AHC: Strong post-war Royal Navy?

Riain

Banned
Paveway LGBs started concept development in 1964 and formal weapon development in 1967 for service testing in 1968. The HOBOS guided bomb system began development in 1967 and was deployed in 1969.

These timelines are either very cutting edge or just after the decision period required to make a single CVA with a small allied carrier an acceptable tactical unit. However if the RN can make the right guesses liberal PGMs can be seen as a significant force multiplier.
 

Zen9

Banned
TV guided weapon Blue Boar is a 50's effort. A scaled version was used for some trials.

Green Cheese was ARH seeker equipped powered weapon for what became the Buccaneer.

Fairey Sea Skimmer also in the 50's.

Tychon based on earlier Momentum Bomb, is early 60's.
Martel is Anglo-French combination of DH RG10 (UK ) and Matra R630. Starts '62.

Winged Torpedos.
Zeta
Zonal evolved into Pentane
Zoster
Bootleg rocket powered Torpedo. Land attack version existed for a while.
 

Riain

Banned
What about the switch from the P1154 with 4 Red Tops to the Phantom with 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders? Presumably the increase in combat persistence equates to a reduction in sorties: ie if the requirement is to shoot down a 20 plane regiment and it takes 2 aams per kill then a P1154 cap needs 10 planes but phantom only 5, in crude terms.
 

Zen9

Banned
That's not as simple as it sounds.
Red Top never got a host of improvements. So it's not quite a fair comparison.

There is also the less than glittering performance of Sparrow III.

However it's clear that the ability to tote 8 missiles instead of 4 improves the chances of success.
 

Riain

Banned
The 'senior sirs' won't take into account the update path or the percentage hits of AAMs. They'll assume they're all more or less on a spectrum and make broad generalizations: 2 shots per kill so 4 kills is better than 2.
 

Zen9

Banned
And it might all work but for the £3million+ per plane price tag.

Frankly adding more AAMs is something do-able to a host of aircraft designs.

Briefly they all got drooling over the idea of a Sea Dart AAM (AirDart? ), until it hit them how much power the AI set would need to make it work.
 

Riain

Banned
On the right plane 6 red tops would give very good combat persistence. I like the red top, it's a powerful missile.

Given the performance of the Red Top compared to the Sparrow and Sidewinder, and the usefulness in 'whole of government' terms of buying British, what is the likelihood and advantages of equipping RN (and RAF) Phantoms with Red Tops?

Red_Top_missile.png
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
So several improvements were on the cards for Red Top.

1. Improved rocket motor would extend the endurance and potentially range as well.
2. All Aspect seeker....in theory increased performance of the seeker should extend the engagement range.
3. Two radar seeker options seem to have been in development.

In theory IR AAMs give a potential multiple targets engagement ability to the fighter depending on if it can get the seekers in range of such.

However there was also a new radar guided AAM in development prior to the fighter being cancelled.
So it depends.
 

sonofpegasus

Could the original vertical launch booster designed for Sea Wolf from the outset also be used for a vertical launched version of Sea Dart? If that was possible then just maybe by the mid to late 1970's the RN could be fielding warships with both missiles in vertical launchers.
 

Zen9

Banned
sonofpegasus said:
Could the original vertical launch booster designed for Sea Wolf from the outset also be used for a vertical launched version of Sea Dart? If that was possible then just maybe by the mid to late 1970's the RN could be fielding warships with both missiles in vertical launchers.
Click to expand...

No but a scaled up version might.

Chief problem with VL Sea Dart, is that it was post-Type 42 and consequently expensive to retrofit to existing warships. In no small part due to the older Sea Dart magazine location, under the first deck.

Ironically VL was looked at for NIGS, but they felt that the clearance needed drove up ship size.

But in theory it was possible.
 

Riain

Banned
I don't think launcher speed was a problem when missiles had to be guided from launch to impact. It was only when missiles could be launched on a ballistic trajectory into a no escape box for final guidance that it became possible to control the number of missiles a VLS can fire.
 

Zen9

Banned
Sea Dart had autopilot, like earlier weapons it first climbed to target altitude before cruising to intercept.
 

sonofpegasus

In this scenario the equivalent ships to the OTL Type 22 and 42 would have had VLS missile fits from the start! I still like my County Class rebuilds with a TBBML (Trainable, Big, Box, Missile, Launcher) instead of the Sea slug launcher as escorts for fleet carriers.
 

Cryhavoc101

Following on from VL Seadart - I had envisenged a Fort Victoria class (intended to be a class of 6 ships) that instead of VL Seawolf had VL Seadart to act as a convoy defence ship as originally intended and operating with the Type 23 Duke class built as was with VL Seawolf for point defence - with Each Fort acting as the Convoy command ship as well as Replenishment vessel for the escorts and providing Helicopter support for 4 ASW Wessex/Seakings and later Merlins.

I know such as system would be heavy but the Forts are not exactly small

This would in theory free up the 'First' line ships for other tasks in time of war
 

Zen9

Banned
I wonder if going to VL Sea Dart, increases the potential to achieve a single basic ship design. Instead of Type 42 and Type 22. Which though sharing plant machinary, were different hulls.

Certainly later on the idea of a Type 22 hull with both Sea Dart and Sea Wolf was looked at.

The mechanical needs of a launcher system imposes demands on maintenance. .....

But what would really liberate them from restrictions would be a single Medium SAM that could perform close defence like Sea Wolf and medium defence like Sea Dart.....

Such a study exists in SAM.72 to which XPX.430 (scaled up Sea Wolf) was proposed.
Such a system would also meet Army requirements for a MSAM to succeed Thunderbird. .....
 
Last edited:

Schlock

It's not just that. You've also got the potential to replace the clunky Ikara system with a VLS type weapon, as well as a VLS Exocet equivalent as well.
 

Zen9

Banned
I always wondered why no anti-ship version of Sea Dart existed as well.
Sea Eagle, wasn't that much better than Exocet or Harpoon or Otomat Tesseo.

Much later on there was a study looking at using the Odin ramjet to power a stand off land attack missile. Though I think that that was for a nuclear Warhead.

However if the UK is funding a VLS silo system then it's more logical to fund a VLS Martel / Sea Eagle AShM than fund the French.
 

Riain

Banned
Zen9 said:
Sea Dart had autopilot, like earlier weapons it first climbed to target altitude before cruising to intercept.
Click to expand...

Iiuc not until 1990 or so, buy replacing 6 circuit cards with 1 ans using the free space for an autopilot.

Cryhavoc101 said:
Following on from VL Seadart - I had envisenged a Fort Victoria class (intended to be a class of 6 ships) that instead of VL Seawolf had VL Seadart to act as a convoy defence ship as originally intended and operating with the Type 23 Duke class built as was with VL Seawolf for point defence - with Each Fort acting as the Convoy command ship as well as Replenishment vessel for the escorts and providing Helicopter support for 4 ASW Wessex/Seakings and later Merlins.

I know such as system would be heavy but the Forts are not exactly small

This would in theory free up the 'First' line ships for other tasks in time of war
Click to expand...

I'm not a big one for beefing up 2nd line ships when not enough resources aren't available for 1st line ships. However someone did see fit to fit the Fort Victorias for but not with VLS Sea Wolf, so I could be not seeing something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top