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!
The GAO’s summing up of tlam. Perhaps it adds some reality to what it can achieve. I’m not sure exactly what export customers would gain having 32 strike length cells. There unlikely to have the capability to use tlam and I doubt the ability to use heavy anti ship missiles are different to us and there budget will most likely not stretch to loads of missiles.
“sum, TLAMs were initially believed to be extremely successful in hitting—and therefore damaging—their targets; however, subsequent intensive analysis shows that the hit rate for 230 TLAM Cs and D-Is was [DELETED] percent. Moreover, a stricter definition of a “hit” indicates a slightly lower rate of [DELETED] percent. TLAMs were aimed at just 38 targets, perhaps based on their limited capabilities against reinforced targets. While TLAMs offered a distinct alternative to having to deliver weapons from a manned aircraft, the data from Desert Storm suggest that there are important limitations to their effectiveness in terms of hit rate and capability of damaging a wide range of targets.”
I would like to see all our ships have some sort of offensive capability, both land attack, and anti-shipping. It makes sense to have the ability to act quickly, if required.
I’m a little concerned, about the number of people on here that seem to be totally sure that we are never going to see naval engagements anymore- I wish i had their crystal ball- I’d be minting it.
Sorry but bollox- you can’t be sure, and it’ll be too late when all our ships are smoking ruins, after all the matelots had to fight off an enemy frigate was a couple of gimpy’s gaffer-taped to the rail. It makes sense to have the capability, and the training…If nothing else, if you know you’re going to have to take on something that is very capable of giving you a good f**king, you’re going to have thoughts, aren’t you. It’ll be a deterrent.
As for aircraft being a second wave? Well yeah, only the carrier stuff… Lets face it, the septics do not maintain fleets of B1’s, B2’s and ancient B52’s, for mopping-up. They keep them for the initial strike, with stand-off or dropped munitions, because they give a big, hard, sudden hit, from nowhere. Very good for spanking air defences or ground defences prior to a precise, TLAM or stand-off munitions from carrier aircraft, hit on key targets. Then you wallop in with a beach landing with marines, then when established the army.
I would like the RAF to have a long-range strike capability. As we are trying to reconfigure our forces to an expeditionary force, i think it’s a capability we will need in the future. Not instead of the carriers, but complimentary.
Layers again….
Having come across a report by the GAO on the gulf war air operation i thought it would be of benefit to repeat there conclusion on tlam
“sum, TLAMs were initially believed to be extremely successful in hitting—and therefore damaging—their targets; however, subsequent intensive analysis shows that the hit rate for 230 TLAM Cs and D-Is was [DELETED] percent. Moreover, a stricter definition of a “hit” indicates a slightly lower rate of [DELETED] percent. TLAMs were aimed at just 38 targets, perhaps based on their limited capabilities against reinforced targets. While TLAMs offered a distinct alternative to having to deliver weapons from a manned aircraft, the data from Desert Storm suggest that there are important limitations to their effectiveness in terms of hit rate and capability of damaging a wide range of targets.”
Of the countries likely to purchase a type 26 what capabilities do they likely have to exploit 32 strike length silos to be armed with anything other than surface to air missiles. They are unlikely to have the targeting assets for tlam equivalent missiles, nor I suggest would the uks have for fleet wide fitting of hundreds of tlam cells.
…. X got in with his comment while I was editing, but this only to observe that OWOB and DSTL between them have a pretty significantly good modelling / simulation capability. Coupled with the sort of mathematical modelling tools they have and the latest generation of GIS and visualisation software (I’ve seen it in action – pretty cool stuff) all sorts of scenarios can be cross-checked against each other with great rapidity.
Lastly, of course there is overall lifetime cost, development timelines, acquisition cost, and spin off benefits (eg export), which will probably combine to make final candidate 2 better than final candidate 1.
@RT
Normally you would be correct but in this case we are building a platform to continue the conduct of multiple other tasks which can for not an awful lot of extra money be upgraded to include a capability which will offer the possibility of operating an established Land Attack Capability. It will also offer the opportunity to carry more AAW missiles of the type already being ordered or fitting an anti ship missile or in the future even a rocket launched ASW torpedo derivative.
We also need to make a decision (though we appear to have) shortly in order to stop faffing around and allow for “polishing” and problem solving within a finalised design.
The question surely is should we build this flexibility into the T26 platform at relatively little cost.
The question about whether the UK conducts strike was made long ago when we bought TLAM and Storm Shadow, the question now is about which firing platforms they should be integrated on.
@ RT
Are you suggesting SS VLS? It exists. It is called SCALP-N. There is a video on YouTube.
Much better of course to hang the missiles off an aircraft and have them hours out than do something silly like having them sitting in a ship a 100nm offshore…….. :)
Actually I would scrap the T45’s for a 76mm Oto Melera . It will never see the shore, well too often, but another AAW system would come in useful.
I was going to ramble on about this but once again feel too carsick.
Can you all try keep the thread going until Friday please? Thanks.
Surely the headline question is does the UK need to perform strike operations (yes / no), then if yes, a further discussion on required ranges, effects at the target end, expected time from flash to bang, ideal tasking chains, ISTAR assets to support whatever level of rigour of ROE are likely to be imposed.
Only then should we be looking at the range of possibilities that might deliver those effects. Anything from James Bond to some refurbished B1B Lancers might be possibilities, via cyber warfare to distributing tin foil lines over the power cables. And, of course, TLAM and SS take their place in the mix. Even candidate upgrades for TLAM and SS: what about a SS-Ext Range launched from a tube? Might be a useful answer. What about TLAM launched from a MCM-size ship, or air-dropped from a C-17? Within that discussion, we already have TLAM with its’ current launch modes: is that adequate? Does the equation change if we change the loadout of an ASTUTE to carry only 2 torpedoes (because it’s a risk balance case: how many torpedoes do we routinely use?).
Then, and only when the required effects have turned themselves into candidate weapons systems should we look at the launch platform, and again there are multiple choices. At which point we have to work out what other tasks those platforms have got that might make it in theory a launch platform choice, but in practice there’s too many other downsides for the other roles.
This discussion seems to have jumped straight into the “solutioneering” space, which is about the last place that we should be starting.
Since I’ve not had a chance to play “fantasy fleet” before, and so the professionals can have a good laugh / kindly explain to me why I am wrong, here are my equipment wish lists:
Medium term:
_Type-45_
Medium Calibre Gun:
– advanced 127mm weapon with lots* of 100nm ranged precision rounds.
Main VLS:
– Convert some* to A-70 beneath the decks.
– Add 2 x 8 cell Mk-41
– Buy some* SM-3, TacTom, Scalp-N, Exocet MM40 (vertical launch qualified), and whatever the future vertical launch anti-ship missile the Americans end up building, assuming they ever do.
Helicopter:
– Qualify effective anti-ship and close-air-support weapons on the Wildcat.
Other:
– Add 24 CAMM elsewhere on the ship, in spaces too small for a normal VLS.
– Add two sigma gun/missile mounts.
_Type-26_
Medium Calibre Gun:
– advanced 127mm weapon with lots* of 100nm ranged precision rounds.
Main VLS:
– 3 x 8 Sylver A-70
– Buy some* TacTom, Scalp-N, Exocet MM40 (vertical launch qualified), and whatever the future vertical launch anti-ship missile the Americans end up building, assuming they ever do.
Helicopter:
– Qualify effective anti-ship and close-air-support weapons on the Wildcat.
Other:
– 2 x 24 CAMM elsewhere on the ship, in spaces too small for a normal VLS.
– Add two sigma gun/missile mounts.
(* some = I’m not telling you how many, and I vary it depending on deployment, to make it impossible for you to plan against, mwahhahaha.)
Although not many countries have decent air defences I think that Syria is a harbinger for things to come and increasingly the UK/Europe will require cruise missile SEAD/DEAD capabilities as the US focuses elsewhere. Given that we don’t have enough ships for a decent non-dedicated LAM contribution and aircraft are best sent in after the initial wave, perhaps this is the time to bring into service arsenal ships? A bare bones ship with remote targetting and 50+ LAMs that is permanently attached to the carrier would be a real step change in a commonly used ability. There should be room given the LHDs are likely to be merged into the carriers.
SEAD/DEAD – Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences
LAM – Land Attack Missile
LHD – Landing Helicopter Dock
@ Simon
Know it is not Tom Clancy but it is not required beyond the 16 Cells on each T26 and The F35 and Storm shadow (mk2?) capability. see my list of how few countries actually have a proper IAD with long range SAM and AEW aircraft.
@Simon
Day 1: TLAM – 16 or so from 2 T45, 4 T26 and 2 Astute (128) and F35 + Storm Shadow (128).
Day 2-5: CAP/CAS and interdiction by F35s.
By putting TLAM on my surface combatants I double the day one force.
Is that really so Tom Clancy?
No and I agree that this is what we would be capable of delivering if we fit the T26 with the proposed number of strike length cells. it is extremely unlikely we would ever want to do so or need to do so but we would have built in that capability. My point about AEW capability and SAM systems was merely there to illustrate just how few and far between air defence systems are that actually threaten aircraft launching cruise missiles from 300 miles from their target. even China has only 5 AEW aircraft to look after its entire airspace.
@MW
Nobody is suggesting simply swapping them, it would be specified at the order stage and built to fit.
@ Observer
Do not mix up the fact that Artisan is only a single plate 3D phased array radar which limits its update rate to control longer range missiles with it being cost cutting. FREMM costs £500 million a pop and does not come with a mission Bay and arguably less AAW capability.
The French “ASW” version comes with only 16 Sylver 43 Cells so you only get aster 15. You also get 16 Sylver 70 for SCALP. So a very slightly more capable Missile, a much more expensive radar but only a third of the missiles.
The last 2 French FREMM built to be FREDA AAW platforms lose the Sylver 43 and 70 cells for 32 Sylver 50 and 32 aster 30 missiles carried.
The Italian FREMM has 16 Sylver 50 cells so can carry 16 aster 15 or 30 missiles.
The German F125 Frigate costs £520 million a pop and has no sonar and only 2 RAM launchers for AAW.
Considering Sea Wolf could not even attack a non threatening target so missiles could fly through gaps in the screen then this is a huge step forward at a good price. Remember that Artisan and Sea Ceptor are a UK fit and whilst it is extremely capable for an ASW or GP frigate an export custome more concerned with AAW could specify a different Cell arrangement up front, a more expensive multi faced phased array on the mast and retain the aft Sea Ceptor silo. Giving a greater AAW capability than FREMM at a very competitive price.
@ various:
You cannot just replace 4x CAMM cells with a strike length VLS, because CAMM launchers are only ~2m deep whilst strike length VLS are ~7m deep.
Please, take a drawing of a Type-26, and draw in a block projecting 5m above where the existing CAMM cells are shown, and then realise that the resulting ship is top-heavy.
@ APATS: absolutely, a crazy amount of mission/threat creep going on here.
@ Simon:
Re: “1982 with TLAM and T45, but no carriers”, that sounds like a scenario well worth running.
(a) Half the enemy aircraft shoot-downs were by Harriers vectored onto the targets by the Type-42s. We’d need a good sim to work out how well Aster would do by comparison.
(b) How many land targets did the harriers attack? It seems to have been a lot more than the 16 TLAM that you could add to a Type-45. What happens if those bombing raids don’t happen, but instead you have your 16 TLAM strikes against e.g. airfields on the mainland?
Speaking of that and self-licking lollipops: one of the prime roles of a Frigate is to escort the Amphibs & transports until the army can win the war on land. CAMM is great for that sort of scenario, e.g. 8 enemy jets coming out of ground clutter at 10 miles. In practice, I think we are going to get tons of use out of CAMM – I think it is one of the real high points of the design.
Likewise, in terms of land attack, sure I can see the use of TLAM, but again in practice, I foresee us getting a lot more use from the advanced medium-calibre gun (MCG) – 100 mile range precision fire support and ~hundreds~ of rounds, not just the 16 shots from TLAM. Oh, and those rounds can be reloaded at sea.
Day 1: TLAM – 16 or so from 2 T45, 4 T26 and 2 Astute (128) and F35 + Storm Shadow (128).
Day 2-5: CAP/CAS and interdiction by F35s.
By putting TLAM on my surface combatants I double the day one force.
Is that really so Tom Clancy?
@martin: I’m assuming this is 82 except T45 and TLAM, which is what @simon wanted AFAIK.
A4’s quite happily fly from roads, in fact some did during the war. Not with the same sortie rate of course. TLAM doesn’t dive onto targets AFAIK, so isn’t going to make a big hole in runways.
T45’s are hard to miss, since they are a big zero without their radar on. As I pointed out previously, absent a fighter threat, AR P2 Neptunes don’t have to worry about leaving their radar on at all times, which has a range considerably greater than 100km. For them, it goes from a hairy mission to something approaching risk free…so the AR knows where all our ships are, at all times. Doesn’t “hack the shad” ring any bells? It was the stated Cold War mission for the Sea Harrier :-)
Tom, ASTERs are also active radar guided, but APATs has covered the why. Update rate of Artisan isn’t fast enough for long range. Interesting. It’s also cost cutting too close to the bone IMO. Countries that are looking for a GP frigate also want the ship to act as an air defence screen for other assets. Being range limited reduces the ability to protect and screen, a frigate’s main job. Unless this can be improved, the Type 26 is going to be competing at a disadvantage.
Simon, if you used a frigate for SEAD, you are using the wrong tool for the job. Go get your carrier or TLAM stocked sub.
@ Jeremy MH
“get that but fleet operations is something one really has to train on and almost as importantly experiment with to do well.”
That’s true but as APATS and other’s point out when the RN vessels are not on a forward deployment on a 2-7 basis they don’t just go on holiday. They spend much of the rest of the time practicing. You can practice a fleet action of Plymouth just as well as anywhere else. Also as with T45 in the pacific a lot of that time is spent working with allies learning how to operate inside their fleets and share best practice. I dare say that’s a much better piece time use of scarce resources than sailing up and down the Solent surrounding the carrier 24/7.
@ TD
“APATS, which come down to the question posed in this post, apart from flexibility, exportability and some measure of future proofing, what is the point of spending on Mk41”
Its hardly future proofing when the chaces are that by the time the vessel comes into service its primary anti ship weapon is likely to be VLS launched. Indeed the removal of the harpoon launchers from the recent models would certainly indicate this is the RN’s thinking.
@ Engineer Tom
“(can Astute keep up with QEC).”
I dare say she can run rings around QEC despite the dodgy gear box :-)
@ Wf
“not sure that we could fire enough TLAM to disable everywhere that a fighter plane could fly from in Southern Argentina for a period of a month.”
It was only four runways. Short work for 20 – 30 TLAM’s. Would not get everything but it could have caused a major disruption and with the state of modern naval AAW all of their tactics then and now would likely be little more than an embarrassing turkey shoot.
“Moreover, they could push their tankers far further forward”
The only ever had two C130’s AAR refueling capability, hardly enough for massed air attacks and most of their airforce aircraft could not use AAR. Since they still fly what’s left of the same crappy planes they had in 1982 I don’t see it as a major threat.
Honestly I think the Battle of Britain memorial squadron (who’s planes are only 10 years older than the Argies Sky hawks) would have a better chance using Tall boy bombs.
“knowing that their only threat is something that cannot reposition faster than 30 knots at best.”
Yeah but they don’t know where it is to begin with and it carries a missile with a 100KM range the can reposition at Mach 4. Not the kind of thing you want to accidentally fly near.
Waiting for “in limbo” reply before I get my coat ;-)
@Simon: not sure that we could fire enough TLAM to disable everywhere that a fighter plane could fly from in Southern Argentina for a period of a month. In fact, I’m not sure the USN could either. And we’re still stuck with the major problem of being unable to see or hit low level targets until they breach 40km or so, since without fighters, preferably with AEW, we cannot. The Argentinians, on the other hand, can afford to fly all the P2 sorties they want, radar emitting at all times, knowing that their only threat is something that cannot reposition faster than 30 knots at best. How were we supposed to steam into San Carlos with the element of surprise now? Moreover, they could push their tankers far further forward, allowing more time on target and the consequent ability to mass attacks, and more of the attacks on San Carlos to arrive from the east, where the primary stop would be Rapier and Blowpipe, with an honourable mention for GPMG.
Nope, we would have lost.
@Simon
Reply in limbo again :)
I have been having a look at both T45 and T26 and seeing what I think they should have and comparing it to what they do have.
The RN’s combat vessel’s
T45 – Current:
AAW – 48 x Aster30/Aster15
ASW – Sonar(surprised me) and Helo launched stingray
ASuW – 8 x Harpoon
Other – 4.5′ Gun, 2 x 30mm, 2 x Phalanx, 2 x Minigun, 6 x GPMG
T45 – Proposed:
AAW – 24 x Aster30, 96 x CAMM
ASW – Sonar, Helo launched stingray, 4 x ASW missile
ASuW – 8 x Harpoon
BMD – 4 x BMD Missile
Land Attack – 4 x TLAM
Other – 4.5′ Gun, 2 x 30mm, 2 x Phalanx, 2 x Minigun, 6 x GPMG
(This can be achieved by adding the 12 x mk41 VLS cells and swapping out Aster 15 for CAMM)
T26 – Currently Proposed:
AAW – 48 x CAMM
ASW – Sonar, TAS and helo launched stingray
Land attack – 16 x TLAM
Other – 5′ Gun, 2 x 30mm, 2 x Phalanx, 2 x Minigun, 4 x GPMG
T26 – Proposed:
AAW – 48 x CAMM
ASW – Sonar, TAS, helo launched stingray, 6 x ASW missile
ASuW – 8 x Harpoon
Land attack – 10 x TLAM
Other – 5′ Gun, 2 x 30mm, 2 x Phalanx, 2 x Minigun, 4 x GPMG
Overall this means we have a few TLAM’s sitting (possibly no one will know) on every ship we send out so that if needed we can strike anywhere in the world very quickly. It also boosts the close in defenses of the T45 by swapping to CAMM. It also gives every ship ASuW what does it matter if the enemy sub is destroyed if his destroyer can sail in unopposed (can Astute keep up with QEC). And finally some ASW missiles seem handy.
@Simon
No the only incompatibility would be if an export customer wanted to prioritise AAW.
I take it you have kept your Clancy and ignored your DPAS then? Have we struggled to take out runways or do SEAD? Did you read the countries that actually have decent SAM and AEW capability? Are we likely to go to war with them? CVF F35B with storm shadow or successor combined with strike length Cells on T26 and SSN combined with the new Gun gives us an amazing uplift in strike capability. That is without even factoring in any land based support.
T26 is a multi mission Frigate not a tool for Air Suppression. Countries that buy it especially in an AD variant would be buying a single long legged, quiet, mission bay equipped, Sonar Towing Hull with 32 strike length Cells for Long range AD and 24 Sea Ceptor cells. what is not to like?
It would be about doing what they do now but with a far better capability. Not pretending they want to launch hundreds of cruise missiles at somebody.
Could a Buccaneer launch it dumb bombs 300 miles from the target? No of course it couldn’t.
So…
…is it fair to say that there is an incompatibility between the “export” spec of the ship and the things required by the Royal Navy.
Hopefully those that buy the T26 will realise that there’s little point in a warship that can’t wage war. Much better to put all your eggs in one basket called CVF :-(
SEAD, SEAD… for gods sake… SEAD. Most of the sorties flown in the last few decades have been SEAD. What is wrong with this country? F35B + Storm Shadow is not even as good as a Buccanner with dumb bombs for taking out a runway. We have no long-range bombers to call up from the RAF.
Just replay 1982 with TLAM and T45 and you barely need a carrier at all.
@JMH
I made a typo in my post. That’s what i get for attempting to do it in a hurry. what i meant was that for the RN I believe we should have the 16 strike Length Cells and was arguing against posters who were attempting to make the case that this was not a useful enough capability. I do think it should be offered with 32 strike length cells and a different radar as an AAW export version. It would give smaller nations the opportunity to consolidate on a single hull type with strike Cells for longer range AAW plus 24 Sea Ceptor for shorter range, A mission bay and a quite propulsion system, long legs and a TAS if required.
@Observer
In very simple terms and I use update rate as a broad term covering multiple technical reason such as radar face numbers, rotation rates, beam steering capability, beams generated etc.
The range that Sea Ceptor goes active at and the comparatively short range of the engagement means that the update rate of Artisan is sufficient to make sure it heads for the correct target. Aster does not update (scan) quickly enough to provide the sort of update rate that something Like an Aster 30 requires to head for a long range target prior to the missile going active. Both systems are better than dedicate Fire control radars as they allow the engagement of more targets. Type 42 for instance had 2 FC channels with 2 909 Radars.
So to engage long range targets you need a Multi Function Phased array radar with a high enough update rate to steer the missile until it goes active or you need to add dedicated FC radars.
The reason Iron duke has retained the 911 trackers with Artisan is she still has Sea Wolf and that is a Command Line of Sight Missile, receiving guidance from the trackers via sensors in the missile tail.
@Observer
Wasn’t one of the major points of CAMM to do away with the targeting radars? Essentially they are saying that Artisan will provide accurate enough information for the missile to fly into its active homing range using just the search radar and a data link to put the missile where it needs to be to conduct the terminal engagement.
@ Observer
Seawolf used two radars a surveilence radar to detect targets and then a tracking radar to guide the missile onto the target, the CAMM system has an active homing radar seeker so that it doesn’t need the tracking radar and can hit non-LOS targets.
Tom, the 2 carriers and the subs. Concept of arms for the RN currently relies on the carriers to provide for striking power and for subs to perform TLAM strikes. Not the frigates or destroyers.
As for ASTER, as long as you fit in a SYLVER 50, you should be able to pack ASTER 30s
Re: Artisan, from what I can see, Artisan is not a fire control radar, it’s a search and navigation radar, so it is not going to be used for weapons control. There would be another tracking radar for weapons and target tracking and it’s the tracking radar that needs to be ASTER compatible. Even the old T-23 had fire control radars in addition to the Artisan. Would happily be corrected on this if wrong. APATs? Is my rough summary within the ballpark?
@APATS and TD
I think you have the right question which is really if the Type 26 needs a strike capability at all but that to me still comes back to what the core function of the RN is going to be. If its main goal is to conduct anti-submarine operations and some humanitarian/police functions then leaving the cells out makes very good sense on a lot of levels. But is or should that be the core mission for the RN?
Some clearly think that expeditionary warfare should be its key calling card and it is hard to blame them as the message coming from the RN seems decidedly mixed. There is a large amphibious fleet and there will soon be two very large carriers in operation.
Within NATO in the Cold War the RN’s niche was ASW. But I can see a good argument that within the EU and post Cold War NATO (ie with the US) that the UK would get more use and more political clout by focusing on its expeditionary and strike capabilities rather than ASW and patrol/presence missions with frigates.
@APATS
I agree with you 100% that it makes a lot of sense to just put on 32 VLS cells. The ship should be able to take at least that many at the size it is. That gives you the flexibility and options both in operation and in the export market. TLAM is only a small part of that equation for me.
@TD
The reason is flexibility,ex portability and flexibility again. Not to mention that I bet you a pint it would probably cost us more to get BAE to take them out of the design than simply build them in. How much cehaper are 4 CAMM cells than a single Mk41 cell with 4 CAMM quad packed? How much more flexible is a cell than take 4 CAMM/TLAM/LRASM plus maybe some other goodies? How much easier does that make future mission planning?
For relatively little extra expense you get a huge boost in flexibility.
ny argument is not that we should not have them but that 16 is not enough. i hope BAE have a plan B for export that fits 32 on the front end along with something like EMPAR or other similar sized radar capable of providing target illumination for longer range missiles than Sea Ceptor. This would give all the AAW capability most nations would want in a multi role package at hopefully a decent price.
I think the Mk41s would give political options.
They don’t even need to be loaded for the ship to change from
“HMS X is off [naughty country Y]” – “Big wow, we are really scared of that gun and helicopter”
to
“HMS X is off [naughty country Y] with cruise missiles that can hit [press use Wikipedia to find a range]”
It is a bigger threat, and a bigger statement of opposition (or support to a threatened ally).
At the current moment a T26 off Somalia for anti-piracy could lob a couple of cruise missiles into an Al Shabab training base as a statement. (whether you want politicians to have that option is of course another question…)
@ TD
If we don’t put TLAM, or possibly a VLS ASW missile, on T26 then I wouldn’t fit mk41 though I would keep the possibility in the design for exports, and use the space below for something useful such as a Brig or Gym(I believe that is what they used it for on T45).
On the other hand I feel we need the capability to launch TLAM from surface assets, and I would choose the T26 over the T45 for this role.
@ Observer
T23/26 don’t carry Aster the ship isn’t designed to cary it and the radar isn’t capable of firing it as far as I know.
Also if a frigate is a defensive ship and our destroyers are also defensive ships what offensive ships do we have.
I keep getting the urge to call it the Global Wombat Ship considering that one of the sales target is Australia. :)
Some of you have to keep in mind that “Combat Ship” isn’t a real designation but something marketing made up to sell the damn things. So frankly “Combat Ship” can mean anything you want as there is no official consensus to what makes up a “Combat Ship”. Harpoons? TLAMs? ICBMs? Nuclear round firing cannons? Anything you want.
Personally, I prefer to keep the roles to sea denial and asset protection, though if you can manage to get 16 strike length VLS into the ship, I am not adverse to a temporary land attack role where a single T-23 is designated as an assault frigate and filled with TLAMs instead of ASTERs and sent to “teach someone a lesson”, but this should never detract from the fact that the frigate’s role is protection, not invasion. Fire the lot off and go get ASTERs reloaded.
@Martin
Two points.
First I think the have other ships doing other useful task comment gets to the heart of the issue many have raised which is the self-licking lollipop. What exactly are those ships doing by themselves? Yes, they are providing a presence somewhere, or air defense somewhere or ASW somewhere. But to what ultimate end? If you had to state in one sentence or so what the most important thing the RN is doing is what would that be and how are those deployments supporting that mission?
I get that but fleet operations is something one really has to train on and almost as importantly experiment with to do well. Your commanders need to get the experience of operating such a force as well. Yes, you can cobble together the ships in a hurry in many situations but that does not necessarily make for a proper task force. Is there time to train that way and then send everything on its way to do whatever the other stuff is? Possibly. But it puts more pressure on the schedules for everything I would think.
APATS, which come down to the question posed in this post, apart from flexibility, exportability and some measure of future proofing, what is the point of spending on Mk41 or SYLVER, what would we fill them with apart from CAMM, which comes with its own cheaper VLS?
Just struggling with the whole Mk41 fetish to be honest
@ Jeremy MH
“I agree with MickP that the obvious RN mission at this point should be forming two capable task groups around its carriers. The RN will be hard pressed to do even that given the numbers situation if it wants to keep deploying amphibious groups by themselves and surface by themselves or in small groups.”
That’s what the single RFTG is and when QE comes in no doubt it will replace the LPH. That being said in peace time or even a Libya style conflict it does not need its full battle time compliment of 2 T45 and 2/3 T23 so why not use those other ships for useful tasks when not required to guard the RFTG. Most of those deployed vessels are likely to be in UK waters the Med or Western Indian ocean so could likely reach the RFTG in a short period of time should the situation require.
If things ever did really kick off big time then we could put together a force of 2 CVF, 4 T45 and 8 T26 with 3-4 Astute and an amphibious brigade. That’s quite a force and I don’t think there are many foes that could attack it. But we lack the resources or need to sail around like that all the time as the USN does.
@ Engineer Tom
“I always find it interesting when people say the T26 is an ASW vessel and yes most of the class is but shouldn’t we find a use for the other 5 vessels,”
The T23 is an ASW vessel even though only 8 of them have towed array. The other 5 are still an ASW asset i.e. Merlin, quiet engines onboard sonar etc. I seriously doubt the RN will chose a different engine fit for these two types and in the end I’m sure the entire fleet will be almost identical.
The GP concept is more to do with 1) exports and 2) the original T26 concept which was a much bigger vessel where the GP version would have optimized for land attack perhaps with more strike VLS and a 155mm gun but that concept is pretty dead now
The amount of “mission creep” we have by some poster on here beggars belief. It is all about invading A or bombarding B. If we do and I believe we will get a strike length Silo on T26 we will have the capacity to fit 208 Land attack Missiles on surface vessels. Well that’s more than 3 times the current stock. Of course not forgetting that Storm Shadow has a range of 300 miles and F35B can easily add another 35 onto that so Carrier Strike from 700 plus miles from the target.
Yes that is a lovely capability but not really what T26 is about.
It is about being a multi mission Frigate doing the jobs that we actually do day in and day out but doing them better. Until Sea Wolf had a Mid Life Upgrade it could not even reengage something like Exocet if it missed. It could only cover a couple of angles and minimal targets. t26 can reach out to 15NM+ engaging multiple targets and providing Defence for an RFA close in or act as Goal Keeper for an HVU. If Mk41 was fitted a single T26 acting a a Goal Keeper on an HVU could carry 112 Sea Ceptor if required.
It is about defending sea Lanes of Communications against possible Submarine Threats utilising TAS and quite propulsion with a Merlin.
it is about defending OPLATS in the Gulf with organic UAV and Wildcat as well as better Rhibs thank to the mission bay.
It is about Caribbean tasking with increased space for disaster relief stores and UAVs to help find smugglers.
It could be about a land attack mission but that is definitely a secondary role and the gun should not be underestimated. Coastal radar stations are very fragile and the ability to lurk 40NM off the coast and drop STOT munitions with GPS guidance on 5 or 6 radars up to 15NM inland will be a very handy capability. Or 4 or 5 “terrorist tents.
What T26 is not about and never has been is providing the RN with a “Cruise” so that we can attack countries with super sophisticated AD capabilities because make no doubt about it something like S300/400 (though Storm Shadow outranges both) combined with a viable AEW capability and the means to link them together whilst also monitoring offshore traffic accurately is possessed by and not a definitive list but. (western Nations excluded)
Russia 16 AEW Aircraft and S300/400
China 4 AEW Aircraft and S300
India 3 AEW aircraft but no real long range SAM capability
Egypt 6 AEW aircraft but no long range SAM system
Although not “Western Nations” I have excluded Brazil who have 5 AEW aircraft, Taiwan 6, ROK 4 and Singapore 4 as they are friendly nations.
So unless we are going to to go to war with Russia or China then we are not facing the sort of integrated challenges many here like to portray.
Those that think we are going to war with Russia or China in anything other than a last resort everyone in WW scenario please put down Tom Clancy and pick up Defence Planning Assumptions.
It will be interesting to see what is defined to be part of the RFTG when CVF comes on line in terms of escorts.
I’d very much hope for at least one T45 and two T26s along with a Wave class tanker. I think the current asumption is only a single T23 (the TAPS, I presume), but I don’t think this is enough to cover the flanks of such large a ship as CVF.
Of these two frigates I’d want them both to be ASW variants (for redundancy). This would likely leave three other active ASW frigates to provide two standing ASW centric tasks.
Regards carrier groups, if we had just the two ‘Fleets’ we could have:
1 x QEC
2 x T45
2 x T26(ASW)
1 x T26(GP)
2-3 x Amphib
Plus RFA
If you rotated the two fleets ie 6 months at sea alternating, that would leave 2 x T45, 4 x T26(ASW) & 3 x T26(GP) for other duties, of which you should be able to keep 6 deployed at any one time.
Stopping the deployment of more than 2 fleets (i.e. based on amphib task groups) would allow this increase in the defence of each fleet.
@ Martin
That explains it then, I knew there must be a reason just didn’t know what it was.
I always find it interesting when people say the T26 is an ASW vessel and yes most of the class is but shouldn’t we find a use for the other 5 vessels, maybe make them ASuW/Land attack vessels and load them with TLAM and Harpoon, I’m thinking the 16xStrike length for TLAM then finding a place for 2 quad harpoon launchers (currently on T23). Use the 16 x Strike length on the ASW version for ASW missiles.
I agree with MickP that the obvious RN mission at this point should be forming two capable task groups around its carriers. The RN will be hard pressed to do even that given the numbers situation if it wants to keep deploying amphibious groups by themselves and surface by themselves or in small groups.
The escort situation is 6 Type 45’s and 13 Type 23/26’s and they will be fairly hard pressed to cover those carrier groups and meet other commitments and MX downtime I would think. This is also where I would disagree a bit with Martin on the specialization of the various escorts. For air defense you are really limited if you only have 1 type 45 along for the ride. Two is a bit better but you are still at that point probably talking about pretty much riding shotgun with the carrier and doing little else. You run into much the same problem with the ASW escorts as well. Ideally you want to be able to reconfigure your screen shape depending on the threat but if you have a group of say 1 type 45 and 2 type 26’s you don’t have a ton of flexibility in that regard. If you had 3 ships that could all do both missions reasonably well you would have considerably more options.
You could beef up the screen but that would basically speak for all the escorts in the RN much of the time to keep the two carrier groups screened and also has UNREP implications as well. But at least supporting two carrier groups gives the RN a pretty clear mission.
@ Engineer Tom
“I wonder why they didn’t upgrade the cells when they changed missiles.”
The Mk41 stretches down three decks while the Sea Wolf VSL basically just sits on top of the deck. T23 could never take Mk41 VLS. The only boats ever retrofitted where the early Ticonderogas.
@ Hurst Lama
” The modern-day equivalent of the Flower Class versus the Tribal Class if you like”
I think you over estimate the T26 because thats basically what we are getting. It’s been significantly scaled down from the original Global Combat Ship design and it very much a slightly bigger T23 with a module bay.
Not that thats a bad thing I think it many ways it’s the right ship for the job (especially as the USN lacks an equivalent) and it looks quite pretty which is always a big plus in my book :-)
@Simon
Fair go, Mr Simon, and I am not proposing the end of warships below the T45 class. However, not every T26 is scheduled to have a towed array so one without that is escorting a RFA and bumps into an enemy submarine may be discomforted. However, with a cheap and cheerful TAS tug along they would get through.
I think my point is that there is no purpose in having an escort that cannot defend against the threat. Suppose we cut the numbers of T26 and used the money to provide a much bigger number of ASW escorts, capable of detecting submarines but not prosecuting them. The modern-day equivalent of the Flower Class versus the Tribal Class if you like,
Looking at the T23, the old seawolf VLS cell can fit 4 CAMM missiles, so must be similar in size to the mk41 or Sylver, I wonder why they didn’t upgrade the cells when they changed missiles.
Regards, T26 air defence they will have CAMM which is local airdefence, but they are not meant to provide air defence to more than 1 maybe 2 other vessels as that is the role of the T45, if you want an escort to do both AAW and ASW why not just stick a Sonar and TAS on a T45. A T45 is also there to protect T23/26’s as well, from long range air attack.
HurstLlama,
But the frigates still need to be able to escort other things individually (e.g. RFA), so need to provide air defence too :-)
@ hurstlama
It might be enough for ASW but I doubt it would save much money once you factor in noise reduction etc and it would be bugger all use for anything other than a mission we have barley carried out for real since 1945.
As Paul said a traditional frigate was a defensive platform, towing a sonar and providing close-in anti-air support. The T26 isn’t going to be a traditional frigate though, in the same way that the T45 shouldn’t be (and to an extent already isn’t) a traditional destroyer. The future is combat ships, you can have a different emphasis with different variants but ultimately all high-end surface ships are going to have to have general-purpose functionality and utility beyond what the last generation of ships had in order to justify their cost and make up for the smaller amount of vessels in service.
At the very least I think all current and future RN surface ships need to be able to handle themselves against other ships with AShM and have provisional space and an accommodating design for greater offensive capabilities.
Martin I agree that since the disappearance of the Red Banner Fleet in 1991 the RN has had a muddled strategy and has struggled to firmly define it’s role after decades of Cold War certainty.
Mickp I agree that fielding a comprehensive carrier group with decent air-borne and ship-borne offensive capabilities so that it can loiter off of a coastline and project firepower should be the RN’s focus. Amphibious shipping is valuable and I wouldn’t dream of scrapping any-more of it, but I think you make a good point when you say that they, like all ships these days, need to be more general-purpose and find ‘day jobs’ in place of their very specialized but rarely needed primary role.
@ Paul Padley
if the US had stayed out of Libya I think eventually EU NATO would have taken on the mission on our own and then a few frigates with TLAM would have been very handy. I think we would have had a more gradual approach to taking down Libyas’s air defence than the USA did but there is more than one way to skin a cat. both T45 and T26 should really have mk41.
launching TLAM has been the major high intensity war time use for surface vessels since 1991 a mission we seem to perform around once every 2 years or so.
If the T26 is not to have an offensive capability beyond that provided by its helicopter and gun, I wonder if we could not provide more ASW escorts at a lower cost.
The requirement for an ASW escort would seem to be a vessel that can keep up with the “Fleet” (including doing sprints and drift manoeuvres) whilst pulling a 2087 tail. Anti-air defence can be provided by the T45’s and the actual prosecution of contacts is a helicopter job anyway, we will have nothing else save the Astutes, and the major vessels being escorted, be they carriers, T45s or RFAs, will have the helicopters.
So a smallish (deep-water trawler sized), stealth ship with only minimal armament (enough to keep off pirates and speedboats) ought to be able to do the escort job as well as a capon of a vessel like the T26 is promising to be. Make it as small and a stealthy as possible (give it a flight deck as an emergency diversion platform if you must). As an ASW escort would that not be enough?
@Simon and Observer. Tend to agree. Frigates are defensive assets. But Global Combat ships? @X – agree, the government wants global influence for the UK and an expeditionary capability. For gunboat diplomacy you could put TLAM on Type 45. That would work, but would this clash with BMD strategy? Too few ships really. But if you did then in an expeditionary operation the Type 45 could take out say 20 fixed radar sites and then provide the air defence bubble while you land a company of marines from the carrier. I could be wrong but I don’t think HMG envisages more than a Falklands or Sierra Leone scale operation on our own, if that. Iraq and Libya involved firing 200+ TLAMs. Syria would have required many more ( the United States military doesn’t do pin pricks says Mr Obama). Where are these to come from? The 4 US destroyers in the Med would have had to up anchor to reload. For the UK and France between them to take on such an assault would require the entire future fleets of Type 26 and Fremm frigates. And who supplies the boots on the ground? Syria is not Libya or Iraq. I read somewhere ( Ligers blog I think) that the RN is thinking in terms of a future VLS missile which combines ASROC, over the horizon antiship and land attack capabilities; sort of a multi-role Otomat Teseo. I can see the value of this concept. The Arctic is melting and the Chinese are funding the comstruction of wider alternative to the Panama Canal. We need more ships, but we probably have enough TLAM’s for the moment.