So, we are probably at what amounts to a general consensus, the C-3 is going to have to be a conventional hullform, displacing around 3,000 tons. This makes it somewhere around the Thetis class size, with a pretty decent, if basic weapons fit.

This allows us to draw up some basic ‘requirements’ (ours, not the RN’s!):

– 57mm or 76mm main gun (could go smaller, but a larger guns have more dual-purpose capability)
– Short range SAM, e.g. the RIM-116 RAM, possibly a SeaRAM mount? Alternatively the CAAM, possibly even built to be compatible with RAM mounts?
– One embarked or embarkable helo, preferably up to Merlin size
– Space for MCM gear and personnel

Above all, of course, it needs to be pretty cheap, but not too cheap (i.e. it needs to be a good ship, not just a low cost one)!

As I think I mentioned before, it might be sensible to give all of the C-series (C-1, -2 and -3) an embarkable MCM capability.

Without knowing the full details of what the $6bn figure actually includes, e.g. servicing and support, it is difficult to condemn the whole project. The simple fact is that the Presidential transport unit needs new helicopters, and the VH-60 had been considered a bit too small, so it needed to be a pretty large helo. As such, the competition was really between the S-92 and the (now H-71); the S-92 didn’t win, so the H-71 became the future Marine One. The numbers of helos involved shouldn’t be a great surprise – by your own account, the 23 new helos are replacing a current fleet of 20 helicopters, which is not much of an increase, and allows for attrition and spares. Also, for ‘homeland security’ reasons, there is more need for protection assets to move with the President.

As for the inclusion of the command and control systems, this is for good reasons. On the ground, there are comms assets (more than just the football when at a routine location), a lot of these systems can be moved around as part of the advance party. Also, in any emergency, the helicopter may be called upon to transport the Presidential team to Air Force One – you cannot afford to be out of contact for your half hour flight in the middle of an emergency.

It has the right sort of look, but it is simply not an attack helicopter – the payload capability simply isn’t there. It might be uprated, and perhaps carry a machinegun or grenade launcher, but it will still be no more of an attack helicopter (in fact much less so) than helos like the Gazelle and Squirrel (or early Kiowas).

In effect, if it is a technology demonstrator for a larger helo, then it is great. If, on the other hand, they expect to stick a GPMG on the side and call it an attack helo, then that’s their right, but by most normal standards, that’s not what it is.

It also makes investment in nuclear power stations essential, which will be necessary to decrease reliance on imported energy sources. In fact, General Electric do some excellent turn-key reactor installations, and with proper investment, the UK could move up to around 40% nuclear energy. I am not a fan of a lot of the ‘renewable’ sources, which are very expensive for the energy they produce. If the UK can (and it has been talking about it) produce 40% of its needs from renewables, and 40% from nuclear, there should be sufficient coal and oil to supply the remainder. If, on the other hand, there is no investment (by the government) in nuclear, preferring renewables, then the UK will be screwed.

To modify the saying, nuclear energy is the worst energy source, with the exception of all the others!

The problem is that Russian force levels are unlikely to remain steady, especially with the oil & gas revenues coming in. Putin has made gestures about the rebuilding of the Soviet (sorry, Russian…) Navy, and though some of these are absurdly over ambitious, there will most likely be some form of build up. There will probably be more subs (and more modern subs), a few more destroyers and cruisers, and more naval aviation, perhaps more Tu-22M3s (probably refurbished ones, since they aren’t all that old).

The simple fact is that a western military build-up is exactly what Putin wants in his own perverse way, because it gives him a scapegoat for anything bad. This does not mean that the West shouldn’t rebuild some of its military strength, it just means that it is a bit of a double edged sword.

Certainly a good starting point would be for the UK to step up the Astute and Type 45 programs a bit – it is a good hedge on future threats.

The best bet would probably be the Gripen, since it offers the numbers (if memory serves, they are looking to spend only about $2bn to get the fighters, and PC-21 trainers…) and commonality of engines. The Typhoon is probably too expensive, as is the Rafale (and the Swiss do have some bad experiences involving Dassault).

The two major options are the Super Hornet and the Gripen, and I would favour the lightweight Gripen. The Rhino does have some attractions, such as greater warload (not much of an issue) and tanker capability (again, not a huge advantage for Switzerland). The Gripen, on the other hand, is the true lightweight fighter of today, much as the F-5 was in its day. Also, the Czechs and Hungarians have used attractive lease-to-buy deals for their Gripens, and the Swiss might be able to spread the cost by this way.

Just to dust off this old thread, I thought I’d take a fresh look at it.

As I see it, as alluded to in Sealord’s post, the best bet for taking out the mythical Sverdlov massed fleet lies with the nuclear anti-shipping missile. It is probably the only realistic way to do it in those days.

For this role, I would propose that the best bet would probably have been to build a series of new helicopter cruisers, along the same lines as the Italian Vittorio Veneto. These would use a British modified version of the Tartar/Terrier missile system; which frankly beats the heck out of the daft Sea Slug, which was incapable of being updated, and was out of date by the time the ships were in full service!). There would hopefully then be an air-launched version, much like the AGM-78 Standard ARM, but as an anti-shipping missile. There would be nuclear and conventional versions, and this could have yielded something not too disimilar to the American SRAM for land-based use. This way, a basically standard (pardon the pun) missile can be used for ship-based anti-air and anti-ship, and air-launched anti-ship and anti-radar, as well as give a good tactical nuclear missile.

The cruisers would then form an important part of both ASW and carrier groups, carrying advanced AAW systems, and also embarking a good number of ASW helicopters. An ASW group of one cruiser and two frigates would be workable, and enable eight Sea Kings (six on the cruiser, one each on the frigates). The carrier groups would have one cruiser, two smaller destroyers, and a pair of frigates (plus the carrier of course!).