Hope for the Royal Navy?

Actually Fed, I was talking of using a proper Meteor missile, and simply quad-packing it, not the ESSM body option. As I stated, it’s entirely possible that this could be packed into the Sylver launcher. If this is the case, it could represent an attractive alternative to the Aster 15 missile, but by the same people, so it is win-win. I am not trying to suggest that the French are going to go out and buy Mk41, what I am saying is that the Mk41 could be better for the UK. The Sylver is far from flexible, and the UK should not buy it simply for political reasons.

But it’s a bit late for the T45. AFAIK you can’t simply take out a Sylver & slot in a Mk41, as the Sylver is smaller & quite a bit lighter. T45 is committed to Sylver, unless you want to suspend construction, do some redesign, & modify the ships already under construction, meanwhile qualifying Aster 30 for Mk41 launch (that would be interesting 😀 ). Probably not the best move at this stage.

As far as I can see, the advantages of the ESSM over Aster 15 are 1) the ability to quad-pack it into Mk 41 launchers, & 2) the dedicated ESSM launchers (Mk 56?) are smaller than Sylver A43. i.e. its advantage is it’s slimmer, so needs less launcher.

The advantage of the Mk 41 over Sylver depends on which model: Mk 41 is more flexible, but not as much some seem to imagine. If you want to launch cruise missiles, you need strike length. It doesn’t make sense to use strike length for ESSM except as a secondary use. If what you really want is to launch short/medium range missiles (e.g. as self-defence weapons on a carrier), you’d fit a shorter, lighter, & less flexible launcher, or you’d be wasting a lot of space & weight.

BTW, I like the idea of quad-packing Meteor into Sylver, if it can be done.

Actually Fed, I was talking of using a proper Meteor missile, and simply quad-packing it, not the ESSM body option. As I stated, it’s entirely possible that this could be packed into the Sylver launcher. If this is the case, it could represent an attractive alternative to the Aster 15 missile, but by the same people, so it is win-win. I am not trying to suggest that the French are going to go out and buy Mk41, what I am saying is that the Mk41 could be better for the UK. The Sylver is far from flexible, and the UK should not buy it simply for political reasons.

I would say that four capable ships should be enough to properly defend a battlegroup – it is, as mentioned before, pretty much the same as the US does.

As for missiles, I disagree with the suggestion that the RAM is in the same class as the Aster 15 – the RAM is really a short range defence system. They do overlap, but that is never a bad thing! I would certainly hope to replace the Phalanx units with SeaRAM, and give the new carriers some. In addition, I would aim to replace the existing light cannon (the Oerlikon types) with the 35mm Millenium gun or similar.

Eight full T-45s, and eight more cheaper T-45s (perhaps lacking the more expensive AAW systems, in favour of ASW equipment), plus sixteen enlarged Austal LCS, would make a good mix. The LCS vessels would use a modular approach, like the Standard Flex and Meko types. This would allow sixteen identical hulls to be bought, but only eight full weapons and sensor fitouts.

One thing worth noting is that the Meteor missile is of a smaller diameter than the ESSM, so it may be possible to quad-pack them. I am not sure if this would work with the Sylver launchers, but it should work with the Mk41. It may well work with the Sylver though, which could make it an attractive option for France, the UK, and potentially a variety of other countries.

I had to check my original post:D

I never said that RIM116 was in the same class as ASTER15 only that there was an overlap in their respective performance. Whilst there is a chance of some Phalanx mounts to Sea Ram for certain platforms I think the RN would probably rather spend their money on other systems. The type 45 already have a good gun missile combination and I think the RN would rather have the wider engagement envolope of the ASTER15 for future frigate purchases as well as the reduced infrastructure burden.

Considering that ASTER and Sylver are made in France and are already a preferred solution for the French navy the chance of them buying MK41 and ESSM is zero.

I highly doubt that MBDA and Raytheon would want to work together integrating the Meteor seeker on the ESSM considering that:

As I said before when it comes to the crunch the money needs to be spent on introducing new replenishment ships.

I would say that four capable ships should be enough to properly defend a battlegroup – it is, as mentioned before, pretty much the same as the US does.

As for missiles, I disagree with the suggestion that the RAM is in the same class as the Aster 15 – the RAM is really a short range defence system. They do overlap, but that is never a bad thing! I would certainly hope to replace the Phalanx units with SeaRAM, and give the new carriers some. In addition, I would aim to replace the existing light cannon (the Oerlikon types) with the 35mm Millenium gun or similar.

Eight full T-45s, and eight more cheaper T-45s (perhaps lacking the more expensive AAW systems, in favour of ASW equipment), plus sixteen enlarged Austal LCS, would make a good mix. The LCS vessels would use a modular approach, like the Standard Flex and Meko types. This would allow sixteen identical hulls to be bought, but only eight full weapons and sensor fitouts.

One thing worth noting is that the Meteor missile is of a smaller diameter than the ESSM, so it may be possible to quad-pack them. I am not sure if this would work with the Sylver launchers, but it should work with the Mk41. It may well work with the Sylver though, which could make it an attractive option for France, the UK, and potentially a variety of other countries.

numbers

The RN still has a requirement for 8, and plans for C1 (large combat ship, possibly cheaper T-45), C2 (medium capability patrol, and C3 (cheap patrol ship). The aim is, apparently, to have eight of each, which would obviously be a major step forward. The UK also needs to replace its mine warfare vessels, and arguably this could be combined with C2 and C3, by buying a UK LCS equivalent.

One thing to remember is that a RN task force would be able to call on other ships too, so it is not simply limited to the T-45s. If the UK can get 16 Type 45s and 16 other patrol ships, then it would be enough to adequately defend four battlegroups. For proper defence of a carrier, you really only need four escorts. The UK practice has been to include a ‘goalkeeper’ frigate next to the carrier, but this was due to the fact that the carriers lacked adequate self defence capabilities (by carrying Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf missiles). In the future, any carrier could carry missiles like the RIM-116 RAM, which would be enough to protect the carrier, thus dispensing with the need for the goalkeeper frigate. Four T-45s would simply be the UK equivalent of the US assigning Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.”

I would be surprised (pleasantly so) if the RN managed 8 T-45 AAW and 8 T-45mod and had a decent class of medium capability vessels. I assume the C-1 and C-2 would be T-23 replacements…

But I’m not convinced that 8 off primary AAW vessels will really allow for four battlegroups – inevitably some will be in refit/extended readiness/flying the flag on the wrong side of the globe/etc. But then I also don’t see both CVs and two amphibious groups being up and running at one time either, so I don’t suppose it matters.:(

Are 4 escorts (presumably a 2 AAW and 2 other) enough to protect a light carrier and its replenishment? My fear with all such things, is what if one goes ?

I would hope that the UK would switch to the Mk41 VLS, and move from the Aster 15 to the ESSM, but with the active seeker from the Meteor. The ESSM could be quad-packed, and with the seeker from the Meteor, it would have an excellent capability. The Type 45 would have ability to carry 40 Aster 30 missiles, and a further 32 active-ESSM, and that is assuming it sticks to 48 cells. I have no problem with the Aster 30, only a problem with the Aster 15, since it takes up the same space. If the UK were to adopt the ESSM with a Meteor seeker, and hopefully the RIM-116 RAM, then the UK ships would be very well protected.

In terms of the LCS, an eight cell VLS, combined with the RAM, would give an excellent defence for the ships. For land attack though, I would choose a derivative of the GMLRS (or Lockheeds smaller P44), since the ship is big enough to house an MLRS launcher in the hangar, and hundreds of rockets internally.

I don’t see the RN going through the process of introducing ESSM in to the inventory. There is little sense in spending money on the infrastructure when they are already inducting a very capable system in the form of ASTER.

The introduction of RIM116 is possible but its performance does overlap with ASTER15 so I doubt you will see it on the Type 45 which will also benefit from retaining the Phalanx capability. Any escort class frigates built in the future will probably get ASTER15 to retain the infrastructure comonality with the Type45. I think the RN will find other things to spend its money on when it comes to upgrading Phalanx mounts to Sea RAM launchers, the only platform I see it having a chance of being retrofitted to is the CVF as the RN will probably outfit it with weapons from the present inventory and Sea RAM is a logical upgrade for the platform. Then again the French might make a very attractive financial case for retaining comonality with PA2 and fitting them with ASTER15 anyway.

The problem is money or lack of as always! Say the RN gets eight Type45’s, two CVF and the (6 – 8 ?)Astutes from the current procurement round there are just more pressing issues then buying lots of extra warships like LPH’S or extra weapon systems. The remaining type23’s will now be operated far beyond their out of service date and Ocean along will Ark Royal face a far longer period of service then intended (If the money was spare a second updated Ocean hull with better fast diesels would be a good idea).

The most pressing procurement issue is the replenishment ships, they don’t meet regulations and they are getting old fast. Even the newer Fort class don’t meet shipping regulations when it comes to their single skinned hulls. Any spare money after the major procurement programs will need to go to renewing RAS capabilities. RFA Diligence also needs replacing (she only just finished one of the longest deployments ever and she is quite irriplaceable) and a suitable replacement for RFA Argus really needs to be found (in the case of RFA Diligence a commercial oil industry support design would do).

After the support ships helicopters are the next major issue, the remaining Sea Kings and commandos (I can’t remember the RN designation – HAS4 I think?) really need replacing. Instead they are getting another life extension and a far reduced future procurement of an advanced Lynx which is all very well for the HAS8 replacement but isn’t suitable as a replacement for bigger types and isn’t being procured in large enough numbers. The RN could buy more Merlins but it is a big expensive type and I see any procurement as a distant prospect.

Due to the unholy mess with the major procurement programs vital bread and butter procurement programs have been allowed to slip. What ships we have left can’t go to sea without the RFA ships and sundry capabilities which have been skimped on.

I don’t see the RN modifying Type-45’s to except US Mk-41 VLS. If, it really wanted to it would have from the very start? As for the LCS I couldn’t agree more. As even operating in the Littorals the ship needs more firepower than one 57mm and one RAM! Personally, I would add another 300-500 tons and 25-50ft so to fit one eight VLS for ESSM. Then the ship could operate with Carrier Battle or Amphibious Action Groups if needed……………

with the LCS and tiny firepower wouldn’t the addition of a MK-41 VLS increase the draft of the LCS significantly and make it more difficult to operated in the littorals. would a MK-57 be more appropriate as it lighter and effect the draft less.

Agreed. The Mk 41 has advantages in terms of flexibility, but is also considerably heavier (>50%), & if the figures I have are right, a significantly larger deck footprint, which reduces the advantage of the Mk 41 in terms of ESSM vs Aster 15.

The footprint figures I’ve found are, for an 8-cell module –

Sylver – 2.3 x 2.6 metres. (A43 & A50 – only length varies)
Mk 41 – 2.6 x 3.4 metres. (tactical)

If that’s right, then you could fit 72 Sylver in the same space as 48 Mk 41, for the same weight, & carry 40 long-range (Aster 30, SM-2) & 32 shorter-range (Aster-15, ESSM) in either fit.

Does anyone have definitive figures for Mk 41? The Sylver figures are given by both Eurosam & the French ministry of defence, so are probably authoritative.

Of course the Mk-41 is much more flexible………………which all comes down to trade offs?

I don’t see the RN modifying Type-45’s to except US Mk-41 VLS. If, it really wanted to it would have from the very start? …

Agreed. The Mk 41 has advantages in terms of flexibility, but is also considerably heavier (>50%), & if the figures I have are right, a significantly larger deck footprint, which reduces the advantage of the Mk 41 in terms of ESSM vs Aster 15.

The footprint figures I’ve found are, for an 8-cell module –

Sylver – 2.3 x 2.6 metres. (A43 & A50 – only length varies)
Mk 41 – 2.6 x 3.4 metres. (tactical)

If that’s right, then you could fit 72 Sylver in the same space as 48 Mk 41, for the same weight, & carry 40 long-range (Aster 30, SM-2) & 32 shorter-range (Aster-15, ESSM) in either fit.

Does anyone have definitive figures for Mk 41? The Sylver figures are given by both Eurosam & the French ministry of defence, so are probably authoritative.

I would hope that the UK would switch to the Mk41 VLS, and move from the Aster 15 to the ESSM, but with the active seeker from the Meteor. The ESSM could be quad-packed, and with the seeker from the Meteor, it would have an excellent capability. The Type 45 would have ability to carry 40 Aster 30 missiles, and a further 32 active-ESSM, and that is assuming it sticks to 48 cells. I have no problem with the Aster 30, only a problem with the Aster 15, since it takes up the same space. If the UK were to adopt the ESSM with a Meteor seeker, and hopefully the RIM-116 RAM, then the UK ships would be very well protected.

In terms of the LCS, an eight cell VLS, combined with the RAM, would give an excellent defence for the ships. For land attack though, I would choose a derivative of the GMLRS (or Lockheeds smaller P44), since the ship is big enough to house an MLRS launcher in the hangar, and hundreds of rockets internally.

I don’t see the RN modifying Type-45’s to except US Mk-41 VLS. If, it really wanted to it would have from the very start? As for the LCS I couldn’t agree more. As even operating in the Littorals the ship needs more firepower than one 57mm and one RAM! Personally, I would add another 300-500 tons and 25-50ft so to fit one eight VLS for ESSM. Then the ship could operate with Carrier Battle or Amphibious Action Groups if needed……………

I would hope that the UK would switch to the Mk41 VLS, and move from the Aster 15 to the ESSM, but with the active seeker from the Meteor. The ESSM could be quad-packed, and with the seeker from the Meteor, it would have an excellent capability. The Type 45 would have ability to carry 40 Aster 30 missiles, and a further 32 active-ESSM, and that is assuming it sticks to 48 cells. I have no problem with the Aster 30, only a problem with the Aster 15, since it takes up the same space. If the UK were to adopt the ESSM with a Meteor seeker, and hopefully the RIM-116 RAM, then the UK ships would be very well protected.

In terms of the LCS, an eight cell VLS, combined with the RAM, would give an excellent defence for the ships. For land attack though, I would choose a derivative of the GMLRS (or Lockheeds smaller P44), since the ship is big enough to house an MLRS launcher in the hangar, and hundreds of rockets internally.

The RN still has a requirement for 8, and plans for C1 (large combat ship, possibly cheaper T-45), C2 (medium capability patrol, and C3 (cheap patrol ship). The aim is, apparently, to have eight of each, which would obviously be a major step forward. The UK also needs to replace its mine warfare vessels, and arguably this could be combined with C2 and C3, by buying a UK LCS equivalent.

Maybe the Royal Navy should think about a ship similar to the Japanese Takanami Class (DD-110)? Which, could be armed with 4.5 inch guns and a smaller number of Aster-15 Missiles………..:cool:

The RN still has a requirement for 8, and plans for C1 (large combat ship, possibly cheaper T-45), C2 (medium capability patrol, and C3 (cheap patrol ship). The aim is, apparently, to have eight of each, which would obviously be a major step forward. The UK also needs to replace its mine warfare vessels, and arguably this could be combined with C2 and C3, by buying a UK LCS equivalent.

This is not actually entirely certain – the UK plan is to field eight high end ships (the ‘C1’ ships), in addition to the eight T-45s. It is entirely probable that these could simply be T-45s, though possibly without the extensive AAW fitout. The problem is really one of funding – once the carriers are being built, then the RN can push for more ships, ideally simply continuing to buy the ships. The UK could buy one T-45 every year, and one Astute class sub every two years…

Well, anything is possible…………..Yet, to be honest your just guessing? As the current Goverment has only stated six for sure and hopefully eight in the long run…………maybe!

This is not actually entirely certain – the UK plan is to field eight high end ships (the ‘C1’ ships), in addition to the eight T-45s. It is entirely probable that these could simply be T-45s, though possibly without the extensive AAW fitout. The problem is really one of funding – once the carriers are being built, then the RN can push for more ships, ideally simply continuing to buy the ships. The UK could buy one T-45 every year, and one Astute class sub every two years…

But Ed you are forgetting that that makes sense, which means that the MoD will cast the idea aside and begin and endless process of deisgn and procurement studies that end costing more than any prucurement of the shelf would have done to start with!:mad:

The only problem is the RN is not likely to get 16 Type-45’s? As a matter of fact at this point she will be lucky to get half that many. (i.e. eight)

This is not actually entirely certain – the UK plan is to field eight high end ships (the ‘C1’ ships), in addition to the eight T-45s. It is entirely probable that these could simply be T-45s, though possibly without the extensive AAW fitout. The problem is really one of funding – once the carriers are being built, then the RN can push for more ships, ideally simply continuing to buy the ships. The UK could buy one T-45 every year, and one Astute class sub every two years…

One thing to remember is that a RN task force would be able to call on other ships too, so it is not simply limited to the T-45s. If the UK can get 16 Type 45s and 16 other patrol ships, then it would be enough to adequately defend four battlegroups. For proper defence of a carrier, you really only need four escorts. The UK practice has been to include a ‘goalkeeper’ frigate next to the carrier, but this was due to the fact that the carriers lacked adequate self defence capabilities (by carrying Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf missiles). In the future, any carrier could carry missiles like the RIM-116 RAM, which would be enough to protect the carrier, thus dispensing with the need for the goalkeeper frigate. Four T-45s would simply be the UK equivalent of the US assigning Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.

The only problem is the RN is not likely to get 16 Type-45’s? As a matter of fact at this point she will be lucky to get half that many. (i.e. eight)

One thing to remember is that a RN task force would be able to call on other ships too, so it is not simply limited to the T-45s. If the UK can get 16 Type 45s and 16 other patrol ships, then it would be enough to adequately defend four battlegroups. For proper defence of a carrier, you really only need four escorts. The UK practice has been to include a ‘goalkeeper’ frigate next to the carrier, but this was due to the fact that the carriers lacked adequate self defence capabilities (by carrying Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf missiles). In the future, any carrier could carry missiles like the RIM-116 RAM, which would be enough to protect the carrier, thus dispensing with the need for the goalkeeper frigate. Four T-45s would simply be the UK equivalent of the US assigning Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.

In a situation in which they expect little or no threat to the CVs, whereas I was envisaging a wartime footing.

There are also allied units in the Gulf which could be called upon in things got warm.

Does the USN have any other ships in the Gulf?

I don’t know but I would be surprised if at least one Amphibious Action Group wasn’t near by………..usually built around a LHA/LHD.:D

Both CVBG (Stennis & Nimtz) currently in the Persian Gulf have 1 CG and 3 DDG’s and a AOE. As for SSN’s who really knows? With one being norm………:cool: Which, is very typical…………..:D

In a situation in which they expect little or no threat to the CVs, whereas I was envisaging a wartime footing.

There are also allied units in the Gulf which could be called upon in things got warm.

Does the USN have any other ships in the Gulf?