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
  • nocutstoRAF
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2010
    • 954

    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)

    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    However, the Type 26 may end up fitted with Sea Ram, more than Phalanx, since Phalanx is getting outdated, and several years have still to pass before the first Type 26 comes out.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.
    So we are easily looking at cost of a couple of frigates to buy or upgrade all the Phalanx's and install them on every ship - I think that the RN might plumb for the ships

    I still think a lot of the time they will have either CAMM or Phalanx and not both, with a space left for the other system, especially as the post you put up earlier with text from Navy Matters seemed to suggest that reduce radar cross sections improve the functionality of soft kill systems - and the MIDAS programme is also about improving soft kill systems so taken together soft kill (decoys and the like) might be how RN plan to deal with most missile threats.

    I do not know much more about the MIDAS programme that what I have said about as all my information is from this article on Jane's http://www.janes.com/news/defence/id...0727_1_n.shtml
    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

    Comment

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

      Remember the number of Phalanx units available to the RN right now is a little deceptive to say the least, a number of units (around 18 I think) are going through upgrades to block 1b status presently, there is also a number that have been deployed to protect coalition bases in Afghanistan.

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
        So we are easily looking at cost of a couple of frigates to buy or upgrade all the Phalanx's and install them on every ship - I think that the RN might plumb for the ships

        I still think a lot of the time they will have either CAMM or Phalanx and not both, with a space left for the other system, especially as the post you put up earlier with text from Navy Matters seemed to suggest that reduce radar cross sections improve the functionality of soft kill systems - and the MIDAS programme is also about improving soft kill systems so taken together soft kill (decoys and the like) might be how RN plan to deal with most missile threats.

        I do not know much more about the MIDAS programme that what I have said about as all my information is from this article on Jane's http://www.janes.com/news/defence/id...0727_1_n.shtml
        16 Phalanx 1B costed 57 millions. A few more could be updated. The RN should have at the very least 20 Phalanx around. Upgrade them all would have costed in theory around 70 millions.

        At a unitary cost of 7/8 million dollars, a further 32 Phalanx would cost 256 million.
        Total cost (possible) of fitting phalanx on every ship expected to use it would thus be in the region of the 326/330 million dollars. Not a little amount... but at least the Type 26 should be fitted with the CIWS from the start.
        With Harpoon, radars, CAMM, sonar and torpedoes to come from the Type 23 going out of service, the Phalanx would be one of the very few pieces of combat system that would have to be bought for the new frigates, including (hopefully) the 155/39 gun upgrade on the MK8 gun mount and eventually 16 MK41 strike lenght canisters with Tomahawk missiles. I think that 16 US million dollars to arm a frigate aren't such a frightening amount, considering that most of the weapons fit of the new vessels will not be new, but just moved from old to new hulls.

        Seriously, the Type 26 should be quite economic a warship (it'll better be, or the RN won't be able to get them), all things considered.
        The Phalanx coming from the Invincibles and the Type 42 should be enough to refit CVFs and Type 45s, and this would give a well protected fleet.
        "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

          Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
          Remember the number of Phalanx units available to the RN right now is a little deceptive to say the least, a number of units (around 18 I think) are going through upgrades to block 1b status presently, there is also a number that have been deployed to protect coalition bases in Afghanistan.
          16, as of 57 million dollars contract with Raytheon. We considered that already.

          I dunno how many Centurion land-based C-RAM systems the UK ultimately produced. I think they aren't more than 3. The first land-based unit was leased from the US in 2007, 3 more may have been produced for the UK with ex-Type 42 Phalanx... but that should be all of it, actually.
          And it was deployed in Iraq, actually. I'm not sure if there are UK Centurion batteries at Camp Bastion: C-RAM protection may well be supplied by the US forces, and FOBs do not have C-RAM coverage.

          I'm trying to find more info about UK Centurion batteries, but it is a not-well covered subject.
          Last edited by Liger30; 4th August 2010, 09:37.
          "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

            Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
            16 Phalanx 1B costed 57 millions. A few more could be updated. The RN should have at the very least 20 Phalanx around. Upgrade them all would have costed in theory around 70 millions.

            At a unitary cost of 7/8 million dollars, a further 32 Phalanx would cost 256 million.
            Total cost (possible) of fitting phalanx on every ship expected to use it would thus be in the region of the 326/330 million dollars. Not a little amount... but at least the Type 26 should be fitted with the CIWS from the start.
            With Harpoon, radars, CAMM, sonar and torpedoes to come from the Type 23 going out of service, the Phalanx would be one of the very few pieces of combat system that would have to be bought for the new frigates, including (hopefully) the 155/39 gun upgrade on the MK8 gun mount and eventually 16 MK41 strike lenght canisters with Tomahawk missiles. I think that 16 US million dollars to arm a frigate aren't such a frightening amount, considering that most of the weapons fit of the new vessels will not be new, but just moved from old to new hulls.

            Seriously, the Type 26 should be quite economic a warship (it'll better be, or the RN won't be able to get them), all things considered.
            The Phalanx coming from the Invincibles and the Type 42 should be enough to refit CVFs and Type 45s, and this would give a well protected fleet.
            If Type 26 comes in at the same sort of price as FREMM - in the region of ~ 250 million then I would be happy but I read yesterday that the Type 26 will be closer to 500 million. However if they want to export the Type 26 it got to come in at the lower end. The cost of fitting phalanx across the board is more like the cost of three maybe four OPV's (using the Spanish BAM as an example) than a couple of frigates - I still think that if the RN has the money to fit Phalanx across the board they would be better off buying the OPV's than fitting the Phalanx.
            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

            Comment

            • Liger30
              Armed Forces supporter
              • Jul 2010
              • 901

              From http://www.timripley.co.uk/articles/...oys_c_ram.pdf:

              Phalanx was first tested for C-RAM applications in November 2004. It entered service with the US Army the
              following year and is fully integrated with the service's Forward Area Air Defense (FAAD) command-and-control
              system.
              Jane's understands that the UK is initially acquiring a C-RAM capability through the lease of a number of US
              Army LPWS (Land-based Phalanx Weapon System) systems for a six-month period through to mid-November 2007. It has also acquired a single
              FAAD system.
              It even seems the UK has no C-RAM centurions batteries anymore. Two were used in Basra, but they were apparently handed back to the americans after the end of the operations.
              "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

                Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                If Type 26 comes in at the same sort of price as FREMM - in the region of ~ 250 million then I would be happy but I read yesterday that the Type 26 will be closer to 500 million. However if they want to export the Type 26 it got to come in at the lower end. The cost of fitting phalanx across the board is more like the cost of three maybe four OPV's (using the Spanish BAM as an example) than a couple of frigates - I still think that if the RN has the money to fit Phalanx across the board they would be better off buying the OPV's than fitting the Phalanx.
                I don't see why the Type 26 should cost that much. And anyway, Italy planned to spend 5680 million euro for 10 ships, spending to continue up to the 2018. That gives a 568 million euro for every hull at least.

                I firmly believe that the RN can and must pursue a far lower unitary cost, and i think that BAe can most likely obtain it by using as many as possible of the components already available.
                From the hull, closer as possible to the Type 45's to generate savings, commonality and to exploit the building experience gathered with the 6 destroyers, to the weapon system, that's the most expensive component, but that will almost entirely come from the Type 23 that are to be replaced. (sonar, Artisan radar, Harpoon missiles, 30 mm guns, Stingray, the mount of the main gun, the CAMM missiles... that all is planned to move from Type 23 to 26. Damn, if the costs can't be contained this time, then it is better to have the next ships built in Italy or France for real...)
                "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 nocutstoRAF View Post
                  If Type 26 comes in at the same sort of price as FREMM - in the region of ~ 250 million then I would be happy but I read yesterday that the Type 26 will be closer to 500 million. However if they want to export the Type 26 it got to come in at the lower end. The cost of fitting phalanx across the board is more like the cost of three maybe four OPV's (using the Spanish BAM as an example) than a couple of frigates - I still think that if the RN has the money to fit Phalanx across the board they would be better off buying the OPV's than fitting the Phalanx.
                  Err aren't the FREMMs supposed to come in at a price of half a billion Euros?

                  Comment

                  • nocutstoRAF
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • May 2010
                    • 954

                    I saw a price on a military procurement website which said 4 Italian FREMM's at 340 million Euro's each and did not look too far or note down the website I can re-look if need be but I will take others word that they are roughly half a billion Euro's each.

                    If the Type 26's come out a 500 million each then that would be in-line with FREMM but it seems quite high for export purposes - is there a bench mark for what a 6,000 multi-role Frigate would normally cost?
                    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 saw a price on a military procurement website which said 4 Italian FREMM's at 340 million Euro's each and did not look too far or note down the website I can re-look if need be but I will take others word that they are roughly half a billion Euro's each.

                      If the Type 26's come out a 500 million each then that would be in-line with FREMM but it seems quite high for export purposes - is there a bench mark for what a 6,000 multi-role Frigate would normally cost?
                      Italy is paying 568 millions euro for each FREMM, cost likely to increase if the last four out of a planned order of 10 are cancelled because an alternative buyer can't be found.
                      French FREMM most likely cost even more, because the planned order of 17 frigates has been cut back to 11, and 4 have been partially "re-roled" to support the 2 Horizon destroyers in air-defence duty.

                      This said, the FREMM is a fantastic piece of equipment, and the italian version is to be fitted with the same VLS system of the Type 45, so that each FREMM will be able to possibly embark not just Aster 15 for self defence, but also Aster 30 for wider area coverage, even if the ship will need external targeting to fully exploit the longer range missiles.
                      Teseo anti-ship missiles and Milas anti-ship missiles are also the fit, in addition to MU90 light torpedoes. The General Purpose variant has an excellent 127 mm gun and a 76 mm Strales that also works as CIWS, the ASW variant two 76 mm Strales. Both have hangar space for two choppers and a mission bay aft.

                      The Type 26 in contrast will be a mere hull, until CAMM, guns, torpedoes, sonar, radar and RIBS are moved to it from the Type 23s retiring. It MUST be far cheaper. If the shipyards can't roll out a hull for a decent price, then it is better for the UK to buy FREMM frigates built in France or in Italy and just ask to install different missiles and guns and main radar. Also, i hope the non-sense of single-helo hangar with additional dog-kennel for UAVs is abandoned as soon as possible for a far smarter larger, two-helo hangar.
                      The UK has no Fire Scout drones, so it makes no sense to make a hangar for them on the ship. And even if it was, it could and should be stored alongside the Merlin chopper in a larger hangar that can, in case of need, take two proper helicopters.
                      A larger hangar is more flexible and does not cost anything more than the ridiculous hangar+mini hangar. If one only chopper gets embarked, fine, so be it. But at least there would be space to embark another one, and not just UAVs.

                      Anyway, the Type 26 must definitely come out at a price well lower than 500 millions. 500 millions could be assumed as a fair price for a 6000 tons frigate well armed and with state of the art sensors.
                      But since the Type 26, especially if Tomahawk remains once more just a wish without happy ending, is going to be built for the RN positively unarmed, with most of the weapon system being moved from Type 23 to Type 26, i'm expecting the unit cost to be far lower.

                      If the hull alone costs 500 millions, then something is seriously, seriously wrong with british shipbuilding at this point. No, i'm expecting the Type 26 to cost no more than 300 millions a piece. And possibly less. If the RN needs to bite BAe team's necks every few minutes to obtain this result, so be it.
                      Otherwise the Navy will be unable to renew its fleet, simple like that.
                      "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 - is it given that they will be moving weapons from retired ships to arm the Type 26's? -Are they still looking at BAE's TMF proposal - 155 mm main gun in the 4.5 inch gun turrets? In any case there will installing Artisan Radar, new soft kill systems, and I thought they would be installing new VLS systems as well but I might be wrong.

                        While I could not find the link I read (I think it might have been comment on a blog), Think Defence says the initial estimate is 400 million per ship.
                        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 - is it given that they will be moving weapons from retired ships to arm the Type 26's? -Are they still looking at BAE's TMF proposal - 155 mm main gun in the 4.5 inch gun turrets? In any case there will installing Artisan Radar, new soft kill systems, and I thought they would be installing new VLS systems as well but I might be wrong.

                          While I could not find the link I read (I think it might have been comment on a blog), Think Defence says the initial estimate is 400 million per ship.
                          The Artisan radar is being installed on the Type 23 and is planned to move to the Type 26 later.

                          The CAMM missile is planned to replace Seawolf on the Type 23 in 2018, and then move to the Type 26.

                          The latest sonar equipment is slated to follow the same course (i think only 8 sonars have been ordered so far, though, so 2 more may have to be bought)

                          30 guns should definitely move onwards.

                          The 155 mm gun is in stall: i mailed a Media response center about it and was told that the gun was fired in trials in a Scotland range and performed satisfactorily. They said me that they are lobbying the government into signing a 10 millions agreement to refine the prototype and develop a final, ready-for-production system. Considering the potential savings coming from using a single stock of 155 mm ammo for army and navy, i'm hoping the RN will pay that little amount in time. There's evidently no hurry to spend at the moment, though, and we'll possibly have to wait some more.
                          However, i think the current phase of study and design was intended to last into the 2011, so it may just be on its natural course.
                          Was i in Bae, though, i'd spend something autonomously to complete the design without waiting for the government funding, because i believe a 155 mm naval gun capable to use standard NATO army-type ammo would have MASSIVE export potential. They could complete the work and then make an offer to fit the gun on Type 26 and refit the Type 45 with it as well during docking periods.

                          New VLS systems: it is hoped that the Type 26, as Strike warship, will be fitted with 8/16 "Strike Lenght" MK41 cells, capable to take Tomahawks, ASROC, SM3 and everything else. But this is far for certain or even probable, and it is too early to say if the navy will manage to get this capability or if, like with the Type 45, the ship will end up "fitted for, but not with".

                          Stingray launchers: i think they'll move from ship to ship, as no upgrade to the system is planned that i know of.

                          Finally, i read that figure as well on Think Defence, but i won't assume it as a mantra. I doubt the RN would confirm such a figure if asked: they sure aim for something cheaper. And as i said, i have confidence that it can be managed.
                          "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

                          • StevoJH
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2008
                            • 1024

                            Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                            Was i in Bae, though, i'd spend something autonomously to complete the design without waiting for the government funding, because i believe a 155 mm naval gun capable to use standard NATO army-type ammo would have MASSIVE export potential. They could complete the work and then make an offer to fit the gun on Type 26 and refit the Type 45 with it as well during docking periods.
                            They probably are. I'm guessing they and the MoD would be each paying a portion of the costs.

                            More Artisan and CAMM systems will need to be ordered for the T26, only for a few ships. Assuming of course that a full 18 ship production run (possibly in a high spec and low spec version) is still planned.
                            Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                            Comment

                            • Liger30
                              Armed Forces supporter
                              • Jul 2010
                              • 901

                              Originally posted by StevoJH View Post
                              They probably are. I'm guessing they and the MoD would be each paying a portion of the costs.

                              More Artisan and CAMM systems will need to be ordered for the T26, only for a few ships. Assuming of course that a full 18 ship production run (possibly in a high spec and low spec version) is still planned.
                              Yeah, surely they are... But a business giant like Bae certainly does not need to wait for government times to invest 10 million pounds, if that is really the amount they need, and they should just complete the 155/39 TMF gun by themselves and offer it as part of the Type 26 design. The RN would be all too happy to accept it, and it could later make sure to refit it to the Type 45 as well.

                              And well, the Type 23 are 13, so possibly up to 5 additional radars and CAMM sustems would have to be ordered, of course. But it does not seem like such a tragic expense. Besides, the costs of ordering this additional equipment for the last ships of the program will be hopefully balanced by the substantial savings on the cost of construction that are always achieved on the late boats of a same class, thanks to the experience already piled up with earlier hulls.

                              And yes, officially the plan still calls for 10 Type 26 and 8 "C2", possibly Type 26 with space reservations for weapons not fitted from the start.
                              The Type 26 is a project to follow closely: it is not just the future of the RN and of british shipbuilding, is also a ship with great potential. Let's hope it is well managed and well planned out this time.
                              "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

                              • F/A-18RN
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2005
                                • 256

                                Did anyone else pick this up? It contains a cutaway poster of the CVF.
                                http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navyn...gibraltar.aspx I'm annoyed that I missed it. I wonder if they could do a similar cuataway for CVA-01?

                                Comment

                                • Frosty
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2008
                                  • 334

                                  Originally posted by F/A-18RN View Post
                                  Did anyone else pick this up? It contains a cutaway poster of the CVF.
                                  http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navyn...gibraltar.aspx I'm annoyed that I missed it. I wonder if they could do a similar cuataway for CVA-01?
                                  Absolutely awesome find thank you it's on page 54 guys
                                  Last edited by Frosty; 8th August 2010, 13:50.

                                  Comment

                                  • Fedaykin
                                    Fueled by Tea
                                    • Dec 2005
                                    • 5295

                                    Whats interesting about the cutaway is what is omitted, there is meant to be significant spare space especially in the Sponsons for power generation or steam plant for CTOL conversion. The only marked empty area is on the bottom deck "81 Void".
                                    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                                    Comment

                                    • MisterQ
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2008
                                      • 475

                                      Their are several spaces on the bottom cutaway marked void (I see 7) not to mention all the Aux machine spaces and stores room, not to mention their is a great deal of stuff that is unmarked.
                                      Last edited by Grey Area; 9th August 2010, 06:59. Reason: Item 15 of the CoC applies to you!

                                      Comment

                                      • haerdalis
                                        Rank 1 Registered User
                                        • Jul 2010
                                        • 183

                                        F35B to perform rolling landings on CVF

                                        hybrid shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique, potentially to be employed as the primary recovery mode for Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters operating from the Royal Navy's two Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF).
                                        An SRVL involves a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft performing a "running landing" on to the carrier flightdeck, using air speed to provide wingborne lift to complement engine thrust. The touchdown position on an axial flightdeck is similar to that of a conventional carrier - about 45m (150ft) from the stern, but no arrestor gear is required, as the aircraft uses its brakes to come to a stop within a distance of 90-150m. The technique could allow an F-35B to recover with an extra 907kg (2,000lb) of weapons and fuel, or reduce propulsion system stress and increase engine life.

                                        Source

                                        This is smart work by the UK MoD.
                                        Last edited by haerdalis; 9th August 2010, 03:14.

                                        Comment

                                        • obligatory
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Oct 2008
                                          • 7043

                                          It is a scary standard practice on a carrier.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X