kev 99
Member
Lets not forget FASGW(Heavy)/Son of Sea Skua - being developed specifically for RN and MN, which should also have pretty decent export potential.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Definitely, when I was chatting to AW's export guy the other day he seemed fairly happy with the prospect of the Wildcat when other nations come to replacing their Lynx and so FASGW(H) would be a real option for those countries.
Although i've heard a few rumours that the MN have been dragging their feet on their side with their ANL project (which is pretty much the same)
My understanding is the concern over using SSBNs for conventional strike relates not to the mistaking of a SSGN for a SSBN but rather the mistaking of a conventional warhead ballistic missile for a nuclear tipped one. This relates to the US concept for a Prompt Global Strike capability to hit a target anywhere in the world within an hour, the fear was the launch of a conventional PGS weapon against a target of opportunity could be mistaken by another nuclear power as a nuclear launch and respond accordingly
I was not suggesting there was any interchangeability, the sub/VLS versons of TLAM maybe similar but I bet they are not interchangeable and even if they were they never would be. MdCN is a MBDA product, of which BAE owns 37.5%. If we want to have a strong missile capability, we need to help the French set some strategic direction, or the likes of Perseus will never happen, the RN will just undermine and by a US missile.
My understanding was slightly different than that.
My understanding was that there was a nuclear tipped Tomahawk a while back and from my memory it was withdrawn from service for exactly the reason you said, because if there's a nuclear tipped Tomahawk variant than it's very hard to differentiate between a regular TLAM and a TLAM-N and the risk of it being a potential nuclear strike every time a vessel launched a TLAM was deemed too much so now any TLAM launched is definitely a conventional missile as no nuclear variant exists anymore. Another reason pointed out by Andrew earlier was that cruise missiles are easier to intercept so there's a possibility of the missile being brought down + the warhead remaining complete.
But in the case of say TLAM to Trident D-5 it was deemed that each missile had such different flight profiles, appearance etc that it'd be fairly simple for most relatively high tech nations to be able to properly differentiate the 2 missiles.
I know you didn't mean they were interchangable, what I was merely pointing out was that there was more commonality between sub/VLS TLAM (with more potential scope for interchangabiliy) than MdCN and Storm Shadow as neither pair are directly interchangable.
I doubt they would either, there'd be 2 seperate pools of VLS/sub launched and stocks will be drawn accordingly. Although I wouldn't be surprised if say SSNs had a field day during an operation and surface ships not so much that stocks may be drawn from the VLS pool and be converted to sub-launched. In that scenario interchangability is more likely than VLS MdCN and Storm Shadow.
BAE owns 37.5% but that's it. They're not actually building them as MBDA does it at their site in Stevenage (as Bristol probably doesn't) so in terms of 'us' retaining a sovereign missile capacity it doesn't exist very much. It's no different than BAE owned a stake in Airbus, they owned it partially but did they have much input in terms of designing + manufacturing? Doubt it, Airbus as a company still did that. So whilst they may own a part of MBDA (and see advantages in tailoring ships to fit those weapons) they actually don't contribute to the missiles design and construction AFAIK.
That direction is being set (Perseus + FASGW(H) being 2 examples) by both the RN and MN but in this instance it's the French undermining the British. They've gone ahead with a missile system and improved and upgraded it in a way which they think is best for them and that's it. Did Britain have any role in the development from SCALP to MdCN - originally SCALP Naval or was it purely a French affair?
I wouldn't call the development of MdCN 'the French undermining the British'. The RN & MoD weren't interested in developing it, because we have TLAM. IIRC the French weren't allowed to buy TLAM. They had the choice of nothing, or developing it alone (AFAIK nobody else was willing to lend a hand) - so they did the latter.
I described it as that because 1805 described the UK needing to "give France some strategic direction" otherwise Perseus won't exist + the RN will undermine the French and go with their own solution i.e TLAM.
I just thought that if the RN picking a weapon system without collaboration with the French counted as "undermining" then the reverse could be. Like you say, we've already got TLAM which is why I believe we should be going for VL TLAM rather than going for MdCN and the fact that the UK wasn't interested because we already had TLAM only adds to my opinion that we should go VL TLAM - we've got a system that's still pretty good and works very well so why not stick with it?
If we're running stocks at about 60+ TLAM at any one time, frankly I'd want to avoid any overheads with introducing stocks of another system.
I'm wondering if Type 26 will get some intermediate land attack system more akin to Fireshadow than TLAM and the TLAM duty will stay with the subs? Or is there a direction going forward to bring more TLAM into service as we seem to be using them more frequently in various conflicts ?
If there *isn't* then I formally bin the SSGN suggestion as we just do not have enough missiles in play to make any of the hassle of using an SSBN in that role worth while.
SCALP is second prize when it comes to land attack - TLAM is what you'd buy if you can get your hands on 'em. I suspect it's either similar in terms of cost or a bit cheaper too.
In terms of commonality, that's impossible to fix - I would not want to move away from TLAM for sub use (range, capability..) but I don't believe it's been integrated into Sylver 70 - which is almost certainly going to be the VLS fitted for RN Type 26. It will physically fit however.
I suspect the answer is, 26 isn't getting TLAM, nor is the Type 45.
I'm wondering if Type 26 will get some intermediate land attack system more akin to Fireshadow than TLAM and the TLAM duty will stay with the subs? Or is there a direction going forward to bring more TLAM into service as we seem to be using them more frequently in various conflicts ?
If there *isn't* then I formally bin the SSGN suggestion as we just do not have enough missiles in play to make any of the hassle of using an SSBN in that role worth while.
SCALP is second prize when it comes to land attack - TLAM is what you'd buy if you can get your hands on 'em. I suspect it's either similar in terms of cost or a bit cheaper too.
In terms of commonality, that's impossible to fix - I would not want to move away from TLAM for sub use (range, capability..) but I don't believe it's been integrated into Sylver 70 - which is almost certainly going to be the VLS fitted for RN Type 26. It will physically fit however.
I suspect the answer is, 26 isn't getting TLAM, nor is the Type 45.
Oh no definitely, all i've been saying does count on the UK expanding it's stocks of TLAM and if they plan too then I stick to what I say but if they didn't then I wouldn't. Don't want to hobble our SSN capability.
They probably will go MdCN for the Type 26 though and will most likely sell it to the UK public as navalised Storm Shadow to keep it "British". It's not a particularly bad system and I expect ~1000km+ range is more than adequate for surface escorts.
I suppose if anything it'll provide MBDA with good feedback + data for developing Perseus.
They probably will go MdCN for the Type 26 though and will most likely sell it to the UK public as navalised Storm Shadow to keep it "British". It's not a particularly bad system and I expect ~1000km+ range is more than adequate for surface escorts.
I suppose if anything it'll provide MBDA with good feedback + data for developing Perseus.
My point is we would sometimes be better off letting the French set the strategic direction in defence/aerospace development as it has a greater chance of long term sucess. A comparison between the UK/French might be the "hair and the tortoise".
If we are not there at the beginning the chances of having a major influence is reduced.
You don't need comparable kit you need decent gear a little luck plus a good crew. Bigger? if you’re going to get a sniff of an Ohio (the world’s only BN/GN class) it is likely going to be at best a discreet and fleeting narrowband contact. I won't look at the Falkland’s I remember the event very well; as to how enemy X reacts it's down to the age old who when why.
Distance from target is relevant from a first strike perspective, do the unexpected and you'd be surprised by what you can do with a Bomber I have done dived opposed transits of the north channel in both classes of UK SSBN for instance. The point I was making re launch detection was until that moment the enemy just won't know
Firstly as I said UK TLAM stock was around 64 and I have no reason to think that has changed, so less than 2 Astute loads + probably 24 strike length cells per type 26 prior to the SSBN build so no requirement. Secondly no longer needing to refuel actually means that three boat CASD provides as much availability as four Polaris boats did so I expect they will only build three.
I know.
Well, i'm not foolish enough to comment on the detectability of the UK SSBN fleet because I - like most regular people - have no idea. All I know is that a UK SSBN and a French SSBN about 3 years ago managed to collide with eachother, either it was poor seamanship or the systems to enable those respective subs to remain undetected are of such quality they legitimately didn't know the other was there and i'm more inclined to the latter. Vanguards replacement - which we're talking about - hasn't been designed yet so it'd be even more silly to comment about it.
I'd like your previous service to be checked with the mods if you please bud, it's the internet after all + anyone can claim to be anything
Well during the Libyan crisis the UK - I think - fired around 20 TLAM so either they've allowed the stock to diminish to ~44 or they've replenished it with a following order. If it's been reordered then it hasn't been released like the past one and therefore we have no idea how many the UK will have in it's inventory. Generally when people have asked for specific numbers of TLAM in the House of Commons releases the general reply is "Get stuffed" or WTTE.
Like i've said, I know it's not a requirement but should it be able to dual role if the situation called for it? Plenty of things aren't a requirement but would be great to have, CEC for instance.
Just checkin'
I'm a bit confused, you're saying that we should let the French set the strategic direction in defence/aerospace development but we need to be there in the beginning to have an influence?
Wouldn't letting the French effectively set the standard of what they want initially actually have the reverse effect rather than joint national collaboration on equal footing?
When you say "opposed transits" - do you mean people were trying to find the boat or what ? Fascinated to know more- had a fascinating conversation with a submariner at Northwood (we got off to an interesting start when he pointed out the window away from the bar and told me airily that the bunker for KEYCHAIN was about a hundred metres that way)
(I was just a roadie for the entertainment mind you, I've never served!)
Last edited by a moderator:
Not at all, in any project you need a project manager/leader, but that does not mean they do all the work, and the French always need watching/challenging on workshare.
My heart says that lead role should be the UK, but sadly my head knows the French are better at this. The French have what the UK (and to an extent Germans) lack, a general unity of leadership/direction between Defence Chiefs, Politicians & Industry.
We often know a specific outcome we want, but we don't look a the broader impact that might have.
Phil Hammond (Secretary of State for Defence) made a speech at RUSI yesterday. The speech was on the subject of airpower, few interesting points for the RN:
That last point was expanded on in the Q&A session when he clarified the numbers for such deployments as 12, with the ability to increase numbers should this be an operational deployment that needed more.
The very last question he was asked was on the subject of the second carrier (question asked by Lord West). While he's not promising the second one won't be mothballed, that's a 2015 defence review item, he clearly thinks that the cost of keeping the second carrier on standby so that continuous carrier operation is possible makes sense. A figure of £70m a year was quoted as the cost of doing this.
Full thing is on YouTube
WillS
- F35 is expected to have IOC for land based operations in 2018.
- In that same year the initial flights from the Queen Elizabeth will take place.
- "When deployed outside home waters" the carrier will routinely carry F35s.
That last point was expanded on in the Q&A session when he clarified the numbers for such deployments as 12, with the ability to increase numbers should this be an operational deployment that needed more.
The very last question he was asked was on the subject of the second carrier (question asked by Lord West). While he's not promising the second one won't be mothballed, that's a 2015 defence review item, he clearly thinks that the cost of keeping the second carrier on standby so that continuous carrier operation is possible makes sense. A figure of £70m a year was quoted as the cost of doing this.
Full thing is on YouTube
WillS
Very good speech, thanks for posting the link. He certainly made it clear he thought the £70m would be "pretty good value for money" for the additional capability it would provide.
The discussion about MPA was interesting, he mentioned we have had to accept the "gap in capability for the time being" because we faced an aircraft that looked liked it couldn't fly and was a money sink. I could see P8 orders after 2015
Good comments about industry needing to be: better value for money, competitive/export focused.
Phil Hammond certainly seems more in command of the subject matter than some of his predecessors. There was air of confidence that the budgeting process will be more efficient and provide scope for upsides.
Did I miss something who commented on the detectability of UK SSBN's? Have you heard the term bow blanker it refers to very large and relatively noisy merchant ships which sometimes remain undetected until the they are very close indeed forcing a boat deep. I Stood by Vanguard in build by the way
. Do Seem to be missing a lot who made comment on Successor? Robby Wana’be very disappointing calling me a Walt are you? You should see from my earlier posts that I very rarely post on anything outside of my direct experience. Bud? are you an Elmer?
Couldn’t say beyond what I already have you should note anything I say is already public domain or very none specific.
Some good ideas are others are not; blurring the line between conventional and nuclear forces is not a good idea IMHO mainly for the reason articulated by AndrewMI.
Oh Really I
I know 2 people who got a tour on board HMS Vigilance during her refit when they were doing a Year in Industry (as part of their university course) at Babcock, doesn't mean they're any more well informedDid I miss something who commented on the detectability of UK SSBN's? Have you heard the term bow blanker it refers to very large and relatively noisy merchant ships which sometimes remain undetected until the they are very close indeed forcing a boat deep. I Stood by Vanguard in build by the way
Well, when you were describing what a contact on something like an Ohio would be like I was referring specifically to what I knew about the Vanguards (and then the Successors, considering the situation we're talking about is that boat) in that respect to bring it back towards the UK a bit more. Personally when talk turns to anything remotely like describing what contacts would be like from nuclear submarines i'm highly skeptical of anything because generally if a person makes a call like that they're either telling a lie or breaking the law. and - the internet being the internet - 9/10 times i'm inclined to believe it the former.
Wannabe? By no means. Merely not believing every Tom, Dick and Harry when they claim to be servicemen or ex servicemen on the internet otherwise there's a disproportionately high amount of Delta Force operatives on YouTube.
Either way, this forum has rules about people claming to have served. If you have and can prove it to them then that's fine - no problem- but if you do then you've gotta be prepared to be called out about it (had I served, I would be - it's the logical thing to expect), I could make "Well, when I was in Afghan" or "When I was in CIMIC house in Iraq in '03" comments every so often but that'd do nothing to either prove or disprove service. Just some guy saying something on the internet.
EDIT: I do hope you're not trying to paint me out to be a sourpuss with a "Wah wah wah he served and I haven't so i'll have to go out of my way to get him" attitude, because personally I couldn't give a toss - after I finish University i'm thinking about trying to join the RN as an Air Engineer Officer. Even If I wasn't it wouldn't particularly bother me if someone else has served and I haven't because that'd be pathetic.
As to "are you an Elmer?", that's not a colloquialism i'm particularly familiar with. I meant 'bud' as in the shorter way of saying 'buddy', i.e trying to be friendly.
Then about the 'public domain' bit, I completely understand. I'm just using that info alongside following UK RN usage and making a couple of potential outcomes and guessing which I think would be the most likely. Like I said, following Lybia that pool is something like ~30% smaller so would the RN either resupply or stick with it? I'd go with resupply myself, but like I said - potential outcomes.
Well that's perfectly fine, it is your opinion after all. But for me something to remember is that whilst the USN will not be operating any SSGNs when the Ohio converts are decommissioned but their loss will be felt (alongside the predicted dip in SSN numbers) + they will be missed.
Yup
Last edited: