The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

I can't believe I didn't think of any of those :hitwall

Hopefully some of that might be outlined in the SDSR. I'm a big fan of putting CAMM on the Type 45. In theory we could end up with 40 Aster 30 & 32 CAMM, to me the ideal balance of point and fleet defence. Chuck in the +16 and all the goodies they can have.
 
RobWilliams said:
Haha well now you ask, I can't think of anything!

Type 45, what's the general idea? AFAIK there aren't any public releases about updates apart from the the 4 ships getting Harpoon.

EDIT: Just did some idle stat checking

  • Strike
    • FREMM - 8 Exocet + 16 MdCN
    • Type 26 - 16 weapons, unknown about Harpoon & unlikely
  • Self Defence
    • FREMM - 16 Aster 15
    • Type 26 - 48 CAMM

Is there a potential argument for dropping CAMM numbers down by ~12 to get the room for the silos?

Cool to know that for every Aster a FREMM throws up, a Type 26 can throw up 3 CAMM missiles.
Click to expand...
In regards for that saw lots of CAMM models its quite a bit larger than MICA IR there's about a ft difference. Saw quad packed models along with the various anti-ship missiles (all VLS fitted) including next Exocet. As well as light and larger common LMM programs.

For the RN the usage potentially of MK41 is extremely useful as it allows both Euro and US so it not so clear especially as the RN is moving to a StanFlex system as the revised 26 had mission bay capable of taking at an ISO(unclear exactly how large but Land Attack is possible to be fitted as well as humanitarian and medical.

Also the other unknown or rather unclear is the role of UAV's especially Firescout especially as UAVs are being introduced to the fleet(UAV whos name has escaped me)

from the RN stand the patrol, hydography, survey desgin was very similar to the one BAE were showing similar dimensions
 
StobieWan said:
Type 45 updates?

BMD capability? Possibly - the bits are out there - the software updates for S8150 are there, Aster Block 2, ditto.

Fantasy land? I'd love to see RAM and TLAM. RAM won't happen, short of WWIII and TLAM, only if we see a shift in policy.
Click to expand...
RAM? Why? We have CAMM & Phalanx. Why get more complicated?

BMD seems to be being worked on. There have been talks about it with France & Italy, & HMS Daring is in the Pacific taking part in a BMD trial with the USN, tracking BM targets with SAMPSON.
UK Royal Navy Examines Ballistic-Missile Defense Capabilities | Defense News | defensenews.com.
 
I like RAM - it's a nice missile, seems very reliable and would very possibly do a better point defence job than CAMM would with Artisan on the type 26 for instance. Block 2 has a decent surface to surface capability with a bit more reach than the 30mm and 1b. Like I said, it's never going to happen but I'd like to see it in use with the RN - certainly CVF would benefit.

BMD does appear to be trickling along in the right direction - which is encouraging.
 
Sidewinder's been around since the 1950s . .. . almost 60 years old . .

But I don't think there's anything left of the original Sidewinder in RAM.
 
swerve said:
RAM? Why? We have CAMM & Phalanx. Why get more complicated?

BMD seems to be being worked on. There have been talks about it with France & Italy, & HMS Daring is in the Pacific taking part in a BMD trial with the USN, tracking BM targets with SAMPSON.
UK Royal Navy Examines Ballistic-Missile Defense Capabilities | Defense News | defensenews.com.
Click to expand...

RAM could be a good option for export versions, either in the CS integrated 21 missile launcher, the 11 missile Sea Ram or even the quadpacked VLS Block 2 version. With the quad pack you could either go ExLS in its stand alone version to replace the existing Seaceptor cells or fit it in the Sylvia or Mk 41s. It would give you access then to any other missile / system that has been integrated, i.e. Griffin, Nulka, or even Seaceptor
 
But there aren't going to be any export versions of Type 45. No attempt is being made to export it. All sales efforts are now focused on Type 26.
 
swerve said:
But there aren't going to be any export versions of Type 45. No attempt is being made to export it. All sales efforts are now focused on Type 26.
Click to expand...

Sorry my bad, I thought you were talking about the Type 26, I jumbled a couple of posts in my poor aging brain.

Then again, in a perfect world the first of 4 to 6 export Type 45s would be approaching completion at ASCs Adelaide yard for the RAN to supplement the 8 Type 23s and replace the 4 Batch III Type 22s and 4 Batch II Type 82s already in service.
 
Promising news from DSEI released yesterday

Contenders Vie For British AEW Helicopter System | Aviation International News

At DSEI, Rear Admiral Russ Harding, assistant chief of the naval staff for aviation and carriers, told AIN that he is “trying to change that date back to 2014.” Meanwhile, the MoD’s Crows Nest procurement team has told LMUK and Thales to expect a downselect in early 2015 so that the system can be in service beginning in 2018.
Click to expand...

IOC 2018 and - presumably - FOC 2020 is much much better than the 2020/2022 timeline.

It'll be interesting to see the selection, out of both options i'm a fan of both of them for different reasons

  • Lockheed Martin UK/Northrop Grumman Vigilance
    • Pair of freakin AN/APG-81 radars hanging off a Merlin, what's not to like? Interesting future in fleet integration vis a vis CEC, OTH targeting for a Type 45 or F35B
  • Thales Searchwater 2000 update
    • Cheaper, probably quicker, we've got most of the kit. Still good quality AEW radar, but not sure about it's capability to produce high quality target data. Could be a bit tricky funding with CEC but still doable.

If they pick either solution i'll be happy about it one way or another. One thing people have talked about is to wait until we have to replace Merlin before getting a gold plated capability like Vigilance.

Could be interesting, in the 2030's, replace Merlin with V-22 (or son of V-22), i'd be very keen on that. Could eventually have an AEW, troop transport, COD & AAR V-22 fleet.
 
Yeah and it's unlikely to change for RN service (but there's still time for the spec to go up or down), so may as well make base any assumptions on that.

It'll be good to know how they go with regards to arming her. Preferably LRASM/TLAM right off the bat.

Mission bay can contain either 10 ISO containers or 4 11.5m boats or a mixture of the two. Much bigger space than a Type 45 has by a huuuuge margin.
 
kev 99 said:
Some excellent pictures at thinkdence.co.uk DSEI 2013 Highlights confirm that it's definitely 16 strike length vls.
Click to expand...


While T26 looks good, I don't think I can buy into how they've detailed the handling system for the mission bay / hangar area...

"There is a single mechanical handling equipment system that runs the length of the bay and hangar meaning that containers, boats or other equipment can be landed on the flight deck and transferred to the mission bay (assuming the hangar is clear). "

It reads as though there's effectively an overhead crane that runs from the mission bay right into the hangar. Now as the Mission bay is the full width of the ship, that would mean that there's NOTHING down the sides of the hangar.

I definitely think they're missing something. ANY ship I've been on over the last 20 years DOESN'T have anything like that, as there's ALWAYS something down the sides of the hangar.

If there's not, how come the hangar is only big enough to shoe-horn in two Lynx / Wildcats or a Merlin??

IF it was that big, you get x2 CHINOOKS in there !
 
Volkodav said:
Sorry my bad, I thought you were talking about the Type 26, I jumbled a couple of posts in my poor aging brain.

Then again, in a perfect world the first of 4 to 6 export Type 45s would be approaching completion at ASCs Adelaide yard for the RAN to supplement the 8 Type 23s and replace the 4 Batch III Type 22s and 4 Batch II Type 82s already in service.
Click to expand...
Don't torment me! Oh, if only!
 
Systems Adict said:
While T26 looks good, I don't think I can buy into how they've detailed the handling system for the mission bay / hangar area...

"There is a single mechanical handling equipment system that runs the length of the bay and hangar meaning that containers, boats or other equipment can be landed on the flight deck and transferred to the mission bay (assuming the hangar is clear). "

It reads as though there's effectively an overhead crane that runs from the mission bay right into the hangar. Now as the Mission bay is the full width of the ship, that would mean that there's NOTHING down the sides of the hangar.

I definitely think they're missing something. ANY ship I've been on over the last 20 years DOESN'T have anything like that, as there's ALWAYS something down the sides of the hangar.

If there's not, how come the hangar is only big enough to shoe-horn in two Lynx / Wildcats or a Merlin??

IF it was that big, you get x2 CHINOOKS in there !
Click to expand...

The picture I have in my head is an overhead grab on rails in the shape of a T with the mission bay doors at either side and the stem ending in the hanger door. But I don't really know how feasible that is on a ship this size.
 
It's interesting though, if there's nothing either side of the hangar (which there shouldn't be) then we could have an expanded helo capacity.

IIRC from the outset with the Type 45 it was 1 Merlin or 1 Lynx, then when the ship was built it got tested etc and became two Lynx. So hopefully it's the same this time round, if it was announced it could hold two Merlins that would be brilliant from both an operational & export aspect.
 
Well, the old dog kennel hangar door split seems to have definitely gone by the by which is good. You're going to need space to each side of the hangar to work, with benches and stores. I *think* the Burkes have this in the centre area with doors each side for each helo but the RN hangars are by necessity a bit more compact and tend ot have that space as part of the outer walls of the hangar.

Without that space, you'd be hard pushed to operate the helo's effectively as you'd be constantly trooping off to other places to fetch parts, work on sub assemblies etc.

I suspect the mission bay is running the length of the hangar to one side or another and forms up the outer wall, possibly with doors directly to the outside to allow USV's or RIB's to be deployed. That'd let you bring stores and mission gear in via the hangar doors along the cranes, shovel them into the mission bay, which would seem to be provided with fairly versatile dividers.

I'm guessing :)
 
swerve said:
Don't torment me! Oh, if only!
Click to expand...

My old boss told me of an unsolicited proposal for a Type 45 with SPY-3, Mk41, Standard and ESSM that preceded the comp that led to the selection of the F-100. It was knocked back by Australia's DoD as it was seen as too developmental and high risk. Ah well maybe next time.
 
Heh, interesting bit of maths

  • Sylver A70 dimensions = 2.3m x 2.6m [1]
    • total deck space = 5.98m squared
  • Mk41 dimensions = 103in x 135in [2]
    • total deck space = 8.97m squared

So, 3 blocks of 8 cells of the A70 = approximately 18 square metres. If we take the same deck space for the A70, 18/8.97 is approximately two. Hence, we would get two modules of 8 cells of Mk41 for the same deck space as three modules of 8 cells of A70.

Depending on which way they took the width/length measurements, both systems have roughly equivalent dimensions for one of them. Meaning that if we we take the current arrangement (line of cells two deep across the deck), the difference will be the length of the cells across the deck.

So in theory, we could take this to be an indication of a change in the type of VLS to be procured, from Sylver down to Mk41. Then what would be best? 24 A70 or 16 Mk41?

Just speculation, but interesting all the same.

[1] Yeah, I know, Wiki numbers. DCNS didn't want to offer it up so this was just a test

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylver_Vertical_Launching_System"]Sylver Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[2] Assumption is the Mk41 tactical length has the same length/width (NOT depth!) as the strike length like how the Sylver range is. Using the same source I couldn't find a number for one 8 cell module for the strike length cells.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-tactical.pdf
 
Last edited:
kev 99 said:
The picture I have in my head is an overhead grab on rails in the shape of a T with the mission bay doors at either side and the stem ending in the hanger door. But I don't really know how feasible that is on a ship this size.
Click to expand...

I reckon it's NEVER gonna fly....

IF it's an overhead crane that's going from one side of the mission bay to the other (athwartships), then the hoist assembly must cover the fore/aft - up/down aspects.(kinda like the standard 'X' - 'Y' Gantry crane you would find in any land based manufacturing facility). So how can that Tee off into the hangar ??

Additionally, to get a RIB / TEU container in & down on the deck, that means the space must be about 3 / 4 decks high, so that the overhead rails have sufficient space to allow the crane to operate. I don't believe that space flows thru into the hangar.

Additionally, to support the helo, the RHIB's & other ship operations there's gotta be some real estate in that area being used for storage of ropes, deck gear, fire fighting, aircon treatment, comms & equipment rooms, local switchboards & power distribution, heads & loads of other things, so there's NO WAY that space could be open from the hangar door to the bulkhead forward of the mission bay.

Finally, it's a FRIGATE, not a thru deck CRUISER !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top