The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

StobieWan said:
BAE were promoting LM2500's - it was the then-defence minister who selected WR21's- the RN would have quite happily had Mk41 and LM2500s.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the government didn't suggest using the WR21 on their own initiative, they were obviously lobbied by Rolls-Royce (and possibly NG). I doubt the then defence ministers even knew what a gas turbine was, let alone what options were on the market.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1492162621587480576

Type 31 progressing nicely. Great to have a frigate hall able to build two at the same time. Makes it a lot easier for Babcock to bid for the Type 32, on the basis they're planning to deliver all five by 2028, so will have the capacity.
 
IIRC, the recuperation project was supported by both the USN and RN. However, the USN lost interest and development continued with the RN as the only interested party. Certainly RR and NG would have been lobbying for the project to continue.
 
StobieWan said:
BAE were promoting LM2500's - it was the then-defence minister who selected WR21's- the RN would have quite happily had Mk41 and LM2500s.

Even if WR21's had been selected with the untested recuperator, if more diesel generating power had been selected, the failover would have been less brutal.
Click to expand...
Essentially the PIP is just larger diesel electric capacity so perhaps the WR21 without the recuperation system would have worked out better. I believe the original design didn’t envision the diesels being used for propulsion, only for hotel load.
 
John Fedup said:
IIRC, the recuperation project was supported by both the USN and RN. However, the USN lost interest and development continued with the RN as the only interested party. Certainly RR and NG would have been lobbying for the project to continue.
Click to expand...
The project as a whole was US-initiated & initially US-led, & Westinghouse (later NG) was the prime contractor & responsible for overall design & system integration.

1993 paper
 
John Fedup said:
Essentially the PIP is just larger diesel electric capacity so perhaps the WR21 without the recuperation system would have worked out better. I believe the original design didn’t envision the diesels being used for propulsion, only for hotel load.
Click to expand...


That's absolutely the case - and I was puzzled at first as I figured that using diesels to cruise would be lower on fuel consumption. However, the WR21's were intended to have a very flat fuel curve, such that cruising on one GT with the diesel running for hotel loads only would be normal, with the alternative island being brought up for fast running. I think the figures were something like 20Mw from each GT and 2Mw from the diesel were roughly correct, so once that GT falls over, the ship is starved for power. So, the design was based around some assumptions - that the GT would be resilient/reliable and that it would degrade gracefully. Neither were found to be true in service.

I don't know the dates and ins and outs but if it had been known that the RN was the launch customer and that in all likelyhood, the GT would be an orphan, that's about the time something else should have been selected.

Fundamentally, selecting the WR21 was a bad call and it's left us bearing support for a design of GT with zero customers outside of the RN.
 
StobieWan said:
That's absolutely the case - and I was puzzled at first as I figured that using diesels to cruise would be lower on fuel consumption. However, the WR21's were intended to have a very flat fuel curve, such that cruising on one GT with the diesel running for hotel loads only would be normal, with the alternative island being brought up for fast running. I think the figures were something like 20Mw from each GT and 2Mw from the diesel were roughly correct, so once that GT falls over, the ship is starved for power. So, the design was based around some assumptions - that the GT would be resilient/reliable and that it would degrade gracefully. Neither were found to be true in service.

I don't know the dates and ins and outs but if it had been known that the RN was the launch customer and that in all likelyhood, the GT would be an orphan, that's about the time something else should have been selected.

Fundamentally, selecting the WR21 was a bad call and it's left us bearing support for a design of GT with zero customers outside of the RN.
Click to expand...
Sadly true about the WR21 decision in hindsight. Perhaps even more disappointing is the bad wrap IEP got which eliminated it from consideration for the T26. Assuming lasers become feasible (maybe rail guns) along with ever increasing demands for electricity by future EW/sensors, IEP is the future for naval ships. GT/Diesel IEP has proven itself on the QE and Zumwalt classes.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Future Cruise/Anti–Ship missile project moves forward

The project, originally believed to be one missile able to strike ships and land targets, now appears to have become two distinct missiles. One is a supersonic anti-ship missile and the other is a subsonic cruise missile.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

It looks like the competing demands between the UK (the RAF in particular wanting a subsonic cruise missile to replace Storm Shadow) and France (a supersonic missile to replace Exocet) have been resolved by splitting FC/ASW into two missiles. That would be a very sensible way forward.

On the issue of hypersonic missiles, it seems that even if the FC/ASW project eventually leads to one, the anti-ship missile from FC/ASW will be at least initially just supersonic. I would prefer this, as delaying work even more to develop a hypersonic missile doesn't seem sensible to me. Unless France agrees it wants a hypersonic missile as well.
 
Last edited:
Is space reserved for an 8 or 16 round mk41? Considering you can quad pack Sea ceptor, even an 8 round means more missiles than the 24 currently planned along with the flexibility of putting something else in if desired. A smart move. Since it was planned for originally, hopefully even easier than the 24 cell adaption anyway.
 
Increasing above the current number, which is zero though with some planned for T26.

The statement that only T45 can take Mk41 is a bit suspect;

a. Isn’t that where Ceptor supposed to go? And

b. The Ivor Huitfeldt carries 32 Mk41 (and 24 or so Mk 56) so one would imagine fitting the to T31 would just be a matter of reverting to the original design, fitting Ceptor where the Mk 56 is.

if you’re going to fit Mk 41 anyway, wouldn’t you go the whole hog and invest in the AAW missiles and possibly even ASROC?
 
spoz said:
Increasing above the current number, which is zero though with some planned for T26.

The statement that only T45 can take Mk41 is a bit suspect;

a. Isn’t that where Ceptor supposed to go? And

b. The Ivor Huitfeldt carries 32 Mk41 (and 24 or so Mk 56) so one would imagine fitting the to T31 would just be a matter of reverting to the original design, fitting Ceptor where the Mk 56 is.

if you’re going to fit Mk 41 anyway, wouldn’t you go the whole hog and invest in the AAW missiles and possibly even ASROC?
Click to expand...
I assumed the mk 41 instead of sea ceptor on type 45. Be weird to put the mk 41 somewhere it wasn't designed to go.
 
spoz said:
Increasing above the current number, which is zero though with some planned for T26.

The statement that only T45 can take Mk41 is a bit suspect;

a. Isn’t that where Ceptor supposed to go? And

b. The Ivor Huitfeldt carries 32 Mk41 (and 24 or so Mk 56) so one would imagine fitting the to T31 would just be a matter of reverting to the original design, fitting Ceptor where the Mk 56 is.

if you’re going to fit Mk 41 anyway, wouldn’t you go the whole hog and invest in the AAW missiles and possibly even ASROC?
Click to expand...
With reference to Type 45, that's "of the current fleet" - which makes sense - Type 23 has no space or margins for instance. Type 31 and 26 haven't been accepted for service so while they can definitely take MK41, they're not "of the current fleet".

Type 45 has/had space reserved for 16 strike length MK41 just for'ard of the Sylver silos - space below that is currently used for a makeshift second gym I believe.

I had understood that the Sea Ceptor cells would be fitted into that space, likely using the lightweight CAMM launchers, and not MK41.

Now, here's a thing, at least one person I know from the RN has told me that the manufacturers of CAMM say Sea Ceptor doesn't quad pack in MK41 - it was something they were looking at, never got to work and it's still in the literature but hasn't been integrated as yet.

If that's actually the case, that does raise questions about how M41 and Ceptor would fit. Type 31, very easily done as there's plenty of reserves available from the original design, and that would greatly improve the utility of the ships.
 
I suspect that by the time you see a Mk 41 fitted T45, if you ever do, certainly T26 and probably T31 will be in the water, and at least runnning trials, which for the first T26 seem to be planned to last for quite a number of years.
 
spoz said:
The statement that only T45 can take Mk41 is a bit suspect;

a. Isn’t that where Ceptor supposed to go?
Click to expand...

The article means that the Type 45 is the only existing ship in service that can take the Mk41.

Also it was reported that Sea Ceptor can be quad-packed into the Mk41, but I note what StobieWan says. Perhaps Sea Ceptor might be ditched and ESSMs obtained instead. Or work be put into quad-packing Sea Ceptor.
 
StobieWan said:
...
Now, here's a thing, at least one person I know from the RN has told me that the manufacturers of CAMM say Sea Ceptor doesn't quad pack in MK41 - it was something they were looking at, never got to work and it's still in the literature but hasn't been integrated as yet.
...
Click to expand...
MBDA & Lockheed Martin both say that CAMM has been integrated into ExLS, complete with test firings, & the brochures show CAMM in the ExLS version that fits into Mk 41 -
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont..._ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

Are they saying that despite the supposedly successful test firings, there was some problem which prevents it working in real life?
 
swerve said:
MBDA & Lockheed Martin both say that CAMM has been integrated into ExLS, complete with test firings, & the brochures show CMM in the ExLS version that fits into Mk 41 -
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont..._ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

Are they saying that despite the supposedly successful test firings, there was some problem which prevents it working in real life?
Click to expand...

Can't vouch for anyone other than MBDA - who were briefing RN personnel that quad pack wasn't a thing during a period (and yes, I did look around in disbelief for other sources at the time, as did my source) that all of the things you've referenced were published.

It's a bit strange is what I'm saying.
 
StobieWan said:
Can't vouch for anyone other than MBDA - who were briefing RN personnel that quad pack wasn't a thing during a period (and yes, I did look around in disbelief for other sources at the time, as did my source) that all of the things you've referenced were published.

It's a bit strange is what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
What do you expect? They're French. Being strange is a national requirement.
 
I suppose it may be one of those situations where everyone is right. As things stand this minute it may be that Sea Ceptor can't be quad-packed into the Mk.41, but with extra funding the necessary casings could be produced so it could be.
 
Musashi_kenshin said:
I suppose it may be one of those situations where everyone is right. As things stand this minute it may be that Sea Ceptor can't be quad-packed into the Mk.41, but with extra funding the necessary casings could be produced so it could be.
Click to expand...
We know that it's triple packed into the ExLS cannister which can also be used in the Mk-41 VLS. It's still useful and whilst not four three's still a good loadout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top