Reality is depressing and I am even struggling with the motivation to finish the bridging series, even though it’s 90% done. So ignoring the fact that we are poorer than a jobless church mouse yet continue with our fantasy spending plans I thought a fantasy kit post was in order.
A recent Janes Defence Weekly reported on a Royal Navy lessons learned document in which the two major shortcomings were a lack of precision land attack capability and organic unmanned ISR.
Janes quoted Colonel Pierson RM, the Deputy Director of NATO Operations in Libya;
It was evident that the Libya campaign showed the need for precision fires, [perhaps the Lockheed Martin] Guided Multiple Rocket Launch System (GMLRS), from the sea base, deep into enemy littoral territory.
He added that there was a requirement on RN Warships for;
Unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), such as the brilliant live feed, full motion video provided by [Boeing] Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle
Looking at both these lessons learned it is obvious that both these clear gaps in capability are where the Royal Navy has lagged behind many other naval forces.
Incidentally, I note we discussed the issue some time ago, how very bloody clever we all are!
I know I might get accused of sounding like a stuck record but these are the kind of obvious capabilities that get left beyond whilst pursuing a certain large programme, it crowds out investment in moderately priced equipment that delivers huge value in likely operations.
We might also reflect on the cost, especially in comparison with carrier borne or land based fast jet aircraft and Apache helicopters. Whilst not replacing either, the simple fact that we keep getting reminded how much the world population coalesces around coastlines when discussing CVF/JCA is something that cuts both ways.
If we can improve our ability to deliver strike up to a couple of hundred kilometres inland from surface vessels does it reduce the demand for the RAF and RN’s fast jets?
Anyway, onto the post…
Contents
Organic ISR
The ability to extend the sensor reach beyond the horizon is of obvious benefit and usually this would be carried out by a frigate or destroyers helicopter but when there is a threat from ground fire helicopters become more difficult to deploy so many solutions exists for deploying sensors (and sometimes weapons) using unmanned systems.
It is depressing to think that the Royal Navy has been so slow to unmanned party, the reasons are of course largely financial but despite testing a number of systems like the Insitu Scan Eagle several years ago nothing has been introduced into service.
One might assume that an unmanned air vehicle operating from a ship must be vertical take off and landing, like a helicopter, but that is not necessarily the case although the emerging VTUAS requirement would seem to dictate a vertical take-off and landing solution.
The initial target date seems to be around the 2020 to 2024 mark, incredible given the range of low cost off the shelf solutions available and obvious need now.
The debate seems to be whether to opt for something that is just used for ISR or a system that offers a greater payload for weapons or even stores. Greater payload generally means shorter endurance and range so there is a balance to be struck. Whilst carriage of larger payloads may be useful, to match the endurance of the smaller ISR systems would mean multiple vehicles, increasing cost and of course, most ships are not overflowing with space.
A few options;
Schiebel Camcopter
Similar to Skeldar, the Camcopter S-100 from Scheibel has an hour longer endurance than Skeldar at 6 hours and can carry a range of sensor and communication payloads weighing 34kg in total. An external fuel tank can also be fitted to extend endurance to 10 hours.
Camcopter and LMM
It has also been shown armed with a single Lightweight Multirole Missile from Thales.
Lightweight Multi-role Missile
The Camcopter is in service with the UAE, being introduced in German naval service, has been demonstrated from a French Gowind class offshore patrol vessel and Libya also ordered 4 systems in 2009, wonder where they are now!
Gizmag wrote a good article on the Camcopter, click here, in which they describe the cost of a two air vehicle system complete with control station, payload, ground equipment, logistics package and training to be in the order of $2m
Click here to read the brochure which includes an interesting picture of the Camcopter being used to drop leaflets.
Saab Skeldar
The Saab Skeldar V-200 is the latest version of the Skeldar rotary wing UAV in both land and maritime variants. Although having a much shorter endurance than the ScanEagle the advantages of VTOL and hover in flight are obvious.
Saab have also demonstrated the Skeldar operating from a CB90 which highlights an interesting combination of smaller patrol craft operating at distance from the host vessel and extending their ISTAR reach even further.
The maritime version has a 40kg payload, an endurance of 5 to 7 hours and uses a diesel engine, important for ship safety reasons.
The Skeldar has an interesting ISO Container system that houses the air vehicle, all maintenance equipment and spares and can be configured to have a roof mounted landing and take off platform so the whole system can be easily hosted aboard a variety of vessels and transferred just as easily.
Firescout
The Northrop Grumman MQ-8B is a mature vertical take off and landing unmanned system with a long development background and proven deployment credentials with US forces. Developed from the Schweizer 333 it is a much larger aircraft than the Camcopter or Skeldar as shown by a comparison of payloads, for short missions the Firescout can lift over 300kg. Normal endurance is between 5 and 8 hours.
Its stub wings also allow the carriage of a variety of missiles such as Hellfire or guided 70mm rockets.
MQ-8B Fire Scout
RQ - MQ 8 FireScout
Click here for brochures.
Hummingbird
Although still a rotary winged UAV the Boeing Hummingbird is very different from the others and arguably, much more cutting edge. Its unique propulsion system allows the rotor speed to be varied and this provides advantages in altitude and endurance, where it can operate at 15,000 feet for in excess of 20 hours carrying a payload of up to 130kg.
The Hummingbird was tested with the FOliage penetrating REconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar (FORESTER) system, click here for an in depth article, although it had a few problems in Belize
Moving beyond Gorgon Stare is the DARPA sponsored ARGUS-IS project being developed byBAe.
This ambitious programme will create a 1.8 Gigapixel camera system able to cover a 40 km2 area at 15 frames per second from an A160 Hummingbird or Reaper UAV. To process this enormous data volume it will use an airborne processing system to deliver up to 65 windows that users can zoom into or out of on demand. The software makes the difference; its advanced target recognition algorithms provide movement detection and target tracking.
Other payloads might include the ubiquitous EO sensor pod, SAR or multiples of the same.
It is ARGUS that has been in the news recently with a planned deployment to Afghanistan very soon.
If one compares the Hummingbird with the Fire Scout, the former can fly higher and longer but carry less.
Boeing / Insitu Scan Eagle
The ScanEagle has an interesting history, initially introduced in 2001 to assist tuna fishing fleets it has evolved into a mature, low cost, flexible and highly effective family of vehicles and payloads. A few months ago it notched up its half million flying hours milestone.
In Libya the Scan Eagle demonstrated its capabilities and after, Insitu released a press release
“What happened over that period of time, no one expected,” says ScanEagle Detachment Officer in Charge Lt. Nick Townsend. “ScanEagle was locating contacts of interest that no one else could find. After the dust settled, ScanEagle was credited with locating a host of contacts of interest due to its ability to capture superior image quality and to operate covertly at relatively low altitudes.” Captured imagery was delivered from the ship to the task force via secure networked channels provided by the Secure Video Injection system from The Boeing Company, Insitu’s parent company. The UAV-provided, near-real-time video helped enable quick, tactical decisions.
The video below demonstrates just how compact and easy to use the launch and recovery equipment is, incidentally shot from the same USS Mahon that operated the Scan Eagle in Libya.
Scan Eagle launch
To reinforce just how compact the Scan Eagle launch mechanism the image below shows one being launched from US Navy Mark V Special Warfare boat.
To see the full specs, loads of video and images click here to go to the Insitu website.
ScanEagle can be upgraded to NightEagle specification only a few hours.
The Scan Eagle is a mature system and has many optional extras and a full range of sensors and supporting payloads in addition to mission planning and image analysis tools. It really is an off the shelf system.
Integrator
Scan Eagle has a bigger brother, the Integrator that can carry a larger payload yet still use the same launch and recovery method. The Integrator has been selected by the USN and USMC to fulfil the Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS) requirement.
Boeing Integrator
One of the strengths of the Scan Eagle and Integrator is the modular payload bay that has had many systems already integrated; electro optical, infra red and synthetic aperture radar as imaging payloads for example. Other useful payloads include communications relays of various types and an intelligent ships AIS interrogator that matches a received AIS signal with imagery to confirm the identity of a ship.
The 24 hour endurance is certainly impressive but limited to sensor payloads.
Click here for a brochure.
Gazelle and SW-4
These are interesting not only because they are conversions of existing manned helicopters (like many of these rotary UAV’s) but because of their UK connection, which makes them likely contenders for any RN programme.
Northrop Grumman and QinetiQ proposed an unmanned Gazelle and described their solution as ‘short term and low cost’
The unmanned Gazelle would use the control systems of the Northrop MQ-8B Firescout which does kind of beg the question why not just buy the much more mature Firescout in the first place.
Using the Gazelle as a platform makes sense – it’s a proven system with low support and operating costs. We could bring in a capability a lot sooner than the navy currently believes is possible,” he said.
Re-inventing the wheel?
Speaking at DSEi 2011, Qinetiq’s assistant technical director of avionics, Jeremy Howitt, said;
Qinetiq would be responsible for programme management and integration activities under the proposal, which would also include flight test activities from the West Wales UAV Centre at Aberporth. Unmanning an aircraft is the relatively easy part. The difficult part is providing the multiple levels of redundancy and failure management required that allows you to deliver military effect. We could do an initial demonstration within 12 months, and within the order of £10 million
12 months and ten million quid for a demonstrator, mmm
Given that Gazelle is due out of service soon and the maturity of competing systems it is hard to see the advantages of reinventing the wheel.
At around the same time Agusta Westland (now owners of the Polish helicopter manufacturer PZL-Swidnick) announced a possible conversion of their SW-4 light helicopter.
SW-4 Unmanned, that will another directorship please!
The first unmanned flight was scheduled for early this year.
Both these were aiming for an endurance of 8 hours depending on the payload weight.
Precision Land Attack
The Future Maritime Fires Concept Phase is due to complete in around mid 2012 so no doubt the lessons from Libya will play a large part in informing the study. With the cancelling of the BAe 155mm TMF project the choice of a naval gun has narrowed but there are also missile and UAV delivered systems worthy of consideration.
Question
Julian Lewis (New Forest East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the replacement of existing warship guns by ones of 155mm; and if he will make a statement on his policy, with special reference to (a) the future frigate fleet and (b) Type 45 destroyers.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
No decision on the calibre of the new Maritime Indirect Fire System (the new naval gun) has yet been made. This will be taken when work to consider the available options under the Future Maritime Fires Concept Phase is complete in around mid-2012.
The Maritime Fires Concept, of which the Maritime Indirect Fire System (MIFS) is part, is being delivered in conjunction with the Niteworks Partnership and is expected to be met by a medium calibre gun or MCG. The other part of MFS is the Maritime Indirect Fire Precision Attack (MIFPA) is expected to be delivered using missile systems, potentially Fire Shadow.
Guns
The existing 115mm/4.5” Mark 8 Mod 1 gun aboard Royal Navy vessels has its origins in the late sixties and has given excellent service. The HE Extended Range round uses base bleed to propel the round to a maximum range of 27.5km and the existing illumination nature is also still available. In order to maintain a sustained rate of fire of 16-20 rounds per minute and accommodate the more powerful ammunition types the barrel is 62 calibres long. It has seen extensive service including action off the Falkland Islands (8,000 rounds), Iraq and Libya.
As we know though, there is not a large installed base on which to spread development costs of precision, proximity and IR illumination or smoke natures so the open market seems an obvious place to look, especially given the 155mm TMF concept has been cancelled.
There are a number of options but probably only two realistic ones, the BAE 5” Mark 45 and the Oto Melara 127mm Compact and Lightweight.
The Mark 45 Mod 4 from BAE, as used by the US Navy, South Korea, Denmark, Australia and others, is a 5”/127mm system with a 62 calibre barrel and is capable of a rate of fire up to 20 rounds per minute.
The Oto Melara system comes in a Compact form and the newer Lightweight version with a 64 calibre barrel.
In 2010 Babcock and Oto Melara signed a Memorandum of Understanding to offer the Light Weight Medium Calibre Gun System to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) for the Type 26 frigate.
To quote the sales blurb;
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.
Very impressive.
After many years of very expensive trials the US Extended Range Guided Munition was cancelled, leaving the USN without precision gun launched land attack but Oto Melara have continued to persevere and have introduced the Vulcano range of munitions.
The Vulcano has both an extended range unguided and long range guided nature that is used with the 127mm to deliver rounds out to 120km.
I don’t think it is in service yet though.
There is also of course the mental 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) from BAE that will equip the USN DDG-1000 Destroyer but given that we seem unlikely to build a new ship class around the needs of this gun, it’s for interest only.
Guns have several distinct advantages, the ability to fire different natures, apply their effects over a wide area (pin point precision is not always desirable) and to sustain operations over a longer period are just a few of them but missiles generally speaking, at least in this context, can fire at greater ranges and potentially apply a larger warhead with greater precision.
Missiles
Off the shelf there are surprisingly few options.
The report that sparked this post mentioned GMLRS, the famous 70km sniper.
A maritime MRLS/GMLRS is not a new concept, the US Navy initiated a study into something similar called the Precision Over the horizon Land Attack Rocket (POLAR) that used the MRLS rocket as its base, although the motor was nearly a third larger. This was cancelled in favour of the Land Attack Standard Missile that was also itself, subsequently cancelled.
Navalising a land based system is no trivial task and the principle problem with this idea is managing the corrosive exhaust. Others include maintaining corrosion resistance, re loading and compensating for the ships movement (the guidance system may not be able to cope with a moving launch platform)
There may be simple design rather than scientific research answers to some of these or simply accepting compromises. Instead of reloading at sea, simply accept that it is an alongside task, instead of expensively making everything corrosion resistance design in semi protected components and accept a higher frequency of replacement and instead of creating a complex exhaust gas management system or replacing the propellant design the system so that it can only be fired (not sure what the proper nautical term is) at right angles to the axis of the ship, thus venting the majority into the sea.
Now, none of these might be feasible and there might be other issues but could some of the disadvantages be overcome with compromise?
Not sure.
What is certain is that a naval GMLRS would be invaluable, potent, have some degree of commonality with land forces and be relatively low cost.
What is even more intriguing is that should we be able to integrate a GMLRS launcher aboard an RN vessel open up the possibility of using the same launcher for the 300km BROACH warhead variant, ATACMS, 1 per pod. The Israelis also make the 150km EXTRA rocket that fits two to a G/MLRS pod.
Standing 25km offshore (with that indefinite poise thing) a ship launched ATACMS would be able to attack targets up to 275km inshore.
The images below shows a 300km radius circle.
300km radius
300km radius, San Carlos Water as centre
There are minimum range and many more thorny issues to consider with ship launched ATACMS/GMLRS but they remain an intriguing prospect.
A more conventional and off the shelf option is the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM3), in service with Norway and Poland.
With a 150km range the NSM weighs 400Kg with a 125kg warhead and can attack a mix of land and surface targets. This would also have the added benefit of being integrated onto the F35 for commonality all round. The Stand Off Land Attack Missile, based on the Harpoon is another option.
Another system that is likely to be a shoe in is the Team Complex Weapons Fire Shadow that is a difficult system to characterise, half missile and half UAV it is called a loitering munition.
Fire Shadow will be deployed to Afghanistan this year. I must admit to being a sceptic on the Fire Shadow in a land environment but in a maritime environment it has many plus points.
If we really want to spend a fortune the CVS401 Perseus concept missile from MBDA will also provide plenty of options, potentially replacing Storm Shadow, cue, an enormous bunfight between the RAF and RN.
We might also consider that our ISR UAV may also be used to deliver precision ground attack at range. The Camcopter has been shown with the Lightweight Multirole Missile and the Fire Scout has also been demonstrated with a wide variety of missiles.
The LMM is now in manufacturing phase and will be deployed on Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters. Arming a UAV with multiple missiles would provide a low yield land attack system.
Summary
To summarise, there seems a tremendous variety of military off the shelf equipment that we could take as a base and integrate into UK systems, the UAV into the Watchkeeper infrastructure for example so it does not look to be a compelling case for a UK development.
The need to extend the reach of surface vessels, I carefully avoid the use of the term major combatant because vessels lower down the flightiness ladder can equally benefit, with both ISTAR and attack capabilities is obvious.
We could still deliver improved land attack capabilities without an investment in maritime UAV’s because target identification and guidance can come from other ‘platforms’ but the availability of an organic UAV would greatly enhance the ability of a frigate or destroyer without requiring others or relying on a manned helicopter where it might be difficult to deploy.
The Gazelle and SW-4 unmanned developments from QinetiQ and Agusta Westland look interesting but what do they really bring over and above the Fire Scout, Camcopter or even the Scan Eagle, all of which are available now.
Land attack from surface vessels is a capability area that the Royal Navy is comparatively weak in but this can be addressed without resorting to a mahoosive project. We should not forget, whilst bemoaning the lack of capability in this area, that the RN is one of the few nations able to deliver cruise missiles from submarines, a fearsome capability if there ever was one.
Whilst we might consider cruise missiles as strategic in their effect the ability of the lower cost systems should not be dismissed.
Let us equally not forget how CVF with Apache and in the future JCA will also provide a significant land attack from the sea capability, however costly.
With a relatively modest investment the RN could have a multi layered system of systems (sorry) that can deal with a wide variety of operational needs.
The unmanned Firescout looks a demon piece of equipment, however, I can’t help thinking that it was developed from what is merely an advanced version of the TH-55 Osage…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TH-55_Osage
….if the RN is to buy something of this ilk I’d rather it was something more advanced and with greater performance, like the Boeing AH-6.
“The Skeldar has an interesting ISO Container system that houses the air vehicle, all maintenance equipment and spares and can be configured to have a roof mounted landing and take off platform so the whole system can be easily hosted aboard a variety of vessels and transferred just as easily.” -Sold.
I think a massive consideration should be the ability to fit any system onboard a FF DD sized vessel to complement manned rotary wing aviation rather than replace it.
the problem the UK has is the same as many countries in that they can never truly by something “off the shelf” they always have to make changes that end up costing millions. Worse still are the looking into which system we truly need spending millions on just looking at something that in the end can’t be bought because there’s not enough money. I mean sometimes I want to jsut say buy the damn thing already at least them you used the money to get something.
@ APATS – I once read somewhere that the footprint of a seahawk was 3 Firescouts. So two for a lynx, 4 for a Merlin? A type-23 could have 1 Lynx, 2 Firescouts?
the problem with the UAV solution is that they’re only viable in permissive environments. the second you have even a moderately competent foe, you’ll see the loss rate explode.
hell lets be honest, the loss rate in even permissive environments is horrendous and the more capability you build into those systems the more expensive they become negating their main advantage.
the MLRS solution has been banged around since the first gulf war and just doesn’t work. the cannon is nice but puts you within the horizon of shore batteries (whether gun or missile and with a competent foe youre going to get banged)….
which leaves you with only two real options. you can put up your attack helicopters in that non-permissive environment…load them down with hellfire, brimstone or whatever and have them take out your targets or you do it with a fast jet.
yep. we’re back to the carriers if we’re talking out of area operations.
this might seem like a simple, think out the box issue but its anything but. face it gents, the next combat action will probably take place outside the range of land based fighters. get ready for it!
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518429
Don’t think of it as a complete design, more a general concept.
LOL just love the comment about another area in which we are lagging behind! Seriously, please point me to anyone other than the USN that has a rotary wing UAV in anything like regular “in service” use!!
Also which Navy are we so desperately lagging behind in land attack ? I presumed you were not really thinking USN TacTom capabilities ……
Jed.
i think TD is simply trying to lay the foundation for why the UK doesn’t need carriers…but if you’re talking about the navies that the UK currently lags behind then you’re talking the French, Italians, Russians and probably a few more i forgot to mention.
the thing that kills me in this whole debate is that the RAF and i don’t mean to be critical but the RAF doesn’t bring anything unique to an air campaign. the one thing might be the Sentienels but that capability was (is) scrapped. other than that the Typhoons limited ground attack capability makes it a poor performer, the most credible ground support airplane you had was sold to the USMC so unless the enemy is kind enough to be within range of land based air (coalition air at that) then the UK is in a bit of a box.
that’s whats so interesting about the Obama defense budget. he proposes pulling US Army brigades out of Europe but made no mention of closing air bases. that would have been the next smart move. but he refuses to do so even though we’re about to divest ourselves of the Afghanistan nonsense…why do you think?
@ Solomon, I don’t think its fair to say the RN is lagging behind the Russians French and Italians. There is allot more to a navy than fixed wing aviation and in the last decade we have completley transfromed and inhanced our amphibious capability, AAW, SSN’s we have alos ehanced a our MCM and ASW capability to a level that no even the USN can match on a per ship basis.
I really don’t understand why the RN does not have a cheap of the shelf capability like the Scan eagle though. However when every last penny has quite rightly gone into providing for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq I suppose it is to some extent understandable.
@TD: you have managed to construct a circular argument. Since we don’t have carriers, the RN lacks long range precision strike and recce capabilities….so we need to buy a combination of things that mostly exist in Powerpoint format to compensate for our lack of carriers, which by the way, we *so* don’t need?
@ soloman ‘the one thing might be the Sentienels but that capability was (is) scrapped.’
Likely to avoid the cuts now.
This http://defense-update.com/20111114_unmanned-systems-unveils-the-orca-tip-jet-uav-at-dubai-2012.html could be a contender for the Uav Istar role on ships especially if cold weather operations were required.
I think with a Uav such as about the oto 5″ gun fitted across the fleet we have the full range of land attack cover for any uk operation and would cost a great amount to do this. Should a missile be required possible the nsm from Norway would be my choice.
Although not formally announced I think it is a given that the T26s will get the Oto Melara 127 – with trials of Vulcano ammo coming a few years down the track. Also, I think they will get VLS tubes for a naval Storm Shadow type missile even if it’s at the expense of hull numbers.
I do believe that the RN is lagging behind in it’s thinking on UAVs – the potential intelligence and future strike capability of these is likely to be the game changer in 20 years. It could make a light frigate / OPV with hanger space a serious asset.
To me it’s not about the CVF or UAVs – but how many F35s do we need. Pure fantasy, but imagine a QE fully loaded with UAVs…
1. Fit Hellfires to RN Lynxs. You get Hellfire attack capability on every ship as per customers operating Sea Hawks.
2. A US-spec (mk41) VLS canister should be able to accommodate a quad-pack of 227 mm MLRS rockets. The Evolved Sea Sparrow which is already quad-packed in a mk41 VLS, is 254 mm in diameter.
Pity the US DoD cancelled the Non-Line-of-Sight Missile program. Maybe the UK can co-develop an equivalent by utilising the Israeli Spike-NLOS as a base. Plenty of export customers.
martin
i think its far from clear the royal navy could best the french navy on an even battlefield.
Against a combined french/italian navy?
Mcm is nice, but without the rest to back it up, its blood spilt in someone elses war.
Td
much the same applies, these are all very nice, but for what?
When i suggest sitting off the coast plinking economicaly valuable targets, i’m accused of war crimes…
Given the carriers are basicaly built and paid for, god help me, surely growlers and hawkeyes are the most cost effective istar platforms?
This post has rapped together 2 issues, ISR and land attack. They are two seperate things. Equipping ships with a reasonably low cost, low impact UAV to prevent the ships helicopter being blown out of the sky at a bad moment is a GOOD idea which can be done cheaply and now.
The truth is if you can fix a target there are generally enough assets around in Western led operations to hit it.
The problem is when we try and arm the UAV’s, that invariably makes them larger, more expensive and painful (atleast cost wise) to lose. It also increases ship impact.
KISS principle please!
Regarding Vulcano, the first variant of the ER round (Vulcano is a family of at least 3 ammunitions: unguided, 70+ Km, IR guided, 70+ Km, GPS [with, tomorrow, Semi Active Laser too] guided round to 120 Km), the unguided 70 km one, has been ordered by the Italian navy in the 2012 planning round. I don’t know how many rounds were ordered, but it’s a step forwards in the right direction.
Funding was also provided for the Vulcano 76 mm development for the ubiquitous 76 mm Strales/Super Rapido medium gun, and following Libya France is reconsidering its options: a share of the next FREMM frigates being built could swap the 76 mm for the 127/64 Lightweight. They talked to Oto already, and the ship can readily take the larger gun.
The 76mm Strales is of course the FREMM’s CIWS, but i guess the french could do without it. Actually, they could put a 76 Strales on top of the hangar like on the italian FREMMs, but i doubt they want to spend the money.
Navalizing the GMLRS is an idea that tickled the fantasy of many: the option is still technically included for the Type 26 (or was until November) and Germany originally wanted it on the F125 frigate along with the 155 mm gun.
Both went to hell, though, and there’s no telling how much it could cost.
Collaboration with the Royal Artillery could be an option: the RA wanted the ATACMS too, but it was removed from the IFPA list in PR11.
A GMLRS with tri-mode warhead and range extended to over 100 Km was also already trialed.
A GMLRS box with the long-range rocket and ATACMS would sure be a great addition.
On ISR and drones, I do not share this great love of the Fire Scout. For all its merits, the US Army let it go and the Navy does not like it that much and is investing to develop and buy the larger MQ-8C instead, turning a Bell 407 helicopter into a drone.
France is experimenting with a Little Bird.
Fire Scout seems to be turning old when still new.
“A US-spec (mk41) VLS canister should be able to accommodate a quad-pack of 227 mm MLRS rockets.”
That leaves the not trivial task (and cost) of converting the MLRS rocket for vertical launch…
“To me it’s not about the CVF or UAVs – but how many F35s do we need. Pure fantasy, but imagine a QE fully loaded with UAVs…”
A good mix would be one squadron of 14 F35C for the more complex tasks, including air defence and policing, and then strike drones.
But it’s still a bit early now.
The US Navy plans to add 4/6 UCAS-D drones to each carrier wing post 2018. That will be real interesting.
The X47B should have carrier trials in 2013 (same year as the F35C, going to be an important year for naval aviation, whatever you think of it) and Air to Air refuelling trials in 2014.
Very serious stuff, especially since the software for automated carrier landing and for automated air refuelling have both been already flight trialed and validated on modified F18s. Promising.
“so that it can only be fired (not sure what the proper nautical term is) at right angles”
Um. On the beam…..
Sol said “i think TD is simply trying to lay the foundation for why the UK doesn’t need carriers”
Then surely this is an argument against all expeditionary air warfare even land?
You’ve got to stop seeing Charlie behind every bush amigo.
one minor problem with uavs, isnt it a very noisey broadcast?
Not the sort of thing you want off a carrier
RE: Jet-tip rotors/Orca. Jet-tip rotors has one big benefit – simplicity – and one big negative – uses up to three times the fuel.
Why not? It’s not as if a carrier doesn’t talk with it’s CAP.
@Observer: I think what @DominicJ was referring to was the bandwidth requirements for UAV’s, which tend to be around 10mbit/sec, whereas Link16 say is 128kbit/sec plus voice traffic. Can’t imagine the average pilot could make up the difference, however many sea stories they are relating
Morning chaps
@Ace, where are you on the large v small rotary UAV debate, smoke me a kipper by the way
@Gareth, its hard not to be swayed by ISO containers isn’t it
@APATS, yes, agree, as with most things like this I think most agree the 100% unmanned era is some way off so these, at least in my fantasy navy, would only complement helicopters, not replace
@Phrank, I agree, truly off the shelf happens only for the most simple of bits of equipment but its about degrees I guess. I wonder how much money has been spent on looking at all the options, what is the cost of reaching a decision?
@Solomon, you are right about needing control of the air for UAV’s but there are grey areas at the margin and circumstances where it comes to risk and politics. Your point about adding more cost/complexity into UAV’s whilst not addressing loss rates is interesting, as you say, negating the low cost disposable argument. You can’t argue with the cost of some of these cheap ‘eye in the sky’ systems though. Naval gunfire support has been used numerous times in recent operations, I still think it is worthy investing in because the instances where we would be in range of a serious threat are low. Your last sentence about the next operation likely being out of the range of land based aircraft is interesting because history shows us the exact opposite is more likely.
@Gareth, thanks for the link, interesting stuff
@Jed, surely you can see the RN’s complete lack of any funded plan for extending ISR coverage beyond the ship and helicopter sensors is a failing, if the Navy of the UAE has them then I damn well want the RN to have them!
@AJ, it was lumped together because the two were described in the Janes article as specific lessons learned. You are firmly a believer in the small and cheap argument then, tend to agree, am a big fan of the Scan Eagle
Aussie has a point. I’m also of the opinion that we’re trying to make our UAVs do too many things at once, turning them into jack of all trades, but master of none.
While the air forces and navies are having fun with UAVs, my prediction is that the biggest winner in the UAV grab is the army. UAVs are cheap enough and light enough that it is possible to get such assets down to company or idealy platoon level. Imagine aerial surveillance not being fed to high command but actually to platoon or even section leaders. Close range firefights could be so much safer knowing where the enemy is moving, allowing you to set up ambushes in advance or even advance scouting in front of a section’s route of advance, or even for marking enemy support weapons for elimination by motar.
Martin.
the UK has one of the most technologically advanced navy in the world, but as currently constructed its a sea denial force. that might meet the needs of the UK but it does not contribute to the free flow of commerce.
To all.
someone wrote that they believe that the UK could take on the French and Italian navies and win. i disagree, the Astute’s could make it hard for them but until the UK has credible at sea airpower, it just can’t compete.
which brings me to this. what happened to the European defense force? i heard about rapid reaction brigades and such but nothing on the sea side in a unified way. is it under consideration? and if it is then that might be the way to go.
i believe that it will lead to further defense cuts on the part of all nations and extreme specialization on the part of member countries (if they hide behind the force as providing for their nations defense) but it might work.
how would the UK respond to such an idea in the naval sphere? would it continue to try and build a balanced force or would it use this as the mythical fig?? it would lead to an additional loss of prestige if followed but it would save money.
Gareth
The also have big benefits in icing conditions. This is an issue for all uavs but as with manned flight helicopters are particularly susceptible to problems with icing.
@ Mark – True. I like the jet-tip rotor concept but the big problem is always going to be the fuel comsumption.
Also, what effect does the jet-tips have on the aircrafts IR image?
TD, I was just having a think about the rotary UAV as I read your comment, from a maritime point of view I was wondering why we have to have rotary at all, given the cost, complexity and flight control problems, as well as the ability to absorb AAA. Has anyone considered an amphibious UAV that can be recovered aboard ship by crane. In the days when the world was black and white and somewhat grainy, and battleships ruled the oceans, every capital ship with an ounce of self-respect had a small complement of sea-planes for observation and shifting admirals/stores. Landing in sea, stormy seas aside, appears less hazardous than a rolling deck.
TD, re: UAV size, the Firescout seems to be at the largest practical size, but I’d go for a higher performance envelope. You’d never send a TH-55 Osage over enemy territory with a couple of bods on board, so why send an expensive and technically sensitive UAV to do the same? Food for thought.
…kipper already in the smoker!
Gareth, jet-tips on your rotors would light you up like a beacon in IR, however you don’t need an anti-torque tail rotor which saves weight and reduces complexity.
I read the link for the Orca and had to chuckle when it said ‘the orca employs a revolutionary jet tip propulsion’ (or words to that effect), revolutionary my a*se, Sud-Ouest tested back in the 50/60′s using a gas-turbine as an air compressor. I believe the only reason it didn’t take the world by storm was because it was a lot noisier than the conventional helicopters at the time and deemed uncommercial for a light utility aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud-Ouest_Djinn
RE: tip jets. Compound gyrocopter like the Fairey Rotodyne but smaller might be a good compromise. Would a Hermes 450 sized vehicle be too small?
A different Gareth, if you dropped the jet tips, what you’d effectively have is an autogyro with the prop providing the thrust and the benefit of not having a fat bloke seated up front. Simpler than a chopper, relatively quiet and can land on a sixpence (albeit a slightly stretched one).
Sounds good to me!
Totally aside, I see the FLAADS(M)/CAMM/whatever has its new name – Sea Ceptor (http://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3441).
Guns – Oto Melara’s 127 Lightweight is the only viable option, especially with its Vulcano ammunition. Ignoring all the positive weapon characteristics, this round is in advanced testing for the Italians and is a joint collaboration with the Dutch, who are extremely interested in the Vulcano. Extended range WITHOUT rocket assistance, GPS guidance, a future IR-guided variant for anti ship duties, the effective fire from one gun will be orders of magnitude less than an equivalent air-delivered bomb or missile. The US attempt to develop a guided round is a fiasco – just Google BTERM, Excalibur, ERGM, ERM, etc. This is the best open-source document I could find, updated Nov last year:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm
Naval gunfire support is one of the single most effective weapons systems out there, being far more enduring than any air cover and much, much harder to defeat. With the advent of precision guidance NGS has significantly extended its footprint inshore and is a better option than bastardising some Army rocket system which has a single purpose. NGS could reduce the need for air delivered munitions by a considerable percentage, meaning that fewer but more expensive air weapons can be saved for hard targets of high significance. As we found out in Libya, a single starshell can silence a battery of guns and neutralise vehicles with the threat of imminent morale-shattering artillery fire. Air power cannot do that without exposing the crew to danger, if at all. But Heaven forbid we should learn something from the past impact of NGS in littoral warfare.
The Italians are way ahead of the US on this. Buy OTO Melara.
“Oto Melara’s 127 Lightweight is the only viable option, especially with its Vulcano ammunition. Ignoring all the positive weapon characteristics, this round is in advanced testing for the Italians and is a joint collaboration with the Dutch, who are extremely interested in the Vulcano.”
And may i add Germany, too. They ordered 5 127/64 guns for the F125 in a 70 millions deal and are interested in Vulcano.
The fifth gun is for the “land frigate” they are building on land for training the crews: a concept that the RN has been partially adopting but that the F125 brings further onwards.
They are replicating on land nearly the whole frigate to enable training, to help with their plan of send the four F125 frigates away for 2 years at a time, rotating crews by air every 4 months or so. Also with the help of the land-training frigate, they expect a 24 hours time for changing crews.
Would greatly enhance availability of on-task Type 26 if the RN could adopt a similar approach.
Anyway, back to the original point: i was a big supporter of the 155 mm MK8, but since that train is apparently gone for good, the best solution is by far the 127/64 LW.
@ gabby ‘F125 frigates away for 2 years at a time, rotating crews by air every 4 months or so.’
The navy did and still do this anyway, don’t they? Rotate most of the personnel onboard around when they are away, is this just expanding to doing the whole crew in a oner?
We don’t do this in the RN with the exception of the Gulf based minehunters and the survey squadron. Rotating the crew is not favoured in the RN because the crew coherence and teamwork built up in pre-deployment training would be lost be constantly bringing in new faces. The RN trialled crew swapping a few years ago and found it lowered unit effectiveness. Less of an issue in lower intensity ops (survey) and manageable with the MCM fraternity (smaller numbers who can pre-train in the UK), but not currently practical for FF/DD.
Gabriele, cheers for that, had forgotten ze Germans also had a hand in.
Thanks sr, reason i asked was I remember doing a course with some navy bods and he was saying that he was being flown out to Turkey to meet his ship and quite a few of them did that along the route the ship took. This would have been around 2006/7, about right time frame?
@ SomewhatRemoved: surely NGS requires ships to move a little close to shore? I know the Oto 5 inch can go to 120 km, but the bang from this must be fairly small!
There probably is a gap for something simple GMRLS-like that can fit in a VL and range out to 100-150 km, rather than TLAM. I suppose GMRLS would be the ideal
@ Topman
That would be trickle drafting. Though 95 odd per cent (approximately give or take before some pedant chimes up) of a ship’s company stay with her through out a deployment there are always bods coming or going for a variety of reason.
@ x Righto, seemed to be a few more than that from what he said, but tbh I didn’t really press him on it, it was an AT course
. Maybe part of the trial SR mentioned?
While there are some navy types on here at the moment, could anyone tell me what is/was ‘Top masting’ ?
@ A different Gareth – a composite autogyro UAV like the gyrodyne would be very interesting; jet-tip rotors fired up for take-off and landing, becomes an autogyro in flight. VTOL but faster/more efficient in flight.
In what scenario is maritime land attack necessary for national defence? They can’t hit your from their coastline if you cannot hit them from yours.
This naval land attack thing seems to be about Iran + Falklands all over again, and both scenarios don’t justify major military expenses with their severity * probability (expectation value).
Naval land attack is one of the luxuries for a military that can easily be left out in favour of saving taxpayer’s money.
Hint: You probably don’t need it if you weren’t overrun by foreign hordes when you didn’t have it.
TopMast was a drafting scheme brought in the early 2000s that seemed to be the living embodiment of the oft quoted “That’s life in the blue suit – if you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have joined.”
For national defence Sven, its a marginal capability.
But the over arching strategy is for forward defence, offense, or getting your digs in early.
Why did the German navy trial MONARC?
@Gabriele – I agree that in the order of 14 F35 ls is enough. Although it does seem too early to make such a key decision, the fact is that it is likely to be 10 years plus before we can field more, by which time UAV technology will be in a whole new generation of development.
“We don’t do this in the RN with the exception of the Gulf based minehunters and the survey squadron. Rotating the crew is not favoured in the RN because the crew coherence and teamwork built up in pre-deployment training would be lost be constantly bringing in new faces. The RN trialled crew swapping a few years ago and found it lowered unit effectiveness. Less of an issue in lower intensity ops (survey) and manageable with the MCM fraternity (smaller numbers who can pre-train in the UK), but not currently practical for FF/DD.”
Correct, but Germany is thinking about basically pulling into a friendly port for a day, disembark crew 1, and embark crew 2. Whole.
The F125 has roughly the same crew size projected for Type 26.
Now a Type 23 will set sail, be away for six/seven months, and return.
Wouldn’t it be possible to do like Germany in future, deploying the ship with a crew for six months, then fly in another crew to, say, Bahrain. Crew 1 flies back to Britain, crew 2 takes possession of the ship.
In a 2 years period the ship would never see the UK’s ports, but the crew would be changed every 6 months or so, so for the personnel it would be the same.
And since the crew changes whole, there are no issues given by getting the new faces worked in.
Crew trains (in simulators ashore, the “land ship” mentioned earlier, at least for the best part) and then deploys whole.
This is the F125 approach, with the ship undergoing maintenance/upgrades at her return after 2 years away.
I think it would be beneficial for the overstretched RN to get the most out of the few hulls available.
TOPMAST – TOmorrow’s Personnel MAnagement System – Today! This was the initiative that brought in the Squad System, where each ship was in theory manned to 110%. The extra 10% was shore based and would use the time to undergo professional development or take owed leave. In theory this allowed ships to manage their presonnel more effectively. However, this was tainted by the fact that TOPMAST was a response to a huge slash in shore based billets, in order to civilianise shore posts, reduce costs and fill skill shortages at sea. Squad manning was ineffective largely because the now-civilianised shore posts hid the medical margin, those personnel on long term downgrades who could not or would not be removed from the Service. The squad system was made to work by merging the various 10% squads into single class-specific squads, so we now have the Portsmouth Type 23 Squad, the Type 45 squad, etc.
Gabriele, if only it was so simple we would probably have done it by now! In theory it should work, as we proved with the MCM fraternity, but experience has so far shown that in the larger and more complex hulls the management challenges are significant and it is still preferable to work up and deploy one hull at a time. Simulator training is all well and good for individual skills and teams, but whole ship training will require a simulator sufficiently complex and realistic that you might as well build a real ship. It would be like asking a driver to qualify and be safe on the roads having only practised in a simulator – would you trust them on the road? That’s hugely simplified, but I can only assure you that replacing practical training with synthetic training is not yet viable nor are we desperate enough to go down that route yet.
Rupert, NGS – yes the payload is small compared to a 1000 pounder or a GMLRS and yes we have to go close inshore. Couple of returns for you – so far the real winner from Libya (apart from the RN of course!) is Brimstone – small, accurate and with minimal collateral damage as a result of that accuracy and small warhead. Big bombs are designed to bust bunkers (and other heavy targets), small bombs come to the fore in these conflicts where it is not necessarily state on state. Look at the US and the development of the Small Diameter Bomb, and their predeliction for mounting Hellfire on anything that moves. Plus when faced with the asymmetic threat, the more shots the better so maximise the number of rounds for your money. 4.5″ can be devastating at close range (self defence) but it can also go long (troop support) and if we replace it with a longer ranged precision shell, the options really open up for precision strike, anti-vehicle and effective suppressing fire at ranges up to 120km inland (less 5-10km offshore, hardly a dent really). BUT while 4.5 is accurate, it is not precise, so currently not good enough for collateral damage requirements (i.e. zero) – it is a troop support weapon when used in the land role. A ship is inherently mobile, can range up and down the coast at will (unless there is serious opposition, in which case there are tactics and weapons to defend ourselves), and ships can be sustained at range by the RFA. That’s why I believe it is such good value for money – it gives you options.
And SO, I guess NGS isn’t valid for national defence but then neither are nuclear submarines, frigates or aircraft carriers. Iran manages quite happily with hundreds of RIB’s, jetskis, speedboats and cheap missiles for its national defence, and we’re all taking them seriously now, aren’t we?
Gabrielle, that is what we do with the MCMVs in the Gulf. The problem is ownership, the first ever swap saw none of the 4 involved, 2 in Faslane and 2 in Bahrain fit to go to sea. The 2 in Faslane were both found to be out of date for safe to breathe certificates for the air compressors used to charge breathing aparatus. The chart outfits were a mess and the crypto accounts in one case had just been put in a safe and locked.
Took a while to sort out and eneded up with the procedure being a Squadron led inspection a month before the handover followed by a FOST visit immediately afterwards.
I say good luck to the Germans and I hope they have spoken to the RN MCM community for advice.