EdLawFor genuine land attack, there are only two choices, i.e. the Scalp Naval, and the Tomahawk. All the other missiles are basically just anti-ship missiles, with a limited land attack capability. This boils down to the fact that for genuine land attack duties, you want the ability to sit a safe distance offshore, and yet still fire a good distance inland.
Since the RN is not likely to field both Sylver and Mk41, it is likely to have to be ‘A’, i.e. Scalp Naval. I have mixed feelings about this – Tomahawk is a tried and tested missile, already in RN service (though in sub form only); Scalp Naval is a new, untried, untested missile, with a lot of unknowns, especially range! The S-N has the advantage of being a bit stealthier, which would be useful, but since we don’t yet know the true specs, it does lead to a level of concern.
So, my votes are tied to A and B; I wouldn’t vote for any of the others for a true land attack role.
As for the whole mess of which capability balance is best, it isn’t actually too complex, it is just a matter of admitting the ships simply cannot do everything. If the ship is to be an AAW vessel, then it is perfectly possible to build it with a limited ABM capability, but it is not going to have more than basic ASW capability. If it is an ASW vessel, then it could still carry a few Aster 30s for CEC, but not a full load of them, and will carry no ABM capability (unless you use them as offboard magazines for the AAW vessel). Either way, a 48-64 cell VLS is perfectly possible, but its filling will be highly mission dependent. If it has to be done, it could be:
– 32 CAAM in eight VLS cells, for self defence
– 24-32 Aster 30 for CEC capability
– 16 Scalp Naval for land attack
– 0-8 Aster 50(?) for ABM
Not directly associated with the actual land-attack role, I would, however, like to see the RN buying a common dual-role anti-ship missile, to replace the currently in service versions of Harpoon. This would ideally be capable of being used from all the various platforms that are needed/desirable:
– Sub launched: only Exocet and Harpoon seem to meet this criteria
– Ship launched: they all meet this criteria, obviously
– Helo launched: not to easy, Harpoon doesn’t currently meet this
– Air launched: again, they all meet this criteria
This missile would then be fitted to all the RN’s destroyers, frigates, submarines and helos. It would, alongside the surface ships’ naval guns, allow most ships to play at least some role in the land attack mission. It is not, however, intended to turn them into true land-attack platforms, but just boost overall capabilities. In a sense, it is just meant to be a useful extra.
EdLawI think he was actually talking about the PA2 version of the CVF, i.e. the CTOL version, with the ability to operate anything the US currenty operates.
EdLawEd, you forgot to vote 😉
F – The Oto 127mm gun – not common, but lots of potential new rounds
C – The 155mm gun – still good potential for new rounds
B – The 114mm gun – low risk and cheap, pretty much sums it up!
EdLawThe other thing to bear in mind is that Oto have specifically been talking about it being adaptable to other calibres. Now admittedly they were primarily meaning scaling up for the 155mm, but scaling down from 127mm to 114.5mm shouldn’t be impossible! Obviously, if the 155mm (hopefully the L/52 version) is chosen, then this is even more convenient. I would definitely avoid the L/39 – if you are going to go to the hassle of adapting a land-based gun to a naval mount, you may as well make it worthwhile! Alternatively, just stick with the 114mm and adapt Vulcano for it – should still get pretty impressive range figures anyway!
EdLawIt also appears that the Russians are in the process of invading Gori, well outside of S. Ossetia. Not good, not good at all….. 🙁
EdLawNations petition NATO for membership, not the other way around. NATO is only expanding because other nations want to join.
For good reason, since all too many of them had more than forty years of Russian domination, and now they are seeing Russia re-assert itself, not a happy time to be a neighbour!
EdLawI would certainly look at expanding the Royal Marines a bit, to allow for more of these small detachments, without detracting from the normal combat roles. I would also look at only putting a modest detachment, perhaps twenty or so, i.e. less than a platoon; more troops could then be put aboard when needed, probably doubling the detachment at least, for short periods of time. Twenty or so Marines should be enough for routine stuff, e.g. conducting a limited scale boarding, with more troops called for when that becomes a primary mission. I would still probably look at building in physical space for a pair of ISO containers at least, on at least the C-2 and C-3. Ideally, the C-1/2/3 would all have space for an MCM detachment when needed; no permanent equipment is really needed, just enough space for the specialists to work, and space for their AUVs. This would allow the UK to actually have MCM gear everywhere it is needed – all the kit should be able to be flown to a nearby friendly port in an RAF transport or commercial aircraft. Heck, if necessary, it may be possible to fly the MCM kit out to a ship (e.g. if the ship finds itself trapped in a minefield, and unable to get safely out). All the kit would be well within the lift capacity of a Chinook, or potentially even a Merlin.
As for VLS locations, for the C-1 it is a no-brainer, it has to be the bow, exactly as on the T-45. For the C-2, if there is to be a VLS, then again, the bow is the logical location – fancy sitings like astride the hangar is just too difficult to be worth it. Much better to just make room behind the gun for the VLS; on the C-3, the same space could just be used for a different module, just slid into the space. If it ever became necessary or desirable to upgrade the C-3 with a VLS, then it could even allow it, without major structural modifications; yet it wouldn’t lose space for this currently non-existant requirement.
In terms of which ships should be based on or common with which type, I agree wholeheartedly with Frosty and Jonesy – C-1 would be a T-45 derivative; C-2 and C-3 would be almost entirely common in design. If all of our collective ideas came to fruition (especially a common space for MCM gear), I would be delighted! It could potentially even lead to a modest reversal in the run-down of the fleet numbers, especially if we can reverse the cancellation of the last pair of T-45s.
One question is numbers – what is likely, and what is desirable? Equally, where the ships should be based is an issue – e.g. should the C-2s be forward based, for instance in Cyprus (to support ops in both the Med and the Gulf)?
EdLawThis is beginning to look very much like the Sudetenland or Anschluss, all over again. And just as then, nobody is willing to stand up in opposition. 🙁
EdLawI would think that if Russia was going to conduct airstrikes on Georgia, there would be a lot more aircraft involved than reported. But then, Russia didn’t start this, and they weren’t planning for a war today.
I’m glad Georgia isn’t in NATO. Can you imagine the mess if this had started when those US Marines were there? 😮
What an idiot move this attack is! Did Saakashvili expect Russia would run home with its tail between its legs?
This is a pretty ill-informed post. This is not some Georgian attack on Russia, where all the blame lies neatly on the Georgian side. The Russians had been applying pressure over the last few months particularly, in large part because of the Georgian moves towards NATO membership. Russia appears to regard former Soviet states as being legitimately within the scope of Russian ‘control’. Look at Medvedev’s statements, and it becomes clear that the Russian government regards themselves as the sole authority for the region, through its dominance of the CIS.
Frankly, it was never a very good idea having Russian ‘peacekeepers’ in S. Ossetia; they have always been too close to the issue. In a sense, it is like having Syrian peacekeepers in Lebanon, it simply isn’t a good idea. Peacekeepers should always be from non-neighbours where possible. Equally, the Georgians ideally shouldn’t have had peacekeepers in S. Ossetia – it should effectively have been under UN supervision. Unfortunately, Russia loves the idea of everything being under CIS supervision, because Russia has effective domination of that body.
As for the jets bombing targets in Georgia itself, frankly, it’s sheer stupidity. It would be understandable targetting Georgian forces in S. Ossetia, but by widening things outside of those borders, it guarantees escalation.
EdLawOr maybe something like this 12 metre boat?
http://www.storebro.se/Nav.aspx?pageid=79
The 16 metre CB90 might be a bit big.
I like the SRC-90E, and I’m pretty sure it’s the same as the Dutch small landing craft used on the Absalons. Part of the reason why I like the SURC is the convenient size, being suitable for a range of different ships and roles. Given the size of the LCU Mk10s, i.e. basically 20m x 7.5m, in its place, it should be possible to fit two SURCs widthwise, and either two or even three lengthwise. This would allow, for instance, a Bay class landing ship to carry about six of these craft, for maritime interdiction purposes; smaller ships would all be capable of carrying at least one, possibly two. The C-3s should be able to carry two, I suspect, by stacking them, or having one next to the ramp, and one on the ramp itself.
Also, of course, the larger boat means more defensive measures are possible; for instance, it could carry an eight man boarding team, and have room for eight crew to man the boat and weapons. Equally, of course, it would make sense to actually buy some light, cheap, armed helos, to support these ops, and hopefully avoid a repeat of last year. Even just picking up a few of the navalised Squirrel helos used for training at the moment (they should be big enough, and hopefully cheap enough!).
Basically, in future, although we should have multi-role capable ships, we should have enough ships to actually perform the necessary roles without wasting assets. For instance, we should be able to have patrol and maritime interdiction roles being handled entirely by the C-2s, C-3s and Bay class landing ships (which seem to be almost ideal for the role, especially as mother ships to help the C-3s). The T-45s and C-1s should be able to focus almost entirely on supporting the carriers, amphibs, and the fleet ready escort role.
As for anti-ship missiles, though I like the NSM in some senses, I am concerned about the size of the warhead, which is pretty small compared to others. I would be strongly tempted to just stick with the tried and tested Harpoons, in their normal angled launchers, probably concealed behind panels. If we could get a winged Harpoon, using the airframe of the SLAM-ER, but with the booster of the normal Harpoon, then it would be an excellent option. This would allow for dual-purpose use of the missiles, allowing them to use the Harpoons as ~250km range cruise missiles. Since even the C-3 could easily carry Harpoon, that would give them a valuable emergency capability. I know they aren’t meant to be frontline warships, but in an emergency, having some level of offensive capability might be useful. Remember, if they have the combination of the 4.5in gun, Harpoon missiles, and RAM for self defence (sorry Jonesy! :diablo:), they end up being pretty much on a par with our frigates of the early ’80s!
EdLawNo, your taking a dream world principle and applying in a way that best suits Scotland, assuming the English will just cough up these vast sums (yea right!).
Not quite, but I do agree to a limited extent. I doubt there will be much, if any, actual money changing hands; the SNP dream of a large cheque is unlikely to come to fruition. It is more likely that there will just be a settlement, dividing kit based on needs – Scotland would probably get more in the way of Army kit, less expensive Navy kit. Scotland wouldn’t get subs at all, but might get some amphibs instead; it wouldn’t get T-45s, but might get a couple of the Type 23s. Probably no Harriers or Tornado GR-4s, but enough Typhoons to carry out the Northern QRA. No ISTAR aircraft, but perhaps some new maritime patrol planes, e.g. King Airs or Q300/400 MPAs.
Backdating of money/resources across the border (if done) would have to be calculated in all forms in both directions and if we date back to the formation of the union as would be the “proper” way to do it, then things wont be looking so rosy for Scotland.
No, that is not how it is done; there are legal procedures for the break up of countries, and these prescribe how it is to be done. It is not a case of looking back hundreds of years to decide who gets what!
Understandably the SNP talk about these payments A LOT, because quite simply they need it to try and give some assurance to the Scotish people that Scotland will be financially viable on its own (that mixed with Scotish oil every other line), though they are clearly either very stupid or very ignorant or both.
Actually, Scotland is rather more sound, financially speaking, than you seem to be thinking. Scotland has a pretty healthy economy, especially having had much less of the property bubble, and many local economies are doing pretty well North of the border. The notion that Scotland as a whole is some form of collection of dole-queue morons is beginning to get both tired and offensive.
Oh and while we’re on the subject of ludicrous compensations, we’d like all the damage done by low quality Scotish politicians to be fixed by Scotland, equally when you leave the union you can take the remainder of them with you (they won’t be missed!).
Since most of the people you seem to be alluding to are actually MPs, they would most likely be rather jobless, since the government would be made up of the MSPs, not MPs.
Ultimately I think your error, and the SNP’s error, comes down to you forgetting that you are the ones leaving and much like with employment, if you resign you sure aren’t in a position to negotiate a redundancy payment for yourself too! Try that in a company and the boss will slap you so hard your ancestors will feel it.
Unfortunately, again, you are making very poorly thought out assumptions. As I mention above, there are rules in international law as to how to deal with exactly this type of situation. It does not consist of ‘if you choose to leave, you get nothing’. If Scotland opts for independence, which is by no means certain, it would be legally entitled to what would be deemed an equitable share. There is no scope for the rest of Britain to just bully Scotland to accept nothing, that is just not how it works. I strongly suggest you do some research!
[QUOTE] Because its a huge financial hub, because there’s no advantage to moving ect ect. Cost/benefit analysis would say “NO”. [QUOTE]
Actually, BP and Shell (etc..) are based in London because it is the financial hub of the UK, in the event of independence, they would pretty much have to move their HQ. There are plenty of financial hubs, not just London, London is simply the most convenient one at the moment!
That’s nice then, meanwhile in reality the Scotish yards will lose their workshare to English yards for the most part and Scotland still wont get any money from the rest of the union to prop up its bloating governement spending.
It is true that Scottish shipyards may suffer, though it is likely that there would be contracts placed to keep them in business, e.g. buying some new OPVs etc… As for levels of public spending, I strongly recommend you take a look at the figures, they do not bear out your supposition. Spending is higher, but frankly, it is working pretty well in Scotland; lots of seemingly small changes, but it is actually making things a lot better. I suspect most people in England would be pretty happy to be in the same situation as up in Scotland, yet they actually have similar public spending levels, they just don’t get as much benefit from it. Public spending is all about the level of benefit to the individual – if public spending helps the individual, it may be acceptable; if it is wasted, it helps nobody. I do agree, however, that there is a need for a review of spending, to improve efficiency – dropping a lot of the centralised nonsense would be a giant leap in that direction.
Correction, what you feel Scotland deserves is the market value of the equipment. Getting is a whole different story.
In this regard, you are sort of right, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Scotland is unlikely to be given a cheque, but rather, it will probably do a form of barter on the existing kit. As above, rather than getting any of the nuclear subs/equipment, it would probably get more of something else instead. Everything would effectively be assigned a value (in points), and then there would be a negotiation as to who gets which pieces of equipment. Remember, legally, the equipment does not automatically belong to ‘England’ (or Britain more properly) after separation; instead, the equipment is owned jointly by the successor states, to be divided on equitable terms. It would probably be handled over the space of a few years – e.g. the process might start in 2012, but actual full separation would take quite a while, perhaps delaying it until 2018-2020 or so.
EdLawWithout wishing to further the pretty disturbing discourse here about Scotland supposedly being filled with drunks and shurkers; I would like to point out the truth of the supposed ‘massive subsidies’! Under the Barnett formula, the amount Scotland receives, per capita, just a little more than Wales (literall a couple of hundred pounds per capita difference), and quite a bit less than Northern Ireland. London receives just a bit less than Scotland, as does the North East of England. So please don’t just ignore facts – the myths about massive subsidies really make this debate pointless unless you are willing to ignore these myths!
Equally, the idea that the rest of Britain would somehow play ‘hard-ball’ is patently absurd. There are formulae for how things would be divided – the rest of Britain cannot simply bully Scotland into receiving less than its fair share.
Also, the notion that Scotland would suddenly turn pacifist or neutral is equally absurd – look at the over-representation of Scottish personnel in the forces. Scotland is generally far from pacifist, despite the best efforts of some media-hungry pillocks!
Scotland would most likely end up taking over the Northern QRA duties of Leuchars, and have appropriate equipment for the task. In effect, I would suspect 43 Sqn and 111 Sqn would simply become Scottish units, maintaining their strong RAF heritage. Training would probably be entirely joint still, just with Scotland paying a fee (much like with the Canadian NFTC program) for the training. Add in a few transports, probably Hercs, and some Tucanos/Hawks, and that’s probably about it for the fixed-wing ‘inheritance’.
For helos, I suspect a different arrangement would be made, given Britain’s shocking lack of available helos. I suspect the agreement would consist of a batch of jointly funded helos, e.g. Eurocopter Cougars, AW-101 Merlins, or just AW-139s/149s.
Navy-wise, I would actually expect something pretty simple, e.g. Scotland getting two of the Bay class, and maybe a couple of the Type 23s. There would probably/hopefully be a suitable agreement, whereby Scotland would take part in both the Fleet Ready Escort and the amphibious force. Since Scotland is both home to, and provide a lot of, 45 Commando RM, I suspect Scotland would just adopt that unit, and pledge it to the joint amphibious force. I would actually hope to see Scotland get, say, two T-23s, and just tag along on the FSC program, and replace them with a few C-2s and C-3s.
Army-wise, you cannot ignore the fact that Scotland provides a pretty big number of troops, and is unlikely to want to demobilise them (political suicide in Scotland). I would suspect that Scotland would simply adopt a mostly peace-keeping and peace-enforcement policy (i.e. not joining in the initial high-intensity phase unless necessary). The equipment would probably remain pretty much the same, e.g. Warriors, Bulldogs, Mastiffs, etc… There might be some politically-motivated changes, e.g. adopting a new camo (perhaps CADPAT?), and some other minor stuff; basically nothing more than superficial changes.
So, in summary, the likely Air Force would most likely look like:
– 43 and 111 Sqns, equipped with Typhoons
– A support unit with a few Tucanos or Hawks (maybe a Blue Arrows! :diablo:)
– A few Beech King Airs modified for maritime/fisheries patrol
– A bunch of new helos, payed for mostly by Scotland. Probably something like Merlins or Cougars, supported by something small and cheap to perform medevac and other roles, plus some naval helos. I would avoid the Lynx like the plague though!
– Maybe a few Hercules, probably four-ish, either refurbished C-130Ks or -Js
– Hopefully a bunch of new UAVs, hopefully armed ones, e.g. the MQ-1C Sky Warrior, or just Watchkeeper UAVs. These would be important for supporting ground forces.
I know some people seem to want to denigrate Scotland and its prospects, but a lot of people seem to have a very skewed view of Scotland. It would be good if people would actually take notice of the reality of modern Scotland.
EdLawIt might be worth boosting the RHIB capability a tiny bit, up to around 11m RHIBs (allowing them to carry more capable boarding craft). By allowing a bigger boat, you boost the patrol capabilities a fair bit – allowing better armed boats, hopefully preventing a repeat of the events of last year (the Iranian capture of the British boat). An 11m RHIB could be of the same sort as the US Marine’s Small Unit Rivering Craft (SURC), which is far more capable. Equally, it should allow for a pair of smaller RHIBs (space for an 11m one should be enough for a pair of 5m boats instead). If the C-3 has the ability to operate, say, two 11m RHIBs, and perhaps one each on the C-1s and C-2s, then it would be an improvement.
EdLawRegarding SeaRAM, I’m not sure about the conclusions drawn – though there don’t seem to be any plans to purchase, I suspect this has more to do with the budget than anything else! It would certainly be a boost for ships not equipped with other anti-missile systems, i.e. pretty much anything without Seawolf! It would appear to offer much of the same capability as the Seawolf, yet with a fraction of the footprint. It certainly would seem to be a logical step, drawing on the existing hardware. It’s plug and play nature might even allow ships to share from a pool of gun-equipped 1B mounts, and SeaRAM mounts; as a money-saving measure.
EdLawI love the illustrations, though I’m not sure about two particular details on the C2 and C3. The first is the bow arrangement – the forecastle seems very short, with a very structure-forward arrangement, and the gun very far forward. The second minor thing is the arrangement of the VLS on the C-2 – I’m never very sure about the idea of the aft-mounted VLS. As already discussed, the other issue is that the C-3 is unlikely to be much over 2000 tons, unfortunately. This means that C-2 is more likely to share the hull of the C-1. On the other hand, I do really like your ideas, they do represent excellent designs.
The other minor thing would be to have a full coverage for the CIWS, preferably though a pair of Phalanx, more like on your C-1 illustration. This would be worth it for the C-2 certainly, and possibly for the C-3. As was learnt in the Falklands, you really need every ship to have as much defensive coverage as possible. Using Phalanx would be an excellent way for the C-3 to be upgraded with a SAM of course, since you could just upgrade their Phalanx units to SeaRAM configuration!
It also might be worth making the CAAM a drop-in replacement for the RAM, allowing the UK to use the basic SeaRAM system, but with a British-built missile. Since Britain should be using Phalanx/SeaRAM for the carriers, amphibs, T-45s, C-1/2/3 and some RFAs, designing a UK-built upgrade might make sense. It would also make some sense for the other CAAM roles, since the Army have been using the American C-RAM system, combining a counter-mortar radar system and Phalanx. The Army would then just buy a load of Phalanx units, with some using the 1B configuration (with 20mm cannon), and some replacing Rapier units, using the SeaRAM configuration.
Sign In
