Liger30They don’t operate it because it is not available. 155 mm is the AGS, but it is not going anywhere else other than on the Zumwalths DDG1000 with how horribly massive and expensive it is. And it is not compatible with anything else anyway.
Germany did try building its own 155 mm gun. Unable to do it, they chose the 127 mm Oto. Had the 155 TMF been available in time, it would have won.
The US Marines are not going to see their Naval Gunfire Support requirement fullfilled with the Zumwalt number cut back to 3, and the new-build Arleigh Burkes in the next years would be a very realistic candidate to get the 155 TMF if it is completed.
The 155 TMF has been succesfully test-fired, with the round built into a single assembly that reunites the split launch charge in a single block ready to fire.
I think it has pretty good chances if it is not abandoned. Was I in BAe managers, sincerely, i’d totally complete the development with my own money and present it at the weapons expositions around the world to start getting back a share of the market.
Even Russia aims for commonality and has been planning a twin barreled 152 mm gun (they don’t have the 155 calibre) for their fleet and for export! The UK has the chance to be a word leader in a potentially very succesful market…
And anyway, if a foreign buyer really wanted the Type 26 to be fitted with the 127, it still could easily if the frigate is even just a little bit “modular” as it is promised she’ll be.
AOR, AFSH, Argus, (Waves?).
The Waves aren’t cleared for Sea King. Argus and the Forts possibly could. The Forts most surely can, since their aviation facilities were pretty much designed for Sea King itself.
But i express my doubts on the solidity of such justification. I don’t see the admirals succesful in defending Sea King ASaC with so little, personally, with how more evident cuts have been imposed without trouble in the years, from destroyers and frigates to Sea Harrier to Ark Royal itself…
Liger30So I’m not surprised about Babcocks agreement with Finmeccanica, the OTO127mm is a fine gun and makes the Type 26 more attractive.
More attractive than a gun that fires army-common 155 mm NATO standard ammunitions with considerable long term savings in terms of commonality, joint procurement for Army and Navy and such…?
I don’t think so.
The TMF could totally fire the land-version 155 mm Vulcano ammunition, or the UK-French Impaqt ammo or any other NATO round, and allow for a single large stock of rounds for Navy and Army.
The 155 TMF’s only drawbacks are the relatively short-range (damn 39-calibre barrel and the termination of the Braveheart programme!) and low rate of fire. But BAe could solve both problems creating a more ambitious version for the richest customers abroad by going for the 52 Calibre, Water-Cooled barrell that already was proposed. Hell, BAe even proposed a TWIN barreled gun that would have been totally awesome. 😀 Twin six inches back at sea…? Hell, it would be the coolest thing in years.
The UK would likely buy the baseline gun for the usual budgetary constraints… but still, it would have its obvious advantages.
I totally agree, though, that the 127 mm Oto was TOTALLY expected to be offered, from the very first moment, and i agree it is the most likely choice, even if probably it comes after:
-Keeping current 114 (crap, but it is the cheapest option after having no gun, so don’t underplay this chance too easily…)
-155 TMF gun upgrade
Liger30At the moment I still see Merlin as the MASC solution with Cerberus and Searchwater 2000AEW.
The only way I see Hawkeye being operated by the UK is if we do some form of joint squadron with the French by co-financing at least a couple more Hawkeyes and then operating them as part of a common pool with the French keeping all maintenance and support in France where it already is. The French operate three Hawkeye as it stands and would like a fourth, that would give five Hawkeye which is enough to service Charles De Gaulle and whatever CVF is available at the time.
The Key questions would be:
a) Does purchasing a couple of Hawkeye and operating them with France cost less then refiting seven or eight Merlin as a MASC type?
b) Could they sort out the politics of it and operational practicalities between the FAA and Aeronavale?
You are more optimist than me then.
I see the Sea King ASaC very likely to be killed after its use over Afghanistan is over or even sooner.
When the Sea King HC4 goes, i think there’s quite a great chance to see the ASaC squadrons disbanded as well and MASC requirement “delayed to better match the ISD of the Carrier Strike force”… Which means getting back the capability, again, in 2020.
After all, the Type 45 is not cleared to embark Sea King.
The only platform which will remain will be HMS Ocean eventually, or HMS Illustrious if she’s destined to be a less-than-obtimal amhpibious assault LPH if the planned 100-millions Refit planned for next year kills HMS Ocean as i fear is horribly likely. I don’t believe at all to the “study on which ship delivers the best helicopter assault capability” because there’s no need for study: HMS Ocean wins. She’s been DESIGNED to embark Marines, L118 guns, towing vehicles and trailers, has the LCVP and crane for the Howercrafts as well and the internal design to ease embarkation ops for Marines.
HMS Illustrious has nothing of all this, obviously.
However, HMS Ocean is less well conserved, and scheduled for a costy refit next year. THIS is what matters and most likely will kill the Mighty O.
Left without platforms, the Sea King ASaC will be an easy target for deletion. Easier than Harrier because it is a lot less known and iconic for the general public. “Until the Carrier Strike is active, it is not needed!” :rolleyes:
For that date, it’ll be an open battle on MASC. For the survival of the requirement first of all. And then for the choice of platform. And if a Joint UK-US-France agreement of some sort can offer a way to keep costs down… the Hawkeye certainly has the Navy’s blessing.
Liger30Meanwhile, Carrier sharing surfaces again!
PARIS, Oct 26 (Reuters) – France and Britain could station warplanes on each other’s aircraft carriers and refuel each other’s planes in a new drive for military cooperation, France’s defence minister said.
In an interview published in the Tuesday edition of French business daily La Tribune, Defence Minister Herve Morin said cooperation could include such joint deployment and more.
‘Beyond joint exercises, we are in favour of sharing the accompanying of aircraft carriers. A British frigate could perfectly well participate in the protection of the (French aircraft carrier) Charles de Gaulle and vice versa,’ he said.
The leaders of France and Britain meet in early November and have been exploring ways in which cooperation on defence could work, especially as both governments are under pressure to cut costs and reduce big budget deficits.
‘I’ve asked our military command to consider the feasibility of stationing British aircraft on our aircraft carrier and vice versa,’ Morin said. ‘We’re looking into other areas such as refuelling planes.’
Other areas he cited were joint maintenance and staff training for the A400M military transport aircraft and joint work on a ‘drone of the future’.
‘And finally there’s the whole question of the European missile rationalisation,’ he said, citing cruise missiles and light anti-warship missiles.
If it ensures that PoW is completed as carrier as well, i’m totally for it!
My guess is that the FRench navy is more than aware that funding for PA2 will not come, and thus having the chance to deploy their planes at sea on british carriers is advantageous like hell. Contrary to many others, i don’t dislike this much… Unless it is used as an unrealistic excuse by the next british government to buy a ridiculous number of F35C and have a “fleet” of totally laughable size.
Also, it seems that the 14 A330 KC1 of the RAF will work to refuel the french airplanes too, at least for a few years. Nothing against that either, since the RAF will be granted use of their own when they buy them in a few years time.
The “drone of the future” would be most likely Mantis, and since the French plan a long term buy of around 60 drones, that is a rgeat news that potentially secures the project.
The sharing on A400 should also be more radical than just joint mainteinance: whenever possible, the RAF or the Arme de l’Air should be allowed to task each others cargo planes in mission, running the fleet almost as a single, massive one. (potentially up to 72 planes with the 50 french ones!)
While the missile part clearly refers to the joing FASGM(H) “Sea Skua II” programme for the anti-shipping part…
While my personal lecture of the “cruise missile” part is an attempt of the French minister to push the UK to adopt Scalp Navale and Sylver A70 launchers for it for the Type 26 frigate.
Sincerely, i think the UK should stay focused on TacTomahawk instead, but i wouldn’t spit on the Scalp Navale if it was to be funded, which really is the main and unique real problem!
Euronaval | Oto Melara (a subsidiary of the Finmeccanica Group) and Babcock International Group’s Marine Division have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to offer the Oto Melara 127mm 64cal Light Weight (LW) Medium Calibre Gun System to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) for the Type 26 frigate for the Royal Navy.
The 127/64 LW has already been selected by other European navies and has been developed as a complete system, including long range precision guided ammunition.
Under the agreed co-operation between the two companies, Babcock would be the prime contractor to the MoD, leveraging its established position as a Tier 1 contractor. The arrangements would provide significant licensed work for Babcock, with opportunities for a broad UK supply chain, in assembly, test, setting to work and on-going in-service support in the UK.
There is also potential for the system to be offered in UK sales of Type 26 derivatives for the export market.
The Oto Melara 127/64 LW gun is capable of firing up to 35 rounds per minute. The production turret weighs less than 29 tons and the ‘peppered’ muzzle brake with an aluminium shield keeps cost down, improves maintenance and reduces radar cross-section. The gun uses an advanced ammunition handling system, consisting of four revolving drum magazines holding 56 ready-to-fire rounds of more than four different types, allowing flexibility in ammunition selection and a high rate of sustained fire. It is capable of anti-surface and anti-air defence, and area engagement. The new Vulcano ammunition is capable of precision engagement at ranges previously only achievable by missile systems but at a fraction of the cost.
Both Babcock and Finmeccanica view this as an exciting and mutually beneficial relationship.
Babcock Equipment Solutions managing director Roger Gillespie said: “We are delighted to be working in co-operation with Oto Melara to offer this gun system for the Type 26 frigate. Babcock is already known as a leading contractor for weapon support work for the UK MoD and is expert in the manufacture, assembly, test and setting to work of naval weapon systems. We hold a long-term Phalanx Close-in Weapon System support contract, as well as having the contract to modify Mk8 Guns to Mod1 standard, and providing logistics support for the Mod1 Gun.”
Oto Melara senior vice president marketing and sales Ulderigo Rossi said: “The 127/64 LW medium calibre gun system is now in production for the Italian FREMM and the German F125. We are delighted to be working with a UK industrial team to offer this for the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate.”
The two companies are also exploring other products and markets where they feel they may profitably co-operate.
Babcock is at Euronaval on stand D2.6, UK Pavilion. Finmeccanica, including Oto Melara, is on stand B3 Hall 2.
This other news is less pleasant to me. I’m a big supporter of the 155 mm TMF gun myself…
But, again, the 127 is not bad at all, and it would still be a great step forwards from the old 114.
Finally, a great news for the Navy (a much needed good news moreover!):
Lockheed Martin UK – Integrated Systems and strategic partner, AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, announced today that MCSP01, the first upgraded Royal Navy Merlin Mk2 helicopter has performed a successful maiden flight at the AgustaWestland facility in Yeovil.
The 35 minute first flight went as planned and the initial flight test phase will focus on testing the new avionics, aircraft management system, cockpit displays, communications and navigation systems.
Rod Makoske, Lockheed Martin UK – Integrated Systems VP, said “The first flight of MCSP01 is evidence of the cooperative efforts of the Ministry of Defence and industry team, and marks the start of an intensive flight-test programme for the Merlin Capability Sustainment Programme (MCSP).
Our continued teamwork will enable us to complete the on-time development of this world-class multi-mission helicopter for the Royal Navy.”
Nick Whitney, AgustaWestland’s Senior VP UK Government Business, said “The first flight of Merlin Mk2 ahead of schedule is a great achievement that has been made possible by the strong teamwork between the industrial partners and the Ministry of Defence.
Thanks God the Merlin MR2 programme seems to be going smoothly and ahead of schedule even! It is a welcome change, and a good news for the navy.
In 2013 it’ll have Merlin MR2 to deploy… later onto CVF too!
Liger30Also I am not sure that Searchwater on a Sea King is the same system as the Searchwater on the Nimrod, as I think the latter might be optimised for surface search.
They are different indeed. Nimrod MRA4 has got the Searchwater 2000MR while Cerberus is based on the Searchwater 2000AEW.
http://digilander.libero.it/humboldt/pdf/searchwater.pdf 2000AEW
Can’t find the brochure for the MR anymore XD sorry.
I’m fascinated by the dream of a S-3B capable to cover long-range ASW and AEW role both (and perhaps Carrier On-board Delivery and eventually a bit of Air-to-Air tanker too – the RN had investigated using F35B as Buddy-Buddy air tankers to remedy to the shorter-than-promised range!!!), but i think the chances of it happening are minimal to say the very least, unfortunately.
Instead, i have high hopes for the Hawkeye: it was and is the favorite Navy option, but it was sorta abandoned because of the need for catapults.
Now that there are the catapults, the Navy might be able to get to lease a bunch of Hawkeyes (possibly C, and not the latest D version, but it would still be a leap forwards from Sea King ASaC) for a very competitive price from US Navy surplus.
Biggest obstacle, more than the cost that might actually be more advantageous, all things considered, than moving Cerberus onto the Merlins, will most likely be the RAF being bitchy about the Navy getting an AWACS system that “rivals” the E3D Sentry.
You can bet the RAF will be collaborative like a terryfied cat holding onto your face with its claws when the admirals try putting the proposal forwards…
The admirals have to play it all on budget savings. Gotta save every penny possible in the next few years, and contact the USN and try to get a bargain price and a joint-training agreement.
Once they have it, then they must aggressively present their MASC solution and secure it. 😀
Liger30Yeah, the pods were rejected. But the MT30 gas turbines still are in the sponsons under the two islands, i think. (May be here that the “classified amount of armour” is located to provide some protection) A bit more risky than putting them deep into the hull, but there’s advantages in terms of space, ease of access and mainteinance and such.
And i think it is very hard that the EMKIT can be developed full-scale in time and overtake the US programme which has been going on for far longer, with more urgency, and which is very advanced by now.
The EMKIT might find its way on the flight deck of the Type 26 one day, though…
The demonstrator builds on the previous EMCAT project. With two 3.2 MJ energy stores and a 14 metres launch length, it can launch UAV’s of up to 500kg at a speed up to 50 m/sec. The notional operation requirement is for a production EMKIT system that will be able to launch UAV’s such as the Hermes 180, Hermes 450, Eagle 1 and Predator A from ships as small as a frigate.
This would give the Type 26 extensive drone capability, and not just limit it to Camcopter or Fire Scout-type UAVs. It is quite fascinating… and with the flight deck being pretty damn big, a longer and more powerful EMKIT could be fitted.
Liger30It’s expected that the first USN carrier to be fitted with EMALS catapults will be CVN-78, the lead ship of the new CVN-21 class, and expected to enter service in 2015. She will fitted with four EMALS systems, each costing about US $26.5 million.
The USN has held talks with the MoD over possible UK participation in the EMALS programme. Apparently in 2004 the CVF platform design team asked General Atomics for technical information on their EMALS catapult so that appropriate provision could be made in the CVF design, but GA refused – in compliance with US laws. The USN’s EMALS programme and associated information is classified and the UK government had to negotiate with the US government to establish arrangements relating to the disclosure, transfer, and use of technical information. In late 2005 UK MOD sources disclosed that there had indeed been a recent joint study with the US Navy to examine the feasibility of fitting EMALS to CVF. Given programme and risk issues, and projected equipment availability, EMALS catapults would not be available for delivery to the UK prior to 2015.
Meanwhile, in April 2006 Converteam (as Alstom had been renamed) was awarded a further MoD Research Acquisition Organisation for the design, build and testing of an Electro-Magnetic Kinetic Integrated Technology (EMKIT) unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) technology demonstrator to demonstrate electromagnetic launch technology through the testing of a high-speed high acceleration demonstrator using advanced linear motor technology. The system commissioned in December 2006 with land-based trials to commence in early 2007. The demonstrator builds on the previous EMCAT project. With two 3.2 MJ energy stores and a 14 metres launch length, it can launch UAV’s of up to 500kg at a speed up to 50 m/sec. The notional operation requirement is for a production EMKIT system that will be able to launch UAV’s such as the Hermes 180, Hermes 450, Eagle 1 and Predator A from ships as small as a frigate.
[The Hermes 450 (WK450 Watchkeeper in British Army service) provides Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) services. The aerial vehicle weighs 450 kg on take-off. (Source: Elbit Systems/ Thales)]
Like the catapults, it seems likely that any CTOL conversion of CVF will be fitted with US made arresting gear engines.
The current USN standard is the Mark 7 Mod 3, however starting with the USS Ronald Reagan the USN is moving to a new three-wire Mark 7 Mod 4 arresting gear design (actually four arresting gear engines but with two of them interchangeable as the barricade engine). The new system uses polycore cables designed to withstand more traps than steel cables and extra-large pulleys to reduce maintenance and man-hours, and provides the capability to land potentially larger and heavier aircraft. It is hoped that the new design will reduce maintenance requirements by half by increasing the time interval between inspections and overhauls, in addition, the costs associated with replacing these high-wear components will be reduced. Another benefit of this system will be that the arresting gear engines will be more accessible to flight line crews.
From invaluable Navy Matters
http://www.converteam.com/converteam/4/doc/Markets/Navy_CS/EMKIT_datasheet__GB.7001.gb.06.09.03_.pdf A brochure on the Converteam EMKIT programme.
Also, i’m thinking that the power of the propulsion system will be insufficient to power the ship and run the catapults as well.
The CVF is not exactly overpowered, with speed projected to be just over 26 knots.
It is likely that the weight increase will bring this down to 25 on its own.
Depending on the real consume of electricity of the two catapults, it may be necessary to fit a third Gas-Turbine MT30 to provide the power for them, or something smaller, but certainly an additional source of power on the propulsion system itself will have to be fitted.
The lack of speed was something that created troubles back at the times of the PA2, because the french wanted to obtain 27 knots at the very least, and they tried to obtain a redesign of the ship, from the propulsion arrangement to the design of the bow, but of course the UK said no because of budgetary constraints.
However, the two catapults will need their own power system. I think there was space, i read somewhere, to fit up to 2 additionals MT30, one beside each of the current ones, but i may remember uncorrectly.
Anyway, there’s the space that was originally saved for the eventuality of needing a Steam catapult with its bulky steam-generation machinery, so fitting the additional power won’t be much of a problem.
Liger30She’s being built pre-fitted out though, in the same fashion as the T45’s, with completed modules welded together. There shouldn’t be all that much fitting out in traditional terms. If we launch QE later then we push back PoW as she needs the dock to be assembled in.
Type 45 isn’t so entirely completed…
There’s quite some fitting out post launch, included the assembly of the SAMPSON radar and radome on top of the mast which isn’t too speedy and easy a job. Same goes for the LRR and other kit.
I dunno. Mine was an hypothesis, nothing more. But then again, PoW slips forward 2 years. It may be exactly because of the delay of having QE keeping the dock occupied for longer time, also because most likely PoW is still planned WITHOUT cats for now.
Liger30Since the official line is that it’s cheaper to build her than not, it’s hard to imagine her not being completed. The SDSR & the MoD press office both say that both carriers will be built.
I meant not completed with all the kit that makes of it a complete and ready to commission ship, but does not take a dock to add.
I don’t think that, even with the changes for fitting catapults, it would take so long if they wanted to do it in short time! Maybe i’m wrong, of course, but it seems a delay “expanded” by economic considerations over simple technique.
Then there’s the fact that we are not sure if PoW’ll get her own cats or not. Might be “built for but not with”, most likely. (How i hate that phrase by now…) Hard to see money given for catapults for a carrier to be mothballed.
Either the plan changes, PoW is used actively or she is used as a LPH. Many options.
But indeed:
Pre-SDSR schedule was QE commissioning 2016, PoW 2018.
SDSR document says that the commissioning date will slip from 2016 to 2020, which confirms the analysis and somehow makes it clear that QE is THE carrier. With PoW being… whatever money will allow her to be. Sad but true.
Liger30The SDSR actually does not promise to use one before 2020, even as LPH. The SDSR only said:
We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future. This should both ensure continuous carrier-strike availability, and reduce the overall carrier protection requirements on the rest of the fleet, releasing ships for other naval tasks such as protection of key sea-lanes, or conducting counter- piracy and narcotics operations.
To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops. Retaining this flexibility of choice is at the core of the Government’s adaptable approach.
Floated she will be, evidently, because the dock will be needed for building PoW.
Just not fitted out with radars and such, possibly, and anyway not commissioned up to 2020.
Evidently the RN will be so starved of funds that even QE can’t even be completed and commissioned before 2020, no matter the use, no matter anything.
Hopefully in 2015 the review won’t be a desperate slashing of the defence budget.
It almost makes one hope for an EVIDENT degradation in the international situation in the coming years, to ensure that demented decisions are FORCEFULLY avoided.
Because if we have to hope on politicians’ good sense alone, i have the chills.
Liger30Won’t the costs rise doing… this… not very clever-sounding procedure…?
Also, are we to take this as the spelled end of any hope to have SOME SORT of replacement for Ocean…? First and last LPH in the Royal Navy i’m guessing, with further reduction in the amphibious and power-projection capability of the UK when she’s out and nothing is built nor used to replace her?
I put my little, fading remaining hopes on having the catapult-less carrier (i really don’t see the MOD getting money to fund cat and traps on both…) used as LPH, and not as dust-collecting “reserve” (with “For Sale” signs hanging on the flanks) item.
More importantly where do we find the dock space to build two in tandem!!!
I’m pretty sure there aren’t other docks big enough in the whole of the UK that the MOD could use to house QE.
I’m guessing she’ll be afloat, resting in the water but not completed…?:confused:
Liger30Right question is why cancel posts about ships as “out of topic” and then have a whole rambling about the debt crisis and who’s been worse between labour and tories…
The debt’s flying high right now, but i think it still is out of topic… 😀
Liger30yes, but a squadron of Gazelle and one of Defender/Islander airplanes are still based in Aldergrove, right…?
Also, the Gazelle always makes me curious. What is being used for, today…? And what’s its future, moreover. It does not seem like the most valuable or most used of assets…
Liger30RAF Aldergrove no longer exists, sadly.
Isn’t it the base of the 5 Regiment AAC now?
Liger30Don’t talk me of labour on defence, because if i think to what happened to the Royal Navy in the last 15 years, i want to either vomit or become murderous.
And ultimately, the MOD is now paying the price of being forced to fight two wars at once with peacetime budget while the nation as a whole made TONS of debts to double NHS spending, Aid and to increase massively other departments’ budgets.
Labour or Tory, (libDems better not even mention them) at the end of the day who pays is always defence.
Sign In
