HMAS Choules.
 
S

spsun100001

New Member
A quick question for those with more knowledge than me.

Why are we developing CAAM? Would it not be far cheaper to use Aster 15 as the French are on the FREMM?

I would have though Aster 15 would be far cheaper given that the deisgn costs have already been met.

Thanks
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
spsun100001 said:
A quick question for those with more knowledge than me.

Why are we developing CAAM? Would it not be far cheaper to use Aster 15 as the French are on the FREMM?

I would have though Aster 15 would be far cheaper given that the deisgn costs have already been met.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Aster 15 is basically Aster 30 except with a smaller booster, so its probably a more complex (and therefore expensive) soluten then is required for the local role of the CAMM missile.

In addition, CAMM should be able to be quadpacked in the VLS cells, Aster 15 cannot be.
 
H

Hambo

New Member
spsun100001 said:
A quick question for those with more knowledge than me.

Why are we developing CAAM? Would it not be far cheaper to use Aster 15 as the French are on the FREMM?

I would have though Aster 15 would be far cheaper given that the deisgn costs have already been met.

Thanks
Click to expand...
To maintain UK based industry for a start. ASRAAM and Rapier will need replacing hence the common aspect, so if you need to spend money developing a system for the Army and RAF, you may as well benefit all three services.

CAAM is a lighter system that can be fitted on a range of ship sizes, cold launch, quad packable etc etc.
Aster per round will be more expensive (hopefully) and the future threat might be more numerous UCAVs, cruise missiles and other smart munitions so perhaps the plan is to be able to put a lot of cheaper missiles in the air to counter that threat.
Only time will tell if it will be any good or wins exports but the idea seems a good one.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hambo said:
To maintain UK based industry for a start. ASRAAM and Rapier will need replacing hence the common aspect, so if you need to spend money developing a system for the Army and RAF, you may as well benefit all three services.

CAAM is a lighter system that can be fitted on a range of ship sizes, cold launch, quad packable etc etc.
Aster per round will be more expensive (hopefully) and the future threat might be more numerous UCAVs, cruise missiles and other smart munitions so perhaps the plan is to be able to put a lot of cheaper missiles in the air to counter that threat.
Only time will tell if it will be any good or wins exports but the idea seems a good one.
Click to expand...
We shall see - last I heard CAMM was about 1/3 to 1/4 the price of an Aster-15 plus, for dealing with incoming missiles and stuff, more beats less every day of the week. One thing that queers the pitch in terms of export is that ESSM is quad pack, has a much longer range and is a bit closer to the Aster price (cheaper but someplace in the middle between Aster and CAMM) ESSM needs a TI solution on board however so CAMM would possibly be an instant saturation proofing tool for those ships out there with ESSM and only two TI's however so it's a bit swings and roundabouts.

Ian
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Quad pack is relevant if you have the big VLS (Sylver, Mk41) for bigger missiles, & want to supplement them with smaller & cheaper missiles.

But both CAMM & ESSM can be fitted without the big VLS. In that case, CAMM has the edge on weight, volume, & onboard requirements. It could be fitted to smaller ships, for less money.

If you have Sylver, CAMM is probably the back-up of choice. VT-1 is also quad-packable, but shorter range & not active. Should be cheaper, though.

If you have Mk41, ESSM is probably the back-up of choice. Saturation should be dealt with if the proposed active version materialises.
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Repulse said:
RFA Largs Bay has just got an upgrade including installing temporary air shelter. Why don't they just install a permanent one and be done with it... Surely, this would increase significantly the capabilities of this class...
Click to expand...
Ex-RFA Largs bay, now ADF Choules, will keep the temporary hanger as our long term plan is for it supplement our two LHDs and deliever cargo, stores etc for the Army once the LHDs has landed the troops and tanks. If it uses the hanger it will be short deployments. As StevoJH pointed out its more for containers and overflow of stores from below decks including trucks and alike.
The other bays in the RN may do the same, which is less flying and more stores carrying.
If its taking stores ashore then the majority would be trucked on and off, while any stores that need to be flown would utilise Army helos for longer distances. The temp hanger gives this flexibility to take a chinook if need be.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Not me, that was Systems Adict.

Makes sense though, the Bay class are amphibious transports, not amphibious Assaultships.
 
O

overlander

Member
Repulse said:
Went to Portsmouth dockyard today, saw only 3 active warships (2 T23s and 1 T45) - very sad sight...
Click to expand...
The royal navy has only 19 escorts, 2 lph,s , 2 lpd,s and 3 lsd,s so if some of them are in refit and the rest are deployed is normal that you have seen only 3 escorts there, furthermore others wll be in Devonport I think, far from the times in the 80,s for me is a sad sight and I hope that once more nobody say that I try to run down the R.N. only I am sad with these masive reductions in numbers.
 
R

riksavage

Banned Member
UK Apache's will require upgrading for sustained operations at sea according to Flight Global following the Libya deployment quoted below:

It also exposed several shortcomings of the Apache for embarked operations, such as its current main rotor brake design, which was not strong enough under high wind conditions.

Crews also expressed concerns about the likely outcome of any ditching event, should they be unable to make it back to the ship.

"We need some sort of a flotation device, as the aircraft would sink like a stone," Tennant said. A new canopy jettison system would also be required, he said, as the current design could have fatal consequences if used once the aircraft is in the water.

The addition of an I-band transponder would aid crews' ability to navigate back to a ship, while an improvement is also needed in battery life to increase flight time from just 6min in the event of a total electrical system failure, he added.

Apache + Wildcat will have to provide local attack/recce support for the near future now the GR9's have gone, so this upgrade should be a priority.

Does the USMC Cobra have floatation devices and a canopy jettison system fitted as standard? Does the Eurocopter Tiger have the option to fit similar life saving equipment? With the growing number of LHD's and light carriers expected to host army aviation units around the world as part of increased tri-service activity many newer airframes coming on-line are going to suffer the same problem. It's only a matter of time before we see a ditching as a result of mechanical or man-made failure (battle damage).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top