The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Hi to all
The two island design is a great way to reduce the organised chaos which is aircraft carrier operations, having one dedicated to normal ship running operations and the other to flight and control , this is a very simple way to deal with the problem and must make things run alot smoother
 
AFAIK main reasons behind it are

  • Optimum positioning, ship control favours foreward position of island whereas flight deck operations favour rear placement
  • Trunking requirements of the GTAs, they wanted to keep the prime movers spread out for increased redundancy and if they had a single island then the exhaust would need ducting a route through the ship wasting valuable internal volume
  • Ship survivability & C&C redudancy in the case of a hit
  • Dual island profile created better wind-over-deck profiles for aircraft operations

As to if it will be 'smoother', time will tell. Whatever comes out of it, i'm sure the RN will perform admirably.

Personally, I reckon we're onto a real winner.
 
Astute said:
Hi to all
The two island design is a great way to reduce the organised chaos which is aircraft carrier operations, having one dedicated to normal ship running operations and the other to flight and control , this is a very simple way to deal with the problem and must make things run alot smoother
Click to expand...

I think Rob has nailed it.
I've worked in a small Carriers command team and I don't believe there was organised chaos. Certainly Commander Air and his team were well separated from the ship/Flag command teams to be able to go about there business in a busy but professional manner
 
Hi to all
I only have admiration for the professionals who do this job it must be a very demanding and stressful place to be when there's so much going on at the same time specially on USN carriers those guys are truly masters of carrier operations .

my point was having two Islands each dedicated to different parts of carrier operations and control must make some difference , but as rob said time will tell ,this concept and design is new so we will have to wait to see if there is any true benefits , but I have to agree with rob again we could be onto a winner , having all ship control in the forward Island and having flight and probably royal marine operations centered in the second island means dedicated space which could only help and be an advantage in my opinion. Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating myself lol
 
Well, one of the driving factors was simply that to separate the GT's adequately, you either have a very strange trunking arrangements, a very long island or you split the island into two functional groups.

Since the very point of separating the GT's was to increase survivability in the event of a hit, splitting the island into two was probably a natural outcome.
 
Initial CGI of the Vanguards replacement has been released alongside a tranche of contracts totalling £79 million to BAE Systems. I do appreciate that at this time, it's pretty much concept art.

First glimpse of new nuclear submarines - Telegraph
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-investment-in-successor-submarines

The fin of the island looks interesting, definitely more streamlined than the Astutes* and hopefully the situation WRT lack of design experience with Astute has been avoided and the lesson learned.

*an incredibly similar CGI of the Astute here http://www.poptens.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Astute-Class-UK.jpg it's useful for comparison.
 
The last Type 45 destroyer - HMS Duncan - has been declared operational today and will embark on trials to ready the crew for her maiden operational deployment. She entered service ahead of schedule by 4 months.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...rly?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So now for the first time our DDG force has fully transitioned to an operating fleet of Type 45's which is good news. Currently the only deployed Type 45 is Daring, Defender has yet to make her maiden deployment & it's been a while since Dauntless was deployed.
 
RobWilliams said:
The last Type 45 destroyer - HMS Duncan - has been declared operational today and will embark on trials to ready the crew for her maiden operational deployment. She entered service ahead of schedule by 4 months.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...rly?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So now for the first time our DDG force has fully transitioned to an operating fleet of Type 45's which is good news. Currently the only deployed Type 45 is Daring, Defender has yet to make her maiden deployment & it's been a while since Dauntless was deployed.
Click to expand...



Sept 10/13: Sea Ceptor for Daring. The UK Ministry of Defence announces the 1st CAMM production contract: GBP 250 million (about $393 million) for the Sea Ceptor/ CAMM-M. Final assembly will take place at MBDA’s Lostock facility, with 9 Tier-1 subcontractors distributed across sites in England and Scotland.

The UK’s announcement of the missile’s platforms is equally significant. Sea Ceptor will be retrofitted to Type 23 Duke Class frigates beginning in 2016, serve aboard the forthcoming Type 26 frigate as its primary air defense system – and complement the Aster missiles on the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers. That seemingly simple addition changes how the Daring Class stacks up against other nations’ air defense ships, as shown in this article’s revised comparison chart. Sources: UK MoD, Sept 10/13 release | Royal Navy, Sept 11/13 release | MBDA, Sept 9/13 release.
DDG Type 45: Britain’s Shrinking Air Defense Fleet
sorry for the large copy past but I didn't realise the 45 were getting CAMM fitted which makes them extremely useful and suddenly jumps up the amount of missiles carried on board according to DID its and extra 48 missiles with CAMM. It seems a very significant difference compared with the Horizons
 
StobieWan said:
That's good news - I'd assumed T45 would get CAMM but it's nice to have confirmation.
Click to expand...

I makes you wonder if the RN could drop Aster 15 now the Type 45s are getting CAMM. The two systems seem to (on paper) have similar capabilities and performance so would this give the RN the opportunity to increase the number of Aster 30 in place of the 15s, for no reduction in capability?
 
StobieWan said:
That's good news - I'd assumed T45 would get CAMM but it's nice to have confirmation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I believe that is premature and the article in defensedaily.com could be in error.

The context of the press release by UK MoD (reproduced in part below) suggest to me that they were simply referring to the CAMM equipped T23/26 operating in tandem with T45 equipped PAAMS. The corresponding press release from MBDA reiterated the same point; the £250 million production contract is to equip the T23 and subsequently, the T26.

Sea Ceptor, which will be fitted to the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates and, in future, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, is a cutting-edge missile designed and built by MBDA.

Capable of travelling at speeds of more than 2,000 miles per hour, it will be able to intercept multiple targets and protect an area out to a range of 25 kilometres.

It will complement the longer range Sea Viper system on the Type 45 destroyers, providing the Royal Navy with a full range of missile systems to defeat current and future threats.
Click to expand...

Ref:
1) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-worlds-largest-defence-and-security-event
2) http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/news-files/PR_2013-09-10_EN-1-141.pdf
 
I agree with koxinga, i remember the article came out and at the time the main detail that people online took from it was simply the fact that production of CAMM had begun.

There was concerns in some quarters about the financials of replacing Aster 15 with CAMM, IIRC the only real difference between 15/30 is that 30 has a more powerful booster and the dart is essentially the same and the idea was that by not supporting Aster 15 then production runs of the darts will decrease and the cost of Aster 30 will increase. But then gotta factor in the cost of 4xCAMM for 1xAster 15.

But from a purely operational standpoint, it's a fascinating concept. Using a current silo number of 48, if we gave the Type 45 the same amount of CAMM missiles as a Type 26 frigate then the loadout would be 48 CAMM + 36 Aster 30.
 
koxinga said:
Sorry, but I believe that is premature and the article in defensedaily.com could be in error.

The context of the press release by UK MoD (reproduced in part below) suggest to me that they were simply referring to the CAMM equipped T23/26 operating in tandem with T45 equipped PAAMS. The corresponding press release from MBDA reiterated the same point; the £250 million production contract is to equip the T23 and subsequently, the T26.



Ref:
1) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-worlds-largest-defence-and-security-event
2) http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/news-files/PR_2013-09-10_EN-1-141.pdf
Click to expand...


Yup - on second reading, it's too much of a leap to go with that - it really just name checks the Aster in passing.

As to suggestions Aster-15 could be dropped, that really depends on how CAMM performs in real life. Both missiles have a relatively small seeker FOV, and rely heavily on getting put into position by the ships primary radar. If they're a smidge off, and have to start moving around, Aster (either flavour) has PIF-PAF - a set of thrusters that can push the missile sideways in space very rapidly. CAMM does not.

Aster's a much bigger missile for a reason.

I'd be interested in seeing if the UK could knock out a Sea Meteor using the Aster booster or buying in Mk72's from the US and perch a Meteor on the end. You'd definitely need a booster as Meteor has a ram jet and can't get out of a silo without a shove. I'm chatting idly..sorry :)

If CAMM could get integrated with Sylver more quickly than not, it'd help export chances - I don't know if the NZ deals for CAMM will use the box launchers or what but there are plenty of customers out there with Sylver who may look favourably at CAMM.

Getting it into Mk41 is probably more of a priority however (much bigger market)
 
I'm not sure if the RNZN will be using CAMM in their current Mk41's or replacing them with the dedicated quad packs or canisters, there's been a lot of talk elsewhere about an issue being top weight and that the margins of upgrading from Sea Sparrow to ESSM being too tight. Obviously replacing the Mk41s themselves would free up the most space, but CAMM as is is still >2 times lighter than Sea Sparrow and a good performance upgrade so the weight savings for a better system are still there.

MBDA has already launched a missile from a Mk41 with ExLS

DSEI 2013: MBDA, Lockheed Martin demonstrate CAMM launch from Mk 41 - IHS Jane's 360

There are performance advantages in favour of Aster 15 but IMO we've studied our LAAD requirement with the Type 26 frigate and that turned in favour of CAMM, although other issues may have influenced this (greater positioning power of CAMM, lighter, limited VLS space up front anyway)

Still, I personally feel that debate about which missile should the Type 45s carry seems very much by-the-by compared to the lack of CEC. IMO for the Navy the spending priorities reinvestment into the solid stores capability & Argus/Diligence replacement to be ready to support the battlegroup & getting Crowsnest in service when the current ASaCs retire.

Whole host of other things that go into "i'd like that" like CEC, but IMO those two are the critical ones.
 
Last edited:
All very true but I guess CAMM is the next shiny thing for the type 23's, which with their upgraded radar etc will keep them competitive.
 
StobieWan said:
All very true but I guess CAMM is the next shiny thing for the type 23's, which with their upgraded radar etc will keep them competitive.
Click to expand...
I know I'm just an enthusiast but how much is the UK spending on upgrading the type 23's,is it me or do we always seem to spend billions on upgrading equipment to then just retire them or scrap them. Would it not be better to use the money that is being used to upgrade the type 23 and keep Portsmouth builders yard open and create 2 yards building the type 26. Its the same with the tornado gr 4 fleet that's being upgraded aswell when its only got roughly 5 yrs left it don't make sense.
 
We haven't started building Type 26 yet, & if we don't upgrade the Type 23s they'll stop working. Fitting new radars probably won't cost much more than keeping the old ones going. Sea Wolf is no longer made, AFAIK. We could refurbish old rounds - but how long would that keep us going? And how much would it cost?
 
Anixtu said:
T23s will be stripped of some equipment (including stuff like Artisan and CAMM) to fit out T26s.
Click to expand...

+ TAS + associated consoles and equipment that goes along with all kit transfers. Some have said that maybe the ship launched torps system, but considering we don't know if the T26 has them in the design then it's moot.

I find this to be the exact OPPOSITE to a waste of money, it's an important update which our frigate force needs. It's easy to say "we're replacing them, what a waste of money" but the fact is that if the ISD of the first T26 is 2021 then we're going to have Type 23s still in service into the 2030s. We need those ships to be still capable of warfighting, otherwise what's the point of having them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top