The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Words can't express just how much I like Perseus as an AShM, but as a land attack missile - which MBDA are trying to market it as too - i'm not convinced.

The MdCN and TLAM outrange it by a very large amount (MdCN being the shortest legged of the 2 still has roughly 3x the range of Perseus based on the figures we have and TLAM being something like 6x) and if the warhead of the MdCN is roughly equivalent to Storm Shadow, both TLAM and MdCN have roughly 150kg larger warheads than Perseus.

I know it's more complicated than that, but I wouldn't be in favour of trading in TLAM for a far shorter legged and 'weaker' missile with a massive speed increase. In terms of a comparison to Storm Shadow it compares better, but not in terms of naval land attack munitions IMO.

I accept this is still very academic, considering Perseus is nothing more than a computer generated image at the moment I think.

Personally, multi-mission Tomahawk seems the most promising.

 

[1805]

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...

I would fit strike length VLS to at least a couple of Type 45 as soon as I could; until CVF/F35 are in service, additional strike capability should be a priority.

I can't think of a greater example of the RNs muddled approach to equipment procurement than if a ship was fitted with both Sylver & Mk 41! I hope we now focus on MBDA MdCN and a BMD Aster.

The UK needs to focus on ensuring it has as much influence over MBDA as possible.

 

[ADMk2]

I would fit strike length VLS to at least a couple of Type 45 as soon as I could; until CVF/F35 are in service, additional strike capability should be a priority.

I can't think of a greater example of the RNs muddled approach to equipment procurement than if a ship was fitted with both Sylver & Mk 41! I hope we now focus on MBDA MdCN and a BMD Aster.

The UK needs to focus on ensuring it has as much influence over MBDA as possible.

Well the Sylver A-70 launcher can theoretically handle the TacTom but it would have to be integrated onto that launcher, something that would probably cost a small fortune, on top of integrating the weapn into the T45 combat system, with very little opportunity to recoup the NRE for such an effort, so it's probably unlikely...

I agree though, the T45 would become an extremely useful platform if it could add 16-32 Tomahawks to it's existing mission...

If that one weapon could also fill a maritime strike role as well, then this vessel would become an extremely potent capability in all roles...

 

[1805]

Well the Sylver A-70 launcher can theoretically handle the TacTom but it would have to be integrated onto that launcher, something that would probably cost a small fortune, on top of integrating the weapn into the T45 combat system, with very little opportunity to recoup the NRE for such an effort, so it's probably unlikely...

I agree though, the T45 would become an extremely useful platform if it could add 16-32 Tomahawks to it's existing mission...

If that one weapon could also fill a maritime strike role as well, then this vessel would become an extremely potent capability in all roles...

Two areas that the RN should make a priority, with the likely engagements it could face, should be BMD & additional cruise missile capability. Both of which would require A70 VLS. The only ships that have the space/opportunity are the Type 45s. I would worry less about long range naval strike, ever the Harpoon there are plenty on Type 23 & the Wildcats have Skua. When FASGW (H) eventually comes it it should be fitted to Merlin as well. I can't understand why the RN plans to operate a mixed fleet of both Wildcat & Merlin. If Wildcat had been a light liaison aircraft and cheap but then are expensive.

 

[Resolute]

Well the Sylver A-70 launcher can theoretically handle the TacTom but it would have to be integrated onto that launcher, something that would probably cost a small fortune, on top of integrating the weapn into the T45 combat system, with very little opportunity to recoup the NRE for such an effort, so it's probably unlikely...

I agree though, the T45 would become an extremely useful platform if it could add 16-32 Tomahawks to it's existing mission...

If that one weapon could also fill a maritime strike role as well, then this vessel would become an extremely potent capability in all roles...

For having Tomahawks on T 45 they need Mk 41.Using Sylver A70 and Integrating Tomahawk with it is expensive and tedious.

 

[StobieWan]

For having Tomahawks on T 45 they need Mk 41.Using Sylver A70 and Integrating Tomahawk with it is expensive and tedious.

Probably why ADMK2 said

"Well the Sylver A-70 launcher can theoretically handle the TacTom but it would have to be integrated onto that launcher, something that would probably cost a small fortune, on top of integrating the weapn into the T45 combat system, with very little opportunity to recoup the NRE for such an effort, so it's probably unlikely..."

Unless MBDA do the legwork for TLAM it's either MK41 or box launchers on deck. Mk143's might fit into the space being used by the Harpoon launchers about to be fitted (they are bigger but there might be room..)

Sticking them in a VLS might be neat, but they work just fine out of a box.

 

[swerve]

Unless there's a change of policy, there's no point spending lots of money to fit Tomahawk to Type 45. We don't keep enough in stock to fill up our SSNs. Why spend money on launchers for weapons we don't have?

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose its a question of what will cost less in the long run, integrating the missile into the existing launcher or integrating the existing launcher into the platform. Other factors, would the capability delivered be worth the cost, could something else (missile or platform) deliver the same or similar capability at less cost?

I find it interesting that while the UK is regared at being better at developing platforms (ships) than the US the opposite is true for combat systems. Logic would dictate that the best of both worlds would be a UK platform with a US combat system.

An AEGIS / SPY3 Type 45 was postulated but rejected for Australias AWD program imagine if this or even a SPY1D(V) solution had been the RNs baseline for the Darings? Tomahawk, no problem, SM-3 and ABM capability easy, SM-6....Mk-41 can even fire Aster and the ExLS should have no issue with Sea Ceptor. Infact you could even have interleaved an indigenous combat system with AEGIS (as Australia has done) to permit stand alone integration as required, i.e. AEGIS becomes a part of a larger CS rather than being the whole.

Sometimes I wonder if the UKs selection of Euro solutions over US ones has increased costs and reduced capability and flexibility.

 

[RobWilliams]

I highly suspect that picking MdCN over TLAM will give us less capability at more cost. Storm Shadow cost the UK £790,000 so comparing that to the cost of TLAM (TLAM Blk IV being £870,000 and BlkIII at £1.1mn), chances are it'd be substantially more expensive to go TLAM. Being able to launch a cruise missile at a range of ~1000km from a surface ship in the RN isn't that bad either

Although, the main big plus for the UK at going for European solutions is that the RN get's considerably more input into the types of missiles it needs to suit it's specific requirements than picking the US alternative in a 'take it or leave it' scenario, it'll also lead to greater commonality within Europe and more importantly France which should be a plus considering the whole plan of the RN + MN merging on larger carrier based operations.

It'll always be the case that European solutions in some cases will be pretty decent and other times not so great, Aster 30 - for example - has successfully intercepted a drone travelling as Mach 2.5 at an altitude less than 5m. I know that chances are it's US equivalent can do that but I'm pretty chuffed with it and more than happy to see them packed in a T45. BMD capability is being worked on in Aster 20 Blk2 IIRC.

Generally, once Europe realises that not every country has to develop their own solution and collaberation on projects to create larger order numbers happens more and more, you may see European capability (which isn't that bad to be honest) paired up with economies of scale (the main stumbling block with European missiles). The best way of going about this is really pairing up with the French.

 

[Volkodav]

I highly suspect that picking MdCN over TLAM will give us less capability at more cost. Storm Shadow cost the UK £790,000 so comparing that to the cost of TLAM (TLAM Blk IV being £870,000 and BlkIII at £1.1mn), chances are it'd be substantially more expensive to go TLAM. Being able to launch a cruise missile at a range of ~1000km from a surface ship in the RN isn't that bad either

Although, the main big plus for the UK at going for European solutions is that the RN get's considerably more input into the types of missiles it needs to suit it's specific requirements than picking the US alternative in a 'take it or leave it' scenario, it'll also lead to greater commonality within Europe and more importantly France which should be a plus considering the whole plan of the RN + MN merging on larger carrier based operations.

It'll always be the case that European solutions in some cases will be pretty decent and other times not so great, Aster 30 - for example - has successfully intercepted a drone travelling as Mach 2.5 at an altitude less than 5m. I know that chances are it's US equivalent can do that but I'm pretty chuffed with it and more than happy to see them packed in a T45. BMD capability is being worked on in Aster 20 Blk2 IIRC.

Generally, once Europe realises that not every country has to develop their own solution and collaberation on projects to create larger order numbers happens more and more, you may see European capability (which isn't that bad to be honest) paired up with economies of scale (the main stumbling block with European missiles). The best way of going about this is really pairing up with the French.

Yes but why exclude the US all together? The majority of their systems are very good and many could claim to be best in class with the added advantage of very large war stocks backed by an extremely robust production capability. By intgerating US systems you pretty much ensure you have what you need when you need it instead of waiting years for the Euro solution to deliver something would have been better if it was available when you needed it.

 

[RobWilliams]

I didn't say we should exclude the US altogether, what I did say was that European based procurement is better for the RN as it has a greater say in current and future missile designs for its ships. I'd love to have TLAM integrated into A70.

That's the million dollar question, but if the situation is as clear cut as you make it out to be then presumably you wonder why people buy European products at all.

 

[Volkodav]

I didn't say we should exclude the US altogether, what I did say was that European based procurement is better for the RN as it has a greater say in current and future missile designs for its ships. I'd love to have TLAM integrated into A70.

That's the million dollar question, but if the situation is as clear cut as you make it out to be then presumably you wonder why people buy European products at all.

Well to be honest Australias procurement experience hasn't been too good with the MRH-90, Tiger or MU-90. There have been issues with the AWD as well although not as severe due to it being a modified inservice design, the problems have predominately due to Australian governments permitting shipbuilding skills to degrade as well as a number of supply chain related issues. The FMS side has worked very well in comparision.

I think it is worth noting that Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and Denmark have all to one degree or another opted for a mix of US and European systems while only France, Italy and the UK have gone for Aster, but each combining it with a different combat system, radar configuration on a grand total of 14 ships in 4 different classes / variations.

How many different classes of ship use Standard / ESSM vs Astor, how many use AEGIS vs other systems? It is quite telling when you think about it.

RAM - US / German
ESSM - Multi national
SM-3 - US / Japanese
Nulka - US / Australian

 

[ADMk2]

Unless there's a change of policy, there's no point spending lots of money to fit Tomahawk to Type 45. We don't keep enough in stock to fill up our SSNs. Why spend money on launchers for weapons we don't have?

Are all the VLS cells on T45 completely filled with Aster 15 and 30 all the time? I highly doubt it. It's the same argument here. Why bother spending money on all those VLS cells then?

I imagine like most military forces, the ability to ramp up capability for wartime levels, rather than peacetime levels of capability is a significant factor in the capability is chosen for the RN?

I simply proposed the Tomahawk integration because:

A. Anti-ship missile capability is being sought for the T45 series apparently. Tactical Tomahawk Block IV with maritime interdiction mode has this capability.

B. It's a weapon system currently in the RN inventory with a much stronger, long term future in the RN, than Harpoon.

C. It has multi-mission capability, adding long range land attack capability against fixed and moving targets, it also significantly adds to your network centric strike warfare capability, unlike Harpoon 1C and has a much greater growth path ahead of it in years to come.

Personally I hope RAN heads this way in years to come.

 

[swerve]

There's quite a difference. The number of cells on Type 45 was calculated to be what was needed (assuming, I expect, big margins of error) in a high risk scenario. Most of the time, there's no such scenario, so no need to fill all the cells. The missiles last longer if they're stored on land, so best to leave them there when not needed aboard ship, but AFAIK we have bought enough Aster to fill all the cells on our Type 45s.

We have never bought anywhere near enough Tomahawk to give our currently active (ignoring those in refit) SSNs a full load, even assuming a normal load of torpedoes. It's never been felt necessary. The ratio of space to weapons is very different from that for Aster. So why do we need to add launchers for them?

I think that the MoD feels this is a solution looking for a problem. & the RN isn't asking for TLAM tubes on Type 45. It is asking for CEC, & some other things, when there's money. It doesn't feel short of anti-ship capability, either, & I suspect the installation of Harpoon on some Type 45s is seen as a self & fleet defence measure, not offensive.

There's an argument that the new TASM (the old one having been retired long ago) is also a solution looking for a problem. If you can find & target an enemy ship at the ranges of Tomahawk, you should be able to sink it without having to wait an hour or two for a Tomahawk to get there.

Your argument A hasn't been thought through. We're fitting missiles & launchers we already own, taken from retired ships, to Type 45, in space allocated for exactly that purpose. Minimal spending, no need to cut the ships open.

Your argument C doesn't apply - and you implicitly recognise this in argument B. We already have TLAM, & we have launchers for it. We would not be adding anything by sticking Mk 41 strike length VLS on Type 45, except more platforms to launch it from - and that is a very low priority for the RN.

Our budget is far too tight for comfort already. What do you propose we do without to "add" this capability we already have?

 

[StobieWan]

I think it is worth noting that Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and Denmark have all to one degree or another opted for a mix of US and European systems while only France, Italy and the UK have gone for Aster, but each combining it with a different combat system, radar configuration on a grand total of 14 ships in 4 different classes / variations.

How many different classes of ship use Standard / ESSM vs Astor, how many use AEGIS vs other systems? It is quite telling when you think about it.

Telling how? Sea Dart had one international customer ever, and it's still the most successful and combat proven ship launched Air Defence missile ever. Aster has four customers (France, Italy, UK, Singapore) and it may pick up additional customers. Standard has been around for a fair old time, about ten or more years longer than Aster and with a wider installed base, ESSM follows quite naturally. I don't think sales success is too much of a predictor for technical excellence - they may come hand in hand and they may be totally divorced.

Aster appears to work fine, brings some money back to the countries involved in the program and keeps a technical base alive.

 

[1805]

Telling how? Sea Dart had one international customer ever, and it's still the most successful and combat proven ship launched Air Defence missile ever. Aster has four customers (France, Italy, UK, Singapore) and it may pick up additional customers. Standard has been around for a fair old time, about ten or more years longer than Aster and with a wider installed base, ESSM follows quite naturally. I don't think sales success is too much of a predictor for technical excellence - they may come hand in hand and they may be totally divorced.

Aster appears to work fine, brings some money back to the countries involved in the program and keeps a technical base alive.

Agreed its still early days with Aster. Also the Saudi Navy has Aster 15, the French and Italians will have the land based solution. The addition of the RN to this list is a big plus to critical mass. There could be a case for the RN to acquire a land based system for the Falklands, maybe more cost effective than a permanently basing Typhoon (although we do own them already) at Stanley. Thinking of defence of the Falklands could we investigate the cost effectiveness of lorry based shore batteries reusing the Harpoon form the Type 22s, maybe even fitting on HMS Clyde. If we 3 x 4 for shore batteries, 1 x 4 for Clyde, there would still be enough for a couple of Type 45 to have 2 x 4.

 

[swerve]

I'm pretty sure those Harpoons are all going to be fitted to Type 45s. Also, I think Clyde would find it hard to target them effectively (& where would they go?), & as for shore batteries - again, targeting (it'd be a waste to use Harpoon in a horizon-limited system), & doesn't it rather miss the point of the Royal Navy to give the Falklands priority over everything else?

 

[1805]

If the RN fits some A70s to the Type 26, there is the potential to have a mix of Aster 30s & land attack cruise missiles. I don't know how moveable Sylver launchers could be, but maybe the potential to swap out some A50s from the Type 45, with some A70s. Both classes would then have the flexibility to have a mixed battery.

Thinking about it how difficult would it be to give Aster 30 a limited anti ship capablity, is a heft missile travelling fast, it is bound to make a mess of anything it hits.

 

[1805]

I'm pretty sure those Harpoons are all going to be fitted to Type 45s. Also, I think Clyde would find it hard to target them effectively (& where would they go?), & as for shore batteries - again, targeting (it'd be a waste to use Harpoon in a horizon-limited system), & doesn't it rather miss the point of the Royal Navy to give the Falklands priority over everything else?

I am pretty sure they will end up on the Type 45s as well; the RN has shown a remarkable ability to only think "in the box" over the last 40 years.

Could the Harpoon be targeted by some strange flying machine....a plane or even a helicopter? How much relative value would adding Harpoon to Type 45 provide anyway?

 

[RobWilliams]

If the RN fits some A70s to the Type 26, there is the potential to have a mix of Aster 30s & land attack cruise missiles. I don't know how moveable Sylver launchers could be, but maybe the potential to swap out some A50s from the Type 45, with some A70s. Both classes would then have the flexibility to have a mixed battery.

Thinking about it how difficult would it be to give Aster 30 a limited anti ship capablity, is a heft missile travelling fast, it is bound to make a mess of anything it hits.

There is the potential for a mixture like that, but i'm not sure how much i'd be in favour of it. A Type 26 with CEC using a Type 45 radar picture then maybe, but otherwise i'd like to see the silos for land attack and ASuW missiles primarily as any sort of AAW capability it could dish out would be moderate at best. Especially if you're thinking about mixing up the current (48) loadout of the Type 45s, every Aster 30 put in a Type 26 would serve the fleet much more effectively in a Type 45.

According to Beedall, the Type 45 has the space to be fully kitted out with A70 launchers - if my interpretation of the comment is correct - thanks to the fact that the silos aren't flush with the deck. He goes on to comment about the potential to replace those modules because of this feature in the potential future, so swapping A50 out with A70 shouldn't be much of a problem. Certainly easier than swapping out for Mk41 I would assume.

The PAAMS Aster VLS missile silo has been raised by one deck so that in the future the DCN Sylver missile launchers could be replaced by deeper launchers (such as the strike length Lockheed-Martin Mk.41 VLS) which are able to accommodate a greater range of weapons. The Type 45 will initially carry 48 Sylver A50 launchers, but the ship is designed to carry up to 64 - including strike length Mk 41 or Sylver A70 - and full space, services and structural provision has been made so that fit of the extra silos is very easy.

Navy Matters | Type 45 Section

The most ideal solution would be A70s across the board rather than a mixture of A70/A50 on both platforms. To me the next best solution would be the Type 45 with A50 + 16 A70 with Type 26 with 24 A70.