UK Defence Forum

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Aethulwulf wrote:"Ship and helicopter-launched torpedoes"

Is this in effect an ASROC confirmation?

It's a minor point in a MOD press release, probably written by a junior official, about the future base for T26.

It is very possible that it means nothing.

I accept the irony in

RetroSicotte wrote:just a few guys with Microsoft Excel starting to work out rotation and schedules

as I use it (too often for my own good) myself, but in fact the 'ticket' for the first three (as announced) being so huge has much to do with shore support
- and, hence, we still do not have the foggiest about the unit price for the follow-on batch

Poiuytrewq wrote:Is this in effect an ASROC confirmation?

Aethulwulf wrote:It's a minor point in a MOD press release, probably written by a junior official, about the future base for T26.

Yup, a line written by a junior press officer and signed off by someone who hasn't read it properly. It's not a policy announcement (UKDJ may spin it otherwise).

Poiuytrewq wrote:

bobp wrote:

jonas wrote:I do realiise she has her hands full with her job, but a few minutes a month surely wouldn't be asking to much. As a major project for the RN it seems to be shrouded in secrecy, unlike the carriers where we were kept fully up to date throughout the build.

Some pictures of the build would be nice

I think this is one area that RN and to a certain extent BAE could do a lot more from a Public Relations standpoint.

The UK is currently building the world's premier ASW Frigate, why not have a documentary team following the build process and show the taxpayers what the Defence budget is spent on.

Could it be that the build process has been so artificially slowed down that it would appear that little progress is actually being made?

In regards to the last sentence, I would say this is very much the case.

Agree it is just a mistake. All information, including the CG, is on line with the T26 program as of 2013-2015.

RetroSicotte wrote:but the ASROCs are often stated as "torpedoes" due to it being a more recognised public term

They're often stated as "torpedoes" because they are torpedoes. The rocket separates after launch and it behaves like any other air launched torpedo.

shark bait wrote:

RetroSicotte wrote:but the ASROCs are often stated as "torpedoes" due to it being a more recognised public term

They're often stated as "torpedoes" because they are torpedoes. The rocket separates after launch and it behaves like any other air launched torpedo.

The latter part of my unquoted sentence directly states that.

Reason is that "missile" emerged for a while due to their method launch, the US Navy even used it explicitly for a time. But the media never really went by what they preferred due to the reason stated above.

RichardIC wrote:It's not a policy announcement (UKDJ may spin it otherwise).

I wouldn't worry about that. On a side note, I'm hoping to visit GLASGOW in build next month, will post photos here if allowed to take any.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I accept the irony in

RetroSicotte wrote:just a few guys with Microsoft Excel starting to work out rotation and schedules

as I use it (too often for my own good) myself, but in fact the 'ticket' for the first three (as announced) being so huge has much to do with shore support
- and, hence, we still do not have the foggiest about the unit price for the follow-on batch

Good grief, I hope they're not using Excel, there's dozens of far superior project planning tools.

The MoD has stated officially in public, that ASROC is a candidate for the Type 26 Mk 41's.

I personally have no problem accepting that the RN would like to have them fitted. Donald-san says the Japanese Navy like them, so why wouldn't the UK?

Ron5 wrote:there's dozens of far superior project planning tools

Hey! We need a tri-service standard

Ron5 wrote:Donald-san says the Japanese Navy like them

Have they not improved the range for theirs, too?

I don't know. I do know that there's been a US proposal for a longer range ASROC that's been around for years with no official USN interest. I think they proposed adding wings to make it more Ikara like.

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Have they not improved the range for theirs, too?

They call it ASROC VL 07:
" a complete performance improvement version including not only simple range extension but also improvement in responsiveness.

The missile is fired from Mk 41 vertical launching system and the maximum speed reaches supersonic. It is controlled by inertial guidance system which uses a thrust vector control.The maximum range is said to be over 30 kilometers."
- the descriptions list two different topedoes carried (neither seem to be the "std" US ones)

JMSDF has its own long-range, super-sonic ASROC. It is using Japanese light-weight torpedo, which is much heavier than Mk.46/54. So, I think it can relatively easily accommodate Stingray if you like

On the other hand, I think there will be two types of range requirements for ASROC.

A- If the enemy SSK is 10nm away, a torpedo even with its top speed of 40 knots needs 15 minutes to reach us. Long enough to deploy an array of decoys. Even in ASM world, soft kill prevails. Under-water sensing is much much much much complicated and difficult, so I understand the soft-kill is very effective. (It is only when the enemy subs is located within 3-4 nm, in which case 5 minutes is not enough to deploy the decoys efficiently.) In this case, the range will be defined by "how long time is needed to deploy decoys".

B- On the other hand, if we want to react to the SSK, to force them cut the torpedo wire to escape, long range will be important. I think Japanese ASROC is aiming at it. In this case, the range will be defined by "how far our sensor can detect enemy subs".

As you know, Range of B is sometimes SHORTER than that of A, which makes is complicated.

But I do agree even a classic VL-ASROC, which is at least good at "A", will be of great importance for T26.

Option B is the only real reason for it to exist. The probability of success after a minutes flight time, then a couple of minutes in a search pattern is low considering such a small sensor in a noisy environment. That's why helicopters are the preferred method.

The only real benefit is the subs commander will hear the splash of the torpedo and choose to run away for another try tomorrow. It may be useful to scare off a sub if it catches a frigate with its pants down.

Type 26 news and related discussion in this topic please.

Best of British engineering? They were gluing ships together not long ago....

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... byIH1PlOnJ

Another win

15 x T26's for Canada?! Can their hulls break ice or something?!

Happy Days!

It's a world beater

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigat ... -1.4869268

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/business/ ... et-251756/

If that article is correct and 60% of the money is for the ships, then each ship will cost around CAD$2.4b, or approx £1.4b

In really hoping now that with the Canadian order HMG will look a putting more money in and increase the T26 order.
Well not only have the least T26s out there but Canada will have more high end combatants than us.

It certainly ain’t cheap but clearly people are prepared to pay. Hopefully we can leverage training and support to reduce thru life costs and for me hopefully the RN will commonise on a single high end surface combatant with a further order for type26 with enhanced aaw.

Maybe try selling to NZ and India next.

Do we think this could sway USN thinking that would be interesting