RFA Fort Victoria

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

but doesn't this current conversation not demonstrate that the fitting of seawolf as a defence system on the Fort II class was actually a good idea in protecting those assets. And the SSS it should be considered to fitting CAMM and Phalanx to high value assets.
As well as ESM, ECM (both passive & Active) and sensors.
But the large hanger and flight deck gives these vessels a flexibility to provide support to smaller task groups which haven't a QE carrier with them?

Maybe the 1 stop concept should be revisited if the fleet expands.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Gabriele »

Fitting the Fort with Sea Wolf would not have been a bad idea at all. The bad idea was that the Fort had to have Sea Wolf because Type 23 itself wouldn't have it. There were to be six Fort ships, and each was to be the centre of an ASW group composed of extremely simple, cheap and underarmed Type 23 relaying on the Fort for helicopters, stores and air defence.

The concept was not in itself wrong for the time, but the air defence bit was just absurd. Sea Wolf does not have the reach to form a protective bubble of any value over a spread out group of ships going ASW hunting. It would have been very complex indeed to do ASW decently while trying to stay within such a small protected area...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Caribbean »

Gabriele wrote:Drawing a circle and counting its area is kind of deceiving, especially as ASM elsewhere become high-supersonic or even hypersonic within the next five years. CAMM is going to be hard-pressed to race to intercept a fast sea skimmer at a safe distance not only from the launching ship, but other ships sailing within a few kilometers of it. Interception will happen well within the 25 km range. A mach-3 russian ASM will only give you 30 - 40 seconds to reply assuming that it is detected at 30 to 40 km away.
Agreed - but that argument applies to any defensive missile system - they will all be "challenged" by intercepting hypersonic missiles. The point remains, however, that you are in a better position if your first chance to intercept is at 25km (assuming early enough detection, of course), rather than 10 km.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by shark bait »

Yes it could make sense to fit Auxiliaries with full protection suites, as Gabriele says, in addition to, not as a replacement for those on frigates. Whatever is put on an auxiliary does need to be modest, and highly automated otherwise it becomes a frigate.

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is how often will an auxiliary be alone in a hostile environment? and then tailor a measured response to that.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by GibMariner »

shark bait wrote: I suppose the question that needs to be asked is how often will an auxiliary be alone in a hostile environment? and then tailor a measured response to that.
Fort Victoria spends most of her time East of Suez as a critical component of the British commitment to that region. A region which US Ships Ponce, Nitze and Mason, among others, can probably attest to being quite a hostile environment after the events of the last few months.

With just one UK escort in that region, we must rely on allies to protect her beyond the high value ship's own limited self-defence capability.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:A Sea Dart from HMS Gloucester managed to intercept an Iraqi missile aimed at a USN Battleship, so its not unprecedented, and of course both sided have advanced significantly since then.
Not "intercepted". The Silkworm missed the battleship by about 50 yards. Sea Dart got it as it was flying away.

The RN went South in 82 thinking that Sea Dart would create an impenetrable bubble over the taskforce. They got a major shock.

To be fair, I don't think any other missile in service, save Sea Wolf, would have done any better. I just bring it up as an example of how difficult it is to provide missile air defense. Especially to an escorted asset.

Soft kill systems, as far as I am aware, only work for the host ship. Of no use in escorting another.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Gabriele wrote:Drawing a circle and counting its area is kind of deceiving, especially as ASM elsewhere become high-supersonic or even hypersonic within the next five years.
A simple question. Is super sonic or hyper sonic missile becoming so spread world-wide? We in Japan is developing BOTH subsonic and super sonic ASMs, and there are comments (from retired military person) pointing out that "super sonic ASMs are really expensive, has short range (or smaller war heads) = it has its own drawback. So, subsonic and super sonic ASM must be mixed. Also note USN is looking for subsonic stealth solution".

Yes super sonic ASM is a problem, but I can find not so many country which can use it in salvo (while I can find many country using sub-sonic ASMs in salvo). In other words, if it is super-sonic ASM, the number of missile will be small, simply because it is very expensive.

This is only my impression, but, do RN really need to think about 30-40 super-sonic saturation attack?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Gabriele »

The main "enemy" to plan against remains Russia, so it is their equipment that should be considered. And they do have what it takes, and the willingness to sell it abroad too, see Bastion to Syria. 30 - 40 missiles at once? Maybe it won't happen. Then again, it probably isn't necessary to fire that many. Historically, far less missiles coming at once against a ship have been more than sufficient. Fail to be prepared, and you'll be badly bruised by just a handful of ASMs. The Royal Navy knows that well, but at times, like in many other areas, it seems determined to pretend that the issue does not exist, or that it will just go away if they refuse to acknowledge it.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

I was reading a book about the Buccaneer a few weeks ago. The author described the RAF practicing their salvo launching of Sea Eagles against a target in order to swamp its defenses. Each Buccaneer carried 3 missiles and an attack group had a flight of aircraft, say 4-6.

That was, what, 30 years ago?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

The biggest problems for supersonic & hypersonic missiles is the heat generated by speed and their relative lack of maneuverability. The plume from their engines enable them to be detected before they broach the radar horizon and the heat generated by air friction gives a nice target to IR directed weapons as the missile closes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:The RN went South in 82 thinking that Sea Dart would create an impenetrable bubble over the taskforce. They got a major shock.

To be fair, I don't think any other missile in service, save Sea Wolf, would have done any better. I just bring it up as an example of how difficult it is to provide missile air defense. Especially to an escorted asset.
That is exactly right. And reading the CAMM literature [this much later] with care defines it as limited area AD weapon, ie. capable of taking cross shots (and , indeed, several of them at almost the same time).
- it also nicely straddles the space between lock on before/ after launch, as the lock depends on how close the target has got - clearly a priority over the next one coming in
- so, your defending capacity is not lured away by the OpFor launching some decoys or older missiles, and then coming in "from behind" at a much greater speed, for the kill (did I just meme some words from a song?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
I suppose the question that needs to be asked is how often will an auxiliary be alone in a hostile environment? and then tailor a measured response to that.
No the Question that needs to be asked is should the high value asset have the capability to protect itself? and as a secondary measure contribute to a task group defence?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The RN went South in 82 thinking that Sea Dart would create an impenetrable bubble over the taskforce. They got a major shock.

To be fair, I don't think any other missile in service, save Sea Wolf, would have done any better. I just bring it up as an example of how difficult it is to provide missile air defense. Especially to an escorted asset.

but isn't that similar to the belief in Standard and Aegis. Great system but no system is infallible.

Sea Dart and Sea wolf were really 2nd generation after Sea Cat and sea slug.

Having the defence spread across a number of systems and platforms is to my mind a more sensible approach including missiles, guns, electronic systems and when viable directed energy weapons. I believe adding some more options wouldn't be a bad thing like LMM/HVM. or putting Aster15 & camm on other platforms

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

That's certainly the Russian point of view. The more systems the merrier.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

again on the escorts thread the suggestion of the Type 31 being on the inner layer and operating close to the carrier to provide extra CAMM missile defence and Additional ASW helicopters. An Auxillary will probably be on that inner layer so why not just follow the Fort Victoria concept for the SSS and give them Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx and DS30 and a flight deck with a hanger for up to 5 merlins and equipped to do maintenance on them.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by dmereifield »

marktigger wrote:again on the escorts thread the suggestion of the Type 31 being on the inner layer and operating close to the carrier to provide extra CAMM missile defence and Additional ASW helicopters. An Auxillary will probably be on that inner layer so why not just follow the Fort Victoria concept for the SSS and give them Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx and DS30 and a flight deck with a hanger for up to 5 merlins and equipped to do maintenance on them.
Why not do that and build the T31, if funds are available? However, in the likely event that they are not, which option is better, 5 (or more) T31 or adding these capabilities to the SSS and MARS?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

dmereifield wrote:Why not do that and build the T31, if funds are available? However, in the likely event that they are not, which option is better, 5 (or more) T31 or adding these capabilities to the SSS and MARS?
I vote for T31, as you know.
- in peace time, SSS and MARS equipped with such heavy war fighting assets will be very costy to operate. Tides and Waves steaming around Caribbean or visiting Ascension Island do not need CAMM. Also in most of the operation, even Bays carrying RM soldiers do not need CAMM in most of their travel. Only around the theater, they need it, which can be provided from escorts forward deployed.
- also from mentality point of view, if SSS/MARS are armed, you may tempted to use them in the front line, although they are apparently a "match box" = flammable box. RFA crew will insist to stay back saying "we are not designed to fight", RN crew may be tempted to go front saying "we can fight". I think it is unhealthy.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

donald in modern naval warfare they need the ability to defend themselves. Fort victoria class were certainly the way ahead single stop AOR's capable of defending themsels.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:donald in modern naval warfare they need the ability to defend themselves. Fort victoria class were certainly the way ahead single stop AOR's capable of defending themsels.
I agree it is "better" to have. But not must, I guess. Arming auxilary never happened even in WW2. And, many of the modern auxilary is un-armed. Arming Bay will mean losing most of them. Arming SSS will mean having only 2 even though we need at least 3, I'm afraid. Also, a need to arm SSS is only in a limited moment of the operation, i.e. re-supplying the CVTF. If the threat it high, they will be steaming 100-200 kms away from the CVTF, I guess. (If not high, they will steam alongside).

I admit this is all guess. But, I think "Arming SSS will mean having only 2 even though we need at least 3" is true, I think.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

they will still in the theatre so are vulnerable to not only targeting. But to decoyed weapons that are seeking other targets.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:they will still in the theatre so are vulnerable to not only targeting. But to decoyed weapons that are seeking other targets.
I understand your point, but it is only when SSS is within the SSM range. It if is 100km away, it is not likely to be re-detected. And, also my point is, are you happy with only 2 armed-SSS from the beginning, or 3 SSS un-armed. (You can say 3 armed-SSS, if you like, but we can compare it with un-armed 4 SSS. )

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

hmmm submarines and aircraft both carry Sub launched Anti ship missiles

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

looks like fort victoria going to be double hulled to increase its service life probably by Cammell-Laird

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Clive F »

marktigger wrote:looks like fort victoria going to be double hulled to increase its service life probably by Cammell-Laird
Info source?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Caribbean »

marktigger wrote:in modern naval warfare they need the ability to defend themselves
One of the major arguments for arming our auxiliaries is that a defended target is 30-40% less likely to be hit by an air-launched ASM, even if its not actively defending itself. This is because the attacking pilots have to assume that it WILL actively defend itself and therefore have to fly a sub-optimum attack.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply