PhelganAnyone else think maybe the RN should have a think about a new Anti ship Missile? There’s a few alternatives to Harpoon out available now like RBS15 and NSM that sound quite interesting.
i would hope they are always keeping an eye on new developments, but whether it is where the money should go, I don’t know. There is also the new (block 3) Exocet…
PhelganHarpoon
How much would it cost to integrate this into one of the VLS systems? AFAIK it is not available in any VLS mode at present.
I know the tubes are supposedly easy to mount and dismount, and IIRC T45 is wired for them, but surely dropping them is even easier, and removes the need for a separate space.
Phelganslight changes to my C1/C2 design (want to keep this thread going, we should be hearing something on the C1 design shortly say’s some friends working at the MoD)
My interest is picqued! (sp?).
Or perhaps it should be time for nervous worry?
C1 would pack 16 A-70 tubes (12 with Sea Scalp loaded and 4 with possible the RUM-139B VL-ASROC adapted )and 16 A-43
C2 would pack 16 A-43
There has (rightly) been much fear expressed about the vessels looking too much alike, so I think having different VLS launchers is good, if there is no pressing need for the C2 to have the larger unit. Flexibility is one thing, but the A-70 would probably be overkill on a C-2!
Phelganto develop my point a little more.
Back in the 1930’s British carriers were designed with the possibility of war. As previously mentioned by others the stuka would be a threat along with cruisers and submarines. When the war did come “Illustrious, victorious & Formidable” all survived attacks which would have simply put other carriers of that era to the bottom. IE armoured carriers with smallish air groups survived & as history proved unarmoured carriers with large air groups didn’t.
But their contribution to anything offensive was limited by the very fact that armouring reduced the air wing considerably. Taking the reduced air wing ight be acceptable if you only want an Air-defence ship, but not one where want air defence & offense. Which was more useful deciding the outcome of the pacific – A RN or a USN carrier?
Come forward not to the sixties and a possible war again on the horizon with the”commies”. THe USN develops the “Nimitz” class. Unarmoured and large air group. Scaling up the “Essex” to the “Nimitz” and scale up the “Illustrious” to an imaginary “Invincible” would give the RN an armoured carrier of 64,000 light & 77,500 full load. scaling up the armour would give a 5 inch belt & hanger sides, just over 4″ deck & 2 1/2″ hanger deck. NB still with full stability.
War breaks out. “Nimitz” class CVBG heads up to the “Gap”. USSR launches a wave of 50 Backfires. (Remember we are dealing with 1960-70 theory). IF in winter then the US carrier is limited due to the weather. Deck edge lifts become a liability not an aid due to the swell. Catapults did fire aircraft directly into the sea not the air (plenty of evidence on U-tube) extremely hazardous landing etc.IF the CAG not airborne the the carrier is simply a sitting duck. Sea sparrow range 11 miles AS6 150 miles the backfires can stay out of harms way. maths 50 aircraft x 2 missiles =100 ASM’s. speed mach 3.5 claimed =approx 4 minutes to impact. Sorry the “Nimitz” class losses. USSR loses 0 USN losses 6,600+
If CAG up the backfires spotted at 500 miles out. 2 x2 tomcats airborne. first two tomcats take out 3 backfires with phoenix no contest. 14 minutes left & a third 2 tomcats launched. AT 13 minutes next 2 tomcats take out another 3. At 12 min first two take out 6 with sparrow and a fourth pair of tomcats launched. At 11 min second pair take out a further 5. first salvo of AS6 fired.(poss 8) escorts take out possible 6, 1 is a dud and one 4 minutes later hits carrier.
Blast damage immediate facinity 12. a new 12′ dia hole in side and total destruction 20′ all around internally. from there to 50′ horizontally 7-9 severe structural damage. High casualties.
The air battle continues during these last 4 minutes the CAG take out another 12 Backfires and approx another 30 AS6 ‘s launched with at least another 4 hitting the carrier. Carrier gone. RSSR losses <100 USN 6,600+
Imaginary invincible can launch SHAR’s in all weather. With 4 airborne and another 8 immediately available. here is the maths Each SHAR takes our 3 Backfires 12x 3 =36. 14 x 2 =28 AS6 launched. 14 taken out with sea dart & point defence 4 poss dud 4 miss and 6 hit. immediate deck facinity un-operatible but can still launch & recover SHARS. Sides penetrated but armour deflects blast. ships remains intact, just & limps back to base. Losses USSR <100 RN >100<200.
NB armour is there to deflect blast as well as absorb kenetic energy.
On six hits, it is awefully dependant on the areas struck. Remember in WWII, a kamikaze hit on an RN carrier wouldn’t necessarily send the carrier home, but it would clear the deck of crew, equipment and aircraft (thats the downside of blast deflection). It also required the concrete mixers to be broken out to flattened out the deck again!
I’m also curious at what range the SHAR’s are operating at and with what missiles?
PhelganBy Henry Samuel in Paris
Published: 6:25PM BST 13 Jul 2009
The French navy helicopter carrier Jeanne D’Arc Photo: AFP / GETTY
One senior officer said that the prospect of the ship being “burned, martyred and dismembered” in England would be too much to stomach after the old enemy’s earlier hand in the death at the stake in 1431 of France’s national heroine, after whom the ship is named.[/quote]
Nice sense of perspective here – its only a ship for crying out loud :rolleyes:
PhelganThat WAS the reason for the penalty clauses.
I bet Rifkind (sp?) is having a chuckle to himself…..
PhelganThere was suggestion that Mandy gently informed all and sundry that if the contract for 3a wasn’t signed it would damage the image of the UK making us look like unreliable partners.
Did we not make a big fuss about German attempts to back out in the mid- late 90’s (possible the source of those penalty clauses) – would be ironic if they came back and bit us on the backside.:cool:
PhelganAt this point I’ll believe its cancellation when I see Brown fall on his own bagpipes!
Now there’s an image I’d like to see…..:)
Lets not get carried away with public sector waste. In the defence industry I’ve sat on both HMG and private sector sides, and incompotence is not the preserve of one alone!
PhelganThere is no control console somewhere in CIC?
Apart from a console somewhere obviosuly…. (whistles quietly while edging out of the room) 😮
What control does an operator/monitor have for either system? Aprt from the ON/OFF switch.
Phelgan25% over budget before a lot of the serious work has begun – that must be some sort of record?
I found the IPPR report interesting (the bbc summary anyway) and agreed with some of it, but comments like this are curious.
As for the Europeans, it says: “The individual countries of Europe, including the United Kingdom, are… continuing a long and gradual process of decline.”
One of the reasons for this decline is an unwillingness by many European countries including the UK to actually pay for what we want. There is a degree “self-fulfilling prophecy” to this arguement.
PhelganIf i was a suppliers only regular customer and said to him can you deliver me 1000 potatoes next Friday he would say yes that’s £30. If then next Thursday 1 day before the original delivery day i said scrap that can i have 10 potatoes delivered every day except for some day’s i’m a bit skint but i will let you know those days a few hours before delivery. Do you think he will still give me 1000 potatoes for £30!!! NO he will have to charge me probably over £300 because of all the extra costs he has incurred.
Ah, the Supermarket-Supplier relationship down to a T!
PhelganGoalkeeper
Mount with Ammunition 14,018 Pounds (6,372 kg)
Off-Mount Equipment 7,766 Pounds (3,530 kg)
Total Weight 21,784 Pounds (9,902 kg)
http://www.gdatp.com/products/Gun_Systems/goalkeeper/Goalkeeper30mmClose-InShipDefenseSystem.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_30mm_Goalkeeper.htmPhalanx
Weight 13,600 pounds (6,169 kg)
http://www.gdatp.com/Products/Gun_Systems/phalanx/Phalanx20mmClose-InShipDefenseSystem.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm
(unclear if this uncludes anything off-mount)
I don’t think there is anything off-mount for Phalanx, apart from additional ammo.
PhelganActually I think the piracy mission is more C2 role, under things like choke point escort and patrol duties. Optimally a pirate fighting ship would have several helos + RHIBs present. If you look, no nation has minor war vessels in the Gulf of Aden right now, even navies with smaller vessels like corvettes have sent major vessels.
For the AP role, you are almost describing an amphibous vessel. And perhaps the “mothership” concept has a lot of merit for the various roles for C3 – work space, additional accomodation, etc. , as long as you accept that it will be the elements it carries providing all the capability (you’re RFA is not going to be chasing down vessels itself) and what ever limits that applies in terms of weather operations (operating the helos) and psycological impact (grey ship+big gun)
PhelganBut sending a T23/C2 etc to chase drug runners and pirates make no sense either, those jobs can be done by cheaper vessels.
Which is the point I was trying to make. We make C3 too cheap and it will end up being tasked for the rolle with insufficient capability or a C2 will end up in its stead.
@Grim901 – Piracy should not need what essentially is going to be a frigate. A decent C3 rolled with say helo and boats for track and interception duties should be fine. An MCG because it looks good and threatening.
Agreed, but thats why smaller, lighter simpler ships are needed for some roles, less fuel and manpower costs.
Is it worth having a second class, a C4 if you will, for this role though? We have recently replaced 5 fishery protection vessels with 3 (the River class) and 2 Castle class (FI patrol tasking) with 1 enhanced Clyde. So even on a one-to-one basis you are looking at designing a sub-class of 4 vessels. Might as will increase your build run of C3 by those extra hulls to get the unit costs down. At the end of the day you do not need to buy the modules to fit them for MCMV, etc. and it is the mission-crew that contribute a significant amount to the envisaged manpower of these vessels.
The danger of bringing in this hypothetical C4 class – an “even-cheaper” class of MR/Patrol vessel – will be the temptation to try and squeeze some C3 roles into it and losing a number of more valuble C3-hulls accordingly.
Precisely! give it a longer adaptable stern and we have a pretty good ship we can build now.
Aside from the proprietry questions (BVT not building someone else’s design), my only concern is how adaptable is the current class to further expansion? Clyde has/is close to the range and endurance mooted for C3, but I believe to do so, it lost the multirole nature of the rest of the River-class.
At present it has the flight-deck (no hanger) and presumably limited aviation stores. Space would be needed for the accomodation/hanger/MCMV/stores modules.
PhelganWhile I am completely in favour of many of the ideas put forward there has to be some realism in all this. Public finances are going to be a disater over the next ten years in the Uk (Bloodbath I think was the term used) No government is going to shut schools and hospitals (thankfully) so chances are the RN is going to take a hit. If we want C3 to happen then it needs to be simple, flexible and above all cheap, otherwise it will never happen. When designing “a C3” you need to think more like an accountant and go for cheap options that can be adapted latter.
The “Cheap as Chips” comment recently quoted from an Opposition bod worries me, because there is a reason why things are cheap and they are usually because they cannot do anything! Yes there needs to be a balance between quantity and quality, but not one extreme at the expense of the other. I strongly suspect that a truely flexible ship to meet the stated roles is not going to be all that cheap, even at (especially because?) 2,000t or so. At the end of the day sending a T23/C2 to do a role that your C3 cannot because of “financial realism” does not save money.
After all part of the whole exercise is reducing not just unit cost, but operating costs. it is the latter that has been the real killer for the Navy – £13M a year for T23 compared to a unit cost around £80-100M…..
It will never have a 76 or 57 mm gun, the RN is having trouble enough dropping the 4.5 in favour of 155mm, the treasury will never pay for a whole ‘new’ main gun calibre. It is likely to be a smaller weapon 20mm or 30mm oerlikon.
I agree they don’t need a new calibre, but it leaves the extremes if too small (30mm) or too large ? (114mm). If RN goes for 155mm, then 114mm may be available (depending on the mounts), if it doesn’t, well there is your common calibre anyway.
The final version is much more likely to be a version of HMS Clyde with some adaptable space for MCM equipment etc. It may incorporate some Venator ideas, it must be remembered that Venator is a concept model, not an actual ship.
And the other River class ships have a limited role-swapping capability already, so an enlarged version would seem to lend itself to a basic C3 concept.
Sign In
