UK Defence Forum

The question is is it the mk41 VLS insert, or the standalone 3 cell (12 missile) ExLS?

andrew98 wrote:The question is is it the mk41 VLS insert, or the standalone 3 cell (12 missile) ExLS?

For cost purposes I'd imagine it was the standalone. Why install an expensive hot launch VLS if you're going to stick an adapter straight in and use cold launch.

Is the third, cheaper, solution the famous "mushrooms"?

I have been considering the role performed by the "Mushrooms".

Back in '82, difficulties were experienced with opening the launcher "boxes" for Seawolf, sometimes preventing missile launch. These were largely due to the effects of salt water corrosion in prolonged exposure to the weather conditions and poor sea states.

The RN, has as a result distrusted mechanical opening of launchers. No use having more missiles, if you can't fire the ones you have got. This is not to say that a mechanical (or electrical) method of opening a launch tube is not viable, just that there is (with some justification) a reluctance to trust it's reliability, when "in action".

Scimitar54 wrote:I have been considering the role performed by the "Mushrooms".

Back in '82, difficulties were experienced with opening the launcher "boxes" for Seawolf, sometimes preventing missile launch. These were largely due to the effects of salt water corrosion in prolonged exposure to the weather conditions and poor sea states.

The RN, has as a result distrusted mechanical opening of launchers. No use having more missiles, if you can't fire the ones you have got. This is not to say that a mechanical (or electrical) method of opening a launch tube is not viable, just that there is (with some justification) a reluctance to trust it's reliability, when "in action".

Surely things have moved on technically since 1982. It also appears strange that most other designs use a mechanical/electrical system, without as far as I am aware to many problems.

In fact most of those systems are flush with the deck. Therefore more susceptible to salt water corrosion, and not surrounded by a metal protective shield as are the T23's.

Na, it's because the MOD are bloody cheapskates.

Don't forget that the RN is the only navy that has fought a full-on campaign with another Navy in the missile age. (the Falkland Islands). Maybe other Navies are happy continuing (in ignorance) of the problems that may occur in a full-on conflict, rather than just in exercises.

I think we must look upon these first three T-26 as Batch 1 and look at altering the design for the remaining vessels based on experience we gain form the first three and that of Canada and Australia form theirs. The Royal Navy needs to take a serious look at ExLS, especially the "Standalone" variant not just for the T-26 but for other platforms down the line, including the T-31e, T-45 and the Queen Elizabeths.

The ER version of Sea/Land Ceptor also needs to be looked at, though I feet it will be far more applicable as an upgrade for the Army's version than for use by the Royal Navy.

Speaking of the Mk41, I wish we had heard something regarding how the Royal Navy intends to get the most use out of the system and what weapon systems it is looking at to achieve this. I have an image of the first three T-26s going to sea with their Mk41s empty when they enter service whilst the MoD still tries to make up its mind and find the funds to actually purchase anything in reasonable number. If I was optimistic we may have some training rounds form multiple weapons systems for assessment whist this process continues on and on.

Scimitar54 wrote:Don't forget that the RN is the only navy that has fought a full-on campaign with another Navy in the missile age. (the Falkland Islands). Maybe other Navies are happy continuing (in ignorance) of the problems that may occur in a full-on conflict, rather than just in exercises.

Just to clarify, is it the case that the missile caps/lids (mushrooms) have to be manually removed before use? If so, how does that work in practice when you are liable to attack without much warning?

Scimitar54 wrote:The RN, has as a result distrusted mechanical opening of launchers. No use having more missiles, if you can't fire the ones you have got. This is not to say that a mechanical (or electrical) method of opening a launch tube is not viable, just that there is (with some justification) a reluctance to trust it's reliability, when "in action"

If this is the case what does it do with the type 45 destroyers missile system as it’s the principle anti air warfare vessel in the fleet?.

I don't know, I guess both the RN and you will have to wait for Falklands II (or similar) to find out.

I am not arguing for the RN to be backward looking, but it is understandable that they would not want to be caught out by bright and shiny bells and whistles, which are seemingly foolproof like they were once before, back in '82.

One of the reasons that the T45 has silo's rather than the twin rail launcher of the T42 Sea Dart missile is for less exposure of critical parts to the elements, in a similar vein. We must hope that the T45 is as good as we think it is, but hopefully it is getting sufficient exposure to "push the envelope".

However, you would not expect the RN to put all of it's eggs in one basket. Diversity of method allows for possible failure in one area, without leaving yourself defenceless.

Scimitar54 wrote:Don't forget that the RN is the only navy that has fought a full-on campaign with another Navy in the missile age. (the Falkland Islands). Maybe other Navies are happy continuing (in ignorance) of the problems that may occur in a full-on conflict, rather than just in exercises.

Are you seriously suggesting that Navies such as the USN and Russia,, who unlike the UK get to launch large numbers of missiles, in all types of weather conditions are doing that in ignorance of the problems. I very much doubt it. Whether it be conflict or exercise the problems are still the same as far as the weather is concerned, and I would expect them to have been addressed.

Please don't send any photographic material of the Murmansk convoys.

Just as people did not expect to encounter any problems of that nature in '82.

Sod's law says "what can go wrong Will Go Wrong", Hopefully it won't, but belt & braces are better than either one on its own.

Your memories of the Arctic convoys must still be really vivid, if you really can't bear to look at photographs of them.

Scimitar54 wrote:Just as people did not expect to encounter any problems of that nature in '82.

Sod's law says "what can go wrong Will Go Wrong", Hopefully it won't, but belt & braces are better than either one on its own.

Your memories of the Arctic convoys must still be really vivid, if you really can't bear to look at photographs of them.

How dare you, grandad told me all about it.

I dared, because you dared to suggest that I had taken some pictures myself. I did not respond with "How Dare You!". However if you are that sensitive, reticence on my part for any future occasion would clearly be wasted.

This is the reasons the RN have often put substantial shielding around its missile systems to give them some protection form sea spray. They did it with the Ikara launchers and have decided to do the same with both the T-23 and T-45. It is interesting that they do not appear to have done this on the T-26, but maybe the Mk41 has inbuilt systems to prevent any issues arising. I mean the USN and many other navies have operated it in all sea conditions for decades without any real issues emerging.

Lord Jim wrote:This is the reasons the RN have often put substantial shielding around its missile systems to give them some protection form sea spray. They did it with the Ikara launchers and have decided to do the same with both the T-23 and T-45. It is interesting that they do not appear to have done this on the T-26, but maybe the Mk41 has inbuilt systems to prevent any issues arising. I mean the USN and many other navies have operated it in all sea conditions for decades without any real issues emerging.

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to get across, without much success.

Scimitar54 wrote:I dared, because you dared to suggest that I had taken some pictures myself. I did not respond with "How Dare You!". However if you are that sensitive, reticence on my part for any future occasion would clearly be wasted.

As is any attempt at humour by the looks of it.

Article on DefenseNews yesterday, interesting comments made by Fincantieri on upgrades made to FREMM for their contender for the FFG(X) contract as USN insisting on better survivability.

Fincantieri added about 300 tons of steel "the extra steel is going into scantling, ballistic and frag protection, the way the spaces are laid out" said the weight eats into some of the extra space on ship, which implies that the way spaces laid out for ballistic and frag protection may be substantial as its ~ 22' longer (now 496' / 151.2 m) than an Italian FREMM. Marginally longer than a T26, displacement 7,000t though have seen 7,400t mentioned, if 7,000t is FLD 1,000t lighter than a T26.

Current gen frigates/destroyers use thin steel plate compared to WWII cousins. Thicker steel/armour does not to give immunity to hits but mitigates damage and helps structural integrity which increase ship's survivability to enable it to continue fighting as long as possible (if memory correct have seen 10mm steel plate used on current ships, not sure if correct).

From <https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... mpetition/>

Pic gives impression if perpective not giving false view Chinese use thicker plate for their Type 055, 25mm?, using a three-dimensional cold bender which is able to exert a pressure of 6,000 tons on a sheet metal, don't know if similar machine available in Western shipyards.

NickC wrote:Article on DefenseNews yesterday, interesting comments made by Fincantieri on upgrades made to FREMM for their contender for the FFG(X) contract as USN insisting on better survivability.

Fincantieri added about 300 tons of steel "the extra steel is going into scantling, ballistic and frag protection, the way the spaces are laid out" said the weight eats into some of the extra space on ship, which implies that the way spaces laid out for ballistic and frag protection may be substantial as its ~ 22' longer (now 496' / 151.2 m) than an Italian FREMM. Marginally longer than a T26, displacement 7,000t though have seen 7,400t mentioned, if 7,000t is FLD 1,000t lighter than a T26.

Current gen frigates/destroyers use thin steel plate compared to WWII cousins. Thicker steel/armour does not to give immunity to hits but mitigates damage and helps structural integrity which increase ship's survivability to enable it to continue fighting as long as possible (if memory correct have seen 10mm steel plate used on current ships, not sure if correct).

From <https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... mpetition/>

Pic gives impression if perpective not giving false view Chinese use thicker plate for their Type 055, 25mm?, using a three-dimensional cold bender which is able to exert a pressure of 6,000 tons on a sheet metal, don't know if similar machine available in Western shipyards.

Meh, I would like to see a modern escort ship that remains combat capable after being hit with ASM, torpedo or a mine (as opposite to remain floating). Especially after torpedo hit.

As the talk has moved on to Scottish indi 2 I have come over here I think the bigger question is what ships the Scots would want

Scotland only needs the Balamory ferryboat.

To be renamed HMSS Bonkers no doubt ?

Does the HM refer to Her Majesty the Queen or the Poison Pixie who thinks she should be?

Tempest414 wrote:As the talk has moved on to Scottish indi 2 I have come over here I think the bigger question is what ships the Scots would want

What they'll want and what they'll end up with are two separate questions. They could well end up with some of the GP Type 23's, but it's unlikely that they'd be willing to spend enough to keep them going. The expectation is that they'll go along the same lines as RoI militarily which means that the defence of the GIS (GIUK) gap would remain the responsibility of the UK.

Perhaps sturgeon ha got her eye on the batch 2 rivers....