The Royal Navy's New Mission...

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by corditeman

...Wiki reports problems with weight and stability. 22 knots still seems a bit slow to me - and cruising's only 12. NZ sounds as if it's coping with a poor design, reading between the lines.

I agree. But the point remains that if all you want is a vessel suitable for law enforcement and patrol duties, anything much larger or more capable is a waste of time, manpower and money.
Something like what the US Coast Guard uses as a long-range vessel is probably a better design for the job, although it's verging on being a frigate itself given it's size and weaponry. It would of course be more expensive and seems excessively armed and equipped for the role we're considering. The CIWS alone is probably all the gun that's necessary for a ship conducting these jobs, if it ends up in a situation where more firepower than a 20mm rotary is needed things have probably gone beyond the point where a patrol vessel is much use anyway. You could also carry a few missiles or torpedoes for the helicopter, for those rare situations where you needed something with more range or punch.
Personally for a patrol vessel I'd prefer something smaller, although you do need a certain minimum size if you want to be able to operate a helicopter from it. As you point out, there's also stability and weight issues that smaller hulls have to face. Helideck at the stern, CIWS in the bow, crew of perhaps 50 all up seems adequate for the job we're talking about.

[corditeman]

Your suggestion of a CIWS and helideck is sensible, although (breaking my own rules) a 76-mm rapid fire has more punch. The coastguard cutter hull is too weak. We're looking at a faster modern version of a 'Flower' class corvette...

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by corditeman

We're looking at a faster modern version of a 'Flower' class corvette...

Yes, basically. I can't honestly see much advantage of a 76mm gun, however, or even the 57mm that the USCG uses. The question basically boils down to: in which of the likely operating conditions of the patrol vessel will a 20mm rotary not be an adequate weapon? And, as a follow-up: in which of those circumstances would a more capable vessel not have been sent to start with?
If you also give it a magazine with half a dozen Mavericks or Stingrays for the helicopter and another half-dozen depth charges, it can basically handle anything up to the point where only an actual warship could cope with the situation. And that's the thing, really - we're not talking about a warship. We're talking about a patrol vessel to do law enforcement, maritime surveillance, customs work, search and rescue, and a few other odd jobs that don't deserve a vessel capable of beating off a missile attack or hunting Soviet submarines, but does have good endurance and can chase down and shoot back effectively at any criminal elements who decide to try their luck.

[Fellatio Nelson]

Politically, I cannot see the RN going down the patrol vessel route unless it was very obviously an adjunct to a traditional frigate force, rather than as a one-for-one replacement of it. A more lightly armed frigate hull with much smaller crew than the present Duke Class, yes, but not a mere OPV tied to a policing role.

It'd also be very limiting: if you need to divert your first-rate ships to a certain area, you'd only have very lightly armed patrol vessels to use in their place, so the potential for them to be out gunned by even a modest threat is very great. Whereas a modular frigate design could be upgraded as future events dictated, to become a conventional frigate and undertake more high risk operations in place of a destroyer, or join the first-rate ships on operations.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

Yes, basically. I can't honestly see much advantage of a 76mm gun, however, or even the 57mm that the USCG uses. The question basically boils down to: in which of the likely operating conditions of the patrol vessel will a 20mm rotary not be an adequate weapon? And, as a follow-up: in which of those circumstances would a more capable vessel not have been sent to start with?

If you want to give someone a literal shot across the bows to tell them to stop playing silly buggers and heave to then a naval gun is more probably easier to use than a 20mm gatling gun I would of thought. As for not sending a more capable vessel in the first place, well, the world is always full of surprises and I'm not sure I'd trust the head shead to get it right absolutely one hundred percent of the time.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

And that's the thing, really - we're not talking about a warship. We're talking about a patrol vessel to do law enforcement, maritime surveillance, customs work, search and rescue, and a few other odd jobs that don't deserve a vessel capable of beating off a missile attack or hunting Soviet submarines, but does have good endurance and can chase down and shoot back effectively at any criminal elements who decide to try their luck.

Yep, I agree.

Nonetheless, I would like to see 76 mm cannon there.
As I allready said earlier, Spanish BAM class OPV is ideal for the job.

[Peg Leg Pom]

The 76mm gun gives the ship the ability to fire starshells as well as shots across the bows, niether of which are things a Gatling Gun is suited for. A Gatling may be able to cut a boat in two but using it for warning shots is full of risks. If you miss time your shot you could be sending rounds miles down range because of the high velocity and flat trajectory of the rounds. A 76mm round will plunge straight in with no risk to innocent parties.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

The 76mm gun gives the ship the ability to fire starshells as well as shots across the bows, niether of which are things a Gatling Gun is suited for. A Gatling may be able to cut a boat in two but using it for warning shots is full of risks. If you miss time your shot you could be sending rounds miles down range because of the high velocity and flat trajectory of the rounds. A 76mm round will plunge straight in with no risk to innocent parties.

Good point about the starshells. But I honestly can't understand why a Gatling is unsuitable for warning shots. The 20mm round isn't a great deal faster than the 76mm (1100m/s vs 925m/s), and being lighter will presumably carry less kinetic energy. And surely the issue of mistimed shots is just as valid for the 76mm?

[abc123]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

Good point about the starshells. But I honestly can't understand why a Gatling is unsuitable for warning shots. The 20mm round isn't a great deal faster than the 76mm (1100m/s vs 925m/s), and being lighter will presumably carry less kinetic energy. And surely the issue of mistimed shots is just as valid for the 76mm?

Mainly because of psychological effect. 76 mm is CANON, while 20 mm is allmost machinegun, it can hardly make some larger damage on anything larger than small speedboat..

[Peg Leg Pom]

If you're chasing a boat then with the 76mm gun you can lob a round over the target so it plunges into the sea ahead of them. You can't really do that with a Gattling. If you fire over the targets heads the rounds are going to keep going quite a distance before striking the sea, or if you miss calculate you're going to cut your target in two.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

If you're chasing a boat then with the 76mm gun you can lob a round over the target so it plunges into the sea ahead of them. You can't really do that with a Gattling. If you fire over the targets heads the rounds are going to keep going quite a distance before striking the sea, or if you miss calculate you're going to cut your target in two.

You seem to be imagining a 76mm gun as quite a low velocity weapon, more like a mortar in terms of its ballistics than a high-velocity cannon. Given that the weapon has an effective range of at least 20km and a muzzle velocity of over 900m/s, that seems a little unlikely. I'd suggest that a 76mm gun also fires in a fairly flat trajectory, since it fires rounds with a fixed charge. The 20mm rounds, being smaller, will have less kinetic energy and their trajectory should presumably drop off more rapidly due to the increased effect of air resistance. Unless I'm understanding things wrongly, of course.
Not having been a naval officer I won't comment on the merits of chasing a vessel from directly astern, but swerving to one side or another could allow you to shoot across their bow without requiring indirect fire of the type suggested. A burst of tracer past the windows of the bridge might also indicate ones willingness to shoot in the same way.

Edit: In any case, however, the merits of a 76mm gun vs a 20mm gatling don't seem very important for the subject of this thread. I think a CIWS mount is generally a better choice, but I'm not married to the idea. If a 76mm gun is desired for our hypothetical small patrol vessel, then I could go along with the notion.

[corditeman]

A lot has been discussed, but the next point is what is done about the strategic deterrent. Is Trident retained, or is it gradually replaced by a cruise missile system? Do we need to look at a UK-controlled military GPS satellite system and a British national or commercial space programme? Using a US-controlled GPS system is merely to let the USA control the British strategic deterrent - would inertial plus terminal terrain guidance be better? Lots of headaches here...

...A sea-launched satellite programme - or should we look at re-use of old oil or gas platforms in the North Sea as launchpoints?

...H'mmm...

[Gunnarnz]

For the moment, SLBMs are really the gold standard in terms of strategic deterrence. Secure, responsive, fast, long-ranged, and capable, if you're only going to have one strategic weapon system it would be pretty hard to go past them.
I can't see replacing them with cruise missiles as being a very good swap. The launch platforms would have to get much closer to their targets and there would be some spots (deep into continental land masses) that they just couldn't reach, and the missiles themselves are much easier to intercept (although that may change over time, with stealth technology and improvements to AI). And you'd still need to spend just as much on the launch platforms themselves.
I'm also having a hard time working out where the money for a UK space-launch capability would come from, despite Top Gear's efforts to space-shuttlise a Reliant Robin (look for the video on Youtube, it's a hoot). In any environment where a UK company wants to launch a payload it'll be more economical for them to use one of the other contractors. If there was a large enough demand for the British space capability, or it brought something significantly different to the table it might take off (excuse the pun ), but you'd need something really compelling to justify why the expenditure would be worthwhile.

Given the above, it seems we're more-or-less stuck with the Tridents or some future replacement with similar capabilities and either dependence on the US GPS constellation or not relying on satellite navigation at all (which probably affects the CEP of the missile more than anything else). Once you've decided to use strategic nukes, however, that bit is relatively easy to cope with - higher yield warheads aren't as efficient as more accurate small ones, but they get the job done just fine. If you want accurate, relatively small-yield nuclear capabilities - something between conventional warfare and strategic attacks, say - that might be a suitable role for air-launched cruise missiles. At the moment, rumour has it that a lot of the Trident missiles are equipped either with single, tactical warheads in order to give the British government nuclear options other than "wipe out several cities at once". My preference would be to keep the Tridents as a strategic deterrent (since they're the only really secure, long-range and uninterceptable launch system) and use artillery and air-delivered nukes for tactical purposes.

[Riain]

By the end of the decade there will be a Russian, Chinese and European version of GPS, there will be no need to rely on the US GPS for nuke targetting.

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by Riain

By the end of the decade there will be a Russian, Chinese and European version of GPS, there will be no need to rely on the US GPS for nuke targetting.

I would have thought they would use an inertial navigation system anyway.

Relying on GPS risks being vulnerable to alteration of the GPS signal and/or destruction of the satellites.

[corditeman]

...Any country relying on another's GPS whilst attacking a third is nuts. Either INS or its own GPS is the only safe route. Terminal guidance by terrain comparison is the system used by the US cruise missiles. Laser illumination might work - if you can be certain that your illumination team/aircraft reaches position without being destroyed.

Otherwise, your cruise missile attack loses guidance at the throw of a switch.

[Riain]

Stellar interial is how you make SLBMs accurate without external sources, a star shot just before the bussing phase of the flight and a final course correction during the bussing. But if you have GPS, especially wide area differential GPS, then that`s better still.

[corditeman]

...What will the new Royal Navy we're designing be able to do - and what is impossible without a WW2-type buildup? A Normandy beach-head scenario is out, a Falklands scenario is essential, ASW to the North Atlantic and deterrence are needed - what can the new Admiralty deliver?

[Hyperion]

Ideal RN(This doesn't count the RFA ships)

Two Queen Elizabeth CVsHMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince of Wales)
One Illustrious class CVHMS Illustrious)

Six Type 45 Destroyers for air defense, surfance warfare, and the odd naval gunfire support mission.

Sixteen Type 26 frigates, anti submarine, anti ship, anti air capability depending on assignment, can be equipped with Tomahawks on a mission to mission basis.

Nice Astute Class submarines.

Four Vanguards or Vanguard replacements.

HMS Ocean and other amphib ships or one for one replacements.

[abc123]

On previous question I agree that SLBM is the best way to go. A cooperation with the French about development is IMHO the bets way for that.

About reccon sattelites IMO German SAR-Lupe system is the way to go, not terribly expencive either. UK allready has military sattelite communications system ( Skynet ) so if EU manages to make Galileo GPS network running, with UK as a member, that should be great for UK.

And for nuke targeting stellar navigation combined with intertial navigation is more than good, after all, you don't target single house with nukes, even if you miss for a mile or two, it doesen't mind.