My understanding is that it goes further and the airframes will be able to switch ‘sides’ depending demands, though obviously not magically become ASW versions etc. The idea being that if the Navy wants a utility Lynx it uses one of them, rather than waste hours on a heavier radar’d version. So cancelling the Army order reduces the utility and flexibility of the whole fleet.

Let us review some of what’s been discussed.

Firstly, there seems to be a widely held view that we don’t need a new high-end ASW ship yet, & that T23 can carry on in that role for a while longer. Secondly, the C&C facilities of the T22B3s seem to be valued.

These ideas have implications.

The T22s are getting very long in the tooth, have unique systems, & are expensive to run. SLEPping them does not seem worthwhile.

Keeping the T23s in the ASW role as long as possible implies that we won’t need T26 to replace them, but will need something to carry out the C2-type GP role that they’re scheduled to do until retirement, as T26 relegates them to it. The general opinion here seems to support a modest, cheap to build & operate, long endurance ‘patrol frigate’ for this role.

This leaves us with a dilemma. T26 doesn’t fit the patrol frigates role, but the patrol frigate doesn’t replace the T22B3s. We’ll eventually need a high-end ASW ship to replace T23, even if that’s a decade later than the RN currently plans, & we’re kicking the ship designed to do that into the long grass.

One possible answer is to build something FM400 or even La Fayette like for the presence/anti-piracy/etc role, & carry on with versions of T26 for the T22B3 replacement, & eventually for the T23 ASW replacement. Let’s call the first version T26 Batch 1. What does it need? Well, to me, an Absalon-ised T26 looks a good fit. It doesn’t need to be able to carry MBTs, but a flex deck (smaller than Absalon’s) & stern ramp are desirable, capable of holding the vehicles & other kit for a platoon or so of marines, & a couple of assault boats – not just RIBs, something more substantial. Hangar for two proper helicopters, not just one plus a dog kennel. Command suite or fitted for a palletised one. Accommodation for command suite crew & marines in addition to standard crew. Self defence AA weapons, 4.5″ gun because we’ve got it, VLS for land attack. Fireshadow could be very handy, for supporting the marines. Sounds like an RN F125? Well, yes.

A Batch 2 model should be available for export, basically a razeed version of the above, with reduced volume but more offensive weaponry (I know, the Danes have already done it with Absalon/Ivar Huitfeldt), option of other gun (e.g. Oto 127mm), sensors & weapons, hangar for single helicopter plus space for UAVs.

When we need a T23 ASW replacement, we build Batch 3 – as B2 but carrying over the (by now modernised) 2087 sonars or their replacements & otherwise ASW dedicated, & modernised as appropriate.

Comments?

Meanwhile, we build a batch (6?) of patrol frigates to do the low-end stuff, filling the hole which is sometimes being inappropriately filled by big expensive ships, & then replacing the older non-2087 T23s as they retire. These can be followed by a batch of cut-down models for the postponed C3 role.

Jonesy is rather fond of a stretched Project Khareef vessel for this niche. I’m not sure about that, as I fear that even with the stretch, it may be squeezing a bit too much into the hull, when one considers that it needs long range & endurance. I also think that if RN logistics really can’t cope with a new gun & ammo type without massive costs, the answer is not to have nothing between 30mm & 4.5″, but for heads to roll in the logistics organisation & revamp it so that it can cope easily, because it should be able to take such things in its stride.

Brilliantly laid out argument. You get the Naval procurment job, when do you start?

How about stopping Prince Andrew and other Royal ‘pilots’ from using military choppers for private jollies?:diablo::eek:

I’ll get me coat…;)

lol I want to know if Wills SAR SK is having to carry a body guard too…

Liam Fox seems to be playing a fine hand in defence of our… defence. The general theme after the latest NSC meeting seems to be that he’s won over the PM in terms of severely limiting the cuts compared to what was being suggested a few weeks/months ago. Things can still change ofcourse, but at this moment in time there seems good cause for optimism.

Also regarding that US article on the NHS, what a load of balls. I remember when they tried to use Stephen Hawking as a weapon against the NHS, stating that the NHS would view his life as worthless and therefore the world would have been deprived a great scientist; only for Hawking, who happened to be in the US at the time, to respond the next day saying without the NHS he certainly wouldn’t be alive today. That sure got some Republicans red faced. I’ve been fortunate enough to have never needed the NHS, but knowing it’s there is a very reassuring fact especially since my family would struggle very hard to pay for health insurance or a £2000 surgery bill in the case of an emergency. I’ve also seen the benefits of the NHS through its usage by family members, it’s far from a white elephant.

++1

Swerve – Your mostly right and i’m not saying ships are irrelevant or useless, i’m saying there are often better ways of doing it and the asumption that a frigate is the best tool for the job is one that does not entirely stand up to scrutiny. As I think I said already, you need frigates, absolutlely, should we have a fleet of TDCs, god no. But there is a lot of people stating without argument that the RN needs lots of frigate hulls and I think the assumption that the core of a modern RN should be a fleet of ASW frigates is one that needs discussion. There are many aspects of the modern RN that could be achieved with different vehicles such as UAVs at the fraction of cost in manpower and treasure. Yes we need (and always will) the persistence of ships, but many of the RNs planning assumptions do seem predicated on which ships are good commands rather than what is useful.

As for WW2. Yes and no, I understand what you are saying but airpower would still be the dominant anti-sub force. The speed of search is even more critical now given the range of submarine based weapons and the speed of modern SSNs. T23 is a great ASW frigate, BUT it has a fixed search range that moves along at 15-20 knots search speed. Once located its search pattern is predictable. An MPA or Helicopter has a far greater speed of search, over a greater range with much less predictability.

You need both, but really the ships are there to support the aircraft, the hanger and platform is the most important part of a T23. A better ASW ship would have bigger flying facilities.

Had it ever worked, we could suggest it! Shame it is a utopy that will never work!
It is a cheap dream.
So far, the only thing that worked preventing men from going to major war on one another has been the Mutually Assured Destruction principle that granted 70 years of otherwise impossible peace between Russia and NATO.

“Abandoned Somalia to his fate” You know, it is not like they welcomed help. Or, as they say, “western intrusions in our country!”
When Italy and US tried to fix things up a bit… well. We all know how it went. Checkpoint Pasta for us Italians is not a great memory.
Oh Jesus! What next…? Ill-thought rambling about colonialism…? But you really BELIEVE in what you say, i wonder, or are you kidding???

Because for a thing you could make a search and discoverer that:
A) Most african countries (if not all) went through civil wars, disasters, and destruction of their economy AFTER they got their indipendence. AKA, they were better off under that colonialism they wanted to see ended and that they now often miss.
B) Some countries (most notably Yemen) recently all but admitted “we regret asking for indipendence). Seek on the internet and you’ll find that very interesting news pretty easily.

We are drifting into totally unsustainable assumptions.

I’m really not going to get into this debate here, lets say we will never agree on this point and leave it at that. (if you want to debate it over e-mail so we don’t bore everyone silly that is fine)

I dunno how true that point is. Normal range of the Chinook is 425 km. AW101 has an autonomy of over 1300 km, which possibly means a 500 km range. AW149 has an autonomy of 1000-some km, which also would give pretty good range.
The Chinook isn’t that long-legged when it comes to range, so i have some doubts on the effective importance of that one point. Also, not always such long range is needed.

Besides, the US Special Forces helicopter of choice is a version of the BlackHawk, after all.
True, they have Combat Talon C130 air tankers for refuelling them as well, but this is true only a fraction of the times.

I don’t think there’s so much of a discrimination in these terms.

Fair points, but a chinook with a small load and extra fuel goes for an awful long way while a smaller helicopter with a full load goes a lot shorter than stated. Blackhawks do carry external tanks and for longer work the US use chinooks too.