The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

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.

If you read the post after mine by Stobie then you'll see that the T45 doesn't have a particularly good sonar array thus even if it did have torps then it would be far too late to do anything. The best defence against a sub is being able to combat it before it knows there is a ship in the area, if the T45 isn't particularly effective at finding the thing then it'll be probably game over before it gets torps in the water.

Currently East of Suez or in that area, we also have 3 x Type 23 frigates (Somerset, Westminster and St Albans). All very capable and well equipped ASW platforms, not to mention the US forces in the area so what's the point in spending money which could be spent better elsewhere creating a pretty 'naff ASW platform in the form of a T45? Plus, i'd have thought that if the threat from Iranian subs was so severe that Daring would have been deployed with a Merlin.

What i'm trying to say is that yes, it would be a nice capability to have (and it's a damn shame we aren't re-using the tubes, i'm a big advocate of this) but we currently have other matters which should be addressed first, in my opinion.

 

[StobieWan]

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

I just wish the link still worked - it'd be easier to chat about. They were talking about IFEP with either CODAD or CODAG at the back of it at one point. I'm still of the opinion that if the whole lot is isolated, then it shouldn't be much different than 23 and it'd be more fuel efficient - Type 45 is allegedly seeing 20-25% improvements and that's a lot of fossil fuels you're not burning on, so less tanker support, better endurance, or more space internally for the same range. All good.

What I'm a bit curious about is that the USN don't appear to pay so much attention to this at - they just stick some engines in and go chase subs. I know they had Prairie Masker etc in play but they don't seem to go to such lengths to get results on ASW hull quietening. I wonder if they're approaching it from a different angle or simply expecting the helicopter to deliver the results.

 

[StobieWan]

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.

Supercruise is a term applied to jet aircraft cruising at supersonic speeds (usually now accepted to be mach 1.5+ without afterburners. Most missiles use liquid or solid fuelled rockets so technically supercruise isn't a meaningful word in that context.

However, I take your point about using systems with a dual role - Perseus is one possible contender, being stealthy and fast with a range of a few hundred km.

MBDA Unveils Naval Warfare Missile Concept | AVIATION WEEK

Something like that would be better for a Daring or similar to carry as you could take on a much wider range of targets.

For the cheaper stuff, I'm expecting to see Fireshadow (a loitering attack munition with good endurance) to be considered - 100km range, fair sized warhead and reasonable cost.

Ian

 

[Hambo]

I just wish the link still worked - it'd be easier to chat about. They were talking about IFEP with either CODAD or CODAG at the back of it at one point. I'm still of the opinion that if the whole lot is isolated, then it shouldn't be much different than 23 and it'd be more fuel efficient - Type 45 is allegedly seeing 20-25% improvements and that's a lot of fossil fuels you're not burning on, so less tanker support, better endurance, or more space internally for the same range. All good.

What I'm a bit curious about is that the USN don't appear to pay much attention to this at all - they just stick some engines in and go chase subs. I know they had Prairie Masker etc in play but they don't seem to go to such lengths to get results on ASW hull quietening.

I assume the USN approach is more of overwhelm the potential SSK/SSN threat? they had or have 60 odd SSN's to listen and chase down enemy subs, 100 or so escorts with helo's equipped with dipping sonar (I think the Sea hawks have sonar? our Lynx don't) large numbers of P3's , ASROC etc etc. Do they use active techniques more than we do?

The RN being smaller may have decided that its fewer ears have to listen harder. The cold war aim was 19 TAS's equipped ships,hence the Leander Mods, the towed sonar could under optimum conditions hear a sub at 100 miles away, the tech will have changed along with the threat but if the modern RN wants to do it with 8 specialist hulls, they will need to be designed with the sonar in mind from the start. The T26 blurb mentions work proceeding on the hull acoustics, but is that to reduce noise to maximise the sonar performance or is that to make it possible for the ship to creep up on the sub?

 

[StobieWan]

I assume the USN approach is more of overwhelm the potential SSK/SSN threat? they had or have 60 odd SSN's to listen and chase down enemy subs, 100 or so escorts with helo's equipped with dipping sonar (I think the Sea hawks have sonar? our Lynx don't) large numbers of P3's , ASROC etc etc. Do they use active techniques more than we do?

The RN being smaller may have decided that its fewer ears have to listen harder. The cold war aim was 19 TAS's equipped ships,hence the Leander Mods, the towed sonar could under optimum conditions hear a sub at 100 miles away, the tech will have changed along with the threat but if the modern RN wants to do it with 8 specialist hulls, they will need to be designed with the sonar in mind from the start. The T26 blurb mentions work proceeding on the hull acoustics, but is that to reduce noise to maximise the sonar performance or is that to make it possible for the ship to creep up on the sub?

I'm fairly sure the USN take is, as you say, they've got more resources to hand - let's face it, they'll be operating often as part of a carrier group, so that's a ton of things to point at the bad guys. Additionally, a lot of their escorts have double hangers for helos which I guess let's them keep up the pressure on a target more easily. I'd be interested in a perspective from any USN folks willing to comment.


Hull quietening on the 26 is, as I believe was the case for 23, to reduce interference with it's own sensors - it might help the ship be less conspicuous but never enough to let you sneak up on an SSN.

 

[swerve]

.... 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). ...

"India" didn't say it doesn't need British aid. Some Indians did. "India" is 1000 million people. Most of them don't see a penny of British aid, & have no interest in it. The smaller number of people who are benefiting from it didn't say they don't need it, & many of them protested when various others (e.g. politicians who don't need the votes of aid beneficiaries) did.

 

[Systems Adict]

I just wish the link still worked - it'd be easier to chat about. They were talking about IFEP with either CODAD or CODAG at the back of it at one point. I'm still of the opinion that if the whole lot is isolated, then it shouldn't be much different than 23 and it'd be more fuel efficient - Type 45 is allegedly seeing 20-25% improvements and that's a lot of fossil fuels you're not burning on, so less tanker support, better endurance, or more space internally for the same range. All good.

The BIGGEST issue with T26 & it's propulsion is COST !

T45 IEP is a step change over what has been fitted in previous RN ships, but at a guestimate comes in at about 33 - 50 % MORE than traditional shafts, engines & gearboxes. I'd bet my house on it, that IF you threw a TON OF MONEY at it, you COULD make it quiet & suitable for ASW

BUT......It is my understanding, at this time, that saving costs on what is fitted to T26 is the priority.

With the fact that the T23's will be systematically fitted with newer systems, which will be 'dragged-thru' to T26, then arguing about CEC / Harpoon / Phalanx & T45's 'lack of capability' is a moot point.

At this time, the Navy has what its got. ANY additional capability WILL COST MONEY !

T45 CAN have Harpoon / CEC / Phalanx fitted, but ONLY when COSTS / FINANCES allow !

T45 is a Destroyer which can do SOME things WELL & others ok.

T23 is a Frigate which can do SOME things WELL & others ok.

These x2 types of ship can work in unison & cover MOST of the bases WELL, but the prospect of making T45 / T26 do EVERYTHING WELL, is a pipe dream of the deluded !

Additionally, WHY is CEC a PRIORITY ???

CEC is nothing more, than a slightly more up-to-date version of LINK, which can be utilised by MANY different military vehicles (Land / Sea / Air).

At this time it would allow the RN ships to better fit in with US CBG's, but do our French / Italian / Dutch / German / Swedish / Norwegian / Spanish / Irish allies have this capability ??

Reality bites, but it's what we have, so we have to accept it & deal with it.

SA

 

[ProM]

SPSpun,
so far you think that the T45s should have a priority CEC; Harpoon; Stingray. A few pages ago Harpoon was being funded by the India Aid, and more recently CEC is being funded by the same saving - a saving which is already assumed in budget from 2015 on anyway. Plus I believe that the cost of CEC is now assessed as significantly more than you quoted (more than the India aid budget too).

Furthermore, the reason that the MoD got a black hole in their budget in the first place was because of budgets only considering the capital cost and then the through life cost slowly ratcheting up without any due consideration.

Lastly, even if we have some equipment just lying around, that does not necesarily make it cheap to add to a ship

 

[ProM]

Damn, while I was writing mine, SA answered it more quickly and better

 

[RobWilliams]

Additionally, WHY is CEC a PRIORITY ???

CEC is nothing more, than a slightly more up-to-date version of LINK, which can be utilised by MANY different military vehicles (Land / Sea / Air).

SA

I've read that apparently if the T45s carry CEC, then the AAW capability of the T26 with Artisan is more effective than just Artisan alone due to it's shortcomings in this role.

Is this so? Also, what (if true) makes the Artisan radar less effective for self-air defence?

 

[StobieWan]

The BIGGEST issue with T26 & it's propulsion is COST !

T45 IEP is a step change over what has been fitted in previous RN ships, but at a guestimate comes in at about 33 - 50 % MORE than traditional shafts, engines & gearboxes. I'd bet my house on it, that IF you threw a TON OF MONEY at it, you COULD make it quiet & suitable for ASW

BUT......It is my understanding, at this time, that saving costs on what is fitted to T26 is the priority.

SA

That fills in a piece of the puzzle at least


And yes, budget screwed, lets all just deal with it...

 

[spsun100001]

SPSpun,
so far you think that the T45s should have a priority CEC; Harpoon; Stingray. A few pages ago Harpoon was being funded by the India Aid, and more recently CEC is being funded by the same saving - a saving which is already assumed in budget from 2015 on anyway. Plus I believe that the cost of CEC is now assessed as significantly more than you quoted (more than the India aid budget too).

Furthermore, the reason that the MoD got a black hole in their budget in the first place was because of budgets only considering the capital cost and then the through life cost slowly ratcheting up without any due consideration.

Lastly, even if we have some equipment just lying around, that does not necesarily make it cheap to add to a ship

Yep, the Indian aid is funding all of those things. It's £110m per year which to 2015 produces funds of £330m. The last time I wrote to the MoD last year they quoted £140m for CEC. If you have a source that shows it to be more then that would be useful to see but I'll stick with that number until then.

That leaves £190m for Harpoon and ASW torpedoes. Given that the T45 is already fitted for these systems and we have the weapons and the launchers in our inventory then I'd think this should cover it. I can't prove that of course and again, if you have any figures that show otherwise it would be useful to see them.

An Indian government minister said that they did not require our aid. Given they have a foreign aid program of their own, a space program and are about to spend £6.3bn to buy 126 Rafale jet fighters from France I'd agree with him.

Poverty in india is terrible and I'd hope that if we stopped giving aid the Indian's would make up the difference. Perhaps they could buy half a dozen less Rafale's to do so. If they choose not to then that's their choice as an independent country. It is not the responsibility of the British government to alleviate poverty in a country that has resources of its own but chooses to use them on other things.

As a british taxpayer I think I'd rather give the T45 crucial capabilities that it is missing and leave the Indian Air Force to cope with half a dozen less fighter jets. if you think the Indian Air Force is a higher priority for British taxpayers then that's obviously your choice.

None of us know for certain whether the T45 will one day need the capabilities that have been omitted. No one has a crystal ball. It comes down to whether you think it's better for a ship to have capabilities that it might not need or for it to one day find it needs capabilities it doesn't have. You never know when you're going need these capabilities and you certainly don't always get advance notice that the need will be coming up. Who knew for instance that HMS Cumberland would need to be diverted to Libya whilst on her way home to be scrapped? She had to go to a potentially hostile environment with the weapons she was carrying without notice. Ships need to do that.

I think that not fitting these systems is an unacceptable risk and a false economy of the type we have become so expert at in this country (e.g. PFI initiatives where to save money up front we spend far more in the long term). In fairness the Royal Navy and most of the posters here seem to agree with you that these capabilities are not a priority.

The US Navy, Canadian Navy, Spanish Navy, French Navy, Italian Navy, German Navy, Dutch Navy, Japanese Navy, South Korean Navy and Australian Navy all seem to agree with me that AAW warships need an ASM missile and ASW torpedo capability fitted to their ships. I think they're right.

 

[spsun100001]

If you read the post after mine by Stobie then you'll see that the T45 doesn't have a particularly good sonar array thus even if it did have torps then it would be far too late to do anything. The best defence against a sub is being able to combat it before it knows there is a ship in the area, if the T45 isn't particularly effective at finding the thing then it'll be probably game over before it gets torps in the water.

Currently East of Suez or in that area, we also have 3 x Type 23 frigates (Somerset, Westminster and St Albans). All very capable and well equipped ASW platforms, not to mention the US forces in the area so what's the point in spending money which could be spent better elsewhere creating a pretty 'naff ASW platform in the form of a T45? Plus, i'd have thought that if the threat from Iranian subs was so severe that Daring would have been deployed with a Merlin.

What i'm trying to say is that yes, it would be a nice capability to have (and it's a damn shame we aren't re-using the tubes, i'm a big advocate of this) but we currently have other matters which should be addressed first, in my opinion.

I don't think you read my post. It's got nothing to do with the T45 sinking submarines with its own torpedoes or hunting them with sonar. It has got to do with fact that if you have shipboard topedoes then a hostile submarine will seek to stalk and attack you from outside the range or your torpedoes but within the range of its own. You want any torpedo attack against your ship to be lanched from the greatest range possible to increase the survivability chances for your ship.

If the T45s helicopter isn't available then it has no ASW defensive capability at all and is extremely vulnerable to submarines closing in to a lethally short range.

I also pointed out that we can't put Merlin on the T45 as it can't carry Sea Skua so would curtail the T45 ASuW capability. The choice of helicopter for the T45 is dictated not by which helicopter best fulfills the threat environment it is operating in but is decided by which helicopter best makes up for the capabilities that are not fitted to the ship.

The T23 is an excellent ASW vessel. But we have only 13 of them. In an era of only 19 surface escorts I think it is a false economy to have one third of that force needing to be escorted itself by another warship if it has to operate in an environment where there is a significant threat from submarines and surface warships. That is presumably why every other western navy fits ASM's and ASW torpedoes to their AAW ships.

 

[ProM]

CEC at £248m and climbing

/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D6SXHys-NnYC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=cec+cost+t45&source=bl&ots=FobaZFjSfd&sig=lyLfE16JIwdAGiRvfezMzJLeaIw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5_WB


And you haven't said how you will pay for the through life costs over the next 20 years.

 

[spsun100001]

CEC at £248m and climbing

/http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D6SXHys-NnYC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=cec+cost+t45&source=bl&ots=FobaZFjSfd&sig=lyLfE16JIwdAGiRvfezMzJLeaIw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5_WB


And you haven't said how you will pay for the through life costs over the next 20 years.

That's a really useful link thanks. I presume that the cost for CEC is going up due to the weakening pound meaning that a dollar price system is going to cost more.

I pointed out that I don't think there is a significant through life cost as CEC is just software and we are not going be buying or maintaining any more missiles, torpedoes or lanchers than we already have in service.

There would need to be some extra money found to pay for Harpoon and ASW torpedoes given the cost increase you've demonstrated for CEC. However, the good news is that I underquoted the amout we give to India.

According to the Guardian over the period to 2015 it will come to £840m not the £330m I thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/uk-aid-review-cuts-dfid

So, that's CEC, Harpoon and ASW torpedoes (ncluding the running costs I'd imagine) all taken care of given that the saving I've found is the equivalent of two to three Type 26 frigates. It probably means the Indian Air Force might have to cut a dozen Rafales rather than the half dozen I originally thought. Poor guys.

Edited to put the right link in. Doh!

 

[ProM]

I pointed out that I don't think there is a significant through life cost as CEC is just software and we are not going be buying or maintaining any more missiles, torpedoes or lanchers than we already have in service.

But you will need someone else in the ops room for controlling the extra kit - lets be generous and say 1 per watch, plus 2+ more maintainers per ship. So that is 5 extra staff per ship, plus extra costs of feeding them, training them, managing them (normal to work on a 3x factor for such things). So that makes 6x5x3 or 90 people.

So that is at least £4.5m pa just for people. Plus you are wrong, CEC is not just software. And missiles etc have a life, so you will need to buy more when the current set expire.

Soon adds up

 

[spsun100001]

But you will need someone else in the ops room for controlling the extra kit - lets be generous and say 1 per watch, plus 2+ more maintainers per ship. So that is 5 extra staff per ship, plus extra costs of feeding them, training them, managing them (normal to work on a 3x factor for such things). So that makes 6x5x3 or 90 people.

So that is at least £4.5m pa just for people. Plus you are wrong, CEC is not just software. And missiles etc have a life, so you will need to buy more when the current set expire.

Soon adds up

Okay, I'll go with your numbers. I found £840m. I think that'll cover it.

 

[ProM]

Okay, I'll go with your numbers. I found £840m. I think that'll cover it.

No, it won't quite apart from the fact that the money of which you speak is part of a pre-existing agreememt.

Mk46 goes obsolete in 2015. So you need to buy Mk 54 - at $1m a pop. Australia ordered 200 - presumably you will want more

 

[RobWilliams]

I don't think you read my post

No, you don't seem to be reading other peoples.

The baseline of mine (and others) on this forum i believe, is whilst in a perfect fully funded world it's perfectly fine to go "well it should have this and this and this" etc but this ISN'T a perfect world, some things get funded whereas others don't.

If you read carefully i've not said that T45 shouldn't have Stingray tubes at all, i've said that at the current time there are OTHER things that should be funded first as we can't all just hand in a list and say "get it", it doesn't work like that.

Why you're determined to argue that T45 should have torp tubes when i've already said i agree with you is mind boggling. All i'm trying to get across is that if there was some chance a T45 got involved where a real and credible submarine threat would be in the area, she would be operating as part of a much larger battlegroup where ASW assets are numerous. Because of this, whilst Stingray is a decent extra notch on her truncheon, the funding isn't as . . . neccesary . . as a few others.

One point i should raise, if an enemy submarine has managed to get close enough to a ship to be targeted or intimidated by Stingray then things have already gone pretty badly wrong.

 

[spsun100001]

No, it won't quite apart from the fact that the money of which you speak is part of a pre-existing agreememt.

Mk46 goes obsolete in 2015. So you need to buy Mk 54 - at $1m a pop. Australia ordered 200 - presumably you will want more

The agreement can be changed. What are the Indian government going to do - sue us for monay that their Ministers said they don't need or want? It's more than enough money.

We'd be fitting the tubes and Stingray's taken from T22's or T45's which are retiring not Mk46 or Mk54.