Ok after a dull hour at work with an empty in-tray I thought I would look at this shipbucket malarky. Here is a quick cut and shunt job on a couple of other peoples drawings (two chaps called wakazashi and Mihoshik – so i take no credit) to create my submission to C3.

Behold! HMS Ethelwulf (Wessex Class MROPV)

It’s been suggested by others that a Hummingbird might be an appropriate for lugging around a decent sized radar set.

Can’t see it working :p

If you have no on-board operators, then dispense with the cost/weight/complexity of the flight crew and make it a UAV.

The reason for on-board operators is to avoid having that constant stream of data that can be jammed, and which alerts the enemy to the location of the ship that is communicating with the AEW aircraft.

There is that but as it stands there is a constant flow of data anyway, and if we look at UAVs the link is permanent. Its perfectly possible to make it secure. A high endurance UAV might be ideal to accompany a fleet.

What about an airship?

The Treasury can’t complain about C3 on any kind of cost grounds as they will offer a reduction in hulls, a streamlining of support costs and an uplift in deliverable capability. In short everything that they require from the armed forces.

I wish that was the case. I agree with you and with sane minds that is the logic, but this is the treasury, the people who brought us PPP and PFI, the people who decide that it is better to pay for C17s several times over by leasing in order to make yearly balance sheets look right than save money in the long term and buy outright (then do that anyway).

They will look at C3, look at what went before and make raw number comparisons. The big wigs need to play the game here, give them a price tag they want to see (or below)- sell them a bargin -and make sure there are lots of neat little spaces where things can be added when we finally get to that big crisis we can’t forsee.

At the end of the day sending a T23/C2 to do a role that your C3 cannot because of “financial realism” does not save money.

But sending a T23/C2 etc to chase drug runners and pirates make no sense either, those jobs can be done by cheaper vessels.

After all part of the whole exercise is reducing not just unit cost, but operating costs. it is the latter that has been the real killer for the Navy – £13M a year for T23 compared to a unit cost around £80-100M…..

Agreed, but thats why smaller, lighter simpler ships are needed for some roles, less fuel and manpower costs.

I agree they don’t need a new calibre, but it leaves the extremes if too small (30mm) or too large ? (114mm). If RN goes for 155mm, then 114mm may be available (depending on the mounts), if it doesn’t, well there is your common calibre anyway.

I actually think anything more than 40mm is overkill for C3 and will put up manpower and maintenace costs.

And the other River class ships have a limited role-swapping capability already, so an enlarged version would seem to lend itself to a basic C3 concept.

Precisely! give it a longer adaptable stern and we have a pretty good ship we can build now.

Daring has put us back £1 Billion a pop

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/Type45Destroyer.htm

Type 23s were much cheaper, but you have to add a bit of inflation. between £139 Million and £60 Million.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2001-07-05.967.h

In 1979 Broadsword cost something like £65 Million, they were very pricey ships. Some of the rot that set in with regards to ship numbers was because of the T22, they were supposed to be one to one replacements for Type 12 ships but came in at a much higher cost. By 1982 the cost of Type 22 had risen to over 120 million.

The prize for cost per ton must go to the Hunt class though. In 1982 they cost £35 miilion a pop. Which for a vessel of 750 tons is a big price tag. The type 21 tens years earlier cost £20 million and before that a Type12M cost £10 Mil.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1983/mar/30/hunt-class-vessels

While I am completely in favour of many of the ideas put forward there has to be some realism in all this. Public finances are going to be a disater over the next ten years in the Uk (Bloodbath I think was the term used) No government is going to shut schools and hospitals (thankfully) so chances are the RN is going to take a hit. If we want C3 to happen then it needs to be simple, flexible and above all cheap, otherwise it will never happen. When designing “a C3” you need to think more like an accountant and go for cheap options that can be adapted latter.

It will never have a 76 or 57 mm gun, the RN is having trouble enough dropping the 4.5 in favour of 155mm, the treasury will never pay for a whole ‘new’ main gun calibre. It is likely to be a smaller weapon 20mm or 30mm oerlikon.

Will it have organic air? Unlikely, even a telescopic hanger may seem extravagant. A landing platform certainly, but minimal facilities.

Will it carry CAMMS, may have a small space for the future is lucky, but it is unlikely, if C3 is operating in an air threat environment it would be foolhardy to leave it to look after itself anyway.

The final version is much more likely to be a version of HMS Clyde with some adaptable space for MCM equipment etc. It may incorporate some Venator ideas, it must be remembered that Venator is a concept model, not an actual ship.