The Sting Ray lightweight anti-submarine torpedo, the RN’s primary ASW weapon, is being upgraded to Mod 2 standard. In this article, we look at this programme and aspirations for various torpedo delivery methods
Sting Ray modernisation
In September 2024, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced a £60.1 million contract had been awarded to BAE Systems for the Assessment Phase of the Sting Ray lightweight torpedo Mod 2 upgrade. While the award had been made earlier in the year, it was not publicised due to election Purdah rules.
BAE Systems will undertake the design work for the upgraded torpedo at its facilities in Portsmouth and Fife, sustaining over 100 highly-skilled engineering and manufacturing roles as well as another 100 or so jobs in the supply chain across the UK.
The Sting Ray torpedo (Mod 0) formally entered RN service in 1983 (early versions were rushed into service for the Falklands War). The Mod 1 version remains in service today and can be delivered from the Type 23 Frigates’ Magazine Torpedo Launch System (MTLS), or more likely dropped by a Merlin Mk2 or Wildcat helicopter. Mod 1 is officially capable of 45 knots and uses a mix of active and passive sonar guidance. The 45kg warhead is a shaped torpex charge designed to penetrate the tough pressure hull of the submarine.
Mod 1 entered service in 2001 and features a much-improved sonar, tactical control system and a new sea water-activated battery. The Mod 1 weapons were further modified from 2013 onwards with a new insensitive munition-compliant warhead which is a step change in handling safety.
Although Mod 1’s official out-of-service date is set for 2030, preliminary studies for its replacement began in 2019. The 2021 Defence Command Paper confirmed a new lightweight torpedo would be procured. BAE Systems had already begun self-funded work on what was provisionally called the ‘Future Lightweight Torpedo’ project and this development work will pull through into Sting Ray Mod 2, accelerating the assessment phase.
Sting Ray is regarded as an excellent weapon, likely superior in many respects to the US Mk 54 equivalent. It is optimised for open ocean operations against fast, deep-diving SSNs and SSBNs. Its use in shallower or more congested waters is rather limited as it takes time to arm and begin its search pattern. Mod 2 is likely to address this weakness with better littoral waters performance and improved target discrimination where there is high ambient noise or sophisticated decoys are deployed. It is also likely to have the ability to detect and target small, stealthy LUAV/XLUAVS which will increasingly be part of the underwater threat.
P-8A compatible
In November 2023 it was confirmed that Sting Ray Mod 1 will be integrated into the P-8A Poseidon. The software update will be globally available for all P-8A operators, allowing them to be armed with either Mk54 or Sting Ray. The UK initially acquired a stock of US-made Mk54s to provide an initial operating capability for the RAF’s aircraft but will now be able to take advantage of the larger UK Sting Ray inventory and eventually the Mod 2 upgrade. It will also provide a further degree of interoperability between RAF, RNoAF and US Navy Poseidon’s jointly operating from RAF Lossiemouth, Naval Air Station Keflavik and Evenes Air Station.
The US has developed a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC), a glider kit that allows the Poseidon to drop torpedoes from medium-high altitude, hugely extending the range from the aircraft to the drop location. It also avoids the need to descend to low-level for weapon release saving time, fuel and wear on the airframe. A Sting Ray compatible HAAWC would seem to be a sensible low-cost option for the RAF to pursue.
Delivering the punch
In June this year, the RN issued a Request for Information (RFI) notice for what it calls a future Long Range Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon (LRAW). This is not a funded commitment and just a case of understanding what might be available and cost implications. Industry is expected to respond to proposals by April next year
LRAW can be described as a missile that will be fired from Mk 41 VLS cell capable of delivering an ASW torpedo beyond the range of existing submarine-launched heavyweight torpedoes. The weapon would be integrated with the ship’s combat and sonar systems and 500 missiles should be used as the costing assumption. LRAW would have little in common with the US ASROC system, demanding significantly improved range. LRAW will need to carry the ASW torpedo more than 50km to put the launch platform beyond the reach of the latest heavyweight torpedoes.
The LRAW RFI is only for the rocket and in practice, Sting Ray Mod 2 is the only viable payload of British origin. BAES are believed to have had informal talks with MBDA and Nammo about potentially supplying the rocket, while the LRAW requirement would have implications for the Mod 2 design. The forces placed on the torpedo when fired from a rocket are much more severe than the relatively gentle pneumatic launch from the MTLS or a parachute-retarted decent from a helicopter.
There are alternative ASW weapon delivery methods to MTLS, LRAW or a helicopter but the technical challenge is more complex than it might first appear. Other options under development are the Proteus Rotary Wing UAS, simpler heavy lift UAS or the Kingfisher gun-launched depth charge round. Finding a submarine will always be challenging but it is vital that the ASW operator also has a selection of reliable weapons available to prosecute the contact as quickly as possible.
“Stingray, Stingray” Gerry and Sylvia were truly ahead of their time.
Which fired underwater Sting missiles!
All
Good news that this venerable piece of very-useful kit is being upgraded
However, a few “technical points”
Those two key acoustical advantages should not ever be underestimated……because, all too often, an enemy submarine skipper
Accordingly, getting the homing torpedo to always drop very close to the enemy and without giving them any prior warning that Biggles is “already in the area” will maximise the chances of the RN getting a first time kill: especially if it is always aimed as a stern shot (i.e. give them “one up the jacksie!) – one of thse is both harder to evade and, if it hits, it will inevitably both take out the prop and thus also blow out the boats vital stern seal = thus ensuring rapid rising damp occurs inside the target.
Even better. launch two – both with HAAWC fitted – from two very different directions….
Accordingly, I think standardising on the HAAWC kit should become a RN “must-have” when these new Stingrays enter service.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
The £60 mill is only the ‘assessment phase’ not the full cost. These are BAE pounds so overheads take half and the remainder for technical work
If the RN actually needs a long range ship mounted torpedo, it quite easy really = fit tubes for Spearfish!
Yes we should. There are forces to consider when throwing a big fish into the water from the air end rather than from a tube which is already submerged. That may not be a problem, and it may already have been designed in. But it needs considering. Previous attempts at having tubes for heavyweight fish below the waterline on skimmers appear not to have been completely successful (I can’t remember names of classes but at least one Italian and at least US class had them at the blunt end).If the Japanese can fit Sting Ray to Type 07 and if we can agree an offset by where they use Sting Ray in their Type 07 going forward that will massively increase the size of the exclusion zone around an ASW frigate.I’m a heretic but I don’t think our helos should be carrying ASW weapons. They are better served increasing the range of our ASW sensors (and not carrying weapons increases their Range and time in the air) and then launching the kinetic thing from the mothership.
Well, before the KGVI class battleships, every British battleship had underwater 24″ torpedo tubes, so they must have figured something out there.
Not sure on firing angles, I assume they were towards the bow, but it can be done.
Type 07 doesn’t really have the range. It should be regarded as a mildly improved VL-ASROC
Both VL-ASROC & Type 07 can be fired from a Tactical length mk41. T26 has Strike length mk41. So there is potential for a longer booster version. I don’t think VL-ASROC is currently still actively manufactured (though an order for 500 would likely change that), but I believe Type 07 is. I don’t see RN buying 500 with only 8 T26 & 5 T31, but if RAN go with “upgraded” Mogami as its T31 equivalent, then the numbers start to sound more realistic, especially if RCN shows an interest.
Each Bean for said bean bags has to be rigorously inspected, risk assessed and passed by H&H before any bean gets near said bag.
TLDR
Didn’t Gerry & Sylvia object to the name Stingray so that the RN then had to change it to Sting Ray?
U.F.O. Colonel Foster ?
Absolutely! Dam! I blew my cover… DOH
Putting a rocket on Stingray to make it vertical launch with sufficient range sounds tricky, but not impossible.
Would certainly be great from a commonality point of view and sticking with UK industry.
A UAV can do endurance or payload really well, but not both like a Merlin or equivalent.
IMO T26 absolutely needs a shipboard capability to prosecute sub surface targets when the weather isn’t on our side or it’s Merlin is out of action for whatever other reason.
Can vertical launch be combined with the wing kit to increase range, a bit like a massive GL-SDB?
Depending on how it works, which isn’t clear from the description, that might also add a midcourse guidance ability to follow the submarine as the torpedo glides down.
AGM-158C LRASM is designed to be compatible with the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System and has made numerous succesful launches.
Yes, but for carrying a torpedo, not as a standalone weapon.
Sorry I didn’t make that clear, I meant using a booster with HAAWC or something similar to extend the range of ASROC type weapons and allow manoeuvering towards the end of the flight.
Isnt this a better pathway , and it comes back to the ship
Not very fast at range. Takes quite a while to get to a location.
VLS is, in principle, good to go 24/6/365 and can dump a torp where you want in seconds.
The problem with drones is that it either needs to be sitting out on the flight deck with all of the maintenance requirement and unreliability that that entails, or wheeled out of the hangar with increased reaction time.
Firing ASROC or similar can be done from the ops room “just by pressing a button”.
Search “The Bedford Incident” film staring Richard Widmark, it’s rather good.
Good point. The drone would be seen as supplement to the helicopter especially for closer in … within 15 nm?
And the helo of course is multi role and other missions could be happening while the drone is only one and could be given target guidance right up till the drop
“The T-600 has a payload of 200 kg, suggesting the Sting Ray Mod 2 is significantly lighter than the Mod 1 (267kg). With a top speed of 75 knots and a range of up to 50 miles (80 km), this is far short of Merlin performance but adequate for shorter-range engagements,…”
https://www.navylookout.com/killing-submarines-by-drone/
T26 have a limited size hangar for that if a merlin is already there. One of the project mistakes.
They have the entire mission bay available for either another helicopter or drones
Yes.
https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to-the-type-26-frigate/
China’s efforts known as Salt Typhoon to burrow deep into telecommunications companies and steal data
The hackers stole “a large amount” of bulk phone records that indicate where, when and who people were communicating with, but not the content of the calls or texts
Do they have the height to crane the drone past the Merlin in the main hangar?
I don’t often agree with AlexS but not having more convenient helicopter facilities for an ASW specialist doesn’t make sense.
Maybe convert the “torpedo launch system” space into a drone kennel? It looks nearly the size of a TEU, wider but not as long.
Does when you consider we don’t have enough Helos to put more than 1 onboard in the first place 😅.
True, but as drones become more important having a Merlin and a Proteus or two simultaneously is going to become the ideal loadout for ASW, so improved ease of aircraft access is going to be much more important as we have larger numbers of smaller helicopters.
RN have enough helos for the small number of frigates it has.
Wiki says 30 Merlin ASW in operation.
With these numbers i could see tactical situation where a T26 – which only 8 will be build – would have 2 Merlin or a Merlin and several helo drones. But the hangar design do not allow that.
Having 30 doesn’t mean that many are available, closer to half that can actually be deployed
Can the drone take off and land from mission bay? I think not.
So the drone cannot operate if Merlin is there.
Also cannot be recovered to the mission bay.
Solution. Port: NH90 Hangar Starboard= Merlin Hangar
Not really a solution seeing as we’re building the ships as they are
Storage. And if the Merlin is in the hangar it can do the mission.
The drone is a backup remember especially when Merlin is not on board or tasked with a different mission
Maybe it can launch from mission bay by hover and moving sideways , maybe not with torpedo and then land on flight deck?
Do you think for the horizontally launched drones such as Vampire, you could use a launch rail sideways across the mission bay in the manner of a WW2 battleship or cruiser?
The upwards launch angle wouldn’t be great, but it would provide a separate launch method given that hovering inside the bay is unlikely to work well.
Failing that, if we suddenly found Vampire to be really useful or developed more ISR drones that needed launch rails, you could convert the space above the mission bay, perhaps with a hangar between those Comms masts aft. You’d have to move those aerials but they’re omnidirectional so it shouldn’t be too much of an issue.
Drone as a backup is a waste and if Merlin can’t do the mission , then you are stuck with a drone or drones in mission bay.
In the FREMM above you could operate a Merlin in Merlin hangar and 4 drones in NH90 hangar choosing what is best for tactical situation or even employing all of them simultaneously. It is a tremendous force multiplier.
For T26 i think the complexity, sea state and risk preclude an use of an helo torpedo carrying drone from mission bay.
If you find the NL article on the mission bay contents, there’s a bit of space around the outside of the Merlin in the hangar so you might be able to fit the smaller drones around the outside on trolleys (up to Puma or Peregrine size).
The only real alternative when it comes to drone capacity is the space on the port side aft of the sea boat that NL marks as a “possible site for Torpedo Launch System” in its guide to the T26, as I said to Hugo above.
That looks like a Proteus sized UAV might be able to fit inside the floor space at an angle and with a folded tail rotor, or you could add a little “porch” or extension out onto the flight deck in order to fit either two drones along the axis of the ship, or one with plenty of space to maintain it.
No idea how that would affect flying ops, but at least then you have easy access to three flying machines at once.
Its not a waste , its a greater capability at reduced cost in flying hours , maybe with a removable recon package instead of torpedo.
Warships are designed with many backups of all types some even have have 2 helicopters …. like we all have two eyes.
The drone doesnt ‘operate with a torpedo’ from the mission bay it just gets directly to the flight deck if the Merlin cant be moved – which is also a choice – move out and right back!. Its on wheels remember.
The flight deck isn’t small, if you had the Merlin towed out you could pull a drone out and launch it as well. Not ideal but T26 has been in development like 15-20 years, some parts are going to be outdated
Yes, and it is absurd, an huge delay, breaking work on Merlin and not even taking account bad weather.
These rotor borne aircraft like the warship have a military mission first and foremost. Maintenance ( which is fairly limited on a frigate) isnt the military mission and ‘interruptions’ even on land hangars happen all the time.
Its unusual that some see a glass almost 90% full as empty!
The fact is that BAE is trailing its project as a torpedo carrying maritime drone , which means only one thing. Even the naysayers know the obvious
RUM-139 VL-ASROC, K745A1 Red Shark – (South Korea), Type 07 vertical-launch anti-submarine rocket – (Japan), RPK-6 Vodopad/RPK-7 Veter – (Soviet Union), SMART – (India). Even going back to WW1 with Siemens torpedo glider, a very rudimentary unmanned torpedo delivery system. Indeed, it isn’t impossible.
Interesting the RN is looking at VLS launched torpedoes. Autonomous surface vessels armed with torpedoes would seem to have a lot of potential in this role. Particularly when you look at options for the Type 26 mission bay. Maybe they’re hedging their bets.
It is speed / range / quietness
The speed of the rocket phase is much greater than that or a torpedo.
Range is massively increased as you have the range of the torpedoes plus the rocket. You don’t need some massive and expensive torpedo for the range.
Quietness the submarine won’t know anything is going on until splashdown.
Neatherland’s style multi-support ship with T05, NSM and Caamm (possibly Caamm-ER).
One shipmate* per surface unit.
Initially low crew maybe eventually zero crew.
Yes please
*’wingman’ is all fine and good for aircraft, but for warships? No thank you.
T05?
T05po I meant T07. Good catch.
However, spurred by a comment upthread about T07 being only a minor improvement on Asroc I went down an (open source) rabbit-hole on various ASW rockets. Now I want the Indian SMART please.
SMART does seem a tad ridiculous.
What submarine are you even detecting 400km away?
We’d have to spend tens of billions of pounds on seabed sensors for such a missile to be worthwhile. No idea what the Indians want it for.
There’s an older American design (can’t remember the name) that was designed to fly 200km and was fitted with a nuclear warhead.
Sea Lance RUM-125 is what you were thinking off
Thats what P-8 or MH60 are for , sub detection a long way from a vessel
Is it feasible to fire a torpedo from hundreds of kilometres away based purely on Sonobuoy data?
The submarine might well have moved beyond the range of the buoy array before the missile arrived.
Merlin/MH60 makes no sense, they ought to carry their own torps in a fighting scenario anyway.
The long range missile is a delivery system to put a torpedo with its own active/passive sonar near to the sub.
The torpedo does its own final tracking… for many kms
Oh I agree it’s bonkers but it totally wins at Top Trumps.
Personally I also think there might be a mismatch between 400km range and seaskimming to avoid detection. But I only have open source data.
Somewhen between conception and cancelling Sealance design was modified to carry a lightweight torpedo as alternative to nuclear depth charge.
It’s like that concept that came out of AEUK a few months ago, their 11m unmanned SEA class armed with lightweight torpedoes as a “submarine chaser”.
I think as a deterrent, with several stationed around the edges of a group, it could work but not as a reactive measure to the the appearance of a submarine.
Agreed.
It’s nice to see another mention of the 5″ gun depth charge round. In terms of utility and scalable affect, it surely has to be the most cost-effective way of actively defending a ship from sub-surface threats, especially from multiple UUVs in littoral areas.
So exactly what is the anti-submarine payload on a 5-in shell? Have you ever looked at the casings on any sort of undersea vehicle?. Yes, if you’re sitting on the surface it would not end well.. Just wondering what this is all about?
https://www.navylookout.com/the-kingfisher-gun-launched-anti-submarine-munition/
Wonder no more
The acceleration is even greater than the rocket!
The payload volume isn’t that great…
Callum
It would be a waste of time even attempting to develop this….
A RN 4.5 inch shell (or anything of a similar size) has far less explosive charge in it than any conventional ship-fired depth charge
Very approximately – any modern shell of this calibre is about the same size as a WW2 hedgehog shell – and those were fired, always at very close range, in salvos of two dozzen at a time.
Unless one of these 4.5 inch rounds – very luckily – scored a direct lhit…….. it achieves nothing other than to tell the manned sub you are operating nearby
And an unmanned UUV wil probably not even notice you are firing at it…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
It’s for the new 5 inch guns on the Type 26 and not the 4.5 inch guns on the Type 45 and Type 23. Not a massive increase in size but there you are.
Peter
A fair cop
BUT in my own defence, I did orginally post;
“A RN 4.5 inch shell (or anything of a similar size)”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Read the NL story again, essentially the payload is separate
https://www.navylookout.com/the-kingfisher-gun-launched-anti-submarine-munition/
Never knew why the RN changed its standard destroyer gun calibre from 4.7in or 120mm at the beginning of WW2 to the 4.5in for new vessels toward the end of the war.
The twin or single 4 in was the standard lower calibre
Well I guess even you can’t know everything….. May I suggest doing a Google search ? Let us know what you find… maybe you could copy and paste something for a change…. deary me.
Clearly BAE disagree, because they’re developing Kingfisher off of their own backs.
Have a read of the article NL linked above for Kingfisher. The aim isn’t to provide a one-shot kill capability against fleet subs at sea; it’s to provide a versatile capability to allow a frigate to defend itself against a wide variety of threats.
A couple of the listed scenarios include:
– deafening an attacking sub’s sensors to prevent it maintaining a firing solution, buying time for the ship or task group to respond
-prosecuting targets in littoral areas where homing torpedoes struggle (and despite what you say, NL and BAE seem to think it would be very effective against UUVs)
-destroying or decoying incoming weapons, based on the same principle as existing decoys but at extended ranges
Also covered in the article is that modern manufacturing techniques allow for a denser mix of explosive filler, giving small charges like this a bigger punch than you’d think.
It isn’t just the volume of explosive filler it is the shaping lense effects that super accurate timing can produce.
I suspect the shaping is dynamically recalculated as it approaches a target.
Callum
Answering all of your points, however in reverse order:
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Not sure who BAe are??? BAE Systems has been around for 25 years now… please keep up with the Nomenclature
REPLY TO ECTP
A “fair cop” on the correct spelling of their current TLA…
I can only blame “force of habit” – because I was working with them back in the days when it was BAe (and British Aerospace before that…)
However their expensive corporate makeover back in 1999 never improved the quality of their engineering….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
So what is your opinion of the proposals to develop a sonobuoy payload for the 5-inch shell which could be used to deliver a spread of sensors at range and at short notice?
Daniel
That would be a very good idea!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS So would fitting them with longer life batteries
The Type 07 ASW Rocket from Japan has the longest legs, I think next was the South Korean equivalent.
The UK and Japan have a military equipment agreement, and I would expect the Japanese would be far more efficient than BAE at integrating the weapon into the Type 07 and this could make purchasing the 07 much cheaper, as the UK would logically only need to purchase the rocket section.
Ex Service
Your answer therefore begs – as a bl****g obvious follow up question – the following:
“Why did the RN NOT approach the japanese manufacturers (mitsubuishi) this year ?
i.e when they went out to “industry” in JUne 2024 for that RFI for a possible buy of a long range ASW weapon
.
Answers, on a postage stamp please…..explaining why our defence procurement teams are, yet again, found to be so incompetent…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
My previous post on this disappeared.
So I’ll try again:
I agree T07 is the ideal candidate, I’d like it if an offset was included (i.e. future Japanese rounds used Sting Ray). Then it would be perfect for our Norwegian chums to use from their lovely new T26s (fingers crossed)
In reference to IT(R)’s suggestion about Spearfish from skimmers
Spearfish will provide a larger zone of uncertainty around a skimmer, making the boat skipper’s job in lining up to take their shot much more difficult. The bigger warhead and higher speed will of course be benefits.
T07 will provide a more offensive weapon. The range will allow prosecution of target’s much further from the ship. Ideally (IMO of course) the ship’s helo would be better suited providing extended sensor reach and provided targeting data. By flying without the weight of ASW weapons, range and time in air will both be increased,
Type 07 is only a marginally improved VL-ASROC.
If you want range…..ask MBDA to add the Sting Ray to MILAS….canister launched and double the range of Type 07…
There are a couple of nations who still fit a couple of 21 inch tubes on surface ships. They only have 2 tubes and no reloads though…they also occupy a lot of space…
Milas is long out of production and potentially not even being used by the Italian Navy anymore
Your previous post has reappeared – it survived Mr Putin’s cyber attack!
TGIMB
Peter (Irate Txapayer)
They dont disappear . Moderation can operate if someone posts too often in a short time.
Sometimes we ( yes, me) forget to click the post button
The Classic McDonald’s Hamburger starts with a 100% pure beef patty seasoned with just a pinch of salt and pepper. Then, the McDonald’s burger is topped with a tangy pickle, chopped onions, ketchup, and mustard.
What’s the difference between a Hamburger and a Cheeseburger, you ask? A slice of cheese in the latter!
Duker
You have obviously forgotten to press the button on the fllowing information
Territorial Sea Limits near:
As the RN CSG is now planning its operations for 2025, these ttwo vharts will come in very useful
PLEASE PRESS “POST COMMENT”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
That does explain why there aren’t any ‘Nigerian Princes’ on linkedin telling me that I have small penis on this site.
Great article
Tiny bit of pedantry
“ parachute-retarted decent from a helicopter.”
should read
“parachute retarded descent from a helicopter.”
But I’m sure it will be a jolly decent helicopter launched weapon!!!
“Tiny bit of pedantry”
Supportive Bloke
Are you the very-same “Supportive Bloke” who quite recently – and I am sure quite accidentially – once mentioned “dry dicks”
Peter (IrateTaxpayer)
PS Please complete the several words which are missing from following well-known pharse:
“People ……. ……. .greenhouses …………………….stones”
His famous last words always for everything — “Is the laws of physics“
You got me there!
I blame my auto mangle function …
Regarding the HAAWC and VL option.
We really need to develop both of these in house. We should not be reliant on the US, and HAAWC, for such a simple concept, has been ages in the making….
We already need a wing kit for Paveway IV….a sovereign UK gliding wing kit would be a very useful sytem to have. The easy solution is to go to Leigh Aerosystems in the US and buy the IP for the SWAK wing kit. Should be available for peanuts as its been around for years and no-one has brought it….its the successor to the Longshot wing kit that LM bought in 2003 and which has been developed into HAAWC…or just go to MBDA and ask them to use the Diamondback wing kit…
A VL launched torpedo with wing kit would be far superior to any standard VL-ASROC style solution, it would enable some loiter, correct positioning for optimum attack and other benefits e.g. you could develop a ‘cheap’ land attack munition or even use it to accurately emplace a minefield from range…
But…what about Depth Charges? BAE recently showcased a new lightweight DC, has this interested the RN? We still use Mk.11 Mod 3 from Merlin and Wildcat. They’re cheap and very useful in the littoral. The ideal weapon to kill a slow moving UUV as well…far more so than a Sting Ray…
Next stop, VL launched wing kit Paveway…
A common wing kit between bombs and torpedoes makes sense to me, I just wonder whether the fittings would work. Does anyone know how standardised the interface between aircraft and munitions is?
I agree. Why not VL Storm Shadow, a wing kit for Trident D5, and Challenger 3 tank? That would be fantastic and save the MOD an enormous amount of money.
Already getting VL storm shadow in the form of FC/ASW, so joke’s on you I’m afraid.
You aren’t just the next incarnation of Brom, are you?
No no is not a joke, and is VL Chinook with wing kit
Paveway IV is sovereign UK Its made at Raytheons UK plant at Glenrothes ( between Rosyth and St Andrews), amoung other sites they employ 2000
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2022/11/paveway-iv/
retarted? What flavour, Lemon curd maybe? 😆
.
I find the latest Swedish 400mm wire guided torpedos interesting. They can be used against ships & subs, even in muddled battlefields with friendly, neutral & enemy ships/subs all in one bit of sea.
Why go to 15-16 inch ?
It is an off the shelf weapon that can be used in congested areas of sea, without risk to friendlies/neutrals.
But why is it better than Spearfish or Stingray?
The idea of a medium, all rounder torpedo is an interesting one but where we have a good base and development paths in the two different types, there’s no reason to over standardise unnecessarily.
Do you have some sort of special permission to post so many comments during school hours ? Just wondering as I have been reading so many of your comments on here and UKDJ for some time now…. You seem to be able to comment virtually all day long without restriction…. 6th form student rules have changed so much since I was at school. It’s good to see you and DM exchanging so many views though, interesting to see just how educated you are at such a tender age…. I’m sure you will go far given the right opportunities that lie ahead.
Combination of my phone at break and lunch and also from my laptop during lessons, I’m afraid. One of my physics teachers is particularly dopey.
Wish I had special permission, but I doubt the head of year would take the view that it was part of my education, unfortunately.
The wire guidance the Swedes use, mean that it is safe to use, whereas Stingray will go for the juiciest target, which might be a neutral or a friendly. If an enemy sub manages to be “a hole in the ocean” & gets in among your task force, you need a weapon you can steer to that sub without it going after something else, perhaps one of your own.
He’s young, just learning, Being open to education on these matters.
I like to encourage young men, though have to be careful how I phrase that nowadays.
Why don’t you google it yourself?
The decision encapsulates the basic problem facing the MOD.
‘For how long can a financially strapped Defence force continue to support domestic solutions?’
Until that basic question is addressed the MOD and the RN in particular will continue sleep walking over a cliff.
It would be nice to know what will not be funded to allow this process to continue?.
‘
MOD is not really cash strapped, it’s just blighted by ineptitude and archaic practises coupled with horrific and outdated traditions going back many decades. Not to mention the history of so many governments choosing to “Kick the Can” down the road. 1993 RAF Aircraft Inventory included…. Tornado, Buccaneer, Jaguar, Harrier, Hunter, Canberra, VC10, Tristar, Nimrod, Hawk, E3, Chinook, Seaking, Gazelle, Puma, Wessex………… 30 years later, we have sweet FA. Same with the Army…. same with the Royal Navy. And just look at the state of the RFA and now the RM. Did I mention the RAF training… or the state of the Submarine force ?
Thats not good enough . The Defence Estimates 1993 published by Commons give detailed numbers for all the services
Details are important , not summaries
These are Annex D for RAF
Page 2
Oh deary me, yet more copy and pasted stuff just to appear knowledgeable and superior. So sad.
I agree. Taking a list from 30 odd years ago to do a comparison is almost childish. Drones perform roughly 50% of taskings these days. 30 years ago we had none. The capabilities of Typhoon and F-35 are an order of magnitude greater than aircraft of 30 years ago and other surveillance capabilities drones/aircraft/satelites are also available with much greater frequency and fidelity. What is relevant is, not how we compare to the past, but how we compare to our peers.
Pfft…. OK then…. Hope you are correct in your assessment and that the 37 F35’s can perform such incredible feats of warfare that some 400 previous RAF Aircraft were so terrible at…… Seriously though, I admire your superior thinking.
Only because its ‘detailed and from the source’ rather than your AI generated summary which is meaningless on many levels , which is what others have pointed out
Narcissistic disorder is a personality disorder characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance
An excessive need for admiration, and to gain social status and approval often by exaggerating their skills, and accomplishments, alongside this, difficulty accepting help, vengeful fantasies, a sense of entitlement, and feigning humility.
This is your other sock puppet name is it
Read the Comment guidelines again , as its what I follow
Thats what I do, find backup sources , provide more detail etc.
meanwhile you break the golden rule all the time
Pot kettle black
Moderators please