The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Good article about the F-35 on the QEC, apparently the USN are quite interested in our decision to buy two deployed mission ready simulators and have them in our carriers in the hangar deck.

The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force Prepare for Cross-Domain Transformation: The F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth Carrier | SLDInfo

 

[RobWilliams]

It's official, like properly official, Mk41 for Type 26.

UK confirms Mk 41 VLS selection for Type 26 - IHS Jane's 360

Also confirmed is that we're back to the 24 strong silo up front thank God!

 

[Anixtu]

People have been assuming it'll be an airbase with an RAF presence too, but that's gone a bit odd.

Flying boats or seaplanes at Mina Salman? :-D

Talk of purchasing Typhoon is done and so has - publicly - the idea of making Al Minhad a critical British station in the Gulf.

We've got at least an EAW at Minhad and the Google Earth IMINT is quite telling too.

 

[StobieWan]

From Warships again, confirmation Type 26 is to get Mk41:


UK confirms Mk 41 VLS selection for Type 26 - IHS Jane's 360

I'm thinking this is a positive decision for the future.

 

[kev 99]

At the risk of being called a pedant, that article from Janes is just reporting the existence of the letter confirming MK41 that Gabrielle first allerted us to on his blog.

However I feel it appropriate to add a Woohoo! of my own

 

[RobWilliams]

Confirming that the letter which the DefSec confirms it's 24 mk41 a pop

I'm happy with the selection, if MBDA wants to integrate it's products with Mk41 then you can't go wrong.

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah - I have no idea what the technical differences are but I'd much sooner have the global standard that's used and developed by the big dog in the yard. It means that there are so many things that can be packed in there easily

 

[RobWilliams]

Saying that however, i'd wager integrating any weapon into our combat systems is the significant cost compared to paying to overcome the physical differences of the launcher itself.

 

[153jam]

I'm assuming if MK41 strike length has been selected then Tomahawk is certainly on the table for T26 now. Would the kind of systems that need to be integrated to get that capability be costly/difficult to procure? And I'm under the impression that our current sub-launched TLAM missiles are not capable of a MK41 surface launch?

 

[Volkodav]

I'm assuming if MK41 strike length has been selected then Tomahawk is certainly on the table for T26 now. Would the kind of systems that need to be integrated to get that capability be costly/difficult to procure? And I'm under the impression that our current sub-launched TLAM missiles are not capable of a MK41 surface launch?

Now Mk41 has been selected I am curious as to how many more cells could be worked in for potential customers who don't want Sea Ceptor? Would it be another twenty four and what length would/could they be? While strike length would be nice tactical length would probably do while point defence length would probably be a waste.

 

[RobWilliams]

Now Mk41 has been selected I am curious as to how many more cells could be worked in for potential customers who don't want Sea Ceptor? Would it be another twenty four and what length would/could they be? While strike length would be nice tactical length would probably do while point defence length would probably be a waste.

I'd like to think so, but that would have to be something which BAE would have designed for from the start. In terms of space and weight, the 24 CAMM up front won't provide a whole lot of room.

Tactical length if there's any space/weight to do so IMO, it'd feel like a dream if we were told FFBNW +16 extra or WTTE but I doubt it.

That being said, two potential customers (NZ/ Brazil) have picked up CAMM anyway so who knows

For the latter, Type 26 is now a very attractive option.

 

[CB90]

I'm assuming if MK41 strike length has been selected then Tomahawk is certainly on the table for T26 now. Would the kind of systems that need to be integrated to get that capability be costly/difficult to procure? And I'm under the impression that our current sub-launched TLAM missiles are not capable of a MK41 surface launch?

The TLAM canisters for sub and surface launch are different. They come as "all up rounds" specifically so that they dont need to be messed with.

The actual fire control systems are fairly minimal in terms of challenges of space/weight/integration relative to getting a missile launcher squeezed in. Especially when the ship is still at a relatively early design phase.

 

[StobieWan]

Now Mk41 has been selected I am curious as to how many more cells could be worked in for potential customers who don't want Sea Ceptor? Would it be another twenty four and what length would/could they be? While strike length would be nice tactical length would probably do while point defence length would probably be a waste.

I've been told that the weight of a four pack of the dedicated CAMM cells is about 1/3 that of a Mk41 cell quad packed with ESSM or near enough for guessing work on a conservative note. So, the 24 forward and 24 aft of the funnel would translate into 8 SDS length cells each. That'd give you 64 ESSM/RAM block 2 for air defence and you can keep the strike length for strikey goodness (ASROC, TLAM, LRASM etc)

There may well be scope for longer cells, particularly at the bow, I suspect SDS length may be your lot for the centre line install as they're a bit high in the air to be packing too much extra weight.

 

[StobieWan]

The TLAM canisters for sub and surface launch are different. They come as "all up rounds" specifically so that they dont need to be messed with.

The actual fire control systems are fairly minimal in terms of challenges of space/weight/integration relative to getting a missile launcher squeezed in. Especially when the ship is still at a relatively early design phase.

I did wonder about that - so, there's no provision to swap the missiles from one to another any place other than the manufacturer then? Solves that question I guess

Integration wise, I think the Tico's just had a spare laptop plugged in to do the mission planning etc ? Not a big job at that level.

 

[Volkodav]

I've been told that the weight of a four pack of the dedicated CAMM cells is about 1/3 that of a Mk41 cell quad packed with ESSM or near enough for guessing work on a conservative note. So, the 24 forward and 24 aft of the funnel would translate into 8 SDS length cells each. That'd give you 64 ESSM/RAM block 2 for air defence and you can keep the strike length for strikey goodness (ASROC, TLAM, LRASM etc)

There may well be scope for longer cells, particularly at the bow, I suspect SDS length may be your lot for the centre line install as they're a bit high in the air to be packing too much extra weight.

I believe Mk41 has been (or is to be) certified for quad packed CAMM and Nulka as well as ESSM and RAM Block II. So even just a couple of SDS length cells would add a lot of flexibility to the design.

 

[Riga]

T45.
Anti-air missiles:
Sea Viper air defence system.
1 × 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS, for a combination of 48:
Aster 15 missiles (range 1.7-30 km)
Aster 30 missiles (range 3-120 km)
Anti-ship missiles:
2 × quad Harpoon launchers[N 2]

If the T26 are going to be so versatile from ASW to AAW defence (ESSM potentially), why the lack of commonality?

 

[Volkodav]

T45.
Anti-air missiles:
Sea Viper air defence system.
1 × 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS, for a combination of 48:
Aster 15 missiles (range 1.7-30 km)
Aster 30 missiles (range 3-120 km)
Anti-ship missiles:
2 × quad Harpoon launchers[N 2]

If the T26 are going to be so versatile from ASW to AAW defence (ESSM potentially), why the lack of commonality?

I believe ESSM is only being spoken of in terms of export or overseas builds and not for the RN. An AAW version for the RN would likely be stretched with a 32 or 48 cell Sylver while possibly retaining the CAMM near the funnel. I do remember reading somewhere about a.quad pack CAMM option for Sylver as well, which would make that system available for the Type 45 as well.

 

[swerve]

I do remember reading somewhere about a.quad pack CAMM option for Sylver as well.

MBDA says that it'll quad pack in Sylver.

"Sea Ceptor can operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration"

 

[RobWilliams]

I believe they're also taking steps with Aster 15 and Aster 30 and getting those into the Mk41 too. Probably even Aster 30 Block 2 (I prefer Aster 45) too looking far in the future.

Harpoon is on the way out, they'll be gone before the first Type 26 enters service that's for sure. They'll be taken off the Type 45's and unless they get their strike length silos then they won't have the role.

Bear in mind that come 2020, Daring will be over a decade old and coming close (~4/5 years) to her mid-life refit. That'll include - probably - tearing out the 4.5in and replacing it with a 5in. Who knows, with the bow torn open, it might be the best time to jiggle the silos around a bit and get those extra 16 plumbed in.

 

[kev 99]

T45.
Anti-air missiles:
Sea Viper air defence system.
1 × 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS, for a combination of 48:
Aster 15 missiles (range 1.7-30 km)
Aster 30 missiles (range 3-120 km)
Anti-ship missiles:
2 × quad Harpoon launchers[N 2]

If the T26 are going to be so versatile from ASW to AAW defence (ESSM potentially), why the lack of commonality?

Because some of the options (LRASM and potential vertical launch NSM) that are on the table for T26 were not at the time of the T45 build, and the PAAMS team had selected Sylver as the VLS not MK41, which was the RN's preferred option. Also the budget wasn't available for a new medium calibre gun that the RN had been after for some time.