Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[wargame_insomniac]

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.

Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.
[/quote]
Thats a good point to know about the T45's having a larger area for Harpoons than T23's, and thus T45's can take 16* NSM Canisters without impacting on their VLS loadout. So thanks for that.

My preference has always been that RN Escorts have SOME ability to both attack and defend versus targets at sea and undersea, air and land. Even if they are not a specialist e.g. T46 for AAW and T26 for ASW.

I believe that various T26 and T31 export designs will be looking at quad packing ESSM / CAMM via either Mk41 VLS or ExLS. I think the RN must use their integration efforts to shortcut our own such integreation. If all of the RN escorts can have even 12 such cells quadpacked with CAMM, that would give each 48 cheaper AAW Missiles (cheaper versus the other alternatives to RN).

As some have said it is not just the expense of fitting VLS Cells in first place, but also the expense of subsequently filling them with missiles. I ageee that we should double down on CAMM family. The basic CAMM is already a big export success story and we can only hope that either CAMM-ER and/or CAMM-MR also achieve export sucess, as this willl drive down the cost per missile.

If CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR can be triple / double packed as suggested before in various threads, then that will add even more resilience and flexibility with layers of AAW.

I have always felt that RN ordering 11 sets of NSM Canisters was designed to eventually the 6*T45 & T31. So I would have no problem if the more expensive Mk41 VLS and the forthcoming FCASW Missile were both reserved for the T26 and eventually T83.

So that would just reqire the T31s to be given ASW, even if only by VDS from containers would allow each of the three RN Escort classes to have even a basic capacity for attack and defence vs multiple targets.

[Poiuytrewq]

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.

Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

The ultimate solution is to remove the 48x Sylver cells and Mk8 gun and replace with 96x Mk41 cells and 2x 57mm guns where the Harpoon mounts were located but clearly that’s not a realistic outcome.

However could the 57mm provide the solution?

Could the Mk8 be replaced with the 57mm freeing up enough space aft of the gun mount for another 16x Mk41 Tactical cells, forward of the FFBNW 16x Mk41 Strike cells and still leave space for 16x NSM in canisters?

If possible this would make the T45 a fearsome DD with a well balanced offensive/defensive load out.

• 57mm
• 48x Aster 30
• 64x CAMM (quad packed)
• 16x TLAM
• 8x or 16x NSM

A relatively simple reconfiguration but the benefits would be huge.

Hard to see that more would be required from the T45 or even the T83 at this stage.

[shark bait]

If the MOD was competent the above is exactly what we should expect from a Destroyer. However the Navy is still waiting for engines that work after 15 years of problemed service, making the above a pipe dream at best.

[NickC]

Think the battle experience in Ukraine has shown that the use of the 1980's sub-sonic Tomahawk against a peer enemy would be of very limited effectiveness.

Genuine question. How is the Tomahawk in 2020s improved in survivability? Airframe speed and maneuverbility may not see big change, but its control and guidance systems is surely improved by an order of magnitude.

More lower terrain following trajectory is easier now, which make them much more survivable. On-ground radar cannot see over the horizon. So IRIS-T's "40 km range" is not useful against TLAM (because it flies near surface).

Is TLAM really outdated? Or, just the survavability is a bit low compared to, JASSM-ER? If yes, how much?

Just because the Ukrainians can supposedly shoot down a completely different missile says fuck all about Tomahawk.

I'm sure Terprom is very effective but also sure if you queried either Boeing/Northrop or Saab about the capabilities of their AEW&C Wedgetail or GlobalEye they would both claim they would have no difficulties in tracking a nap of the earth flying non-stealth Tomahawk. Then comes the target and the US Army developing their Indirect Fire Protection Capability designed to defend fixed and semi-fixed sites aimed at destroying cruise missile threats with the Enduring Shield launcher with its 18 AIM-9x missiles tied into the IBCS and its numerous radars which will serve as the brains of the US Army’s future Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, but is also the command-and-control system for the IFPC.

So no I don't believe Tomahawk has near magical properties that would allow it to avoid similar peer enemy defence systems.

[Ron5]

Think the battle experience in Ukraine has shown that the use of the 1980's sub-sonic Tomahawk against a peer enemy would be of very limited effectiveness.

Genuine question. How is the Tomahawk in 2020s improved in survivability? Airframe speed and maneuverbility may not see big change, but its control and guidance systems is surely improved by an order of magnitude.

More lower terrain following trajectory is easier now, which make them much more survivable. On-ground radar cannot see over the horizon. So IRIS-T's "40 km range" is not useful against TLAM (because it flies near surface).

Is TLAM really outdated? Or, just the survavability is a bit low compared to, JASSM-ER? If yes, how much?

Just because the Ukrainians can supposedly shoot down a completely different missile says fuck all about Tomahawk.

I'm sure Terprom is very effective but also sure if you queried either Boeing/Northrop or Saab about the capabilities of their AEW&C Wedgetail or GlobalEye they would both claim they would have no difficulties in tracking a nap of the earth flying non-stealth Tomahawk. Then comes the target and the US Army developing their Indirect Fire Protection Capability designed to defend fixed and semi-fixed sites aimed at destroying cruise missile threats with the Enduring Shield launcher with its 18 AIM-9x missiles tied into the IBCS and its numerous radars which will serve as the brains of the US Army’s future Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, but is also the command-and-control system for the IFPC.

So no I don't believe Tomahawk has near magical properties that would allow it to avoid similar peer enemy defence systems.

How many Tomahawks have been shot down by enemy air defense systems?

[Ron5]

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.
Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.

Thats a good point to know about the T45's having a larger area for Harpoons than T23's, and thus T45's can take 16* NSM Canisters without impacting on their VLS loadout. So thanks for that.

My preference has always been that RN Escorts have SOME ability to both attack and defend versus targets at sea and undersea, air and land. Even if they are not a specialist e.g. T46 for AAW and T26 for ASW.

I believe that various T26 and T31 export designs will be looking at quad packing ESSM / CAMM via either Mk41 VLS or ExLS. I think the RN must use their integration efforts to shortcut our own such integreation. If all of the RN escorts can have even 12 such cells quadpacked with CAMM, that would give each 48 cheaper AAW Missiles (cheaper versus the other alternatives to RN).

As some have said it is not just the expense of fitting VLS Cells in first place, but also the expense of subsequently filling them with missiles. I ageee that we should double down on CAMM family. The basic CAMM is already a big export success story and we can only hope that either CAMM-ER and/or CAMM-MR also achieve export sucess, as this willl drive down the cost per missile.

If CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR can be triple / double packed as suggested before in various threads, then that will add even more resilience and flexibility with layers of AAW.

I have always felt that RN ordering 11 sets of NSM Canisters was designed to eventually the 6*T45 & T31. So I would have no problem if the more expensive Mk41 VLS and the forthcoming FCASW Missile were both reserved for the T26 and eventually T83.

So that would just reqire the T31s to be given ASW, even if only by VDS from containers would allow each of the three RN Escort classes to have even a basic capacity for attack and defence vs multiple targets.

I fear that you are getting caught up with quad/dual pack. Neither provide any benefits to actually hitting the targets.

Fact is, the RN is fitting CAMM to all escorts classes as standard.

Adding more cells than currently planned is fairly trivial. The cells are small and light weight. The T26 & T31 are large 7-8k ton ships with oodles of space. The T45 could simply have its main gun removed to make room. The gun has little value as would any replacement gun and yes, I'm aware of the mythical powers of the 57mm propogated here.

There's a few issues tho. Is the T31 radar & combat system capable of handling more? Can the current Sea Ceptor system limit of 48 cells be uplifted? Are the extra missiles affordable? etc.

[Poiuytrewq]

If the MOD was competent the above is exactly what we should expect from a Destroyer. However the Navy is still waiting for engines that work after 15 years of problemed service, making the above a pipe dream at best.

The additional 24x CAMM and 8x NSM were planned before the recent events in the Red Sea.

Perhaps a reevaluation is now required to establish what the T45 really needs going forward taking into account the threats that Diamond has had to overcome.

[SW1]

If the MOD was competent the above is exactly what we should expect from a Destroyer. However the Navy is still waiting for engines that work after 15 years of problemed service, making the above a pipe dream at best.

The additional 24x CAMM and 8x NSM were planned before the recent events in the Red Sea.

Perhaps a reevaluation is now required to establish what the T45 really needs going forward taking into account the threats that Diamond has had to overcome.

Does recent event not suggest she has more than enough missiles? Might suggest we should have been more interested in ballistic missile defence when everyone else was years ago.

Should we have looked to develop aster along the lines of the sm6 and given it a surface attack capability option?

[wargame_insomniac]

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.
Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.

Thats a good point to know about the T45's having a larger area for Harpoons than T23's, and thus T45's can take 16* NSM Canisters without impacting on their VLS loadout. So thanks for that.

My preference has always been that RN Escorts have SOME ability to both attack and defend versus targets at sea and undersea, air and land. Even if they are not a specialist e.g. T46 for AAW and T26 for ASW.

I believe that various T26 and T31 export designs will be looking at quad packing ESSM / CAMM via either Mk41 VLS or ExLS. I think the RN must use their integration efforts to shortcut our own such integreation. If all of the RN escorts can have even 12 such cells quadpacked with CAMM, that would give each 48 cheaper AAW Missiles (cheaper versus the other alternatives to RN).

As some have said it is not just the expense of fitting VLS Cells in first place, but also the expense of subsequently filling them with missiles. I ageee that we should double down on CAMM family. The basic CAMM is already a big export success story and we can only hope that either CAMM-ER and/or CAMM-MR also achieve export sucess, as this willl drive down the cost per missile.

If CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR can be triple / double packed as suggested before in various threads, then that will add even more resilience and flexibility with layers of AAW.

I have always felt that RN ordering 11 sets of NSM Canisters was designed to eventually the 6*T45 & T31. So I would have no problem if the more expensive Mk41 VLS and the forthcoming FCASW Missile were both reserved for the T26 and eventually T83.

So that would just reqire the T31s to be given ASW, even if only by VDS from containers would allow each of the three RN Escort classes to have even a basic capacity for attack and defence vs multiple targets.

I fear that you are getting caught up with quad/dual pack. Neither provide any benefits to actually hitting the targets.

Fact is, the RN is fitting CAMM to all escorts classes as standard.

Adding more cells than currently planned is fairly trivial. The cells are small and light weight. The T26 & T31 are large 7-8k ton ships with oodles of space. The T45 could simply have its main gun removed to make room. The gun has little value as would any replacement gun and yes, I'm aware of the mythical powers of the 57mm propogated here.

There's a few issues tho. Is the T31 radar & combat system capable of handling more? Can the current Sea Ceptor system limit of 48 cells be uplifted? Are the extra missiles affordable? etc.

Do you think the Captain and crew of
Diamond would feel about quad-packing CAMM when the Houthis fire a 49th missile at you and you have just used up your final Aster missile??!!

It provides a massive increase in AAW Resilience.

[SW1]

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.
Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.

Thats a good point to know about the T45's having a larger area for Harpoons than T23's, and thus T45's can take 16* NSM Canisters without impacting on their VLS loadout. So thanks for that.

My preference has always been that RN Escorts have SOME ability to both attack and defend versus targets at sea and undersea, air and land. Even if they are not a specialist e.g. T46 for AAW and T26 for ASW.

I believe that various T26 and T31 export designs will be looking at quad packing ESSM / CAMM via either Mk41 VLS or ExLS. I think the RN must use their integration efforts to shortcut our own such integreation. If all of the RN escorts can have even 12 such cells quadpacked with CAMM, that would give each 48 cheaper AAW Missiles (cheaper versus the other alternatives to RN).

As some have said it is not just the expense of fitting VLS Cells in first place, but also the expense of subsequently filling them with missiles. I ageee that we should double down on CAMM family. The basic CAMM is already a big export success story and we can only hope that either CAMM-ER and/or CAMM-MR also achieve export sucess, as this willl drive down the cost per missile.

If CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR can be triple / double packed as suggested before in various threads, then that will add even more resilience and flexibility with layers of AAW.

I have always felt that RN ordering 11 sets of NSM Canisters was designed to eventually the 6*T45 & T31. So I would have no problem if the more expensive Mk41 VLS and the forthcoming FCASW Missile were both reserved for the T26 and eventually T83.

So that would just reqire the T31s to be given ASW, even if only by VDS from containers would allow each of the three RN Escort classes to have even a basic capacity for attack and defence vs multiple targets.

I fear that you are getting caught up with quad/dual pack. Neither provide any benefits to actually hitting the targets.

Fact is, the RN is fitting CAMM to all escorts classes as standard.

Adding more cells than currently planned is fairly trivial. The cells are small and light weight. The T26 & T31 are large 7-8k ton ships with oodles of space. The T45 could simply have its main gun removed to make room. The gun has little value as would any replacement gun and yes, I'm aware of the mythical powers of the 57mm propogated here.

There's a few issues tho. Is the T31 radar & combat system capable of handling more? Can the current Sea Ceptor system limit of 48 cells be uplifted? Are the extra missiles affordable? etc.

Do you think the Captain and crew of
Diamond would feel about quad-packing CAMM when the Houthis fire a 49th missile at you and you have just used up your final Aster missile??!!

It provides a massive increase in AAW Resilience.

They’ve been there 2 months and used probably 8 missiles and been to port at least once. They’ve at least 40 left if they haven’t reloaded. They’ve a few other ships with them how much resilience do you want.

[wargame_insomniac]

They’ve been there 2 months and used probably 8 missiles and been to port at least once. They’ve at least 40 left if they haven’t reloaded. They’ve a few other ships with them how much

I wanted more resilience than clearly you do. But thats ok - these are just are respective opinions, not facts.

[SW1]

They’ve been there 2 months and used probably 8 missiles and been to port at least once. They’ve at least 40 left if they haven’t reloaded. They’ve a few other ships with them how much

I wanted more resilience than clearly you do. But thats ok - these are just are respective opinions, not facts.

But things don’t live in a vacuum if you spend more money here you have to spend less elsewhere. Does a single ship being on an operation for 2 month that uses 16% of its weapons justify defunding something else to put more funding here and where do you take it from?

[NickC]

Think the battle experience in Ukraine has shown that the use of the 1980's sub-sonic Tomahawk against a peer enemy would be of very limited effectiveness.

Genuine question. How is the Tomahawk in 2020s improved in survivability? Airframe speed and maneuverbility may not see big change, but its control and guidance systems is surely improved by an order of magnitude.

More lower terrain following trajectory is easier now, which make them much more survivable. On-ground radar cannot see over the horizon. So IRIS-T's "40 km range" is not useful against TLAM (because it flies near surface).

Is TLAM really outdated? Or, just the survavability is a bit low compared to, JASSM-ER? If yes, how much?

Just because the Ukrainians can supposedly shoot down a completely different missile says fuck all about Tomahawk.

I'm sure Terprom is very effective but also sure if you queried either Boeing/Northrop or Saab about the capabilities of their AEW&C Wedgetail or GlobalEye they would both claim they would have no difficulties in tracking a nap of the earth flying non-stealth Tomahawk. Then comes the target and the US Army developing their Indirect Fire Protection Capability designed to defend fixed and semi-fixed sites aimed at destroying cruise missile threats with the Enduring Shield launcher with its 18 AIM-9x missiles tied into the IBCS and its numerous radars which will serve as the brains of the US Army’s future Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, but is also the command-and-control system for the IFPC.

So no I don't believe Tomahawk has near magical properties that would allow it to avoid similar peer enemy defence systems.

How many Tomahawks have been shot down by enemy air defense systems?

As far as know no Tomahawks fired at peer enemy, of those fired at Syria in April 2018 Russia claimed to have shot down substantial numbers, impossible to verify.

The USN plan is to move on from the Tomahawk for land attack and has invested approx. $8billions along with US Army in a joint 1,725 mile hypersonic glide missile (CPS & LRHW-Dark Eagle), development not progressing well and as yet no single successful test flight (USAF cancelled their hypersonic glide missile AGM-183 ARRW after test failures).

[Jdam]

As far as know no Tomahawks fired at peer enemy, of those fired at Syria in April 2018 Russia claimed to have shot down substantial numbers, impossible to verify.

"Russia claimed" I see the problem here

I think given the success of storm shadow in Ukraine we now know how effective Russia's ability to shot down cruise missiles are.

Then there is the sheer amount the Yanks have to throw at someone, which is terrifying in itself.

[Ron5]

Perhaps a reevaluation is now required to establish what the T45 really needs going forward taking into account the threats that Diamond has had to overcome.

If it's one thing the MoD is good at, it's evaluation and re-evaluation. They really don't need advice on that

[Ron5]

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.
Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.

Thats a good point to know about the T45's having a larger area for Harpoons than T23's, and thus T45's can take 16* NSM Canisters without impacting on their VLS loadout. So thanks for that.

My preference has always been that RN Escorts have SOME ability to both attack and defend versus targets at sea and undersea, air and land. Even if they are not a specialist e.g. T46 for AAW and T26 for ASW.

I believe that various T26 and T31 export designs will be looking at quad packing ESSM / CAMM via either Mk41 VLS or ExLS. I think the RN must use their integration efforts to shortcut our own such integreation. If all of the RN escorts can have even 12 such cells quadpacked with CAMM, that would give each 48 cheaper AAW Missiles (cheaper versus the other alternatives to RN).

As some have said it is not just the expense of fitting VLS Cells in first place, but also the expense of subsequently filling them with missiles. I ageee that we should double down on CAMM family. The basic CAMM is already a big export success story and we can only hope that either CAMM-ER and/or CAMM-MR also achieve export sucess, as this willl drive down the cost per missile.

If CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR can be triple / double packed as suggested before in various threads, then that will add even more resilience and flexibility with layers of AAW.

I have always felt that RN ordering 11 sets of NSM Canisters was designed to eventually the 6*T45 & T31. So I would have no problem if the more expensive Mk41 VLS and the forthcoming FCASW Missile were both reserved for the T26 and eventually T83.

So that would just reqire the T31s to be given ASW, even if only by VDS from containers would allow each of the three RN Escort classes to have even a basic capacity for attack and defence vs multiple targets.

I fear that you are getting caught up with quad/dual pack. Neither provide any benefits to actually hitting the targets.

Fact is, the RN is fitting CAMM to all escorts classes as standard.

Adding more cells than currently planned is fairly trivial. The cells are small and light weight. The T26 & T31 are large 7-8k ton ships with oodles of space. The T45 could simply have its main gun removed to make room. The gun has little value as would any replacement gun and yes, I'm aware of the mythical powers of the 57mm propogated here.

There's a few issues tho. Is the T31 radar & combat system capable of handling more? Can the current Sea Ceptor system limit of 48 cells be uplifted? Are the extra missiles affordable? etc.

Do you think the Captain and crew of
Diamond would feel about quad-packing CAMM when the Houthis fire a 49th missile at you and you have just used up your final Aster missile??!!

It provides a massive increase in AAW Resilience.

I fear you have missed my point. I was merely saying the matter of arranging the cells is immaterial. You just want more of them and there are options

[Ron5]

As far as know no Tomahawks fired at peer enemy, of those fired at Syria in April 2018 Russia claimed to have shot down substantial numbers, impossible to verify.

Russia is not a peer enemy? Anyhoo, no evidence has been produced to back their claims. Claims that the US deny anyway.

The USN plan is to move on from the Tomahawk for land attack and has invested approx. $8billions along with US Army in a joint 1,725 mile hypersonic glide missile (CPS & LRHW-Dark Eagle), development not progressing well and as yet no single successful test flight (USAF cancelled their hypersonic glide missile AGM-183 ARRW after test failures).

The US has plans to replace every weapon in service, so what?

[Poiuytrewq]

Where are the escorts coming from for this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... iran-army/ .

Britain set to deploy aircraft carrier to Red Sea
Navy ready to send either HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales into the Gulf amid Houthi attacks on shipping

Britain is poised to send an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea to counter drone and missile attacks from Houthi rebels.

The Royal Navy is preparing to step in to replace USS Dwight D Eisenhower when it returns to America, as the Houthis warned of a “long-term confrontation” in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

James Heappey, the armed forces minister, said on Tuesday that the UK may “co-operate with the Americans” and step in to “plug a gap” in the Red Sea.

The UK has two aircraft carriers designed to carry F-35 fighter jets. One is HMS Prince of Wales, which would face its first combat operation if it were deployed. The other is HMS Queen Elizabeth, which has been sent into combat once before.

On Tuesday, Mohamed al-Atifi, the commander of the Iran-backed Houthi forces, said the group was prepared for a long conflict over the Red Sea, where it has launched dozens of drone and missile attacks against commercial and naval ships since November.

The attacks have caused major delays for global shipping, as tankers and container ships are re-rerouted around Africa to avoid the narrow Bab al-Mandab strait, the entry point to the Red Sea between Yemen and Djibouti.


Britain and the US have launched two rounds of joint air strikes on Houthi drone and missile sites, using American F/A-18 Super Hornet jets from USS Eisenhower, and the RAF’s Typhoons launched from a base in southern Cyprus.

However, Mr Heappey said the US carrier, nicknamed “Ike”, must soon return to the US. “The Eisenhower can’t stay there forever, and so there’s a thing about just maintaining a carrier presence in the region where we might cooperate with the Americans to provide a capability there,” he told The House magazine.

He said Royal Navy carriers could be used “when the Eisenhower goes home… if we were needed to plug a gap in US deployments”.

The plans come after weeks of calls for the UK to deploy one of its £3.1 billion aircraft carriers, which are both based in Portsmouth.

The Telegraph revealed this month that HMS Queen Elizabeth was not at optimal readiness for deployment because of a Navy staffing shortage that had affected RFA Fort Victoria, the solid support ship that provides it with ammunition, food and other supplies while at sea.

Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, previously said it was “absolutely extraordinary” that the UK had not deployed a carrier to protect commercial ships, although Mr Heappey said on Tuesday that there was “no real need… for more carriers to be in the region than the Ike can provide”.

A sea trial of HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2019 was aborted after the ship sprung a leak. However, a defence source said both carriers were now ready to be deployed if necessary. They stressed the “interoperability” between US and UK forces, after American F-35B jets took off from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth during Operation Shader against Islamic State in 2021.

“If we make a decision, we will tailor the package from there,” the source said.

The UK is not set to reach “full operating capacity” – with two squadrons of its own F-35 jets – until next year, but each carrier can support up to 36 jets.

Cameron open to Palestinian state
Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, travelled to Oman on Tuesday, where he is expected to call for stability over the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East.

Earlier, Lord Cameron said Britain was considering whether to formally recognise a Palestinian state. He told a reception of Arab ambassadors in London that the Government had a “responsibility” to work towards a two-state solution, which would result in an independent Palestinian state coexisting with the nation of Israel.

“Most important of all is to give the Palestinian people a political horizon so that they can see that there is going to be irreversible progress to a two-state solution and, crucially, the establishment of a Palestinian state,” he said.

“We have a responsibility there because we should be starting to set out what a Palestinian state would look like, what it would comprise, how it would work and, crucially, looking at the issue … of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations.”

In Oman, the Foreign Secretary will reiterate Britain’s commitment to delivering aid to Yemen, and outline the actions the UK is taking to deter the Houthis from targeting ships in the Red Sea.


The news came after Joe Biden said he had made a decision on how to respond to Iran-backed militants in Iraq and Syria who fired on an American base in northern Jordan on Sunday killing three US troops.

Asked if he believed Iran was responsible for the attack, the president said: “I do hold them responsible in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.”

Washington pledged a “very consequential” response to the attacks. John Kirby, the White House’s National Security spokesman, said the US had still not identified the specific group that attacked the US base, but believed the militants had Iranian backing.

“We’re still working through the analysis, but clearly the work has all the hallmarks of groups that are backed by the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and, and in fact by Hezbollah as well,” he said.

Kataib Hezbollah, the group blamed for the fatal drone attack, said on Tuesday it would halt its attacks on American forces in the Middle East.

“We’re announcing the suspension of our military and security operations against the occupying forces to avoid any embarrassment for the Iraqi government,” it wrote on its website.

[Poiuytrewq]

Where are the escorts coming from for this?

Same place as half the aircraft

[SD67]

That’s why they call it coalitions… but the Ike CVBG can last at least another 4-6 months on station, so this won’t be an issue until the summer… plenty of time to get a joint UK/US CVBG ready to deploy… POW or QE with 20-30 UK+US F-35, 1 T45, 1 T23, 2 AB and 1 US AOR, plus maybe a Dutch or some other European AAW FFG, that’s my bet…

[serge750]

That’s why they call it coalitions… but the Ike CVBG can last at least another 4-6 months on station, so this won’t be an issue until the summer… plenty of time to get a joint UK/US CVBG ready to deploy… POW or QE with 20-30 UK+US F-35, 1 T45, 1 T23, 2 AB and 1 US AOR, plus maybe a Dutch or some other European AAW FFG, that’s my bet…

I am certainly not enjoying the current situation one bit but I would like to to see such a UK/US taskforce in operation. Hope that makes sense, I'm no warmonger.

[serge750]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

[tomuk]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

They are all under the EU construct aren't they as far as the Red Sea is concerened?

The government have announced for Steadfast defender that the

Royal Navy will be deploying eight warships and submarines

and

A UK Carrier Strike Group, centred on a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier and her air group of F-35B Lightning jets and helicopters, and surrounded by escort frigates and destroyers

[serge750]

I read the EU wanted to do something... but so many differing voices - so maybe wishful thinking that some EU may tag on to show solidarity - if this situation goes on longterm...

[Poiuytrewq]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

IMO a joint US/UK CSG based around QE with both US/UK F35s is exactly what is required when it’s time to rotate the CVN.

The simple fact is that the U.K. can’t currently form a fully RN CSG in the Red Sea and maintain other commitments. That’s extremely embarrassing but why shy away from it?

Even without any kinetic exchanges proving the US/UK interoperability successfully in a high threat environment will be priceless for RN both politically and strategically.