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!
“So all running as planned”
Time will tell. As recently as the MPR 2011 report (post SDSR), MG2 approval was expected in Q4 2013. The latest MPR has this “somewhere in teh middle of the decade”.
How much of PoW steelwork do you think is left to complete before the platers, shipwrights and welders (as opposed to other, outfit trades) run out of work?
@martin: since the USN handles electronic attack for all the US air forces with the Growler, this might explain why only they are buying the next version of HARM.
F35 is supposed to have an emitter location system, so a updated Meteor could perform the same role. HARM already has it’s own radar to confirm target recognition, so I reckon the changes would be confined to the warhead.
The reason steel hasn’t been cut is that they are still building QEC so can’t afford it yet, and also they never planned there to be too much overlap i.e. they would be outfitting the PoW by the time they came to build T26 number 1. So all running as planned.
Saying that the Scottish issue is a consideration they have to take into account though it isn’t affecting the program yet. As it increasingly looks like they won’t become independent I don’t see it effecting the program, though if by a miracle they did then become independent this will of course mean that the Clyde yards are out and so the build program will have to be rethought, but the odds of that are so small they are pretty safe ignoring it for now.
No political point-scoring intended and your info is duff.
Portsmouth is not set to close. What is set to close is the Portsmouth Ship Factory (ie the large building hall on 3 basin), provided that the referendum says no to independence. Primary ship support would remain at Portsmouth, but shipbuild would be on the Clyde in a downsized combination of Scotstoun & Govan). It is the preferred strategy of the BAE head-shed, but has not been implemented primarily because of the potential impact of a yes vote on the ability of the Clyde yards to access HMG funding.
Steel is not yet being cut, because despite spending £130M on the assessment phase (ie designing the ship and specifying its systems), the result still has one or two significant issues.
As for cancelling F35B, you guys are about three years behind the debate. Catch up here…..
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what.html
@ Simon
“Is the AGM-88 scheduled to be integrated yet?”
The missile is too old and useless to make F35 integration worth while. It also requires a specially modified aircraft like Tornado EC version of F18G to fire it.
I’m guessing the update version of AGM -88 will be more like ALARM and not require special kit to fire it but still no plans for F35 integration. Looks like we will be using Spear 3 in this role relying on precision strike rather than anti radiation. The USAF would seem to be going down the same road as only the USN has signed up for updated version of AGM – 88.
@Simon
You like your equipment don’t you? Nothing wrong with that, can I ask you what equipment you would use to say stand in the way of Syria threatening say Jordan (hypothetical).
Do planes help? For the purpose of the question please ignore our access to Cyprus, and work on the basis that we aren’t spoiling for a fight.
“I note there are F/A 18s flying with conformal tanks.”
Even better boeing paid for the development. Can’t see BAE or EADS doing that for Typhoon.
@ NAB
“HMG may be giving Wee Eck’s referendum a stiff ignoring, but BAE aren’t. ”
Yet they are closing Portsmouth and retaining the Clyde Yards. Please guys don’t turn this into a site where people make stuff up to score some right wing political point. Steel is not being cut because the ship has not been designed yet or funded and since T22 Batch 3 was paid off the first ship is not needed until 2021.
Just looking at whati think it should be capable of deploying.
Air to air: ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Meteor
Air to ground – missile: Brimstone, Maverick, ALARM, Harpoon
Air to ground – bomb: Paveway, Iron bombs with JDAM
Stand off strikes: Storm Shadow
That would for me be the starting point from which to improve on if needed.
I suppose it might be worth exploring the importance of the “bits” of the F35B. Obviously it needs to takeoff and land but after that what is the most important thing?
1. AMRAAM
2. ASRAAM
3. ALARM / AARGM / HARM
4. Storm Shadow
5. Paveway
6. Brimstone
Funny, but I don’t see an anti-radiation missile on the weapons list at all. Is the AGM-88 scheduled to be integrated yet?
@x: more Typhoon? I’m sure the RAF have no problem with that, just like the USN are rather relaxed about “more F18E/F rather than JSF”. Bird in hand and all that
As I said big if………
F35 being cancelled isn’t as big a problem for the RN as it is for the RAF. The RN ends up with a big helicopter carrier that still can be used for al sorts of stuff. The RAF needs to start to working up a manned aircraft to overlap Typhoon without F35 what is there? More Typhoon I suppose? I don’t know
The chances of the F-35 getting cancelled are very low. Too many people with money in the pot. If pushed, they will probably IOC the current plane and fix any operational problems while it is in service. Translation, if the pot runs out, they’ll be forced to roll out the half finished plane rather than junk the whole deal.
The F-35 is here to stay. The question is not if we will get it, the real question is “What did we get?”.
x,
I think the “what if F35 gets cancelled” deserves a whole post of its own.
I’ve been working on the premise that is DOES get cancelled for some time now and simply see there being no Royal Navy if we don’t get cruise missiles on lots of ships. Obviously I hope (and expect) that I’m wrong.
It appears as though MoD procurement do not understand the term “contingency”.
What we really need to discuss is, what if F35 gets cancelled?. If, big if, that was to happen then our contribution to a strike effort would be missiles only (until we got Typhoon into theatre. **)
Can’t believe a serving member of the RN is arguing against building a ship to include growth margins for strike length missiles.
** Where are we again with conformal tanks for Typhoon? I note there are F/A 18s flying with conformal tanks. Wouldn’t it be a laugh if F35b got cancelled and we ended up by buying F/A 18 (a carrier aircraft) with conformal tanks as a bomber to launch a short range European missile because the costs of adding strike length cells to T45 and then T26, filling them with TLAM, fitting CVF with cats and traps was just too much? That would be true arse about face British strategic management………
HMG may be giving Wee Eck’s referendum a stiff ignoring, but BAE aren’t. It would be unfortunate for BAE if they found their marine access to the RN the wrong side of a border, with consequent competition implications.
There are other reasons why steel isn’t being cut yet and there’s a way to go before they’re fixed. Just because someone has a nice CGI render with some VL tubes, radars and helos does not necessarily mean they have a viable design.
Just a thought……..
@ SR
“We’re already doing that, and is anyone cutting steel? No, they’re poncing about waiting for the Scottish to decide if Scotland Borough Council wants to waste tens of millions of taxpayers money on a pointless debate, or hundreds of millions.”
That’s just b**locks. Please keep such comments for where they belong at the bottom of the Daily fail comment section. As you should know main gate decision on T26 has zero to do with the Scottish referendum which the MOD is quite rightly ignoring and main gate was set long before there was even to be a Scottish referendum and as for pointless debate is called democracy.
Now i can go back to playing fantasy fleets with my antiship missile armed frigate’s :-)
@SomewhatRemoved
I’m with APATS on this, despite our collective wisdom here on TD there will hopefully we a bunch of estimators, engineers and accountants designing, modifying and ultimately proposing at Main Gate a design that has a clear specification and cost. No proposals have ever excluded some form of VLS, so one should be able to assume it is affordable.
It is fair to say most budget over runs lately have been caused by changing the delivery/ production timetable or specification. There has been a habit of woolly/fantasy proposals in the past but the type 26 should be pretty risk free design wise. There will always be the tendency to fit for but not with though.
A submarine is a show of force like an undercover policeman. If there is need to show a presence then surely a baton is needed. I really don’t think the submarine can achieve all the objectives likely to be required of the Navy. Just like the undercover and uniformed branches of the police they each have a role to play.
If I was to fit VLS to the T45s it would be for BMD. Therefore the T26s need VLS from the start.
As for export – well, I think it is essential. The typhoon doesn’t sell not because it isn’t good enough but because it has lacked a development path for potential purchasers to believe in. There has been too little funding devoted to integration. The T26 can’t make the same mistake, it needs the option probably to be able to take Sylver and Mk41s from the outset.
@SR
We would not be giving up any Military capabilities. we would be getting the Ship built as specced. My last boss was big in Military sales and he will tell you that it is far more difficult to sell something that differs from what you have. So actually putting the VLS Strike Silo in will make the design far more exportable than leaving yet another “hole” gym or fitted for but not with. We can worry about what to put in our cells when we actually have a date to get one in service.
Unfortunately the Scottish referendum may (unlikely) have a major affect on where and how we build Ships so we have to wait until it is over. The phrase “Scotland Borough Council” is not one I would expect to see posted on the internet by a Commissioned Officer in HM Forces :)
@ WiseApe
Why would the RN want a AAW T26 they have the T45 for that, it is much more suited to the role, all the T26 is needed to do is defend itself and maybe another vessel if it is operating on it’s own. If we go down the route of using a AAW T26 instead of the purpose designed T45 to defend HVU’s we are creating a worse situation than we would have.
The RN philosophy is to have T45 and T26 working together to defend a fleet, dedicated to their task whilst retaining limited abilities in the other’s so that they can defend themselves and aren’t a burden.
@ SR
The ship’s are currently spec’d to have strike length VLS so surely we don’t have to give up capability if we retain the current spec i.e. 48 CAAM, 16 VLS.
“Which defence capability are you prepared to give up to pay for a nice-to-have toy?”
Grumpy PWO’s………………
EDIT: Grumpy gunners…… :)
SR,
Which defence capability are you prepared to give up to pay for a nice-to-have toy?
The 13th T26 would probably cover 16 TLAM and silos on all 18 escorts. However, I have this funny feeling we’ll only ever get 8-10 T26 anyway*. C’est la vie!
* Which, the way we’re going, is all we need. Ditch some standing deployments and concentrate on a CBG with piffling supplemental amphibiosity rather than the whole shebang done properly. Not my choice but I’ll put money on it happening :-(
“Does the Type 26 Need a Strike Length Vertical Launch System” – Yes. Don’t forget the cut in SSN numbers, down from 12 to (hopefully at least) 7; and as wf says above an SSN “shouldn’t be a preferred platform” for launching TLAM. Good option to have for a stealthy strike, though, while a surface ship is, by it’s nature, more of a deterrence.
More generally on T26, I agree partly with mickp above – get the “full fat” frigates built first before the Treasury succeeds in cutting the numbers. But then get the AAW version built; the GP version can wait, if they survive at all. I wouldn’t want to see a Venator/Black Swan production line opened while we’re still building T26, because there’s a danger of the former being seen as a cheaper alternative to the latter, even on a one for one basis.
Wow, didn’t even make it half way down the post list before getting bored of fantasy fleet action and skipping to the end.
At this point it does not matter what we install. A vertical launcher is a vertical launcher. Leave a big square hole deep enough for whatever. For the sake of export interest leave the options open. Any potential export customer can decide if they want to buy missiles from Europe or America. Export interest and committment is, frankly, becoming a strategic issue for us – unless we bring down the unit cost, we will not get the numbers of hulls we need and our ability to maintain deployed tasks vanishes down the plughole. We need a minimum, absolute minuimum of 1-4-1 replacement of the T23’s or else we will burn out our people. We’re already doing that, and is anyone cutting steel? No, they’re poncing about waiting for the Scottish to decide if Scotland Borough Council wants to waste tens of millions of taxpayers money on a pointless debate, or hundreds of millions.
UK Type 26 frigates will carry SeaCeptor. SeaCeptor will fit into both Mk41 and Sylver. It will also come in a purpose-built launcher that will arm Type 23. So it’s irrelevant. SeaCeptor and SeaWolf are in no way, shape or form even remotely compatible. A custom tube is required – that is, a bit of drain pipe with a moveable or shatter-able lid that will cost a fraction of the cost of a Sylver or Mk41. SeaCeptor will fit quad-packed in the Sylver, so problem solved for T45.
If you want toys like TLAM, ASROC, etc, the question is simple. Which defence capability are you prepared to give up to pay for a nice-to-have toy?
@APATs / ET
Agree, there is much value and flexibility in putting 16 Mk41s in the outset. Even if they only sail around with a couple of TLAMs and a few quad packed CAMMs (or even some quad packed anti swarm missiles) for starters, from what people saying is a no brainer from a cost point of view to fit them in the build stage rather than later. The Govt would be crazy (hmmm) if they built a ship of that size without a multipurpose VLS.
Need to start cutting steel then and I’d go with the model at DSEI for main gate design – get 8 ordered pronto as batch 1 – 16MK41, 48 CAMM, TAS, 5″, CIWS, 30mm, helo. That will be a very decent ship. Don’t intermingle a GP variant, just go batch 2 later and take into account any changing circumstances. That may well be designed for 32 Mk41s up front and 24 CAMM cells but who knows. The T26 has to be multipurpose being able to defend itself against all threats in hostile environments, provide screening to task force in terms of ASW mainly but adding to the AAW with CAMM, and also be able to dish it out on land / sea with TLAM, 5″ gun and a VLS AShM
I would focus T45 on being HVU escort and upgrade over life accordingly – any more cells would be defensive Aster / ABM related, ultimately upgrade harpoons for a more modern medium type missile (not to go off solo hunting to be able to eliminate threats to the task group), upgrade sonar and ASW capabilities perhaps and as someone said above, replace 4.5″ with something more relevant to its role – 3″ strales say (if only we’d gone for the horizon layou t ostart with)
Let’s not forget putting CAMM on CVF and Albion.
Then a few Venator 110’s for patrol purposes to ease the strain on the ‘combat fleet’
Astute is a very expensive TLAM platform with a very low rate of fire. Moreover, when it fires, it loses it’s most important quality: stealth. Not that we should pull them out, but it shouldn’t be a preferred platform.
Surface ships are a lot cheaper, and can produce a far higher rate of fire, as well being able to target time critical targets. I cannot see any reason why all our frigates and destroyers shouldn’t *all* have some TLAM compatible silos, when the marginal cost is sod all compared to a F35.
@RT
AS a non Submariner I would be venturing onto unfamiliar territory here. In your scenario he would probably receive his targets before he entered the firing area. Pick a launch basket well away from shipping lanes, creep in slowly passive sonar and then come to PD clear the surface picture and maybe get a final go from satcom.
Make launch depth fire 4 missiles (minutes) then clear the area at a speed that avoids cavitation, making frequent course changes to clear his baffles and best utilise his passive sensors.
No point in sprinting blind as you could simply run into 1 of your 2 SSKs, much better to remain quiet. If the SSKs decide to sprint towards the launch area assuming they can localise it then they go noisy and become the hunted.
500 miles offshore the biggest threat to not clearing the area quickly would be a ship with a helo equipped with dipping sonar.
Those are my thoughts but as I said I am not a Submariner. they have perisher to teach them how to think through all this stuff ;)
APATS, re submarines blowing their launch position: what is the state of the current, RN thinking on this?
If an ASTUTE had cause to fire say 4 TLAMs……
– Pre-firing, typically how confident is the CO that he’s currently undetected?
– (Without breaching OPSEC) how much risk does he take to receive his targeting instructions?
– Roughly how quickly can he launch the 4 missiles (minutes? towards an hour? upwards of an hour?)
– Once missile number 4 is away, he’s into get the hell out of there mode, and clearly there will be a balance to be struck in between creeping away quietly but slowly and reaching ramming speed. Is it hours or days before he’s convinced that he’s made good his escape and is as confident as he was pre-firing that no one knows where he is?
Clearly, lots of variables in there, but for sake of argument, he’s in deepish water offshore by 500 miles and OFOR might have a couple of SSK for him to be worried about, anywhere in a 100 mile circle.
@ET
“What else are we going to put in the VLS-SL on T26 as it can’t make use of Aster & Harpoon isn’t VLS”
By the time T26 is in service so will the Harpoon replacement and that will be VLS capable. Possibly some form of future ASROC or quad packed Sea Ceptor? Maybe nothing :) Unless it has a solid cap like an empty sea wolf cell, the beauty of a VLS cell is that the only certain people know what if anything is inside.
APATS
I completely agree T26 is the easier platform to put TLAM on (though I would prefer it on both), this is as it stands
a) The T45 has no strike length VLS and only has provision for 12 if needed, whilst the current design of T26 has it with 16 strike length VLS.
b) It will probably cost more to add it to the T45 than to just build the T26 with it, which is the plan.
c) What else are we going to put in the VLS-SL on T26 as it can’t make use of Aster & Harpoon isn’t VLS.
d) T26 isn’t an AAW escort that is what T45 is for and QEC is not meant to go to sea without at least one T45 if not 2 in escort for AAW.
e) T26 is going to also be used more as a multipurpose vessel than the T45 due to its mission bay so why not give it the long range strike task as well.
If any vessel in the fleet is the escort it is T45
APATs, it’s the compulsive organiser in me. Slotting things into roles helps keep thinking tidy. Or at least it helps keep my thinking tidy. :)
@ Observer
We only have 6 T45 so in a scenario where we are likely to be launching some form of land attack much easier to cut a Frigate loose than a T45. These have been designed with space for 16 strike length silos from the outset.
I think in this day and age we need to get away from the whole Frigate/Destroyer classification. especially with the multi mission capability offered by VLS systems and things like Mission Bays.
Thanks APATs. The reasoning does make sense, though it isn’t one that I might have made myself, but as long as there is a clearly thought out reason behind it, I can accept that.
One of the reasons I have for a more area defence preference is due to the proposed roles of the ships, all the talk centers on them being used as escorts for the carriers, and I do see how it could go both ways with AAW tactics, less but longer ranged missiles to slowly wear down an incoming strike or shorter ranged but more numerous missiles to counter an incoming wave in a heavy counterstroke. Both could work.
That is of course IF there is even an incoming missile wave, I believe historically, most engagements involved less than a handful of missiles fired at a single target? But Cold War worst case planning scenarios do involve a squadron level attacks by Tu-22 bombers, so planning for that level of defence would ensure that any “surprises” remain happy ones. Or at least as happy as anyone can get when someone is shooting at them.
Anyway, land attack and frigates? Think that might be a role too far for them. Why not let the destroyers handle it? They have the space for 16(?) strike length VLS, and have slightly more volume to spare compared to the frigates. Right ship for the right role. Frigates for defence, destroyers for a mix of defence/offensive capability.
And mission creep is never a good thing.. :(
APATS
“…etc, etc, etc…but surely the T26 Mission bay makes it a far more flexible platform.”
In retrospect I think I will have to retract my statement about FREMM. I thought there were 32 strike-length rather than only 16 and another 16 of something else. Silly me.
@MCZ
When you are launching a missile with a range of 1000 miles then sneaking in stealthily is not as important. few things are as unstealthy as an SSN that has just blown its launch basket :) 4 missiles and bug out.
I do not believe we will ever need the sort of massive day 1 strike capability seen in Libya to be conducted by ourselves. But remember before this strike even happened the French were flying strike and recon missions and the Italians recon mission without any huge SEAD strike. The ability to launch a medium scale strike of approximately 30-40 TLAM either as part of a coalition or as part of a UK only small scale op would be important, especially when backed up by F35 with SS and precision NGS.
@ Observer
I think that the reason a radar that could control Aster 30 was not considered ran to a few factors. One is obviously cost and another may have been to do with the extra space required to actually carry Aster 30, it is a bigger missile and would have driven overall numbers down. especially if we were to retain strike length Silos as well. As for expanding the AAW screen. well it would certainly have expanded the max range of engagement but the increased capability of CAMM is actually a quantum leap forward in AAW screening vs missiles.
The gap between the units in the outer ASW screen is decided by numbers, sonar performance figures and threat. Sea Ceptor on T26 will cover this gap. Currently missiles can simply fly between T23 armed with Wolf, Sea Ceptor will allow the T26 to engage missiles as they fly between them. Also a GP version close in to the HVU offer an excellent Goal Keeping capability.
Also as a self deployed non escorting platform missiles do not kill you when they are 15 miles away. A “miss is as good as a mile”.
@Simon
However, with just 16, I’d rather have FREMM (more flexibility).
Let us actually examine this Flexibility. The French ASW version has 16 Sylver 43 Cells so can only carry 16 Aster 15 in total and has 16 Sylver 70 cells for Scalp. So 16 2strike length cells like T26 and 16 dedicated AAW cells vs 48 for T26. The 2 FREDA versions lose both Sylver 43 and Sylver 70 to put in 32 Sylver 50 cells so can only carry Aster 15 or 30. Good AAW capability but limited flexibility. None of them have a Mission Bay but they do all carry 8 MM40. They do not have a long range gun.
The Italian FREMM are fitted with 16 Sylver 50 cells so can only carry 16 aster 15/30, space has been reserved for 16 Sylver 70 launchers. Dependent upon being ASW or GP they get 2 76MM or 1 76MM and 1 127/64 LW but again no mission bay.
So in terms of flexibility offered by VLS there is very little in it but surely the T26 Mission bay makes it a far more flexible platform.
@Martin
FREMM may be costing just North of £500 million but remember our T26 is cheap because the bill for Artisan will be in the T23 refit bill. we will be bringing command systems, 2087 sonars, Sea Ceptor missiles across with us.
Will be interesting to see the cost of an export version but with minimal design changes required I think they should still undercut FREMM.
@Engineer Tom
“I believe ESSM is similar in size to the CAMM”
Nope, ESSM is a much more massive weapon, due to it’s Sea Sparrow heritage.
What I especially like about CAMM is that MBDA seems to have a clear development path on that missile family, as the Hoplite-concept suggests. If we once end with a family of RAM-powered 120km+ weapons, fulfilling a variety of needs from AD over AA, over maybe AR (which is a good mission-kill capability in a naval environment, too), swarm-blasting, precision attack a.s.o., I would not complain.
To the wider question if T26 needs a strike length VLS; basically, the RN has two tasks for the TLAM to fulfil. The first is the occasional high-precision strike on a single target, with a requirement of stealth. Astute is the perfect platform for this, maybe apart from launching those weapons through torpedo tubes.
The second would be a massive de-capitation strike on day one of a conflict, a capability we never had, but which we required not so long ago in Libya, when the USN delivered it through an SSGN. In Libya, far over 100 missiles were fired. We would need 7-8 vessels with 16 TLAMs each to deliver a capability. Vessels we don’t have, if we are required to protect a task group and commit to our standing tasks. The resilience of such a solution is also constrained by the availability of a port. So, carrying around weapons we don’t need during patrols, which are insufficient on one task and overkill on another, makes no sense. It would only gold-plate a vessel we desperately need in numbers.
Clearly, a SSGN solution would be prohibitively costly. Once again, I propose RFA Kick Ass(ad), a fast, preferably double-hulled and Kevlar-protected container-vessel-derivative carrying around 200 VLS cells and possessing the capability to reload them from containerized stocks aboard, having a 50/50 RN and RFA crew. Alternatively, a semi-submersible firing-platform, to be towed into theatre, submerged and waiting for firing orders.
There was a question about who would want TLAM style capability in a frigate, and might have targeting capability.
Arent we selling various Arabs Storm Shadow for air launch?
Australia likes to have intervention capability, and has targeting assets
Brazil wants to be taken seriously, being able to offer cruise missiles to a coalition would help that (as long as they aren’t offering them to their southern neighbours…). This would also apply to some other countries. Are we still selling the Saffers such things?
Martin,
Well if FREMM is as expensive as you say were on to a winner with T26. Only time will tell.
For offensive operations I have always considered the ability to be able to demonstrate the ability to strike as important. Let me explain this further.
A ship, particularly a destroyer or frigate is able to get quite close to a country’s border and demonstrate it’s ability to strike without needing to raise the temperature and bring about conflict. Can an armed force or a plane do the same? Or even an aircraft carrier for that matter?
I believe having Land Attack capabilities, to answer RT’s question, is a vital capability. It is needed both as ‘threat/stick’ for adversaries to see, and one that can be effectively deployed. RT suggested there are many ways to deploy – agreed – but most of the other options are very confrontational and require allies. This may not be desirable, the best result maybe no conflict.
It takes us can to horses for horses, layed responses. A submarine is possibly too discreet, and bombers flying sorties might risk radar lock-on and from that a response. A frigate armed with VLS offers a lot of capability, far beyond the TLAM/Scalp-N destructive capability.
Obviously, the above is considering the usefulness of VLS before and during the first stages of conflict. Once conflict has started, you use your best strategies to achieve your goals. Some assets will be useful, some completely irrelevant to the conflict. But generally extra assets and options are a good thing.
@ Observer
“The fact that there are a lot more F-35s planned worldwide may mitigate the numbers problem to an extent.”
But only 100 out of 3,000 or so will operate Storm Shadow so it means that we will have to foot the bill for integration. One could use the same argument with F35 as with T26. Why pay to integrate weapons that can be carried on other platforms i.e. Typhoon surely its better to get more F35’s than have lots of weapons on them that can be carried by other platforms.
@ Simon
“However, with just 16, I’d rather have FREMM (more flexibility).”
I would say T26 is still more versatile as it can carry it’s primary AAW weapon in a different launcher. The performance of CAMM’s and Aster 15 is nearly identical. FREMM is also coming in at nearly double the cost so you end up with a smaller less versatile fleet with FREMM.
I could see the RAN & further into the future the RNZN replacing the ANZAC with T26, to change out the weapons fit is easy i.e. ESSM for CAMM, (I believe ESSM is similar in size to the CAMM) if not it can be quad packed into the mk41, currently that is the setup of the ANZAC, 32 ESSM in 8 Mk41 cells, this would at the very least double the number of ESSM carried. The main gun is the same as being proposed for T26 I believe, and adding 30mm and phalanx would be a big increase in defensive capability. Regards sensors, they would of course use whatever radar/sonar they wanted and if they want TAS they would have that as well. Overall they have roughly similar requirements for the vessel, an emphasis on ASW whilst being able to carry out other duties, and if they need it they could fit better radar and the extra mk41 will allow them to also carry longer range missiles.
Also might be a chance to open up the Australian market to MBDA products if they want CAMM over ESSM, just a thought. If MBDA were smart they might be ITAR-free.
Seeing the problems with their SSKs and the F111 gap I think you are right that Oz could look to T26 as an ANZAC replacement.
Well, I assume the target export is the Adelaide class and various Brazillian frigates?
If so, 16 Mk41 should indeed be enough (assuming a VLS AShM exists to go in it).
However, with just 16, I’d rather have FREMM (more flexibility).
martin, the small number may be why the SS/Typhoon integration got dragged on as long as it has, along with the fact that the Typhoon was earmarked as an air superiority fighter, not ground attack, which was a role/frame mismatch. The fact that there are a lot more F-35s planned worldwide may mitigate the numbers problem to an extent.
Your best sales bet would be to target those countries that are wary of US IP dickering, their IP stonewalling can get irritating at times and that is something many countries are not comfortable with, especially those with clear and present threats. Not a good frame of mind to be in when you think that an enemy could attack you at any time and someone half a planet away in a comfortable office and armchair could yank your defence strategy from under you by cutting off your parts and ammunition resupply line. Hell, it may not even be an accident of mood or media, a manufactured caucus beli painting the attacked country as morally corrupt is often the first act of a war and if done right, will also affect Congressional mood. No one likes a Suez Crisis number 2.
I notice many here are assuming that F35 will get Strom shadow integrated on it. It’s a big assumption given how slow we have moved to do so on Typhoon and with only 48 aircraft in our inventory and no one else other than Italy using the F35/Storm shadow configuration one that may not happen.
We can possibly equip the entire Frigate force with Mk41 for $108 million. How much to put SS on F35? I’m guessing more.
@ Mark
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.”
That was 22 years ago. TLAM is a very different weapon system today with far far more accuracy.
@ APATS
“If the export version was to have 32 strike Length Cells it would be because the customer wanted the ability to utilise longer range AAW missiles.”
Good point, I am guessing with this in mind BAE has probably left space under the forward Sea captor cells to fit strike length launchers.
APATs, exactly, which was my point concerning the radar, a greater degree of defensive capability but that is a minor matter. A foreign sale would allow the customer to fit whatever radar he wants as part of customization so it really isn’t a big deal as external sales. Just very curious as to why a radar that could control some ASTER 30s was not considered, unless it was thought that the CAMM would have been sufficient. As a supplement to the AAW screen, it would be a help and extending the AAW envelope, even for self defence isn’t a bad thing.
But as you said, guess it’s what you are used to. If you want/can squeeze in TLAMs, that is all fine and good, but my suspicions are that you would get more utility loading ASTERs rather than TLAMs (utility, not usage) as the role of the frigate is supposed to be defensive, not a replacement missile cruiser. Beauty of VLS is, you can actually do both by mixing the loadout at port, though not both at once, too few cells to do both effectively at the same time.
Not too worried about CAMM, worst case, bolt on a SeaRAM to supplement the point defence while reserving the VLS for more capable weapons. Don’t see much of a point wasting volume on something that can be bolted on topside, and VLS space is precious. The ability to reload at sea is a bonus.
@Simon
Possibly an AsHM but the sort of customers who would be interested in a good all rounder like the T26 with extra AAW capability generally do not share our fetish for intervention outside their own backyard and their Navies are configured far more defensively.
APATS,
If the export version was to have 32 strike Length Cells it would be because the customer wanted the ability to utilise longer range AAW missiles.
Or the customer wishes to pack 32 quad-packed CAMM, 8 AShM and 16 TLAM ;-)
PS: I use the word TLAM to mean cruise missile. In any of my previous statements it could be a ship-launched Storm Shadow or something new.
Mark,
Shame the percentages are [DELETED]. Also it would be interesting to know if it were the TLAM that failed to hit or they were shot down.
Also, I thought TLAM were GPS, INS and that terrain following thingamabob? They should therefore require very little in the way of targeting assets (other than sneaky chaps with a Garmin).
@ Mark
If the export version was to have 32 strike Length Cells it would be because the customer wanted the ability to utilise longer range AAW missiles.