The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Getting AGS as fitted to DDG1000 into anything as an existing design is a non starter - but AGS Lite could be quite doable - it'd cost more and there'd be some issues getting the palletised ammunition into and out of the magazine but it would be possible.

As to if it'd be worth doing for a country that didn't have AGS already in inventory, I suspect not - there are easier ways to get metal on target than this.

 

[Volkodav]

I am liking the Type 26 more and more and am actually starting to hope Australia looks at a version of the design to replace the ANZACs. Fit additional Mk41 or ExLS, in place of the Sea Ceptor cells or maybe even adopt Sea Ceptor for the RAN. Replace Artisan with CEAFAR or an evolution of it, CEC and SM-6 and I think pretty much every box the RAN needs will be ticked off.

Basically the USN doesn't current or plan to operate anything that fits what the RAN is likely to specify or what an Australian Government would be prepared to pay for so the best way to go would be local construction of a flexible foreign design incorporating US and Australian systems. Type 26 appears to be shaping up to fit this description quite well.

 

[RobWilliams]

Getting AGS as fitted to DDG1000 into anything as an existing design is a non starter - but AGS Lite could be quite doable - it'd cost more and there'd be some issues getting the palletised ammunition into and out of the magazine but it would be possible.

As to if it'd be worth doing for a country that didn't have AGS already in inventory, I suspect not - there are easier ways to get metal on target than this.

It'd be "doable", but not worthwhile. Downgrading from ~600 rounds @ 20RPM on a 127mm gun to 180 @ 6RPM with a 155mm.

I suppose it comes down to doctrine and funding as always. Personally i'd hold off any radical change in gun type until the next major surface combatant comes in, not worth it when total numbers of 5in are what 100+? Compared to ~10 total AGS'?

That's why I like how we're doing it, not upgrading to a new gun unless the ship is designed for said gun. The Type 45's were and the Type 26 will be designed to take a new gun and that weapon and evolutions of will probably outlive the service lives of the platforms that carry them so it won't be a problem.

 

[StobieWan]

It'd be "doable", but not worthwhile. Downgrading from ~600 rounds @ 20RPM on a 127mm gun to 180 @ 6RPM with a 155mm.

I suppose it comes down to doctrine and funding as always. Personally i'd hold off any radical change in gun type until the next major surface combatant comes in, not worth it when total numbers of 5in are what 100+? Compared to ~10 total AGS'?

That's why I like how we're doing it, not upgrading to a new gun unless the ship is designed for said gun. The Type 45's were and the Type 26 will be designed to take a new gun and that weapon and evolutions of will probably outlive the service lives of the platforms that carry them so it won't be a problem.

It's worthwhile if your doctrine proposes you stand off out over the horizon by a fair way, in which case those five inch rounds aren't of any immediate use

I'd almost be tempted to suggest finding a way to park the AGS guns on the LHD's - plenty of room to get the rounds flow in and they'll be in the right place etc

 

[StobieWan]

I am liking the Type 26 more and more and am actually starting to hope Australia looks at a version of the design to replace the ANZACs. Fit additional Mk41 or ExLS, in place of the Sea Ceptor cells or maybe even adopt Sea Ceptor for the RAN. Replace Artisan with CEAFAR or an evolution of it, CEC and SM-6 and I think pretty much every box the RAN needs will be ticked off.

Basically the USN doesn't current or plan to operate anything that fits what the RAN is likely to specify or what an Australian Government would be prepared to pay for so the best way to go would be local construction of a flexible foreign design incorporating US and Australian systems. Type 26 appears to be shaping up to fit this description quite well.

Type 26 definitely seems to be the most promising export ready option since the Leanders - hopefully we'll flog a few - I'd love to see Australia buy some and I'd have a picture of an RAN and an RN one sailing side by side in a heart beat. We'll see - all the options you want are total no-brainers in terms of config so there's no issue there.

 

[RobWilliams]

Then by LRLAP for the 5in and get ~100km out of it, much cheaper than retrofitting AGS to everything

Certainly seems more favouring of ships which should be closer to the desired coastline, although I'm not so sure on LHD's, I don't really know what sort of effect NGFS has on air operations.

Frankly i'd quite like the idea of a 'commonwealth' frigate, operated by the UK, Aus, NZ and Canada. Although I am surprised why Canada discounted the Type 26 so readily, considering the idea was to 'preserve national shipbuilding skills' or words to that effect and then still look to international designs like FREMM anyway.

 

[harryriedl]

Then by LRLAP for the 5in and get ~100km out of it, much cheaper than retrofitting AGS to everything

Certainly seems more favouring of ships which should be closer to the desired coastline, although I'm not so sure on LHD's, I don't really know what sort of effect NGFS has on air operations.

Frankly i'd quite like the idea of a 'commonwealth' frigate, operated by the UK, Aus, NZ and Canada. Although I am surprised why Canada discounted the Type 26 so readily, considering the idea was to 'preserve national shipbuilding skills' or words to that effect and then still look to international designs like FREMM anyway.

LRLAP or VOLCANO both are doable (I think excalliber are planning on building 127mm shell as well) all are much easier than trying to cram 155mm on T26 for long range shore bombardment. The complexity is that much higher you might as well start carrying as many cells for land attack missiles. Its addition seems to compromise so much else.

 

[Bonza]

Thanks to all for their commentary on the AGS and alternatives such as advanced 127mm ammunition types. It's much appreciated. Cheers

 

[RobWilliams]

LRLAP or VOLCANO both are doable (I think excalliber are planning on building 127mm shell as well) all are much easier than trying to cram 155mm on T26 for long range shore bombardment. The complexity is that much higher you might as well start carrying as many cells for land attack missiles. Its addition seems to compromise so much else.

Forgot about Vulcano because I was firmly in BAE/US mode

But it is a good option, a very good option. In terms of user base we will be alongside Germany and Italy in the 127/64 (France will only be operating 1 76mm gun at the fore end of their frigates).

In other news, HMS Ocean has begun welcoming her crew back aboard after her 15 month refit and after a period of sea trials she will conduct FOST duties off the south coast before taking up the role as the lead commando carrier.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/9865

With respect to HMS Queen Elizabeth

• Floating out July 2014
• Crew moving aboard May 2016
• Sea trials in Oct 2016
• Handing over to the Royal Navy early 2017
• F-35B flight operations in 2018
• FOC of Crowsnest in 2019
• FOC of ship + air group in 2020

HMS Westminster trials her Stingray torpedo systems in the Gulf before shortly heading back to the UK

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/9855

HMS Diamond deployed to the Gulf, the current duo (Westminster and Montrose - both frigates) being replaced by Somerset and Diamond respectively (FFG and AWD respectively).

 

[StobieWan]

Thanks to all for their commentary on the AGS and alternatives such as advanced 127mm ammunition types. It's much appreciated. Cheers

There's a lot more options on the market than there were fifteen years ago - Excailbur is being repackaged for 127mm, LRAP ditto (LRAP is likely to be quite expensive, they're talking $30K a round for instance, which is scraping into guided missile territory ranges.

155mm AGS is really only an option for the US - I do think it's worth capitalising on the investment for the US to fit 155mm AGS to some other platforms. Or better yet, just give up on Flight III designs, take it on the chin that a Burke isn't the answer and carry on building DDG1000 - the cost per ship will drop if they build another two dozen for sure. AMDR has come down in size and power requirements so that it may well fit quite nicely onto existing Burke's which would give you fleet BMD requirements and DDG1000 is going to be an awesome streetfighter and brawler - for the muddy waters of the Middle East, it'll kick bottom.

Back on Type 26 - I'm still baffled as to why Canada binned it as an option at such an early stage in the program- they could have had anything they liked included as part of the design. instead, they're picking over existing designs and seeing if any of those work.

 

[RobWilliams]

There's a lot more options on the market than there were fifteen years ago - Excailbur is being repackaged for 127mm, LRAP ditto (LRAP is likely to be quite expensive, they're talking $30K a round for instance, which is scraping into guided missile territory ranges.

Which is the rub, the general benefit of NGFS is that it's cheaper to conduct than the same job with missiles so when you reach the point where it starts being compatible then it's a problem. IIRC DDG-1000 is only down to carry <100 LRLAP out of a load of 700ish shells in the magazine, which offers up one reason for the cost - there's not a whole lot of them being made for a 3 ship class.

IIRC one driver of railgun technology is that round per round it should be substantially cheaper than current technology, but then the initial capital cost will still be nasty on the balance sheet for a while.

155mm AGS is really only an option for the US - I do think it's worth capitalising on the investment for the US to fit 155mm AGS to some other platforms. Or better yet, just give up on Flight III designs, take it on the chin that a Burke isn't the answer and carry on building DDG1000 - the cost per ship will drop if they build another two dozen for sure. AMDR has come down in size and power requirements so that it may well fit quite nicely onto existing Burke's which would give you fleet BMD requirements and DDG1000 is going to be an awesome streetfighter and brawler - for the muddy waters of the Middle East, it'll kick bottom.

Or another option, take the Flight III designs, use the experiences of the Burke to see if the design is able to fit in AGS-L to the design* and start a transition from the BAE 5in to the 6in AGS for their surface combatants. First ships to enter service a couple of years after the first Type 26 is in, there's what 40+ Flight III AB's envisaged(?) and when the first examples enter service then the oldest in class will be ~30years old. Rotate those out as the US next generation surface combatant with AGS-L fitted comes in. Leave the rest of class as is, depending on if it's financially viable to support a diminishing number of 5in weapon systems compared to retrofitting AGS-L (which i'd think it is, but I'm not well placed to make a definitive call)

Back on Type 26 - I'm still baffled as to why Canada binned it as an option at such an early stage in the program- they could have had anything they liked included as part of the design. instead, they're picking over existing designs and seeing if any of those work.

I'd be highly surprised when the design is finalised and work begins that they don't at least consider it as a contender again. Even more so if the hopeful Aus/NZ/Brazilian interest comes to fruition

*hull stretch perhaps to keep some future growth margins? It's an early 90's design and will probably be around into 2050 so some mods will be necessary

 

[Volkodav]

Well the Type 26 look to be similar in size to, if not larger than, the F-100 and other similar European AW combatants, as well as being similar in size to the FREMM. This suggests that, considering the modular nature BAE is espousing, that other variants, including AWDs etc. should be well and truly possible.

I state it often enough on here to make people sick, but I believe the UK is particularly good at developing platforms, I just hope that the Type 26 is able to draw on the best available systems so its combat power / capability can take advantage of the platform.

 

[RobWilliams]

For the UK at least, expect it to be watered down to a degree. But it will reap the benefits of growth margins in the future

Look at the Type 45 right now, it's a decent platform. But the growth of the platform is huge. Right now the armament (max) consists of

• 4.5in gun
• 16 Aster 15
• 32 Aster 30
• Standard Miniguns/GPMGs
• 2 x Phalanx
• 2 x 30mm
• 2 x Lynx with either 2 torpedos or 4 Sea Skua a piece

The armament for future Type 45's could consist of

• 5in gun
• 32 CAMM
• 40 Aster 30 Block 2
• 16 TLAM/MdCN/Perseus ER
• 8 x Harpoon
• Standard Miniguns/GPMG
• 2 x Phalanx
• 2 x Lynx Wildcat with maximum 2 torpedos or 8 FASGW(H) or 14 LMM a piece

And that's only stuff we think about now, imagine a decade down the road what we want the ships to be doing.

Factor in updates which are being tested right now with the S1850M LRR as the SMART-L Mk2 which has an increased search radius of 800km over sea (double what we have now) and track ballistic targets at a range of 2000km (also double what we have now) alongside Aster 30 Block 2 or Aster 30 Block 1 NT gives the class a BMD capability as well as a world class AAW capability, ASuW and strike capability. Would like torp tubes too though, and can't comment on this actually happening or not.

The Type 45's have yet to get into their stride demonstrating what they can FULLY do, and frankly, that's going to be awesome to see. I personally expect the exact same case with the Type 26, which is no bad thing

 

[Systems Adict]

Well the Type 26 look to be similar in size to, if not larger than, the F-100 and other similar European AW combatants, as well as being similar in size to the FREMM. This suggests that, considering the modular nature BAE is espousing, that other variants, including AWDs etc. should be well and truly possible.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA12hn48eZI"]BAE Systems Ship Build Single Site Option - New state of the art facilities in Scotstoun - YouTube[/nomedia]



Said proposal for the 'Frigate Factory' that looks like it's aiming for a modular build programme.


...& a look back at what was being discussed at DSEi, in 2013...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8RBnlrg6Ao"]Type 26 GCS Update at DSEI 2013 - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StobieWan]

Which is the rub, the general benefit of NGFS is that it's cheaper to conduct than the same job with missiles so when you reach the point where it starts being compatible then it's a problem. IIRC DDG-1000 is only down to carry <100 LRLAP out of a load of 700ish shells in the magazine, which offers up one reason for the cost - there's not a whole lot of them being made for a 3 ship class.

IIRC one driver of railgun technology is that round per round it should be substantially cheaper than current technology, but then the initial capital cost will still be nasty on the balance sheet for a while.



Or another option, take the Flight III designs, use the experiences of the Burke to see if the design is able to fit in AGS-L to the design* and start a transition from the BAE 5in to the 6in AGS for their surface combatants. First ships to enter service a couple of years after the first Type 26 is in, there's what 40+ Flight III AB's envisaged(?) and when the first examples enter service then the oldest in class will be ~30years old. Rotate those out as the US next generation surface combatant with AGS-L fitted comes in. Leave the rest of class as is, depending on if it's financially viable to support a diminishing number of 5in weapon systems compared to retrofitting AGS-L (which i'd think it is, but I'm not well placed to make a definitive call)



I'd be highly surprised when the design is finalised and work begins that they don't at least consider it as a contender again. Even more so if the hopeful Aus/NZ/Brazilian interest comes to fruition

*hull stretch perhaps to keep some future growth margins? It's an early 90's design and will probably be around into 2050 so some mods will be necessary

I thought the non guided version had been cancelled completely?

 

[Systems Adict]

[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/12188366984/"]Installation of the first port shaft | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]

Some carrier progress....

 

[Volkodav]

It strikes me as ironic that the RN is looking forward to being the sort of size and capability Australia or Canada would have aspired to a couple of decades ago. A couple of carriers, several destroyers, a (bakers) dozen frigates and a squadron of submarines with some amphibs and support vessels to boot.

How things change, especially with a couple of decades of cancelling, delaying and projects meaning you get less for more. I wonder if Chinas ascendancy will have any effect on this pattern or defence procurement in the west?

 

[RobWilliams]

Way of the world, we don't face threats here like there currently is (or interpreted to be) in SEA which is why quantity here is shrinking as opposed to increasing over there.

Interesting bit of news at the end of this article, the article is about 1 Merlin HM2 and two HM1's deploying to Norway for some subhunting, but the end is the most interesting

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/9885

In April they’ll be heading to Scotland to take part in the first of this year’s two Joint Warrior exercise (with HMS Kent also taking part again), followed by the biggest anti-submarine warfare exercise run by the Royal Navy in years, with nine first and second-generation Merlins joining HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic.

Last hurrah for Illustrious then before she bows out of service, then roll on the couple of years of having one flat top in the navy.

 

[153jam]

I have a quick question for those who would know far more about this than me.

I have often wondered the maximum number of ships the Royal Navy could ready for a task force if the shit really hit the fan (primarily SSN's, escorts, LPD's and assuming both the QE class carriers were in service). Take the Falklands conflict for example, the task force was very large, even for the the RN at the time. Were many ships rapidly brought out of maintenance in order to deploy? I know that Hermes was brought back into service, and Lusty was commissioned at sea en route to relieve Invincible.

I hear the general rule of thumb is to take the total number of each class, then divide it by three. But does this apply even under extreme circumstances? I have tried to research this quite a bit, but have not found any satisfactory conclusion.

Thanks for reading.

 

[RobWilliams]

3 to 1 would be peacetime. If there were ships conducting standing tasks that could haul ass to the area then they would, with allies picking up the slack. As would ships that aren't in that deep of a maintenance period they could be put back to sea pretty quick should the situation demand it.

Exactly what we could do in a pinch will always be difficult to plot because it's the nature of 'crisis'. NFI if it's something planned for but i'm sure that should the need arise we would put an extremely capable force to sea.

I'd imagine we could put together a task force of a QEC, 4 x Type 26's and a pair of Type 45s without much trouble, subject to deployment schedules. Send that fleet off with an Astute (or two) and you've got a whole lot of hurt to rain down on the country of your choice. Can't imagine too many countries which could deal with something like that without sustaining serious losses themselves.