Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Antipodes on November 20, 2016, 07:40:37 pm
-
An article in a local newspaper which makes interesting reading.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11749837
-Bruce
-
It's ok.
We have a plan......
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/17/solution_to_navy_harpoon_missile_withdrawal_problem/
-
I thought this was just popular press spin, but when Janes are reporting it, things look grim. It seems that Harpoon has had its day from a technology viewpoint, all fine and dandy, but WHO is daft enough to think that this is a good idea. We are getting to the end of our 'aircraft carrier holiday' with not too much in the way of 'red faces' ( excluding Libya ), now this. Who is running this country, Coco The Clown?
-
Coco was offered the job but turned it down when the American people made him a better offer. :-)
-
It seems that Harpoon has had its day from a technology viewpoint,
If Harpoon is obsolete, why are there ongoing programmes for the US to further develop it and the USN is introducing new capabilities with the Block II+ version next year?
-
May be the USN has several things going for it that the RN doesn't such as government support and money.
-
Coco was offered the job but turned it down when the American people made him a better offer. :-)
(http://www.pinballinfo.com/community/styles/default/xenforo/rofl.gif)(http://www.pinballinfo.com/community/styles/default/xenforo/rofl.gif)(http://www.pinballinfo.com/community/styles/default/xenforo/rofl.gif)
Okay wait, that's not funny... {:-{
(http://www.pinballinfo.com/community/styles/default/xenforo/rofl.gif)
-
Well, all of the above. But reading two pages of this story online, from The Sun to Janes Defence Weekly, and everything in between, it seems that compared to modern Russian and Chinese missiles, future collaborative possibilities between France and the UK, Norwegian options etc, Harpoon is slower and older, 'venerable' and in dire need of replacement.
Block II+, however, looks like it would tick all the boxes, despite its smaller warhead. A healthy order for new builds, or re-manufactured existing rounds would no doubt, help to re-secure the transatlantic 'special relationship'. So why is this option not even on the table? I still feel a next gen missile would be a better investment than one that is just a good value option at 'this' price.
-
Harpoon missiles are about 3m in length x about 400 mm diameter, painted white with a rounded dome at the top....I have walked in GMLS13 missile launcher magazines many many times when loaded with live missiles [24 in the outer ring and 16 in the inner ring]
It is an eerie feeling, all you can hear is the gentle hush breeze from the air conditioning....as you step sideways between the inner & outer rings of missiles and your body physically slides vertically between the gaps :D
I must admit, my first entry to a live magazine was scary.......no DANGER tags but you understand you have the fiberglass locking key around your neck to the 200Hz missile control computer that you have just racked out and as such isolated.....the only other key is in a locked safe on the bridge and the Captain & XO of our RAN warships are the only persons with the combination to the safe
I agree with Allightin , that any talk of HM's being obsolete is just fear mongering by ill informed <*< persons
The USN would not partake in [show of strength] voyages through the South China Sea if her weaponry was known by alternate forces to be sub standard
To suggest that Britain would endure a two year period without defensive Naval power is also beyond comprehension
Derek
-
The lack of missiles is not the problem
From the BBC News today:
"Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.
It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats."
-
The lack of missiles is not the problem
From the BBC News today:
"Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.
It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats."
Where have we heard that before.
That's right here about the RAN. >>:-( >>:-(
You have to really question the loyalties of the decision makers etc.
It's like this stupid mindset that everything has to make a profit and not be subsidised by taxes.
Oh that's right, taxes priority is now to pay Pollies salaries first, then what is left, not much, is used for the rest of us.
You know the stuff we really don't need anymore because we can reach a political solution, such as defence, education, transportation, health, need I go on. >>:-( >>:-( <*< <*<
-
I had already put that BBC News item up about 1 am. See "In The News !!!"
-
Yes, where were the MPs during the defence reviews which resulted in this situation?
Remember -
Run down the army as conventional wars will make it largely unnecessary
Run down the RAF as there are no credible threats to the UK in the foreseeable future
No real need for a blue water navy as it can't be used against terrorists so chop the destroyer, frigate and submarine programmes
'Russian fleet steaming through the Channel - don't make me laugh! It's just about as likely as Donald Trump becoming president of the USA!'
Our political masters are frequently fools, knaves or a mixture of both and certainly with a very short termist outlook.
Not much mention now of mothballing the 2nd QE class carrier, I wonder why?
Colin
-
why not - we aint got any aircraft to put on it - we could use that very useful chappies idea in wwii of inflatable dummy aircraft, saying there stealth as they wont show up on radar or be indestiguishable at range, what o
-
A big warship with a lid can come in useful in all sorts of configurations just as the Invincible class did.
The basic crew complement is actually quite small for the size of the ship.
Colin
-
I think the answer to all your questions is money or should I say a dire lack of it. The RAF are making shore they get their F35's before the RN and then there will be about 20/5 left over then. Strong rumour in Portsmouth Naval Base workers that one of the 45's is being cannibalised to keep the others running, and there is not matelots' to run the now elderly type 23's. As to the 4.5 its shell is lighter than the old Mk8's, which means they have less bang ( I know that because in my old life I shipped enough of them), talking of cannibalising, it has long been said in Devonport that one of the commando carriers is stripped to keep the other at sea ( like the Fearless/Intrepid ).
-
Regards the manning of the 23's I mean insufficient to man them all correctly.
-
Interesting article on the Type 45 problems here:
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/putting-the-type-45-propulsion-problems-in-perspective/
Colin
-
Just wondering how many people know that the present 4.5" gun is actually a Army gun used on self propelled guns, and the ammo is Army issue Cabot and MESH type rounds, though I hear there is moves a foot to upgrade to a 5" gun, which I believe is used in the new larger self propelled guns. As all the guns are sponsored by the Royal Artillery for shore bombardment purposes.
-
Well dodes...whilst there is a history back to an Abott gun......but the current 4.5" MK 8 Naval mounting are from the 1960's vintage.....anyone interested in the subject will find the following enlightening
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjx9dDzpdHQAhVBpZQKHUT0BD4QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F4.5_inch_Mark_8_naval_gun&usg=AFQjCNGjn7Vhn-bTTGSXh5NNdI7Bjzwi1Q
A previous generation of twin 4.5" MK1 to MK5 Naval mounts from WWII are a different class completely..
It is also interesting that the proposed 5" Naval mount is infact an American 5" / 54 calibre MK 42 FMC designed mount to be built under license by BAE systems
Derek
-
Reading the article, it looks like HM government are getting fed up with BAE selling them unreliable kit. I think this has always been the case when allowing a single company to rule the roost. Are there any other major UK armaments firms?
I had a quick look and in 2009/2010 the list is as follows: No2 in the world BAE at $32Billion No17. Rolls Royce $4.3Billion, No 29 Babcock international Group $2.7 Billion, No40. Cobham $2.2 Billion, No44, Serco $2.1 Billion, No50. QuinetiQ $1.7 Billion.
GKN is No60 with just over a Billion turnover.
I noticed that the Ships could be fitted with SM3 Anti Ballisitc missiles, Which are in Block III phase of development.
-
Ian...in terms of ..."unreliability"....this covers a multitude of things that can open Pandora's box %)
Missile systems, gun mounts & the electronic countermeasure ancillary systems as supplied and that accompany armed forces are designed not to breakdown or fail in an actual combat theatre of war or a mock-up training exercise
They are also intended to have minimalist human intervention <*< associated with the final stages of the intended function of these systems
In reality, one would need an independent Royal Commission conducted by equally technically trained Judges to find the root cause of any incident that betook a piece of Military equipment off line.......
Why did HMS Sheffield not repel the in bound Exocet missile all those years ago?
Derek
-
Well dodes...whilst there is a history back to an Abott gun......but the current 4.5" MK 8 Naval mounting are from the 1960's vintage.....anyone interested in the subject will find the following enlightening
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjx9dDzpdHQAhVBpZQKHUT0BD4QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F4.5_inch_Mark_8_naval_gun&usg=AFQjCNGjn7Vhn-bTTGSXh5NNdI7Bjzwi1Q (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjx9dDzpdHQAhVBpZQKHUT0BD4QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F4.5_inch_Mark_8_naval_gun&usg=AFQjCNGjn7Vhn-bTTGSXh5NNdI7Bjzwi1Q)
A previous generation of twin 4.5" MK1 to MK5 Naval mounts from WWII are a different class completely..
It is also interesting that the proposed 5" Naval mount is infact an American 5" / 54 calibre MK 42 FMC designed mount to be built under license by BAE systems
Derek
Isn't that American company owned by BAE?
-
This is true mudway........ O0 ............ Derek
United Defence was a division of FMC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
United Defence Industries
Fate
Acquired by BAE Systems
Successor
BAE Systems Land and Armaments
Founded
January 1994
Defunct
June 24, 2005
Headquarters
Arlington, Virginia
United Defence Industries was a United States defence contractor which is now part of BAE Systems Land and Armaments. This company produced combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
^^ This is the future and will be able to be launched from the Type 26 at least ( type 45 possibly as well ) and if they develop a sub launched variant ( almost guaranteed given the USN requirements for one ) it'll go on board our boats , 2018 is the timescale for USAF deployment so new missile ready for shipboard deployment by 2020 I'd guess so 4 years.
This missile can also have its warhead reduced to give it a 1000nm range for land attack ( which is what the UK will order if we do as the warhead will still be more than enough to sink/disable any ship it hits )
-
Dodes, 4.5 is not used by Army SP guns any more and has not for a long time, it is now 155mm, also think you mean SABOT and HESH, SP guns never fired SABOT
-
The 4.5inch family of weapons began pre WW1 when a 4.5inch howitzer was used in artillery regiments to support the 18 pounder. Later, the US army undertook development of a 4.5inch weapon that would share design features and ammunition with a British weapon based on converted 60 pounder medium guns.
By the beginning of WW2, the 4.5inch Field howitzer still soldiered on supporting the 18 pounders, and were taken to France in 1939 with the BEF along with a few of the 60pounder conversions. All of these were left in France when we evacuated in May 1940. There were still numerous examples left over and pressed into service to defend the UK, but also in many parts of the world it still served.
In mid 1941 a new weapon had been developed and introduced which was the 4.5inch medium gun or 'Sniper' due to its good range. It first saw action during Operation Crusader in November 1941, and from then on it and it's sister, the 5.5inch medium gun saw service everywhere the British and Imperial army fought.
Thereafter the 4.5 inch weapon type became the preserve of the Royal navy until today.
-
What surprised me was the reduction in the shell weight between the Mk8 on the Leander's to the ones used now, the older one being a heavier shell, when I was shuffling this lot round about had a Br on board with all the info on different ammo carried by us and it was quite interesting. But I remember once when training to be a pilot in Devonport talking to the Jimmy the one on a Leander we were moving, he was telling me he had just found out and it was not common knowledge then that the 4.5 gun was sponsored by the Royal Artillery for shore bombardment and if they did not pay for it , it would be not fitted. His other strong criticism was for the 4 French missiles fitted on the Leander, he said you had to fire all four at one target then run at full speed for the nearest port with a shore crane with a 95ft lift to reload. Also a fiend of mine I saw the other day was very put out , because he said the manufacture of the Sea Sparrows has been sold to a foreign company M N.
-
Australia developed and built the IKARA missile launcher system......with a little chequered history....however it was sold and installed in some British, Argentinean and Chilean Naval vessels.....[am not sure if the Argentineans used it against the Brits in the Falklands]
I was rather fortunate in that this system was classified as an Under Water System O0 and my role was Above Water Systems only.... {-)
It appeared that one IKARA system was in a total state of rebuild <*< year in ...year out
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwinhrPXhO3QAhVCjZQKHawdAUsQFggmMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIkara_(missile)&usg=AFQjCNGREmczjWgSNr_z2bvv_DArXalgLg