Regardless of the age issue, the important thing is the answer to the original question: yes, the noise the Bear makes is a disadvantage in the ASW mission. In the bomber mission, the main problem is not audible noise, but radar its radar signature – big pre-stealth bomber = big blip on radar… This isn’t to criticise it in any way, shape or form, the Bear is great for its intended mission, i.e. carrying big cruise missiles. I do wonder, however, if something like a modified Tupolev Tu-214 or Ilyushin Il-96 might be a suitable replacement, for both ASW and cruise missile roles.

I never questioned your suggestion! 🙂

Basically, there is consensus that C-2 is going to be one of two things:

– A C-1 relative, i.e. quite large, and with somewhat heavy armament
or
– A C-3 relative, i.e. quite small, and probably not too heavily armed

One thing to note, though, is the difference between a 32-cell Sylver VLS and a 32-round CAMM launcher, which could either be an 8-cell Sylver, or a cheap CAMM-only VLS. An 8-cell Sylver could be reasonably sensible, and a la Anzac class, there could easily be space for a second 8 cells if needed in future (allowing either another 32 CAMM, or 8 Aster 15). The topweight issues of a small VLS installation shouldn’t be too excessive, even on a modest size hull.

As I said earlier, one very important issue is what on Earth CAMM ends up being? If it is capable enough, then I have no major problem with the CAMM being used for C-3, and only a minor problem with using it for C-2. If, on the other hand, CAMM ends up little more than a missile CIWS, then I would worry about using it for C-2 (which will have to go into harms way). Another benefit to commonality between C-2 and -3 is the possibility of using C-2 for offensive MCM, rather than the C-3 (since it will be better protected). Basically be can look at it like this: if CAMM is like a mini-ESSM, then I am all for it, but if it just going to be a ‘me too’ RAM, then I am more sceptical.

As it is, the C-3 has to be pretty capable anyway, in seakeeping terms and defensive terms. We can therefore do a ‘back-of-napkin’ calculation of the minimum size, which would really be 2,000 plus tons, preferably 3,000 or so. This makes heavier weapons possible, and since I am no fan of the 114mm, I opted for 127mm. Obviously a smaller weapon like the 57mm would be an option, though. Adding hookups for Harpoon similarly makes sense – you don’t need to actually fit them, just have the ability to if needs be. Add in CAMM, a suitable CIWS, and we still get a pretty well armed patrol ship, even if it is a little limited in other terms.

The other very important change, unrelated directly to the C-1/2/3 is of course the helo, i.e. Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft. The Future Lynx is not ideal – something larger would be much more useful; more range, more lift capacity etc would all be useful. Scrapping the Future Lynx deal, in favour of either more Merlins, or something like the NH-90, AW-149 or H-60 type would be positive. In the latest AFM, it was mentioned that many in the Army were not keen on the new Lynx, and would very much prefer off the shelf Blackhawks. Alternatively, divide up the ASW role and support roles, and buy some more Merlins for ASW, and some AW-149s (or even Sikorsky S-92s!) for transport/support roles!

I agree, and the prospect of a quad-packed CAMM does certainly sound interesting, though I do await enlightenment as to what CAMM is going to end up as.

Another stupid though occurs, though (forgive me, I’ve been away from the board for a few days, staying in the hotel NHS…), that we could do what I proposed, but with the C-1/2. The C-1 would have the VDS etc, and the C-2 would have slightly more austere fitout, but overall very similar fit. The C-3 is then much smaller and cheaper, but could at least carry one 8-cell VLS, which, with quad-packing would allow 32 missiles. The alternative would be to make CAMM much more like RAM, i.e. a 21-cell launcher type, and have C-3 being more like a stretched German K130 type, with added functionality.

One simple (or not so simple) question that doesn’t seem to have been asked regarding the F/A-18F-EA-18G is this: how do they compare to the alternatives. In this sense, I do not mean compared to other fighters, but compared, for instance, to buying some KC-130s for tactical refuelling (instead of buddy-packed Rhinos), and EC-130s instead of EA-18Gs. Eight KC-130Js and eight EC-130s, or even the Gulfstream EC-37 might make more sense, and could even end up costing less.

Four tactical F-35 units, plus a tac-jam and tanking squadron might make some sense. Each unit could either mix roles, e.g. have a sixteen aircraft squadron having twenty-four crews, eight each specialising in A2A, A2G and CAS respectively. The crews would then train together, keeping their skill levels high.

For the RAAF, there is some sense in going for one larger (24 aircraft) F-35B unit, deploying flights for CAS, on land or on the new LHDs; and two F-35A/C units, deploying flights for deep strike and air superiority. Add in one large OCU, colocated with a training squadron and an aggressor squadron (both Hawk units probably).

Fair point, though I suspect that weight would be the main issue – the 30mm Bushmasters are very lightweight, very basic mounts, where a CIWS needs more robust infrastructure. It would be possible for a new ship to simply be built to accomodate more of a cheap CIWS, giving proper coverage. If you could do a straightforward mini-turret, using a couple of 40mm CTA guns, using offboard sensors (a la Millenium Gun), then it might be cheap enough. A better option might be to simply build the new generation CIWS around the new ammunition, and then simply use Bushmasters in the same calibre.

Back onto the C-1/2 issue, a thought crosses my mind – for the Type 23 upgrade, why has the CEAFAR not been considered? It would seem to make for an ideal complement to the Type 45’s capabilities, and is supposedly quite affordable. It might be possible, therefore, to build the new C-1/2s around the CEAFAR, giving them more than enough self-defence AAW capability, without sacrificing their primary roles. Put it on a new basic hullform, somewhat stealthy (a la Formidable/LaFayette), and we have C-1/2 basically sorted. The hull would have all the relevant spaces, allowing fitment of VDS, MCM gear, and anything else that may be needed. The C-3 could, potentially be built using a stripped down version of the same hull, i.e. space for x, y, and z. The basic design would be c.5,000 tons displacement, though a bit less for the C-3, due to less equipment on board (notably no VLS cells installed, but a space left). Due to IEP, it might even be possible to use a common propulsion system, just with less installed power on the C-3 (e.g. fewer diesels installed).

It is highly unlikely that the CVF would be cancelled imminently – the political fallout would pretty much sink the government. A Conservative government would be equally unlikely to cancel them, since the backlash would hurt them badly as well, and they would look weak on defence. Basically, almost no matter what happens, CVF will happen; the real question is what will go on them, and what other ships will be bought. It would not be a major surprise to see the C-1 and C-2 projects sidelined, in favour of upgrading the remaining Type 23s, and perhaps buying some patrol ships (a very basic C-3). Six T-45s, twelve Type 23s and six low-spec C-3s wouldn’t surprise me too much. In the long run, the two CVFs could cost the Navy a lot of ships, but it may prove to be their best investment…