A Deadly Weapon That Will Make UK Navy's Future Frigate The Greatest

A Deadly Weapon That Will Make UK Navy's Future Frigate The Greatest | Land Strike Cappability

Рет қаралды 25,401

Күн бұрын

The UK has announced its intent to fit land-attack strike capability to both its future frigate types. The Type 26s are fitted from build with new VLS. The Type 31 would also receive a new VLS fit (the system will be back-fitted into ships already in build)
Admiral Sir Ben Key, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, stated that the Royal Navy has three strands to its thinking
1. The Raytheon Tomahawk
2. Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile
3. The UK-France FC/ASW program

Пікірлер: 46

@dovetonsturdee7033 3 ай бұрын

I assume that the MoD will suddenly conclude that any new frigate class is far more capable than had been anticipated, and immediately reduce the numbers by between a third and a half, as they normally do. The reduced numbers of ships will then take twelve years each to build.

@ivanflores-ramirez8105 3 ай бұрын

Are you fucking kidding me this should be common sense in the modern military war

@thelonghorncow5084 3 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing, I think 1) using the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (adopted to sea & air launch) is a good option because it is relatively inexpensive! 2) Having "Drones Carriers" (similar to Turkish) which would launch drones for area survey and attacks would be good ideas for the long term!

@robertwalker1742 3 ай бұрын

Great on with the job expand the Navy now .

@SteveJones-om6ks 4 ай бұрын

Should have just gone with an order of LRASM as soon as Mk41 for T26 was downselected. The messing about with the French on Storm Shadow replacement was never needed. LRASM is tested, in service, and in baseline configuration is good for 400km deep hardened target strike with autonomous defence avoidance and automatic target recognition/rejection. Single missile type for antiship or land attack to make inventory management, support and training easier and its off-the-shelf with US, not European, development spirals.

@yfelwulf 3 ай бұрын

They can barely get a ship to sea now have no crews it's 2 Carriers are absolute duds the B35 Kamakhazi a failure they had to borrow some to SCARE China. And as I recall SHITSAIN makes no steel. Part of why they invested BILLIONS in Odessa hoping to get UkroNazis to build cheap ships for them that plan fizzed and collapsed. Maybe they could spare some COIN to treat Scurvey and Rickets now re-appearing in SHITSAIN the Royal Navy is BACK by Jove Press Gangs and Scurvy anyone.

@nathanielwhite8769 3 ай бұрын

I completely agree with you, as I feel the decision not to purchase LRASM, but rely on getting into bed with French and their always competing interests, has mystified me. LRASM has become operational in its air launched variant and if I am not mistaken in the final stages of being adapted and tested in its Naval vertical launching variant from the Mk.41 VLS. As apposed to FCASW, which still hasn’t had its design finalised, with a spurious prediction for a timeline leading to its, in-service date being given as circa 2028-2030. I don’t feel that, with the way this programme has progressed it will ever reach the production stage due cost overruns and political stamina running out!

@fabricemartin5561 4 ай бұрын

How many ships do they built and how many vls do they have ? Mark 41 vls or another one ?

@user-xq8vv7pq6j 4 ай бұрын

TLAM is soon to be replaced by the USN so it doesn't make much sense investing heavily in that weapon. Plus we're spending heavily on FC/ASW in two versions, so surely they must be the plan. NSM launchers in addition to the Mk41s also make a lot of sense.

@russellbenton2987 4 ай бұрын

About time ! And let’s have them from new not just with the potential to have them installed , which is the usual UK Govt cost saving trick . Could do with giving type 4s some teeth too .

@Kakarot64. 3 ай бұрын

like the Naval strike Missiles they're supposed to be getting to replace the Harpoons?

@yfelwulf 3 ай бұрын

😂😂😂 They can barely get a ship to sea now have no crews it's 2 Carriers are absolute duds the B35 Kamakhazi a failure they had to borrow some to SCARE China. And as I recall SHITSAIN makes no steel. Part of why they invested BILLIONS in Odessa hoping to get UkroNazis to build cheap ships for them that plan fizzed and collapsed. Maybe they could spare some COIN to treat Scurvey and Rickets now re-appearing in SHITSAIN the Royal Navy is BACK by Jove Press Gangs and Scurvy anyone.

@RonTodd-gb1eo 4 ай бұрын

In a full scale fight would the number of missiles a ship can carry be a big limiting factor? Especially if one side was also able to use land based missiles.

@user-xq8vv7pq6j 4 ай бұрын

Yes. A modern sea battle is likely to be won by the side with deepest magazines, both of AShWs and SAMs.

@Kakarot64. 3 ай бұрын

@@user-xq8vv7pq6j Now imagine if people actually went with the Arsenal ship concept literally have a cargo ship type vessel with its deck filled to the brim with as many VLS's as it can fit just following the fleet around and data linked to a more specialised ship like a T45 or an aircraft like the Wedgetail which feeds it the targeting data.

@yfelwulf 3 ай бұрын

@ioanbota9397 3 ай бұрын

Realy I like it they are powerful

@ENGBriseB 3 ай бұрын

ABOUT TIME !

@yfelwulf 3 ай бұрын

@wendyharbon7290 4 ай бұрын

The American most advanced Tomahawk Long-range (1,500 nm) High-Subsonic (550 Knots +) Cruise Missiles to start with, then a new Anti-Submarine / Anti-Surface Warfare Vessel (carrying Lightweight Torpedoe) Cruise / Stand-off Medium-range (200 nautical miles) to Long-range (600 nm) Supersonic (850 knots) Missiles next. Along with Supersonic Mach 4 (2,666.96 knots) Tactical Short-range (10 nm) to Medium-range (100 nm) and Low-atlitude (zero metres) to Medium Atlitude (15,000 m) Surface to Air Defence Missile. Also a Hypersonic Mach 6 (4,000.32 knots) Theatre Medium-range (150 nm) to Long-range (750 nm) Low-atlitude (50 m) to Medium-atlitude (30,000 m) Surface Air Defence Missile. Maybe Hypersonic Mach 8 (5,333.91 knots) Strategic Long-range (1,000 nm) Exo-atmospheic (60,000 m) Anti Ballistic / Satellite Defence Missile too. Lastly Hypersonic Mach 7 (4,667.17 knots) Long-range (2,000 upto 3,000 nm) Theatre Strike Missile, which can delivery either a conventional (600 Kgs or 900 Kgs, of advance liquid high explosives) warhead or a Nuclear (variable yield, from 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, to 2.5 Kiltons) Warhead. These missiles would give Royal Navy Type 45 & 83 Destroyers, Type 26 & 31 maybe Type 32 Frigates and Astute Class AUKUS Fleet Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN). The ability to project military power in land, from a long way over the horizon out at sea, whether providing an Air Defence Shield. Or providing an Offensive Strike Capability too, especially if future Royal Navy Amphibious Assault Ship, plus Royal Fleet Auiliary Support Vessels. Were given the extra cability, of being loaded with missile carrying shipping containers (6m TEU, with 4 VLS, or 12m FEU with upto 8 VLS). Could be loaded and armed, equally with these Self-contained Independent Portable Missile Container Launch systems (SIPMCL's), housing and carrying pre-loaded Mk.41 vertical Launch Systems plus generators, command and control, communications and guidance programming systems. Which the 4-rounds to 8-rounds Vertical Launch Silo's, inside each normal looking shipping containers basically. Which could be deployed onboard warships and commercial vessels, or deployed ashore to protect ports and coastlines and possible landing beaches, or cities and civilian inferstructure, or deployed army's in the field too. With these self contained Independent Portable Missile Container Launch systems, could be similarly transported and deployed by Rigid or Arctiulate lorries and trains, even transport by inland waterways barges and/or civil or military transport aircraft too. All these SIPMCL's could be deployed anywhere need ashore or at sea, then when necessary the VLS silos are raised or tilted upwards, into the firing position ready to be fired on command or automatically. Whether these SiPMCL's are loaded with Air Defence Missiles, or Anti-Submarine / Anti-Surface Warfare Vessels Missiles, or Cruise and Hypersonic Strike Missiles too, or a combination of all of them. This would give Nato Naval and Marines, plus Land Forces a greater combat capability, as a game changing defence deterrents. That the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and Iranians, or the International Islamic Terrorist Groups who are supported by some of the regimes too. However, the Royal Navy not only needs all of it's present and future Destroyers and Frigates, armed and equipped with Mk.44 VLS. The Royal Navy, needs upto 10 Types 45 and 83 Destroyers, along with at least 10 Types 26 Frigates, plus 8 Type 31 Frigates and 6 Type 32. Which would provide the Royal Navy by 2050, with at least 34 Destroyers and Frigates. Equally supported by 10 new Astute Class 2 AUKUS Fleet Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN), which would return the Royal Navy to its 1980's and Falklands War capabilities! Especially if a third Aircraft Carrier was ordered and built, to carry more F-35B's and Loyal Wingmen Fighter Reconnaissance Drones too, or ordered and built a new Land Helicopter Assault (LHA) / Escort Aircraft Carrier able to carry 12 F-35B's and 12 Loyal Wingmen Reconnaissance Fighter Drones . Or carry 4 Tactical Heavy-lift Tilt-Rotor's Aircraft, 6 Assault Medium-lift Tilt-Rotor's Aircraft, 4 Attack Reconnaissance Light-lift Tilt-Rotor's, 4 Reconnaissance Attack Tilt-Rotor's Drones, plus 2 Anti-Submarine / Anti-Surface Warfare Vessel Tilt-Rotor's too. The Royal Navy alone needs 120 Lighting ll Stealth Fighter F-35B's, so both Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier could deploy at the same time, with a full Carrier Air Wing of F-35B's, with enought reserve training and war / Air accident loss replacement aircraft too. Though where would that leave the RAF, with only aroun 100 to 120 Typhoon FGA.4 aircraft if that. The MoD either has to look at buying more Typhoons like German, around 24 to 36 new Typhoons. Or the MoD has to think about buying new Lighting ll aircraft too, either buying around 36 to 42 F-35B's, that is on top of RN FAA buying more F-35B's around 42 extra F-35B's too. Or the MoD buying instead for the RAF, the F-35A model the USAF version instead, again like German with buying around 36 to 42 new F-35A's too. The real issue here is the UK Defence Cuts, in both military personnel since the 2000's and especially since 2010. Also Defence cuts in Naval, Aviation and Military hardware, since the late 1990's upto 2015, or upto 2022. In fact then adding to a growing bad situation, by giving away Naval, Aviation and Military hardware we really could not afford to give away, to our allies while not replacing them on a one for one basis too! Now the UK and future Government, whether Conservative, or Labour, or even another Coalition Government, has to look at increasing Defence Spending by One Percent increase on a by-yearly tream. That is from at least 2026 and increasing to 3 or 4 Percent of GDP by 2027, then up to 5 percent of GDP by 2029, equally up to 6 percent of GDP by 2031, similarly up to 7 percent of GDP by 2033, until 2035 at least and 8 Percent of GDP. Which would bring UK defence spending, back to the 1960's and 1970's GDP leaves too, but is a future UK Government or Political Parties, that brave to take such a decision or have such an official defence policy is the question?

@regarded9702 4 ай бұрын

It is fun to pretend and make fantasy fleets but realistically defence spending will be lucky to hit 3% of GDP by 2035, nevermind 8%. So bar the outbreak of WW3, the outlook is as follows: Defence spending has decent odds of hitting 2.5% by 2030. Defence will rise in public conscious, but never more than their energy bills or nhs waiting times. Then, that being said, how do we turn a potential small rise in defence spending into the maximum possible capability growth for our armed forces? Well the bad news is, we already have a 17 billion pound black hole in the budget, where we are spending more than we have. So most of the increase will be eaten up just to sustain current programmes. Once that is accounted for, we are looking at a much smaller increase in spending already. Then the first point of priority is increasing recruitment and retention accross the board. That means increasing everyones wages, fixing housing and accomodation, etc. All very expensive things that will eat most of what is left of the increase. And then, with whatever relatively small amount is left, it is time to try and increase the capability of the armed forces. Which is why, in my opinion, we need to avoid exactly the type of thing you suggest when you say another aircraft carrier or LHDs. We cannot afford the allure of big ticket items. They will eat up any new money, go over budget and be late. We need to avoid anything new and fancy. We instead should look at spending more where we are already spending lots, and taking advantage of economies of scale. Now I have made the case for small rational increases in spending, let me overrule myself quickly. We need ground based air defence, particularly long range anti-ballistic/anti-hypersonic. This will likely be a big and expensive programme but it is simply too important to ignore. We can probably reduce costs by procuring the Franco-Italian SAMP/T though. We already use the Aster family of missiles on our destroyers, and are commited to increasing the Aster 30 missiles capability through upgrade packages already. It would likely be the easy and quickest way forward for us. Now, I have finished with scarily big spending commitments, let us return to reasonable and smart spending. Along that line, I think you are spot on to suggest increasing the order for our future frigates, destroyers and submarines. We need to be taking advantage of economies of scale. Two extra type 26s would come in at roughly 1.5 billion pounds, despite the fact that the first Type 26 nearly cost that much individually. A second batch of another 5 Type 31s seems like the single cheapest way to boost our navy at the moment. Maybe the stretched version babcock showed off with the stern ramp so you could use it as a mini mothership for all sorts of autonomous platforms. That is different enough from the base design you can even call it the Type 32 instead. I should note both of these are only to be considered after we ensure we get at least 6 multi-role support ships. At the moment it's 3 with the option for 3 more. If that programme needs more money then it is the priority because we need 6 of them to maintain our current capabilities. With regards to our navy, those are our only sensible options to increase it's capability. We have neither the build capacity nor the ability to make any more Type 45s unfortunately, they haven't been made in a decade and we would likely have to reverse engineer them to make any more. The same is true for the Astutes with regards to build capacity. The Type 83 destroyers, and the SSN-As are too far in the future (both late 2030s) to do much planning for. Once Labour publish their defence review next year we will get a better understanding of what they will be like on defence for the next 10 years, and then we can worry about those programmes. Moving onto aircraft, I agree with buying more F-35Bs. There a minimum level of infrastructure and investment that is necessary to operate our current 33, (rising to 48 by the end of next year), so the cost of each consecutive squadron should decrease as we spread the cost of that infrastructure between more airframes. It is not realistic to expect they can all be solely for the RN unfortunately. But the 138 we are aiming for will give just enough airframes for both services to have a reasonable amount. There is a big catch however, until the block 4 capability drop which isn't expected till the end of the decade, our F-35s will not be able to carry Meteor or Brimstone missiles. We should not purchase a single airframe past the 48 we are already commited to until the aeroplane can actually use our missiles. At the moment we paying for something unfit for our service. It is shameful and one of the dangers of buying American instead of building our own. Once Lockheed Martin does finally declare block 4 ready, then we can buy more F-35s. That leaves us 4 reasonable options for further spending with regards to aircraft: Buy 2 more E-7s Wedgetail AWACS. We already have the radars for 5 but only purchased 3 airframes, it would be an easy capability boost. Buy more P-8 Poseidon MPA. The 9 we already have seem to be incredibly useful. 6 more based out of RAF Akrotiri would be invaluable for finding Russian subs in the eastern med. Carrier lauched and recovered UAV AWACS. It would be a massive uplift in capability over our current AWACS Merlins, which need replacing by the end of the decade anyway. And finally, as you suggested, buy more Typhoons. We will soon be down to 107 of them once the Tranche 1s are retired. 2 squadrons, perhaps the electronic warfare version Germany is making, seem like a sensibile idea. We should also make sure to upgrade our entire remaining fleet to the new standard with the new radar. As is, we only plan to upgrade the 40 Tranche 3s, and leave the 67 Tranche 2s as they are. Unless defence spending were to jump quickly, say to 3% by 2030 (that's a 50% increase in 5 years), all of what I suggested there probably can't be afforded at the same times. However, each individual idea is possible to do today, or at least start today, as well not ridiculously expensive. These are the sort of things we need to push for, because as much as I like the idea of another carrier, we need to spend what little extra we get wisely.

@flyingdutchman7757 4 ай бұрын

good brochure bro 🎉

@davidpenney2334 3 ай бұрын

Agree with your statements Bottom line, we don't have a navy that can currently fight...our governments have seen to that in the past 50 years

@ronniefarnsworth6465 3 ай бұрын

What a "Annoying" NERD with to much time on his hands !!! 🤓 You'll never get Laid this way ! 😆 🤣

@TheGrowler55 26 күн бұрын

Rule Britannia from Glasgow 👍💙😎🇬🇧

@dirkscott5410 3 ай бұрын

If it ever gets out of the dockyard 😛

@DavidOlver 3 ай бұрын

Sejong the Great Class Destroyer: Korean AEGIS Behemoth kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYK0dJZonrR2rMk these ship have missiles that have 1000km range

@IbHansen-ic9yr 4 ай бұрын

Would choose missiles that shoot 1500 km.

@cideltacommand7169 3 ай бұрын

How is that gonna work ??

@IbHansen-ic9yr 3 ай бұрын

@@cideltacommand7169 The USA uses them themselves so google around a bit

@davidpenney2334 3 ай бұрын

Get out ??? Land to sea capabilities ? Its as if its a new revelation....... you mean like all the ships had one hundred years ago....Has the government been asleep for decades? Come on we are playing the Big boys games with a handful of ships that could be lost in one day....

@trevorhart545 3 ай бұрын

D-Day would NOT have been possible if the Royal Navy didn't have "Land Attack Capability" and that was 80 years ago. Politicians and Civil Service are traitors?