JonesyHyper,
Yep!. With just the one proviso…..I’d have the stock model right now if I had the purse strings. FASGW is already too complicated and could’ve been as simple as a blast-fragged Brimstone as FASGW(L) for the FLynx/JSF and NSM for FASGW(H) for Merlin/JSF and, ultimately, the escort fleet.
The RN hailed the coming of TLAM as a revolution as it allowed us to act with a coercive presence quickly and easily. Imagine the effectiveness of a precision guided standoff missile that could be deployed from any platform capable of operating a Merlin. We arent going to do saturation attacks on heavy ADZ’s with one Merlin on an RFA granted. For a Sierra Leone type situation the ability to slam a pair of 250lb warheads into a ‘political headquarters’ or some such thing, off a nearby RFA, without waiting for a task group to show up could be disproportionately useful.
JonesyThe USN will have that same capability with the large American LHA/LHD equipped with the same F-35B’s as the Royal Navy CVF’s.
The LHA/D’s with F-35B, despite being an improvement on whats out there now, will still be a huge step up to a CVN in terms of theatre-need. With PA2-sized CTOL carriers there is the additional level of flexibility.
In fact, thinking about it, a group with 1 CVF and 2 LHA’s is embarking fleet support elements like the AEW plus, conceivably, 3 sqdns of 35C’s plus a further 2 sqdns of -35B’s. For what would be almost the smallest USN expeditionary strike group capability that is a lot of combat power!.
Steve,
Yeah, but wasnt PA.2 the backup design after they realised they couldn’t afford their original plan? IIRC, they wanted a scaled up version of the De Gaule, including nuclear propulsion, after all, conventional propulsion is a backwards step
It is a backward step for the French, but, not in technical terms.
The Charles de Gaulle proved the point that there are no compromises with nuclear propulsion….you do the sums right or forget it. They, the French, started off with a relatively weedy submarine-derived reactor plant and ended up with a complicated multi-reactor propulsion fit who’s total output is easily shamed by modern GT fits. Consequently they had to compromise the CdeG design quite badly to keep any kind of worthwhile performance in the hull.
That they opted for a conventional design for PA2 mustve been a painful call after the expenditure in shoreside nuclear handling facilities (hence backward step). Now though, not only do they have to absorb those costs for CdeG and accept that they wont pull through the benefits to the second carrier, but, they may have to examine their UNREP capability and possible lay out more cash on beefing that up a bit to keep PA2 out – if they ever build it!. Heads you lose….tails you dont win on that one!. 😮
JonesyYou are assuming one example will automatically mean that it would be similar for another case. Not always true.
Does it have to be ‘always true’ for the point to be valid?. No, of course not?. Is there any fundamental difference between an RAF aircraft searching for and identifying ship targets in the Atlantic and a Chinese MPA searching for and identifying targets in the South China Sea?. No there isnt – the challenges presented to both are identical. Ergo problems experienced by one service can be anticipated to strike another who’s equipment and methodology are no better. In fact we know this to be the case as several air forces have experienced the same issues with OTH target misidentification over the decades.
Yes it does, I’m not saying China will obliterate the US Navy on demand here either because of the MC02 results. Considering they do have some, granted vintage Soviet anti-ship weapons, if they can coordinate their recon and shooter assets, be they together or not.
The key flaw with what you write is the part where you talk about recon and shooter assets. China, as we speak, has no surviveable recon assets that could bear on a USN carrier force and survive long enough to coordinate a strike. You cant use shooter assets to do the patrolling either because you spread them too thinly and wipe out the chance of a weighted strike.
Once again, you must think you know better than the entire military of the USSR in terms of what worked and what didn’t….Discussed above, in case you think anyone here will think your ideas about anti-ship defenses are more comprehensive than that of the entire USSR’s military, you are wrong. And this is not about the USSR anyway. So drop it.
I think I’m actually quite flattered you have stuck to the unfathomable notion that this is all my analysis and not the product of years of study in uniform and out – learning from people with infinitely more knowledge than myself.
If all you are going to do from this point is say that they built the system so it must work we’ll forget it right now because you really are showing yourself to have no clue as to how much you dont actually know. I’ll give you a hint as to where to start off finding out the real story about OTH missile engagements of carrier battlegroups….study the genesis of Soviet anticarrier tactics. Start somewhere near the P-7/35, Uspekh, Echo-class SSGN’s and the Pr.58 RK’s. You’ll get to the P-700’s on Kirov and the Oscar SSGN’s, but, you’ll notice a disconnect in about the mid 80’s when things start going a bit wrong for the whole concept.
You pick out what it was that goes wrong for the system and you get a gold star!!!.
No one is divorcing them. In fact, they should be anything but divorced. They are still used in conjunction with one another- hardly a divorce now?
OK Antiship basics. The terminology is divorcing the shooter from the recon element. This means that the recon platform is a seperate entity to the shooter. This is the optimal choice as it means that your search asset is not hauling around heavy antiship missiles whilst patrolling. This obviously has the benefits of increased range and endurance for the aircraft and increased missile life as they dont tend to like being clobbered on a pylon in turbulence etc for 12hrs!.
This does not necessarily mean that these missiles (have to be specific) will require outside guidance either. The SS-N-12/19 have multi-missile attack guidance from what I can recall, with one missile going high, one low. The SS-N-19 for sure.
If you dont hold an identified target for the missile how are you going to fire it in the first place?. Just send off a salvo of 4 missiles on all cardinal points…see if something finds a carrier…or at least a carrier sized ship?.
After taking on the entire USSR OTH capability . . . I’ll spare you what I’m going to say to stay civil . . . :rolleyes:
Hmmm first thing you’ve said I can relate to. I have a Milparade-fan, a person without the first concept of naval manoever or antiship OTH tactics, telling me that everything I was taught about both topics is wrong and with absolutely nothing to back up his assertions other than a highly contrived exercise 6 years back and a deeply flawed belief in ‘superior’ Soviet antiship missile technology!. Civil….you dont know your born lad!
Matt,
Almost a return to the B-36/Goblin parasite concept!. The main problems with that, in addition to crew fatigue, would be the additional fuel burn on the MPA…humping all its fuel and all the extra fighter fuel with it on the first segment of its patrol window – the MPA is there for searching and cutting its patrol endurance is bad!. Then you have situational awareness for the escort fighters. MPA radar might catch inbound, E-2 guided, interceptors if they came in low, but, most MPA radars dont elevate for air-air modes for obvious reasons.
Lastly, as i said to E-9, it is perfectly feasible to stage fighters to cover the MPA’s….I’m not suggesting it couldnt be done. It is just going to tie down a lot of of support assets, scarce in Chinese service, and probably half a dozen Flankers per MPA doing it!.
JonesyOK,
Your logical fallacy. Again.
How is it a logical fallacy. Explain yourself?.
Yeah, and then MC02 comes along and shatters all that
Covered this already – you bringing back MC02 every now and again doesnt change the basic facts. China doesnt have the capability to target at extreme standoff.
I didn’t think so. Of course, the USSR’s military was a waste and the US would obliterate it on demand. How original of you.
Grow up. I’ve said nothing about the USSR’s military in general I said their OTH antiship tactics didnt work. Tactics that others have thought had merit….but are only now getting on the right path to making work.
Not that you would know better than an entire military network.
…and now its the ‘cant attack the post so attack the poster’ routine. You really are a cliche arent you.
Why do you think Soviet/Russian ships carry these things? Why do you think Soviets had special recon/targeting designated bombers? They are designed for long range detection/guidance for stand-off weapons. Maybe you should go do some reading.
You dont know what Uspekh and Outlaw Hunter are do you?. You now cite Russian recon and oth missile targetting aircraft – components of the Uspekh system – yet a few days ago you had no concept of the need to divorce shooter and recon assets.
Please keep going on about my credibility you’re really making me look a halfwit!:rolleyes:
JonesyWould there come anti-air ammo with the 155?
In my view – no!. Not impossible of course. OTO could do a guided round mitigating the RoF restriction, but, short of some fantabulous guided 95lb super-AHEAD round I dont really see the point!.
A point against the 4.5″: Max elevation.
55 degrees maximum should be sufficient for most scenarios even AAW. If the air target is close enough that you’d need to elevate above 55 then your main mount probably isnt the ideal weapons system anyway. Its plenty for most illumination and chaff rounds too!.
JonesyI agree. I’d not see a huge problem putting the OTO-Melara gun on a RN warship even if it’s making logistics less optimal; the gun itself is low risk compared to the 155mm idea which presumably requires single-piece ammunition so not common to AS90. But I would overall prefer the 155mm anyway as you could stock up on Volcano and LRLAP ammunition.
Ed, you forgot to vote 😉
Its not a huge problem – it just wouldnt happen in reality because no-one wants to make logistics sub-optimal. Logistics is hard enough as it stands without deliberately making it more difficult!.
The 155 would be using seperate ammunition for commonality with Army stocks. The mount is designed incorporating a dual-stroke loader to facilitate that ammunition type. It means the RoF is down from twenty odd rounds per min to about 12 sustained, but, we’re not training the weapons lads using the Mk8 for AAW these days anyway!. I suspect that occasions of using the 5″ OTO in such a role would be equally limited single-piece ammo or not!
JonesyScott
Well, if you want to compare 12 USN CVN’s vs say 16 RN CVF’s. I don’t see the latter being worth while in cost or capability. That is for the USN…….
On those grounds definitely but I think the cost differential would be a bit more than an extra 4 hulls for the CVF-type design!. Especially if you put in whole-life costs!. Think more like, minimum, 22 or so.
When you get there you start looking at flexible response. Not all circumstances need the full weight of a CVN so sending a single US-PA2 (for want of better description) can be a much cheaper and more efficient response. Anywhere that needs a CVN is going to be better served by teaming two US-PA2s in concert. After all 1 CVW now is what 4 strikefighter sqdns plus an E-2 det and rotaries. A CVF can easily do 3 strikefighter sqdns plus the rest…maybe a few choppers light?.
You have:
1 x CVN – 4 fastjet sqdns and support plus 5000 crew or
2 x US-PA2 – 6 fastjet sqdns and 2 lots of support elements on circa 3000 crew.
…plus you can cycle the conventional carriers to maintain a constant presence…or detach one and reallocate it in theatre to an alternate attack axis or whatever. Much greater operational flexibility. It doesnt work any smaller down than about PA2-size of course…you need the minimum deck and cats for the E-2’s but you dont need the CVN get comparable sortie rates and target effects.
JonesyThe key point there Scott is that its the USN, the organisation most wedded to the concept of the 5000 man CVN, that always determines that the 5000 man CVN is the way to go!.
Compared one for one with a PA2/CVF the CVN is by far the superior ship, as it should be, the question is though for the same whole-life expenditure as 12 CVN’s how many PA2’s could be operated and with what performance advantage/disadvantage.
JonesyThe other thing to bear in mind is that Oto have specifically been talking about it being adaptable to other calibres. Now admittedly they were primarily meaning scaling up for the 155mm, but scaling down from 127mm to 114.5mm shouldn’t be impossible! Obviously, if the 155mm (hopefully the L/52 version) is chosen, then this is even more convenient. I would definitely avoid the L/39 – if you are going to go to the hassle of adapting a land-based gun to a naval mount, you may as well make it worthwhile! Alternatively, just stick with the 114mm and adapt Vulcano for it – should still get pretty impressive range figures anyway!
Agreed. I think there are still advantages that would come with the original 39cal ordnance, but, it does look frankly absurd, after going to the expense of developing the weapon, to stop it before its maximum potential is exploited.
The thing with the OTO Vulcano round is going to be whether its viable, economically, to develop the round in RN 4.5″. Apart from us what is the customer base for the round?. Pakistan is discarding its T21’s in the not too distant future so the market is, barring a few Chilean T23’s and Irans remaining Vosper Mk5’s, Brazil’s dozen or so Mk8 equipped escorts and they make thier own ammunition locally.
A closer possibility is that they could develop a 105mm version of the round for the general market and, later, come up with a sabot/spacer to see the round fit the 4.5″ chamber. I’d not be convinced of the chances on that one though to be honest!.
JonesyNo argument there. Looks a very, very good weapon. If it were for a Navy that uses 5″ currently then its a no brainer. Doesnt make a good choice for us for 2 reasons:
1) We dont use 5″ so the whole package is new and unique for the RN.
2) Its only these specialist rounds that offer the range and we’ll never have huge stocks of them. The basic ‘cheap’ 5″ round is little realistic improvement over a base-bleed 4.5″.
On both counts the 155 is the better option.
JonesyTheoretically we could be using these escorts against opposition with little or no meaningful ASW threat so a good secondary capability would seem sensible. Putting this vessel on gunline is still going to be a very brave call by the Task Group flag seeings as the hull numbers would be so short.
Part of me likes the Mk110 57mm option as a good way of making sure that sending such a valuable escort too close inshore would never happen!. Otherwise we need the longest ranged mount physically possible. AGS is, by all accounts, monstrous and therefore not physically possible!. To me that leaves the BAE 155 as the only choice.
1, C
2, C
3, B (place holder in case C isnt ready!)
JonesyIt’s your logical fallacy here, actually. One case must automatically mean the same thing for another? Come on.
It means that an outfit with operational experience and equipment developed off the strength of that experience has had documented instances of getting things woefully wrong. Its no logical fallacy drawing that conclusion. I say again….arrogance or ignorance?
If they are sitting there that passively, they aren’t being very useful or dangerous are they?
So we’ve now understood the part about targetting challenges have we?. Thats progress at least!. The USN have the ability to do plenty whilst ‘sitting there passively’. Assembling the surface and air plot through offboard assets like E-2 Hawkeyes and through passive assets like SURTASS are critical factors in shaping the battlespace. You need to do some reading.
What do you even know about when they did or did not find the Americans?. Did they call you each time they found NATO/US ships?
Grow up. Instances where the Soviets have spectacularly failed to find USN groups are numerous…the most famous one published is even listed on this thread. Put up something comparable to support Soviet anticarrier tactics.
What I do know is, all their recon/attack assets weren’t just for show.
Ahh the old ‘well, they built them so they must have worked’ argument!. LOL.
We are talking about Flankers here, not Harriers. LOL.
Oh please Flankers are very good long-range platforms but keeping with an MPA on a 12hr patrol circuit are you serious??. You are still talking of relays of fighters and a demand for serious tanking support and, if you want them to have any form of situational awareness, probably AWACS cover in to boot. Tankers and AWACS, not to mention MPA’s, being in relatively short supply in the PLAAF at present!.
I’m talking about aircraft or helicopters. Aerial is not space. :rolleyes: Might want to start there.
Uspekh – aircraft/chopper based. Outlaw Hunter – P-3’s and, I think, some E-2C’s in the early TASM days. Its only Legenda that has a space component. Again – do yourself some good and get some reading in before you post!.
JonesyIn the case of the hanger, is there anywhere else on the ship where the boats can be stored? moving those would give enough room for your two merlins.
Not as simple as just finding room in the hangar though Steve. Ships are designed with the fuel, spares, air weapons and, most importanly, embarked personnel for the ships flight determined as necessary for the vessel.
For T45 thats probably a signle Lynx HMA8 for x no. of sorties. Its obvious to state that the stores suitable for that ships flight will be woefully inadequate to keeping up sorties for 2 Merlin.
JonesyPlaneman
You always see the problems rather than the opportunities, at least that’s how you come across (no offense at all)
“Knock off them negative waves, Moriarty”!!!.
LOL!. No offense taken in the slightest. Spend a while fixing ships and twitchy guided weapons systems and that is what happens unfortunately. Struggling to try and make poorly designed bits of kit work when two minutes thought at the design stage wouldve made for efficient and simple operation gives you a hell of a perspective on getting things right from the kickoff.
One solution might be (and this is subject to another vote elsewhere I guess) a mix of about 32 smaller AD missiles (ESSM or Mica VL sized) with say 8 ABMs. When you look at how many ESSMs can be carried in such a small space, it is quite appealing and they still qualify as “area – air defence”, at least as long as you also have the Type-45s in the team.
Now there is a typical British solution at work!.
Design Authority: “The specs say full AAW capability”
Naval Architect: “Wont fit in the hull with all the other kit”
Design Authority: “What will fit that looks close enough?”
😀
What your talking about is essentially dropping the Area AAW and ABM requirement in favour of a more modest, but quite adequate, self-defence fit. Which is every bit the right choice in the situation otherwise you cross over with the T45s and waste hull volume you need assigned to things that T45 cant do!. Namely – Carry LACM and as many choppers/UAV’s as possible.
8000t ships can still be quite large obviously.
Fully loaded T45 is close enough to 8000ton as makes academic difference. She could not do full Area AAW, carry significant numbers of LACMs and do ASW ops with multiple choppers. You would probably need a 12k ton trimaran for all that and it would be absolutely deadly – to the RN budget!. :diablo:
Nope if we’re stuck with trying to get all the missions specified on a T45-sized hull the only sensible way to do it is to start with a T45 hull, complete with PAAMS, ship a few angled box launchers for NSM somewhere and do the best job possible of expanding the hangar for a couple of Merlins.
JonesyPlaneman,
Its an interesting concept you are working towards here, but, something has to give.
We ‘voted’ for a 6-8000ton monohull right. You reckon its got to do AAW(+ABM), principle fleet ASW and its got to have land attack. So its got to have what, a least, 64 VLS cells. 48 AAW, 8 ABM, 8 LACM is modest to say the least. Plus then it has to have extensive ASW chopper facilities plus an LFA tail and an MFR/VSR combination of some type. On 8000tons top out good luck with that!.
Lack of VLS cells means there is little point in a VLS based LACM for this ship for me so I’d look at a dual use SSM. None of them are hard target penetrators so the warhead size matters little and NSM, with its IIR/TRA functionality would seem about the optimal solution. May even be able to get it on the heavy ASW choppers to enhance strike capability!. Not much between Harpoon and RBS15 I dont believe so :
1, d
2, f (Harpoon BlkII)
3, c
Sign In
