EdLawOkay, lets draw a line in the sand. The ship, by the apparent consensus here, should have the Mk8 4.5in gun. It should also have some form of anti-air self defence system, preferably with some limited anti-missile capability, to supplement the softkill systems. One possibility might be to switch from the current 30mm DS30, to something more like the Israeli Typhoon system (mostly because of it’s ability to have some kind of SAM bolted on as well). This could still use the same 30mm Bushmaster that the DS30 uses, but have something like Mistral/Stinger bolted on. I’m not so sure about Starstreak, especially due to the lack of a proximity fuse, and the use of small darts, which are less useful for anti-missile work. If we could do this, and just have a pair of these mounts, in place of the DS30s, then it should be perfectly adequate for most situations. The Bushmaster would also be able to fire the more advanced 30mm ‘Air Burst Munitions’, not only for some last ditch air defence, but also very useful for use against small boat targets.
If we just make sure there is sufficient weight and space allowance to allow future upgrades, then it should be fine, and not risk the C-2’s future.
EdLawThe other thing to consider is that the C-3 may be able to be fitted with extra equipment if the overall threat profile changes. Having the physical space for the Phalanx to be bolted on isn’t too unlikely, even if there are no true intentions to actually fit the system. Similarly, it may even be possible to bolt a small CAMM launcher onto the work deck, tied into the ships existing systems. This may add some cost to the basic design, but would probably be useful for the potential export market. It doesn’t turn the C-3 into a frigate, but would at least give it more ability to deal with more hostile situations.
During the Falklands, we needed to operate within Falkland Sound and around San Carlos, and had very little ability to deal with the likely naval mines. Unfortunately, the task force pretty much had to rely on sending the more ‘expendable’ ships in… The C-3 would, in a future conflict, be the appropriate ship to send in, and I would be more comfortable having the ability to give them better air defences.
I am not arguing about the effectiveness of soft-kill or CIWS, but rather that in the event we need to put the C-3s in harms way for their MCM mission, then we need them to have as much in their favour as possible! We will not always be able to just avoid sending the C-3s into harms way, precisely because one of their main roles will be MCM.
EdLawI love it! Totally impossible to fund, sadly, but a great idea. In effect, it is pretty much what the American Aegis Cruisers (Ticonderogas) were intended as. During the ’80s (and even during the Gulf War I seem to remember), many battlegroup commanders opted to operate from the cruiser, instead of the carrier. This allowed them to have a much clearer picture of the tactical situation, much better than the carrier’s facilities could provide.
For the RN, it could actually be done pretty simply – take the Type 45, and turn it into the larger Global Cruiser, but a little bigger. Increase the VLS cells, perhaps with a second batch of VLS cells amidships (2 x 64 cells, or at least 64 fore and 32 aft); this allows a mix of Aster 30, Scalp Naval (or Tomahawk if that becomes possible) and CAMM. Increase the command facilities, and just generally turn it into a command cruiser. I wouldn’t even bother adding a second gun, since this would be a more major change (and take space away from the VLS cells)…
Such a ship could effectively have been built as a sub-variant of the T-45 – have three versions, with the Global Cruiser (4ish), T-45 (8ish), and slightly smaller C-1 (8-12ish?). There are some nice illustrations of these on Richard Beedall’s excellent site (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/mvd.htm). This would give the RN the ability to form up four very large battle groups, i.e. carrier and amphibious groups.
The obvious alternative would be to build a series of ships, perhaps based on a variant of the MARS project, Bay class, or a RoRo. These could be used for all the other roles, e.g. aviation repair ship, hospital ship, command ship, and aviation training ship. The command ship would probably not have the long range radars, but instead rely on datalinks from the whole fleet to put together the picture.
EdLawWhich my dictionary translates as “sloop“. 😀
Well, if you want to be pedantic! 😀
EdLawOf course that’s assuming that our remaining 22B3 and T23’s are scrapped at the end of service freeing up their guns. If they are sold on to other navies I would think they woild want to keep the MK8.
I just don’t think for the tasking fitting the MK8 to the C3 is worth it, that’s my opinion.
Oh and I think the words “When hell freezes over” covers the likely hood of Argentina selling back its MK8 mounts.:p
I disagree, Fed, the C-3s will often be the only nearby RN assets, so giving them some limited ‘gunboat diplomacy’ role makes a lot of sense. I also rather suspect that any potential 155mm based on the Mk8 would use a new-build turret, not recycled, for safety and conveniunce reasons. In any case, building a few new turrets isn’t going to be the biggest problem. Jonesy is entirely right, if it isn’t a 114mm, then it would basically have to be a 30mm, which is just too small for some roles.
Part of the C-3’s role will be to perform what is often termed the ‘Aviso’ role, i.e. a sort of moderately armed colonial protection gunboat. The French, Spanish, Italians (etc…) have all operated this sort of thing, and the normal armament tends to be a medium calibre gun (anything from 3in to 5in), plus a few anti-ship missiles. This is one reason I would look at giving them a little space, to allow a few Harpoons to be fitted – more for show than anything else, which is pretty much the point of an Aviso type…
On a side note, what is the betting regarding UAVs? Something along the lines of the MQ-8 Fire Scout or A160 Hummingbird might make sense. I would definitely look at mounting an air surveillance radar, to allow them to be used as radar pickets, since they could help with some off-board targetting, and allow longer range surveillance. Certainly the A160 is big enough, but I haven’t heard much about it of late, which is a pity.
EdLawI was not actually suggesting developing new rounds just for the guns mounted on the C-3s, but rather suggesting that Volcano would be an alternative to the BAE TMF 155mm. The Volcano round is sub-calibre anyway, which should make adapting it to the 114mm relatively straightforward. It would allow total commonality among the surface fleet, used on everything from T-45s escorting carriers, to C-3s on survey or patrol missions. I know this isn’t ideal, and some here may be keep on the 155mm turret, but recylcing the old turrets (brought to Mod1 spec), but using modern rounds, might be an alternative. The PGK would be the same deal, it is just a smart, guidance fuse, and is already intended for fitting to both the 105mm and 155mm, so using it on the 114mm should work.
As for the Phalanx numbers, perhaps the time will come to just bite the bullet, and either buy new Phalanx units (perhaps jointly with the Army or RAF for C-RAM purposes); or get a new system. A new system, perhaps to work alongside CAMM might make sense, but to be honest, the best bet might just be to buy more off the shelf Phalanx. I have a feeling the US actually had some Phalanx units going spare (due to them retiring ships with Phalanx, and not fitting it to some new ones, preferrring RAM or ESSM). A bumper-deal for Phalanx for both naval and land-based use might still make sense, though.
EdLawI don’t see a problem with fitting the C-3 with the Mk8 Mod1 – even if it’s role would never normally include NGS, the gun is basically pretty useful anyway. The more guns available to any deployed force, the better, as proved in the Falklands. The C-3s performing MCM missions, especially in support of amphib ops, is going to be pretty close to shore anyway, so bolting on a reasonable gun makes sense anyway. There is no point adding yet another gun type into service, and having all the ships use a common gun does make sense. One thing to consider is whether we could get the Italian Vulcano round, modified for the 4.5in, since it is already meant for both 127mm and 155mm. A mix of normal rounds, Vulcano, and possibly also PGK-equipped 114mm rounds would be useful, and allow a good range of strike options.
EdLawFrosty: rather than the Sylver A35s, each with a single CAMM round, wouldn’t a quad packed Sylver A43 be a more space efficient option? A single A43 would be enough to give the ships 32 rounds, good enough for most purposes. I didn’t think the A35 was big enough for quad packing? Does anyone know if it is capable of quad packing CAMM?
EdLawWhile I agree that a too-capable C-3 could put the C-2 at some risk, I do think we can at least build in enough space to allow up-gunning if needed. This can be pretty austere in nature, preserving the C-2’s raison d’être. As long as the bolt-on stuff is kept within reason, then it shouldn’t endanger it’s more capable brethren.
I agree entirely with your analysis, though, and hope you’re right. I do hope, though that we don’t end up with an unforeseen need for more fleet assets. The SSKs were partly saved by virtue of sufficient SSN assets, this time round, we may not have the assets necessary to avoid it! Either way though, they should be pretty capable assets!
EdLawI think we would be very lucky to get those numbers! i think the best we could hope for would be 6 T45, 8 C-1, 10-12 C-2 and 12 C-3.
I agree, up to a point, though as I said, sixteen or so T45/C-1s would only be eight of each, which is not implausible; and 22-24 C-2/3s as you say, is reasonable. The point remains, if we end up with any of these numbers, providing the ships themselves are upgradeable, then the Royal Navy has a potentially bright future. If, on the other hand, the RN chooses to try to cut corners too much, we could all end up with egg on our faces. Even another Falklands type conflict could be embarrassing if shortcomings in the designs come back to bite us in the backside!
Basically, if we just take Jonesy’s excellent designs, and just make sure they have enough scope for bolt-on extras, then we should be fine. If they can take a bolt-on VDS, CIWS, anti-ship missiles and a CAMM launcher, then they are more than good enough. None of this is especially unreasonable, and shouldn’t even take up too much space. The CIWS has already been discussed – C-2s get them, and the C-3s probably share them as needed, from a pool of available mounts. The VDS is desirable, but there are alternatives, including systems like the one used for the American LCS. The anti-ship missiles wouldn’t be too demanding space-wise, and be a useful boost in capability, even if not strictly necessary. The CAMM launcher is a definite for the C-2, and being fitted for-but-not-with the launcher would be enough for the C-3.
EdLawIt also has to be taken into account that diesels don’t necessarily mean very slow; we may still be able to get 25-30 knots out of them even with diesels. I would certainly hope the C-2s would have some reasonable ‘fleet’ capability – I know we don’t want role creep, but we have to realise that tasking creep will happen. If we design them to be at least basically capable of fleet level ops, even if it relies on ‘fitted for but not with’ equipment. If they are fundamentally fast enough, and can have the necessary sensors and weapons bolted on if the need arose, then we do help future proof them. My big concern is the fact that the ships could end up being built with too much trust in there being a continuing low threat environment. I know there is no huge Soviet fleet immediately around the corner, but equally, we shouldn’t assume that there can’t be one.
If we end up with ~16-20 Type 45s and C-1s, and ~24-30 C-2s and C-3s, then we give ourselves a pretty good comfort zone. If the C-2s and C-3s can all be brought up to a proper war-fighting capability, then we give ourselves a head-start if things turn nasty. Much better that than build less than 20 modern, capable warships, and be saddled with a load of low-threat-only patrol ships, and find ourselves scrambling to mass produce escort ships. I don’t mean to suggest that we try to build the C-2/3 to Type 23 type specifications. Rather, I suggest that some true forward planning be applied in the design stage, hoping for the best, but recognising that the worst can, and occasionally does, happen.
EdLawThe key to the success of the C2/C3 patrol force you hit spot on – numbers. IF we were to offer BVT a production run of 28 hulls, 18 fitted as ‘batch 1’ C3’s and the rest as ‘batch 2’ C2’s, then offer BAE a contract to supply 28 additional ARTISAN radars, then RR a contract for 56 prime mover diesels etc they would run rings round themselves to get a good price out. That is how we need to be looking at this – not a chance to buy a dozen ‘bells and whistles’ FREMMs just so we can keep deploying ‘proper warships’ on taskings that dont need them.
I agree wholeheartedly, the success or failure of the projects lies with the negotiation. If it is seen as three semi separate procurements, then we risk the project turning into a complete mess. If, on the other hand, we view it as a large-scale renewal, with the promise of solid orders, then it could all work out. I would be very tempted to see the C-1 become a sort of de facto Type 45 Batch 2, and C-2 and C-3 become different Blocks of the same basic design. This would allow for some degree of actual stability in the shipyards – longer term orders, on a rolling basis, over many years. I know this isn’t the way it’s done, and isn’t necessarily ideal, but would at least help stabilise shipbuilding in the UK. Negotiate a deal for, as you say, 28 Artisan, 56 diesels, but also all the other kit.
One issue – what will the requirements be for CAMM installation? It is one of the reasons I find the SeaRAM so attractive, the fact that it is basically self-contained, so can be bolted on, much like Phalanx. If CAMM can be integrated without major problems, then a modular installation might be worthwhile, allowing the C-2s and even C-3s to be so fitted when needed. The problem is if it needs all the other stuff bolted on, making a cheap/rapid installation difficult or impossible.
EdLawAnybody knows what is this?
I can’t make out what is written on the fuselage, nor the registration. Unfortunatly I don’t have it in higher resolution.
It’s apparently a Russian COIN aircraft with two B8V7 pods for 80 mm rockets and two OFAB-100 bombs.
The engine looks like a radial AI-14 (or newer M-14) with the 3-blade MTV-9 propeller.
It is the SM-91/92 Finist (which uses an M-14 radial, or a turboprop in some versions), modified for weapons carriage. There are pictures (including a different view of your photo), and they show the armed version, complete with a reasonable range of weapons.
EdLawI doubt NCADE would be exported to ANYBODY. The numbers they’ve been talking about even for the USAF is only 20. (Which makes you wonder why they even bother because if you need them at all you’re going to need more than 20.)
Fair enough, though it does seem a bit odd – if your country can get AIM-9X and AIM-120s, then logic would suggest NCADE shouldn’t be too much of a stretch. The question, I suppose, is what on Earth the NCADE is going to cost!
EdLawPerhaps an option that hasn’t been explored yet: combining the SL-AMRAAM with the NCADE project! The NCADE basically puts part of an AIM-9X forebody on an AMRAAM body, to give an air-launched anti-ballistic missile. It is supposed to be suitable for carriage by anything that can carry an AIM-120, since it uses the standard launch rail. In ground launched form, it might be able to give a low-end alternative to the PAC-3’s capability. I don’t know about the capabilities of the MPQ-64 radar for detection of ballistic missiles, but if it is capable, then a mix of AMRAAM and NCADE missiles might be pretty attractive!
Sign In
