Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Wanshan
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2004
    • 3929

    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Indeed utter rubbish, doing a bit of research the rumour first appeared Autumn last year in the Guardian. It was stomped down at the time by India when it was pointed out that they already have INS Vikramaditya in final fit out, the new IAS-1/INS Vikrant starting build at Cochin and a fifty to sixty thousand ton CTOL carrier IAC-2 planned. To sell PoW to India would require us undercutting Cochin which means selling at a massive loss and I doubt India would bite as it would be detrimental to their own shipbuilding industry.

    As for other countries that operate carriers or would like to:

    Brazil already has Sao Paulo that can soldier on for another fifteen years, PoW even reduced would be outside their potential budget to buy and operate. Finally I think they want something new, smaller (forty thousand tons I recon) and benefits local industry.

    China: Locally building new carriers and politically unacceptable.

    Argentina: no chance.

    Italy: built their own in the form of Cavour, will probably build more of the same

    Spain: Building their own for F35 in the form of Juan Carlos class.

    Thailand: can't afford to operate what they have.

    America: what would be the point?!

    South Korea: Might want external help designing but local production.

    Japan: Could afford it with their gold plated millitary budget but its far too big and aggressive for their liking. Also like South Korea would prefer local production.

    Australia: The Juan Carlos class they are buying with Ski Jumps would allow them to operate F35 if they want.
    How about France?

    Comment

    • flanker30
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Sep 2009
      • 517

      Hope this isn't a silly question, but if CVF was equipped with the Type 45's Sapmson radar and Aster VLS, could it dispense with the need for an air-defence destroyer?

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by flanker30 View Post
        Hope this isn't a silly question, but if CVF was equipped with the Type 45's Sapmson radar and Aster VLS, could it dispense with the need for an air-defence destroyer?
        Not really... For sure, it would be better capable to protect itself, but the fleet would still need Type 45 destroyers for a proper area defence, and CVF, besides, is not the only one asset the navy would need to protect: from amphibs to Fort class replenishers, there are ships which are incredibly precious and that the enemy would always try to destroy.

        So much that the Fort class was actually designed to have its own VLS system with Seawolf missiles, even if these have never been fitted in the end.

        The CVF, and ultimately possibly every ship in the fleet, in future will have the possibility to be armed in case of need with CAMM missiles, however: since CAMM needs no dedicate radar targeting and combat system and is "cold-launched" from sealed canisters, it can be fired from pretty much everywhere: the theory is that you can bolt the CAMM canister on the deck, acquire targets with the ship radar and fire the missile.
        ASTER, like any other missile currently around, needs a far more complex VLS system, because there are many questions to manage, included the flames and exhaust of the rocket engine.

        CAMM is fired 100 feet into the air by compressed, "cold" gas and ignites its rocket only after: that's why for the army the plan is to have palletized launchers with 12 canisters that can be mounted on pretty much any flatbed truck, cued for targeting by third-part radars. (the same used now by Rapier and the handful of more powerful Giraffe radars recently bought)

        Apparently, you could fit CAMM canisters even on the flight deck of HMS Clyde, if you needed to.

        For money reasons, however, it'll be already more than good enough if we see 3xPhalanx and 3/4 30 mm guns on the CVF. It may very well be the hundredth case of "fitted for but not with".
        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

        Comment

        • harryRIEDL
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2006
          • 375

          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
          Not really... For sure, it would be better capable to protect itself, but the fleet would still need Type 45 destroyers for a proper area defence, and CVF, besides, is not the only one asset the navy would need to protect: from amphibs to Fort class replenishers, there are ships which are incredibly precious and that the enemy would always try to destroy.

          So much that the Fort class was actually designed to have its own VLS system with Seawolf missiles, even if these have never been fitted in the end.

          The CVF, and ultimately possibly every ship in the fleet, in future will have the possibility to be armed in case of need with CAMM missiles, however: since CAMM needs no dedicate radar targeting and combat system and is "cold-launched" from sealed canisters, it can be fired from pretty much everywhere: the theory is that you can bolt the CAMM canister on the deck, acquire targets with the ship radar and fire the missile.
          ASTER, like any other missile currently around, needs a far more complex VLS system, because there are many questions to manage, included the flames and exhaust of the rocket engine.

          CAMM is fired 100 feet into the air by compressed, "cold" gas and ignites its rocket only after: that's why for the army the plan is to have palletized launchers with 12 canisters that can be mounted on pretty much any flatbed truck, cued for targeting by third-part radars. (the same used now by Rapier and the handful of more powerful Giraffe radars recently bought)

          Apparently, you could fit CAMM canisters even on the flight deck of HMS Clyde, if you needed to.

          For money reasons, however, it'll be already more than good enough if we see 3xPhalanx and 3/4 30 mm guns on the CVF. It may very well be the hundredth case of "fitted for but not with".
          especially as as ARTISAN on the CVF will be the same as the T-26. although the best option in my opinion is perhaps replacing a Phalanx mount with a CAMM canister so you don't sacrifice deck space for it
          To Be or not TO be That is The Question you all should know the writer of that quote

          always look on the bright side of life monty python

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by harryRIEDL View Post
            especially as as ARTISAN on the CVF will be the same as the T-26. although the best option in my opinion is perhaps replacing a Phalanx mount with a CAMM canister so you don't sacrifice deck space for it
            Canisters could always be bolted to the sponsons, or to the extremities of the flight deck, without eating space up.
            Also, CAMM should present nearly no problem of integration: on the Type 26 it will be fired by its own canister, and on the Type 45 it is theorically possible to fit 4 CAMM canisters into a single cell of the VLS system. The only integration required would be to ensure the VLS launch tube opens when the CAMM must be fired, but the missile does not need to be integrated in the launchers as it has its own unique launch system.

            The CAMM on Type 45 could replace the Aster 15, with the latter missile possibly being converted to Aster 30 by changing the launch booster, since that's the only difference between 15 and 30.

            Another interesting feature of CAMM is that it was reported that MBDA was looking at making it suitable for anti-surface work as well. Against small targets, it could be very handy.

            Ideally, the Type 26 should have a "strike depth" missile compartment for VLS canisters. A couple of 8-cell sections of MK41 Strike Lenght could be basic fit, armed with Tomahawks, while 2 more eight cell blocks would be CAMM canisters, but with space reservation to fit additional MK41 launchers in exchange. In a graphic i have of the Type 26 apparently there's a second, dedicated CAMM launcher over the helicopter hangar, after all.
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • Hawkeye
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Dec 2009
              • 70

              Originally posted by F/A-18RN View Post
              Do you think that this thread and this one: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...d.php?t=102272 should be merged?
              My personal opinion is no for the following reason. This thread is about CVF construction which has drifted into more general SDR issues but ultimately is focussed on the CVF carrier and its air group. The UK F/A-18F purchase thread is focused on that issue in the event the UK views the F-35 as unaffordable, and inter-play between the RN & RAF over the possible purchase.

              I feel I should tip my hat to the posters in this thread as I'm learning more about various world navies and the context in which CVF is expected to operate. I'm not taking anything away from either thread, I've posted in both but they serve different purposes.

              Comment

              • Fedaykin
                Fueled by Tea
                • Dec 2005
                • 5290

                On that line of thinking there is no reason why you couldn't get Aster to fire on a ship, probably would require a software fix. Considering the Americans test fire Standard against surface targets and Aster is an active missile you could probably program it to fire at a target on the horizon or even over the horizon with off platform targeting.
                Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                Comment

                • Liger30
                  Armed Forces supporter
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 901

                  Talking about contest of operations... I'm the only one who believes Europe, and ultimately the UK, is downplaying dangerously the dangers of an uncertain future, and largely closing its eyes in front of a rapidly modernizing and growing-in-power russian military by saying "they won't be a threat"?
                  Let me clarify, i too believe that any serious conflict in Europe is unlikely for many more years, but i don't like how this mantra is given as a certainty. If you think about it, it is based on thin air, ultimately. Russia has not been playing friendly with many states of the east europe (remember the Iskander missiles aimed at Poland for example), it is rearming (or better, modernizing and expanding its capabilities) and growing back in power and influence. The Georgia war showed that, albeit not without defects and faults, the russian military can still swiftly deploy overwhelming power and conduct complex military operations.
                  Russia plans to buy at least two Mistral ships, and buy possibly 3 more. It wants to refit and put back in service at least one more of the colossal Kirov battlecruisers left of the old fleet, it is building new SSBNs, new SSNs, new Frigates, new missiles, new planes, included the Stealth PAK-FA that western sources had deemed "propaganda" until it flied, and it has announced it is to increase military spending a lot in the next years. Admirals even announced they plan 5/6 carrier groups (!).

                  While the last point IS (hopefully) propaganda, the rest are facts.
                  And another fact is that such rearming process is not aimed at China either, since the largest fleet of Russia still is the North Fleet, and it is the one that's getting the new vessels as well, included the Borei, the Graney, and the Lada destined to replace the infamous Kilo subs.
                  Is it so wise to constantly downplay Russia in front of such facts...?

                  Again, if we justify India's and China massive military expansion with the fact that China, India and Pakistan (and possibly Russia) are uneasy neighboors at risk of ending up in a war... Is it wise to assume Europe wouldn't be endangered/involved?

                  Perhaps i'm just a pessimist/militarist... but i see a lot of easy optimism in European planning, and i don't see any concrete argument supporting such bordless optimism.
                  As someone correctly pointed out to me recently, India is perhaps the main commercial partner of the UK, to tell all but one fact: this alone would inevitably have cruel effects on the UK economy if India was to be involved in a conflict.

                  That's why i think the CVFs and the planes to fly off them should have been, even more than Trident, the cornerstone of the defence plan, ringfenced clearly and decisively against cutbacks.
                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    On that line of thinking there is no reason why you couldn't get Aster to fire on a ship, probably would require a software fix. Considering the Americans test fire Standard against surface targets and Aster is an active missile you could probably program it to fire at a target on the horizon or even over the horizon with off platform targeting.
                    Sea Dart was capable to hit surface targets, and there's at least a version of Sea Sparrow which can do it as well. Probably it would be possible to fire Aster at surface targets as well... but software modifications would be the very least needed to allow that, and no one is going to put the money on the table for that.

                    CAMM, it has been said, may be rolled out with that capability from the start: MBDA has been told to do it within the budget already agreed, though. Not an extra penny for that. Personally, i hope they manage to obtain that capability.
                    For land-based used in particular, it would be a blessing, as it would make more flexible the air defence units, and more useful in any kind of operation.
                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                    Comment

                    • Hawkeye
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Dec 2009
                      • 70

                      Aircraft Carrier Alliance awards sub-contracts

                      http://www.theengineer.co.uk/aircraf...004038.article

                      Aircraft Carrier Alliance awards sub-contracts

                      30 July 2010

                      The alliance responsible for delivering the UKs Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers is awarding four more sub-contracts worth almost 33.2m.

                      A total of around 1.5bn worth of sub-contracts have been awarded by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA), which includes Babcock, BAE Systems, Thales UK and the Ministry of Defence, for building the new range of Royal Navy aircraft carriers known as the Queen Elizabeth Class.

                      Once fully built the 65,000 tonne carriers will be three times the size and double the width of existing ships with a range of 8,000 to 10,000 nautical miles. Once in service the new class of ship will be capable of holding 40 aircraft.

                      Each ship will rely on six main electrical generators that together can generate 80MW of power.

                      The first carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, is due to enter service in 2016.

                      Seven UK suppliers have recently been awarded contracts for providing a number of vital services and parts for the ships, including the massive storage facility near Glasgow where components and equipment for the ships will be securely stored prior to being fitted on to the aircraft carriers.

                      That contract, worth 18m, was bestowed to Wiltshire-based logistical and distribution service Wincanton.

                      Balfour Beatty Engineering Services have been awarded a 15m contract to install cables and containment on the modules being constructed at the Scottish district Govan prior to final integration at the coastal town of Rosyth. Once the ships are completed a reported 2,500km of cable will be installed.

                      A contract worth over 44,000 has been awarded to Glasgow based company Edmundson Electrical for glands, which are used to pack and make airtight the cables that run throughout the ships.

                      Jetway Associates of Wiltshire has been awarded a contract for 137,000 for the supply of hose baskets, which form part of the fire fighting equipment on the ships.

                      The award of these contracts by the ACA takes the programme to build the QE Class a stage further forward, adding several more companies to the supply chain.

                      Geoff Searle, the ACA programme director, said the alliance has been making excellent progress over the last 12 months in the build of the Queen Elizabeth and across the supply chain.

                      We have currently placed around 1.25bn worth of contracts with companies right across the UK, which means that the majority of contracts to supply parts for these impressive ships have now been agreed, he said.

                      Earlier this week, we officially welcomed Cammell Laird in Birkenhead on to the build programme when the first vertical steel plate for the flight deck was laid at the Merseyside facility. This means that all six UK ship yards involved in the programme have now begun work and its great to see such tangible progress being made.

                      Comment

                      • nocutstoRAF
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • May 2010
                        • 954

                        Does anyone know if the reference in the above post to: “Each ship will rely on six main electrical generators that together can generate 80MW of power”, is referring to the 2 gas turbines and 4 diesel generators or is reference to them install 6 diesel generators.

                        The reason I ask is on the RN website the power output of the 2 gas turbines and 4 diesel generators is 109 MW not 80 MW.

                        http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operatio...-class/design/

                        EDIT: I think it is a typo as the electric motors are rated 80 MW according Navy Matters and the 4 diesel generators were meant to provide around 40 MW but I would be grateful if anyone has a definite answer.
                        Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 4th August 2010, 06:28.
                        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                          Does anyone know if the reference in the above post to: “Each ship will rely on six main electrical generators that together can generate 80MW of power”, is referring to the 2 gas turbines and 4 diesel generators or is reference to them install 6 diesel generators.

                          The reason I ask is on the RN website the power output of the 2 gas turbines and 4 diesel generators is 109 MW not 80 MW.

                          http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operatio...-class/design/

                          EDIT: I think it is a typo as the electric motors are rated 80 MW according Navy Matters and the 4 diesel generators were meant to provide around 40 MW but I would be grateful if anyone has a definite answer.
                          It is not a real error. The total power output is stated at 109 MW, and what i've found myself goes in the same direction, with a power output of 109/110 MW:



                          The propulsion is given by 2 Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbines each rated at 36 MW, plus 2 Wartsila generators of 9 MW each and a further two rated at 11/12 MW each.
                          However, the graphic i found on Navy matters reports than 80MW of that total output are used for propelling the ship, and the rest goes for supplying energy to the rest of the vessel's systems:

                          By March 2005 it became clear that configuration has solidified on 2 x 36 MW MT30 gas turbine alternators, 2 x 11MW diesel generators and 2 x 9 MW diesel generators. Total generating capacity is about 110MW, some 80MW of which will be consumed by the four 20MW electric, two driving each shaft.

                          The 5-blade propellers, expected to be supplied by a subsidiary of Rolls-Royce, will be of bolted variable pitch type. Controllable pitch propellers are impracticable due to the torque constraints that would imposed given the amount of power being applied through just two shafts. Instead the blades will be bolted, but can be adjusted every few years either during docking periods or even by divers, in order to allow for the growth of the ships displacement and in order to maintain optimum efficiency. It will also be possible for the ships to carry a spare blade.

                          Initial maximum design speed in a clean hull condition was projected in 2005 to be 26.6 kts at 65,000 tonnes.
                          So the article may be right in its way, as it probably means 80MW for the pure propulsion.
                          Last edited by Liger30; 4th August 2010, 06:55.
                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                          Comment

                          • nocutstoRAF
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2010
                            • 954

                            Thanks - I think the article got confused by the power needed by the 4 electric motors and the power generation requirement. For a minute or two I thought it meant that they were looking at installing the two gas turbines and 6 rather than 4 diesel generators but once I put some effort in to check I found the same page on Defence Matters as you did.
                            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                            Comment

                            • Liger30
                              Armed Forces supporter
                              • Jul 2010
                              • 901

                              As to armour and protection, instead, i finally found again the excellent article of Navy Matters about that:

                              Unlike all British carriers prior to the Invincible-class, no significant amount of armour - be it hardened steel, composite or ceramic - is likely to be included in the CVF design, although details are classified.

                              As key assets the CVF's will be heavily guarded by escorting ships such as the Type 45 destroyer, but if all other measures fail they must be able to protect themselves from any "residual threats" that penetrate the defences of their escorts. During 2001 threat and vulnerability studies were undertaken by the Centre for Defence Analysis (CDA) for CVF, these studies took in to account big changes in the nature of the threat since the 20,000 tonnes Invincible-class were designed in the early 1970's, back then it was considered almost pointless trying to provided structural defence against the type of Soviet heavyweight torpedoes' and missiles likely to be encountered in the North Atlantic, if the ship stayed afloat after a hit, that was the best that could be expected. Nowadays the threats are far more diverse, as well as "traditional" anti-ship missiles and torpedoes launched from aircraft, patrol boats, submarines or surface ships, the RN has become very aware of new threats in littorals and confined waters such as suicide speed boats. The much larger CVF's will have to be able to cope with scenarios never considered for the Invincible class, for example it would be extremely embarrassing (at the very least) if a small craft approached a CVF in harbour and was able to disable her with just a hail of RPG's and light cannon fire.

                              In 2002 QinetiQ were awarded a contract by the MOD to study the vulnerability of the competing BAE and Thales design concepts to damage from a wide variety of mechanisms that could be inflicted by an above water or underwater attack. QinetiQ also studied the possibility that an explosion in one weapons magazine might trigger a similar explosion in another magazine.

                              Since the down-select in January 2003, QinetiQ have continued to assist the ACA at stages in the platform design process. They use their Survive rapid vulnerability assessment tool develop an appropriate computer model of CVF and determine how vulnerable the design is, why it was vulnerable and what can be done to make it less vulnerable. Survive simulates a multitude of primary and secondary damage mechanisms including: blast, fragmentation, shock, whipping, residual strength, flooding, fire and smoke and crew movement. QinetiQ have helped optimise the armour levels without compromising protection - in some areas suggestions were that armour levels were increased and in others that they were reduced. They also considered the number of casualties that might occur as the result of a weapon strike.

                              Based upon the results of the threat studies, side armour and blast resistant bulkheads were incorporated in to the 2002/3 Thales CVF Alpha design in order to protect important compartments such as the Operations Room, resulting in a very tough ship. However as part of the cost cutting trade-off's made during the second half of 2003, many of these protective measures apparently had to be deleted.

                              In the CVF Delta design concept adopted in December 2003, considerable emphasis was instead placed upon including military standard damage control facilities, extensive internal subdivision and bulkheads, and providing the infrastructure for a high quality NBCD organisation. It now seems that the primary protection of critical spaces such as magazines, steering gear, and ops rooms will be the location of these compartments deep in the ship. But it remains possible that some such spaces will quietly receive some physical protection such as Kevlar for splinter protection. The inclusion, or not, of such passive protection during the design and manufacture is likely to be classified, in accordance with recent practice. In April 2007 the CVF IPT Team Leader, Rear Admiral Bob Love, stated "Specific Naval and Defence Standards have also been retained in other areas where a commercial equivalent is not appropriate such as the magazines. Remember that the size of the vessel alone does give a degree of protection and this has allowed us to make pragmatic adjustments to the design."

                              The CVF design is not "stealthy", but considerable effort is being made to reduce signatures (radar, heat, acoustic) to a degree that allows the effective use of passive soft kill countermeasures and off board decoys. When "clean", a 280m long 65,000 tonnes displacement CVF carrier will have a radar return similar to a 38m 300 tonnes trawler.

                              In late 2003 a cost cutting design review included the deletion of all hard kill weapon systems and a reliance on soft-kill defences alone (while retaining 'fitted for but not with' provisions for close-in weapons). One MOD is quoted as saying The reality is that these ships will never leave port without being in a taskforce, including submarines and destroyers to protect them.

                              The graphics first published in 2004 showed three Phalanx CIWS mounts for final defence against aircraft and missiles, and four MSI DS30B 30mm light calibre cannons for self defence against small surface targets in littoral waters, anchorages and harbours. Some of the locations seemed to be rather exposed (the portside forward sponsons) or less than ideal (the stern Phalanx mount).

                              Graphics since 2004 have continued to regularly show what appear to be Phalanx and MSI 30mm cannon mounts - although the locations have been tweaked to give better firing arcs.
                              So we are definitely risking to see CVFs fitted with not even Phalanx. Unless, of course, some can be recovered from the Type 42 that go out of service.
                              The Type 45 HMS Daring now has been accepted in service officially, but still i checked the latest photos and still it is missing the Phalanx.

                              Is it so complex to dismount them from the retired Type 42 and move them to the newest ships? Phalanx is designed to be a "bolt-on" device, the RN personell should be more than capable to move them from a ship to the other without any extra-expense being needed.

                              Same goes for the Stingray torpedoes. The Type 42 had Stingray launchers: these could be most likely moved to the Type 45 as well, i'm guessing.
                              Why is it taking so long to do so...?
                              "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                              Comment

                              • nocutstoRAF
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2010
                                • 954

                                I thought the UK operated a pool of Phalanx and fitted them to the ships that needed them as and when needed. After all a task force sitting in the Gulf Sea will likely get them, but a frigate patrolling the Caribbean is unlikely to need them - still not an ideal a way of doing things fitting them based on perceived risk rather as standard.
                                If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                  I thought the UK operated a pool of Phalanx and fitted them to the ships that needed them as and when needed. After all a task force sitting in the Gulf Sea will likely get them, but a frigate patrolling the Caribbean is unlikely to need them - still not an ideal a way of doing things fitting them based on perceived risk rather as standard.
                                  Not really... 3 Phalanx are always on Ocean and 3 on Ark. Invincible, Lusty, Albion, Bulwark and the Type 22s have the Goalkeepers instead, and these can't be moved around easily, since differently from Phalanx they are invasive of the ship and have under-deck equipment.
                                  The Fort Class Replenishers are stated to have 2 Phalanx for self defence, but it does not seem to be a standard fit: in many photos on the internet the ships lack them, so i guess they are fitted only when deemed necessary.
                                  The Bay class and the Wave class ships can be fitted with a couple of Phalanx whenever it is needed.
                                  The other Phalanx are installed in couples on the Type 42s. Some may have already been removed from older Type 42s to be used to build up Centurion land-based C-RAM systems (first Centurion UK used was leased by the US, but i think that 3 batteries at least were later formed, if someone has better info please share), but i think at least 5 (perhaps 6 or more) Type 42 still certainly have their Phalanx: this would mean 10 systems, enough to equip (finally!) at least 5 Type 45.

                                  In April 2006 the Royal Navy ordered 16 Phalanx Block 1B upgrade kits through a $57 million contract awarded to Raytheon. Kit deliveries were expected to start in September 2007 and complete six years later. The Block 1B makes the Phalanx capable to engage surface targets as well, like small, fast-movers. Not all the Phalanx of the RN are going to be upgraded, evidently. Not anytime soon at least.
                                  Last edited by Liger30; 4th August 2010, 08:08.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • nocutstoRAF
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2010
                                    • 954

                                    Okay - I must of got my wired crossed as I am sure I read about a pool of Phalanxs available for fitting but I assume that I confused it with the 16 Phalanx being upgraded.

                                    So how many CIWS systems is the RN short by if they were to fit it a CIWS on every ship that was designed to accommodate them?

                                    Also when CAMM and the new soft kill system's come on line later in the decade is it likely that they will phase out Phalanx? i.e. does CAMM have the ability to provide last ditch defence against sea skimming missiles?
                                    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                    Comment

                                    • Liger30
                                      Armed Forces supporter
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 901

                                      Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                      Okay - I must of got my wired crossed as I am sure I read about a pool of Phalanxs available for fitting but I assume that I confused it with the 16 Phalanx being upgraded.

                                      So how many CIWS systems is the RN short by if they were to fit it a CIWS on every ship that was designed to accommodate them?

                                      Also when CAMM and the new soft kill system's come on line later in the decade is it likely that they will phase out Phalanx? i.e. does CAMM have the ability to provide last ditch defence against sea skimming missiles?
                                      Making a few rapid counts:
                                      4x2 = 8 Phalanx for the Bay class.
                                      2x2 = 4 Phalanx for the Wave
                                      2x4 = 8 Phalanx for the Fort class
                                      6x2 = 12 Phalanx for the Type 45
                                      (3x2= 6 Phalanx for CVF)

                                      Ideally, the RN of the immediate future would need to get, between new buy and upgrades, a total of 32 Phalanx 1B if i'm not wrong.
                                      Again, the Type 26 is expected to have a couple of Phalanx herself, so
                                      10x2 = 20 another 20 Phalanx

                                      CAMM, just like Seawolf, is a missile designed for self-defence of ships at sea. Point defence against planes and missiles as well.
                                      However, every graphic of the Type 26 shows a couple of Phalanx fitted to it for true last-ditch defence, so no. The CAMM, just like Seawolf, would be complemented by Phalanx.

                                      However, the Type 26 may end up fitted with Sea Ram, more than Phalanx, since Phalanx is getting outdated, and several years have still to pass before the first Type 26 comes out. Since Sea Ram was expected already for Type 45, i'm assuming that the Type 26 truly will get it.
                                      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                      Comment

                                      • kev 99
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2008
                                        • 1535

                                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                        Making a few rapid counts:
                                        4x2 = 8 Phalanx for the Bay class.
                                        2x2 = 4 Phalanx for the Wave
                                        2x4 = 8 Phalanx for the Fort class
                                        6x2 = 12 Phalanx for the Type 45
                                        (3x2= 6 Phalanx for CVF)
                                        I thought CVF Carried 4 Phalanx mounts?

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
                                          I thought CVF Carried 4 Phalanx mounts?
                                          Depending on the graphic images shown, they have been presented with 3 and 4 alike.

                                          The latest graphic images show 4x30 mm guns and just 3 Phalanx: 2 at both sides of the bow on sponsons, and only one aft, on a sponson on the port side.

                                          Ideally, 4 would be better: the coverage would be far better and more complete. But, as we know, actually even 3 are going to be almost a dream...
                                          Last edited by Liger30; 4th August 2010, 08:40.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X