That makes their decision to delay more logical however, wasn't CEC mooted well before the development of the Sampson radar? Surely there must have been some recognition that compatability would be important?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
It’s not an issue of compatibility but rather adding a new radar(s). If the USN wants to integrate SPY-3 on the DDG 1000 into CEC then new software to support these radars will have to be developed. This software will have to include algorithms to tell CEC system how to judge new radar dwells based on the sensitivity of that radar under various conditions and so on. The same goes for other potential CEC radars (CEA FAR, Sampson, AMB, S1850M). AFAIK the only radars integrated with CEC at the moment are various mods of SPY-1, SPS-48, SPS-49, APY-9 and SPQ-9.
The RN wanted CEC but the cost of it was sliced off the end of the T45 program by the bean counters. Such is life...
This is I'm sure a completely amateur question, but after reading the article about the shared missile compartment on the new SSBN's for both the US and UK. Wondering what the possibility of doing a common design overall would be, say for instance General Dynamics and BAe rubbing there heads together to design the boats overall, and then building them separately on there respective sides of the Atlantic? With the ships being built locally for the most part, would simplify some of the work share agreement complications you traditionally get with multi-country projects.
Would be similar to the Virginia class just on a larger scale, but that project seems to be moving very smoothly. The boats being built between the two different companies here stateside off of one design.
I'm sure some would scream bloody murder but between the missile compartments, the missiles themselves, and I dont know for certain, but I would assume theres at some level, information exchanges between GE and Rolls Royce on the PWR designs, and considering were such close allies I dont see why it would really pose too much of an extra security issue. With the ever tightening budgets, if it offered savings I would think it would be the next logical step. Take lessons learnt on Astute and Virginia and go from there.
I certainly wouldnt expect it, but I dont think it would be that awful and idea. Ok, you may fire at will.
:
Would be similar to the Virginia class just on a larger scale, but that project seems to be moving very smoothly. The boats being built between the two different companies here stateside off of one design.
I'm sure some would scream bloody murder but between the missile compartments, the missiles themselves, and I dont know for certain, but I would assume theres at some level, information exchanges between GE and Rolls Royce on the PWR designs, and considering were such close allies I dont see why it would really pose too much of an extra security issue. With the ever tightening budgets, if it offered savings I would think it would be the next logical step. Take lessons learnt on Astute and Virginia and go from there.
I certainly wouldnt expect it, but I dont think it would be that awful and idea. Ok, you may fire at will.
:
One of the big differences between the RN Vanguard replacement and the USN Ohio replacement is the size of the CMC on the respective ships. IIRC the Ohio replacement is 16 tubes whilst the Vanguard replacement is 12 tubes, the RN doesn't need the extra space - or want it for that matter - so what would happen to that?This is I'm sure a completely amateur question, but after reading the article about the shared missile compartment on the new SSBN's for both the US and UK. Wondering what the possibility of doing a common design overall would be, say for instance General Dynamics and BAe rubbing there heads together to design the boats overall, and then building them separately on there respective sides of the Atlantic? With the ships being built locally for the most part, would simplify some of the work share agreement complications you traditionally get with multi-country projects.
Would be similar to the Virginia class just on a larger scale, but that project seems to be moving very smoothly. The boats being built between the two different companies here stateside off of one design.
I'm sure some would scream bloody murder but between the missile compartments, the missiles themselves, and I dont know for certain, but I would assume theres at some level, information exchanges between GE and Rolls Royce on the PWR designs, and considering were such close allies I dont see why it would really pose too much of an extra security issue. With the ever tightening budgets, if it offered savings I would think it would be the next logical step. Take lessons learnt on Astute and Virginia and go from there.
I certainly wouldnt expect it, but I dont think it would be that awful and idea. Ok, you may fire at will.
The UK - rightfully so - hold the Astute in high regard and is becoming more experienced in constructing and operating this class of submarine. The Vanguard replacement - i think - is being based on an enlarged Astute design, so would changing the design on the submarine be helpful for the UK construction yards? Whilst an enlarged Astute isn't the same as the original, it'll be a darn site closer than using an enlarged Virginia. Not to mention that there'll probably be serious questions about why a Virginia class base? Why not Astute?
The UK has already created contracts for the Vanguard replacement propulsion systems (HMS Ajax - the last Astute - will use RRs PWR3 unlike the rest of the Astutes with the PWR2) and upgrading/maintenance of Rolls Royce's facilities. Don't know how the US' propulsion system is like but seeming as it'll probably have to chug an extra couple 1000 tons around, it'll most likely be bigger. It'd be a questioning of scaling the whole submarine to US requirements over UK requirements because they're generally higher, so the UK will end up with a larger submarine that it want's.
Then there's - most likely - going to be the issue of the UK/US not wanting to share their best tricks with eachother.
Just seems like the US is happy with what they've got going on, and so does the UK.
Was only mentioning the Virginia based off the boat being built by the two separate companies, not that the follow on would be based off it. Was only comparing that if one boat could be built at two different sites by two different companies and have everything come in under budget and ahead of schedule, why those sorts of lessons couldnt be applied to a multinational design.
As to the number of tubes being included that shouldnt be to big an issue, stretching or shortening the hull based on something like that, would of course require some extra engineering but relatively shouldnt be a show stopper.
But come to think of it, fitting it out internally with the different computers and sonars and etc that the two countries would likely want would be a pain. Would require completely different plumbing/pipe fitting/electrical layout/size and layout of compartments etc etc. Would likely eat up any possible cost saving. Ok scratch that idea I suppose.
As to the number of tubes being included that shouldnt be to big an issue, stretching or shortening the hull based on something like that, would of course require some extra engineering but relatively shouldnt be a show stopper.
But come to think of it, fitting it out internally with the different computers and sonars and etc that the two countries would likely want would be a pain. Would require completely different plumbing/pipe fitting/electrical layout/size and layout of compartments etc etc. Would likely eat up any possible cost saving. Ok scratch that idea I suppose.
I'm hoping it's still "to be announced" - with a main gate kicked up to 2015 - but from what you're saying, we'd have to pay twice potentially, once for Artisan 3D and once for SAMPSON if we wanted both systems to work with CEC ?
The news i've been waiting for for ages!!!
Great to see the Astute class program moving ahead, hope to hear more on how the other subs are coming along, shouldn't be long for Artful to complete her first dive.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...vysNewestAttackSubmarineReadyForSeaTrials.htm
Great to see the Astute class program moving ahead, hope to hear more on how the other subs are coming along, shouldn't be long for Artful to complete her first dive.
Last edited:
Interesting concept
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFijMCgh24"]SC-130J: The Sea Hercules - YouTube[/nomedia]
Could easily fill a UK MPA requirement.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFijMCgh24"]SC-130J: The Sea Hercules - YouTube[/nomedia]
Could easily fill a UK MPA requirement.
the concerned
Active Member
i've seen the article on the sc-130j aswell that is why i said that as the A-400m comes into service upgrade the c-130j's to mpa/spectre roles.
No way for Spectre, won't ever happen and not something I'd like to see money spent on. Not to mention that AFAIK the future strategic airlift will be a combination of C-130J/A400M/C-17. The A400M isn't replacing the C-130J it's replacing the C-130K, but anyway that's RAF talk!
But for a MPA, there is definitely the potential for it to be very good for the UK helped by the commonality in the fleet. Of course it'd depend on who else is involved because I don't really know if anyone else would plan on buying any and i'm not too keen on the UK footing the bill for the whole thing.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 13 Sep 2012 (pt 0001)
*sad face*, but it's what I expected to be honest, who doesn't have a few pipe dreams right?
:
Couple of news links
HMS Sutherland defends against French air attack from Mirage aircraft + works alongside USS Nitze to find an American SSN of an unspecified class. Sadly no comment if they found the sub, obviously.
Sutherland
Some nice replenishment skills from a Merlin supplying HMS Ambush whilst still at sea, first time the Royal Navy have tried a move like this and seems like a nice feather in the cap of the Royal Navy to be able to do something like this.
Saint and Sinner make history with Navy
HMS Edinburgh goes on her final deployment + is marked as "the last time a Type 42 destroyer deploys on operations" as HMS York is decommissioned on Sept 27th.
‘Fortress of the Sea’ HMS Edinburgh embarks on final voyage | Royal Navy
Still no news about the Royal Navy RFTG deplyoment to the Med coming up - Operation Cougar 12 - where the RFTG will work with the French CdG carrier battle group.
HMS Sutherland defends against French air attack from Mirage aircraft + works alongside USS Nitze to find an American SSN of an unspecified class. Sadly no comment if they found the sub, obviously.
Sutherland
Some nice replenishment skills from a Merlin supplying HMS Ambush whilst still at sea, first time the Royal Navy have tried a move like this and seems like a nice feather in the cap of the Royal Navy to be able to do something like this.
Saint and Sinner make history with Navy
HMS Edinburgh goes on her final deployment + is marked as "the last time a Type 42 destroyer deploys on operations" as HMS York is decommissioned on Sept 27th.
‘Fortress of the Sea’ HMS Edinburgh embarks on final voyage | Royal Navy
Still no news about the Royal Navy RFTG deplyoment to the Med coming up - Operation Cougar 12 - where the RFTG will work with the French CdG carrier battle group.
That actually marks a staggering 37 years service for the Type 42s, if you exclude the 2 lost in action, an average of 29 years service a ship! What service it has been.....no class of any nation have seen so much action action post 1945?....prehaps more action than the rest of the navies of the world put together ;-) Well excluding carriers.
After that comment of "Nothing yet on Cougar 12", looks like the MOD played nice and published an article about it
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Training and Adventure | Navy's key deployment of 2012 prepares to head for the Med
With 40 Commando, 30 Commando IX + 539 Assault Squadron Royal Marines.
There's planned exercises with the French Navy (Corsican Lion) and Albanian Navy as well as US and Algerian forces.
To be honest, i'm suprised that there isn't a T45 included in that seeming as HMS Dragon is primed and ready (At least, i'm 95% sure she's operational). Do they intend on sending Diamond back to the Med?
EDIT: Also, the Royal Navy says HMS York is the youngest and fastest T42 destroyer they have. So why is she being decommissioned before HMS Edinburgh?
Also, what's the difference between an SSN and an SSGN? Makes me cringe just asking it.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Training and Adventure | Navy's key deployment of 2012 prepares to head for the Med
They've even been very nice and published a roster from the RN that makes up the task group
- HMS Illustrious
- HMS Bulwark
- T23 HMS Northumberland
- T23 HMS Montrose
- RFA Mounts Bay
- 814 NAS on Merlin
- 815 NAS on Lynx
- 829 NAS on Merlin
- 845 NAS on Junglies
- 846 NAS on Junglies
- 854 NAS on Sea King ASC
- 656 sqn AAC on Apache
- 659 sqn AAC on Lynx
With 40 Commando, 30 Commando IX + 539 Assault Squadron Royal Marines.
There's planned exercises with the French Navy (Corsican Lion) and Albanian Navy as well as US and Algerian forces.
To be honest, i'm suprised that there isn't a T45 included in that seeming as HMS Dragon is primed and ready (At least, i'm 95% sure she's operational). Do they intend on sending Diamond back to the Med?
EDIT: Also, the Royal Navy says HMS York is the youngest and fastest T42 destroyer they have. So why is she being decommissioned before HMS Edinburgh?
Also, what's the difference between an SSN and an SSGN? Makes me cringe just asking it.
Last edited:
On Edinburgh over York, Edinburgh was refitted in 2010, slippery paint, transom flap, that sort of stuff, so possibly she's in materially better shape than York due to that.
I dunno otherwise
An SSGN is a converted nuclear missile carrier, stripped of the Trident launch tubes and instead equipped to carry TLAM - the US ended up with some because they had some Ohio's not long out of refuelling which were due to be scrapped under START obligations.
We're not going to see anything like that in the UK because by the time we're done with the Vanguards, they'll be pretty worn out, and besides, we never have enough TLAM in the inventory to justify the expense.
I dunno otherwise
An SSGN is a converted nuclear missile carrier, stripped of the Trident launch tubes and instead equipped to carry TLAM - the US ended up with some because they had some Ohio's not long out of refuelling which were due to be scrapped under START obligations.
We're not going to see anything like that in the UK because by the time we're done with the Vanguards, they'll be pretty worn out, and besides, we never have enough TLAM in the inventory to justify the expense.
Last edited:
Ah I see, shouldn't take commissioning dates at face value thenOn Edinburgh over York, Edinburgh was refitted in 2010, slippery paint, transom flap, that sort of stuff, so possibly she's in materially better shape than York due to that.
I dunno otherwise
An SSGN is a converted nuclear missile carrier, stripped of the Trident launch tubes and instead equipped to carry TLAM - the US ended up with some because they had some Ohio's not long out of refuelling which were due to be scrapped under START obligations.
We're not going to see anything like that in the UK because by the time we're done with the Vanguards, they'll be pretty worn out, and besides, we never have enough TLAM in the inventory to justify the expense.
According to the RN website
so it appears you're correct.
In regards to SSGN/SSN, i know the RN wont get any
It was just a nomenclature issue because I've seen it thrown around (and know an example of one) but couldn't for the life of me think what was different. TLAM? No, VLS TLAM? No.So it really is just a massive TLAM carrying SSBN - in effect?
Thanks for the clarification
It's a rather nebulous definition too, as the USN has the capacity to launch Harpoon and/or Tomahawk on all three in-service submarines it refers to as SSNs, and for example the RAN classifies the Collins as an SSG due to its own Harpoon capability. Distinguishing an SSN from an SSGN for the USN may be a a matter of intended role, as even if technically the Los Angeles, Seawolf and Virginia boats can do some of the same things, they obviously cannot do them to the same extent.In regards to SSGN/SSN, i know the RN wont get any
So it really is just a massive TLAM carrying SSBN - in effect?
Thanks for the clarification
If I remember correctly the Russian Oscar I and II designs is also referred to as SSGNs by some sources, though they are fitted to operate in the anti-ship role, rather than the land attack/spec ops support/intel gathering focus of the Ohio SSGNs.
Submarine classifications can get a bit odd (like all ship classifications I suppose) sometimes. You get the same thing with "SSK" being used as a blanket term for diesel-electric submarines, even though larger classes like the Collins, Oyashio and Soryu are rather distinct in role and capability compared to the smaller coastal submarines. A lot of the smaller classes would technically qualify as SSGs too, considering the abundance of tube-launched anti-ship missiles available. Or maybe I'm getting my wires crossed - I'm sure someone on here will be able to correct me, anyway. : )
Anixtu
New Member
That is very specifically the USN usage. I'm pretty sure the RN refer to TLAM capable fleet submarines as SSGN in at least some contexts. It may be only in internal documentation, but they don't generally refer to "SSN" or other US-type hull classification symbols in public documentation anyway.
The paint is actually quite an advance, it's helps with self cleaning the hull. It's been available commercially for some time but RN is now using. I saw the underside of HMS Albion and although she had been at sea for a while the hull was as clean as a new car in a showroom. A few spots caused by standing at the quay before going into dry dock; I was told it would just brush off as soon as she moved at any speed through water. It has the potential to push out the times between dry docking.Ah I see, shouldn't take commissioning dates at face value then
According to the RN website
so it appears you're correct.
In regards to SSGN/SSN, i know the RN wont get any
So it really is just a massive TLAM carrying SSBN - in effect?
Thanks for the clarification
I've not noticed the RN referring to the T-boats or Astutes as SSGNs, which is why I asked the question because it wasn't a designation I wasn't particularly sure about
That being said, don't see why they couldn't be called that, after all they do the same tasks - albeit with different launching systems