FlubbaFor my SSGN concept, i woudlnt keep any additional SSBN’s in service i would mearely have the launchers ready to drop into an exsiting sub. This would not be sustainable but would when needed massively increase RN strike power.
They are not exactly kits but large launchers that take up the same amount of room as a D5 but they are like a big metal frame for 7 TLAM. If we could take that and make it simplier to take out and fit. Especially when new SSBN’s enter service. These could have this feature designed into them.
I see your point about we have 4 for a reason well the French manage to have 2 at sea at anyone time. I see your point and it is a problem.
Outsider: The problem is that it has been shown a multitude of times where TLAM launching subs have been needed, large wars that would need SSGN firepower i would hope dont occur but then again we hope we never have to use nukes.
Swerve, yup your figures are about right IIRC. I was thinking since we will only have 2 carriers then Fireshadow would be needed as it has a further reach than NGS and is far more accurate and not as much overkill.
EDIT: Grim your right costs would be high maybe when the next SSBN’s are ordered an additional 2 could be ordered especially if they are based on the astute class many suspect they will. This is the better soloution in terms of strike power and coerciona that LAM’s on frigates. Ordering 6 SSBN hulls while being expensive would truly keep the RN on the list of most capable Navies. 4 could be roled as the normal SSBN and the other 2 fitted with TLAM for the SSGN role.
Im sure the hulls could be diffrent rather than identical, 4 full fat subs with all the Trident Launching kit and then the 2 SSGN hulls without all the Nuke stuff. In times of crisis these 2 hulls could be converted to full duty. Mind you if we were doing that it would be time to hide.
Grim the warhead of a Fireshadow is’nt anywhere near TLAM sized it’s mainly for Asymmetric warfare targets such as cars, trucks, buildings etc. I was thinking of employing them like the Army launch them over the thread zone and allow the troops to designate targets. Larger targets would be taken out by Anti-ship missiles in it’s alternate role. Justb done a quick google 50lb warhead dosent sound like much.
Final thing, Grim gd call on the logistics i wish i had thought of that:) standardise on 2 missiles would be genious. Simpler logiostics tail.
FlubbaFair enough points Swerve, Higher ceiling i would say yes but that only really counts against aircraft targets which i would use Aster 30 for. Speed maybe but not by very much CAMM is a variant of ASRAAM which is mach 3 same as Aster 15. Terminal agility i dont really know but i would guess it would be close due to the fact they both have Piff-Paff directional control. CAMM might have an edge it’s a much smaller missile designed to do the same job as the Sea Wolf deal with fast Sub launched anti-shipping missiles.
My reason for suggesting loading CAMM is to increase missile numbers therefore allow more targets to be intercepted and a higher more useful load of Aster 30. If the T45 sticks to Aster 15 and 30 it will not have that large a missile load compared to other vessels that would be Quad Packing ESSM.
FlubbaGrim my rational is with a higher Aster 30 load you could take shots at the incoming threat and then try and take it down with CAMM if that fails it’s CIWS time. Overall i think you would get more shots at taking the threat down from far away before it gets close to your fleet. The T45 was designed to provide a big bubble over a fleet and that’s what Aster 30 does and Aster 15 dosent. Im glad you agree with me:)
LAM equiped frigates in a task force are a good idea as it would allow the task force to eliminate enemy radar sites etc before aircraft are risked. I would like to see SSGN kits bought just in case they are needed. An SSGN lurking off your coast with a possible 112 TLAM’s onboard is a sobering thought for any nation. (Thats based on a full load 7 TLAM’s per tube)
Grim if you are aware of what fireshadow is then you may also be aware that there was serious talk of studies to see if this could be fitted into VLS systems. If you could get more than 1 per cell i would like to see it. Basically it should be cheap and during and Amphib assualt they could be ripple fired to give coverage of a large area.
FlubbaI would rather keep CAMM in VLS cells as this would be a neater simpler soloution, i also think containers on deck would compromise any signature reduction measures that have been taken. I’ve always noticed this Curious gap just aft of where the CIWS are to be mounted it seems like an ideal place for Harpoon launchers. Depending what’s below it VLS cells could fit but this seems unlikely as the superstructure would get in the way.
I would like to avoid having all my VLS cells packed up front as a fire or hit on this part of the ship would mean you lose all your main weaponry. However it does seem the only place that these could be fitted. I think the T45 would look pretty cool if another deck enclosure was added like where it is on the horizon class. This would allow the Installation of more VLS cells especially the longer A70.
Grim afaik there is not much difference if you remember the T45 was meant to be in service a while ago before CAMM was thought up Aster 15 was mainly for the other customers. It was part of the PAAMS package therfore it made sense to equip the T45 with Aster 15. I dont know if you know but the only diffrence between Aster 15 and 30 is that the 30 has a longer booster the ‘missile’ part is exactly the same.
My opinion regarding LAM’s (Land Attack Missiles) is that they should primarily be deployed by submarines as these as Jonesy has said have coercion. If the UK developed a need to put LAM’s on target enmasse then an SSGN is the only way to do it. This i would suggest is do-able for the UK the USN SSGN’s currently use a drop in 7 round launcher for the TLAM if the UK bought some of these launchers they could be loaded onto and SSBN for a mission this of course would not be routine.
EDIT:
“So if you had say 70(?) VLS, you could have:
16 VLS Quad packed CAMM
16 VLS Scalp Naval
48 VLS Aster 30″
That would make the T45 almost akin to a cruiser in armaments level compared to other European designs comparable to the US Aegis class i grant you still more than i think we need. If you look at my pervious posts and Jonesys then my opinion is similar to him.
FlubbaOutsider the T45 hull design does indeed allow for quite a bit of growth potential another 16 VLS cells of the A70 variety for LAM’s can be fitted. Torps can be fitted, so can harpoon and so can CIWS.
Personally i would like to see the T45 armed with CAMM with it’s current 48 cells i would like to see 16 cells loaded with quad packed CAMM = 64 Missiles in the 20km+ range and the remaining 32 cells with Aster 30 in the 120km range this would allow the T45 to better perform it’s Area Air Defense role and if CEC is added to the fleet that would be a real bonus. The Aster 15’s could be converted to Aster 30 by retrofitting the bigger booster.
Some people might think this is a bit mad but you are losing 16 30km+ weapons for 64 20km+ weapons seems are very good deal to me. Much more effective AAW platform. If CIWS either Phalanx or Sea RAM is fitted the the T45 will truly be Europe’s best AAW platform.
FlubbaI pray that they do i think if they dont they will have something to answer about especially after doing the usuall oposition thing of bashing those in power. Depends what the next defense review says. But it seems unlikely as you’ve said. If they used T45 for C1, C2 and it worked well then 1 nil to the Brits:) i would think.
I would hope to see C3’s doing Jobs similar to the LCS but being much cheaper to procure and deploy. Oh! look thats 2 to us now.
A T45 Absalon cross breed accompanied by 2 C3’s and an RFA Tanker (BMT Aegir 18R) would make for a potent little deployable constabulary force.
The as things escalate a C1 could be added alongside an LPH if the C1 had better AAW or if more T45’s were built a C1 and T45. Basically you could build small deployable groups of ships for diffrent scenarios.
FlubbaHopefully the next Goverment comes to it’s senses and buys some more T45’s but if they dont i would sneak them in through C1.
If the same kinda space etc with the rear ramp and RHIB launching crane thingymajig could be put on T45 i would be soooo happy. The T45 Absalon cross breed is born. As that would be the escort fleet sharing a similar hull costs should be decent for a fully naval hull.
Absalon can operate alone quite effectively as that is one of her roles. Doing anti-piracy work if she could be supported by 2 C3’s they would be able to cover a larger area. A bit like the mothership concepts that have been proposed.
EDIT: Ahh! just though of something here to with Piracy and policing the Flex Deck could have modular jail cells installed to hold pirates that are captured. Basically C3’s use their RHIBS and choppers to chase and arrest the pirates and them transfer them to holding cells on an Absalon. If Absalon has 2 embarked Merlins they could fly out to pick up the Prisoners.
FlubbaIt would indeed, i would like to see it be able to operate 8 Missiles though and i dont think it would be too much hassle to do. A couple of these would give some un-suspecting small boats a very nasty shock if they tried the USS Cole style attack. I especially like how the Starstreak can pack one hell of a punch for a shoulder launched SAM.
FlubbaYup agreed on that a Venator would be overkill for some roles but excellent for most. If you’ve read the PDF’s that are on the BMT website you get an idea why the Venator is as large as it is. Mainly for the deployabilty that the MoD demands and Ocean handling when transiting.
Anyhoo thats a bit off this threads topic there is a C3 thread if you want to carry on over there.
FlubbaHey, Thats using too much common sense for the MoD.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7-VvFn4iE) Thats the video im on about enjoy. Handy thing is it’s British as well:)
I really like the Venator design the CAMM could be removed and a proper hangar put in it’s place. I would really like the proper hangar.
FlubbaGrim we are having a wee game of ping pong between threads atm 🙂 Nice talking to you.
I just thought of that as it’s the same interface etc as starstreak and the Thor system (Nice video on youtube btw you’ve probs seen it) would be able to use it without too many problems. It has the added bonuses of being cheap and already developed.
I originally thought of using the Thor for the C3 bolt one on the Hangar with 8 starstreak just in case any helo’s came looking. It should be cheap to do i never really mentioned it as i thought people would just sink it.
The Lightweight Modular Missile is Similar i think it’s a single warhead though not the three darts. It uses the same rocket motor and many other systems though. It will also be in the Navy inventory for use on FLynx.
Ahh! you have a gd point with the one in each corner back and front. A35 should fit easily as it’s quite a small launcher. As you’ve said even if it couldnt it could be placed in another launch system.
I think if we done that the French might be thinking woops we should have thought of that.
FlubbaIf the numbers of hulls were high enough then yeah the T45 hull wouldnt be a problem price wise. Personally after looking a bit more in depth into costs if more T45’s were not ordered i would like C1’s to be carrying SAMPSON which is’nt quite as expensive as it sounds after i done the digging. The horrendous cost of the T45 so far has been paying for the PAAMS research which was lumped into the T45 program. But yeah thats a bit optimistic:)
I wish you luck with the CAD drawings i might PM stan and ask if he would have a go if he has the time.
The main reason i like the Flex deck is that it can support modular facilities such as hospitals, offices / command centres or could just carry various kit to re-role C3’s in theatre the Flex deck on an absalon can carry quite a few containers. The way i see them being operated most of the time is to support C3’s doing mine warfare tasks. The Absalons could carry larger choppers and also maintain the C3’s choppers it could also use it’s medical facilities etc. Most importantly of all the Absalon derivative would provide AAW cover to the C3’s against anybody upto no gd.
Basically i can go on and on about what the Absalons can do. We must not forget the price as well:) tell the bean counters and they will be all over it like a rash.
FlubbaGrim i’m outta my depth with shipbuilding rules as well.
You are thinking exactly the same as me where the 30mm guns would be placed i would pop in A35 launcher at each corner on the bow. The French are currently studying their options to upgrade self defense capabilities of the class. The most likely and cheapest would be to replace the twin manual mistral launchers with quad automatic sadral launchers.
If it were equipped with CAMM in the UK it would have a far more robust self defence capability. For surface self defense i would like to see something like the Thales thor system with the LMM instead of starstreak. This could be part of some sort of Automatic SSDS (ship self defense system)
FlubbaHmm! thanks Swerve i knew they had things like NBC protection. A few things im sure they have as well are water mist fire-fighting systems that are automated and redundant i would imagine this would help with survivabilty quite a bit. An integrated fire, flood warning system which is apparently now a commercial requirment anyhow. They also have an integrated damage managment system. Also all the interior walls and doors are fire rated for 60mins but thats another commercial requirment.
To me what has always seperated true naval vessels form hybrids etc is the fact that true naval vessels have lots of solid steel, keel to structural deck, bulkheads to contain fires and flooding it also helps reduce blast damage. They also have damage control stations throughout the ship and multiple redundant fire-mains and pumps. Wheras hybrid or commercial designs have less of the bulkheads and they generally dont go all the way to the structural deck. The bulkheads are usually not made of such thick high grade steel as naval vessels and dont have any special blast features.
I know where i can find someone that could tell me everything i wanted to know. He is a draughtsman that worked on the T45 design. Im sure he still does but it would be bloody random asking him a load of stuff.
Edit: One thing that spoils it for us curious people is that that sort of info is’nt gonna be available online as i would imagine it’s some pretty sensitive stuff.
FlubbaWilhelm my best Christmas was in 2006 when we went to South Africa the Frenchies came and so did the Australian arm of the family. We had a big BBQ and needless to say it was a barrel of laughs.
In regards to the Mistral you asked the right Question. Mistral was originally meant to be larger about 25-26k tons the design was made smaller to save money. There is a family of them the Mistral was meant to be the BPC 250 the 250 gives the idea of tonnage i dont know if they still have the whole family idea running but that is how it was originally meant to be IIRC.
Swerve, Big Hug to you. The US shipbuilding industry is not that great as there is very little competition and they will always get orders to survive as there is the whole Buy American idea that is very strong. Even when it goes to and past the point of lunacy. Also the Influence senators and the shipyards can have is huge so they will buy overpriced kit.
I admit i know very little of shipping rules. So does Mistral and Tonnerre have a survivable design that would be ok in a threat situation? AFAIK the front portion of the design is built like a cruise ship in regards to accomodation etc. As you’ve so kindly pointed out that would not extend to hull design and other areas such as shipboard systems.
Sign In
