The Main-Armament Level Of Warships Entering Service


Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
... you probably noticed unarmed tin-cans like
  • USN LCSs
  • USN Zumwalts
  • German F125s
I facepalm at naval ideas behind them

according to me, properly armed warships have about ten tubes per 1k tons of full displacement Oct 12, 2017
Yeah but those are more of the exception rather then the norm now right ? But the perhaps the saving grace here would be that the designers themselves realise in the end how untenable their idea was. And none of those ships are projected to be built in large numbers (LCS maybe but that is just a bad dose of politicking going on there).
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Yeah but those are more of the exception rather then the norm now right ? But the perhaps the saving grace here would be that the designers themselves realise in the end how untenable their idea was. And none of those ships are projected to be built in large numbers (LCS maybe but that is just a bad dose of politicking going on there).
Not realist considered Zumwalt under armed as two others coz different and also arguable for F-125 coz Zumwalt have specials VLS in 4 areas and with it much less vulnerable to damage ( except CV more big surely the most difficult to destroy in more less visible even a 055 by example is more vulnerable with normal VLS and stealth but not very stealth ) and one of the 2 guns with magazine take room for about 30+ missiles.
To consider also LRALP shell is very long the new envisaged based on a shell used by Army is more short normal and Zumwalt can host clearly more than 920 LRALP IIRC about 1500 rds !

But according it * possible no new shell and USN going for rail gun directly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
Yeah but those are more of the exception rather then the norm now right ? But the perhaps the saving grace here would be that the designers themselves realise in the end how untenable their idea was. And none of those ships are projected to be built in large numbers (LCS maybe but that is just a bad dose of politicking going on there).
there's no maybe about 26 USN LCSs:
"Ships 1 through 4 in the program were procured with single-ship contracts.
The next 22 ships in the program (ships 5 through 26) were procured under two 10-ship block buy contracts that the Navy awarded to the two LCS builders in December 2010, and which were later extended in each case to include an 11th ship. The Navy sought and received legislative authority from Congress in 2010 to award these block buy contracts."
at the bottom of p. 4 (8 out of 52 in PDF) of Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
May 19, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


they're becoming the backbone of the USN, you know



now, new candidates for mediocre armament:
  1. Type 26 (8k displacement) with 48 Sea Ceptors only (this assumes no Mk 41 VLS, or Mk 41 VLS installed with an empty air);
  2. Type 31 (3?k displacement) also with just Sea Ceptors;
#1 and #2 are particularly ludicrous as the RN won't have AShMs Nov 11, 2016
but I have some more LOL if you want me to go on
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
there's no maybe about 26 USN LCSs:
"Ships 1 through 4 in the program were procured with single-ship contracts.
The next 22 ships in the program (ships 5 through 26) were procured under two 10-ship block buy contracts that the Navy awarded to the two LCS builders in December 2010, and which were later extended in each case to include an 11th ship. The Navy sought and received legislative authority from Congress in 2010 to award these block buy contracts."
at the bottom of p. 4 (8 out of 52 in PDF) of Navy Littoral Combat Ship/Frigate (LCS/FF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
May 19, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


they're becoming the backbone of the USN, you know



now, new candidates for mediocre armament:
  1. Type 26 (8k displacement) with 48 Sea Ceptors only (this assumes no Mk 41 VLS, or Mk 41 VLS installed with an empty air);
  2. Type 31 (3?k displacement) also with just Sea Ceptors;
#1 and #2 are particularly ludicrous as the RN won't have AShMs Nov 11, 2016
but I have some more LOL if you want me to go on
For the type 26, 48 vls for air defence is adequate if not desirable, seeing as the Type 52d will likely have a similiar amount of vls devoted to air defense as well (disregarding class differences), and with 24 vls dedicated for full sized missiles it has a healthy attack capability. What really puzzles me is the absurdly short range stated of the Sea Ceptors. 25km max is barely out of the range of point defense missiles, it makes even the base hhq-16 looks better in comparison. Even the M variant is still shorter than the base variant of the hhq-16, and it looks even worse when you compare it to the HQ-16B which is sure to be having a future naval variant.

The type 31 would be even worse in both departments seeing as it is supposed to be less capable then the type 26.

As for the AshM department, I suppose that the Royal Navy can always hunt for a immediate replacement, even if it means gritting their teeth and buy from EU members.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
...

As for the AshM department, I suppose that the Royal Navy can always hunt for a immediate replacement, even if it means gritting their teeth and buy from EU members.
actually
Anti-ship missile market growing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

just the RN is broke, as in
Apr 5, 2017
hmmmm
Possible future capability Minelaying
Notes An absurd capability gap, but UK has no existing stock of naval mines
April 4, 2017
Restoring the UK’s maritime patrol aircraft capability (Part 2)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
actually
Anti-ship missile market growing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

just the RN is broke
Yeah, depending on how you view the term "broke". They can afford 2 carriers, yet they can't afford to get even the most basic of naval weaponry.
Now if only they could just get their priorities in order............ The Brits are extremely lucky that no one is gunning for their rear at a time when their military is languishing.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #29
Much more than that, I did warrant. But that is really not the issue here though. And we are getting off-track here.
oh I think missing let's say ten million pounds sends a strong message

makes me wonder what else the RN will lack, perhaps fuel?
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Western naval planners are terrified of the changing whims of their political masters, that’s why they are now overspending on big-ticket long shelf-life items and skimping on consumables. Although it can be reasonably argued that naval planners want a health mix, but their political masters keep axing the munitions.

Carriers and warships, once funded, built and crewed, are all but impossible to cut too far advanced or their planned retirement dates without bad press and push back from the opposition.

Munitions and other consumables, OTOH, are much easier to cut funding for quietly without much fuss from the media or the opposition because almost none of those people have the first clue about warfare and the importance of logistics.

I find it incredibly ironic that the RN is pretty much setting themselves to play the role of the Argentines from the Falklands if there is ever war - having top quality warships, fighters, pilots and crews, but not having anything like the quantity of top of the line munitions to deliver with those platforms.

Unless they are bombing insurgents who have zero air defence capabilities, in which case the UK seems to have all the munitions they could need and then some.

It’s all part of the costs of slaving one’s defence and foreign policy to that of your ‘special’ partner.
 

Top