Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naval weaponry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The SAAR-72 are pretty packed with weapons and sensors for their size (not to mention a helicopter) and it would be interesting to see how crew accomodation and machinery fits in to the remaining space, given the light displacement.
    Presumably the design is based on lessons learnt following an attack on a similar type by shore based anti ship missile. It was found that having all the early warning sensors and close in weapon system means nothing if the crew decide not to bother switching it on.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
      The SAAR-72 are pretty packed with weapons and sensors for their size (not to mention a helicopter) and it would be interesting to see how crew accomodation and machinery fits in to the remaining space, given the light displacement.
      Presumably the design is based on lessons learnt following an attack on a similar type by shore based anti ship missile. It was found that having all the early warning sensors and close in weapon system means nothing if the crew decide not to bother switching it on.
      They are short range boats for the Med. They are quite literally the opposite of what the NS needs. I have serious doubts their seakeeping is up to spec.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
        They are short range boats for the Med. They are quite literally the opposite of what the NS needs. I have serious doubts their seakeeping is up to spec.
        Not for buying, just the ability to vary role by the armament outfit. I see there is a refurbishment and almost doubling the life of the RN type 23 Frigates. Both HMS Argyle and Westminster have been extended to 35 years and outfitted with new Area Air Defence systems (FLAADS) and associated radars, plus information exchange. the other type 23's are to follow. They are being also outfitted with Sea-Ceptor missiles 25km range and up to 32 round units. The same missiles are being made available to the Batch 2 OPV's via a selection of systems containers. It seems to me with the retention of type 23's and the addition of types 26/31 that the RN will be increasing manpower.
        Last edited by ancientmariner; 2 May 2017, 11:44.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          Not for buying, just the ability to vary role by the armament outfit. I see there is a refurbishment and almost doubling the life of the RN type 23 Frigates. Both HMS Argyle and Westminster have been extended to 35 years and outfitted with new Area Air Defence systems (FLAADS) and associated radars, plus information exchange. the other type 23's are to follow. They are being also outfitted with Sea-Ceptor missiles 25km range and up to 32 round units. The same missiles are being made available to the Batch 2 OPV's via a selection of systems containers. It seems to me with the retention of type 23's and the addition of types 26/31 that the RN will be increasing manpower.
          Like the Flyvefisken class

          Probably because there is no sign of the Type 26/31 happening anytime soon and due to costs numbers being ordered will be reduced.

          RN manning is currently a major problem
          Last edited by DeV; 2 May 2017, 13:08.

          Comment


          • They are short range boats for the Med. They are quite literally the opposite of what the NS needs. I have serious doubts their seakeeping is up to spec.
            They are classed as Corvettes which puts them in the category of ships although the original Saar Class,a derivative of the Combattante vessels which were actually classed as FPBs or fast patrol boats.

            Given the delivery from Germany of the original SAAR class vessels was made via South Africa and around the horn their seakeeping is quite spectacular but not for extended patrolling in the North Atlantic.

            So if 99% of the Naval Service's work is that of patrolling the North Atlantic why do we need the weapons fit of an Air Defence frigate given the last air attack on an Irish vessel was by the Luftwaffe probably on the Kerlogue during WW2. Given we deploy one vessel on a 8 - 10 week rotation in the med for 4 months of the year with no recogniseable air threat...cost is the deciding factor.
            Yes missiles are a nice thought, CIWS type weapons, even miniguns against potential surface and shore based threats. unless these are modular and can be swapped in and out of vessels as required are they viable?
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              Not for buying, just the ability to vary role by the armament outfit. I see there is a refurbishment and almost doubling the life of the RN type 23 Frigates. Both HMS Argyle and Westminster have been extended to 35 years and outfitted with new Area Air Defence systems (FLAADS) and associated radars, plus information exchange. the other type 23's are to follow. They are being also outfitted with Sea-Ceptor missiles 25km range and up to 32 round units. The same missiles are being made available to the Batch 2 OPV's via a selection of systems containers. It seems to me with the retention of type 23's and the addition of types 26/31 that the RN will be increasing manpower.
              I'm not sure what your point is, this doubling of the service life was exactly what the RN wanted to avoid when they built them in the first place, as to their upgrades, that's being done as an attempt to hide the full costs of the Type 26. The Radar and Sea-Ceptor costs go into the "upgrade" costs and then get pulled and dropped into the 26's as/when they come online. Now the RN isn't alone in pulling accountancy tricks like that but it's not where they wanted to be.

              Not sure where you get an increase in manpower, the 23's are going to stay on line till the replacement with the 26 or a 31 depending on whether it's an ASW or GP 23, course if the UK procurement is anything like the 26's the 31 is still years away from starting building.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                I'm not sure what your point is, this doubling of the service life was exactly what the RN wanted to avoid when they built them in the first place, as to their upgrades, that's being done as an attempt to hide the full costs of the Type 26. The Radar and Sea-Ceptor costs go into the "upgrade" costs and then get pulled and dropped into the 26's as/when they come online. Now the RN isn't alone in pulling accountancy tricks like that but it's not where they wanted to be.

                Not sure where you get an increase in manpower, the 23's are going to stay on line till the replacement with the 26 or a 31 depending on whether it's an ASW or GP 23, course if the UK procurement is anything like the 26's the 31 is still years away from starting building.
                To me it is always a positive if your current fleet undergoes an extended life refit with an armament suit that will be viable until at least 2024/2026. I am also assuming that the type 23's , as refitted will be retained to boost frigate numbers, as some Type 26's come into the Line, to at least the levels originally sought by planners. I,m also noting while everybody else is uparming all ship types, we are still doing Fishery protection/police actions only. It is well to remember that naval failures have been down to budgetary constraints, jam tomorrow philosophies . All of our ships should have a basic Air Defence system. Other than main armament we are at 1950.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  I,m also noting while everybody else is uparming all ship types, we are still doing Fishery protection/police actions only.
                  Maybe we (the State) don't want to deploy the NS on more war like missions? That could be because we don't want to or because we don't have the properly equipped ships but the 2 go hand in hand.

                  But the deployment of the NS into a warzone isn't new (Beruit during the Lebanese Civil War on resupplies where they came much closer inshore). The potential enemy could potentially have anti-ship missiles yes.

                  If the NS went the way of New Zealand the NS would probably consist of 1 MRV and 2/3 Frigates at best. They would then be deploying frigates on Fishery Protection duties with crews at sea for probably 2 months at a time.

                  Comment


                  • Israelis went for the 76mm https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/isra...-us-440m-deal/
                    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      To me it is always a positive if your current fleet undergoes an extended life refit with an armament suit that will be viable until at least 2024/2026. I am also assuming that the type 23's , as refitted will be retained to boost frigate numbers, as some Type 26's come into the Line, to at least the levels originally sought by planners. I,m also noting while everybody else is uparming all ship types, we are still doing Fishery protection/police actions only. It is well to remember that naval failures have been down to budgetary constraints, jam tomorrow philosophies . All of our ships should have a basic Air Defence system. Other than main armament we are at 1950.
                      To me having to use Frigates designed for a 18 year life span for up to 30+ years because it's replacement project has been a farce due internal and external events is a very negative thing. Particularly as due to that delay and overruns (and remember the costs of the 26 are still too high even with this dodge on the 23's) the number of Frontline Frigates is to fall to only 8 and "something" will make up the difference as the 31 (that something ranging from a further up gunned and stretched River to a new blank sheet).
                      Also by the time the 26's come online (cause they still have a chance to slip) the material state of the 23's will be "worn out", and far more importantly for your idea of keeping them in service the SSBN project will be in full swing and eating the RN budget like nuts. Also while there has been proposals for fitting Sea Ceptor, I haven't seen any budget outlays to get them on board, it's more of a "hey why don't we?" which normally brings a quick response from the RN along the lines of "These are OPV's not bloody frontline ships!".

                      There are plenty of new OPV's that are built to the same weapon spec level, the difference being most of those navies have proper Warships to make up the difference. Also it's worth mentioning that the idea of "FFBNW" is now systemic within most Western Navies.

                      Comment


                      • Has not ARGYLL sea trialed the Sea-Ceptor. 18 years is too short a life for a high-end warship. Ask the US Navy about retaining capacity. The RN has ground through at least 9 classes of frigates since WW11 giving an average life of less then 10 years. All too experimental and pandering to industry.
                        Last edited by ancientmariner; 3 May 2017, 14:16.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          Has not ARGYLL sea trialed the Sea-Ceptor. !8 years is too short a life for a high-end warship. Ask the US Navy about retaining capacity. The RN has ground through at least 9 classes of frigates since WW11 giving an average life of less then 10 years. All too experimental and pandering to industry.
                          I was pointing out that the proposal for fitting them to the Batch 2 River's is still that, and proposal, suggesting that it means the RN is upgunning the OPV's doesn't hold up then. The last thing the RN admirals want is to allow the idea that the OPV's can operate in high threat environments (as then you get the usual issue of "it's grey and has a gun, so it's Frigate" from the public and the politicians.

                          As to the operational lifespan, first I'd leave the USN out of it, a) because of the price tag day 1 of their hulls, b) the sheer size of their budgets. As I've pointed out the RN had a very good reason for what they planned. You call it "pandering to industry" and when the RN gets OPV it REALLY doesn't want instead of Frigates that it really does that is pandering (and some of their Frigates were either designed for other waters (Tribals) or built "cheap" (21 and Blackwood class). However the need to maintain a sustainable build rate is also a valid concern (just look at the fallout of cancelling the "W" class post Cold War, the Astute build has been over budget/delayed and needed US support due to skill loss), the 26's have under various guises been in development now for the better part of 25 years now. The planned "low cost frigate" is now going to be as high as the 45's and the intention for international sales are all but gone.

                          The 23's will serve on, however when they are retired they will most likely be scrapped rather than sold (as they'll have no radar, no SAM's, a dead main gun at that stage), so instead of the plan that would have helped both the budgets and industry of the UK while increasing the chances of follow on replacement orders had the original plan been carried out, instead the RN Frigate size will fall to 8 + 5 "second rates" and 6 Destroyers...

                          Comment


                          • I think the issue is trying to align vessels with traditional concepts rather than future proofing them by making them more multi role.

                            The Americans seen to be heading this way , the retirement of the Hazard Perry Class of frigates is getting closer without real replacement in the same quantity on the table and the Arleigh Burkes get more multirole every day.

                            So do the RN have to come to a reasonable number where they can remove frigates and increase type 45s , is there a trade off to be had.

                            If OPVs can be packaged as emergency frigates, why build frigates at all if you have enough destroyers?

                            Many nations are now looking closer at multi role corvettes to replace specialist vessels such as missile boats and FPBs while shovelling on extras to make them mini frigates.

                            The optimal ship seems to have an anti ship missile fit, an anti aircraft suite, a main gun, secondary guns and a CIWS anti missile system throw in a helicopter and a reasonable sonar fit and you have an anti submarine capability. Now decide on the optimal platform, aim off for OPV seakeeping and dash speed of about 35kts... whatever plethora of power plants.. hey presto a pan class warship
                            Last edited by hptmurphy; 3 May 2017, 12:55.
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • I agree with some of your concerns. At least one contributor to Think Defence has Rivers being adapted, with Kevlar around the magazine compartment, to the point they can take moderate action damage. The whole RN building program has been dogged by trimmed designs , deferred fits , fragmented roles , and serial Batching. Most of the problem caused by shrinking current budgets with promises of more later, which in turn often leads to a totally different operational capability requiring further adaption to achieve a role slot in the Order of Battle. However , even allowing for that , in an OPV only Navy like ours , we must give our ships a fighting chance by giving our ships more teeth in all round Defence.

                              Comment


                              • The problem isn't so much shrinking budgets!

                                It is:
                                - increasing development time (increasing costs)
                                - design changes (increasing costs)
                                - poor project management (increasing costs)
                                - building delaying due to above (increasing costs)
                                - exclusively building RN warships in the UK (increasing costs)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X