The Mk8 Mod 0 is installed the Mod 1 is only installed on a few ships mainly through lack of funding. I would hope when the new ships are built they are built with the 155mm gun if that ever comes to fruition if it does not get that far e.g. gets cancelled or never used due to cost then yes the Mod 1 will be used on the whole of the escort fleet. Why do you think the T45 will never get the larger Gun? it might if the newer frigates get it.

Personally i dont think the 155mm gun is worth it if we wanted to up-gun i would say go for the slightly larger 5″ gun if we need a bigger gun. Bonkers i know to go up half an inch but it means we can use all the rounds that are in use. The whole idea with commonality with the Army is a bit daft in my opinion as the ROF for the naval gun will drop as you need a 2 stroke loading. Daft question but is the weight on target much greater with a 155mm gun than with a 127mm or 114mm gun with a higher rate of fire?
The only real advantage is the R&D cost savings but i doubt they amount to very much when you consider re-gunning ships.

I’d be more than happy to see a Mod 1 gun stuck on the front of the C3 all im saying is i have some doubts. The 30mm mounts could handle the small boat threat but with the larger airbursting rounds of the 76mm you could make mincemeat out of small boats also the ROF is higher than the Mk8. The ‘big gun’ on the front does have an affect you are right when you pull into ports they see it and go wow big gun.

What i was getting at with it looking like a frigate is if anyone remembers the Type 21 who is in the political circles then they will be thinking hang on it’s the same size and armed like a frigate not like an OPV. You are right in saying the treasury will swing the axe no matter what which is bonkers considering we are due to get maybe 12-18 C3 as it is.

Nobody really knows what the C3 will get upto as the world changes also since there are no solid ideas of what numbers of C1 and C2 will be procured then the C3 might end up doing things that should be covered by proper frigates. The Floreal class are close to what i think C3 will be doing most of the time and yes i know that they carry a 100mm gun. There is also the problem that the C3 must also do Mine warfare and survey so has to carry quite a bit of kit and be flexible comapred to the single role Floreal.

Al if you watch all the Venator clips on youtube then there is a side launch option from the garage, alright it’s a tad close to the waterline. It should be safe enough as the garage is a ‘wet garage’ so if water gets onto the deck which it will anyway all is fine. The main problem with stern ramps in rough weather is just the movement of it going up and down and trying to get back on the ship, i would imagine launching is still ok.

Full hangar for the Venator then is the opinion of us here naval enthusiasts.

As to the issue of the main gun on C3 I’m curious as to why people are so keen on a 57/76mm class weapon on those hulls?. Especially seeing as we dont currently deploy a weapon in that calibre range and would have to start from scratch with their deployment. Surely its not just on the ‘thats what everyone else does’ basis?!.

Jonesy it’s only an idea, hell these hulls might not even be built with a gun at all. The reason i would like to see a 76mm Gun on the C3 is that it is a mid-sized gun and better than the 114mm gun at direct fire at small boats. The job that the C3 may find itself doing a lot of is typical OPV duties and yes everyone else uses a oto for those vessels. The 114mm gun may be getting replaced so when it does using a 76mm gun would still only mean 2 guns main guns within the fleet to support. To carry on using the 114mm gun when nobody else will seems a bit daft as that means all the support is on use for development etc. The other users of the 114mm gun will no doubt switch to the 5″ mount when they build newer ships. Using the oto means we are part of a large user base that updates and supports the gun and looks like they will be doing so for the forseeable future.

i think it is actaully, im actually for smaller ships with bigger cannons and rocket systems while larger ships are used for AAW and ASW dutie, no sense in risking all those expensive electronics and sensor systems by drawing a major Air warfare ship into a NSFS role. im just looking at it from a nationalistic perspective (there is a reason the USN didnt go for 76mm on the lcs..) i could really care less put a mk 8 114 on it. All the better for NSFS

I agree with this line of thought from the logic perspective a small ship can also get closer to shore and should be more maneuverable in the shallows. The only problem is they would need to have a decent ammo load while still being functional ships, in other words the gun has to suit the hull size, fitting a 114mm gun to a 3000ton hull is ok. It has been done before Amazon class anyone, these ‘little’ ships are roughly the same size as what the Venator and VT C3 proposal are currently. One problem may be political if we put a big gun on it the politicians would call it a frigate whereas if we stuck a 76mm gun on it we could call it an OPV by pointing to the Khareef class and saying “look thats an OPV”. I suspect that this is a reason why the LCS has a 57mm gun to avoid being class as a OHP class replacement.

Surely all this will upsclae the costs of these types…. I think C3 especially is supposed to be ‘simples’ *kisses teeth*

The costs in some aspects should be less as people are already trained to maintain the weapons, there should be a large stock of Ammo sitting around at storage depots and then Guns should be able to be taken straight from the decommissioning ships and put straight onto the new C3 hulls. My concern is longer term if we dump the 114mm gun for the escorts then we still have 2 gun types to support one of which we will be the only user left on the planet. I’ve mentioned this before ^ up there somewhere.

If you are raiding from a C3 then a) it better be against a country with a small navy and b) i imagine the size of raid (eg no larger than troop sized) would use silence as its watch word, 114mm going off all over the place would not be in keeping. If your C3 is close in shore then a 81-120mm mortar might be a better option for fire support. The Ozzies used to have an 81mm fitted to the old Freemantle boats.

The C3 options such as Venator are supposed to be able to carry some marines upto around 30 or so? Not many i know but take somalia or other situations if the RM’s chase people onto the land and get ambushed they could call in NGFS while they extract. Also even as part of a larger fleet they would be an ideal asset for NGFS as they are smaller and cheaper so more ‘expendable’.

Also a couple of wider points. Nice to see that people can see the advantages of using Sylver for CAMM it just makes more sense to me, although i didn’t think of exports but thats a fair point it would mean Europe should finally have something comparable to ESSM and SM-2. Maybe this would win us some exports but most people seem to have already chosen Aegis, Korea, Australia, Spain, Norway and others are using APAR and US missiles.

The point about the T45 why does it need flag facilities, they are escorts so whatever they are escorting should have flag e.g. Carriers and Amphibs. People may say that they could be taking part in TF-150 type op’s but at 6 we simply do not have enough DDG’s to send one along. That should be the role of the C2 not even a C1 as they high value escorts will be so few that they should be kept for escorting the toys. It should also save cash as they are generally more expensive to deploy.

Kev thanks for the post, looks like the will have a compartment built and working long before the subs need replaced. Hopefully this should simplify the build of the new subs and maybe be a tad cheaper.

Schorsch, Germany may not have it’s own nuclear weapons but they are under the US nuclear shield. Luckily Germany has educated itself to see that Russia is not all bad and has a much better relationship with them than many EU nations. As a whole however Russia EU relations i feel will be strained in the years to come as we expand into the former soviet block and they lose influence, furthermore some of the EU nations have territorial disputes with Russia in the Arctic and if we can’t support our members what good are we.

In regards to Nukes and Europe. I think the EU should have a nuclear capability as we are a massive economic power and a medium military power. For us to have a capable defense that can keep us safe when the world changes we need SSBN’s to be assured a retaliatory capability just incase anything happens and also to deter aggression. If the EU further integrates then we will be the most powerfull close knit group of nations on the face of the planet. The further expansion of the EU eastwards will also antagonize russia as it’s influence and power in neighbouring states is reduced this i think will be dangerous for the EU and Russia has shown the world it will act like a child. Also the ageing population in the EU will leave us with yet smaller armed forces leaving us incapable and unwilling to fight any conventional war with a near peer, also this will affect manning numbers so EU forces will be very small compared to it’s total population.

Kev all i can see from the picture and all as far as i know that commenter can see is 2 8 Cell VLS launchers. They may have other sources of information if they do fair enough but i doubt there are 48 VLS cells or ever really will be. 16 Cells would be enough for basic needs mainly self defence as this would allow upto 64 CAMM missiles more than enough for self defense. If 32 Sea Wolf were enough for a T23 then 64 CAMM should be enough for the C1. Also you dont get 6 cell VLS launchers either 4 or 8 and i would guess 2 8 cell A-50 launchers as this keep commonality with the T45 as they use the A-50 cell.

If cost is the main consideration for the FSC program and it is then i can’t see more than 16 VLS cells being fitted, in the short very realistic term i dont see the need for more cells. The problem is that is my personal view in the short term right now not in 10-12 years time when the C1 will be being built.

Stevo and Co. I think we should either start a new thread or go to the old C1, C2 thread. Ack well here goes.

Yeah Stevo i like that idea, Say we have 2 carriers 2 LPH’s 2 Amphibs and for the RFA 8 Multipurpose replenishment ships and the 4 bay class that’s 18 large vessels and carriers take more than a year so it should be possible.

Medium vessels, 6 type 45 (2 more, minimum i would like) 12 ASW ships (C1), 12 GP Frigates (C2) so thats 30 ships bang on and once you include things like R&D the ships should be able to be built in just under 12 months per ship. The problem is one ship per year is a very slow build schedule so it’s a tough thing to work out what would suit.

The smaller vessel area is a problem as it takes no where near 1 year to build a small ship and if it did nobody would buy from us even the few who do currently. The C3 is slated to replace 26 vessels in all, this is inclusive of Survey vessels. I would like a one-for-one replacement of these vessels.

The problem is industrial strategy in my opinion so i would try have one of the Yards specialise in large ships i was thinking make blocks in other yards including overseas and ship to rosyth where the carriers will be built making this yard efficient at large ship construction. Also creates and sustains job’s at the only dock that can carry out extensive repairs on large ships. The Medium Vessels i would build mostly on the Clyde in the 2 current yards and the smaller vessels i would build in Portsmouth that has a history of building small warships so should be good at that. That in theory should keep the major yards working and buying votes for the cycle to work. They might become good enough to win orders but i dont have high enough hopes for that.

The small patrol boat’s like the Archer class i think you are correct they are like RHIB’s so could be built by any decent boat builder and at least this industry is self sustaining to a large degree.

It is indeed a moronic decision by Government we can only hope the tories will be better. I dont hold much hope though as they have much better things to be sorting out like the NHS and Social Security. Both of which cost far more and more money could be saved than in defense but they are sacred cows and defense is not.

Ideally they need to work with industry to come up with a large long term shipbuilding package like say, all the FSC ships place them as one huge order to run for 10 years. That should be around 30 ships so 3 per year split between Govan, Scotstoun and Portsmouth that. By doing this they should be serially produced and for a fixed price, as the ships are different sizes you could get one yard to build each type. As part of the contract i would stipulate efficiency has to improve each year. I really thing that BVT/BAe should be told to win some commercial orders or the yards will be sold to someone else with a mandatory buy-out.