Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by contedicavour IIRC your navy's Stanflex patrollers have Mk48 mod0 for VLS Sea Sparrow right ? I think ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 29 votes, 3.72 average.
Old December 28th, 2006   #16
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
IIRC your navy's Stanflex patrollers have Mk48 mod0 for VLS Sea Sparrow right ? I think the cheapest solution is like on the Doorman or on the Canadian Halifax, ie VLS tubes on the side of the main superstructure.

Though leaving this aside one minute, Sea Wolf is a point defence system with a range inferior to RAM... not even remotely comparable to ESSM (18+ km) or Aster 15 (30km). Of course, better than nothing, but disappointing for a navy such as the Royal Navy !

cheers
We are talking self defense for frigates under the cover of eg a Type 45. Segregating low intensity patrols out of RN duties kills a lot of the raison d'être of having many hulls...


The RDN uses Mk48 for SSM and Mk56 for ESSM. The ASMD containers (Mk56) contains 12 ESSM in roughly the same space of the 6 SSM Mk48.

I am not sure what ships are upgraded - depend on their role I guess. The ESSM upgrade is - as I understand it - mainly to the C3I system.

http://www.storkaerospace.com/fokker/page.html?id=5810
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

Last edited by Grand Danois; December 28th, 2006 at 05:05 PM. Reason: Added link
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #17
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 689
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
Though leaving this aside one minute, Sea Wolf is a point defence system with a range inferior to RAM... not even remotely comparable to ESSM (18+ km) or Aster 15 (30km).
Longer-range, maybe - but the short range is only 1km, allowing it to intercept at closer ranges than the others you mentioned.

Besides, what the hell were you expecting on ships built before RAM, ESSM or Aster were available?!
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #18
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi_kenshin View Post
Longer-range, maybe - but the short range is only 1km, allowing it to intercept at closer ranges than the others you mentioned.

Besides, what the hell were you expecting on ships built before RAM, ESSM or Aster were available?!
Simple answer : a range comparable to contemporary systems : Aspide, Sea Sparrow, Crotale !!! All have a range of 13-15km, way superior to the 5 km of the original Sea Wolf or the 6 (may be 10)km of VLS Sea Wolf.

Besides, closer range interception was needed because RN ships at the time weren't systematically equipped with Phalanx or Goalkeeper.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #19
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 689
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
Simple answer : a range comparable to contemporary systems : Aspide, Sea Sparrow, Crotale !!! All have a range of 13-15km, way superior to the 5 km of the original Sea Wolf or the 6 (may be 10)km of VLS Sea Wolf.
Range isn't the only issue - you need to compare the systems on their actual performance.

Quote:
Besides, closer range interception was needed because RN ships at the time weren't systematically equipped with Phalanx or Goalkeeper.
Those CIWS only have an effective range of 350 and 500 metres respectively. It's still very useful to be able to use your PD-missile at short.
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #20
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,673
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
Apart from the radar, I was speaking in generics. I would perhaps choose a fixed 16 cell VLS system with Sea Wolf, Aster 15 or VL Mica. RAM could also be a possibility, though I would prefer a VLS.

I would also have the additional crew required for the high end missions rotating or on shore most of the time... But fewer of those addits than actual vessels.

The cheaper parts of LO, like shrouded masts would be natural...
We're definitely thinking along the same lines. Much prefer a VLS. I reckon VL Seawolf/Mica launchers could very easily be fixed to stanflex fittings. Each tube is a self-contained unit, anyway, & IIRC a containerised version exists. Agree about the crewing, as well.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #21
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,673
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
Simple answer : a range comparable to contemporary systems : Aspide, Sea Sparrow, Crotale !!! All have a range of 13-15km, way superior to the 5 km of the original Sea Wolf or the 6 (may be 10)km of VLS Sea Wolf....
cheers
So put Mica in the VL Seawolf launchers. Active radar, as well - fire and forget.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #22
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,673
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
Staying with the OPV(H) going real combatant through quick flex installs theme, I think 24 VL Mica or 24 VLS Sea Wolf is the right thing. Whatever is cheapest would be my choice. The question is: how difficult would it be to modularize these systems like the Mk56/ESSM?
Here are some pictures of VL Mica & Seawolf launchers, in packs -

http://www.irek.co.kr/wizstock/051951900_1143770684.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...s/VLMica_3.jpg
http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00.../90/560901.jpg

The land-based VL Mica shows what can be done.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #23
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi_kenshin View Post
Range isn't the only issue - you need to compare the systems on their actual performance.

.
Good then, let's discuss their actual performance. The first Seawolfs deployed in the Falklands didn't fare well. The UK had a lot of trouble exporting Sea Wolf systems if you exclude the systems delivered with second hand RN ships changing hands. The only export I remember is Malaysia.
Crotale has been adopted in tens of systems by China (local version) plus Saudi Arabia. Even better, Aspide has been sold to Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, post-Falklands war Argentina, Nigeria, Malaysia, Thailand ...
Sure ideally a comparison would require war situations in which the 3 systems really fought, but short of that export performance is THE test. Sea Wolf was a failure...

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #24
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Here are some pictures of VL Mica & Seawolf launchers, in packs -

http://www.irek.co.kr/wizstock/051951900_1143770684.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...s/VLMica_3.jpg
http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00.../90/560901.jpg

The land-based VL Mica shows what can be done.
Thanks for the pictures !
Why all this enthousiasm for a system (Mica) that isn't operational and hasn't been ordered by a single navy so far ? An upgrade with Aster-15, though expensive, would at least provide a missile compatible with the Darings' and, even more, a proven missile system.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #25
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
We're definitely thinking along the same lines. Much prefer a VLS. I reckon VL Seawolf/Mica launchers could very easily be fixed to stanflex fittings. Each tube is a self-contained unit, anyway, & IIRC a containerised version exists. Agree about the crewing, as well.
Allright. Here is my proposal.

OPV(H) role
  • ~ 4,000 tons, CODAD, 28 kts top speed.
  • Either 57mm or 76mm gun. Whatever is cheapest.
  • .50 MG's for secondary.
  • Can operate an EH101 but carries basic Lynx as default.
  • 70 crew, including airgroup.
  • MFR, sonar, ESM etc. (Keep in mind high end is to be taken care of by other assets in high intensity theatres.)
  • Good but not high end signature management.

With the flex modules the OPV gone combatant would include:
  • 3*8 VL Mica
  • 2*4 Harpoon
  • CIWS - could be Phalanx or Millenium.
  • Torpedoes
  • TAS ?
  • + crew for maintenance, operation of kit and expanded mission.
  • Optional Merlin HM1 for ASW.

Operating as part of a battle group - scalable if tasked with being a carrier escort or interdicting traffic in the Gulf.

Perhaps a T23+ hull with CODAD and flex positions?
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #26
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
Allright. Here is my proposal.

OPV(H) role
  • ~ 4,000 tons, CODAD, 28 kts top speed.
  • Either 57mm or 76mm gun. Whatever is cheapest.
  • .50 MG's for secondary.
  • Can operate an EH101 but carries basic Lynx as default.
  • 70 crew, including airgroup.
  • MFR, sonar, ESM etc. (Keep in mind high end is to be taken care of by other assets in high intensity theatres.)
  • Good but not high end signature management.

With the flex modules the OPV gone combatant would include:
  • 3*8 VL Mica
  • 2*4 Harpoon
  • CIWS - could be Phalanx or Millenium.
  • Torpedoes
  • TAS ?
  • + crew for maintenance, operation of kit and expanded mission.
  • Optional Merlin HM1 for ASW.

Operating as part of a battle group - scalable if tasked with being a carrier escort or interdicting traffic in the Gulf.

Perhaps a T23+ hull with CODAD and flex positions?
Interesting. I wonder to what extent the T23 hull can be "stanflex-ised" It is easy to be "fitted for but not with" Harpoon SSMs or a CIWS gun, but it's much harder to add serious VLS for AAW and ASW sensors...
Historically the British have built long series of specialized ships (ASW FFGs, AAW DDGs, and so on) so adopting this sort of modular OPVH would be a huge change.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #27
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 689
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
Good then, let's discuss their actual performance. The first Seawolfs deployed in the Falklands didn't fare well.
That was arguably because of tactics, not because of Sea Wolf itself. Anyway an upgrade Block 2 version is already being rolled out (or about to be rolled out - I forget which).

Quote:
Sure ideally a comparison would require war situations in which the 3 systems really fought, but short of that export performance is THE test. Sea Wolf was a failure...
So because Rafale hasn't picked up any orders outside of France yet, does that make it a failure too? Come on, to use export orders as evidence of whether something is "good" or not is ridiculous.
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #28
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
Interesting. I wonder to what extent the T23 hull can be "stanflex-ised" It is easy to be "fitted for but not with" Harpoon SSMs or a CIWS gun, but it's much harder to add serious VLS for AAW and ASW sensors...
Historically the British have built long series of specialized ships (ASW FFGs, AAW DDGs, and so on) so adopting this sort of modular OPVH would be a huge change.

cheers
These ships are not meant to be specialised for AAW. I'll agree to the ASW - but it depends so much on how ASW develops over the coming years. Modularised VLS for self defense seems to be solvable to satisfaction, read Mk56 or the already containerised VL Mica.
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #29
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi_kenshin View Post
That was arguably because of tactics, not because of Sea Wolf itself. Anyway an upgrade Block 2 version is already being rolled out (or about to be rolled out - I forget which).



So because Rafale hasn't picked up any orders outside of France yet, does that make it a failure too? Come on, to use export orders as evidence of whether something is "good" or not is ridiculous.
Honestly ? Yes, if a fighter can't be exported after 10 years of trying, it IS a failure at least in terms of commercial viability.
So far, I have brought up 2 arguments : specs and export success both put Sea Wolf at the bottom of its SAM class. If you have concrete examples of why this should not be the case, be my guest.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #30
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
These ships are not meant to be specialised for AAW. I'll agree to the ASW - but it depends so much on how ASW develops over the coming years. Modularised VLS for self defense seems to be solvable to satisfaction, read Mk56 or the already containerised VL Mica.
Yep... I guess financial constraints force us all to be creative. The Danish navy has come out of a budget squeeze with AAW DDGs and original LPD-cum-FFGs, which is good proof that the modular ship works in terms of cost efficiency. If the USN has managed to adapt that concept to the LCS, I guess all of us with our poorer navies (RN included) will have to think this through as well.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:57 PM.