RN Type-4X poll 3: Displacement

Just realised I never voted on this one:

1, D
2, E
3, C

To do all the things that ‘the commitee’ seems to be demanding here is going to take us well beyond the standard destroyer displacement. Takes us away from the C1 concept and any vestige of reality too! 🙂

Best you could pitch this as, I suppose, would be for a direct like-for-like replacement of the ‘command cruiser’ role we are sort of using the Type 22B3’s for at the moment – if we could afford such a hull.

Oh yeah to engage in supreme nitpickery Planeman you need to change the title of the threads too!. In RN Type numbering a T4x would be an AAW ship – a general purpose vessel like this is turning out to be would be given a Type 8x number! 😀

1º “B” – 8 x 6000-7000 tons “Destroyers”. Similar size to Type-45

2º “A” – 10 x 4000-5000 tons “Frigates”. More platforms is what’s most important.

Any other option would make the RN really, reaaly, really, short of escorts (even more).

B. 8 x 6000-7000 tons “Destroyers”. Similar size to Type-45

C. 6 x 8000 tons “Super Destroyers”, the modern day equivalent to Bristol.

A. 10 x 4000-5000 tons “Frigates”. More platforms is what’s most important.

C3 doesn’t need to be capable, it just needs to be good enough to do anti-smuggling and presence patrols, saving the better ships for other roles where their capabilities are actually useful. I’ll make another thread for C3.

I agree, up to a point. C-3 needs to be capable of performing its roles, which will most likely involve a combination of patrol (including anti-smuggling and presence patrols) and MCM duties. However, because the ships are likely to be operating in pretty isolated areas, it may make sense to give them at least basic levels of defensive measures. This is especially desirable for the MCM role, since by definition, they may end up deployed in some pretty threatening situations. I don’t propose giving them a serious level of capability, e.g. the same as on ships like the C-1s (or even C-2s), but some basic level would be good. I would, at the very least, look to add basic ESM, decoys and a Phalanx unit, especially since the latter would allow upgrade to SeaRAM (it’s intended to be pretty much a drop-in replacement).

I think the C-1/C-2 idea is the best solution. Also the lack of powerful sensors might not be the hindrance that they once would of been in a high intensity war. With data linking there is no reason why our C1/C2 tier combatants could effectively be spare missile platforms with targeting and control being handled by the Type 45. The Americans have had thoughts much down the same line with the CEC capability (something which the RN is joining) where an AEGIS ship uses the ASW escorts as extra missile platforms.

That way we get the best of both worlds with the costs being kept down for world policing but the ability to punch above their weight being retained for true high intensity wars.

As for missiles I would argue Aster 15 but it appears the MOD is set on a new generation Sea Wolf/ Rapier replacement so we shall see.

On a side note I don’t know why people bring up the idea of a naval Meteor, its performance would cross over with Aster making it a rather pointless development when investment has gone into that system.

Umm, Fed, I did respond to most of what you raised in that post! The only point I didn’t directly respond to was your point about VL-Meteor being pointless because it would cross over into the role of the Aster 15. This is one thing I most certainly disagree with – yes, it would be pretty much in the same class as the A15, but with many crucial differences. Firstly, being much smaller than A15, it should be capable of being quad-packed, which is pretty useful. Secondly, being smaller, it would be a lot more useful for land-based use, where the sheer size of the Aster is a bit of a problem as regards a Rapier replacement. Thirdly, because of the possibility of quad-packing, it would allow ships such as the Type 45 to carry more of the long-range Aster 30s, without sacrificing the shorter range defensive missiles. Equally, if it were decided to fit a single 8-cell Sylver launcher to the carriers, it would only allow eight Aster 15/30s, yet would allow 32 of a VL-Meteor. Since the seeker from Meteor is very closely related to that of the Aster, I actually doubt there would be too many problems development-wise.

Basically, just because the Meteor would duplicate much of the capability of the Aster 15, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea. The Aster 15 is basically a very inefficient way of packing a ~30km range missile into a VLS. The Meteor would be a much better companion to the more capable Aster 30, and much more appropriate for land forces. If the CAAM ends up based on ASRAAM, as seems likely, and has sufficient range, then I see no problem.

Yeah I’d have to agree with Unicorn here!

I must admit I am irritated!

I spend the time in this thread and the CIWS one to make a clear post raising some important points and nobody can be bothered to notice them.:mad:

This isn’t the first time this has happened in this forum, I made a post a few months back complaining about this behavior. As far as I can see it people are just ignoring my contributions.

Whats the point of me writing out contributions if nobody will acknowledge them.

happens ALL the time

Indeed 😉

I must admit I am irritated!

I spend the time in this thread and the CIWS one to make a clear post raising some important points and nobody can be bothered to notice them.:mad:

This isn’t the first time this has happened in this forum, I made a post a few months back complaining about this behavior. As far as I can see it people are just ignoring my contributions.

Whats the point of me writing out contributions if nobody will acknowledge them.

The problem is that the C-3 is unlikely to be a particularly capable surface combattant. In fact, it is likely to be something more like a better equipped/armed OPV(H); i.e. a patrol ship, with space to carry some MCM gear as needed.

I think the RN really needs to have at least twenty-four T-45/C-1/C-2s, plus at least eight to twelve C-3s. The former allow the carriers and amphibs to be escorted, while maintaining both the Fleet Ready Escort and a forward deployed force. The C-3s are good for bulking out the fleet, but only to a certain degree; you need a good number of them for the fleet MCM role, and some more for other duties.

On the issue of the CAAM missile system (the replacement for Sea Wolf and Rapier), my hope is that it ends up pretty capable. If it ends up being at least in the class of VL-Mica, i.e. 20km+, then I would be reasonably comfortable with it. Anything much less, and I would be more concerned; if it is going to be the main defensive missile for at least some ships, and Army units, then it needs to be capable. If it is capable of being quad-packed, and has a 20-40km range, then I would certainly look at not buying A-15 at all.

The T-45 has a 48-cell VLS, so it could, for instance, carry 40 Aster 30, plus eight quad-packed CAAM (32 total). The C-1 and C-2 should ideally be able to carry a 32-cell VLS. The C-1s would carry 24 A-30 plus 32 CAAM; while the C-2 would pack more CAAM (since it lacks A-30), say, 64 CAAM, plus sixteen Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. This would result in the RN having what amount to two different main classes, i.e. the Type 45 and the C-1/2 base-hull; the latter having two sub-versions.

C3 doesn’t need to be capable, it just needs to be good enough to do anti-smuggling and presence patrols, saving the better ships for other roles where their capabilities are actually useful. I’ll make another thread for C3.

The problem is that the C-3 is unlikely to be a particularly capable surface combattant. In fact, it is likely to be something more like a better equipped/armed OPV(H); i.e. a patrol ship, with space to carry some MCM gear as needed.

I think the RN really needs to have at least twenty-four T-45/C-1/C-2s, plus at least eight to twelve C-3s. The former allow the carriers and amphibs to be escorted, while maintaining both the Fleet Ready Escort and a forward deployed force. The C-3s are good for bulking out the fleet, but only to a certain degree; you need a good number of them for the fleet MCM role, and some more for other duties.

On the issue of the CAAM missile system (the replacement for Sea Wolf and Rapier), my hope is that it ends up pretty capable. If it ends up being at least in the class of VL-Mica, i.e. 20km+, then I would be reasonably comfortable with it. Anything much less, and I would be more concerned; if it is going to be the main defensive missile for at least some ships, and Army units, then it needs to be capable. If it is capable of being quad-packed, and has a 20-40km range, then I would certainly look at not buying A-15 at all.

The T-45 has a 48-cell VLS, so it could, for instance, carry 40 Aster 30, plus eight quad-packed CAAM (32 total). The C-1 and C-2 should ideally be able to carry a 32-cell VLS. The C-1s would carry 24 A-30 plus 32 CAAM; while the C-2 would pack more CAAM (since it lacks A-30), say, 64 CAAM, plus sixteen Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. This would result in the RN having what amount to two different main classes, i.e. the Type 45 and the C-1/2 base-hull; the latter having two sub-versions.

Using B or C:

b) 8 x 6000-7000 tons “Destroyers”. Similar size to Type-45
c) 6 x 8000 tons “Super Destroyers”, the modern day equivalent to Bristol.

as Frigate replacements to back up the 6 Type 45 as our high end force, we could have the C3 concept to make up the numbers “Global Corvette”.

But this is all really besides the point, short sighted governments will waste more assets than anything, as per usual.

It might make most sense to simply pursue the elusive final two Type 45s (i.e. hulls 7 & 8), and then build at least eight general purpose T-45 derivatives. The general purpose version would ideally be about the same size, but not as AAW oriented – perhaps still have Aster 30 capability, but not as primary AAW ships.

The best thing, though, would be to pursue numbers, as long as they don’t sacrifice capability too much. I think something like the FREMM might be best, ideally in two versions – one with a full ASW and limited AAW fitout (i.e. the RN’s C-1 concept), and one with a much more limited fitout (the C-2). Ideally, at least eight of each would be needed to properly replace the current Type 22B3s and Type 23s. The C-2 type should ideally have the ability to be upgraded later to more like the C-1 spec, should the need arise. Both classes would have a suitable VLS, but with the C-1 carrying a mix of Aster 30 and Aster 15 (unless someone pays attention to my suggestion of a quad-packed VL-Meteor! :diablo:). The C-2s would then carry a mix of Aster 15 (or the VL-Meteor) plus some cruise missiles, either Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. The C-2s would be forward deployed to, say, Cyprus, to support ops in the Med and Gulf. This is, of course, why they would want some limited land-attack capability!

So, to actually vote, not just waffle on about how things should be:

A – 10 x 5000 ton ‘frigates’
B – 8 x 7000 ton ‘destroyers’
C – 6 x 8000 ton ‘super destroyers’

If this is to form the sole RN frontline surface combattant fleet, i.e. no extra ‘C-2s’ or equivalent, then a mere six to eight Type 45s and six to eight of these Type 4Xs is simply not going to cut it! You need a total of at least twenty, preferably more than 24. 🙂

I think the C-1/C-2 idea is the best solution. Also the lack of powerful sensors might not be the hindrance that they once would of been in a high intensity war. With data linking there is no reason why our C1/C2 tier combatants could effectively be spare missile platforms with targeting and control being handled by the Type 45. The Americans have had thoughts much down the same line with the CEC capability (something which the RN is joining) where an AEGIS ship uses the ASW escorts as extra missile platforms.

That way we get the best of both worlds with the costs being kept down for world policing but the ability to punch above their weight being retained for true high intensity wars.

As for missiles I would argue Aster 15 but it appears the MOD is set on a new generation Sea Wolf/ Rapier replacement so we shall see.

On a side note I don’t know why people bring up the idea of a naval Meteor, its performance would cross over with Aster making it a rather pointless development when investment has gone into that system.

It might make most sense to simply pursue the elusive final two Type 45s (i.e. hulls 7 & 8), and then build at least eight general purpose T-45 derivatives. The general purpose version would ideally be about the same size, but not as AAW oriented – perhaps still have Aster 30 capability, but not as primary AAW ships.

The best thing, though, would be to pursue numbers, as long as they don’t sacrifice capability too much. I think something like the FREMM might be best, ideally in two versions – one with a full ASW and limited AAW fitout (i.e. the RN’s C-1 concept), and one with a much more limited fitout (the C-2). Ideally, at least eight of each would be needed to properly replace the current Type 22B3s and Type 23s. The C-2 type should ideally have the ability to be upgraded later to more like the C-1 spec, should the need arise. Both classes would have a suitable VLS, but with the C-1 carrying a mix of Aster 30 and Aster 15 (unless someone pays attention to my suggestion of a quad-packed VL-Meteor! :diablo:). The C-2s would then carry a mix of Aster 15 (or the VL-Meteor) plus some cruise missiles, either Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. The C-2s would be forward deployed to, say, Cyprus, to support ops in the Med and Gulf. This is, of course, why they would want some limited land-attack capability!

So, to actually vote, not just waffle on about how things should be:

A – 10 x 5000 ton ‘frigates’
B – 8 x 7000 ton ‘destroyers’
C – 6 x 8000 ton ‘super destroyers’

If this is to form the sole RN frontline surface combattant fleet, i.e. no extra ‘C-2s’ or equivalent, then a mere six to eight Type 45s and six to eight of these Type 4Xs is simply not going to cut it! You need a total of at least twenty, preferably more than 24. 🙂

Type “B”

designed as 1.5-enders on a common hull, powered by 3 GTs, all electric, incl electric AWJ-21.

4 AAW (incl basic BMD) with around 80 VLS cells, no aviation complex
4 ASW with around 30 VLS cells and a large aviation complex (manned/unmanned)

Remark on BMD: Looking at CG(X), the BMD has a *severe* issue with the radar. Looking at what is out there in public knowledge, non of your designs would be able to mount a X-band AESA. Thus put a the effectors on the AAW escort and use offboard sensors.

My vote mirrors Stevo’s, for similar reasons.

B. 8 x 6000-7000 tons “Destroyers”. Similar size to Type-45

C. 6 x 8000 tons “Super Destroyers”, the modern day equivalent to Bristol.

A. 10 x 4000-5000 tons “Frigates”. More platforms is what’s most important.

The capabilities of the F100 and similar sized vessels suggest that 6-7K is suitable for the sort of role we seem to be discussing.

The 8k vessel is sort of a lightweight Burke, and is basically the baseline for vessels in this weight class, as evidenced by the Kongo and KDX-III classes.

The 5K frigate is basically a Nansen class, with a little more room to accomodate systems. As suggested, if they are also replacing the Type 23s in due course then numbers are needed.

Unicorn

B, C, A

remember these ships are going to most likely be the replacement for the majority of the Type 23’s, which means more then 2 would be needed. 😉

B or C, both have the optimal combination of hull count vs capability.

My votes are E, D, C. Just cos I think Type-45s plus a few true heavy-hitters will be the right mix.