It might be sensible to look at setting up proper riverine patrol forces, with a mix of properly armed boats (perhaps a modified P2000 type, fitted with a 30mm cannon), and the usual RHIBs. They could either be transported to theatre by a heavylift ship (as has been done before with minesweepers etc), or perhaps onboard a modified Bay class. The Archer/P2000 class is actually a little smaller than the LCU Mk10, and a modified Bay could probably carry as many as four of these, plus perhaps sixteen RHIBs. This would allow for routine boarding operations, and more importantly, it would allow them to be protected when conducting the boardings. Two RHIBs would approach the suspect vessel, and two RHIBs would sit back, watching, and the P2000 would be sitting back, able to give fire support (or fire warning shots if necessary) if needed.

Perhaps it could be argued that the best thing could be to actually make C-1 and C-2 derivatives of the Type 45. If the C-2 is to be an independent patrol asset, then the size of the Type 45’s hull could be very attractive. If you look on the excellent Navy Matters site, there are images of the different proposed Type 45 derivatives, including an enlarged land attack variant, and a smaller ‘general purpose’ design. To be honest, I would seriously look at scrapping the C-2, and just purchasing sixteen of the land attack variant (without expensive radars). They would be termed as replacements for the Type 23s and Type 22s remaining on the books, and could even be bought in two batches (i.e. a C-1 batch and C-2 batch, with only minor changes).

The result would be twenty-four basically common ships, with only modest changes. The C-3 would then be built as a very cheap patrol ship, probably similar to the new Dutch patrol ships, or the enlarge Omani ship design. All of the ships, or at the very least C-1, C-2 and C-3 would all be capable of embarking an MCM team, and would routinely practice this. Ideally, the OPV(H)s would ultimately be replaced by yet more C-3s.

the bonus with Cyprus is we have a massive air base[it was the centure of the Lebanon evac] there already and we have a few patrol vessels there [P2000 it think]. So you would need to negotiate with the gulf states for basing rights. I do see that Gib would be an appealing place as well if you looking at bases an other bonus with Cyprus is its where the commonwealth troops get sent for mid tour holidays

Excellent point. Developing the SBA in Cyprus is probably easier, though I do suspect that Oman would be willing to host a detachment – they could be based in Cyprus, but operate from a base in Oman when deployed to the Gulf. If the base in Cyprus were to be home to the Med and Gulf/Indian Ocean units, then it would develop into an even more significant asset!

Probably a little out of date, but a few years back (before 1999) with 35 DDG/FF provided for 7 escort sized commitments:
1) Standing Naval Force Atlantic (withdrawn in March 2004)
2) Standing Naval Force Mediterranean
3) Fleet ready escort (UK waters)
4) Atlantic Patrol North – Caribbean
5) Atlantic Patrol South – Falklands, West Africa
6) Gulf
7) Indian Ocean

In more recent times this is:
1) Standing Naval Force Mediterranean (probably to NRF)
2) Fleet ready escort (UK waters)
3) Atlantic Patrol North – Caribbean (July to October Hurricane season)
4) Atlantic Patrol South – Falklands, West Africa
5) Gulf/Indian Ocean

1) & 5) are possibly C1 taskings; 2) could be anything; 3) & 4) are C2 & C3

I would look very seriously at forward basing, which has a lot of potential – the ships would be forward deployed for, say, two years, and the crews would fly in and out for four-to-six month tours.

1) Standing Force Med – C-1s or C-2s
2) Fleet Ready Escort – Probably a mix of C-1s and C-2s
3) Atlantic Patrol North – Possibly just OPV(H)s or C-3s
4) Atlantic Patrol South – Possibly still just OPV(H)s or C-3s
5) Gulf/Indian Ocean – Probably a mix of C-1s and C-2s

8 C-1s – 2 each in the Med and Gulf, and 4 in Fleet Ready Escort role
8 C-2s – 2 each in the Med and Gulf, and 4 in Fleet Ready Escort role
8 C-3s – 2 each in Atlantic Patrol North and South, plus 4 for MCM as needed
4 OPV(H)s – 2 each in Atlantic Patrol North and South
plus 8 Type 45s to escort the two carriers

The aim with the mixes it to allow for each operational area to have a balanced mix of numbers and capability. There would be four ships based in each of: Med (Gibraltar), Gulf/Indian Ocean (Oman probably), Caribbean () and South Atlantic (Falklands); plus eight escorts and four MCMV C-3s based in the UK.

For the issue of the C-2 ship, it does seem clear that we are all thinking in terms of Type 23 replacement, so it does seem reasonable to opt for a high capability ship. Even just a ‘basic’ Type 45 derivative might not be too insane – Type 45 for AAW, C-1 for ASW and land attack, and C-2 for ASW and patrol. The C-3 can then be left to be a large patrol ship, built to be MCM capable.

One thing I would definitely add to all of the types would be UAVs, possibly just the ScanEagle, which is small enough to be a low impact installation. This would give all the ships a reasonable surveillance capability, and the bigger Insitu Integrator UAV would be even better, and possibly be able to carry a small radar, for remote targetting. Adding in UUVs for mine countermeasures would make a lot of sense, ideally carried (or embarked as needed) on all the ships. There would then be a specialist group of MCM experts, based in the UK, but operating small detachments onboard the various ships. They could even just fly out to the individual ships when needed, or be a specialist component of the ships crew – not having their skills dilluted by being just regular crew. Twenty or so personnel should be more than enough – UUV operators and handlers, sonar operators, clearance divers etc…

On the down side, the Starstreak darts lack a proximity fuse, requiring to actually hit the target. The Rapier missile started off with no proximity fuse, based on big talk about its accuracy meaning it wasn’t needed, but as proven in the Falklands, it was a tremendous mistake, and later rectified. I would not be overly confident about the chances of an impact, especially on a beam-riding missile like HVM – and a miss my an inch with no proximity fuse is as good as a miss by a mile!

“the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.”

Interesting. Japan does not exclude building defensive aircraft carriers. :diablo:

Although ‘defensive’ aircraft carriers could be argued to mean ASW helicopter-carrying destroyers, and not an actual aircraft carrier just embarking interceptors (otherwise you could buy a Nimitz and just embark Hornets with the attack circuits removed, like the old Finnish ones).

The problem being that naval guns use fixed ammunition, made to different tolerances, so it really isn’t quite as simple as it sounds. The naval rounds could be similar to the land based types, but would be pretty different rounds, hence it is not as simple to ‘cross deck’ new ammunition types. The new rounds would have to be made to naval specs, converted to fixed rounds, and this is just for the ammunition. The 155mm would have to be redesigned very heavily – it is, as the Germans found with their MONARC project, not as simple as fitting a howitzer on a flex-mounting. The gun has to be water-cooled and of different materials, if you want it to last in the naval environment.

In contrast, the 127mm is already developed, the ammunition boasts longer range (albeit somewhat smaller rounds), and it is generally ready for adoption. In effect, there are few, if any, advantages to adopting a naval 155mm versus adopting a 127mm, since the rounds would have to be different anyway, so you don’t really get commonality anyway. What you do get is a gun that is already used by many nations, has an excellent support base, and is likely to cost less. It may end up similar to the British Army’s use of the 120mm rifled gun on the CR1 and CR2 – there may be some advantages, but if nobody else buys it, you end up with an orphaned system, with Britain having to foot the whole bill for development. There may be some advantages to the 155mm, but the disadvantages have to be seen as well; likewise, the 127mm may not be British, but it seems to be the best game in town…

It could be argued that the best thing could be to rebuild the conventional sub capability, post Astute ‘8’ (hopefully 8), if nothing else, to keep sub building skills current. To be honest, though, the best thing would be to copy the Japanese sub ordering method – you simply have a rolling procurement program, with one new sub ordered every year (or 18 months or 2 years). This allows for the skills to remain current, and you always have pretty new subs, and it can help avoid some of the sticker shock of suddenly buying new subs, after a few years of not buying…