A logical option would, of course, as Jonesy says, be the Phalanx 1B, if nothing else, because it would give a fairly straightforward upgrade path to the SeaRAM. The SeaRAM basically recycles most of the Phalanx, replacing the gun and ammunition modules with an 11-cell RAM launcher. It is intended to be a straightforward upgrade path, so if all the ships in the RN standardised on Phalanx 1B, they could be upgraded to SeaRAM as needed. You obviously still need a basic gun system, for use on the lower-end targets (small craft etc…), and this could easily be provided by the 30mm Bushmaster cannon, as used on the Type 23.

Another thing to consider is the Army’s use of the C-RAM, i.e. land based Phalanx. It might be an idea to make any future CIWS a joint project, or just buy more Phalanx units, to allow the RN and Army (and RAF Regiment perhaps, for airfield defence, which seems to be taking a back seat nowadays) to have a common fleet, with common upgrades. The Army needs the gun-based version more than the missile based version, but common training might be useful.

Does anyone know how many Phalanx units does Britain actually owns?

I think the C-1/C-2 idea is the best solution. Also the lack of powerful sensors might not be the hindrance that they once would of been in a high intensity war. With data linking there is no reason why our C1/C2 tier combatants could effectively be spare missile platforms with targeting and control being handled by the Type 45. The Americans have had thoughts much down the same line with the CEC capability (something which the RN is joining) where an AEGIS ship uses the ASW escorts as extra missile platforms.

That way we get the best of both worlds with the costs being kept down for world policing but the ability to punch above their weight being retained for true high intensity wars.

As for missiles I would argue Aster 15 but it appears the MOD is set on a new generation Sea Wolf/ Rapier replacement so we shall see.

On a side note I don’t know why people bring up the idea of a naval Meteor, its performance would cross over with Aster making it a rather pointless development when investment has gone into that system.

Umm, Fed, I did respond to most of what you raised in that post! The only point I didn’t directly respond to was your point about VL-Meteor being pointless because it would cross over into the role of the Aster 15. This is one thing I most certainly disagree with – yes, it would be pretty much in the same class as the A15, but with many crucial differences. Firstly, being much smaller than A15, it should be capable of being quad-packed, which is pretty useful. Secondly, being smaller, it would be a lot more useful for land-based use, where the sheer size of the Aster is a bit of a problem as regards a Rapier replacement. Thirdly, because of the possibility of quad-packing, it would allow ships such as the Type 45 to carry more of the long-range Aster 30s, without sacrificing the shorter range defensive missiles. Equally, if it were decided to fit a single 8-cell Sylver launcher to the carriers, it would only allow eight Aster 15/30s, yet would allow 32 of a VL-Meteor. Since the seeker from Meteor is very closely related to that of the Aster, I actually doubt there would be too many problems development-wise.

Basically, just because the Meteor would duplicate much of the capability of the Aster 15, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea. The Aster 15 is basically a very inefficient way of packing a ~30km range missile into a VLS. The Meteor would be a much better companion to the more capable Aster 30, and much more appropriate for land forces. If the CAAM ends up based on ASRAAM, as seems likely, and has sufficient range, then I see no problem.

Probably!

It might make most sense to simply pursue the elusive final two Type 45s (i.e. hulls 7 & 8), and then build at least eight general purpose T-45 derivatives. The general purpose version would ideally be about the same size, but not as AAW oriented – perhaps still have Aster 30 capability, but not as primary AAW ships.

The best thing, though, would be to pursue numbers, as long as they don’t sacrifice capability too much. I think something like the FREMM might be best, ideally in two versions – one with a full ASW and limited AAW fitout (i.e. the RN’s C-1 concept), and one with a much more limited fitout (the C-2). Ideally, at least eight of each would be needed to properly replace the current Type 22B3s and Type 23s. The C-2 type should ideally have the ability to be upgraded later to more like the C-1 spec, should the need arise. Both classes would have a suitable VLS, but with the C-1 carrying a mix of Aster 30 and Aster 15 (unless someone pays attention to my suggestion of a quad-packed VL-Meteor! :diablo:). The C-2s would then carry a mix of Aster 15 (or the VL-Meteor) plus some cruise missiles, either Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. The C-2s would be forward deployed to, say, Cyprus, to support ops in the Med and Gulf. This is, of course, why they would want some limited land-attack capability!

So, to actually vote, not just waffle on about how things should be:

A – 10 x 5000 ton ‘frigates’
B – 8 x 7000 ton ‘destroyers’
C – 6 x 8000 ton ‘super destroyers’

If this is to form the sole RN frontline surface combattant fleet, i.e. no extra ‘C-2s’ or equivalent, then a mere six to eight Type 45s and six to eight of these Type 4Xs is simply not going to cut it! You need a total of at least twenty, preferably more than 24. 🙂

I agree, Swerve, up to a point, though I would definitely count RAM as a CIWS, it is just a missile based one, since pretty much none of the gun-based ones have a hope of downing a supersonic AShM. I have some degree of confidence in PAAMS, but I would definitely want the reassurance of having a good CIWS. Remember, we were all told how wonderful Sea Dart was, and yet it simply wasn’t a cure-all. Ideally, I would love to see the T-45s having a proper layered defence, with Aster 30, possibly something other than A-15 (perhaps some form of quad-packed VL-Meteor?), RAM, and then finally a dual-use gun-based system. Failing that, at the very least A-30, RAM, and some simple remote weapons (I know their failings, but they do have the advantage of being controlled from a nice warm room, with coffee close to hand…..).

I just worry that penny pinching may come home to roost when we end up putting the ships genuinely in harm’s way – “sorry, that system was too expensive, so they planned to install it in the mid-life update in five years time” won’t go down too well in a combat situation! 🙁

Assuming a straightforward ‘which is best’, then I have to say that it is difficult to say. I would certainly not count either the 57mm or 76mm systems as genuine CIWS – they are main guns (except on truly huge ships like the DDG-1000) that can also do some anti-missile work.

I would certainly want two layers ideally, and those two layers would consist of RAM; and either the 35mm Millenium gun with AHEAD ammunition, or the Dutch 30mm Goalkeeper.

I don’t really rate the Starstreak for the role, especially given its lack of a proximity fuse. The 20mm Phalanx is good, especially with the updates, but I prefer the more advanced ammo options available for the larger calibres. The 57mm is certainly attractive, but as I say, its really a main gun for most ships. The 76mm even more so; I also don’t like the slow rate of fire, even with the fancy ammunition; the 57mm would certainly be my pick if I had to choose just between the 57mm or the 76mm.

So basically, put me down for RAM and Goalkeeper or the 35mm Oerlikon!

If you have STOVL fighter options, a sub-carrier could become a viable small carrier option. The sub would need to be a brand new design to make it ‘fat’ enough for F35Bs to confortably take off and land on, but you then have the massive advantage of not needing any surface escorts and being able to strike at the enemy with pretty much zero warning. If made big enough, such carriers could also be home to Ospreys that can insert and/or extra ground units.

The catch is that the USN is pretty happy with super carriers and would not want to do anything to threaten the future of their super carriers. Also, with the dominance of American naval power, having enough escorts have never been an issue. The only countrys who might seriously look into such a project would be the Chinese or Russians, but then they currently have no F35B or Osprey equivilant planes nor seemed to be planning to get any.

The massive problem with the idea of submarine aircraft carriers is the sheer cost. Frankly, they are just not viable. A sub would need to be bigger than a Typhoon class just to have a hope of carrying more than a couple of aircraft. It would need to be able to have the deck clear above the waterline for flight ops – this means the top of the main hull needs to be about ten metres above the waterline!

Basically, the threat to carriers from ballistic/supersonic missiles is exagerrated (I don’t mean by you, just generally, especially in regard to any future conflict with either China or Iran). There are major problems with the theory, especially for ballistic weapons; targetting is also a difficulty for launch purposes. It would be much cheaper to devise defensive systems to protect a carrier from such weapons, than to design and build submarine carriers. The lack of need for escorts is also not entirely true – such a submarine would be pretty huge (think 30,000 tons submerged), so you could just about track it on Google maps! :diablo:

I would also very much doubt that China or Russia would go down this path – for a variety of reasons. Russia is much more likely to pursue missile based options (both for anti-shipping and for land attack), possibly similar to the American Ohio class SSGN conversions, based on the new Russian SSBNs. The Chinese, on the other hand, seem to be going very much down the conventional carrier route, both with the proof-of-concept Varyag completion much mooted, and with future ships. Basically, I don’t see anyone going down the submarine aircraft carrier route anytime soon! Too expensive, and too limited in capability.

On the other hand, there are moves towards a sub launched small UCAV, though how practical it is is another question entirely! Take a look at the video:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/57880/

Not sure I like the idea – the Ohio SSGN is probably sufficient for most purposes, and I doubt it is worth bothering with a UCAV carrying sub. The key to submarine-launched weapons is:

– Small weapons: subs are tight for space, the smaller the weapon, the more that can be carried.

– Range: the weapon needs to have a bare minimum of 100km range, since the sub will have to be sitting offshore by a safe distance anyway. Anything less than, say, 300km probably isn’t even worth it, since you generally want to hit at least 200km inland, if you’re spending a few billion on the system!

– Cost: it needs to actually be worth it! If the sub + weapons costs billions, then you may be cheaper and better off just putting existing weapons (Tomahawk, modified GMLRS, Naval TACMS etc…) onto current surface ships.

In essence, it is the same story as the American DDG-1000 project – lots of shiny new concepts, but overall, simply not worth the price tag!

I think we’ve already seen a new one develop in the past few years and that’s as an aerial deuce-and-a-half. I know what you’re saying, helicopters have been doing that sort of thing for years. Well, sort of. Helicopters became the aerial landing craft very early on and aerial command and control or VIP or CSAR missions were some of the first to come along. Arguably, it’s just more of the same point A to point B that they’re doing today.

What I’m saying though is that while they’ve been doing the assault, infiltration, and command transport thing for decades, that hasn’t meant much to the average GI or the supply guy. Private Jones going from the repple depple to the front lines wasn’t going to take a helicopter to get there. B Company, the recently activated Guard unit that just shipped over and will be getting ready to take over an area from another unit wasn’t going to make it to the front lines by helicopter. Neither was the next shipment of small arms ammunition or the MREs or new boots.

These are all things that have been in the backs of deuce-and-a-halfs or five-tonners for the past 60 years and now they’re going by way of helicopter. It doesn’t show a shift in the helicopter’s capabilities, but it’s a complete change in its traditional employment. It shows how the battlefield has changed in the past few decades.

Logan Hartke

I’m not sure I agree; this was very much the case in Vietnam, where a lot of movements had to be by helo. This was not just for the supposedly air-mobile units, but also by many normal infantry units. The situation in Vietnam in some ways mirrors that experienced in Iraq. Similarly, the current situation in Afghanistan almost mirrors the Soviet experience; where they needed to rely heavily on their fleets of Mils to move units around, partly because of the heavy mining of the roads.

Arguably, the armed helicopter may well take an increased role in provision of air-support, operating alongside UAVs, due in large part to being under Army control. Helos will likely make increased use of UAV control, e.g. using an armed UAV to effectively self-escort. As such, even a transport chopper may end up being able to designate targets (they are increasingly being fitted with FLIRs, and adding laser targetting wouldn’t be difficult). They would then be able to order the launch of Hellfires or other weapons (SDB perhaps, from a high altitude UAV), to take out targets as needed.

This may not strictly be a massive innovation, but particularly if combined with, for instance, a turreted gun on a UAV, could allow quasi gunship ops. Had it not been for recent developments in the AC-130 upgrade, where the Mk44 30mm was found lacking, I would have suggested exactly that weapon! Given the relatively low recoil advertised for guns such as the Apache’s M230, it should have been quite possible. I am sure there would be other options – perhaps some modified form of the Rheinmetall RMK-30?