The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
MAD is a redundant tech - you can do more with current tech and you don't need a stinger stuck out the bum of the plane
the P8 might have a passenger heritage but its completely re-engineered to carry the weapons and sensor fitout
there is extensive data on the rotation and availability rates of the P8's when they were involved in looking for MH370 - huge persistence rate differences compared to the old benchmark - and the P1 is not the old benchmark
t68
Well-Known Member
Didn't India get the mad boom?
What's the story there, diffrent internal?
t68
Well-Known Member
Cheers GF thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
MAD needs to be "close" to the target to work. As P-8 is explicitly designed NOT to go down to the wavetops, it made no sense. To support that programs are in works for high altitude glide torpedo deployment as well as possibly a UAV that will go down with a MAD sensor. In addition to better fuel efficiency, it helps give a little buffer against possible future sub launched SAM development. For RAAF purposes, tech transfer of all the supporting expendables is a near certainty.
As gf said, India asked for it and got it.
the future tech weapsystems options are pretty impressive.
my understanding is that all the high altitude torpedo launches have been pretty impressive - so "son of HAAWC (ALA)" is a game changer
add in developments in aerial launched surface arrays where triangulation becomes "easier" - it will cause all sub drivers to lift their game - and some sub classes will more or less be "the walking dead" as they've already hit their technology peaks
the capability delta between P3 and P8 is pretty significant
The Boeing HAAWC is operational and running. Allows drops from 30000 feet and the torpedoe to glide as fears as 10 miles to the target. This further enhances security for the P8 against potential submarine detection and SAMs. The submarine won't know it's been detected until the MK 54 hits the water close by.
Details
Boeing moves forward with flying torpedo high-altitude ASW attack system for P-8A aircraft
Contract
US Navy Awards Boeing High Altitude Anti-Submarine Weapon Contract
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This is my first read about the HAAWC. It seems to be a very impressive piece of kit.
Last edited:
U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs May Play Big Role On U.K. Carriers | Defense content from Aviation Week
It seems to be official now, being confirmed by RN and USMC officers, that USMC F-35Bs will be a regular fixture on board the QEC carriers.
According to a 'source close to the US aviation community', an option being studied is to attach a Marine squadron full time to the UK carrier force. It also reaffirms comments by the UK MOD that once the 48 F-35B's have been delivered, there is a plan to stage a "maximum effort" exercise of 24 F-35B aircraft deployed on a carrier. Later it goes on to discuss that a British officer closely related to the F-35B program says that if the UK wants to test a 36 strong deployment, it'll need to have Marine Corps participation.
It seems to be official now, being confirmed by RN and USMC officers, that USMC F-35Bs will be a regular fixture on board the QEC carriers.
According to a 'source close to the US aviation community', an option being studied is to attach a Marine squadron full time to the UK carrier force. It also reaffirms comments by the UK MOD that once the 48 F-35B's have been delivered, there is a plan to stage a "maximum effort" exercise of 24 F-35B aircraft deployed on a carrier. Later it goes on to discuss that a British officer closely related to the F-35B program says that if the UK wants to test a 36 strong deployment, it'll need to have Marine Corps participation.
Anglo-French cruise/ASM study via MBDA:
UK, France to study next-generation cruise and anti-ship missile - IHS Jane's 360
Perseus or similar ?
UK, France to study next-generation cruise and anti-ship missile - IHS Jane's 360
Perseus or similar ?
Depends how quickly they want a replacement, I think. Exocet and Harpoon could definitely do with a facelift, but I would have thought SCALP/Storm Shadow (perhaps with some updates) would be good to go for years yet - particularly the French naval surface/sub-surface launched MdCN variant, which as far as I know hasn't even entered service yet. So if they're looking as long-term as a replacement for a missile that isn't in service yet, then I think Perseus could definitely be in with a shot.
If the MdCN is intended to serve for the foreseeable future and the pressure is on replacing Harpoon and Exocet more so than SCALP/Storm Shadow then I would think the Kongsberg NSM has a solid place in the conversation. It's ready and in production as of now, and capability-wise it appears to match or exceed other in-service AShMs (at least, going by what I've read in open-source information - not definitive by any means, I understand). Plus you've got the JSM air-launched variant being prepared for the F-35, which I'm sure will stir interest in the British (though I'd suggest they probably already have plans for the JSM, to lend their carrier aviation some anti-ship capability with stand-off range). In any case I think the NSM will get a definite look-in.
Whatever comes out of the LRASM/OASuW Increment 2 programs might also be a possibility, but all the information out there about this capability has emphasised how advanced a missile it's going to be, a potential game-changer as far as computational power and targeting capabilites are concerned - would the USN really be keen on sharing such a weapon straight out of development with the French? I personally don't think so...
Other than that, maybe the RBS-15 Mark IV is a dark horse? We still haven't seen much solid information on the newest RBS variant, though the released specifications suggest some significant changes. The publicly available figures on range are a massive increase over the previous mark, along with improved seeker units, some degree of configurable warhead (presumably depending on target/mission set), and a reduced radar signature. Personally I think the range increase and LO characteristics of the Mark IV will mean a totally new airframe, and Saab-Bofors should probably be moving in that direction anyway if they want to keep up with international competition. In any case it looks like they've already sold the newest missile in the RBS family to the German Navy, who are waiting for them to finish development on the Mark IV and using other types in the interim.
I don't give the RBS much of a shot but hell, I don't think the Germans would waste their money unless they could see a good return, and if Saab-Bofors can get the stated performance increases out of the Mark IV they should be frankly be knocking on the USN's door and asking to be let in on OASuW...
reading it again, they're talking 3 year design study with a tech demonstrator for 2019 which would seem to indicate a lot of component re-use which team complex weapons seem to do very well - think a rejigged SCALP or similar, with motor, warhead and seeker re-use. Not Perseus I'm guessing. Hmmm...
A surface/sub-surface launched SCALP/Storm Shadow with active guidance, modified flight profiles, some kind of booster to help the range drop-off from a surface launch, and compatibility with Sylver and/or Mk. 41 VLS would do a fine job as an anti-ship weapon, I would have thought. Granted a surface launch and sea skimming flight profile will eat into the effective range, but publicly released figures indicate the weapons can already fly in excess of 500kms. Maybe add a booster, lighten up the warhead weight for more motor/fuel (I doubt an anti-ship missile is going to need a 450kg armour-piercing payload), and design a hi-low flight profile so it's only at low altitude when it's approaching/during the terminal phase? Maybe also look into improving LO characteristics and ECCM fit so the weapon has the maximum chance of surviving to make it to that final low-flight phase? Like I said, I would have figured this could make a perfectly serviceable anti-ship missile, though I would welcome informed commentary from anyone who knows/sees anything I've missed, or wants to point out any assumptions I've made in error.
The part that confuses me is the French and their MdCN missile. This thing hasn't even finished being put into service, is reportedly a surface/sub-surface launched missile with a range in excess of 1,000kms and contains, among others, terminal active radar and terminal infrared guidance systems. Now to me this thing not only sounds like the French version of Tomahawk (and I'm sure a 300km range export version will turn up soon enough), it also sounds like it's got the guidance and the smarts to prosecute a moving target. So why are the French even getting involved with this dual-nation program to develop a weapon whose capabilities they appear to already possess?
MdCN - fits torpedo tubes & Sylver A70 (so no problem with physical fit in Mk 41 Strike Length, but would need integration), has the booster - but AFAIK isn't set up for attacking mobile targets. The radar & IIR seekers are for terminal guidance when attacking pre-planned fixed sites.
What I don't think it has is a two-way datalink, & for attacking ships you'd need that. They could have moved a long way, or another ship could have moved into the way. The current seeker, intended for identification of & precise homing onto pre-planned fixed targets, may not be able to find a target which isn't exactly where it's supposed to be: some sort of search ability may be needed.
The terminal flight trajectory may also need changing, as said. IIRC it dives now.
What I don't think it has is a two-way datalink, & for attacking ships you'd need that. They could have moved a long way, or another ship could have moved into the way. The current seeker, intended for identification of & precise homing onto pre-planned fixed targets, may not be able to find a target which isn't exactly where it's supposed to be: some sort of search ability may be needed.
The terminal flight trajectory may also need changing, as said. IIRC it dives now.
Swerve,
Thanks for explaining the seeker types on the MdCN in a little more detail. Given it already has GPS/INS and a topographic guidance system, I got a bit excited at the prospect of dual active terminal seekers. And you're right, an extended-range subsonic AShM is going to need that datalink if it's going to be operated efficiently and in similar numbers to modern surface combatants (meaning around 8 AShM per ship, and leaving aside things like Kongsberg's model of an LCS with 18 NSM plus VL Hellfires if I remember it correctly... ).
I wish I had saved the link on one particular guidance system used in the anti-ship variant of Tomahawk, it had quite an interesting mode of operation. Can't remember enough of it to explain it properly though. Maybe GF or someone can help a brother out with a link?
greeners29
New Member
At the cost of 5 type 26 frigates. Ouch