I don't understand why UK couldn't build something like the F-100s and fit out US weapon systems. If they had done this it would have been deployed last year. They need the Mk41 for TacToms anyway. AEGIS could really come in handy to the Royal Navy.
RN Type 45 Delayed Again!
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
Something to do with not closing down our own industry? And the idea is that we don't need AEGIS because we can do it ourselves - and we want to remain able to do it ourselves, instead of becomng dependent on the USA.
Mk41 VLS & AEGIS aren't mutually dependent.
Space has been left on the Type 45s for either Mk41 or Sylver A70, in addition to the Sylver A50s, so they can be retrofitted (or fitted from the start in later ships). Our options are still open. We can buy more Tomahawks, or Scalp Naval, if we prefer.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Ah ok, cheers for the details, I for one hope the trimaran comes off ok, Go Austal!
contedicavour
New Member
Scalp Naval is very close to Storm Shadow which is in servive aboard the Tornado. Its range is at least 400km so good enough for most missions even though inferior to TacTom.
Aster 15/30 is also a valid alternative to ESSM/SM2, lower range vs SM2 but at least we have an active seeker that doesn't require illuminators.
cheers
I don't think building the F-100s made Spain and the Ferol shipyards dependent on the US shipbuilding industry. Adopting US weapon systems is nothing new. It's not like UK has a monopoly on PAMMS. The cost of the F-100 is less than half the cost of Type 45s and is just as capable. It is no secret UK shipbuilding is tanking... trying to save it with RN cashcow subsidy builds is only prolonging the innevitable.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The NAAWS suite (APAR + Smart-L) does AAW similarily well as AEGIS (the devil is in the detail). That's another alternative.
That devil being netcentric C4ISR... :devil
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I don't know for sure, but I would wager CEC and the other goodies are a possibility for it as well.
contedicavour
New Member
UK shipbuilding industry should specialize a bit more instead of building everything on its own... but in good old Europe this notion is anathema, even more in continental europe than in the UK.
The problem with the UK is more of a constant reduction in assets thus increasing unitary costs to very high levels. I just read on Jane's that in early 2007 a new review of total fleet numbers is forecasted... ie new cuts :shudder To start with I think that the RN can already forget the 7th and 8th Type 45.
cheers
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
The thing about the T-45 project is that the problem isn't the ship - it's the government. If they had just stumped up the cash for 8 these problems wouldn't be cropping up. But because they were trying to scrimp on pennies by putting off 7 & 8 they made it more difficult for the builders to make the other orders cheaper.
Seriously, if we had been a part of Horizon you'd be suffering a lot more than you've lost out due to possible cost-reduction.
Seriously, if we had been a part of Horizon you'd be suffering a lot more than you've lost out due to possible cost-reduction.
Not shipbuilding, but the systems. And that's where the cost is, not the hulls.
The range of Scalp Naval hasn't been officially published (MBDA says "very long range"), except that one of the published requirements is that it should be much more than Storm Shadow/Scalp, & Storm Shadow/Scalp is thought (again, it's not published - MBDA says ">250km" and "long range") to have a range of about 400 km. I've seen estimates - or guesses - from 600 to >1000 km for Scalp Naval. The Dutch ministry of defence, for example, reckons it might be about 900km (from a study of possible weapons for LCF - http://www.mindef.nl/binaries/Studie GOSKM DS 3 4 (definitief)_tcm15-27468.pdf ). But they could be talking bollocks.
A Janes Navy International article back in Feb quoted the following:
The UK Royal Navy's (RN's) most senior officer has reiterated the "absolute" requirement for a class of eight Type 45 destroyers just days before leaving the post.
Admiral Sir Alan West, who retires on 7 February 2006, re-stated the RN's case just hours ahead of the launch of Type 45 first-of-class HMS Daring at BAE Systems' Scotstoun yard on 1 February.
Six ships are currently on order from BAE Systems Naval Ships, but the First Sea Lord insists that a class of eight ships is required.
"Daring and her sisters are long overdue," he said, "but when they start to enter service from 2009, we will see a dramatic enhancement of our air defence capability. The Type 45 and its PAAMS (principal anti-air missile system] weapons system will be able to take out streams of missiles, and it will be the only ship in the world able to shoot down the SS-N-27 'Sizzler' supersonic anti-ship missile".
Clearly the Navy head-shed is still fighting for eight, however I remain doubtful
Alos interested to hear comments reference his statement about the 'Sizzlers', one assumes he's refering to the Samson Radar / PAAMS combined technologies.
The UK Royal Navy's (RN's) most senior officer has reiterated the "absolute" requirement for a class of eight Type 45 destroyers just days before leaving the post.
Admiral Sir Alan West, who retires on 7 February 2006, re-stated the RN's case just hours ahead of the launch of Type 45 first-of-class HMS Daring at BAE Systems' Scotstoun yard on 1 February.
Six ships are currently on order from BAE Systems Naval Ships, but the First Sea Lord insists that a class of eight ships is required.
"Daring and her sisters are long overdue," he said, "but when they start to enter service from 2009, we will see a dramatic enhancement of our air defence capability. The Type 45 and its PAAMS (principal anti-air missile system] weapons system will be able to take out streams of missiles, and it will be the only ship in the world able to shoot down the SS-N-27 'Sizzler' supersonic anti-ship missile".
Clearly the Navy head-shed is still fighting for eight, however I remain doubtful
Alos interested to hear comments reference his statement about the 'Sizzlers', one assumes he's refering to the Samson Radar / PAAMS combined technologies.
With the MoD unwilling to put up money for defense programs, could it be time for the Royal Navy to take a new approach to deploying warships? Is the Royal Navy even capable of adapting? As historically perhaps the most respected Naval organization in the world, and with that the entrenchment of conventional wisdom usually entrenched in such strong organizations, is the modern RN flexible enough to adapt as funding hits critical shortage?
Seems to me that if the RN stays on the coarse for traditional Carriers, Destroyers, and Frigates they will end up with too few of all types to stay competitive anyway.
Is it time, for dare I say, an Admiral Art Cebrowski Streetfighter style adaptive derivative to increase the overall numbers of the Royal Navy?
After all, that plan he proposed in 2004 was by Congressional request, and was designed specifically to improve the domestic shipbuilding industry while lowering costs for warships. I'm not claiming it is a much more powerful force as the authors did, however I will admit I have had quite a bit of exposure to the specific concepts, and in simulation (which I will admit is not an accurate method of measurement) the concept consistently proved tactically superior in combat, if a nation is willing to accept the risk in combat.
I'm simply posing the question, not endorsing a coarse of action.
Seems to me that if the RN stays on the coarse for traditional Carriers, Destroyers, and Frigates they will end up with too few of all types to stay competitive anyway.
Is it time, for dare I say, an Admiral Art Cebrowski Streetfighter style adaptive derivative to increase the overall numbers of the Royal Navy?
After all, that plan he proposed in 2004 was by Congressional request, and was designed specifically to improve the domestic shipbuilding industry while lowering costs for warships. I'm not claiming it is a much more powerful force as the authors did, however I will admit I have had quite a bit of exposure to the specific concepts, and in simulation (which I will admit is not an accurate method of measurement) the concept consistently proved tactically superior in combat, if a nation is willing to accept the risk in combat.
I'm simply posing the question, not endorsing a coarse of action.
I was under the impression that the T45 has a greater growth potential than that designed into the Horizon. Given the life expectancy of these vessels this is a critical issue as it should be expected they will need a major capability upgrade during thier lives.
If the in built growth potentail was limtied the mitigates against the vessel being able to be modifed to the point it can remain effective and as a result restricts the return on investment. As such building in additional growth potential now is worth the cost.
IMO this is the most compelling arguement for the G&C evolved AB for the Australian AWD project and is money well spent.
If the in built growth potentail was limtied the mitigates against the vessel being able to be modifed to the point it can remain effective and as a result restricts the return on investment. As such building in additional growth potential now is worth the cost.
IMO this is the most compelling arguement for the G&C evolved AB for the Australian AWD project and is money well spent.
Reality Check
The new head of the RN, Adm Sir Jonathon Band, is already facing the reality of a restricted budgets Vs the need to adapt to future threats. He recognizes the need to have a larger number of less capable units for maritime interdiction and constabulary duties (anti-narcotics, piracy mitigation, littoral patrols etc.) working along side reduced numbers of high-intensity war-fighting hulls (T45, Astute, Future Carrier) (Janes Defence Weekly Issue 49, 6th December).
The T23 replacements scheduled for 2017-20 will consist of a tiered family of hulls, distinguished by varying levels of war-fighting capabilities - a return of the global corvette concept. We have witnessed a fare bit of coverage in the UK press recently of RN ships and RFA's seizing large quantities of narcotics, at the end of the day a less capable corvette platform (cheap and cheerful) would suffice for such policing roles. Leaving limited, but more comparable platforms to provide ASW support to the UK Amphip / Carrier force.
The new head of the RN, Adm Sir Jonathon Band, is already facing the reality of a restricted budgets Vs the need to adapt to future threats. He recognizes the need to have a larger number of less capable units for maritime interdiction and constabulary duties (anti-narcotics, piracy mitigation, littoral patrols etc.) working along side reduced numbers of high-intensity war-fighting hulls (T45, Astute, Future Carrier) (Janes Defence Weekly Issue 49, 6th December).
The T23 replacements scheduled for 2017-20 will consist of a tiered family of hulls, distinguished by varying levels of war-fighting capabilities - a return of the global corvette concept. We have witnessed a fare bit of coverage in the UK press recently of RN ships and RFA's seizing large quantities of narcotics, at the end of the day a less capable corvette platform (cheap and cheerful) would suffice for such policing roles. Leaving limited, but more comparable platforms to provide ASW support to the UK Amphip / Carrier force.
Sorry cannot agree. The streetfighter is a lightweight littorial vessel which is not capable of sustained operations and given the 'small and cheap' nature of the projected vessel.
Even the LCS is a littorial vessel and is not something you would attempt to operate in the North Sea and North Atlantic (there is a reason for the Winter North Atlanitic Load Line limit). It is a HSC craft (based on a high speed ferry built to the HSC code in the case of the GD option) which only has a limited sea keeping capability. Nothing the limited load carrying capacity for mission modules and a limited standard armament (57mm Mk 10, .50 hmg, SeaRAM) it is a great vessel (provided it works as it is still developmental) for the littorial role but it is not an escort.
I am not decrying the LCS idea but it is not something that a Navy requiring a true 'escort' capability base its entire fleet on and not a luxury most cost restricted navies can afford.
Seems a sensible use of resources particularly of the weapons and systems are modualr allowing adaption on a capable hull,
That would be counter to the Austal claim their Trimaran design offers "superior seakeeping" and "rough weather capabilities" normally not found in a 3000 ton warship. I'm not sure what that claim means though, in WWII most of the DEs in the North Atlantic were less than 1200 tons, and they got the job done.
I think it is something still to be determined, as are many, many aspects of the LCS project. I will not be surprised if it turns out to be effective in the North Sea and North Atlantic though, some of the original designers of the LCS concept were British with a lot of experience designing warships for that region, including the designers of the Sea Fighter.
Unfortunately, I am also not going to be surprised if the LCS ends up performing escort roles traditionally assigned to frigates. Given the coverage capabilities of the USAF in both the Atlantic and Pacific, the blue water threat in the 21st century is submarines, which is the only blue water role the LCS 'should' be able to support. Whether the LCS can support the role effectively also remains to be seen though.
However, I wasn't really thinking about the LCS when I mentioned streetfighter, rather I was thinking specifically of the "global corvette concept" riksavage mentioned, except with a twist.
Unlike the USNS, the RFA (and other European equivalents) tend to perform more traditional navy roles on their non combat ships. One potential long term twist is to utilize future RFA ships as motherships for smaller combat vessels. One modern example as a technology demonstrator would be the M80 Stiletto, which was built to be deployed via the well deck of an LPD or LSD.
A M80 Stiletto can deploy both UUVs and UAVs, and an LPD can carry and deploy a number of additional USVs, UAVs, and UUVs when storing the M80 Stiletto in the well deck. This type of mothership concept is at the beginning of experimentation, but the idea does appear to have some merit. After all, a Whidbey Island Class LSD could potentially deploy 5 M80 Stiletto's, and safely store an additional 30 USVs also in the well deck, not to mention dozens of UUVs below deck that could be deployed via side crane or well deck, and that still doesn't account for the top area which could be used as a flight deck, or all the cargo space that could be used for weapons displacements.
I'm not advocating an LSD Navy, rather pointing out how much you can get out of a non traditional platform if you think of non traditional ways to utilize them. The USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham (T-AK 3017) is another example. While it was once a simple Maritime Prepositioning Ship, today it is basically a floating fortress for supporting SOF operations.
If you look at the doc I linked to above, it isn't the late 90s version of streetfighter, rather a developed version of a navy alternative fleet that was designed to give the US Congress options to the US Navy future fleet architecture. The US Navy released what is known as the 313-ship fleet, but the alternatives were interesting if simply for their creativity.
Interesting to note the RN planned to build six Fort Victoria class AOR's as 'motherships' for four Type 23 Frigates each in the 90's when the T23's were cheap and cheerful (global corvette?) units with limited helo support.
The T23 became more capable and the idea dropped - resulting in just two Fort Victoria class AOR's.
IMO the idea - or a variation on the theme - has merit...