The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ProM]

1) We can afford it. We choose not to.

It is all a compromise. And if more money were available for defence then I could find better places to spend it tbh

2) Sure, they could be fitted. I'm sure if Iran does take any action in the Gulf (or any other aggressor in any other theatre) that they will give us a months notice so that we can do so.

Harpoon is not the best missile for taking on the small attack craft that would form the main Iranian threat.
We would have time (possibly 8 years) to fit Harpoon before sending a task force to FI
Anyone else would be a decision by coalition to attack rather than vice versa so we would have time
Simplification I know but like I said it is a compromise

3) I never said the T45 had no ASuW capability.

You said

No other western navy has omitted an ASuW capability from their AAW warships

4) Harpoon isn't state of the art but it is readily available (the surplus missiles from the T22's) so is available now and cheap. We could then move to a common next generation SSM (that hopefully also has a land attack capability) for all surface combatants when we select the system we want for the T26.

Ever think that not having Harpoon may make it easier to get funding something that would work in the modern age?

5) At least in the SSM role there is a gun as limited back-up but the lack of ASW torpedoes leave the T45 with no ASW capability at all if here helo is not available.

You want ASW torpedoes as well?

6) You argue we shouldn't fit Harpoon because it is not top rank and then argue that the key top rank AAW enabling technology offered by the CEC is a nice to have. It's a vital to have. Read back a few posts to the ones from the RN guy talking about when they trialled it on the T23 and how effective it was. You create a choice which doesn't exist. We could have Sampson and CEC. We just choose to spend our money on other things.

Do we need CEC to engage missiles? No
Do we need CEC to engage aircraft? No
Therefore not vital. Yes it would improve performance, but not for independent operations, only for some large task force.
Do you know how much CEC would cost? What are you going to cut to fund that?

7) Surely you want to know that your billion pound a piece warships main missile works before you build it?

With all Systems of Systems something has to be last. Do we wait for F-35 final trials before starting to build the carriers? They'd be a bit late

 

[RobWilliams]

Harpoon is not the best missile for taking on the small attack craft that would form the main Iranian threat.
We would have time (possibly 8 years) to fit Harpoon before sending a task force to FI
Anyone else would be a decision by coalition to attack rather than vice versa so we would have time
Simplification I know but like I said it is a compromise

I agree with you on this one, as much as i'd like to see the Harpoon units recycled and re-used (whilst it may not be a top-grade modern missile, it's still a decent bit of kit) there are other projects that need to be looked at before. As you say, if we were to get involved in a conflict where anti-ship missiles were neccesary for all RN vessels we would be alongside the US so the need for them too be fitted is reduced.

IIRC isn't there some Harpoon replacement program running?

EDIT: Briefly looking into it, the replacement is LRASM (long range anti-ship missile) which would fit in the Mk41 VLS.

You want ASW torpedoes as well?

The idea that T45s need is silly, if there was a credible and real threat that a T45 could be engaged by a submarine then i'm sure she wouldn't be deployed alone, she would be with a T23/T26 ASW frigate or whatever.

Lynx w/ Stingray is perfectly fine for what the ship is.

Bit of interesting info - When i visited HMS Dragon when she made port in Cardiff i spoke to an officer who works with the Lynx that was aboard, he seemed fairly confident that T45s will mainly be deployed with Lynx helicopters mainly because of Sea Skua, Stingrays were a bonus capability. He gave me the impression that the T45s would very rarely focus on an ASW threat so ASW torps would be such a horrendous waste of money.

 

[StobieWan]

s.

Bit of interesting info - When i visited HMS Dragon when she made port in Cardiff i spoke to an officer who works with the Lynx that was aboard, he seemed fairly confident that T45s will mainly be deployed with Lynx helicopters mainly because of Sea Skua, Stingrays were a bonus capability. He gave me the impression that the T45s would very rarely focus on an ASW threat so ASW torps would be such a horrendous waste of money.

Probably right as the T45 isn't a very quiet ship (IFEP wasn't selected for Type 26 for reasons related to how noisy it is) and the T45's have a not fantastic sonar array (bearing on the reasons given above)


Running in that line, it's fairly obvious that equipping T45 with torpedo would be very much by the by - it won't detect anything that's a threat by the time it's useful.

Their best role in an ASW hunt would be top cover for the T23's and any assistance from the CVF.

They're not natural sub hunters, put it that way.

 

[StobieWan]

and with respect to CEC - it wasn't a priority while the Darings were being worked up - you need other AWD's to work with to make CEC worthwhile - now we're seeing more than two in the water, it'd be more useful.

It'll be most useful to have a worked up CEC capability by the time the CVF's hit the water and are worked up for service. Oddly, the review of CEC is 2014 ish, and CVF gets wet a year or two later. So, short of some very odd emergency involving us having to stave off a tier one threat attacking our sole LPH, we'll be jim dandy for a year or two yet.

It's widely known that CEC would be about 140 million for the six AWD's (the figures are on this very thread, from a commons report) - that's enough money to do all sorts of untold good with, like running on a pair of T42's a bit more, or a large chunk of refit change for Type 23 - and right now, we need the sort term stuff sorted.

In a world of infinite cash, yes, I'd have had CEC on the Type 45's from day one.

But we're not living in that world...

 

[RobWilliams]

Probably right as the T45 isn't a very quiet ship (IFEP wasn't selected for Type 26 for reasons related to how noisy it is) and the T45's have a not fantastic sonar array (bearing on the reasons given above)


Running in that line, it's fairly obvious that equipping T45 with torpedo would be very much by the by - it won't detect anything that's a threat by the time it's useful.

Their best role in an ASW hunt would be top cover for the T23's and any assistance from the CVF.

They're not natural sub hunters, put it that way.

So very true, i assume part of the original posters issues about T45 having no ASW capability bar Stingrays was the 'kid in a candy store' syndrome.

How much harder/more expensive is designing a quiet hull for a ship? I'm guessing it's more expensive as you'd have thought all ships would have those particular type hulls, at a rough guess is it just designing the hull + special/more material requirements?

Plus, AFAIK the T23s hull for ASW work are superb, so do you happen to know if they are they tweaking that design or scrapping it and starting afresh?

 

[the concerned]

Wouldn't it be better to keep the Asuw capability on the frigates and if anything is fitted to the T-45's give it a land attack capability,the trouble is that when you try putting all the bells and whistles on 1 vessel you end up with a jack of all trades but a master of none.

 

[Repulse]

The problem is that overall escort numbers are getting to the point where the RN can no longer afford to operate specialist vessels especially when based on custom designs - in my view 8 vessels (2 batches of 4) is probably the minimum for any one class without wasting money. Therefore, the RN should be focusing more on GP vessel designs and specializing on deployable equipment.

 

[Volkodav]

Wouldn't it be better to keep the Asuw capability on the frigates and if anything is fitted to the T-45's give it a land attack capability,the trouble is that when you try putting all the bells and whistles on 1 vessel you end up with a jack of all trades but a master of none.

Not true, a capable system is a capable system irrespective of whether it inhabits the same hull as another system or not. What it comes down to is will the cost of a high capability multi-role hull force you to reduce the total number of hulls you have. In this situation you may well be better off selecting a lower level of capability and increasing the number of hulls in the water.

When you reach the situation the RN appears to be in at the moment, i.e. less than 20 hulls planned, you have to wonder if you can afford to go single-role for any platform and whether you should at least ensure you have space and weight to fit new systems as the need (or more to the point the cash) arises.

 

[kev 99]

I'm not sure there's anything to ram down Lewis's throat. I'm delighted that Aster has passed the test but I find it astonishing that it's key capability (shooting down supersonic anti-ship missiles) around which two whole new classes of ships and their radars have been constructed has not been tested until two or three years after those ships were being commissioned. That seems a bit bizzare to me though someone here might have a rational explanation I guess.......

Because it costs a lot of money, I would of thought that was obvious, it's also not that surprising that it was France and not the MOD that decided to pony up the cash to test it either.

 

[ProM]

In a world of infinite cash, yes, I'd have had CEC on the Type 45's from day one.

But we're not living in that world...

And that is the RN position. They have been trying to find enough in the budget to get through main gate for the best part of a decade, but there are always more crucial calls

 

[Anixtu]

(IFEP wasn't selected for Type 26 for reasons related to how noisy it is)

What's your source on that? I don't see any reason why IEP would be fundamentally noisy. I would just have assumed that the GTs on T45 are not mounted as quietly as the rafted DGs on T23. It may not be feasible to mount GTs that quietly, but the concept of IEP is independent of the generator type.

Presumably T23 gets a lot noisier when the Speys are started and the same will apply to T26.

Edit - my main point is really: Why would a GT be noisier acting as a generator rather than driving a shaft?

 

[StobieWan]

Wouldn't it be better to keep the Asuw capability on the frigates and if anything is fitted to the T-45's give it a land attack capability,the trouble is that when you try putting all the bells and whistles on 1 vessel you end up with a jack of all trades but a master of none.

There's space and weight for AsuW and TLAM on the type 45 quite easily - there's room for another row of strike length silos and the Harpoon racks can tuck in quite neatly a bit further back - there's no reason Type 45 can't do the same wide range of tasks as the Arleigh's or the Hobarts can - most other navies manage fine.

 

[the concerned]

a bit off topic but weren't the Us doing trials on the aim-9x sidewinder having a dual seeker that could engage air targets aswell as stuff like high speed patrol boats couldn't that be the same using dual seeker warheads on missiles that done both land attack and anti ship maybe the ram launcher as a start.

 

[StobieWan]

a bit off topic but weren't the Us doing trials on the aim-9x sidewinder having a dual seeker that could engage air targets aswell as stuff like high speed patrol boats couldn't that be the same using dual seeker warheads on missiles that done both land attack and anti ship maybe the ram launcher as a start.

AIM-9X just needed some software changes as far as I understand - and CAMM/SEA CEPTOR could potentially do the same. RAM already has a secondary ASuW role from block II onwards. For the range, I'd rather just turn the medium calibre gun on whatever is making you unhappy - better terminal effects, and you're carrying a few hundred of 'em.

 

[the concerned]

Yeah sorry what i was trying to get at is rather than saying the T-45's should have antiship+land attack missiles we need a missile with dual seeker to do both maybe a little more expensive to develop but cheaper to purchase one system than 2 plus surely space and maintance.And i'm wondering is speed like mach 3 really the answer all you need then is IR sams to trake and defeat them/wouldn't a stealthy missile with hopefully say supercruise speeds be better if we got the tech to make 30 ton aircraft supercruise then we must be able to make missiles do the same say about 650knt speed with 900/1000 knt terminal dash.

 

[RobWilliams]

What's your source on that? I don't see any reason why IEP would be fundamentally noisy. I would just have assumed that the GTs on T45 are not mounted as quietly as the rafted DGs on T23. It may not be feasible to mount GTs that quietly, but the concept of IEP is independent of the generator type.

Presumably T23 gets a lot noisier when the Speys are started and the same will apply to T26.

Edit - my main point is really: Why would a GT be noisier acting as a generator rather than driving a shaft?

It's what BAE reported at DESi 2011, the links to which have since broken.

Look back towards the end of page #511

 

[StobieWan]

What's your source on that? I don't see any reason why IEP would be fundamentally noisy. I would just have assumed that the GTs on T45 are not mounted as quietly as the rafted DGs on T23. It may not be feasible to mount GTs that quietly, but the concept of IEP is independent of the generator type.

Presumably T23 gets a lot noisier when the Speys are started and the same will apply to T26.

Edit - my main point is really: Why would a GT be noisier acting as a generator rather than driving a shaft?

I'll try and dig the link out but as RobWilliams states, it was a remark made during a BAE presentation on Type 26, stating that they'd looked at IFEP and *so far* it wasn't quiet enough and the proposed fit would be CODLOG (combined electric or gas)

I'm as surprised as you are for the same reasons - I figured they'd go IFEP with cruise diesels and gas, all suitably isolated as I couldn't see why IFEP wouldn't be quiet enough.

It might have changed but that was the 2011 position from BAE.

 

[spsun100001]

So very true, i assume part of the original posters issues about T45 having no ASW capability bar Stingrays was the 'kid in a candy store' syndrome.

How much harder/more expensive is designing a quiet hull for a ship? I'm guessing it's more expensive as you'd have thought all ships would have those particular type hulls, at a rough guess is it just designing the hull + special/more material requirements?

Plus, AFAIK the T23s hull for ASW work are superb, so do you happen to know if they are they tweaking that design or scrapping it and starting afresh?

It's got nothing to do with the ship being quiet or kids in candy stores. It's an essential capability for a ship operating in a threat environment where a potential adversary has submarines (as HMS Daring is currently doing - the Iranians have 3 Kilo class submarines).

It is to do with what I said in my original post - the zone of control a ship excercises around itself against threats. It's not about a Type 45 being used to hunt submarines - it's about a Type 45 being able to defend herself against submarines.

If the Type 45's helicopter is unavailable (due to weather, maintenance, refuelling, being tasked with another mission etc.) then she cannot excercise any zone of control around herself against submarines. In a shooting war I would think that a submarine would launch her torpedoes from outside the range of those on the ship she is attacking (heavyweight submarine torpedoes having a greater range that the lightweight torpedoes on the ship).

The further away from the ship that torpedoes are launched at her the greater her chances of survival through manouvering and deploying decoys. Therefore having ASW torpedoes on your ship causes submarines to stay at a greater distance from you and increases your chances of surviving an attack.

It is more of an issue for the Type 45 because their lack of SSMs means that they have to carry the Lynx which is less capable than the Merlin as an ASW platform as it lacks dipping sonar. This is because only the Lynx can carry the Sea Skua ASM. This makes having torpedoes on the ship itself even more important as the helicopter she carries is less ASW capable.

A couple of posts seem to think I have suggested something bizzare here. In that case why do the AAW vessels of virtually every other western navy have ASW torpedoes fitted and why did the Type 42 destroyers (for which the Type 45's are the replacement) also have them?

As with SSM's, this is an important capability that it would cost us very little to fit as I'd imagine that the tubes and torpedoes are available from the Type 42's that are being decomissioned.

 

[Anixtu]

Thanks for the source, it would be interesting to hear exactly what the BAE rep. said, and possibly question what he actually meant too!

 

[spsun100001]

ProM

I'll try to respond to your points without cutting and pasting your whole post as otherwise I'm going to end up with a huge reply that's difficult to follow. I apologise in advance if in doing so I misrepresent anything that you said.

As you say, defence is about compromises in terms of how you spend your money. You think these things aren't priorities and I do. We are both entitled to our opinions so we'll have to agree to differ I guess.

You say that Harpoon is not the best missile to use against small craft which would be the main Iranian threat. In fact, the last time Harpoon was used was against the Iranians when both US and Iranian warships fired on each other using Harpoon (the US also used Standard SAM's which can be used against ships in the same way as Seadart could but Aster can't). It seems odd that you dont think Harpoon is not a relevant system against exactly the potential opponents that it was last used.

I just can't accept your view that an enemy would give us notice or that there would always be other warships available who's nations have had the sense to fit the systems we have omitted and who would be happy to escort our £1 billion destroyer to make up for her capability gaps. It is likely that there would be on many occasions but it sure as hell isn't certain for every occasion.

I should have said that no other navy has omitted an SSM capability rather than an ASuW capability. You're right to point that out. My point that I'd rather have an 80+nm zone of control against surface threats provided by a missile than the 15nm mile one provided by the gun is still valid I think.

You stated that fitting Harpoon might impact on getting funding for a better system. Obviously we can only speculate but I'd think the opposite would be the case. Politicians will instead argue that if the ships have been operating without an SSM for a time then they don't need one. They are always looking to make false economies (such as Chinooks that sit in a hanger for years because we can't fly them due to mucking around with the software to save a few quid).

I do want ASW torpedoes (just as we had on the ships they are replacing and as other western navies have on their AAW ships). I've posted seperately about this.

CEC is a key enabling technology which has been in service for some years. You don't think its vital. I do. Again, we can agree to differ.

You asked about costs and what I'd cut. CEC costs £140m for the Type 45's. I'm going to cut the £110m of aid given to India each year to fund that as they have said that they don't need it (although we asked them not to say that as it would embarrass us if they pointed this out).

You say that with all sytems of systems something has to be last and that's true. There was an interesting post from Stobiewan that it is not uncommon for missiles that are in service not to be certfied in this way. I accept that this doesn't seem to be uncommon practice but it still seems unusual as it is the system around which all of the other systems are designed. It seems to me akin to asking a soldier to trust his life to body armour that has never been tested by having a bullet fired at it.