The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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.



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.

I agree A70s across the board would have been better. But if they took out 2 x 8 A50 and fitted A70, they could take the opportunity to top up with the full complement of VLS (another 2 x 8 VLS?). The A70 could take Aster 30, MdCN & BMD Block 2.

1 x 8 A50 in each Type 26 might not add much value if the Aster 30 was not compatable with the radars and we don't get CEC.

 

[RobWilliams]

That's the bit I don't like, if the intention is to swap A70s from the Type 26 for A50s in the Type 45, if anything the capability of the Type 45 would be slightly increased and the Type 26 will be significantly decreased. After all, the current plan is 24 VLS so to swap 8 of them for shorter and more handicapped silos seems to be a completely unacceptable scenario.

The only missiles in the RN inventory that'll be compatable for A50 are Aster 15/30 AFAIK, not sure if Perseus would fit in the future as some sources say <5m whereas others say <=5m as the maximum length. Even then if Perseus does fit, it'd just be sooooo much easier to use all A70s than a mixture.

What'd that provide? A significantly hobbled Type 26 in terms of land attack and ASuW which can throw up a few Asters if it needed to as well as CAMM (a really jack of all trades ship in that case) and a Type 45 which can lob a few cruise missiles.

Like I said, IMO those 8 Aster which would end up in a Type 26 would be far more valuable in a Type 45 and i'd much rather like seeing a Type 26 stacked full of cruise missiles.

The only real scenario i'd like to see Aster in a Type 26 is with another bank of 8 or 16 cells in a dedicated AAW variant with CEC. Not likely at all. In the more realistic scenario i'd add the extra 16 A70s to the Type 45s and use them for whatever is deemed neccesary for the deployment so could be anything.

 

[1805]

That's the bit I don't like, if the intention is to swap A70s from the Type 26 for A50s in the Type 45, if anything the capability of the Type 45 would be slightly increased and the Type 26 will be significantly decreased. After all, the current plan is 24 VLS so to swap 8 of them for shorter and more handicapped silos seems to be a completely unacceptable scenario.

The only missiles in the RN inventory that'll be compatable for A50 are Aster 15/30 AFAIK, not sure if Perseus would fit in the future as some sources say <5m whereas others say <=5m as the maximum length. Even then if Perseus does fit, it'd just be sooooo much easier to use all A70s than a mixture.

What'd that provide? A significantly hobbled Type 26 in terms of land attack and ASuW which can throw up a few Asters if it needed to as well as CAMM (a really jack of all trades ship in that case) and a Type 45 which can lob a few cruise missiles.

Like I said, IMO those 8 Aster which would end up in a Type 26 would be far more valuable in a Type 45 and i'd much rather like seeing a Type 26 stacked full of cruise missiles.

The only real scenario i'd like to see Aster in a Type 26 is with another bank of 8 or 16 cells in a dedicated AAW variant with CEC. Not likely at all. In the more realistic scenario i'd add the extra 16 A70s to the Type 45s and use them for whatever is deemed neccesary for the deployment so could be anything.

It would not compromise the Type 45, the A70 can handle Aster 30 & the BMD versions. Thats said I think its probably taking pull through/recyclng to far, as the timings are not very aligned.

 

[RobWilliams]

I didn't actually mention that the Type 45 would suffer from it, I did suggest it may experience a modest increase in capability if such a development occured

But to me, that mild increase doesn't seem to balance out the hobbling of the Type 26 main silo IMO. I'd be better just to add the 16 A70s to the Type 45 and use that for whatever - MdCN/Aster 30 Blk2/Aster 30 - is felt to be required for that particular deployment.

 

[1805]

I didn't actually mention that the Type 45 would suffer from it, I did suggest it may experience a modest increase in capability if such a development occured

But to me, that mild increase doesn't seem to balance out the hobbling of the Type 26 main silo IMO. I'd be better just to add the 16 A70s to the Type 45 and use that for whatever - MdCN/Aster 30 Blk2/Aster 30 - is felt to be required for that particular deployment.

I would still take out A50s, even if they could not be recycled, as 16 does not give much capacity with the need for the longer ceil for Blk 2 Aster. The increase/decrease would be the same between classes however 1 x 8?

 

[RobWilliams]

True, true. But going from none to 16 in one fell swoop isn't too bad. Is the Royal Navy even asking for BMD capability for the Type 45? that's something i'd like to know.

The Type 26 doesn't have enough cells to be playing around with and swapping out for shorter cells, all it does is remove the capability from the ship.

It'd be similar to swapping out some A50s on the Type 45 to A43, bear with me a second.

A43 can still hold Aster 15 right? So it'd still be just fine as far as PAAMS is concerned. But would you want to remove the capacity to ever carry Aster 30's for the same role in that slot? I sure wouldn't, the same idea applies to the Type 26, should you remove the capacity for cruise missiles - the primary reason for the silo IMO - just because it's good to recycle the leftover cells and jam in a missile which won't ever be as effective as it would be on it's natural platform? No.

Personally, the Type 26 should remain as it is, 24 x A70 for land attack/ASuW. In a decent scenario add more cells to the Type 45 but no way in hell would I ever consider swapping 8 A70 for 8 A50 on a Type 26 be a good thing. No matter where those A70s are put.

What's the point in making a fleet of 6 ships a bit better at the sake of making a fleet of 13 ships worse?

 

[StobieWan]

Some UK funds have been spent on getting the S8150 to work up for BMD work on a test range in Scotland I believe - so there's a trickle along effect. Aster 30 Block 1 will do BMD and fits into A50 so job's a good 'un.


This seems to suggest Block 2 is a similar length to block 1 NT

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Phil_Jackson.pdf

I think it'd be important to have strike length in Type 26, largely because there'd be feck all point in putting A50 into the bloody thing - it's already got CAMM silos on board so that's air defence taken care of and I don't think there's anything that's *not* air defence related that fits into A50.

 

[1805]

True, true. But going from none to 16 in one fell swoop isn't too bad. Is the Royal Navy even asking for BMD capability for the Type 45? that's something i'd like to know.

The Type 26 doesn't have enough cells to be playing around with and swapping out for shorter cells, all it does is remove the capability from the ship.

It'd be similar to swapping out some A50s on the Type 45 to A43, bear with me a second.

A43 can still hold Aster 15 right? So it'd still be just fine as far as PAAMS is concerned. But would you want to remove the capacity to ever carry Aster 30's for the same role in that slot? I sure wouldn't, the same idea applies to the Type 26, should you remove the capacity for cruise missiles - the primary reason for the silo IMO - just because it's good to recycle the leftover cells and jam in a missile which won't ever be as effective as it would be on it's natural platform? No.

Personally, the Type 26 should remain as it is, 24 x A70 for land attack/ASuW. In a decent scenario add more cells to the Type 45 but no way in hell would I ever consider swapping 8 A70 for 8 A50 on a Type 26 be a good thing. No matter where those A70s are put.

What's the point in making a fleet of 6 ships a bit better at the sake of making a fleet of 13 ships worse?

I'm not to fussed about recycling A50s, although I do wonder if a lower cost radar option could exist for some Type 26, which could utilise Aster 30s (RSN Formidable Herakles?). The priority for cruise missiles should be the Type 45, they are in service now and have the space. It looks like the Type 26 will get the capability, from what has been released so far, but that's still a long way off.

I don't know if the RN is pushing for BMD either, I have just assumed it would be a high priority, sadly with the RN it would not surprise if they were not. However it would be very disappointing, when you consider the focus in other navies, largely driven by experience in the First Gulf War with Scuds and the known focus of Iran on improved versions.

 

[ADMk2]

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.

You are confirming my exact point. I'm proposing the installation of a Tomahawk capability on the Type 45. Not that EVERY cell be filled permanently with them, just as the Aster cells aren't likely to be permanently filled now and even the full number of Harpoon canisters aren't always carried on the ships they are being taken from, for the very same reason.

As with every other precision guided weapon, any expected operational scenario will see the ships armed with their full capability only as long as the available stores can last.

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?

Why did the RN propose Tomahawk for the Type 45 in the first place? They see a value in the capability from the ships in addition to that provided by the submarine fleet...

Again, I never proposed the entire RN warstock of Tomahawk be carried...

However if you like one could make the EXACT same points about Harpoon. What's your warstock of those weapons like? Can the Type 23's carry the entire warstock that the UK has? When was the last time the UK bought a single Harpoon missile? Why would you need them on Type 45 when Type 23 already has them and so on?

I get the point of Harpoon is to add capability at little overall extra cost, however extra cost IS planned to be incurred through the development of new types of weapons that will undoubtedly require new launching mechanisms.

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.

I don't. I get the feeling the reason Type 45 doesn't have them already is mostly because of inter-service rivalry. The RN First Sea Lord has already testified to the UK Parliament that RN wants the Type 45's to have the capability.

As for cost, a set of 6 (x8) Mk 41 VLS would cost the UK about $200m. An initial warstock of 48 weapons, would have set you back about $50-$55m and the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control Systems and software would have set you back between $60-80m. At worst you'd have been up for about $300-$320m to fit out the fleet with a basic TacTom capability and the cost would have been far less during construction than during subsequent refits.

Spain's cost to fit out 5 F-100 series destroyers with TacTom plus an initial warstock of weapons was $156m, though they already had the Mk 41's...

Despite this the RAF tri-service Director of Equipment Capability - Deep Strike (DEC(DS)) didn't consider it a pressing requirement and ruled against it...

The RN obviously didn't agree with this as they managed to argue for space, weight and the ability to add additional strike length cells to be reserved within the design and you only need that much room for long range land attack or BMD weapons.

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.

It's an argument some could make, but it's a poor one, given multiple standoff weapon manufacturers are adding maritime attack and moving target attack capability modes to their long range weapon solutions... The idea clearly is to seek bank for buck from the available weapons a force maintains. The same fundamental design ideas are being promoted for Perseus and other UK based weapons I believe.

But If you had a target to hit at 1600k's how exactly are you going to engage it by yourself, more quickly? A supersonic weapon would sure, but how many anti-ship capable supersonics does the UK maintain? Besides, Tomahawk is heading towards being supersonic capable anyway. I'm sure the UK will be making future Tomahawk purchases...

Out of interest, besides subs, what long ranged anti-ship missile capability does Britain have at present? Harpoon 1C obviously and Brimstone 2 for a light, short-ranged weapon, but what about the RAF? What do they use for the heavier role? Tornado and Harpoon?

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.

Sure but that's only an interim idea at best. Any longer term solution is going to require coin. A TacTom based solution is likely to be cheaper for the RN than any other new system, given you'll again have the ability to fit missiles you already own...

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.

You'd be adding the same thing Harpoon is going to give the Type 45's, namely expanded capability across different mission sets. The only difference is that Tomahawk and the latest variants of TacTom offer far more capability against a much broader set of missions than any Harpoon variant.

And as to not adding anything er, do your subs go everywhere a Type 45 might and why did the RN even bother getting Tomahawk in the first place? RAF has Storm Shadow right?

Why bother adding Harpoon to the Type 45 if that is your mindset? The 4.5 inch gun and the Wildcat helos will provide defensive anti-ship capability afterall and the Type 23's can already fire Harpoon1C...

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

There's no "fat" at all within the budget to find $300m or no chance of additional funds being made available at all, or did those new Block 1B Phalanx guns the Type 45's are getting, just appear out of thin air? In either case, I believe that the UK Defence Secretary made an announcement along these lines not so long ago:

“the MoD budget has headroom of £8bn over the next 10 years for potential new programmes. The Armed Forces Committee will prioritise which projects to commit to when necessary, and not before.”

RN has the capability to launch Tomahawk, yes. At present that capability also unavoidably reveals you have a submarine in the AO too. Type 45 + TacTom would alleviate that issue somewhat as well...

 

[1805]

You are confirming my exact point. I'm proposing the installation of a Tomahawk capability on the Type 45. Not that EVERY cell be filled permanently with them, just as the Aster cells aren't likely to be permanently filled now and even the full number of Harpoon canisters aren't always carried on the ships they are being taken from, for the very same reason.

As with every other precision guided weapon, any expected operational scenario will see the ships armed with their full capability only as long as the available stores can last.



Why did the RN propose Tomahawk for the Type 45 in the first place? They see a value in the capability from the ships in addition to that provided by the submarine fleet...

Again, I never proposed the entire RN warstock of Tomahawk be carried...

However if you like one could make the EXACT same points about Harpoon. What's your warstock of those weapons like? Can the Type 23's carry the entire warstock that the UK has? When was the last time the UK bought a single Harpoon missile? Why would you need them on Type 45 when Type 23 already has them and so on?

I get the point of Harpoon is to add capability at little overall extra cost, however extra cost IS planned to be incurred through the development of new types of weapons that will undoubtedly require new launching mechanisms.



I don't. I get the feeling the reason Type 45 doesn't have them already is mostly because of inter-service rivalry. The RN First Sea Lord has already testified to the UK Parliament that RN wants the Type 45's to have the capability.

As for cost, a set of 6 (x8) Mk 41 VLS would cost the UK about $200m. An initial warstock of 48 weapons, would have set you back about $50-$55m and the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control Systems and software would have set you back between $60-80m. At worst you'd have been up for about $300-$320m to fit out the fleet with a basic TacTom capability and the cost would have been far less during construction than during subsequent refits.

Spain's cost to fit out 5 F-100 series destroyers with TacTom plus an initial warstock of weapons was $156m, though they already had the Mk 41's...

Despite this the RAF tri-service Director of Equipment Capability - Deep Strike (DEC(DS)) didn't consider it a pressing requirement and ruled against it...

The RN obviously didn't agree with this as they managed to argue for space, weight and the ability to add additional strike length cells to be reserved within the design and you only need that much room for long range land attack or BMD weapons.



It's an argument some could make, but it's a poor one, given multiple standoff weapon manufacturers are adding maritime attack and moving target attack capability modes to their long range weapon solutions... The idea clearly is to seek bank for buck from the available weapons a force maintains. The same fundamental design ideas are being promoted for Perseus and other UK based weapons I believe.

But If you had a target to hit at 1600k's how exactly are you going to engage it by yourself, more quickly? A supersonic weapon would sure, but how many anti-ship capable supersonics does the UK maintain? Besides, Tomahawk is heading towards being supersonic capable anyway. I'm sure the UK will be making future Tomahawk purchases...

Out of interest, besides subs, what long ranged anti-ship missile capability does Britain have at present? Harpoon 1C obviously and Brimstone 2 for a light, short-ranged weapon, but what about the RAF? What do they use for the heavier role? Tornado and Harpoon?



Sure but that's only an interim idea at best. Any longer term solution is going to require coin. A TacTom based solution is likely to be cheaper for the RN than any other new system, given you'll again have the ability to fit missiles you already own...



You'd be adding the same thing Harpoon is going to give the Type 45's, namely expanded capability across different mission sets. The only difference is that Tomahawk and the latest variants of TacTom offer far more capability against a much broader set of missions than any Harpoon variant.

And as to not adding anything er, do your subs go everywhere a Type 45 might and why did the RN even bother getting Tomahawk in the first place? RAF has Storm Shadow right?

Why bother adding Harpoon to the Type 45 if that is your mindset? The 4.5 inch gun and the Wildcat helos will provide defensive anti-ship capability afterall and the Type 23's can already fire Harpoon1C...


There's no "fat" at all within the budget to find $300m or no chance of additional funds being made available at all, or did those new Block 1B Phalanx guns the Type 45's are getting, just appear out of thin air? In either case, I believe that the UK Defence Secretary made an announcement along these lines not so long ago:



RN has the capability to launch Tomahawk, yes. At present that capability also unavoidably reveals you have a submarine in the AO too. Type 45 + TacTom would alleviate that issue somewhat as well...

If it makes sense to fit the Type 26 with cruise missiles, then it surely makes sense to fit them to the Type 45. I think the logic points to MdCN, the RN needs to be onboard with an industrial strategy and not caught out by the RAF, being seen to be more aligned.

The next decade is going to be very tough for the RAF and they will fight hard, they face a "perfect storm" with:

The arrival of the F35bs likely to include the exit of the Tornados.
AAC Apache effectively replacing the Harrier in the battlefield role.
RN getting large numbers of cruise missiles (24 per Type 26 is enough).
The CVF will transform aviation provision.

The RN needs to avoid being seen in the wrong light, just when everything seems to be going its way.

 

[Volkodav]

If it makes sense to fit the Type 26 with cruise missiles, then it surely makes sense to fit them to the Type 45. I think the logic points to MdCN, the RN needs to be onboard with an industrial strategy and not caught out by the RAF, being seen to be more aligned.

The next decade is going to be very tough for the RAF and they will fight hard, they face a "perfect storm" with:

The arrival of the F35bs likely to include the exit of the Tornados.
AAC Apache effectively replacing the Harrier in the battlefield role.
RN getting large numbers of cruise missiles (24 per Type 26 is enough).
The CVF will transform aviation provision.

The RN needs to avoid being seen in the wrong light, just when everything seems to be going its way.

IMO the RAF did it to them selves by winning the staff level battles too well.

They managed to gain control of RN FAA fixed wing aviation and then killed it, they managed to kill off the Jaguar and Harrier before suitable replacements for them in the CAS roles were ready. Disposed of the UKs MPA capability and were looking to kill Sentinel as well. Basically they waged a campaign over the last couple of decades to gain control of as many "purple" capabilities as they could and then when money got tight they were the first to go.

End result when the proverbial hit the fan the RAF were not up to the job at hand and the Army and RN had to muddle through with what they had, which was predominantly rotary wing assets press-ganged into un-intended but vital missions. The RAF were then left to explain why the UK ended up needing the capabilities the RAF said were superfluous. It sort of discredited any opposition they could put up against the RN and Army retaining or expanding vital capabilities that were needed and could be justified by recent operation experience.

The RAF would have been better off keeping the Jaguar and Harrier and ditching the Tornado while fast tracking the Typhoon upgrades and ordering both the F-35A and B to replace the Harriers and Jags. Had they been a better team player and more considerate of the “purple” capabilities they had stewardship over they would be in a much better position today.

 

[StobieWan]

There's no "fat" at all within the budget to find $300m or no chance of additional funds being made available at all, or did those new Block 1B Phalanx guns the Type 45's are getting, just appear out of thin air?

They appeared off of retired ships and were already in inventory. The recent new purchases for 1b went to RFA ships being added - I think if we had $300 million spare, I'd want to chuck it at CEC as that'd be about half the bill for T45.

I'm with you on Tomahawk being good to have but unless there's a shift in policy to buy more into inventory, spending $300 mill so as to have maybe the odd TLAM in a couple of T45's doesn't seem best ROI to me.

Right now, TLAM is where it's best placed, somewhere we can move it to striking distance without causing undue escalation, and where it can achieve surprise value - and the bulk of the TLAM fleet for the US is exactly in that position.

I'd love it if the MOD did decide to hold more TLAM as I think Block IV is a very exciting step up, and multi role will be better yet, but I think we'd need to be holding twice as many missiles at least to get enough spare to justify putting silos into T45.

I also think multi role Tomahawk is a bit much for a lot of the ocean going targets out there - we'd need something a bit smaller with shorter legs for plinking FAC's and stuff if the Wildcat wasn't available.

 

[StobieWan]

IMO the RAF did it to them selves by winning the staff level battles too well.

They managed to gain control of RN FAA fixed wing aviation and then killed it,

Whoaa..when did they manage that ? The RN failed to fund the SHAR2 upgrades that would have brought Sea Harrier up to scratch way back in 2006 and scrapped that lot way before JFH showed up in all of it's purple goodness. That's on the RN - it was a decision they made presumably based around the timescales for the carrier replacement but they could easily have allocated the cash for buying in the AV8-BII, complete with a decent air to air radar, bombing capability. They decided not to.

Coming forward a bit, with Harrier numbers having dropped to 74, it was always going to be marginal in comparison with the much larger Tornado and Typhoon fleets and once the crap hit the fan in 2010, it was the logical choice to go. I'm sorry about that and felt bad when that last Harrier left the deck but ditching the Tornado fleet was never a serious option.

Jaguar was never a purple asset and the airframes were 30+ years old - I liked the Jag and it's a shame they went but presenting it as an RAF conspiracy to ditch all things purple is very wide of the mark.

 

[swerve]

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.

1) Replace half the Type 45 VLS pack with A70 or none. Fit one set of A70 into the 48 & you've taken extra depth across half the width.

2) Except that most of the weight of an Aster 30 is a booster which doesn't go very far, & AFAIK never gets up to anything like the speed of the upper stage. Aster is effectively an AAM on top of a booster. It's a very expensive way to turn an excellent SAM into a not very good anti-ship weapon. Waste of time & money, IMO.

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?

Certainly they could. So why not fit anti-ship weapons to that plane or helicopter? There's a great big runway to fly aircraft off of, & loads of room to park them. They can cover vastly more water than one rather slow OPV, or lorries which are severely limited in where they can drive because of the terrible terrain & lack of roads.

I would still take out A50s, even if they could not be recycled, as 16 does not give much capacity with the need for the longer ceil for Blk 2 Aster.

MBDA says Aster Block 2 fits into A50 ("fitted for land and naval existing launchers (SAMP/T and PAAMS)"). It's not longer than Aster 30, just fatter - that is, maximum fatness for the full length, instead of only the booster.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/ground/2/effector

 

[RobWilliams]

MBDA says Aster Block 2 fits into A50 ("fitted for land and naval existing launchers (SAMP/T and PAAMS)"). It's not longer than Aster 30, just fatter - that is, maximum fatness for the full length, instead of only the booster.

Thanks for that nugget of info in regards to Aster 30 Blk 2's length.

The only time i've actually seen a 'schematic' of a BMD Aster in a silo is in an A70 cell, so that's encouraging.

Out of interest, besides subs, what long ranged anti-ship missile capability does Britain have at present? Harpoon 1C obviously and Brimstone 2 for a light, short-ranged weapon, but what about the RAF? What do they use for the heavier role? Tornado and Harpoon?

With the loss of Nimrod, there is currently no air launched AShM capability in the RAF I think. The only 'anti shipping' weapon listed in their inventory are Stingray torpedos.

I should imagine that in the future they'll get their hands on air launched Perseus, MBDA is looking at it as a replacement for Storm Shadow and SCALP and considering it's down to be both land attack and ASuW capable it would be the way to go. Not sure if Storm Shadow has the capacity to do ASuW capabilities, it's certainly got the build IMO.

I'm not to fussed about recycling A50s, although I do wonder if a lower cost radar option could exist for some Type 26, which could utilise Aster 30s (RSN Formidable Herakles?). The priority for cruise missiles should be the Type 45, they are in service now and have the space. It looks like the Type 26 will get the capability, from what has been released so far, but that's still a long way off.

Personally the priority for cruise missiles should be to ensure our current (currently only at 5 T-boats as Astute isn't operational yet) and future SSN fleet has the capacity to bring the capability through.

The idea of fitting cruise missiles - as effective as it would be - isn't high up my list of priorities as of yet. I would love to see them fitted in some future maintenance cycle but IMO it's not a particularly pressing need. IMO the main reason I'd like to see the missile capacity expanded is firstly to expand the current AAW capabilities of the ship and then secondly to add a secondary cruise missile capability to the ship. Obivously A70s would be the best option, but those should be designated as the 'adaptable' silos fitting for whatever they think is neccesary and the current missile loadout remains as standard.

I mentioned in a while ago about a picture from Euronaval 2012 - i think - which showed a Type 26 superstructure with CEA active phased array radar as a solution showing the modularity of the design, but I doubt any such solution would come in cheaper than Artisan - but i'd welcome to be told otherwise - which isn't just going to be fitted onto the Type 26 either.

I don't know if the RN is pushing for BMD either, I have just assumed it would be a high priority, sadly with the RN it would not surprise if they were not. However it would be very disappointing, when you consider the focus in other navies, largely driven by experience in the First Gulf War with Scuds and the known focus of Iran on improved versions.

IMO it's not a massive concern, but it's something I'd like to see expanded on too. Especially if - as swerve says - that Aster 30 Blk2 fits in the A50 silo then full steam ahead I say!

 

[swerve]

But If you had a target to hit at 1600k's how exactly are you going to engage it by yourself, more quickly?

You missed my point.

What found that ship 1600km from a TLAM launcher? Why is it not capable of attacking that ship? See? Something has to be a lot closer.

Out of interest, besides subs, what long ranged anti-ship missile capability does Britain have at present? Harpoon 1C obviously and Brimstone 2 for a light, short-ranged weapon, but what about the RAF? What do they use for the heavier role? Tornado and Harpoon?

AFAIK the RAF lost the ability to launch Harpoon with the retirement of Nimrod. I think it is unhappy about that.

Sure but that's only an interim idea at best. Any longer term solution is going to require coin. A TacTom based solution is likely to be cheaper for the RN than any other new system, given you'll again have the ability to fit missiles you already own...

Yes, any new system will cost, but those TLAM we already own are too rare to be used for sinking ships.

You'd be adding the same thing Harpoon is going to give the Type 45's, namely expanded capability across different mission sets. The only difference is that Tomahawk and the latest variants of TacTom offer far more capability against a much broader set of missions than any Harpoon variant.

And as to not adding anything er, do your subs go everywhere a Type 45 might and why did the RN even bother getting Tomahawk in the first place? RAF has Storm Shadow right?

RN got Tomahawk first. Ordered before Storm Shadow, in service a few years earlier. And, of course, SSNs can get to places that fighter-bombers can't. They need friendly runways.

You keep going on about the capabilities of TacTom, but that is irrelevant to the argument. You don't need to sell anyone on the weapon. It's already in service with the RN. The difference between it & Harpoon on the T45 is that fitting Harpoon is as near as dammit free & adds capability (because it enables us to send more missiles to sea where they might be needed), & fitting TLAM costs a lot of money without adding significant capability. No, SSNs don't quite go everywhere a Type 45 does (but you can bet there'll be one along if a T45 is escorting a carrier), but we're very unlikely to send T45s anywhere to do land attack. They have an important job to do which would that would compromise.

If we put land attack missiles on surface ships, it'll be like the French, on frigates, not on our air defence ships. Type 26 may well get land attack capable VLS.

Why bother adding Harpoon to the Type 45 if that is your mindset? The 4.5 inch gun and the Wildcat helos will provide defensive anti-ship capability afterall and the Type 23's can already fire Harpoon1C..

Because we have the missiles & launchers in stock, & the ships are already fitted for them. By fitting them to Type 45 we have more at sea than would otherwise be possible. That is not true of TLAM, where adding launchers to T45 does not increase the number we can deploy - unless we buy more.

There's no "fat" at all within the budget to find $300m or no chance of additional funds being made available at all, or did those new Block 1B Phalanx guns the Type 45's are getting, just appear out of thin air? ..

New? Aren't they recycled from the Type 42s that are retiring? That's what the firm that is doing the installations says. Refurbished & upgraded to Type 1B. It's a useful defensive capability at modest cost, plugging straight in. The ships are already fitted for the guns, exactly as they are already fitted for Harpoon.

This is in a different class from buying completely new kit of a type we don't own & cutting open ships to fit it, in order to get missiles to sea that we can already send to sea in the launchers we already have. Oh yeah - and if we could get Mk 41 fitted to all our T45s for $300 mn, I'd be very surprised.

You seem to think that recycling equipment which we already own & the ships are fitted for, & which would otherwise sit in a warehouse, unusable, is in the same class as buying brand new equipment (Mk 41 VLS), modifying the ships to take it, fitting it, integrating it into fire control systems, etc. It isn't.

My whole point, which you keep arguing past, is that spending money on giving Type 45 the ability to launch TLAM does NOT add much to capabilities, because we already have more platforms & launchers than we have weapons to fit them to. This is not true for the other weapons you've mentioned.

The RN wanted more TLAMs, & to fit them to more vessels, back when it was expecting to get 12 T45, & thus to be able to spread them around more. It got six, which restricts what it can do with them. They're not going to be free-ranging self-contained units.

If we get the budget for more land attack missiles, I agree with the planners that it'd be better to fit them to Type 26. We're more likely to be able to use them for land attack without compromising their main role - indeed, it could be part of the main role of the GP frigates, which don't get the 2087 sonar.

 

[1805]

Certainly they could. So why not fit anti-ship weapons to that plane or helicopter? There's a great big runway to fly aircraft off of, & loads of room to park them. They can cover vastly more water than one rather slow OPV, or lorries which are severely limited in where they can drive because of the terrible terrain & lack of roads.


[/URL]

Well the RAF control the fixed wing planes and they don't seem to be interested in anti ship operations. These are old missiles that come from fixed launchers on ships....could they be air launched...all seems very expensive? I guess we could just rely on old 84mm anti tank launchers?

 

[RobWilliams]

If we get the budget for more land attack missiles, I agree with the planners that it'd be better to fit them to Type 26. We're more likely to be able to use them for land attack without compromising their main role - indeed, it could be part of the main role of the GP frigates, which don't get the 2087 sonar.

AFAIK it's what the Italians are planning with their FREMMs, IIRC their GP FREMMs are unofficially dubbed land attack versions which will consequently get the OTo 127/64.

It's how i'd like to see things be done myself. If there was a mix of ASW + GP T26 on a deployment that the ASW versions focus on sub hunting and the GP T26 focuses on NGFS and long range strikes.

 

[swerve]

Well the RAF control the fixed wing planes and they don't seem to be interested in anti ship operations. These are old missiles that come from fixed launchers on ships....could they be air launched...all seems very expensive? I guess we could just rely on old 84mm anti tank launchers?

We have helicopters with anti-ship missiles already in inventory. They comfortably outrange any weapons carried by Argentinean ships. If I was going to give Clyde anti-ship weapons, I'd do it by sending a couple of Lynx with Sea Skua down there, & flying one from her heli deck.

Geography, geography, geography. Where does Clyde patrol? In the likely path of an invasion fleet? Only by luck. Where would you put land-based launchers? Defending Stanley harbour - errr - it's in an inlet, where you'd have innumerable chances to shoot at invaders with much shorter-range weapons, if you put some around it. Mare Harbour? Not quite as enclosed, but again, Harpoon wouldn't be able to use its range easily. I think you'd have to put 'em on the coast east of Stanley, near the airport, to actually cover enough sea to make sense of having land-based Harpoon.

 

[StobieWan]

Well the RAF control the fixed wing planes and they don't seem to be interested in anti ship operations. These are old missiles that come from fixed launchers on ships....could they be air launched...all seems very expensive? I guess we could just rely on old 84mm anti tank launchers?

The way this all works is HMG announce what requirements they have for a defence policy, the services put forward their proposals to meet that requirement and the cash gets dished out *for that requirement* - if the RAF aren't working hard on ASuW then it's because the funding line got cut under the SDSR.

Simples.

For the Falklands, well, I don't know what tranche of Tiffy they have down there but I'm guessing they should have Paveway IV or even Brimstone as options. Given the lack of a naval threat (the Argentinian navy expects to put to sea for an average of four days per ship...) I'd say that was fine.

Putting Harpoon on static launchers down in the Falklands doesn't tick a lot of boxes in terms of utility over expense, as there's no way to target the missiles at any distance beyond the horizon - so why do it? And recall, there's almost a continuous presence of a guard ship - usually a type 23 with Harpoon, once a Daring with no Harpoon, and in future, possibly a Daring *with* harpoon.