The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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.

The sinking of the INS Eilat was the incident I was referring to in the 45 years time frame, the significance being small missiles (well by the time) that could be fired from a new generation of FAC. I think the Indian's did fire a missile from a destroyer, but much of their success was with similar small missile craft.

The sinking of the Joshan, was with Standards & Harpoon but probably not the recommended way we would want to approach this situation now. It's also interesting and I don't know the ranges of the engagement but I suspect the to Perry's not having 5" used Standard.

 

[spsun100001]

The sinking of the INS Eilat was the incident I was referring to in the 45 years time frame, the significance being small missiles (well by the time) that could be fired from a new generation of FAC. I think the Indian's did fire a missile from a destroyer, but much of their success was with similar small missile craft.

The sinking of the Joshan, was with Standards & Harpoon but probably not the recommended way we would want to approach this situation now. It's also interesting and I don't know the ranges of the engagement but I suspect the to Perry's not having 5" used Standard.

The US warships used a combination of Harpoon and Standard. The Iranians fired a Harpoon at the US. A Pakistani frigate was sunk by Indian FAC's.

They key point is though that it's not right to say that they have not been used in 45 years to sink full sized warships when then have both sunk and been fired at full sized warships.

 

[1805]

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.

The high rate of fire of the OM mount is an indication of the DP nature of the gun. I don't see the RN having much interest in the AA role, 10-12 rpm is still quick enough to empty a magazine fast enough.

Agreed 127mm is much better than 4.5" we should never have fitted them to the T45. The Germans do not have anything like the requirement for numbers as the RN.

There is a general pull to heavier guns, over the last 40 years it has been the heavy calibre that has won, 155mm should do well. Put it this way if there was one available off the shelf we would be unlikely to go for the 127mm?

I also understand a major consideration in German adoption of the OM mount was general counter trade obligations relating to the construction of the U212a's for the Italian Navy.

 

[1805]

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

I think we mainly see the long range for land attack, I'm sure at shorter ranges it would be useful against a speed boats/boghammers? I would rather deal with anything biggers with helicopters. The RN has fired quite a few Sea Skua's but no Harpoon.

 

[ProM]

I think we mainly see the long range for land attack, I'm sure at shorter ranges it would be useful against a speed boats/boghammers? I would rather deal with anything biggers with helicopters. The RN has fired quite a few Sea Skua's but no Harpoon.

You may not 1805, but I get the impression some see these very long range guns as a substitute for SSMs

 

[1805]

The US warships used a combination of Harpoon and Standard. The Iranians fired a Harpoon at the US. A Pakistani frigate was sunk by Indian FAC's.

They key point is though that it's not right to say that they have not been used in 45 years to sink full sized warships when then have both sunk and been fired at full sized warships.

Sorry, I have just looked at my original post again and you are right I have actually put it the wrong way round. I meant to say it is the weapon of greatest value for the small navy with FACs, than can use them against the larger ships successfully. It has limted value the other way round (although the USN incident was larger warships attacking a FAC).

 

[RobWilliams]

The high rate of fire of the OM mount is an indication of the DP nature of the gun. I don't see the RN having much interest in the AA role, 10-12 rpm is still quick enough to empty a magazine fast enough.

Agreed 127mm is much better than 4.5" we should never have fitted them to the T45. The Germans do not have anything like the requirement for numbers as the RN.

There is a general pull to heavier guns, over the last 40 years it has been the heavy calibre that has won, 155mm should do well. Put it this way if there was one available off the shelf we would be unlikely to go for the 127mm?

I also understand a major consideration in German adoption of the OM mount was general counter trade obligations relating to the construction of the U212a's for the Italian Navy.

The higher ROF could be taken - from a RN point of view - to increase suppression on the target, say for example that in 1 minute a 155mm could put down 12 shells per minute @ 100 lbs per shell, thats 1200lbs then consider the 127/64 at 40 shells per minute @ 70lbs per shell, thats 2800lbs of munitions in one minute going downrange, a pretty big difference. But then again that avenue leads down to the debate of what sort of targets would a surface ship be engaging like soft or hard targets and whether the 127/64 would be adequate yadda yadda.

Well, the 4.5in gun isn't exactly a bad system, it's certainly proven itself during its service (at least, in my opinion), looking at Wiki it seems like Germany ordered 5 127/64, the cost of those PzH2000 turrets/guns would have been horrible i imagine.

Whilst the 155mm gun may well be the weapon of the future, it isn't now. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look into it but I've got the feeling that the idea that we would have picked an OTS 155mm gun might not be correct, whilst no one navy would like to fund it themselves you'd have thought - at least in Europe anyway - that if the French/German/Italian/Spanish navies required a 155mm gun there would be real discussions in regards to a multinational effort? If anything they may have picked up the work BAE had already done or at least have talks with BAE about the project.

note: I don't have a clue how procurement goes down so this is just a shot in the dark, and i do hope my basic maths is correct, it'd be embarrasing, especially as i'm an engineering university stuent :roll

 

[spsun100001]

Sorry, I have just looked at my original post again and you are right I have actually put it the wrong way round. I meant to say it is the weapon of greatest value for the small navy with FACs, than can use them against the larger ships successfully. It has limted value the other way round (although the USN incident was larger warships attacking a FAC).

The USN incident was larger warships engaging an FAC and a frigate with SSM's and then in the case of the frigate with their main guns.

It's a good example of why you have SSM's. The US was conducting a pre-planned operation, they had air cover (both fighters and helicopter gunships) and (presumably) SSN's. I agree with other posters that an aircraft or an SSN is the anti-ship platform of choice but in this incident (and I'm not sure how) the Iranian warships got close enough to fire SSM's and the US warships then had to rely on their own weapons systems to defend themselves and engage the enemy. The coup de grace to the damaged Iranian ships was then delivered by A6 Intruders.

The need to use SSM's doesn't happen often but it has happened (in this instance to a Navy with all of the layered platforms such as aircraft, SSN's and helicopters) and I'd be prepared to bet that it will again.

 

[1805]

You may not 1805, but I get the impression some see these very long range guns as a substitute for SSMs

I think they have limitations at long range, but I have seen posts on other threads (can't remember where) along the lines that the potential for a Harpoon hit over the horizon, without external guidance, just relying on the missiles homing is very also low.

And I would agree with I think you original point of the SSM threat, surface firing of a SSM will not be as effective as an aeral launch. The missile will have greater range and high potential for a hit, as it can be targeted at greater range.

 

[1805]

The USN incident was larger warships engaging an FAC and a frigate with SSM's and then in the case of the frigate with their main guns.

It's a good example of why you have SSM's. The US was conducting a pre-planned operation, they had air cover (both fighters and helicopter gunships) and (presumably) SSN's. I agree with other posters that an aircraft or an SSN is the anti-ship platform of choice but in this incident (and I'm not sure how) the Iranian warships got close enough to fire SSM's and the US warships then had to rely on their own weapons systems to defend themselves and engage the enemy. The coup de grace to the damaged Iranian ships was then delivered by A6 Intruders.

The need to use SSM's doesn't happen often but it has happened (in this instance to a Navy with all of the layered platforms such as aircraft, SSN's and helicopters) and I'd be prepared to bet that it will again.

It does seem a very uncomfortable incident, which turn out well, but I think the RN would have used Lynx/Skua and been right to do so. I not sure that USN helicopters had access to in 1988, Pengiun was only adopted in 1994?

Is an SSN going to be much use in the Gulf against a FAC?

 

[spsun100001]

It does seem a very uncomfortable incident, which turn out well, but I think the RN would have used Lynx/Skua and been right to do so. I not sure that USN helicopters had access to in 1988, Pengiun was only adopted in 1994?

Is an SSN going to be much use in the Gulf against a FAC?

The US were using Cobra helicopter gunships from the USMC.

Agreed about SSNs and FACs though you would have thought that they would have picked up the frigates if they were in the vicinity. Maybe shallow waters like the Gulf aren't a good environment for SSN's which again adds weight to why ships sometimes need to be able to take care of themselves against the full spectrum of potential threats.

Sea Skua is an excellent and proven system but it must be remembered that it has a comparatively short range that would put the helicopter in range of SAM equipped major surface units. It does what is was designed to well which is dealing with small ships but it was never intended to be a ships main weapon against larger surface units.

 

[RobWilliams]

It does seem a very uncomfortable incident, which turn out well, but I think the RN would have used Lynx/Skua and been right to do so. I not sure that USN helicopters had access to in 1988, Pengiun was only adopted in 1994?

Is an SSN going to be much use in the Gulf against a FAC?

In that instance, any sort of SSM - and absolutely an SSN - would be major overkill. After all, AFAIK those are the targets Sea Skua was designed for (from FAC up to 1000 tonne corvette - at least i think that was it).

My 'thing' about ship-launched SSMs are that say if - in the RNs case - that the carrier wasn't able to provide ASuW capability due to geographical location, how would a ship defend itself against a more substantial threat which Sea Skua couldn't do much too whether it be actual damage/danger of Lynx being attacked by self defence AAW missiles. (Assuming SSNs are not near/too far to respond in time)

I know it seems like a pretty limited situation, but it's not a massively specialised scenario is it?

 

[1805]

In that instance, any sort of SSM - and absolutely an SSN - would be major overkill. After all, AFAIK those are the targets Sea Skua was designed for (FAC up to 1000 tonne corvette - at least i think that was it).

My 'thing' about ship-launched SSMs are that say if - in the RNs case - that the carrier wasn't able to provide ASuW capability due to geographical location, how would a ship defend itself against a more substantial threat which Sea Skua couldn't do much too whether it be actual damage/danger of Lynx being attacked by self defence AAW missiles. (Assuming SSNs are not near/too far to respond in time)

I know it seems like a pretty limited situation, but it's not a massively specialised scenario is it?

I am very critical of many decisions the RN have made over the last 50 years but I have to say the Wasp and then Lynx/Skua were outstanding moves where the RN actually set the direction of the modern navy....it is just a pity its been a bit patch since.

But to answer you question, I think the issue with Skua is not hitting power (just put more in the target) it's range. Even quite modest FAC can have access to SAM and at 500t you could fit systems that would out range it. So I would fit NSM (if Skua II is far off) to helicopters and to ensure a helicopter was always available, make sure when in hot areas they carry 2.

 

[RobWilliams]

I am very critical of many decisions the RN have made over the last 50 years but I have to say the Wasp and then Lynx/Skua were outstanding moves where the RN actually set the direction of the modern navy....it is just a pity its been a bit patch since.

But to answer you question, I think the issue with Skua is not hitting power (just put more in the target) it's range. Even quite modest FAC can have access to SAM and at 500t you could fit systems that would out range it. So I would fit NSM (if Skua II is far off) to helicopters and to ensure a helicopter was always available, make sure when in hot areas they carry 2.

That's where FASGW comes into play, with roughly 2x the range. (AFAIK the warhead has increased from 30 to 40kg, 30kg from Wiki however).

IIRC the 'in service date' thrown around for FASGW is 2015, whether this is accurate or not is other matter.

 

[1805]

That's where FASGW comes into play, with roughly 2x the range. (AFAIK the warhead has increased from 30 to 40kg, 30kg from Wiki however).

IIRC the 'in service date' thrown around for FASGW is 2015, whether this is accurate or not is other matter.

I didn't realise it was as soon as that, no point in anything else then, although I would like to see NSM on JSF (actually it would be nice if the small number of Typhoon that serve in the Falkands could be fitted with it first!). But I really like the size of Skua II (before the RN name it Sea Snail or something worse!), the new one looks great, I struggle a bit with the light version surely that could be Brimstone?

I would like to seen the RN using more small craft types from the LPD/LSDs FAC with 30mm cannon and maybe the option to mount something like Skua II or Brimstone a lot safer than Ribs if the boghammers turn up.

This is what really gets my goat with the RN, I am comfortable with fitting for but not with, but when you send ships into potential hostile space fit the kit. The T22 could carry 2 Lynx, ok for economy only carry one, but when HMS Cornwall is very near disputed water she should be carrying two!

BTW when you were in Dragon's hanger, did it look to you, big enough to carry 2 Merlin, it's difficult to see the impact of boat arrangements and the radar cross section? it certainly has a wide flight deck.

 

[RobWilliams]

I didn't realise it was as soon as that, no point in anything else then, although I would like to see NSM on JSF (actually it would be nice if the small number of Typhoon that serve in the Falkands could be fitted with it first!). But I really like the size of Skua II (before the RN name it Sea Snail or something worse!), the new one looks great, I struggle a bit with the light version surely that could be Brimstone?

I would like to seen the RN using more small craft types from the LPD/LSDs FAC with 30mm cannon and maybe the option to mount something like Skua II or Brimstone a lot safer than Ribs if the boghammers turn up.

This is what really gets my goat with the RN, I am comfortable with fitting for but not with, but when you send ships into potential hostile space fit the kit. The T22 could carry 2 Lynx, ok for economy only carry one, but when HMS Cornwall is very near disputed water she should be carrying two!

BTW when you were in Dragon's hanger, did it look to you big enough to carry 2 Merlin, it's difficult to see the impact of boat arrangements and the radar cross section? it certainly has a wide flight deck.

Well, like i said I think that's the date that's been put about.

EDIT: Actually, MBDA say that too, here's the link.

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

NSM/JSM is currently being touted as the only anti-ship missile which can fit inside the internal weapons bays thus maintaining the VLO platform.

That's true, i'm of the opinion if you're sending a ship to war you give it everything you can before you despatch the ship. I mean some things couldn't be done in time perhaps but loading a 2nd helo would be simple enough.

From my impression of the hanger, it looked like it'd be a tight squeeze with 2 Lynx. A single Merlin yeah, but no way 2. The lifeboats do affect the size by a fair amount, in the attached image you can see how big the hangar door is in relation to the superstructure and bear in mind the hanger isn't that much bigger than. That was my impression of it anyway.

 

[1805]

Well, like i said I think that's the date that's been put about.

EDIT: Actually, MBDA say that too, here's the link.

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

NSM/JSM is currently being touted as the only anti-ship missile which can fit inside the internal weapons bays thus maintaining the VLO platform.

That's true, i'm of the opinion if you're sending a ship to war you give it everything you can before you despatch the ship. I mean some things couldn't be done in time perhaps but loading a 2nd helo would be simple enough.

From my impression of the hanger, it looked like it'd be a tight squeeze with 2 Lynx. A single Merlin yeah, but no way 2. The lifeboats do affect the size by a fair amount, in the attached image you can see how big the hangar door is in relation to the superstructure and bear in mind the hanger isn't that much bigger than. That was my impression of it anyway.

A good photo.

 

[kev 99]

I didn't realise it was as soon as that, no point in anything else then, although I would like to see NSM on JSF (actually it would be nice if the small number of Typhoon that serve in the Falkands could be fitted with it first!). But I really like the size of Skua II (before the RN name it Sea Snail or something worse!), the new one looks great, I struggle a bit with the light version surely that could be Brimstone?.

FASGW(L) Is supposed to be small, light and to be used against low value targets, for that purpose it needs to be cheap. Brimstone is heavier than FASGW(L) and anything but cheap.

From my impression of the hanger, it looked like it'd be a tight squeeze with 2 Lynx. A single Merlin yeah, but no way 2. The lifeboats do affect the size by a fair amount, in the attached image you can see how big the hangar door is in relation to the superstructure and bear in mind the hanger isn't that much bigger than. That was my impression of it anyway.

Hi Rob take a look at this: Hms Dauntless' hanger with 2 Lynx, I'd say it was surprisingly roomy.
View attachment 5319

 

[RobWilliams]

Hi Rob take a look at this: Hms Dauntless' hanger with 2 Lynx, I'd say it was surprisingly roomy.
View attachment 5319

Very good photo, I guess to me it just looked smaller or the lynx just looked bigger

But still, 2 x Merlins would need to be shoehorned in wouldn't it?

 

[kev 99]

Very good photo, I guess to me it just looked smaller or the lynx just looked bigger

But still, 2 x Merlins would need to be shoehorned in wouldn't it?

No chance of a pair of Merlins.