I’d like to suggest a different approach from the recent hypotheticals. Instead of starting with what we think the RN should buy, let us start with what it says it is thinking of buying, & let us discuss (without undue pessimism) what the RN is actually likely to end up buying.
According to the excellent Mr. Beedall –
C1 was envisaged as a multimission combatant, of about 6,000 tons displacement according to Janes. It is optimised for war fighting and would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group, offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force.
C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort.
One continuing debate was whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two
Let us proceed from there. I propose that we limit ourselves, as follows:
Hull choice must be –
1. Common hull for C1 & C2, in the region of 6000 tons full load – but some variation is permissible.
2. Different hulls. In this case, the larger may be up to the size of Type 45.
For each class, define the armament fit, propulsion, & other capabilities & features which would suit it to its role, as described above. Note that AAW, other than self-defence, is clearly not part of either role, & both classes should be markedly cheaper than Type 45. You may state how many of each class you consider necessary, desirable, affordable, or all three.
Explanations of the reasoning leading to your choices would be greatly appreciated.
Commonality with current & planned future RN equipment, & preservation of the remaining defence industrial base, must be given high priority, & procurement decisions already taken must be adhered to. Budgetary constraints must be acknowledged, though not to the extent of emasculating the ships. This is meant to be an exercise in realism, but mild optimism is permitted. Just don’t get carried away.
Gentlemen, the floor is yours.
By: Al. - 26th October 2009 at 10:13
Mods please feel free to move this post to a new thread but I think that this is at least tangentially relevant.
Up front, my sympathies are very much with submarines and this may very well skew my logic. (Which raises the question of why I post on a Naval Aviation forum but I digress)
John Keegan (amongst others, but his has been the loudest voice) forcefully argued that skimmers are too vulnerable in a fight between evenly matched navies and thus that submarines will in the future have to take on more and more of the warship roles. Once upon a time all of the ‘This is what the world will be like in the Year 2000‘ style of books had as well as hover boots and cities in domes navies consisting of submarines and a handful of fast attack craft.
So what roles absolutely HAVE to be carried out by skimmers?
Launch and recovery of aircraft
Mass Troop transport
Fishery policing and protection*
(inc. smuggling and piracy patrols)
So what roles PROBABLY have to be carried out by skimmers?
Hydrography?
NGS?
Mine Warfare?
AAW?
Launch and recovery of UAVs?
C3?
T45 replacement?
What roles could be taken by boats?
Deep Land Attack
ASW
ASuW
Denial of access
Minelaying
C1?
C2?
Boats will be less visible, less vulnerable, scarier, have lower manning requirements, provide greater strategic deterrence (not just nukes but also in terms of ‘hmm we don’t KNOW where HMS Conqueror is so we have to be cautious in our planning‘)
But have less on-the-spot deterrence, ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE bang-up-to-date Hydrographic charts, are more expensive to purchase and are possibly more expensive to run, cannot be subcontracted to cheaper yards so easily
* can you imagine trying to board and inspect from an SSGT? No neither can I
By: Wanshan - 15th October 2009 at 00:28
By: Jonesy - 14th October 2009 at 11:30
Not sure what the missile is. It’s from naval technology and all it says is this
The Type 45 Sylver vertical launch system for the Aster missile.
I’m not sure what else it could be coming from the Sylver launcher? Could it be some kind of test missile.
Its a TLAM being launched out of a Mk41. I fear F35b that Swerve, Wanshan and John may have been yanking your chain just a little there.;)
By: F35b - 14th October 2009 at 11:19
Not sure what the missile is. It’s from naval technology and all it says is this
The Type 45 Sylver vertical launch system for the Aster missile.
I’m not sure what else it could be coming from the Sylver launcher? Could it be some kind of test missile.
By: John1964 - 13th October 2009 at 22:00
No. It’s rather fat, isn’t it?
And not very pointy?
Looks more like a cruise missile to me.
Cool picture though.
By: swerve - 13th October 2009 at 19:25
Mmmm, doesn’t quite look like Aster to me…:rolleyes:
No. It’s rather fat, isn’t it?
By: Wanshan - 13th October 2009 at 18:15
Here’s a picture of Aster launching from the cell. Looks like it’s blasted off from hell it self!
Mmmm, doesn’t quite look like Aster to me…:rolleyes:
By: StevoJH - 13th October 2009 at 14:18
T45 will get Phalanx as and when it needs it but only if it actually needs it, i.e gets sent somewhere ‘hot’
As in, keep the things in storage so they don’t get wear and tear unless the ship is actually heading towards somewhere it may be needed.
If the ship is deployed and its decided one is needed, you send the ship to a nearby port or naval base, fly the phalanx in on a C-130 or C-17 and mount it on deck with a crane.
By: kev 99 - 13th October 2009 at 13:45
T45 will get Phalanx as and when it needs it but only if it actually needs it, i.e gets sent somewhere ‘hot’
By: F35b - 13th October 2009 at 13:41
I thought i had heard that the RN had decided to fit the Phalanx on the Type 45 after all? Maybe this was a dream i had.
Maybe at a refit we will see the Type 45 get more VLS cells but i very much doubt it. I very much doubt they will ever fire a missile in anger never mind fire off all there load. you will probably find they never even sail with a full load. Probably 4 Aster 30’s and 2 Aster 15’s. Oh it’s sad so sad.
If they don’t have the Phalanx fitted it looks like the lesson of 1982 has been forgotten again. maybe it will take a couple billion pound type 45’s to hit the bottom before the MOD realise why we bought CIWS in the first place.
Here’s a picture of Aster launching from the cell. Looks like it’s blasted off from hell it self!
By: kev 99 - 10th October 2009 at 17:17
Sylver A70 is said by DCNS to be capable of launching TLAM, but someone would have to pay for integration.
Yeah I know, but at the time the A70 didn’t exist.
I would expect permission to be required from the US for it as well.
By: swerve - 10th October 2009 at 14:16
According to Navy Matters the RN wanted Mk41 so that T45 could get Tomahawk, apparently the PAAMs team chose Sylver though and that was that.
Sylver A70 is said by DCNS to be capable of launching TLAM, but someone would have to pay for integration.
By: Al. - 10th October 2009 at 08:35
I do not wish to let Not Labour off the hook for one moment for their cackhanded incompetence. Neither am I a big fan of spending the majority of tax revenues on interest payments. But in the interests of balance its worth noting that USA and Japan both have bigger debt as fraction of GDP than UK and that has not stopped them being numbers 1 and 2 respectively for a loooooong time.
By: Flubba - 10th October 2009 at 00:20
Yeah the numbers don’t really matter a great deal. Ooof! a whole 10 C1’s and 8 C2’s the MoD is a big spender (sarcasm), i doubt it will happen though i can see maximum 8 each or maybe 6 C1 and 8 C2. Ideally i would like 8-10 C1 and 12 C2 as it allows for all the most important allied patrol posts to be filled.
Politics Warning>>>>>>> I don’t hold much hope either way though as the Tories if they win will inherit a country that is broken economically, financially, socially and mentally. I dont think most peope realise how much damage has been done there is going to be a £90,000,000,000 hole in the annual budget so far what the tories have said will save at most £7billion a year and people are already having a moan about it. Labour or the Lib Dems have not said a word yet apart from labour said it basically wants to spend more money??. I am currently not a supporter of any of the main parties as they are all lying through the few teeth they have left although the Tories would be the Top of my list and Labour the bottom.
By: kev 99 - 9th October 2009 at 23:48
Ahhh! ok just me with a lack of humour etc, typical MoD trying to pinch some pennies hopefully it somehow bites them in the arrse. Ideally since we have so few Phalanx mounts we would replace them with something else for when we get all the new frigates as i would like both C1 and C2 to have CIWS’s. If the RN is very very very very lucky they might just get 16 C1/C2 so for that you need 32 CIWS mounts add into that all the larger fleet units Carriers etc then numbers should justify getting a more modern system. If we need a land based system as well which i think we do then the 35mm Millenium Gun should cover both sea and land based operations.
I still prefer gun based systems for last ditch defense as they can also be used against small boat threats and are a tad faster and easier to reload. A simple upgrade route would be to change to Sea Ram which has commonality with Phalanx.
The numbers being talked about are 10 C1 and 8 C2, not that that really means much of course.
By: Flubba - 9th October 2009 at 23:39
Ahhh! ok just me with a lack of humour etc, typical MoD trying to pinch some pennies hopefully it somehow bites them in the arrse. Ideally since we have so few Phalanx mounts we would replace them with something else for when we get all the new frigates as i would like both C1 and C2 to have CIWS’s. If the RN is very very very very lucky they might just get 16 C1/C2 so for that you need 32 CIWS mounts add into that all the larger fleet units Carriers etc then numbers should justify getting a more modern system. If we need a land based system as well which i think we do then the 35mm Millenium Gun should cover both sea and land based operations.
I still prefer gun based systems for last ditch defense as they can also be used against small boat threats and are a tad faster and easier to reload. A simple upgrade route would be to change to Sea Ram which has commonality with Phalanx.
By: kev 99 - 9th October 2009 at 23:04
Theres a nice picture in Sept Desider of at least six mounts being upgraded at Babcock marine
I know I read it yesterday:)
By: 90inFIRST - 9th October 2009 at 22:59
I was being facetious, there’s an upgrade programme (to block 1b) going as well, although typically for the MOD they’ve decided not to upgrade all of them:confused:
Theres a nice picture in Sept Desider of at least six mounts being upgraded at Babcock marine
By: kev 99 - 9th October 2009 at 22:40
Kev i doubt they deployed all the Phalanx mounts on trailers to Afghanistan, there will still be a few hopefully somewhere. There are currently 5 T42 in service with another in extended readiness, there are 2 of the batch 2’s that got the chop this year so thats 4 mounts released. There was a few that got binned last year so thats a few more mounts and they are the mounts that would have been shipped to Afghanistan i would hope.
I was being facetious, there’s an upgrade programme (to block 1b) going as well, although typically for the MOD they’ve decided not to upgrade all of them:confused:
By: Flubba - 9th October 2009 at 19:47
Kev i doubt they deployed all the Phalanx mounts on trailers to Afghanistan, there will still be a few hopefully somewhere. There are currently 5 T42 in service with another in extended readiness, there are 2 of the batch 2’s that got the chop this year so thats 4 mounts released. There was a few that got binned last year so thats a few more mounts and they are the mounts that would have been shipped to Afghanistan i would hope.
Sign In
September 2, 2008 at 10:52 pm