The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Interesting blog post on the Type 26 and contrasting approaches in European frigates:

UK Armed Forces Commentary: The Type 26 and the modern european frigates

Worth a read, and has some new stuff on the current state of play with the Type 26 - I'm starting to get a bit more excited about it to be honest.


Ian

Agreed, it's a pretty good article. Personally I won't ever be completely comfortable until I know which VLS modules will be used

I'm still in 2 minds over which; A70 or Mk41. After all with Mk41 you don't get the Tomahawk integration issue but you might get the whole 'exporting part-US tech' issue (I say part because BAE actually had a hand in designing it and operates the factory in the US that makes them) which could be annoying for potential exports which we wouldn't experience with DCNS. But the variety of munitions available to the RN if they went for the Mk41 seems more interesting than the same with the A70 but then the RN would have to operate more types of missile and uses more MBDA products, it's just a tricky decision IMO.

If they go for the A70 (which I reckon is more likely), I do hope they go for 'hawks because I prefer it over SCALP-N.

Here's another post from the same blogger (an older post), I particularly like the comment that no hangar space (according to the latest graphics) has been sacrificed for the mission bays.

UK Armed Forces Commentary: Type 26 update

 

[StobieWan]

Agreed, it's a pretty good article. Personally I won't ever be completely comfortable until I know which VLS modules will be used

I'm still in 2 minds over which; A70 or Mk41. After all with Mk41 you don't get the Tomahawk integration issue but you might get the whole 'exporting part-US tech' issue (I say part because BAE actually had a hand in designing it and operates the factory in the US that makes them) which could be annoying for potential exports which we wouldn't experience with DCNS. But the variety of munitions available to the RN if they went for the Mk41 seems more interesting than the same with the A70 but then the RN would have to operate more types of missile and uses more MBDA products, it's just a tricky decision IMO.

If they go for the A70 (which I reckon is more likely), I do hope they go for 'hawks because I prefer it over SCALP-N.

Here's another post from the same blogger (an older post), I particularly like the comment that no hangar space (according to the latest graphics) has been sacrificed for the mission bays.

UK Armed Forces Commentary: Type 26 update

For long range land attack, Tomahawk, accept no substitutes - we get a pretty good deal on them, access to US stocks, and while it's not in production, we can be fairly sure there'll be future orders to tack our requirements onto - SCALP, same as Stormshadow, we may have to buy our requirements in a large batch. Of course, this is all dependent on HMG deciding it need to buy more TLAM or whatever - right now, we don't keep enough missiles on tap to make it worth worrying about.

I think getting a mix of land attack missiles (TLAM and then something with less range, cheaper and more multipurpose for smaller, closer targets) is the best way forward.

 

[RobWilliams]

For long range land attack, Tomahawk, accept no substitutes - we get a pretty good deal on them, access to US stocks, and while it's not in production, we can be fairly sure there'll be future orders to tack our requirements onto - SCALP, same as Stormshadow, we may have to buy our requirements in a large batch. Of course, this is all dependent on HMG deciding it need to buy more TLAM or whatever - right now, we don't keep enough missiles on tap to make it worth worrying about.

I think getting a mix of land attack missiles (TLAM and then something with less range, cheaper and more multipurpose for smaller, closer targets) is the best way forward.

Agreed, I suppose for land attack if they decided it was Toma v SCALP in an A70 they'd have to decide which cost; intergrate TLAM or pay for a 'SeaShadow' or similar, is more beneficial.

I expect we'd intergrate TLAM as we already operate them and as you say, we do have a good deal.

Definitely, slap on a few Sea Spear modules (or develop them for VL to keep the ship RCS lower) and that'd be a done deal IMO. It's the sort of niche missile we need, nothing too heavy but still something that could deal with FAC swarms or just lighter ships in general.

Does Sea Spear have any secondary land attack capability? It'd fit in nicely to provide a bit more punch over the Oto 127/64 at circa 100nm, at least that was the range of SPEAR 3 i think?

 

[Volkodav]

Definitely, slap on a few Sea Spear modules (or develop them for VL to keep the ship RCS lower) and that'd be a done deal IMO. It's the sort of niche missile we need, nothing too heavy but still something that could deal with FAC swarms or just lighter ships in general.

Does Sea Spear have any secondary land attack capability? It'd fit in nicely to provide a bit more punch over the Oto 127/64 at circa 100nm, at least that was the range of SPEAR 3 i think?

Another option would be to adopt RAM with its anti-missile, anti-air and anti surface modes, the recent integration of Griffin is another plus for the system. The launchers could just be fitted inplace of Phalanx as required on just about any RN platform that is currently fitted to operate that system.

 

[Bonza]

Sea Spear and SPEAR 3 aren't the same thing, to the best of my knowledge. Sea Spear is just a maritime variant of Brimstone, isn't it? Whereas SPEAR 3 is a requirement that will be met by a missile much larger than Brimstone, as the range and warhead requirements are, if I remember correctly, way out of the Brimstone's league.

 

[RobWilliams]

Sea Spear and SPEAR 3 aren't the same thing, to the best of my knowledge. Sea Spear is just a maritime variant of Brimstone, isn't it? Whereas SPEAR 3 is a requirement that will be met by a missile much larger than Brimstone, as the range and warhead requirements are, if I remember correctly, way out of the Brimstone's league.

100% correct, it appears I had a rather severe brain fart

What d'you think, other than SeaSpear, could fulfil the requirement of "less range, cheaper and more multipurpose for smaller, closer targets"?

 

[StobieWan]

A lot of this depends on what launch modes are available for the various missiles - Spear 3 is air launched but if it can be either persuaded out of a VLS silo at some speed then it'd work, with reduced range compared to the air launched option. Tack a booster on the bottom (more complicated) and you'd be into poor man's cruise missile options with that extended range.

Either way, Spear 3 should be able to do a multimode terminal attack (ie, if you want it dead, it'll do the trick)

This is something that I'd love to see on the Type 45 frankly. I still think there's room for a simple box launcher for Sea Brimstone - if BAE can come up with something more or less self contained that bolts onto a deck, takes a simple power supply plus any chilled sea water feed for cooling (if needed - I suspect not!) and get it to launch off anything bigger than rubber dinghy, they may have a winner.

Interesting times ahead, and there's definitely scope for something that's lighter, cheaper and with shorter legs than TLAM or Harpoon, but with more reach than a 114mm DP round.

 

[RobWilliams]

A lot of this depends on what launch modes are available for the various missiles - Spear 3 is air launched but if it can be either persuaded out of a VLS silo at some speed then it'd work, with reduced range compared to the air launched option. Tack a booster on the bottom (more complicated) and you'd be into poor man's cruise missile options with that extended range.

Either way, Spear 3 should be able to do a multimode terminal attack (ie, if you want it dead, it'll do the trick)

This is something that I'd love to see on the Type 45 frankly. I still think there's room for a simple box launcher for Sea Brimstone - if BAE can come up with something more or less self contained that bolts onto a deck, takes a simple power supply plus any chilled sea water feed for cooling (if needed - I suspect not!) and get it to launch off anything bigger than rubber dinghy, they may have a winner.

Interesting times ahead, and there's definitely scope for something that's lighter, cheaper and with shorter legs than TLAM or Harpoon, but with more reach than a 114mm DP round.

Looking at the grapics it looks like it is pretty well contained, especially if the size of the ship it's mounted on is anything to go by.

Farnborough 2012: MBDA completes Sea Spear live firing - News - Shephard

As to being able to outrange the 4.5in, Wiki puts the air launched variant as having a range of ~7.5miles so in that regard i'm not so sure. But in terms of dealing with FAC than it'll be more than capable.

 

[Bonza]

100% correct, it appears I had a rather severe brain fart

What d'you think, other than SeaSpear, could fulfil the requirement of "less range, cheaper and more multipurpose for smaller, closer targets"?

Realistically I'd say Sea Skua (and in the future, FASGW-H) coming off the helo. Lets the surface combatant stay further away, too. I'm sure either weapon could be adapted for surface launches (Sea Skua already has been, in fact), but I don't know how likely that would be. Fire Shadow should probably be in the conversation too.

Personally I like the US anti-air weapons in this regard, as both Standard and ESSM have secondary anti-surface capability, which I'm sure would do quite nicely for small targets. Perhaps ASTER could be developed similarly, if the need was there. I don't know how much cheaper it would be though, considering it's a high performance anti-air missile... but if a user was really worried about small surface targets they could certainly do worse than carrying a loadout of dual-role, VLS-launched missiles instead of/in addition to larger anti-ship missiles.

 

[RobWilliams]

Realistically I'd say Sea Skua (and in the future, FASGW-H) coming off the helo. Lets the surface combatant stay further away, too. I'm sure either weapon could be adapted for surface launches (Sea Skua already has been, in fact), but I don't know how likely that would be. Fire Shadow should probably be in the conversation too.

Personally I like the US anti-air weapons in this regard, as both Standard and ESSM have secondary anti-surface capability, which I'm sure would do quite nicely for small targets. Perhaps ASTER could be developed similarly, if the need was there. I don't know how much cheaper it would be though, considering it's a high performance anti-air missile... but if a user was really worried about small surface targets they could certainly do worse than carrying a loadout of dual-role, VLS-launched missiles instead of/in addition to larger anti-ship missiles.

That's true, forgot about the Wildcat - and the FASGW-H - for a second there That'd be interesting to see. But is it's launcher reasonably compact + not particularly deck penetrating, i.e how close is it to a 'bolt on' accessory?

Yeah, that comes back to my question as to which strike length cells should the Type 26 for the RN use; Mk41 or Sylver A70, after all the former could use ESSM etc which could fulfil those roles, but that'd involve bringing in more missiles the RN doesn't currently use yadda-yadda all that logistical stuff

 

[swerve]

ESSM would mean more than just another missile. It would need integration with the CMS & radar, & illuminators (currently not fitted or integrated) for terminal guidance.

We've got CAMM on the way, to be retrofitted to Type 23s & carried over to Type 26. ESSM now makes no sense at all.


Aster isn't much use as an anti-ship weapon. The final stage is pretty small & light, with a modest sized warhead. Plenty for bringing down an aircraft or missile, but a feeble (apart from the kinetic effects from its speed) anti-ship missile. It's a remarkably expensive way to deliver a relatively modest impact. For that matter, Standard & ESSM aren't exactly cost effective in the anti-ship role compared to dedicated anti-ship missiles, & I assume would be used in that role only as a last ditch weapon.

Against small surface targets - well, what's wrong with FASGW (L) & (H)? L (LMM) for the really small ones, H (a Sea Skua look-alike with new innards & greater range, IIRC) for the less small targets. And, of course, guns. Some of the fancy ammunition available nowadays seems purpose-built for doing very nasty things to small boats. Air bursts overhead with a downward-directed impact, shells with a cone of forward-firing fragments . . . .

 

[swerve]

Agreed, it's a pretty good article.

I dunno. I get mightily peeved at people who make consistent errors in reading & spelling. What would you think of a Danish commentator who consistently (24 times on one page!) called Type 45 the "Darling" class, for example?

 

[swerve]

I'm still in 2 minds over which; A70 or Mk41. After all with Mk41 you don't get the Tomahawk integration issue but you might get the whole 'exporting part-US tech' issue (I say part because BAE actually had a hand in designing it and operates the factory in the US that makes them)

US export restrictions apply fully to Mk 41 VLS. British ownership of the US manufacturer makes no difference.

Some US subsidiaries of foreign firms are required to keep some of what they're doing secret from head office. Under US security restrictions it's entirely possible for a British-owned firm to make something in the USA which neither the British management nor the British government is even allowed to know exists.

 

[RobWilliams]

ESSM would mean more than just another missile. It would need integration with the CMS & radar, & illuminators (currently not fitted or integrated) for terminal guidance.

We've got CAMM on the way, to be retrofitted to Type 23s & carried over to Type 26. ESSM now makes no sense at all.

True, was just harmless blue sky thinking

Against small surface targets - well, what's wrong with FASGW (L) & (H)? L (LMM) for the really small ones, H (a Sea Skua look-alike with new innards & greater range, IIRC) for the less small targets. And, of course, guns. Some of the fancy ammunition available nowadays seems purpose-built for doing very nasty things to small boats. Air bursts overhead with a downward-directed impact, shells with a cone of forward-firing fragments . . . .

Indeed, I was inquiring to Bonza about how compact the surface ship launcher for Sea Skua was like because I have no knowledge about what type of launcher it is.

It'd be a good addition, cheaper than TLAM, greater range than 4.5/5in and useful for dealing with FAC.

 

[RobWilliams]

I dunno. I get mightily peeved at people who make consistent errors in reading & spelling. What would you think of a Danish commentator who consistently (24 times on one page!) called Type 45 the "Darling" class, for example?

That's a fair observation, it does sometimes give the effect of the writer merely being sloppy in his English but - for me - I try not to make it an overriding priority over the actual content to form my thoughts on the writer and his credibility.

Then that particular example, it just seems like a basic misunderstanding, nothing more

But that would lead to questioning his other opinions, well, lets just say it depends on the severity of the mistakes. But that particular blog - i find - to be particularly engaging and informative.

 

[RobWilliams]

US export restrictions apply fully to Mk 41 VLS. British ownership of the US manufacturer makes no difference.

Some US subsidiaries of foreign firms are required to keep some of what they're doing secret from head office. Under US security restrictions it's entirely possible for a British-owned firm to make something in the USA which neither the British management nor the British government is even allowed to know exists.

Really? Man, that sucks

In that case, go for the A70! Won't get that hassle from DCNS, and actually thinking about it, it seems more likely than ever now that the MOD would go for the A70 seeming as one of the main attributes of the Type 26 is it's exportability.

I assume both VLS would be offered though, for export? As some nations may prefer to keep their US munition inventory rather than swap for their European equivalents or vice versa.

 

[1805]

Really? Man, that sucks

In that case, go for the A70! Won't get that hassle from DCNS, and actually thinking about it, it seems more likely than ever now that the MOD would go for the A70 seeming as one of the main attributes of the Type 26 is it's exportability.

I assume both VLS would be offered though, for export? As some nations may prefer to keep their US munition inventory rather than swap for their European equivalents or vice versa.

A70 makes more sense, as does SCALP, we need to focus, this constant dithering between US/Europe is so wasteful. As we have already gone now the route of Storm Shadow, we should put our weight behind the further development of the MBDA product.

Personally I would like to see CAMM having an anti ship capability, and being available with a fixed launcher like the 21 & 11 round RAM systems, alongside quad packed VLS with more comprehensive radar packages.

 

[RobWilliams]

A70 makes more sense, as does SCALP, we need to focus, this constant dithering between US/Europe is so wasteful. As we have already gone now the route of Storm Shadow, we should put our weight behind the further development of the MBDA product.

Whilst I'm all for supporting European defence companies (those worth more financially to Britain first ), in the case of the MdCN I would prefer the Tomahawk, one of the biggest positives for the French is that not only will it equip their surface ships but it'll be their land attack munition for their Barracuda class SSNs. Seeming as we already use the Tomahawk in that role, in a different launch configuration, wouldn't it be wise to pay for the intergration and simply increase our stocks of TLAM rather than operating 2 types of cruise missiles?

Besides, either way come 2030 it'll get replaced by Perseus, and that'll be a very interesting weapon system.

 

[kev 99]

Whilst I'm all for supporting European defence companies (those worth more financially to Britain first ), in the case of the MdCN I would prefer the Tomahawk, one of the biggest positives for the French is that not only will it equip their surface ships but it'll be their land attack munition for their Barracuda class SSNs. Seeming as we already use the Tomahawk in that role, in a different launch configuration, wouldn't it be wise to pay for the intergration and simply increase our stocks of TLAM rather than operating 2 types of cruise missiles?

Besides, either way come 2030 it'll get replaced by Perseus, and that'll be a very interesting weapon system.

What's makes you so sure of that Rob? As far as I'm aware Perseus is just an MBDA proposal so far, I'm not sure any countries have actually shown any interest in it.

 

[RobWilliams]

What's makes you so sure of that Rob? As far as I'm aware Perseus is just an MBDA proposal so far, I'm not sure any countries have actually shown any interest in it.

Equal measures of blind optimism and enthusiasm in the munition

I know it's a fairly bold claim to make, but it seems easily at least a potential weapon considering what it can do and will be compatible with Mk41 and A70 VLS + all the potential intergration solutions available is very good.

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

It'll easily be something the MOD are looking at, if the 'fast jet' component rings true then it brings the question will it be replacing StormShadow/SCALP?

I have to say, quite frankly, if the MOD aren't looking at it i'd be absolutely gobsmacked. Might put in an FOI request about it.