Thought I would ask a controversial question!
So, the Type 26 is billed as the austerity frigate and the latest models on show at DSEi shows 16 Vertical Launch Cells (VLS) cells of the grown up, strike length variety (we assume)
So far, the majority of discussion has been about which type of VLS will be fitted, the Lockheed Martin Mk41 or DCNS SYLVER.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/naval-launchers-and-munitions.html
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/naval/products/sylver/
Recent news for the Mk41 has seen MBDA and Lockheed Martin demonstrate the launching of a Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM) missile from the ExLS silo.
The ExLS is a development of the existing Mk41 system that allows users to reduce integration cost by putting already cannistered missile inside the launcher. It is also available in single launcher variant as per the image below.
LM have also demonstrated a successful launch of the Long Range anti Ship Missile (LRAS) from a Mk41, the development momentum is clearly with the Mk41
SLYVER, on the other hand is already in service with the Royal Navy on the Type 45 Destroyers, it carrying the Aster missile
The model at DSEi showed a 2×8 silo arrangement and the conventional 2×4 module layout of the Mk41 would seem to fit within the model’s geometry. The SLYVER is also available in the same geometry, so I don’t think we should read too much into the models and video either way.
Defense Industry Daily on Mk41
The question remains though, do we actually need either of them as the Type 26 is introduced or do we need any at any rate?
A bit of a controversial question I know but by the time the Type 26 starts coming into service what will be in service that can be stuffed into either a Mk41 or SYLVER?
Anti Air; the Type 26 will be fitted with the Sea Ceptor system whose missile component has its very own canister launch system and the missile itself is cold launched, therefore not requiring the exhaust management features of the Mk41 or SYLVER. Is it likely that Type 26 will ever be fitted Aster, unlikely to say the least so for the anti-air role, the cheaper CAMM silo is enough.
Anti-Ballistic Missile: If the UK does follow through on its long-term aspirations for a theatre ABM system it will likely utilise the Type 45 and Sea Viper system, not an SM-3 Block II launched from a Type 26
Anti Ship: the recent news about the Type 45 eventually getting the type 22 surplus Harpoon missiles is interesting but the Royal Navy currently has no programme for a Harpoon replacement. It might have more of those aspirations, it might have its eye on the recently tested from a Mk41 Long-Range Anti Ship Missile (LRASM) but this is a a development programme with no firm future funding. Harpoon cannot be VLS launched and interestingly, the very sophisticated and all new Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile is box launched, not VLS launched. The air launched and improved variant of the NSM, the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile that will be integrated with the F35 has been proposed for the US Navy Offensive Anti Surface Warfare (OASuW) requirement to include vertical launching, maybe there is some justification for the VLS if the UK were to join this programme, the Multi Mission Maritime Tomahawk has also been proposed as an interim measure.
Countermeasures: LM and BAE Australia have recently demonstrated launching a NULKA countermeasure from a Mk 41 but the RN’s existing countermeasures are conventional tube launched and Chemring have the Centurion launcher that seems to offer a much more flexible and capable solution than using an expensive VLS for countermeasures.
Deep Strike: The UK has a limited stock of Tomahawk Land attack Missiles (TLAM) that are submarine launched, the existing stock will be transferred to the Astute submarines as they come into service. The RAF also has the Tornado launched Storm Shadow and these will eventually be integrated with Typhoon. Then of course we are invested a huge sum of money in Carrier Strike which with its ‘stealthy’ F35B’s will be able to conduct those day 1 strike missions we hear a lot about. Whilst launch platform diversity is always a good thing does add another platform for TLAM make sense in budgetary restricted times? Some future purchase of SCALP Naval or even a development like Perseus would require a VLS but within the timeframe for the initial contracts for Type 26, not so sure?
Anti Submarine: The US has a VLS launched anti submarine weapon which would be nice to have, it would be a new capability and it presumes that the existing combination of merlin HM2, Sonar 20187 and the relentless ASW training carried out by the Royal Navy is in some way in need of improvement. Another nice to have.
Land Attack; providing support for embarked forces will be delivered by whatever medium calibre gun is selected for the Type 26 and MIFS. The MBDA concept version for Hoplite makes for interesting reading, the video looks like it can launch from a cold launch CAMM cell, although the video shows it quad packed into a Mk41/SYLVER
So, it would seem the case for either the Mk41 and SLYVER is weak for Type 26. As long as there is space to provide a degree of future proofing the initial main gate does not need to decide now.
If the UK buys into the NSM/JSM programme to replace Harpoon then the F35 and potential VLS option would provide justification but beyond that, arguing for a VLS because of SCALP/TLAM whilst there is submarine launched TLAM, Storm Shadow and the multi gazillion billion Carrier Strike programmes to bring into service and sustain seems like a rather difficult job.
All that said, with LM and MBDA pushing their agreement to integrate each other’s products there might be a chance to ditch SYLVER and go Mk41 throughout the RN surface fleet.
What was that, oh, you can get back up now!
@ Observer
I was unaware that the T26 had capability to fire Aster 30, mainly due to the fact that it has Artisan rather than Sampson.
Tom, I said restricting the function of the ship, not restricting the use of the VLS. The frigate is meant as a defensive unit, not an assault one, filling the VLS cells with TLAMs means that they are not filled with ASTER 30s which dovetails into the role the ship is to be used for.
TLAMs would mean capability and job creep, which isn’t really that bad, but to take up all of the available space for ASTER 30s means that it would no longer have an aerial area defence role.
As I said, I’m indifferent to TLAM, if you can squeeze it in without compromising the frigate role, good for you. If you can’t, no big loss as land attack was never a big part of the T-26’s portfolio.
@ Observer
A Frigate these days is just a name, there is room on the T26 to fit these cells so why not fit them or at the very least allow room for them to be fitted in the future, a) it will give them a role in every conflict we are involved with, b) it will be a huge selling point for exports.
The only other vessel we could fit them to is the T45 and the cost of fitting them on their will be more than fitting them from the start to a T26.
Also how is adding 16 TLAM restricting the use of VLS, currently the design is for 16 mk41/A70(this is down from 24 rumoured to be due to using the mk41 instead of A70) and 48 CAMM, how is that restricting the load out, what else would we put in the strike length VLS apart from more CAMM.
Defend the HVU -> Attacking a nuclear production facility.
Might I suggest that there seems to be a bit of capability creep here? :)
And 16 TLAMs is almost 50% or slightly less of a frigate’s total VLS cell payload. It’s going to cut into function. That is IF the SYLVER 70 can be squashed into the T-26’s hull without compromising the number of cells it can hold.
I won’t mind if a frigate can get a TLAM capability, but I won’t be too bothered if it doesn’t either. TLAM is a bonus, not a core capability. Besides, don’t TLAMs need to have additional systems installed for missile control? More stuff to squeeze into an already small frigate.
Observer,
In their wartime role I totally agree with you. Defend the HVU.
I just have this uneasy feeling that they become pretty expensive and impotent for the “fly the flag” type ops that are asked of them in peacetime. They can’t be used for gunboat diplomacy. 16 x TLAM sitting within strike range of a new Uranium enriching plant must be of use?
Agreed that a frigate should be able to stand up against enemy ships, but a strike mission? Maybe we should leave that to a bigger ship with the capacity for it? Unless you are trying to design an assault frigate, I would say the role of a frigate is more defensive than offensive, AAW/ASuW/AShW, basically area denial and defence of HVUs. Land attack would require additional investment of space, cost and tonnage, which might end up driving the frigate out of the frigate category and into the destroyer/cruiser cost-tonnage bracket.
Frigates are meant to be cheap and useful. No point batting for 50%.
@Challenger
‘Can a frigate (or global combat ship) significantly justify it’s own expense, it’s own existence even if all it brings to the party is a main gun (nice to have but hardly a game changer), a towed sonar, facilities for one Merlin (you don’t need to spend 350 million for a hangar/flight-deck) and the ability to defend itself with short range missiles and close in weapons systems?’
No, simply. And Martin I agree, since the end of the cold war the strategy and thinking for the RN has become muddled. We still don’t really know what we want to do with the carriers.
Personally I would sacrifice some amphibious capability for building the RN around two fully functioning rotating strike groups – CVFs with a package built around 24 F35 / ASW capability, escort squadron with T45 / T26, TLAM and AshM. Astute in support. A clear position that independently we can put a naval group off anyones coast line that can strike well inland and conduct at sea offensive ops. I would have a ‘home / EEZ’ ‘fleet’ of layered patrol capability with a decent bite against asymmetric threats and the ability to put big holes in any maritime threat. The Albions / Bays would be there if needed but they and their replacements would have to find a day job (like the mothership role) as the remote possibility of ever needing to land an RM battlegroup would not be sufficient in itself to justify keeping them all.
“worry that RN surface vessels today are self-licking lollipops – they can move into an area and defend themselves. Where is the offensive capability? ”
I think they have been since the threat of the Red Banner fleet disappeared. I think the concept of having a high end AAW Destroyer with limited ASW and a High end ASW Frigate with limited AAW is the right way to go. But 90% of the time neither of these roles will be required and the ships must be able to perform a wide range of missions on their own.
With out a large launch of TLAM or equivalent i am not sure how anyone would propose to conduct a SEAD operation against even a relatively basic air defence let alone a double digit defence with S300 etc. If we cannot launch such an operation with out relying 100% on the USA to do the job for us then we have to question the wisdom of the entire UK armed forces. IS there any point in spending the money we do if we have zero sovereign operating capability. Sea launched cruise missiles is an area where no one outside the USA has any real capability. Even with the French development of SCALP (n) Europes capability will be severely lacking. For such a small investment on our existing platforms this is really one area the UK should look to pick up the slack.
Stand off weapons like Storm shadow give aircraft an ability to perform part of this mission but sending them against high value targets like phased array early warning radars guarded by S300 or S400 missiles is like sending Elephants to hunt elephant guns. Air craft even stealth ones armed with stand off weapons should very much be seen as a second wave designed to mop up the enemy air defence.
@Nobby Stiles
‘I worry that RN surface vessels today are self-licking lollipops – they can move into an area and defend themselves. Where is the offensive capability? There’s nowhere near enough of it. Yes, a T45 can defend an area from air attacks. Yes, the T26 can defend an area from submarine attacks. But I’m just not sure that this gives us anything like enough threat from our surface assets’
My thoughts exactly. Things have already gone too far in that direction, we should be ideally looking to regenerate a 21st century version of traditional offensive capabilities or at the very least fitting our ships ‘for but not with’ (which to be fair we are largely doing). Building ships with strike length silo’s doesn’t mean we have to commit to any particular weaponry/systems there and then. Pay a modest amount to get the silo’s on-board, fill them with CAMM for the first few years if you like but then they are at least in place for when/if the RN does decide it wants to use them.
Can a frigate (or global combat ship) significantly justify it’s own expense, it’s own existence even if all it brings to the party is a main gun (nice to have but hardly a game changer), a towed sonar, facilities for one Merlin (you don’t need to spend 350 million for a hangar/flight-deck) and the ability to defend itself with short range missiles and close in weapons systems?
@Simon and DH
I think the bomber idea is actually quite interesting, even though doing it would probably require a complete re-assessment of priorities on the part of someone getting into that game. I think that it could be an interesting choice for a medium-range power to make to specialize in long range bombers and their associated standoff weapons.
@Martin
thanks for the explanation re sub based TLAM
@x
I agree it seems bizzare that so little money might be saved for such a huge loss of capability, and without VLS we could have a big debate about what capabilities the T26 actually has.
@all
There seems to be a bit of a tendency to suggest that capabilities that haven’t been used for a while are old hat and obsolete. I disagree, different threats require different responses.
The RN, on face value, is utterly redundant for our current operations – Afganistan doesn’t have the ponds to float the platforms. We thought lightweight, mobile LRs were an effective tool for land operations, and they were – and still are – in the right environment. I am not suggesting things haven’t moved on but this idea of permissive air operations is as fantastical as operations using the tent on wheels (LR)………possible, but not certain. Obviously currently MRAP is the name of the game.
Do we need an alternative to planes – yes, an emphatic YES.
Now to a general question has any country ever regenerated it’s Navy during wartime following an utterly conclusive naval defeat? I can’t think of any. Its been done with an Army, and an Airforce but not a navy. I suspect this may illustrate the need to have the assets upfront. So lets build them and arm them accordingly.
My view on this is that, with so few escorts, all must have *some* capability in AAW, ASuW, ASW and Strike.
If something blows up in a region, we have to go with the assets we have, not the ones we wished we had or the ones that we could buy if only we had the time. To me, this means that all need some capability in each area.
I’m not saying that T26 has to have area AAW, or T45 has to have world-class ASW.
I worry that RN surface vessels today are self-licking lollipops – they can move into an area and defend themselves. Where is the offensive capability? There’s nowhere near enough of it. Yes, a T45 can defend an area from air attacks. Yes, the T26 can defend an area from submarine attacks. But I’m just not sure that this gives us anything like enough threat from our surface assets.
If the T45 and T26 have a strike capability, then that makes every RN escort vessel a significantly greater threat to potential enemies. Holding at threat targets up to 1000 miles inland from frigate and destroyer would be an excellent capability and a real offensive enhancement to vessels that look much too light in this area.
@simon-
I have to say I doubt it…If they had the budget, they’d be off to the USA, see if they could get hold of a few preloved B1’s or B2’s. Which i could see the USAF giving.
However, i can see the utility of a carrier, I just wish they had a proper carrier air group, with ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare), AShW (Anti-Shipping Warfare),Elint, AWACs, Strike and fighter capability. The escorts should add further layers to all these roles. That way we could see a proper expeditionary capability and defence flexibility.
Before the argument starts I’ve been meaning to ask…
If all fixed wing aircraft were RAF (say) and it were stipulated that the RAF must be able to provide air defence and strike capability ANYWHERE in the world would the RAF build CVF and kit it out with F35B?
The main reason I ask is that obviously T45 plays a large part in deployable air defence. T45/T26 could play a large part in 1st day strike capability, but so could a “proper” bomber.
@ Mark
My point was everything is expensive. Making it sound buying a dozen TLAM or whatever flavour of bang-bang you want to stuff into those tubes like a Trident replacement gets us nowhere.
As for T45 you have to realise there is a difference between cost and value…….. :)
x
The type 45s costs £300m odd a year to run not counting there purchase price nor the upgrade deep maintenance cost. As your adding the tanker cost which seems to only get larger every time you post it only seems fair to compare the launch platforms cost.
@ Peter P
How much use is a TLAM or SS against a mobile launcher?
I would rather launch 60 TLAM (other cruise missiles are available) at OPFOR’s fixed sites so my 12 F35b could get in and out or range further in country than not launch 60 TLAM and lose one or two F35b. Go look how many FJ we lost in FIW and GW1 then tell me the math doesn’t work. A frigate firing TLAM 100nm out would still out range F35b and SS. The idea that we can’t afford stuff and then saying using a plane we don’t yet possess would be cheaper is nonsensical. The more expensive F35b becomes the more reason there is to TLAM OPFOR back to the stone age. Of course there comes a point where it would be cheaper not to buy F35b if its unit cost is too high. We can’t do everything etc.etc. and so on. We will always be with the Americans etc. etc. and so on.
Now an argument that we should buy ISTAR satellites would be more convincing. But not if the only rocks we can sling get slung from F35b in penny packets.
Personally I think the place for TLAM/SCAL-N is T45 and you are right that a magazine full of PGM for the 5in would be a sensible buy. But 800k is dirt cheap. Heck it costs what £3 million to £5 million to train a pilot who may one day get to launch live ordinance costing what £1.2 million in twos (I think that is how much SS costs) from a £60 million plus plane we haven’t bought yet, supported by tanker aircraft costing £480 million per year. Yet 800k for TLAM is expensive…..
Just trying to get a feel for the numbers in terms of deep strike. I believe an Astute can launch 38 projectiles in total, say 20 Tomahawks and 18 torpedoes. A Type 26 could launch a maximum of 16 Tomahawks from Mk41 silos. In the Iraq conflict on day 1 the Spruance class destroyer USS Fife launched 58 Tomahawks out of a total of 288 launched by 9 ships. Assad has over 200 mobile SAM batteries. A squadron of 12 F-35B’s could deliver 24 Storm Shadows in one sortie. A cruise missile costs around £800k a shot. A guided artillery shell a fraction of this, albeit not deep strike. If we bought them, I think a Poseidon P-8 can carry 6 SLAM-ER’s. So overall I agree with the author. With money being tight VLS is probably not urgent for the RN, just so long as the design anticipates it for export customers and for the RN later, especially if the money saved means we could have a couple more hulls.
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds5.htm
@MW
Fair enough. That makes some sense but does on some level seem silly to me still. The whole 48 CAMM launchers could be replaced by just having two 16 cell strike launchers. 32 cells hardly seems like that much of an imposition given the size of the ship. It gives you a good deal more flexibility than just having 16 cells for anything bigger than CAMM.
Just a thought.
@ Jeremy M H
“I have to ask…if you can quad pack CAMM into either of the VLS systems (you could presumably do it with SYLVER too I think) why bother with the other launchers at all?”
For the same reason that we don’t standardise on the Trident D-5 launch tube to fire Seawolf from the front of a Type-23.
CAMM is specifically designed to only require really short, light, and narrow launch tubes, that can be crammed into otherwise unused and ~unusable~ spaces on a ship.
Conversely, strike length VLS systems are BIG, go down many decks (~3), are heavy, and have to be mounted in central hull positions.
There ~is no room~ to put a strike-length VLS in the places where the 48 CAMM launchers are shown.
It’s like… trying to standardise on the Challenger BMT turret for all our armoured vehicles, on the basis that “it is compatible with all our guns”.
Also, standardising on a VLS system isn’t going to save you any money. The development costs have been paid for. In fact, it is more likely to waste money, as you will be carrying a bigger (heavier, more expensive) launcher than you need on that class of ship.
Re: Reloading at sea:
Based on the rate of usage in ’82, I’d say that the ship is more likely to get sunk than run out of AAM missiles.
And the Tomahawks / Scalp-N are too big to reload at sea, regardless of the launch system.
Oh, and a guy on the BAe stand at DSEI confirmed my suspicion; that the reason the new design shows 16 VLS rather than the 24 VLS on the older design, is because the old model showed Sylver, and the new ones shows the Mk-41; which despite being American, is fatter and heavier. (It turns out that Sylver also has wider exhaust vents, allowing a higher rate of fire as well, though that is more relevant for air defence than land attack.)
@ Big Dave243
“Thank you for reading. (hope this post made sense)”
Lots of sense :-)
Please forgive me but there seems to be a lot of chat on here about resupply at sea and that once the tubes are empty that the vessel (Type 26) will be come largely useless in the land attack role.
However surely the same could be said for our current capability using submarines? (please correct me if i’m wrong)
My point is that as far as I’m aware the subs have less TLAM’s on board anyway than the proposed 16 Strike Length VLS’s on the Type 26, so once expended would become equally useless in the land attack role, only far more quickly due to a lesser number of missiles carried onboard.
Also as has already been pointed out a submarine must ‘clear the datum’ once they have fired as it gives away its position, so therefore makes it harder for it to fire salvo’s. Not an issue for the Type 26 as the enemy will already be largely aware of where the ship is. I.e a few warships makes for a very visual deterrent, where as I can’t think of any sub captain who would actually want to give away his position.
In fact thinking about it having a vessel like the Type 26 or even the Type 45 sat off your coastline with the ability to launch multiple TLAM (or equivalent) at will is a hell of a show of force, especially if you throw a QE class carrier into the mix.
So to conclude I think having a smaller fleet than ever before our ships should be able to take on more roles and have that flexibility to do more things with less numbers. So fitting strike length VLS onto the Type 26 would seem a very good idea. As for which to choose or what to fill them with……well that is question best answered by people with far more knowledge than I.
Thank you for reading. (hope this post made sense)
@ Opinion 3
“Did I understand correctly the TLAM submarine/torpedo version is now no longer made for the US?”
The USN did seriously consider this then they realised just how many more missiles they could pack on an SSN if they also used the Torpedo room and decided to stick with both VLS and Torpedo tube launched TLAM. We currently are using the latest Block IV which should be available until at least 2030. I would also guess that anything that replaced TLAM would come in a Torpedo tube version as well. Currently the French are developing a sub launched version of Scalp (n)
@ TD
“What is the point of having the VLS if the RN has nothing to fill them with”
Firstly if we have the launchers we can relatively quickly buy the missiles. In recent situations in Libya for instance if the USA had decided to take no part in the mission and we had several T26 with mk41 we could have had a bunch of missiles flown over from the USA and loaded on to our ships very quickly. That being said even our cash strapped armed forces should be able to run to the purchase of 50 or so surface launched TLAM’s. Same could be said in future with what-ever anti ship missile is chosen to replace harpoon. If we ever need allot of them there is a very good chance we can buy them quite rapidly from Uncle Sam. If we don’t have the launchers or just simply leave a potential space for them as with the T45 then this option is not available. So even with out spending the money on the actual missiles the launchers themselves give a great deal of capability for a very very small investment. I honestly can’t see any merit in not having them.
I believe it has an individual launcher so it can be fitted to the T23, and also as it is used in a land based package as well.
But yes I would just quad pack it into the main VLS setup
One aspect of the design we need to get right is the modularity of it, and I don’t mean fitting containers or being able to change its role quickly. Rather I mean that the export customer can pick off the shelf what kit they want on the ship. To me this means we design the mast to hold a ‘radar’ not to hold specifically Artisan, so if turkey decides to buy some T26’s they can choose a radar they want and there isn’t going to be much design change involved. The kit I would make easy to change would be; Main gun, radar, sonar, TAS, boat davits, CIWS/30mm’s, VLS and comm’s setup, everything else could be common. Just an idea to entice customers who don’t want to buy kit different to what they already use.
I have to ask…if you can quad pack CAMM into either of the VLS systems (you could presumably do it with SYLVER too I think) why bother with the other launchers at all? It would seem to be simplest to just design the ship around slightly more VLS cells and be done with it rather than investing money in a one weapon launching system. I am presuming it is more of an export driven thing not really for Type 26 but for the missile itself as it would let the weapon be deployed on even smaller ships. Otherwise I don’t really get why one would bother.
@Engineer Tom – because I have doubts we are ever going to see 13, hence focus first on 8 or 9 ‘full fat’ ships that can properly support the carrier task group, ASW and the ability to fire off TLAMs for example. The GP version to me and many others on here remains unclear. My thoughts were try and keep costs down to get hulls in the water and keep a capability that’s similar to existing non TAS T23s. Decent anti air self defence through CAMM, hull sonar, helo, 5″ for fire support, AShM. Swapping the 30mm for phalanx was meant to be cost saving (I’m assuming its cheaper?!) yet still have decent all round gun cover for small threats. Still better than T23
@mickp
Why would you not spread the weaponry ie load the ASW version with just CAMM and put the strike length VLS on the GP version with CAMM, also why would you replace the 2 phalanx on the GP version with 30mm, thereby reduciing it’s defence capabilities.
As planned it is not a full T26 and a weak T26, it is a ASW version and a GP version. To me this should mean that we use the GP version for activities other than ASW.
Excuse my ignorance, if what i say is daft, or indeed glowing with common sense. But i think there are some basic questions we need to ask, vis:
a). What are the advantages of fitting a hole where these things will go (i’ll explain why i put it that way later)?
b). What will be the disadvantages of such things?
To me, the idea of having a multi-role/munition launch system has merit. I can see that it simplifies the systems, both types being ‘plug and play’. It means that less space is required within the ship for weapons systems, and less systems operators required. They offer, or will offer, a wide variety of munitions, giving flexibility. All of which IMO [In My Opinion] are very good things.
However…
On the other hand, i understand there is no reload at sea capability, (at least not without, either, crushing a number of matelots, and/or, skittling a few over the side) so consequently, once all the silos are empty, that’s the lovely grey fighty vessel, about as much use as a cardboard inner tube, for the immediate future anyway. Equally, it restricts the vessels mission to whatever has been parked in the tube. Which is fine until, being loaded for ‘bear’, A couple of JH7B lumping a load of YJ12*, pop-up, ready to put a bit of a downer on someone’s day. Or the mission is changed from ASW to support for landing forces. So flexibility reduced, unless you load for a number of taskings, and accept a reduced attack in the roles you’ve loaded for.
So, to conclude, make the vessel capable of having them…and allow an export customer to specify which he wants. For RN use, don’t make them the only attack method- at the very least fit a re-loadable anti-air launcher. I’m arguing this on the basis, that every defensive layer will ‘leak’ and you don’t want your anti-air defensive layer to be the NAAFI manager with a ‘Gimpy’ gaffer-taped to the rail, stirling man tho’ he be.
(Although, if someones develops a missile that’s capable of doing all the roles expected, in the one missile- please disregard the above!)
* Chinese naval version of the Xian Flying Leopard attack aircraft, carrying the latest Chinese anti-shipping missile.
@TD: if we cannot arm our warships, why are we buying them?
At least “for but not with” allows us to quickly upgrade. Finding ourselves with a effectively useless set of equipment which we cannot afford to replace for 25 years seems a tad stupid.
I know money is tight but the strike length VLS seem to give a lot of flexibility for relatively little expenditure, so I would say the space for them has to be there at the very least.
In terms of the missiles we would get a lot of deterrent value from qualifying a land attack missile, longer range SAM and an anti-ship missile and buying a small amount of them – the beauty of VLS of course being that the bad guy doesn’t know what (if anything!!) you are carrying. If you are sending a ship to the Gulf then you load it full of anti-air missiles to protect from swarming. If you are cruising off Africa you carry (or leak that you are carrying…) some land attack that can really mess up some dictator/warlord’s palace.
We dont need to spend that much on missiles – the ships don’t all have to be fully loaded, some will not be at sea, and if things go bad quickly it is quicker to buy more missiles than install VLS systems, or short term get reloads off other Navy’s that are not immediately involved.
How much of a deal is reloading VLS? Can you fly the canisters out to A N OTher port and use an existing crane to put them in overnight?
@TD
Did I understand correctly the TLAM submarine/torpedo version is now no longer made for the US? I think they swapped over to VLS versions. With that in mind the alternatives aren’t quite what they would seem. Certainly our habit of raiding the US stores won’t be possible if they aren’t held.
Personally I’d be interested in the cost differential between a Sylver & Mk41 equipped T26 and the proposed CAMM & Mk41/Sylver version. I am not sure the Sylver could be fitted to the T23s so I presume it is considered a no-goer.
@x – agree if we’d had time, and money again, I would preferred a small class of double ended T45s for carrier escort. No need for hanger and could have doubled the number of launch cells. I guess a bit like the Bristol idea with CVA-01
@Simon – I have though that 32 Mk41 up front replacing the both the 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41 in the current design would make a lot of sense as CAMM can be quad packed and there is a large extent of future proofing by having more Mk41s – even if they can’t all be filled immediately
That gets me to:
8 full T26s – TAS, 5″ gun, either 48 CAMM / 16 MK41 or 24 CAMM / 32 Mk41, 2 phalanx, 2 30mm
5 GP T26s – 5″ gun, 48 CAMM, boxed launch AShM over Mk41 pit, 4 30mm
T45 – upgrade to full 64 x VLS and add 16 x Aster45 for ABM capability.
T26 – fit for 32 x Mk41 with at least eight full of quad-packed CAMM.
Glossary:
T45 – Type 45 Destroyer
T26 – Type 26 Frigate
VLS – Vertial Launch System
ABM – Anti Balistic Missile
CAMM – Common Anti-Air Modular Missile
What is the point of having the VLS if the RN has nothing to fill them with
The cost of the launchers is estimated to be around $500,000 each so around $8 million per vessel. At that price for a $500 million warship why would we not fit them from the start. We know today we can fit TLAM and soon Quad packed CAMMS for sure which are both very useful and we can be 99% certain what ever replaces Harpoon in RN service will be a VLS missile and almost certainly compatible with mk41.
Yes the RN has TLAM launched from subs but launching at best a handful of missiles from an already over stretched SSN fleet is more a token political capability than something truly useful on A battle field. Yes we will have carrier strike eventually but these will always require support from sea launched cruise missiles to overcome enemy air defences not to mention we can equip the entire RN fleet with Mk41 for the price of a single F35B. We will also likley only get 48 of these aircraft as well which would be insufficent on their own to provide a full strike capability. At $ 8 million per vessel I find it hard to argue why they should not be on T26 from day one given the massive capability they bring to the vessel.
I would personally leave an empty space big enough for either the mk41 strike length or the A70, then leave the decision of what to fit until nearer the time they are needed, or if we diecide we don’t need them leave the space as ‘fitted for but not with’. Also handy if we want to export without redesigning the area around.
The T26 won’t reach Main Gate until at least 2016 so what it will carry in RN service is still very much a work in progress and what can be squeezed into the cost cap is probably the main issue at the moment.
That said, if you want to export ships, or just the design and equipment, you should be ensuring that the design is as flexible as possible.
The UK has lost out almost completely on the international market for larger warships because you HAD a tendency to produce finished packages rather than meet customer demands.
British Sonars and electric propulsion technology is probably the best in the world at the moment but a lot of your other stuff isn’t.
@ Mick P
There is a lot of volume within T45. To keep RCS consistent moving the hangar further aft would increase that volume by even more not sure what we would have done with the space. As I have said loads of times now that Chinook fits on the flightdeck, which is huge you know you have walked across it, is more a function of the ship’s size. Actually moving the hangar aft would probably increase hangar space. The davits for the ships boats occupy the sides of the hangar “area” and these are accommodated in a conspicuous amount of space. At deck level I would say the width from the inner bulkhead that formers the hangar to the scuppers (it it had scuppers) is getting on for as wide as the hangar itself (same width as T23’s hangar). If T45 had been designed as a capital ship from the get go it would have been best to delete the hangar. Take advantage of the IEP to provide depth aft hen place a VLS where the hangar is now. And me being me I would probably have replicated Horizon’s gun position both for’ard and aft, basically a 76mm covering every quarter, and that obviously means two 76mm on each beam. There would be some distance between the mounts and that would make Phalanx look a bit meager both in bang and coverage………..
http://www.olddogsbar.ru/uploads/posts/2012-09/1347043029_hms-daring-type-45-destroyer.png
@TD: whatever you like. That’s the point: VLS gives you flexibility to chop and change whenever you want, with guaranteed physical and launcher compatibility. If I had to be asked now, I would declare 32 strike length forward, 32 standard to the rear, filled with 64 Sea Ceptor, 16 TLAM (when deployed) , 16 AShM, and 16 VL-ASROC. Given we cannot reload except at port, that seems reasonable.
@Radwulf: Europe has ambitions for lots of things. Being the worlds reserve currency, defence sufficiency, policing it’s own backyard. The last twenty years have taught the world it’s a failure at all of them. No need to further hitch our future to that lot :-(
I also think a LAM (Land Attack Missile) would be desirable as they have been so useful in recent conflicts and existing platforms seem inadequate. Using submarines for routine cruise missile strikes is expensive and undermines their primary function of being hidden and scary. Typhoon requires land bases reducing strike rates due to distance. F35 isn’t available in numbers for a while and limited aircraft carrier availability will focus coverage. Having strike silos on Type 26 would dramatically increase coverage, saturation and threat profile. For this reason it is almost certainly highly important for exports.
People seem to assume that MK41 is self-evidently the best choice but I’m not so sure. Yes it gives access to US missiles but Europe has ambitions for missile self-sufficiency. The integration of MBDA products to MK41 launchers provides the best of both worlds but is almost certainly designed around capturing more of the European market and exports than a common launcher. Most importantly though, all the benefits of MK41 were likely known to Britain, France and Italy, Europe’s three most powerful naval countries, before the adoption of Sylver but they chose it anyway. This suggests to me that there is a significant political commitment behind the launcher that goes beyond the immediate advantages of MK41. Given that the Type 26 is operational from the 20’s I would not be surprised if Sylver a70 was chosen alongside a European LAM.
How much does it cost to add them compared with other less versatile alternatives?
So who labelled it the austerity frigate exactly ?
TD has clearly written this in the hope of another marathon posting response.
Maybe I’m a bit out of touch but I figure the T45 is a good ADD but lacks CEC and BMD capabilities. It has a helicopter and a gun but it is so scarce and underarmed that using it to ‘attack’ threats / NFS is not likely to happen.
A submarine, as already pointed out elsewhere is most powerful when hidden. It has some TLAM but it gives the game away, is expensive and there aren’t many missiles on them.
It is therefore essential that the frigates are fighty. They need weapons to be this – that needs VLSs.
How are we going to sell these to other countries otherwise? – they didn’t fall for our Typhoon pitch and frankly the plane has much going for it, but if it is incomplete it won’t sell.
Excellent article – mostly in terms of debunking the “Mk-41 can do everything” meme – sure, it can carry a lot, but most of those missiles are ones the RN is not interested in, and certainly not from the Type-26!
Strike-length VLS is about one thing: Tomahawk.
Given that we keep using them, and there is constant political demand for their use, and given that SSN launches are significantly more expensive than surface launches, a surface launcher will end up saving us money, and there is a ~need~ for that.
T45 should have had some Mk41 strike cells from the outset (and perhaps smaller hanger and flight deck to work almost solely as a HVU fleet escort) and then I agree that the T26 could just go with plated over fitted for not with and put box launchers for a decent modern anti ship missile on top of the plated over cells.
If we are to operated an effective carrier strike group against decent opposition, then F35 notwithstanding, I am sure we will want and need to lob some TLAMs in first. Putting MK41s on some surface ships will, with a modestly increased TLAM stop, give us the ability to put a couple of dozen on target rather than perhaps a handful from one or two astutes
Perhaps where we could end up, no bad thing, is 8 T26s with TAS and Mk41, and 5 GP without either of those and instead just some AshMs
I think you have hit the nail on the head TD. There is no NEED for VLS on type 26.
Wf, what weapons
I can see the need for VLS on type 26 Frigate. It can be used for AAW, Land Attack, ASW and ASUW.
Duh. If we want to actually fit weapons to the T26, as opposed to just providing Chinook landing spots, boat modules, marine detachments etc, we might as well fit the launcher everything else fits in: Mk41.
No need to hurry. The decision on Sylver or Mk41 and what to put in them must not be taken today and can wait till the early twenties. There is no money to fill them anyway.
Make sure there is space and weight margin allocated in the design for at least 16 strike length tubes, then wait and see how things evolve.