The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[deepsixteen]

*cough* Perseus *cough*

It's one of those things we'll find out in 2015; if we're getting Mk41 or A70.

• Get A70 and buy MdCN (Sea-Shadow or something like that)
• Get A70 and pay for TLAM integration
• Get Mk41 and buy TLAM

Hi

I think that the Mk41 may have more to do with BMD remember that we are about to carry out trials with Daring.

Deepsixteen

 

[RobWilliams]

Well, my list was about the strike cells for the Type 26, so BMD talk about that is pretty redundant.

But if we're talking about the Type 45? Not at all, our future BMD capability will be delivered by Aster 30 Block 2 (as we're not looking at SM-3) and while I do accept that MBDA and Lockheed Martin are taking steps to integrate more products onto the Mk41, I do not agree at all that the Mk41 is more about BMD for the Royal Navy.

The intermediate step between the current Aster 30 and Aster 30 Block 2 is Aster 30 Block 1 NT which over current Aster 30 offers (pulling words right out of RUSI's work, I'll link it at the bottom, circa 2010)

• Improved conventional capability (Low level/range)
• Improved TBM capability
• Operator configurable warhead prior to launch

While MBDA/LockMart are doing this, it won't stop the fact that right now the Type 45s have A50s in there right now, Aster 30 Block 1 NT is designed to be compatible with the A50. So for the UK, the Mk41 offers no real advantages over the Sylver A50 at all (IF it gets integrated anyway) whereas the choice of Mk41/A70 for land strikes? It's more of an issue.

BMD Aster *might* need A70, AFAIK the A50 might be at the limit with BMD Aster, but even then I don't see the Mk41 being a particularly big deal.

The main benefit of the Mk41 would be not paying integration costs for TLAM in the A70, but I'm not sure of the financial repercussions of running 2 types of silos in the fleet.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Phil_Jackson.pdf

 

[deepsixteen]

Well, my list was about the strike cells for the Type 26, so BMD talk about that is pretty redundant.

Hi

The post I responded to was ref Mk41 and had no mention of type 26. Previous posts were regarding Dragon and the space envelope for further siloes as I understand it no decision to acquire BMD has been made yet, let alone selection of individual components of such a system.
I speculated with regard to Mk 41 as an interesting combination of events around the subject appear to be on-going which may have more to do with informing decisions about BMD than is immediately apparent even though I regard Aster as the front runner at least on the face of things.

Deepsixteen

PS I suspect CAMM in Mk41 is mostly about selling CAMM to other customers.

 

[kev 99]

*cough* Perseus *cough*

It's one of those things we'll find out in 2015; if we're getting Mk41 or A70.

• Get A70 and buy MdCN (Sea-Shadow or something like that)
• Get A70 and pay for TLAM integration
• Get Mk41 and buy TLAM

If Perseus ever gets built it will never be cheap, it's a big missile, possess sub munitions and it's supersonic. Personally I doubt it would ever be as cheap as a TLAM.

Now if Perseus gets built you could probably make a cheaper land attack version by fitting a subsonic engine and replacing the sub munitions with more fuel. I think that would fit with the way Team Complex Weapons are trying to evolve weapons development.

*cough* Perseus *cough* BMD Aster *might* need A70, AFAIK the A50 might be at the limit with BMD Aster, but even then I don't see the Mk41 being a particularly big deal.

Well it's being talked about as fitting A50, that might not work out though.

 

[RobWilliams]

The post I responded to was ref Mk41 and had no mention of type 26. Previous posts were regarding Dragon and the space envelope for further siloes as I understand it no decision to acquire BMD has been made yet, let alone selection of individual components of such a system
I speculated with regard to Mk 41 as an interesting combination of events around the subject appear to be on-going which may have more to do with informing decisions about BMD than is immediately apparent even though I regard Aster as the front runner at least on the face of things.

Perhaps then it would be better to quote a past comment about that discussion, rather than one about the Type 26 to prevent crossed wires.

Correct, currently we're just seeing what she can do to just track ballistic missiles and are interested in developments to Aster 30. What I was saying though was I disagreed with what you said about Mk41 being "more about BMD" vis-a-vis the Type 45 because it just isn't Our BMD needs will be served by a derivative of Aster 30 and until we hear about MBDA wanting to fund the money for integration d'you really think the UK would fund it when comptible cells already exist?

There's nothing the Mk41 offers over A70 for the Royal Navy in terms of BMD.

Yes, installing CAMM is about commercial gain, it says that in the link I posted about it. But why I thought it was relevant was if MBDA tried to integrate Aster into the silo.

 

[RobWilliams]

If Perseus ever gets built it will never be cheap, it's a big missile, possess sub munitions and it's supersonic. Personally I doubt it would ever be as cheap as a TLAM.

Now if Perseus gets built you could probably make a cheaper land attack version by fitting a subsonic engine and replacing the sub munitions with more fuel. I think that would fit with the way Team Complex Weapons are trying to evolve weapons development.

What all the promo stuff says is that the sub munitions can be retained inside the body of the missile to act as one large warhead. Bit iffy about removing the sub munitions for more fuel though, 200kg warhead compared to TLAM/Storm Shadows ~450. I get that 200kg is still a fair chunk, but if we're talking about extending the range of Perseus then we'd be better served with TLAM if the cost is losing ~100kg of the warhead to do it. On the other hand could just make the missile longer like what MBDA did with MdCN

Absolutely agreed, it won't be as cheap as TLAM. What I think we've got is a rather nice product for naval and short/medium (if TLAM is considered *long*) land attack missile, I like the idea of a mix of those + TLAM in the Type 26's silos.

IMO it's got some refining to be done and thankfully there's buckets of time to do that

Well it's being talked about as fitting A50, that might not work out though.

Yeah, IIRC swerve in the past has linked me to documents that it'll fit in the A50.

EDIT: The recent RUSI document I linked says it's A50 compatible

 

[kev 99]

What all the promo stuff says is that the sub munitions can be retained inside the body of the missile to act as one large warhead. Bit iffy about removing the sub munitions for more fuel though, 200kg warhead compared to TLAM/Storm Shadows ~450. I get that 200kg is still a fair chunk, but if we're talking about extending the range of Perseus then we'd be better served with TLAM if the cost is losing ~100kg of the warhead to do it. On the other hand could just make the missile longer like what MBDA did with MdCN

I was responding more to Stobiewan's musing on something cheap inbetween Harpoon and Tomahawk, Perseus doesn't really fulfil the cheap requirement.

I don't know if Perseus can be made much longer, it's being talked about as compatible with MK41 Strike length or Sylver A70 which means it's pretty long as it is.

 

[Volkodav]

Hello Rob, on the Mk41 fit option on the Type 45s, as I understand it the space and weight was provided for either additional Sylver or Mk 41 for the possible addition of a TLAM capability without impairing the existing AW capability.

I have read in Defence Daily that the US has evaluated the potential of various European platforms to participate in the BMD mission. If I remember correctly the discussion was about the difficulty of integrating SM-3 into the various Euro AWDs F-100 being the easiest, followed by De Zeven Provincien, and Sachsen, Daring being more difficult and the Horizons the hardest.

 

[RobWilliams]

I was responding more to Stobiewan's musing on something cheap inbetween Harpoon and Tomahawk, Perseus doesn't really fulfil the cheap requirement.

I don't know if Perseus can be made much longer, it's being talked about as compatible with MK41 Strike length or Sylver A70 which means it's pretty long as it is.

Roger that.

When Janes reported about the missile, it said that MBDAs intention for the missile is for it to be "less than 5m"

Perseus: MBDA

MBDA (Stand S3-101) envisages CVS 401 as a modular weapon, facilitating upgrades and also enabling it to carry different lethal payloads. The intended size is less than 5m in length to match existing launch equipment, and weight would be less than 800kg.

So if that's to believed, they've got a bit of room to play with if they want to do that sort of thing. The talk about it being modular and facilitating upgrades is welcome.

 

[RobWilliams]

Hello Rob, on the Mk41 fit option on the Type 45s, as I understand it the space and weight was provided for either additional Sylver or Mk 41 for the possible addition of a TLAM capability without impairing the existing AW capability.

Yup, my understanding right now is that all the allowances have been made for +16 strike length cells in addition to the 48 A50s currently there.

I have read in Defence Daily that the US has evaluated the potential of various European platforms to participate in the BMD mission. If I remember correctly the discussion was about the difficulty of integrating SM-3 into the various Euro AWDs F-100 being the easiest, followed by De Zeven Provincien, and Sachsen, Daring being more difficult and the Horizons the hardest.

I vaguely reading something like that as well, which ultimately means that we're more likely to be using Aster 30 Block 2 for the BMD job (circa 2020) which will be designed from the start to fit in with PAAMS rather than trying to shoehorn SM-3 in there.

I get that currently BMD Aster is just a concept, but Aster 30 NT is the first step as an intermediate to get there. If the UK is serious about collaboration with France (not just France working with the UK, it works the other way too) then I think this would be a good way to go about it as they've already committed (i think) on this path.

I'd have thought that a few of the updates from Aster 30 to Aster 30 NT which improved the range & performance of the missile would work their way onto Aster 15 in the future too. But i'm still in 2 minds about if we should ditch Aster 15 for more Aster 30 + quad packed CAMM.could

 

[Volkodav]

If CAMM is integrated with ExLS as well as Mk 41 it would give the RN more options on the Darings as they are light weight soft launch launchers that can be fitted more easily in a greater variety of spaces than the Mk41. It would also likely make the integration of Nulka ( if required) easier. I wonder if ExLS could be integrated with Sylver?

 

[RobWilliams]

I'm not familiar with ExLS so could you give me a brief run down? A quick google brought up zilch

But with CAMM, it's already got it's own soft launch canisters going on, on the Type 26 it's going to have 48 individual cells for CAMM (24 up front in 4 rows of 6 and 24 in the mast which includes the funnel) and on the Type 23 it's using it's own quad launchers installed where Sea Wolf is. IIRC it's going to have the a superior missile capacity (+ capability) over the current setup but they're only being installed in half of the Type 23's missile silo which demonstrates how compact these things are.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes to the suggestion that trialling CAMM in Mk41 is a blatant attempt to flog CAMM to absolutely anyone with a cheque book It'd be an interesting take on marketing it as of course ESSM quad packs as well - so unless CAMM is wayyyyy cheaper than ESSM and there's some other USP, then I suspect most users will be sticking with ESSM.

There is one USP of course - CAMM is an active missile - so all those ships out there with a couple of illuminators could get a significant leg up in terms of saturation resistance - as long as you've got channels for data links, you can punt CAMM into the air and hope it hits.

Thing is, ESSM has about double the reach of CAMM....

 

[Volkodav]

I'm not familiar with ExLS so could you give me a brief run down? A quick google brought up zilch

But with CAMM, it's already got it's own soft launch canisters going on, on the Type 26 it's going to have 48 individual cells for CAMM (24 up front in 4 rows of 6 and 24 in the mast which includes the funnel) and on the Type 23 it's using it's own quad launchers installed where Sea Wolf is. IIRC it's going to have the a superior missile capacity (+ capability) over the current setup but they're only being installed in half of the Type 23's missile silo which demonstrates how compact these things are.

Lockheed Martin · Lockheed Martin’s New Standalone Launching System Significantly Reduces Weapons Integration Costs

For the stand alone version and

Lockheed Martin · Naval Launchers and Munitions

for the original that serves as an interface for affordably integrating various other systems into Mk 41 and 57 VLS.

 

[RobWilliams]

Ohhhhhh I see, but nah I don't see it for the Type 45. The space for the strike length cells is there so that's not a problem + CAMM quad packs in them and bob's your uncle.

On a side note, there's an article about HMS Montrose who recently fired every single weapon on board; Sea Wolf, Harpoon, Stingrays the lot. There's a couple of pictures that caught my interest, mainly what Sea Gnat looks like when it's used & a couple of Stingray launch pictures

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/7705

 

[StobieWan]

Yup - for Type 45, CAMM will quad pack into A50 silos already so no need for any additional launchers etc.

The decision as to which strike length launchers go into the space reserved will revolve around what they're intended to do - TLAM isn't integrated with Sylver as far as I know, neither is Aster with Mk41 ? Aster Block 2 is a straight fit into the A50 length but only works against SRBM type targets whereas SM3 has a bit more reach?

Gosh, decisions..

 

[RobWilliams]

TLAM on A70 - UK would have to fund it
Aster in the Mk41 - Depends on how the MoU develops between LockMart and MBDA but IMO looking promising, Aster is arguably MBDA's premier air defence product and I'd wager that they'd really like to export it out of the current limited European users.

I think that's how Aster 30 Block 2 works, which is why I was wondering if then A70's would be best of they wanted to increase the booster or something like that?

 

[Volkodav]

Yup - for Type 45, CAMM will quad pack into A50 silos already so no need for any additional launchers etc.

The decision as to which strike length launchers go into the space reserved will revolve around what they're intended to do - TLAM isn't integrated with Sylver as far as I know, neither is Aster with Mk41 ? Aster Block 2 is a straight fit into the A50 length but only works against SRBM type targets whereas SM3 has a bit more reach?

Gosh, decisions..

Well the answer is obvious, a 55m hull stretch, nuclear power and additional 48 Sylver and 96 Mk41 maybe look at integrating AUSPAR or SPY-3 in addition to the current sensor fit, SPQ-9B would be good too and don't forget CEC.

An AEW Seaking or Merlin should also be embarked and the Mk8 4.5" should be replaced with a 155mm AGS or a reinitiated Mk71 8" gun.

 

[RobWilliams]

You're forgetting one crucial element in there . . . .

RAILGUNS, RAILGUNS EVERYWHERE

But about the main gun, the general thinking is that as the Type 26 is being upgunned to a 5in that the Type 45s will be retrofitted with some as well to keep a unified supply chain. IIRC the relevant areas of the ship have been strengthened and the preparation has been done to make the changeover possible.

I'm a pretty big fan of the Oto 127/64

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unZOJEZjC4"]127/64 LW Vulcano naval gun system Oto Melara - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[kev 99]

I'm a pretty big fan of the Oto 127/64

127/64 LW Vulcano naval gun system Oto Melara - YouTube

To be honest I think everybody is a fan of the Oto.

Shame we couldn't get it on T45s right from the start of their lives.