StevoJH
The Bunker Group
But then the ship has to carry two lots of each spare part since they are different types, is there enough space to support two helicopter types on a T45 simultaneously?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
every impression I get is that they have lots of space compared with the T42, 23, 22 of course with the increase spare load its not a desirable option but doable in a pinch especially if their is close logistic support either land or at sea to offload many of the supplies to operate 2 of ship the hanger and associated stuff is much much bigger than the other escorts in service
I thought we'd discussed this here in the thread before....
While the 'idea' of both Merlin & Wildcat on T45 sounds feasible, the reality is that it can't happen. T45 is BIG in comparison to it's predecessors, but it's NOT that big.
Merlin is a physical beast of a helo & while it'll fit happily in the hangar of T45, there would be no room for a Wildcat.
Add to this the logistic support modules for each helo. There is a LOT of commonality in logistic stores of having x2 helos the same, but there isn't when you have x2 different ones. The maintenance personnel travel with each type of helo (IIRC), rather than staff being based on the ship, who cover both.
So, in short, while it looks practical, it isn't.
For capability enhancement, you could use a T45 that's set up for one particular type of bird & use it as a 'Lilly-pad', to allow weapons resupply & refueling, but that's about it.
...& with all of that said, Wildcat is still in development, as are the FASGW heavies & lights. NO ONE has seriously sat down & done any major re-design of any platforms yet, to accept & integrate these weapons into the ships.
It's likely that T23 might be the lead, closely followed by T45, but the reality (because of financial constraints), probably means that T26 will actually be the first hull type to successfully operate a fully integrated Wildcat, as it will have been designed to use it from the get-go.
SA
I know what you are talking about there.
A project I am familiar with toyed with four different types of helicopters before deciding on one and then changing to another, two, possibly three different types of helo launched ASvM deciding on one, deleting the capability all together and then deciding on a second type and also stuffed around with three different types of ASW torpedos. There was also discussion of whether there should be one hanger or two and how big the hanger needed to be as neither of the two finalist helo options fitted the original space.
The RN has had the good sense to specify that their major surface combatants are able to hanger and operate a Sea King / Merlin sized helo since the early 80s giving them the flexibility to operate a pair of smaller helos if required. I believe the Type 45 and Type 26 have gone further in that they can lily pad a Chinook if need be. Then again the RN has always designed good platforms with plenty of features other navies rarely if ever seem to give consideration to. Just design the ###### thing to operate the biggest / heaviest helo you are likely to use and leave it at that, I wish my country could grasp that not so difficult concept!
Well we have the largest EEZ in the world and cant get aviation facilities on ships intended to patrol it. I much prefer the UKs common sense in providing facilities to fly off and recover larger aircraft than the ships are intended to operate. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't most of the RNs patrol ships able to lily pad a Sea King?
In the 1980s when all the RNs new frigates were being built to operate Sea kings the RANs Sea Kings were left ashore while our FFGs (the only helo capable combatants) were forced to operate Squirrels while waiting almost a decade for their Seahawks.
HMS Iron Duke has left Portsmouth to conduct sea trials following her overhaul which included the installation of the new Artisan 3D radar set.
HMS Iron Duke departs for sea trials after upgrade | Meridian - ITV News
I'd quite like to know which one will be next in line for the upgrade, HMS Iron Duke is one of the 5 Type 23 frigates which didn't get the Type 2087 towed sonar array
@Volkodav
AFAIK the current River class can handle helos that size, HMS Clyde (in the Falklands) for sure can as it's a stretched River class.
HMS Iron Duke departs for sea trials after upgrade | Meridian - ITV News
I'd quite like to know which one will be next in line for the upgrade, HMS Iron Duke is one of the 5 Type 23 frigates which didn't get the Type 2087 towed sonar array
@Volkodav
AFAIK the current River class can handle helos that size, HMS Clyde (in the Falklands) for sure can as it's a stretched River class.
IIRC it's due to start replacing Sea Wolf in 2016 so we've got a while yet. So looks like Iron Duke would probably do a deployment or two before coming back for CAMM to be installed.
Unless they plan on updating the PDMS independent of if the radar sets have been upgraded.
Unless they plan on updating the PDMS independent of if the radar sets have been upgraded.
kev 99
Member
Yeah I would have expected that as well.
Sending Iron Duke back in for Sea Ceptor (Urghh) installation sounds a little.....uneconomical?
Well, the evidence of our eyes is upon us
They're out there with SeaWolf, 909's, Artisan, etc. Funny 'ol development really - I guess the timescales work out and that the work to replace the Seawolf VLS (which are basically a gallery of bottles with rockets stuck in 'em) with CAMM silos is fairly painless. Ah well. On the flip side, I guess Type 26 will just fly together like clockwork because almost everything it uses will have been trialled in a working ship for several years. This is more like commercial car development where launch the incoming models with the newer engines on the outgoing model.
That's the great thing about the Type 26, Artisan, CAMM + 2087 sonar pulled through plus tech like the MT30 which will be mature.
One thing i'd like to know is peoples opinions on the possibility of the Stingray torp system being pulled through.
I mean Sting Ray has got a range of like 6 miles which wouldn't be much use apart from the thinner parts of the lakes of the Suez canal or the thinnest part of the straight of Hormuz* and any half decent torpedo would outrange that easy.
That's just what I reckon, in a recent article about a Type 23 waking up most of Wales during gunnery practice there was a comment made in the article about Sting Ray and that was that it's rarely used even for practices because the RN likes to conduct ASW "at arms length".
I'm just curious, i'd like to know more (as my knowledge is rudimentary at best) about how such a system would be used because right now i'm not 100% sure if it's worth the money. RAN knowledge would be helpful too as IIRC the Hobarts have MU90s.
*and even then a Merlin dipping ahead of the ship would do the job just as well
One thing i'd like to know is peoples opinions on the possibility of the Stingray torp system being pulled through.
I mean Sting Ray has got a range of like 6 miles which wouldn't be much use apart from the thinner parts of the lakes of the Suez canal or the thinnest part of the straight of Hormuz* and any half decent torpedo would outrange that easy.
That's just what I reckon, in a recent article about a Type 23 waking up most of Wales during gunnery practice there was a comment made in the article about Sting Ray and that was that it's rarely used even for practices because the RN likes to conduct ASW "at arms length".
I'm just curious, i'd like to know more (as my knowledge is rudimentary at best) about how such a system would be used because right now i'm not 100% sure if it's worth the money. RAN knowledge would be helpful too as IIRC the Hobarts have MU90s.
*and even then a Merlin dipping ahead of the ship would do the job just as well
Depends on if it is installed during a future normal yard period or if it is installed outside of normal yard maintenance, in that case that would be silly.
I suspect ID's refit will be a half and half - the mid life they're getting now is a long old bit of work, new radar, transom flap, new guns, long list of improvements - but CAMM's not ready service use yet, so it's possible they'll do as much of the prep work as they can and then replace the silos and drop the directors along with other Seawolf related kit in a couple of years (when I guess she'd be slated for some maintenance anyway)
We've already had St Albans go through her 2nd mid life without Artisan a few years back so it looks like there'll be a number of juggling acts going on to get this all to work.
Lindermyer
New Member
Rob the ship mounted asw torps are really just a last resort (revenge ?) weapon for that possible moment when something is discovered at close quarters youre probably a gonner but maybe he goes with you.
Are they worth it I personally would rather have them than not.
Im no expert on ASW but from friends / colleagues who are there are times and places where everyone's detection ranges are pretty short especially when everyones creeping about.
That's exactly my point, "i'd rather have it than not" isn't an adequate justification in a period where defence budgets are being squeezed.
That's not to say i'm particularly against reusing the units from the Type 23s as they come out of service, what I don't want to see is large sums of money poured into fitting them in.
I get that they can be thought of as a "CIWS for subs" and you could draw a circle around the ship saying "subs probably aren't in this ring", but my main concern is that the build quality of submarines these days would allow a hostile submarine to detect, track and engage a surface ship outside of the torps engagement zone. Sure, you might not detect the submarine until it's close if it's a decent boat and the captain is any good, but i'd put money on the submarine knowing the surface ship is prowling around.
That's the difference, I know subs fighting subs can have REALLY short engagement ranges (a UK SSBN and a French SSBN physically hit eachother in '09) but in a sub/ship confrontation the odds are against the ship and personally I think - in the event of a submarine attack - the use of countermeasures and a Merlin HM2 would be the most appropriate response to such an event and hanging onto an entire weapon system + crew + training/maintenance costs just for revenge seems like a ridiculous way to spend money.
The only real way it would be effective is in a task group scenario, where the ASW frigates form the outer screen and - rather than the sub attacking the ship - tries to sneak past the ship and reach the juicy capital ships in the centre (After all, why have a hamburger if you can have steak?) and would probably end up being in relatively close proximity.
Anyway, if that's a bunch of crap i'd like the people who know a bit about this type of thing to point out what's wrong (but be gentle)
On a different track, there's a news article out which used ops room mock ups and simulators to trial the networkability of the future fleet against an unspecified air threat.
https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8135
The simulated assets used were 4 F35, one Type 45 and one Queen Elizabeth class carrier
That's not to say i'm particularly against reusing the units from the Type 23s as they come out of service, what I don't want to see is large sums of money poured into fitting them in.
I get that they can be thought of as a "CIWS for subs" and you could draw a circle around the ship saying "subs probably aren't in this ring", but my main concern is that the build quality of submarines these days would allow a hostile submarine to detect, track and engage a surface ship outside of the torps engagement zone. Sure, you might not detect the submarine until it's close if it's a decent boat and the captain is any good, but i'd put money on the submarine knowing the surface ship is prowling around.
That's the difference, I know subs fighting subs can have REALLY short engagement ranges (a UK SSBN and a French SSBN physically hit eachother in '09) but in a sub/ship confrontation the odds are against the ship and personally I think - in the event of a submarine attack - the use of countermeasures and a Merlin HM2 would be the most appropriate response to such an event and hanging onto an entire weapon system + crew + training/maintenance costs just for revenge seems like a ridiculous way to spend money.
The only real way it would be effective is in a task group scenario, where the ASW frigates form the outer screen and - rather than the sub attacking the ship - tries to sneak past the ship and reach the juicy capital ships in the centre (After all, why have a hamburger if you can have steak?) and would probably end up being in relatively close proximity.
Anyway, if that's a bunch of crap i'd like the people who know a bit about this type of thing to point out what's wrong (but be gentle)
On a different track, there's a news article out which used ops room mock ups and simulators to trial the networkability of the future fleet against an unspecified air threat.
https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8135
The simulated assets used were 4 F35, one Type 45 and one Queen Elizabeth class carrier
- FAA, RAF and USN pilots flew BAE simulators of the F35 in Lancashire (4 aircraft total)
- 2 SKASaC crews in Culdrose simulated AEW ops (2 aircraft total)
- Air warfare officers from HMS Duncan took control of the QECs ops room mockup on the Isle of Wight
- Air warfare officers and fighter controllers from HMS Dauntless were at the helm of the Type 45 lab at Portsdown Hill
Well, it's a bit more than "rather have them than not" or "revenge." Regarding detection ranges, it really comes down to environmentals and operator proficiency. That said, there are legitimate defensive uses and tactics developed around surface launched torpedo tubes that have produced demonstrable success in producing desired effects in exercise environments and instrumented ranges.
Aircraft are certainly the platform of choice, but we hang onto VLA's and SVTT's due to all the myriad complications that aircraft bring with them. And not every ship has a helo hangar.
And looking further out, another thought...IF(and sure, it's a big if) a viable counter-torpedo torpedo or similar expendable was ever developed, the ideal launch mechanism would be the SVTTs.
I know it isn't, I was using the terminology of the person I was replying too.
Indeed, my understanding is that environmental effects like temperature & salinity of the water have an effect on how sound propagates through the water.
Care to explain or got any links? I'd like to know more.
True, but in this context it's more about the concept on the Type 26 which will have a hanger capable of carrying a Merlin and the associated aviation support facilities, I do accept that it's to be expected that a helo isn't available at all times.
Absolutely, that concept i've got no problem with, I wouldn't be surprised if such a development occured. IIRC the RN use DLF-3 decoys and towed decoys for countermeasures (again, IIRC) . My issue is using it to counter submarines.
That's something, torpedoes like Spearfish can either track with active/passive sonar or be fed data via wire from the submarine, presumably such an attack would require the submarine to be at periscope depth?
Having torpedo tubes on the escort does have the useful effect of limiting the target's options. You can't run towards a ship if it can hold you at risk.
Besides, the tubes would likely be pulled through from the 23's anyway so they're not expensive. I'd sooner have ASROC mind
Besides, the tubes would likely be pulled through from the 23's anyway so they're not expensive. I'd sooner have ASROC mind
True, True.
That's something, I wonder what's going to happen with all this 'pull through' stuff. I mean if - for example - the tubes are being pulled through, then frigate numbers drop to 12 so they can be gutted and installed on the ship it's replacing.
Presumably numbers would probably go 12 - 13 - 12 -13 for a while when one leaves service to have all the usable kit like Artisan, CAMM & 2087 pulled out.
That's something, I wonder what's going to happen with all this 'pull through' stuff. I mean if - for example - the tubes are being pulled through, then frigate numbers drop to 12 so they can be gutted and installed on the ship it's replacing.
Presumably numbers would probably go 12 - 13 - 12 -13 for a while when one leaves service to have all the usable kit like Artisan, CAMM & 2087 pulled out.