EdLawIf anything, that’s more likely to scare countries into fleeing into the waiting arms of Boeing, Eurofighter and Dassault! Even if the price includes a large house each for all the pilots and ground-crew, that’s a pretty scary pricetag! It will also lend credibility to the critics, who will point to that as a scare tactic – “look at what it will cost us, an ****** (insert rival fighter’s name here) would cost us half as much”! This may not be justified, but to be honest, it really doesn’t help the JSF’s cause.
EdLawThe problem with canning the -A version is that it is the one with the most orders! I’d love to see it canned, don’t get me wrong, I would much rather see just the -B and -C versions. However, since it is likely to be the cheapest one, it is the one with the most export potential. I have a feeling that they did do a study into it a while back, and it basically didn’t save anything at all – you save a little bit in development, but you spend the savings on the more expensive aircraft.
For the UK, frankly, I don’t see the F-35 order being cancelled, it is just a way of desperately trying to make the US listen to its concerns about ITAR. The UK has been waiting eight years or so for the ITAR waiver that keeps being dangled in front of its nose, yet it keeps being yanked away at the last minute. It would be poetic justice to see the JSF order being cancelled as a result, but it isn’t likely to happen. This is likely to be a bit of a storm in a teacup; some suitable defence apparatchnik will be sent to Washington to ‘demand answers’, and come back holding a piece of paper saying the problems are resolved. Perhaps at most a raising of the stakes by awarding a small contract to study fitting catapults and arrestor gear, and at most, a small study into marinising the Typhoon. In particular, the possibility of a study into fitting cats would make sense, since it is likely to come in handy in future if the need actually arose. Maybe even a couple of RN/RAF pilots being sent ‘quietly’ (i.e. anything but quietly) to fly the Rafale and Super Hornet.
The real problem, as already identified, is that Lockheed basically refuses to give straight answers about price. They want a blank cheque – it’s like a salesman sitting there extolling the virtues of the product, without giving any concrete answers about how much it will cost, and why it is so much better. The USAF General slating Boeing for saying that the JSF is likely to be late and cost more than advertised really doesn’t help matters. It has never been unreasonable to criticise a product before, especially when there is truth in the speculation. Unfortunately, the JSF seems to have this sort of cult formed around it, whereby it is forbidden to criticise or speculate. Boeing are entirely within their rights to suggest the JSF will be late – it will be; equally, they are right to suggest it will be more expensive than advertised – it will be.
EdLawHeck, even scaling it back a bit, we could still be pretty well prepared. Build the final pair of Type 45s, for eight total, and a further eight C-1s. This still allows for four well protected battlegroups. Add in C-2s to patrol GIUK, and C-3s for lower priority/threat taskings, and we can probably cope with pretty much anything we are likely to need to deal with.
The RAF would probably push for far more fighters, conjuring up visions of Blackjacks flying off Grimsby to scare people…. Ahh, hold on, too late! :diablo:
EdLawI agree with pretty much everything said so far! Overall, I’m not convinced that the Russians will pursue this avenue long term, but to be honest, I’m not convinced they will not!
I would certainly look to reinstate the Type 45 orders, either just as vanilla T-45s, or possibly a slightly stretched version, a la Global Cruiser. Follow through on the existing C-1/2/3 path, but basically just with slightly higher specs, and higher numbers. C-1, as we’ve discussed at length, should be an ASW roled T-45 derivative. C-2 ends up being a gap-filler, probably the spiritual successor to the old Leanders or Type 21s; it gets a reasonable, if not especially glamorous, weapons fit. The C-3 can still either be a low-end low-threat-level ship, or be a low- to mid-range ship, capable of going into harms way when absolutely necessary.
If we increase production a bit, and aim to basically roll out a dozen or so each of T-45, C-1, C-2 and C-3 (possibly more of the latter), then things get a bit healthier. If we can add a sort of ASW module to the C-2s and C-3s, as the USN is planning for their LCS, then we could still upgrade them later. As such, we could go for some of the cheaper designs, yet perhaps still have the scope to improve them if anything really does emerge in the future. If we go for Jonesy’s Lafayette type design, we could opt for pretty austere initial construction, yet still have plenty of scope for future growth.
I would certainly agree that another Bay class, to serve as a JCTS and aviation training ship, would make sense. I would actually look seriously at building more than one, with them fitted with modular facilities, to allow them to also fulfill the aviation repair ship requirement. These are pretty important roles, and yet I do fear they are neglected sometimes.
Overall, I think we may end up in a sort of 1950s Sverdlov situation – the Russians threaten to build more than we can realistically match. Just as then, we may find that the best option is not to try to match them. The RN decided that trying to cope with the Sverdlovs conventionally, by building rival ships, simply wouldn’t be affordable. Instead, they opted for the Buccaneer (or rather, they drew up the specification that led to it). This sort of logic might work this time – rather than trying to amass sufficient ships to hunt everyone down, we might be better trying to counter in different ways. Rebuilding SOSUS, using more modern technology, would be one such way. Using UAVs to extend the maritime patrol capabilities of the Nimrods would be another such way.
More Merlins would be a must, given how capable they are; I would actually question whether we should be buying Lynx at all. Merlin may be more expensive (a lot), but for actual ASW and ASuW, they are streets ahead of the Lynx. For support roles, I would say that a much cheaper off-the-shelf solution may be more sensible. I don’t doubt that Lynx is a good helo, but I do question whether it is the most cost effective option!
As for more Nimrods, as long as they can be built, and they will be safe, then I am all for it. If not, then an MRA-4 transplant operation might be in order – putting the Nimrod’s gear into the P-8 for instance. It may not be ideal, but would probably be available in a matter of a few years, and seems to be the only other game in town. It would also make some sense if we want new ELINT and AEW aircraft – the off the shelf Wedgetail might be a good choice for replacing the Sentry when the time comes. At the very least, we need to stop neglecting maritime patrol – as the aircraft take on more overland taskings, reducing the overall numbers is barking mad!
EdLawFrankly, the later blocks of Super Hornet would be more sensible than a navalised Typhoon. Taking advantage of the US Navy’s major production run, the RN could probably get a pretty good deal. Best of all, the fighters could dual-role, as naval fighters, but also as jammers. The RN would get Super Hornets, while the RAF would aim to just round out it’s Typhoon orders. Add in some money for Taranis (UCAV) development, preferably carrier capable (perhaps borrowing the Hawk/Goshawk’s landing gear), to complete round out the strike capability. By doing this, you avoid the problems of navalising Typhoon, but can legitimately claim that you are genuinely gaining a major capability (the jamming capability). Adding Meteor and ASRAAM should be no problem, nor should Storm Shadow.
EdLawOkay, lets list the basic options, for C-2 and C-3. I’d like your input on this, so we can at least get onto the same page.
C-2
– Large (5,000 tons perhaps?), high spec (relatively), totally independent of C-3 design; probably a pretty good weapons capability. Numbers?
– Medium size (e.g. 4,000tons ish…), medium spec, based on the C-3, but quite different in looks; again, pretty good weapons mix (4.5in gun, CAMM, Harpoon etc…). Numbers?
– Combined C-2 and C-3 design; somewhere around 3,500 tons probably, with moderate weapons mix, and probably some ‘for but not with’.
C-3
– Combined with C-2, as above
– VT-type 3,000ton design, or close enough; fairly limited weapons fit. Possibly with scope for future upgrades, especially cheaper bolt-on stuff.
– Small, 2-2,500 ton design, and with more limited weapons fit, e.g. no more than 30mm cannon.
Any suggestions/revisions would be useful! It might be useful if we can get some idea as to the balance of numbers, i.e. how many we sacrifice for extra capability, and how much capability we need to sacrifice to get the required numbers!
EdLawI don’t think that has been agreed at all.
I am sorry, I was not meaning to suggest that the details are agreed, but certainly most here, and indeed VT and the RN seem to agree about the basic size needed. If we need more than 3,000tons to fit all the various bits, e.g. work deck, hangar, and other stuff, then it seems a good starting point.
Firstly, I discount as hopelessly unrealistic all those who expect it to be a warfighting ship, with VLS, etc. This is a vessel for fisheries protection & the like. Do we really want a full-on warship doing that? Should we be building ships to tote around SAMs, & a 4.5″, & maybe one day 155mm, gun, for chasing errant fishermen? Even if the VLS isn’t fitted, is a ship with space – and sensors, & combat system – for SAMs & (in some proposals) anti-ship missiles right for that role?
Equally, though, should we be building ships that can only take on fisheries patrol and anti-drug work? Fundamentally, if that is all you want, why bother with the C-3 at all? Why not just buy more of the current OPV(H), which would suffice for that role. The C-3 should be targetted at being swing-role, being capable of taking on the full Aviso/Sloop role as well as taking on Icelandic fishermen and Patagonian penguins! 😉
The idea of C3 as a full-on warfighter, even with some weapons disembarked, is not just unrealistic, it’s politically suicidal. The RN knows that. Some of those posting here also know it. See Jonesys armament & sensor proposals, which apart from the 4.5″ gun, seem sensible to me.
I do agree with Jonesy’s proposals, including the main gun; all I have argued is that the RN has the chance to future-proof the new ships. As you say, these ships will not be hitting the water for ten years or so, and will have a service life of probably twenty to thirty years. Do we make the assumption that, despite all the evidence of the last few hundred years, no new threat could arise within the next forty years?
If the RN switches to 155mm on new ships, & adopts it as a retrofit for Type 45, as currently proposed, then there will be no more 4.5″ guns in the RN in 20 years. That means 4.5″ obsolescence isn’t an “unlikely” issue, it’s a serious possibility. Fitting C3 (basically, a patrol boat) with a 155mm gun just isn’t on, politically, & building a new class to use guns which are in the process of being phased out (& the C3 timescale means that is exactly what will be the case if 155mm is adopted) is also not on.
Remember, we’re not talking about now: we’re now talking sometime after 2020 for C3 to start entering service.
I was only mentioning the fact that the 155mm is a possibility if the 4.5in gun needs to be replaced. I was not suggesting we start out aiming for a patrol ship with a 155mm gun! If the 155mm gun project finally goes ahead at all, there would probably still be plenty of ships, namely the C-2s and -3s, with the 4.5in gun! It is only if a decision were made to switch over entirely to the new gun, that things would change. To be perfectly honest, I don’t really think it matters much whether the C-3s have a 76mm, 114mm or 155mm gun; in any case, they are patrol ships. Equally, have space for equipment not fitted is not a killer – they are still patrol ships, they just have ‘flexible areas’…
EdLawAnother thing to bear in mind is that the BAE 155mm naval gun project basically just uses a Mk8 turret, modified slightly, and doesn’t really weigh much more. It is supposed to weigh a bit more than the newer Mk8 Mod1 turrets, but a bit less than the earlier generation Mk8 turrets. As such, if we find the RN switching away from 4.5in completely, we could almost certainly just switch the C-3s and C-2s over to 155mm turrets, if the need ever arose. I know this would be a pain in the backside, but it does get around potential (yet unlikely) obsolescence issues with the 4.5in.
I think we’ve pretty much done the ‘bigger, smaller, somewhere in between’ issue to death now. We have pretty much agreed that C-3 needs to be at least the size of VT’s 3,000ton proposal. The C-2 can either be a stretched and altered version of the same hull, or possibly a totally different design, and a bit bigger. My preference would be for the former, and then just fight tooth and nail for them. It is one of the RN’s weaknesses, in my opinion, that for the last few years, they really haven’t fought their corner as hard as they perhaps could have. A multi-year procurement contract might just be the way to go – award a rolling contract for four C-2s/3s per year.
EdLawI do agree with the points raised (I raise the single class solution purely from a devil’s advocate position), however, I do feel there is some scope for open discussion of the genuine needs, as Jonesy says. Obviously, if we went for a single class solution, with the full C-2 level of weaponry actually fitted, then there is no chance whatsoever of getting the numbers required.
However, there could, perhaps be a middle ground; we have previously discussed building C-2 and -3 as ‘blocks’ of the same basic hullform. One possibility might be to actually build the single class in blocks, in much the same way, but have, say, half being fitted with full weapons and other gear, and half with a C-3 level of systems fit. Thus, we get notional C-3s, with much reduced weapons capability, and C-2s with full capability. The -3s would start out with, for example, no anti-ship missiles, and perhaps a space reserved for a non-fitted VLS (this is not wasted space, and can be used until a VLS is actually fitted). As such, the two classes would have nearly 100% commonality of basic design, with only differences in equipment fitout. If needs be, this could include just bolting a MSI Sigma or DS30 to the bow, over the space reserved for the Mk8. Heck, if it helps, we could always paint the C-3s in a different colour paint from the C-2s! :diablo:
EdLawIts logical certainly but, perhaps, a little premature. The Type23’s have just undergone upgrade to their manual DS30Mk1 guns to remote-operated (manual-backup) REMSIG DS30Mk2 under the £15mn ASCG project. Upgrading again to full AUTSIG mounts with or without the missiles isnt too likely seeing REMSIG only gained IOC last year!. There is however, according to reports last year, a £300k contract put out to industry, by DTIC, to study the value of the light gun mounts effects on a range of target sets and to make proposals to enhance lethality. Full AUTSIG and SIGMA capability would potentially fit that bill.
I agree, it may be a little premature, but since we are really talking about procurements for a decade from now, worthwhile!
For CVF I think full SIGMA capability would be quite desireable from the outset. AUTSIG is certainly a must IMO as we dont really want seperate directors all round the vessel and the concept of having to wait for a gun crew to man the mount after running however many decks to get to action stations on a CVF is plainly absurd!. IMO if we’re going to have AUTSIG mounts anyway then adding the capability to take a couple of extra shots beyond the gun engagement envelope is just good sense.
I agree, especially for the CVF, but arguably for other large types, the automated/remote turrets are an absolute must. If the CVF ends up with a full set of four Sigma and four Phalanx, then the short-range hard-kill role is pretty much covered. I do still wonder about whether we will see them ending up with a CAMM installation, which would be pretty desirable given their replacement cost!
That would be the worst of both worlds to my way of thinking I’m afraid. What we would end up is an overly expensive C3 with too many systems aboard that would be useless under routine conditions and an under-equipped C2 that wouldnt have the aviation capability that the C2 mission would benefit so intensly from, but, the C3 mission capabilities that would be of little use!. I really would stress a need for specialist versions of the same basic hull and machinery fit.
I do agree in large part, but I do think it could be done without too much sacrifice of capability. Giving the C-2 the added bonus of being MCM capable may not be a day-to-day benefit, but could come in handy if we find them deploying to a hotter area. Equally, giving the nominal C-3s the aviation facilities of a C-2, and the weapons capability, may be useful. I know, I know, it sacrifices capability on one hand, and pushes costs up on the other.
As long as the basic design is sound, I do feel that a common class could work; it may not be ideal, but need not sacrifice too much. It would still be possible to go for a good baseline, with plenty of scope for bolt-ons. For example, a 3,500ton design should be capable of carrying all the weapons and aviation facilities that we have discussed for the C-2. For the C-3 roles, we would perhaps disembark some systems, and more importantly, the crews for systems not in use. This gives us the option of quickly up-gunning the ships when needed. For example, we could have a few ships in the Mediterranean, on routine ops, find they’re needed in the Gulf, and fly in extra crews and gear to Cyprus.
Basically, I know it may not be ideal, but perhaps it is worth examining the potential advantages such a solution may bring to the table. Would, for example, 12 C-2s and 18 C-3s be any better than thirty of a hypothetical C-2 1/2?
EdLawJonesy: Do you feel there is any merit in upgrading the current DS30 turrets to something along the lines of the MS30 Sigma? It is a relatively plentiful system, being fitted to anything from a Type 23 to (probably) the new carriers, to the many RFAs. There may be some benefit to giving these systems an upgrade, since many of the ships simply will not get CIWS, yet may still need to operate in riskier areas, especially the fleet replenishment ships! A switch to a modified Sigma, perhaps with a different cannon (e.g. a Mauser 27mm?) and side-mounted Starstreak IIs, might be an option. This would give somewhat more protection for the ships not getting more expensive Phalanx units. I know this is low priority, but could be pretty useful for improving fleet-wide defences.
As for the idea of using Project Khareef as a basis for C-3, it may be a good idea. I do wonder, however, whether an enlarged version, e.g. the VT 3,000ton variant, complete with the weapons of Khareef, but also the proposed work deck of the C-3, might be able to fill both C-2 and C-3. I know this is not the plan, in large part to preserve numbers, but there would be some benefits. In effect, take Khareef, stretch it, add the work deck, and switch the weapons around a bit (e.g. Mk8 4.5in in place of 76mm, Harpoon not Exocet, and CAMM in place of MICA). The resulting ship would be pretty well armed (good for C-2 roles), yet have space for the MCM gear and other C-3 equipment. Crew numbers could be ‘massaged’ a bit, i.e. embarking more crew as needed, to operate the combat systems.
EdLawWe could set the basic requirements at:
C-2:
– 4,000 tons
– CAMM, preferably in a VLS, e.g. 32 in a quad-packed Sylver A43
– Harpoon installation (desirable)
– 4.5in gun
– CIWS? (as discussed, the MSI Sigma may suffice)
– 2x MSI Sigma 30mm/Starstreak (with proximity fusing!)
– Ideally hangar equivalent to current T-23, i.e. Merlin/Lynx compatible
C-3:
– 3,000 tons
– 4.5in gun
– 2 x MSI Sigma 30mm/Starstreak
– Hangar for either Lynx, or ideally same hangar as the C-1, i.e. Merlin compatible
Both these classes could share a common basic hullform, but could look quite different. This should be just about enough to get around most politicians misconceptions.
EdLawJonesy: Sorry, when I mentioned the need (?) for some limited anti-air/anti-missile capability, I wasn’t meaning CIWS, I was just meaning the kind of gun/SAM mount that you’ve shown. I very much like your suggestion of the MSI Sigma turret; not so sure about Starstreak in it’s current form though, the lack of a proximity fuse does bring back memories of Rapier in the Falklands! Add a proximity fuse to it, and we’re sorted! Softkill plus this sort of turret should be enough for pretty much all plausible scenarios, short of all-out war!
EdLawA stupid move. Inadequate for air defence and inadequate for shore bombardment.
Thank you for your kind words!
EdLawI agree, but to be honest, with most current politicians, show them a rowing boat with a shotgun on the bow, and they might just think it’s a frigate! 🙁
Sign In
