The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

I know I was making a glib interpretation - which is why i added the 'strategic picture' comment - but I was just making a barebones comment about how AShM are (or certainly were) very potent weapons which can do serious damage to sizable naval vessels and just thought that given this first hand experience of just what can happen, it was an area they should look into considering they are still a valuable component in modern warfare.

I do appreciate an Astute would be doing the seriously heavy hitting

 

[gf0012-aust]

Both Stobie and Swerve I agree with you in isolated cases but my point is valid in the overwhelming number of cases.

To your separate and specific points;
The Germans failed to forsee the impact of aircraft in ASW and they had the most advanced airforce in the world in 1939. They never changed their basic tactics from 14-18 and ultimately failed.

The US and French failed in Vietnam by trying to recreate territorial warfare tactics from WW2.

You make a brilliant point about the military/industrial complex importance in WW11but when that is extrapolated and applied to future conflicts there is a huge difference from the past. The industrial base must be prepared and utilised now, not when conflict starts because we fight with what we have, a point politicians seem to dismiss or totally misunderstand. It seems most of them live in a dream world where we will all have time to mobilize and create a war machine within months.

Anyway, I think we are all in agreeance however, I thought Rob's words were worth some debate.

Cheers

The other thing worth considering is that force planning now is also being influenced by non state actors, and in some significant areas, non state actors engagements are also driving and influencing some of the future tech and policy developments for state on state arsenals

I still come out of meetings where political reps have the philiosophy that there is no forseeable state on state threat that we can't plan ahead or respond in time to, and who are dismissive of non state vampire effects - and as such stripping the military is fair game due to "peace dividend" philosophies holding sway

there's an unfortunate level of arrogance amongst some academics

 

[Resolute]

Spear 3 is <100 kg total weight, according to the MBDA site, < 2 metres long * ca 18cm diameter. FASGW(H) is a sea-skimmer suitable for helicopter launch, not necessarily fast jets. It's 110 kg with a 30kg warhead, 2.5 m by 20 cm.

The MBDA site lists -
Air defence units
Ballistic missile launchers
Defended structures
Fast moving and manoeuvring vehicles
Groups of personnel
Main battle tanks, self-propelled guns, armoured personnel carriers
Naval vessels
as possible targets for Spear 3

There is an excellent article from raes on Meteor and SPEAR.Apparently the F-35 can carry upto 8 SPEAR in its internal weapon bays.I can post link only if my post count is greater than 10

 

[RobWilliams]

Yup, the future plan is rack of 4 SPEAR 3 + Meteor per internal bay

PICTURES: MBDA sharpens Spear missile design for F-35 integration

Although for a while, it'll probably be a Paveway IV + AMRAAM per bay when they enter service.

 

[RobWilliams]

HMS Diamond is back in the UK for Christmas

HMS Diamond returns from her maiden deployment| Royal Navy

After travelling through the Mediterranean she transited the Suez Canal before taking over from sister ship HMS Daring. Diamond then spent the following five months as part of the Combined Task Force, a 27-nation partnership promoting security in the area.

The ship worked with the French Carrier Group in the Mediterranean and three United States Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) in the Middle East, including the escort of the US carriers through the Strait of Hormuz.

Diamond’s fighter controllers exercised with the US Navy’s F18 Hornets and controlled F22 Raptor and F15 Strike Eagle aircraft from the United States Air Force. The ship’s Lynx aircraft also demonstrated its ability to conduct air intercepts for the task groups.

Diamond also exercised with the navies of Australia, Canada, France, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

While conducting counter-piracy operations the ship’s specialist embarked military force carried out assurance visits to local fishermen and traders and held boarding training with regional allies.

Meaning that now there's now currently no T45s on deployment. The next in line to be deployed is HMS Dragon in March next year, my bet is replacing HMS Monmouth in the Gulf who's due to return in 'Spring 2013'.

 

[1805]

Food for thought, if a single Type 23 was always laid up (different ships in rotation), using a similar approach to the LPD, the running cost savngs alone should enable the construction of 3 Rivers over about 9-10 years?

If these were then operated on a crew rotation basis, they could also significantly extend the service life of the Type 23s. If possible, I would not use this to delay the Type 26, but draw the programme out. Type 26 could then be built in batches, to ensure we always had a current up to date product under construction. It could even merge into the replacement of the Type 45s. Production could settle down at a steady 6 a decade.

 

[RobWilliams]

I wouldn't be so sure, from the 2009 Hansard written answers (looking at Wiki there apparently is a figure in thee 24th Nov 2010 written answers, but upon further investigation there isn't anything) the total running cost for the Type 23s, the whole lot, is £340mn.

This makes a 'unit running cost' something closer to £26mn per vessel, if you can get 3 River class OPVs for that money - something which I doubt, the MOD payed £39mn plus the fees even after they were a decade old so brand new ones would probably be more expensive then factor in the extended construction period would more than match the inflation rise of the T23 costs IMO - then I don't see the point in laying up a T23, that sort of money is small change to the MOD it'd be barely noticable.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 09 Sep 2009 (pt 0024)

EDIT: These are the parameters for calculating this 2010 figure

This is based on information primarily from Financial Year 07/08 the last year for which this information is available, and includes typical day-to-day costs such as fuel and manpower and general support costs covering maintenance, repair and equipment spares. Costs for equipment spares are also included, although these are based on Financial Year 08/09 information as this is the most recent information available.

EDIT #2: Not to mention then it'd be a VERY short and easy step for the Govt to say "We don't need this extra frigate at ER as it's getting no use" and decommission the ship completely and knock off a T26 or 2. Not my ideal scenario, but I might accept it if it was just the 1 reduction maybe.

In the ideal scenario we'd keep the escorts and procure a couple of OPVs, something which - looking at the River figures - wouldn't be too impossible to imagine happening.

This was something I thought about the other day, if the first T26 is coming in 2021 then - assuming the idea of 1 being delivered per year - then the last T23 will be bowing out in 2034. If it's St Albans that'll mean 32 years service, not bad.

 

[1805]

I wouldn't be so sure, from the 2009 Hansard written answers (looking at Wiki there apparently is a figure in thee 24th Nov 2010 written answers, but upon further investigation there isn't anything) the total running cost for the Type 23s, the whole lot, is £340mn.

This makes a 'unit running cost' something closer to £26mn per vessel, if you can get 3 River class OPVs for that money - something which I doubt, the MOD payed £39mn plus the fees even after they were a decade old so brand new ones would probably be more expensive then factor in the extended construction period would more than match the inflation rise of the T23 costs IMO - then I don't see the point in laying up a T23, that sort of money is small change to the MOD it'd be barely noticable.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 09 Sep 2009 (pt 0024)

EDIT: These are the parameters for calculating this 2010 figure



EDIT #2: Not to mention then it'd be a VERY short and easy step for the Govt to say "We don't need this extra frigate at ER as it's getting no use" and decommission the ship completely and knock off a T26 or 2. Not my ideal scenario, but I might accept it if it was just the 1 reduction maybe.

In the ideal scenario we'd keep the escorts and procure a couple of OPVs, something which - looking at the River figures - wouldn't be too impossible to imagine happening.

This was something I thought about the other day, if the first T26 is coming in 2021 then - assuming the idea of 1 being delivered per year - then the last T23 will be bowing out in 2034. If it's St Albans that'll mean 32 years service, not bad.

I was going on the cost from Wiki about £25m running costs for a T23 and £5m for an River.

I recon a River would cost no more than £60m even wth a hanger. so over a decade we should be able to buy 3 and operate them for no more than a laid up T23.

However I would not lay up the same ship (maybe only tied up for 9-12 months).

I have been thinking about the RN fear of losing frigates, personally I would rather lose one so save a great number. But rather than laying them up you could just restrict them to home waters, light crew/RNR. Just enough sea time to keep it fully operational. Rest and stop the constabulary work.

I think we could take the 2-3 oldest and run them into the ground so the Type 26 could be brought forward a few years. A few of the newer ones I would rest a lot more and extend there service. The trouble with the proposed model is it builds 13 ships over 13 years. Ok if we can afford to maintain a fleet of 30 escorts. Better to build 13 ships over c20 years. This may not be possible with the current timescales, but we should aim for a 6 big escorts a decade if we want 18-19. Portsmouth & Appledore can then focus on OPVs/small craft for export, which could be built at a slightly higher temp 7-8 a decade. Both yards have in the past been good at exports.

This could be a sustainable industrial strategy....unlike the last attemp which was just rationing.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah, but if you're talking about laying up a T23 and using the savings to run 3 OPVs, you've got to factor in the procurement cost of said OPVs too. Otherwise you end up swallowing the running costs of the OPVs into the savings of the T23 and then having to expand the budget to find the money to buy the OPVs, then you may as well expand the budget anyway to accomodate the +£15mn per year anyway.

If we bought 3 OPVs (using your 60mn value) and included that into the running costs (5mn per year) and compared that to running a T23 (25mn per year)

25n > 180 + 15n
10n > 180
n > 18

Meaning in order for the running costs of a single T23 to be greater than procuring and running 3 OPVs, it'd take 18 years for those 3 OPVs to effectively become cheaper than a T23. I even took it to writing it out line by line for 18 years just to double check the maths was actuallly logical and correct.

The idea of buying and running 3 60mn OPVs being cheaper than a T23 in a decade doesn't work.

T23 cost = 250mn, 3 OPVs = 180mn + (15mn x 10) = 180mn + 150mn = 330mn.

I accept that the same one wouldn't be laid up, but they could easily say the idea of having one laid up is proof that the RN can cope with 12 escorts and strike off an escort from the roster, I don't think it'd be that hard to see happening IMO.

But it is an interesting concept, the reason why people don't want to see the escort force cut more is because it can't handle the jobs it's doing, but these 3 OPVs could negate any RN or RFA vessel needing to be deployed in the Carribean or wherever doing that particular job so that'd be 3 more jobs struck off. In an idea world i'd like to see any potential OPV order placed as well as the T26 order, but I don't know.

 

[1805]

Yeah, but if you're talking about laying up a T23 and using the savings to run 3 OPVs, you've got to factor in the procurement cost of said OPVs too. Otherwise you end up swallowing the running costs of the OPVs into the savings of the T23 and then having to expand the budget to find the money to buy the OPVs, then you may as well expand the budget anyway to accomodate the +£15mn per year anyway.

If we bought 3 OPVs (using your 60mn value) and included that into the running costs (5mn per year) and compared that to running a T23 (25mn per year)

25n > 180 + 15n
10n > 180
n > 18

Meaning in order for the running costs of a single T23 to be greater than procuring and running 3 OPVs, it'd take 18 years for those 3 OPVs to effectively become cheaper than a T23. I even took it to writing it out line by line for 18 years just to double check the maths was actuallly logical and correct.

The idea of buying and running 3 60mn OPVs being cheaper than a T23 in a decade doesn't work.

T23 cost = 250mn, 3 OPVs = 180mn + (15mn x 10) = 180mn + 150mn = 330mn.

I accept that the same one wouldn't be laid up, but they could easily say the idea of having one laid up is proof that the RN can cope with 12 escorts and strike off an escort from the roster, I don't think it'd be that hard to see happening IMO.

But it is an interesting concept, the reason why people don't want to see the escort force cut more is because it can't handle the jobs it's doing, but these 3 OPVs could negate any RN or RFA vessel needing to be deployed in the Carribean or wherever doing that particular job so that'd be 3 more jobs struck off. In an idea world i'd like to see any potential OPV order placed as well as the T26 order, but I don't know.

If the numbers were all from year one, you would be right. Assuming 3 years to build each OPV, you don't have any running cost at all until year 4, then only £5m p.a. till year 7 when it increase to £10m, only at in year 10 is it £15m. Not allowing for inflation it would come in at £240m.

 

[RobWilliams]

True, True.

Anyone else been hearing these rumours that supposedly Warship World has said that "selected" T45s will get quad Harpoon launchers in 2013?

 

[StobieWan]

True, True.

Anyone else been hearing these rumours that supposedly Warship World has said that "selected" T45s will get quad Harpoon launchers in 2013?

Just what you've said from WW - however, there are four Type 22's laid up for disposal, so I'm guessing "selected" means "four of 'em.."

 

[Resolute]

True, True.

Anyone else been hearing these rumours that supposedly Warship World has said that "selected" T45s will get quad Harpoon launchers in 2013?

Yes selected Type 45's will be fitted with Harpoon 1c from 2013

In a related note the candidates for Future Cruise Anti Ship weapon are:

1. MBDA Perseus
2. MultiMission Tomahawk
3. US LRASM

Cheers

 

[spsun100001]

Yes selected Type 45's will be fitted with Harpoon 1c from 2013

In a related note the candidates for Future Cruise Anti Ship weapon are:

1. MBDA Perseus
2. MultiMission Tomahawk
3. US LRASM

Cheers

Would it not make more sense to fit all of the T45's with the rails and infrastructure and then cross deck the missiles to the ships in active service?

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes selected Type 45's will be fitted with Harpoon 1c from 2013

In a related note the candidates for Future Cruise Anti Ship weapon are:

1. MBDA Perseus
2. MultiMission Tomahawk
3. US LRASM

Cheers

I wouldn't be so confident, there were points where defence magazines were publishing that the UK will back out of the JSF program, and look how that turned out.

In regards to the second, I did a quick google of FCASW and all I got where a couple of brief mentions about UK/France creating 2 study contracts with MBDA (i.e Perseus). I reckon those other 2 are creative license on the part of the author, i.e other potential alternatives but nothing more.

EDIT: But I really do like the things we know about Perseus, 5m long and 800kg (roughly 500kg less than StormShadow), Mach 3. Potential for surface and submarine launch for the RN and the whole "multi-warhead" idea where 2 small sub-munitions are deployed before impact to get 3 hits on a larger target OR they can be retained and act as one larger warhead. IIRC the figures were 200kg main munition and each sub-munition would be 50kg.

The only figures being thrown around as far as range goes is that it's able to hit targets out to 300km in 7 minutes for the 'time sensitive' missions. A pretty decent step up IMO over Harpoon.

Main drawback being it's currently just a concept and the only date being thrown around is 2030.

 

[ADMk2]

Would it not make more sense from a "bang for buck" point of view to look at multi-mission Tomahawk for the T45's rather than Harpoon 1C?

Whatever stock the RN still has of Harpoon must be quite old, and 1C has long been superseded by more advanced Harpoon versions. Harpoon 1C would have limited future applicability and supportability but still requires considerable integration efforts onto ships, not presently equipped or "fitted for" them, even in canister launch variations.

Tomahawk however has a significant growth path ahead of it, including added maritime interdiction and moving target engagement modes, addition wsrhead effects etc, plus an upgrade to it's most visible "short-coming", it's subsonic nature, with studies underway into a supercruising variant of the missile.

http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_11_roadmap_Weapons_sp.pdf

Whildt some additional cost may be required (addition of Mk 41 VLS or adaptation of Sylver VLS, if possible) the capability and long term growth benefits would seem to largely outweigh these...

 

[1805]

Would it not make more sense from a "bang for buck" point of view to look at multi-mission Tomahawk for the T45's rather than Harpoon 1C?

Whatever stock the RN still has of Harpoon must be quite old, and 1C has long been superseded by more advanced Harpoon versions. Harpoon 1C would have limited future applicability and supportability but still requires considerable integration efforts onto ships, not presently equipped or "fitted for" them, even in canister launch variations.

Tomahawk however has a significant growth path ahead of it, including added maritime interdiction and moving target engagement modes, addition wsrhead effects etc, plus an upgrade to it's most visible "short-coming", it's subsonic nature, with studies underway into a supercruising variant of the missile.

http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_11_roadmap_Weapons_sp.pdf

Whildt some additional cost may be required (addition of Mk 41 VLS or adaptation of Sylver VLS, if possible) the capability and long term growth benefits would seem to largely outweigh these...

I can't see the RN fitting any strike length VLS on the Type 45s, regardless of its merits. I do feel that whatever eventually replaces Sea Skua, should be fitted to both the Wildcat & Merlin.

 

[tesla2]

NICE very good

 

[ADMk2]

I can't see the RN fitting any strike length VLS on the Type 45s, regardless of its merits. I do feel that whatever eventually replaces Sea Skua, should be fitted to both the Wildcat & Merlin.

Well they would need to if Perseus is to be a viable solution and space and weight was reserved on the T45 to fit strike length VLS (whether Sylver A70 or Mk 41) so the theoretical possibility exists.

BAE and Lockheed Martin have also investigated employing SM-3 Block II from the T45 (and several other European ships including the F-100 series) for BMD duties, so the idea of strike length VLS is considered feasible by some "in the know"...

Funding of course is a separate issue entirely...

 

[StobieWan]

Would it not make more sense from a "bang for buck" point of view to look at multi-mission Tomahawk for the T45's rather than Harpoon 1C?

Whatever stock the RN still has of Harpoon must be quite old, and 1C has long been superseded by more advanced Harpoon versions. Harpoon 1C would have limited future applicability and supportability but still requires considerable integration efforts onto ships, not presently equipped or "fitted for" them, even in canister launch variations.

I suspect the launchers, cannisters, consoles and missiles are all being cannibalised from the four Type 22's laid up awaiting disposal so it's more a case of just fitting what we have already. I'm assuming that there's a support contract already in place for the stock allocated, as T23 uses Harpoon so cost is spread across a fleet of 17 ships, and the missiles must presumably have been rotated back for routine maintenance over the years.

For the future, yes, multi-mode Tomahawk looks very interesting, as does Perseus.