Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

I do feel we have to remember a large part of the training effort has been put into the crewing of the 2 carriers and that as that burden is lifted we should see more crew coming down the escort funnel as for a type 45 upgrade I am not that hopeful I only see core stuff being done

I agree, on the list of priorities any T45 upgrades should be pretty low down.

It would be interesting to see other peoples ideas, hint Poiuytrewq get drawing

If you want something mocked up let me know.

If manning be more critical in future, and I think this is the case, getting 2 more T26 (with a crew of 300 in total) will be better than 5 T31 (500 in total)? .....In other words, we lost 2.5 T31 already.

Exactly, no point building more and more vessels if the crew shortage isn't fixed. On that list of priorities mentioned above, the manning issues must be just about No1.

[Tempest414]

[EDIT] Sorry no. MBDA says they can quad-pack CAMM in SYLVERE, not sure ExLS is the solution.

So with MBDA saying it can quad pack CAMM into SYLVER for me this is the low cost upgrade ( in real terms ) for type 45 options could be

8 cells quad packed with CAMM = 32 leaving 40 cells for Aster 15/30 mix giving a total of 72 missiles plus 8 Harpoon or

16 cells quad packed with CAMM = 64 leaving 32 cells for Aster 15/30 mix giving a total of 96 missiles plus 8 Harpoon

for me both are very good load outs for its AAW duties

[Phil Sayers]

Assuming the structure is strong enough to take it and any negative impact on stealth isn't deemed that important is there anything to stop a small number of CAAM silos (say six on each side) being placed on the T45 hangar roof? Might need to move antennas and it is a bit close to the search radar but that seems the best place to me because it wouldn't impact the number of Asters carried and nor would it use up the space currently reserved for possibly adding more. I appreciate it would be a lot of work to just add 12 more missiles but could be useful for dealing with things like drones and the surface attack capability might come in handy.

[Lord Jim]

Having 2 different launcher systems on the same ship would be absolute madness.

I wouldn't say it is madness if they do different jobs. There were a multitude of naval platforms that had both an eight cell Sea Sparrow launcher and a single rail Mk13 launcher for Standard and sometimes Harpoon missiles.

[SW1]

So having a group of engineers, spares, maintenance contracts ect to support a sylver launcher and a mk41 launcher that both do the same thing is in no way sensible, it’s about a sensible as having a harpoon, Exocet and sea eagle all as anti ship missiles, or a stingray and mk45 light weight torpedos. We have merlin, puma wildcat the Americans cover these roles with Blackhawk. Oh wait we are bonkers this is where money gets wasted hand over fist unnecessary duplication. If stupidity like this continue then I’m afraid there is plenty of excess fat left to be cut in the mod budget.

[Ron5]

LM ExLS states it can (--> Sorry, correction needed here), while I see no real launch trail report. So, on paper, it is doable. Note the ExLS is still not yet accepted by any navy, and still remain as a private venture of LM and MBDA, in collaboration.

[EDIT] Sorry no. MBDA says they can quad-pack CAMM in SYLVERE, not sure ExLS is the solution.

Keep looking, the Lockheed test firings of CAMM from ExLs are available on the internet. Photos and text.

Never seen any claim that CAMM & Sylver are compatible. Who would pay for the development and qualifiction?

Edited:
https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... -launcher/

MBDA also does claim Sylver compatibility but no qualification has been done:
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-sea/

[Lord Jim]

So having a group of engineers, spares, maintenance contracts ect to support a sylver launcher and a mk41 launcher that both do the same thing is in no way sensible, it’s about a sensible as having a harpoon, Exocet and sea eagle all as anti ship missiles, or a stingray and mk45 light weight torpedos. We have merlin, puma wildcat the Americans cover these roles with Blackhawk. Oh wait we are bonkers this is where money gets wasted hand over fist unnecessary duplication. If stupidity like this continue then I’m afraid there is plenty of excess fat left to be cut in the mod budget.

Well hypothetically the T-45 would have Aster 30 in the Sylver VLS and Sea Ceptor and say TLAM or VL ASROC in the MK41. AS for Helicopters, well thee US has Blackhawks, Ospreys, Sea Stallions, Chinooks, Little Birds and so on. I agree The AAC version of the Wildcat as it stands is not really what the Army needs but the platform has the potential to be turned into a proper armed scout to supplement the AH-64E Apache Guardians, which could be important if the number of the latter purchased are reduced. Don't get me wrong there is an awful lot wrong with how the UK Government handles defence and how the MoD manages programmes.

[SW1]

Or hypothetically we could have aster, camm and scalp in sylver or we qualify aster in mk41 and replace allowing commonality with type 26.

On helicopters I was not saying how many helicopters types the US have but the roles they use blackhawk for we have 3 types for the same thing and yet there 10x the size of us.. As for a scout for apache if that’s not a role for a uav I don’t know what is. If you wanted to really stretch it battlehawk could be used instead of apache.

[Timmymagic]

Before we get too caught up in missile loads no one ship has ever had to expend if entire missile magazine against an air treat or anywhere close to what is available on type 45. At the end of day your never ever sending a ship alone again such a threat.

IIRC the RN pnly fired 44 Sea Dart in the entire Falklands campaign from every ship carrying it. And that included some fairly 'profligate' engagements like when Invincible fired off 3 at a suspected Exocet.

[Ron5]

the ability to destroy a target is a shed load more important that how many goes at it that you can attempt

Indeed - very true. Though the counter to that might be "you may need to win more than one battle"

Tell that to HMS Hood.

[Ron5]

Having 2 different launcher systems on the same ship would be absolute madness.

I wouldn't say it is madness if they do different jobs. There were a multitude of naval platforms that had both an eight cell Sea Sparrow launcher and a single rail Mk13 launcher for Standard and sometimes Harpoon missiles.

Of course you are correct Jim, there's a dozens of ships that have or will have, different launcher systems. Including Types 23 and 26.

Be careful responding to Type 23

[Poiuytrewq]

Some interesting information here which I think may be relevant to recent discussions.

http://cimsec.org/how-the-fleet-forgot- ... ower/37357

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good and uptodate article, among other things highlighting the pivot the Pacific (those things don't happen overnight):
"one of the most powerful anti-ship platforms in the American arsenal will not even belong to the U.S. Navy. The platform that will first receive the first truly modern and widespread anti-ship missile of the U.S., LRASM, will not be a Navy asset but the Air Force’s B-1 bomber. These bombers will be able to carry 24 of these powerful weapons, packing over 15 times the anti-ship firepower of a Harpoon-equipped U.S. surface warship.28 These planes will make for an extremely powerful asset when combined with their thousands of miles of range."

[SW1]

Thought it a poor article in so many ways.

[Tempest414]

Or hypothetically we could have aster, camm and scalp in sylver or we qualify aster in mk41 and replace allowing commonality with type 26.

For me with the real lack of money we should look to qualify CAMM on Sylver A50 as MBDA say it can be quad packed and then if any money is about fit a new 8 cell sylver unit onto the type 45 to allow 32 camm and a mix of 48 aster 15/30. And if there is no money for the extra 8 cell unit then go with the 8 cell camm and 40 cell aster 15/30 this gives T45 anywhere between 72 and 100+ missile load out for it primary role of air-defence of the fleet it is all down to money

[Lord Jim]

Some interesting information here which I think may be relevant to recent discussions.

http://cimsec.org/how-the-fleet-forgot- ... ower/37357

It does make you think where the Royal Navy will go next. Looking at what is available now and will be in the near future the NSM and/or JSM seem to be the obvious choice. Whether something better comes out of the joint Anglo/French programme is not certain and the much vaunted SPEAR 3 may neither have the legs nor will sufficient launch platforms be available to saturate a targets defences. This seem just another capability that has been left to wither by the MoD being seen as not a high priority, a situation we constantly seem to be finding ourselves in and a train of thought that has come back to bite us in the past.

[SW1]

What that article idoesn’t deal with is what the enemy’s fielding to attack us with is not necessarily what we should be equipping with to attack them, we in the west are predominantly a blue water navy with blue water ships. They are predominately smaller vessels of smaller size that operate in more cluttered littorals. Yes the Chinese now have a build up of large blue water ships but there isn’t many others building those type of ships.

Second missile range is a pointless measure if you can’t target over the horizon ships, you might get away with it in mid ocean you won’t if it’s in more congested littoral water areas and western nation certainly won’t be allowed to fire and forget such weapons.

You might need a big missile to hit a western cruiser or carrier you don’t to sink a corvette or large opv type vessel which is predominantly in the opposing forces.

It also assumes large and fast is the answer without asking if large and fast means it maybe easier to detect slower and “stealthy” maybe harder to counter.

It also implies that because harpoon has been around a long time it must be out of date. The harpoons being manufactured today are nothing like the ones first produced it like saying a 737 made today is the same as the one made in 1960!

Finally it questions why only 8 anti ships missiles but 100 for anti air ect. I’d turn that round and say your anti air missile system has to shoot down 8 targets your anti ship missiles only has to shoot one hence the difference.

[Lord Jim]

I don't think the point being made is that Harpoon is out of date but rather it lacks range and only has a relatively small warhead. I agree Littoral combat will require a target to be positively identified, but battlespace awareness has greatly improved over the past few decades, to which there as a number of systems out there already that have a man in the loop capability. Do not disregard blue water warfare though. Naval forces have to get to a location first and China especially have been investing heavily in locating and engaging Naval groups in mid ocean, utilising various delivery methods. At the core of the argument though is that the USN relies too much on its carrier air wings and that the firepower of its individual ships has been outpaced by possible opponents. It is taking measures to correct this and the B-1/LRASM combo especially will go along way towards this and maybe points to whether the UK should look to acquiring the LRASM to equip the P-8s and/or the F-35Bs with the same weapon.

[Simon82]

I’ve always thought piggybacking on the US LRASM programme might be the best way to go for a future anti-ship missile for three reasons:
• It should represent good value for money compared to a European missile due to the volume of US orders resulting in a decreased unit price.
• The Americans will ensure that it has a funded upgrade path as opposed to European projects where promising upgrades tend to stall as soon as any partner nation has to cough up any cash.
• It is compatible with the Mk-41 VLS of the Type 26, a canister launched version also has been proposed, which would directly replace legacy Harpoon sets on the Type 45,Type 23 and Type 31e. Also, although in the near term it can only be air-launched from the F/A-18 and the B-1b, hopefully it will in future be fitted to the US Navy’s F-35s and maybe even their P-8s.

The logical heir to Harpoon?

The major downside is that there would be little or no industry involvement from the U.K. side, which could pose a problem in maintaining a sovereign guided weapons capability in the future.

[SW1]

Harpoon is a hundred mile range missile plenty long enough, you’ll be looking at a helicopter or something else to confirm a target at that range.

There is a fallacy that buying US is cheap. And that somehow we buy into an upgraded system. Well only if we pay for it. US systems appear cheap upfront but are more expensive to support require constant upgrade to keep pace with US standard which costs a lot and has very limited scope for inclusion of UK requirements and or weapons or sensors.

Take harpoon the US ones are several blocks ahead of RN ones and have land attack capability. If you wanna see what I mean about support cost and uk requirements, see chinook, sentry awacs, Apache, JTLV as examples and wait to you see what’s coming with f35.

If we aren’t going with our own design the the nsm would be the one to look at

[Tempest414]

May be we would be better off throwing our self behind something like the SAAB RBS-15 111+ program 200km + with land attack also capable of being air launched. If fitted to type 45 / 26 /31 would give them a common surface + land attack capability out to say 250 km

[Aethulwulf]

I would personally go with NSM as a replacement for Harpoon when the UK weapons life expire around 2023. It might be possible to make use of the large US order for NSM to reduce costs.

NSM can be fitted in deck launched canisters to T45, T23 and T31.

When the Anglo-french missile arrives around 2030, it should be in a different class to NSM in terms of range, speed, payload, etc (more of a Storm Shadow / Tomahawk class). So the two programmes can be kept apart.

In an ideal world, I'd also like the NSM to be integrated with Merlin Mk2. Not only would this greatly extend the radius of action, but it would allow the NSM to be used by any ship with a Merlin sized flight deck. Distributed lethality.

The main point of Harpoon and NSM is not just to strike enemy ships; it is to make enemy ships nervous of approaching with 100 km of your ship. Integration of NSM with Merlin would extend this nervousness to 300+ km around every ship in the RN and RFA.

However, the cost for Merlin integration is likely to ensure it doesn't happen, not least because it would mean the UK would need more than 30 Merlin Mk2s.

[abc123]

About SSMs, IMHO UK should take the cheapest good enough option, so that capability isn't lost. Now, NSM or maybe Gabriel V never mind- land attack capability is also a bonus.

[Simon82]

A combination of NSM and JSM would also cover all the roles currently required by the Royal Navy. I'm not quite sure how 'common' the two missiles are, although it'd probably still be cheaper than maintaining two entirely dissparate anti-ship missile families in service... three if you include the Wildcat only Sea Venom (FASGW-H).

The problem I see with a Anglo-French project such as the much vaunted 'Perseus' FC/ASM is that of funding compatibility with UK platforms. The French have no need to fund testing with the F-35, P-8, Typhoon or Mk-41 VLS and they might not even require a box launched variant if they pursue a Sylver VLS only approach, which being that it is a combined SCALP and Exocet replacement and given the ubiquity of Sylver on their newer ships is a possibility. This will leave the UK tax-payer shouldering a rather large bill or, more likely, limit the missile to niche roles in limited numbers. The UK's other close military allies will already have LRASM (Mk-41 and box lauched, plus possible F-35 and P-8 compatibility), Tomahawk (Mk-41 and submarine launched and already in UK service), JSM (F-35 and possibly Mk-41 and P-8 compatible) and NSM (box launched) in service use by then and are unlikely to wish to embark on partnering and joint-funding with the UK in the correct timeframe.

[Ron5]

I would personally go with NSM as a replacement for Harpoon when the UK weapons life expire around 2023. It might be possible to make use of the large US order for NSM to reduce costs.

NSM can be fitted in deck launched canisters to T45, T23 and T31.

When the Anglo-french missile arrives around 2030, it should be in a different class to NSM in terms of range, speed, payload, etc (more of a Storm Shadow / Tomahawk class). So the two programmes can be kept apart.

In an ideal world, I'd also like the NSM to be integrated with Merlin Mk2. Not only would this greatly extend the radius of action, but it would allow the NSM to be used by any ship with a Merlin sized flight deck. Distributed lethality.

The main point of Harpoon and NSM is not just to strike enemy ships; it is to make enemy ships nervous of approaching with 100 km of your ship. Integration of NSM with Merlin would extend this nervousness to 300+ km around every ship in the RN and RFA.

However, the cost for Merlin integration is likely to ensure it doesn't happen, not least because it would mean the UK would need more than 30 Merlin Mk2s.

Isn't getting the targeting info the problem with long range missiles? I think the NSM has about 100m range, so what will provide a Merlin with targets that are 100 miles away?

Wouldn't it be simpler for the Merlin to spot something within it's detection range and whistle up a missile from mother?