The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[the concerned]

how is it you would rather the vessels deal with other vessels with ssm's thus having the enemy vessels having their ssm's in range also when you could take out enemy ships with jsf at far greater ranges it most definetly is a capability that needs deploying straight away .In a time of crisis i'm sure the US would rather blow a ship out of the water way before it got within any theoretical SSM range.

 

[StobieWan]

how is it you would rather the vessels deal with other vessels with ssm's thus having the enemy vessels having their ssm's in range also when you could take out enemy ships with jsf at far greater ranges it most definetly is a capability that needs deploying straight away .In a time of crisis i'm sure the US would rather blow a ship out of the water way before it got within any theoretical SSM range.

You'll notice that the US, despite having 10 or 11 of the world's biggest carriers, still carries a surface to surface antiship capability however...

 

[RobWilliams]

how is it you would rather the vessels deal with other vessels with ssm's thus having the enemy vessels having their ssm's in range also when you could take out enemy ships with jsf at far greater ranges it most definetly is a capability that needs deploying straight away .In a time of crisis i'm sure the US would rather blow a ship out of the water way before it got within any theoretical SSM range.

If anti-ship missiles carried by aircraft are far superior in your eyes, why pray tell, do nations still use the SSM if/when they have access to aircraft carriers? India is a prime example, up-and-coming naval power building aircraft carriers and developed the BrahMos (w/ Russia) cruise missile which can be ship-launched.

Not all SSMs are equal, just because you can hit them doesn't mean that they can hit you.

You should notice however, that I didn't say that the JSF shouldn't EVER carry a ASuW missile, i merely said I think it would have other mission objectives to carry out before that (CAP/CAS).

Truthfully, in the event of any major naval confrontations, submarines would be the RNs ASuW heavy-hitters without a doubt.

 

[spsun100001]

A few questions to those in the know about JSF. I did think about putting this on the aviation forum but I'm asking about it in the context of the planes to be used on our carrier(s) and the issues raised here about its ASuW capability.

1) In terms of the version we choose I'm assuming that the VSTOL version can carry less payload over a shorter distance than the CTOL version. Does VSTOL also rule out any specific weapons that the CTOL version can carry?

2) For AAW I imagine it comes equipped to use AMRAAM. For a short range SAM would we either have to pay to integrate ASRAAM or buy AIM9X from the US?

3) In terms of an anti radiation missile I'd imagine it comes equipped for HARM (although that is a big missile so would it need to be carried externally)? Would we either need to buy HARM or pay to have ALARM integrated (and how much sense would that make as I read stocks of ALARM are very low due to significant usage in combat over recent years - Kosovo, Iraq etc.)?

4) For LGB's it would carry paveway but presumably any UK sourced air to surface weaponary such as Storm Shadow or Brimstone would require us to pay to integrate it?

5) For ASuW I'd imagine it is not equipped for Harpoon as the US already has that capability on the F18. Would that assumption be right? If so we'd either have to pay to integrate an ASM of our choice or rely on just LGB's and ARM's which would be a pretty limited capability (as I don't imagine we'd want to try to use LGB's against any ship with an area defence SAM as the aircraft would need to be in the threat envelope of the SAM). We did forgo any ASM capability when Sea Eagle was withdrawn so I'm wondering if we will be prepared to pay for the capability on the F35.

Im just trying to get a feel for how much extra money we might need to spend to get anything beyond basic capabilities due to the aircraft being outfitted for US munitions and us choosing to develop our own alternatives to them in a number of instances

 

[the concerned]

ok just asking how close could a jsf get to a frigate with 2 jdams say with a diamond back wing kit on it or even sdb's say 4-8 of them i do hope the UK invests in this munition soon.history has shown us that aircraft are also the heavy hitters. take recently when libyan naval vessels were engaging rebels it was the tornados and typhoons that engaged them not the naval vessels in the area. i'm not trying to downplay the capabilitys of ssm's but i think military commanders would always prefer the aircraft option first. Also aren't mbda looking at a enlarged variant of the brimstone missile with about 40+ miles range,couldn't that be an option for jsf/merlin helicopter.

 

[1805]

ok just asking how close could a jsf get to a frigate with 2 jdams say with a diamond back wing kit on it or even sdb's say 4-8 of them i do hope the UK invests in this munition soon.history has shown us that aircraft are also the heavy hitters. take recently when libyan naval vessels were engaging rebels it was the tornados and typhoons that engaged them not the naval vessels in the area. i'm not trying to downplay the capabilitys of ssm's but i think military commanders would always prefer the aircraft option first. Also aren't mbda looking at a enlarged variant of the brimstone missile with about 40+ miles range,couldn't that be an option for jsf/merlin helicopter.

Fitting Harpoon is pretty much overkill for any potential target, I would much rather we had an air launched anti ship missile for aircraft stationed in the Falklands, there is at least a very remote chance it might be used.

I know Sea Skua is nearing the end of it's life, but even fitting it or certainly it's replacement to Merlin's would be money much better spent.

 

[RobWilliams]

ok just asking how close could a jsf get to a frigate with 2 jdams say with a diamond back wing kit on it or even sdb's say 4-8 of them i do hope the UK invests in this munition soon.history has shown us that aircraft are also the heavy hitters. take recently when libyan naval vessels were engaging rebels it was the tornados and typhoons that engaged them not the naval vessels in the area. i'm not trying to downplay the capabilitys of ssm's but i think military commanders would always prefer the aircraft option first. Also aren't mbda looking at a enlarged variant of the brimstone missile with about 40+ miles range,couldn't that be an option for jsf/merlin helicopter.

AFAIK you wouldn't attack a surface vessel with a JDAM (wouldn't that bring you a tad close to the ships self defence network?), after all, there's a reason long range missiles like NSM/JSM have been created.

In regards to Lybia, it was an air campaign mainly so obviously aircraft played the bigger part (IIRC NGS was required on targets), also IIRC HMS Triumph fired off over 10 TLAMs in that conflict.

I'm not trying to downplay air launched ASuW missiles either, i'm just saying that the RN at the moment is a bit limp in the SSM department and i'd like a replacement for Harpoon.

I still stick by what I said before, if a fleet was being approached by a target capable of doing some serious damage, a SSN would be on it first.

 

[RobWilliams]

Fitting Harpoon is pretty much overkill for any potential target, I would much rather we had an air launched anti ship missile for aircraft stationed in the Falklands, there is at least a very remote chance it might be used.

I know Sea Skua is nearing the end of it's life, but even fitting it or certainly it's replacement to Merlin's would be money much better spent.

In regards to Sea Skua, I agree. But AFAIK nobodys willing to stump up the money to clear Sea Skua on the Merlin, and i assume it would be the same for FASGW.

They seem content to keep Merlin for ASW platforms and the Lynx for the rest.

 

[the concerned]

whats wrong with brimstone replacing sea skua like i said aren't they studying a enlarged variant.i suggested jsf isn't it suppose to be stealth and i asked how close could it get.

 

[RobWilliams]

whats wrong with brimstone replacing sea skua like i said aren't they studying a enlarged variant.i suggested jsf isn't it suppose to be stealth and i asked how close could it get.

Neither me nor 1805 are neccesarily disagreeing with Brimstone replacing Sea Skua.

However, there is already a Sea Skua replacement in the pipeline (FASGW) so cancelling that and trying to mount Brimstone on Lynx would be much more expensive.

In regards to the JSF, AFAIK Brimstone isn't due to be in service until 2025 (at least, that's what it says on NavyMatters)

Again, i'd rather have NSM/JSM over Brimstone on JSF and stick with the FASGW which some sources say will have around double the range of Sea Skua (Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW))

 

[gf0012-aust]

I still stick by what I said before, if a fleet was being approached by a target capable of doing some serious damage, a SSN would be on it first.

absolutely correct, especially as an SSN would be riding shotgun anyway.

"you run what you brung" - but killing ships and causing force disclocation (as in the red team being coerced by association to apply disproportionate effort to locate and neutralise as a counter) is best served by a sub

 

[1805]

Neither me nor 1805 are neccesarily disagreeing with Brimstone replacing Sea Skua.

However, there is already a Sea Skua replacement in the pipeline (FASGW) so cancelling that and trying to mount Brimstone on Lynx would be much more expensive.

In regards to the JSF, AFAIK Brimstone isn't due to be in service until 2025 (at least, that's what it says on NavyMatters)

Again, i'd rather have NSM/JSM over Brimstone on JSF and stick with the FASGW which some sources say will have around double the range of Sea Skua (Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW))

Brimstone is already in service?

 

[the concerned]

i wouldn't cancel fasgw but having brimstone now would give the lynx a capability to engage small naval vessels aswell as targets on land. surely the future lynx could carry at least 4 a handy little capability.also asking again a jsf doing high subsonic cruise at high altitude how far could it launch a sdb with glide kit could a warship detect it or the munition.and if so at what range

 

[RobWilliams]

Brimstone is already in service?

I worded it poorly, not due to be intergrated on the JSF and in service until 2025, my apologies.

At least, that's the last I heard anyway.

 

[1805]

So suggest it to BAe. If it's such a good idea, with real market prospects, I'm sure BAe will develop it with company money. If, on the other hand, it's only worth doing with a customer already signed up, then BAe won't do anything unless a government steps up with the money. But wait . . . haven't we already been here?

If BAe won't fund it, why should I? I don't want my taxes paying for yet another bespoke, UK-only, weapon system, at much greater cost than buying off the shelf. That money could be spent much more usefully.

I'd recommend state funding for development only if the USN, or several smaller navies, were already banging on the door asking for it, & if they were, BAe would already be developing it, without going cap in hand to George Osborne to pay.

Sorry I missed your post; generally I would agree with you on state funding v buying off the shelf, and I would not be particularly keen on a conversion only approach. But the 155mm offers a significant advantage in: common munitions, hitting power and range (also similar with Volcano/127mm) that you could almost do away with the SSM fit on RN ships. This is not leading edge technology so the risks are less and the market opportunity is sizable with only 2-3 alternatives out there; Brazil must be a very strong potential (if not funding partner).

A potential limitation that might impact 155mm v 127mm is recoil?

 

[RobWilliams]

Sorry I missed your post; generally I would agree with you on state funding v buying off the shelf, and I would not be particularly keen on a conversion only approach. But the 155mm offers a significant advantage in: common munitions, hitting power and range (also similar with Volcano/127mm) that you could almost do away with the SSM fit on RN ships. This is not leading edge technology so the risks are less and the market opportunity is sizable with only 2-3 alternatives out there; Brazil must be a very strong potential (if not funding partner).

A potential limitation that might impact 155mm v 127mm is recoil?

I've dug this old post from swerve in January (#7468 pg498) in regards to the 155mm

The 155mm should be able to do ASUW if developed to do so. And there's the rub. The argument for the 155mm was commonality with the army, but how much is that worth? Estimates of development cost were unreliable, & to pay a lot of money to develop something that would never be as good as an OTS gun at one task, & probably two, out of the three that an OTS gun could do - well, why bother? Any commonality savings would almost certainly be wiped out by the development cost.

Developing our own ammo would be sheer waste, for a handful of guns. Both 127mms are known quantities, at a known price, with known OTS ammunition, ammo & spares commonality with close allies, & acceptable on the export market. The 155mm might have struggled to find acceptance with export customers, necessitating two versions of any ship we fitted it to, if we hoped for exports - i.e. more development cost.

Neither the market nor the benefits are big enough to justify the cost.

then this in regards to the idea that we might benefit from US developments of 155mm ammunition (#7470)

Don't forget that the USN 155mm is a very different beast, a much larger gun firing special ammunition which won't fit any other gun. Only the calibre is common.

It does make it seem like the 127/64 is more along the lines of what the RN needs, an upgrade from the 4.5in (with Volcano, it's a pretty decent upgrade) for a known cost off the shelf. Seems more suited to a navy with an already limited budget.

note: Hopefully those are still swerves thoughts on the matter, it was a few months ago mind.

 

[1805]

I've dug this old post from swerve in January (#7468 pg498) in regards to the 155mm


then this in regards to the idea that we might benefit from US developments of 155mm ammunition (#7470)



It does make it seem like the 127/64 is more along the lines of what the RN needs, an upgrade from the 4.5in (with Volcano, it's a pretty decent upgrade) for a known cost off the shelf. Seems more suited to a navy with an already limited budget.

note: Hopefully those are still swerves thoughts on the matter, it was a few months ago mind.

I am aware the USN 155mm is a very different weapon/ammunition, I am solely taking about a weapon that could fire NATO rounds.

For your answer of why bother.....In it's main role of shore bombardment the 155mm has the edge on hitting power c70lbs v 100lbs, this is why it is worth investing in. I don't see medium calibre guns having a serious AA role, (which is where 5" might have had an advantage).

But then if we build nothing we take no risks; this would be a modest investment in return for the capability, and market potential (particularly when we have a fair requirement for the RN 16-19 mounts). If recoil was not an issue, it would make a pretty good addition to a light frigate/OPV, maybe another 8-12 mounts.

Funding, well lets equip all RN helicopters with FASGW, phase out Harpoon and not replace. SSM although you point out popular with navy brass round world (bit of a collection of Lemmings to be honest) have never really been used against full sized warships....deadly though they are they are the weapon of the enemy...the major Navies have spent the last 45 years working on countermeasures, not using them.

In contrast the RN and a number of other navies have had good use out of their medium calibre guns. Lets invest in things we use and stop buying stuff we don't.

 

[spsun100001]

SSM although you point out popular with navy brass round world (bit of a collection of Lemmings to be honest) have never really been used against full sized warships....deadly though they are they are the weapon of the enemy...the major Navies have spent the last 45 years working on countermeasures, not using them.

In contrast the RN and a number of other navies have had good use out of their medium calibre guns. Lets invest in things we use and stop buying stuff we don't.

Just on this point they were used by major surface units or the US and Iranian navies against each other in the Gulf during operation praying Mantis. They were used by the Indian's to sink major units of the Pakistani Navy and the Egyptians to sink an Israeli destroyer.

 

[RobWilliams]

Funding, well lets equip all RN helicopters with FASGW, phase out Harpoon and not replace. SSM although you point out popular with navy brass round world (bit of a collection of Lemmings to be honest) have never really been used against full sized warships....deadly though they are they are the weapon of the enemy...the major Navies have spent the last 45 years working on countermeasures, not using them.

In contrast the RN and a number of other navies have had good use out of their medium calibre guns. Lets invest in things we use and stop buying stuff we don't.

I'm going to let other people comment on the 155mm v 127/64 as i'm not particularly clued up on that whole debate.

But there are 2 things i'll point out, IIRC BAE planned on using a 52cal barrel. This particular document i'm looking at - which can be downloaded from the British Army website - puts the max range of that barrel with 'extended range ammunition' at 60-80km. I've seen numbers thrown around of over 100km from Vulcano.

Then there's the rate of fire, looking at a few numbers BAE claimed their gun could fire at 12rpm, where the 127/64 operates at around 40.

But in regards to SSM development, surely it's like regeneration cycles? Once SSMs reached a certain effectiveness then the next phase is to develop countermeasures towards them. I'm sure that once current defence mechanisms are developed which are pretty much inpenetrable to SSMs come around, a new phase of SSM development will follow.

In my eyes the 127/64 is still a spot on investment, it's a known product with a known price + capabilities which are substantially better than the 4.5in. I keep getting reminded to the German project to try mount a PzH2000 turret + gun on their frigates and i believe they ultimately went with the 127/64, must be something more too it.

Then there's the baseline of exactly why the project was dropped, it was cut to save money.

 

[ProM]

Guns are no good for ASUW work at those sort of ranges. The time of flight will be well over 1 minute. WIth modern radars the target could detect, track and take avoiding action. Even if guided that means you need very accurate and up-to-date targeting- which means a sensor at risk. Whereas with SSMs you can fire in the general direction and let the missile sensors track in