Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Gabriele »

the RFA have been spread to thinly and missused for years but the use of them as "Plastic" frigates has masked a more fundemental problem the lack of proper escorts
A frigate could never do what Cardigan Bay does in the Gulf; nor what she can do in Disaster Relief role in the Caribbean. Never, never, never. Even if there were 60 frigates, those two would still be Bay jobs.

It was horrendously stupid to throw one Bay away in 2010. Wonderfully flexible and cost effective asset that never should have been lost.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:Why a dedicated patrol vessel? why not more bays? Incredible value assets.
Bays are amazing support / transport / motherships, but they are not patrol ships. FIGS and WIGS both require fast (25+ kts) ships with helicopters to respond quickly to threats and to intercept / stop suspicious ships. An evolved River with a hangar is all that is needed.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by Repulse »

Gabriele wrote:A frigate could never do what Cardigan Bay does in the Gulf; nor what she can do in Disaster Relief role in the Caribbean. Never, never, never. Even if there were 60 frigates, those two would still be Bay jobs.

It was horrendously stupid to throw one Bay away in 2010. Wonderfully flexible and cost effective asset that never should have been lost.
Agreed, let's focus the Bays we have focused on what they do best. More of course would be useful, but let's get the SSS first, as if designed properly they could support these roles also and buying one or two more could be more cost effective.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

donald Artisan is what?

carry out what was planned for the Fort Victoria class fit the SSS with CAMM and Artisan and CIWS it can provide some defence to the task group.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

Gabriele wrote:
the RFA have been spread to thinly and missused for years but the use of them as "Plastic" frigates has masked a more fundemental problem the lack of proper escorts
A frigate could never do what Cardigan Bay does in the Gulf; nor what she can do in Disaster Relief role in the Caribbean. Never, never, never. Even if there were 60 frigates, those two would still be Bay jobs.

It was horrendously stupid to throw one Bay away in 2010. Wonderfully flexible and cost effective asset that never should have been lost.
Yes Gabriele its there as a support ship in the Gulf to the minehunters. In the Caribbean they are there as a support ship not a guard ship just like the rovers used to do. They Cannot replace a proper warship and yes it was stupidity to sell one in 2010 however the MoD had to sort out the mess in its budgets other option for the RFA could have been to cancel the tide class?

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:donald Artisan is what?

carry out what was planned for the Fort Victoria class fit the SSS with CAMM and Artisan and CIWS it can provide some defence to the task group.
Artisan is Artisan. Just a 3D Radar. Hi-end CMS is another thing. Having a Artisan does not mean you can shoot CAMM. If SSS is to be equipped with hi-end CMS, yes mounting CAMM there will be relatively easy.

What I said is that, CVF has a Artisan (and SMART-L), as well as a hi-end CMS already. I guess it will be just adding a software, which is surely not cheap, but cheaper than purchasing both the hardware (CPU/memory/OS) and software (AAW with CAMM), as well as its hi-tech electric engineer onboard.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

really Donald so Artisan on the Type 23 CAMM conversions and the type 26 is just for decoration?

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:really Donald so Artisan on the Type 23 CAMM conversions and the type 26 is just for decoration?
No. Sorry I couldn't catch your point. You need BOTH 3D radar AND hi-end CMS to perform local-area air defense. BOTH, this is what I meant. T23 and T26 has/will have both. I am not sure if SSS will.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

the Fort Victoria and Fort George had the full VLS seawolf & fire control systems and search radars. Thats what we should do again for the SSS fit it with artisan and the CAMM system.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:the Fort Victoria and Fort George had the full VLS seawolf & fire control systems and search radars. Thats what we should do again for the SSS fit it with artisan and the CAMM system.
If you say so = "SSS need hi-end CMS", it makes sense.
By the way, to my understanding, Fort class NEVER got SeaWolfs. They got it?

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

fort victoria did have the full fit for its naming it was taken off afterwards. It was a shame it wasn't fully fitted out as it would help them look after them selves as well as phalanx.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:fort victoria did have the full fit for its naming it was taken off afterwards. It was a shame it wasn't fully fitted out as it would help them look after them selves as well as phalanx.
Thanks. I see the photo in the thread. But I couldn't find the FCS?

Anyway, it is clear Fort class had, the 996 radar, the VLS, with air-defence-capable CMS (at least planned) for SeaWolf for a very short moment. I am not sure SSS may have one for CAMM. It IS expensive, I guess.

And, again why not the CVF?

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What I said is that, CVF has a Artisan (and SMART-L), as well as a hi-end CMS already. I guess it will be just adding a software, which is surely not cheap, but cheaper than purchasing both the hardware (CPU/memory/OS) and software (AAW with CAMM), as well as its hi-tech electric engineer onboard.
Actually CAMM is designed around a common data link and can accept targeting, launch commands and midcourse guidance from distributed systems already. Putting a CAMM box on the SSS and controlling it from the carrier's is feasible with little work.

I don't think we should be putting CAMM on the SSS, but if we did a container that is controlled by another asset would be the best way to go, it saves duplicating people and equipment.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

donald i agree the CVF should have the CAMM fitted

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:Actually CAMM is designed around a common data link and can accept targeting, launch commands and midcourse guidance from distributed systems already
Yep, 3D sounds fancy, but the difference it makes is that the altitude of target can also be established, not just the direction in which to engage.

Hence, mid-course guidance is the important bit so that the missile gets to where it can go "active". This bit has been separated from the radar function (there will be separate boxes for it even on the T26) so that the need for the so-called fire control channels do not suppress the radar's capacity. As the quote says, once launched (or even before, the launch command itself) the mid-course guiding could come from e.g. a CrowsNest Merlin.
- an SSS could easily house one, or several (but we will only have eight at any given point in time; at least they can all be at with ships at sea, thanks to the roll-on/roll-off design of the kit)
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: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

they really should look again at the distribution of SHORAD weapons in the fleet platforms like the CVF/LPD/LPH and the the large RFA's should all have viable missile fits as well as the CIWS

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:they really should look again at the distribution of SHORAD weapons in the fleet platforms like the CVF/LPD/LPH and the the large RFA's should all have viable missile fits as well as the CIWS
What else could it be than CAMM? The French Navy is withdrawing Mistral, for instance.

My wording about 3D radars perhaps was not very clear:
- always good if you have one, but
- as long as you can identify the threat AND allocate another asset for the mid-course guidance, then you in effect will have area air defence even when the launchers are distributed to the "point" targets
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: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

LMM/Starstreak?

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Would be v close to Mistral (multiple launchers, with combined ASuW and AD capability), but better - must be! - being so much newer.

Personally, I would think of MCM and other craft that will have to work in the littoral, sometimes individually (without cover from major units) not to give the "plot" away.

The Bays, as logistics support ships, plying back and forth even after the major effort, could fall into this category.
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)

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

marktigger wrote:they really should look again at the distribution of SHORAD weapons in the fleet platforms like the CVF/LPD/LPH and the the large RFA's should all have viable missile fits as well as the CIWS
I do not think so. Precisely, I agree it is better, but not good in view of manpower impact.

CAMM is different class from SeaWolf. If the ship has a good 3D radar and hi-end CMS, it is a local-area air defense SAM, opposed to point defense of SeaWolf. Manpower and resource wise, adding a VLS to the escorts who already has it will be more "effective". Because of its, "so so" long range, the escort can cover multiple vessels. I think this is the new trend.

So the only case we need to think about arming RFA vessels are, when it shall be isolated. In this case, we also need to think about, at what level we shall arm them, because increased manpower and operation cost will directly impact the decrease in hull number. In other words, CAMM can virtually "sink" a few RFA even before you fight.

I am not strongly offending you idea. I am just proposing other option, and want to compare them. And, I am for "no CAMM on RFA BUT increase VLS cells on escorts, in place".

But, if the escort number become only 14, yes, maybe we shall start thinking of arming SSS and LPD (maybe not AOR). I agree.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

how many crew do you need?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would be v close to Mistral (multiple launchers, with combined ASuW and AD capability), but better - must be! - being so much newer.

Personally, I would think of MCM and other craft that will have to work in the littoral, sometimes individually (without cover from major units) not to give the "plot" away.

The Bays, as logistics support ships, plying back and forth even after the major effort, could fall into this category.
on the Mine hunters you could put starstreak with a 3 man det it give visual coverage.

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If the ship has a good 3D radar and hi-end CMS, it is a local-area air defense SAM
Dear Donald, you develop an excellent argument (I would agree with every part of it), except that you would need to consider the "IF" part in the above quote, because the whole argument falls down with it.
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)

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:on the Mine hunters you could put starstreak with a 3 man det it give visual coverage.
Agreed, because the need arises so infrequently.

Which nicely brings together the argument about the Bays and future RFA vessels (if, and how, to arm them).
- to me the answer is not to (except to counter any boarding attempts) by way of manned weapons, but to prepare for CAMM "canister" launchers, because they can be networked to other assets' sensors and CMSs. Will effectively be unmanned, and once they are gone (all launched), they are gone...until the next visit to base.
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: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by marktigger »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
marktigger wrote:they really should look again at the distribution of SHORAD weapons in the fleet platforms like the CVF/LPD/LPH and the the large RFA's should all have viable missile fits as well as the CIWS
I do not think so. Precisely, I agree it is better, but not good in view of manpower impact.

CAMM is different class from SeaWolf. If the ship has a good 3D radar and hi-end CMS, it is a local-area air defense SAM, opposed to point defense of SeaWolf. Manpower and resource wise, adding a VLS to the escorts who already has it will be more "effective". Because of its, "so so" long range, the escort can cover multiple vessels. I think this is the new trend.

So the only case we need to think about arming RFA vessels are, when it shall be isolated. In this case, we also need to think about, at what level we shall arm them, because increased manpower and operation cost will directly impact the decrease in hull number. In other words, CAMM can virtually "sink" a few RFA even before you fight.

I am not strongly offending you idea. I am just proposing other option, and want to compare them. And, I am for "no CAMM on RFA BUT increase VLS cells on escorts, in place".

But, if the escort number become only 14, yes, maybe we shall start thinking of arming SSS and LPD (maybe not AOR). I agree.

there are many 3d radars out there, sea giraffe, (giraffe is used by the royal artillery) various thales products. and does it need to have regular crews? you could use RNR that could be mobilised as needed. Most missile AD systems use simulators for training easy enough to install in reserve centers. With the systems on the ships you need a technician to maintain it. And periodically do T's & A's so manpower isn't a huge issue

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

Re: Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD (A)) (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote: Actually CAMM is designed around a common data link and can accept targeting, launch commands and midcourse guidance from distributed systems already. Putting a CAMM box on the SSS and controlling it from the carrier's is feasible with little work.
Is this really supported now? If CAMM can be handled via Link16 or anything "already existing networks", it is a great sales point. I read somewhere that T26 gas 2 up/down link antennas for CAMM. In other words, T26 is not using its link16 system to guide CAMM. As my comment here is totally just a speculation, do anybody know about the truth?
I don't think we should be putting CAMM on the SSS, but if we did a container that is controlled by another asset would be the best way to go, it saves duplicating people and equipment.
CEC, and "distributed lethality concept" based on it, if applicable to CAMM, will be very interesting aspects. Virtually, CV's AAW can be done by 1 CMS on CVF or T45, and 2 SSS/AO near (a few km) and 4 OPV/MHCs far (~15km), all equipped with CAMM canisters. This will dramatically reduce the need for AAW defense of CVTF.

Post Reply