EdLawYes and no, Scalp Naval perhaps but there would also be a strong case for maximising commonality with the RAF missile and accepting a shorter range tactical missile for supporting land ops given that the RN SSN’s already carry long range cruise missiles for strategic strike.
I’m really not sure I agree – it would be much better to ‘Storm Shadow-ise’ the Scalp Naval, as was done with the original Scalp missile. A British version of the Scalp Naval, i.e. built in the UK, and using the BROACH warhead, would be an excellent tool. Also, it has to be remembered that the UK would be able to switch to using ‘Storm Naval’ (as we could call it for discussion purposes) on the SSNs, instead of Tomahawk. The Storm Shadow is a pretty stealthy missile, something the Tomahawk isn’t, so a sub-launched Scalp/Storm could be a better option.
If the UK can field around eight Astutes and sixteen Type 45s and C-1s, then we can assume that two and four respectively would be available for deployment, each with sixteen cruise missiles – a total of 96 cruise missiles!
EdLawWhen you say navalised Storm Shadow, do you mean Scalp Naval?
Especially since they are very different things! Scalp Naval is far more than just a navalised Storm Shadow, having a reported range of around 1000km, which is two-to-three times that of Storm Shadow!
EdLawBear in mind, however, that the planned ‘patrol ships’ that the Danes are planning seem to be basically Absalon minus the cargo deck, so that would be a good option. Personally, I like the cargo space, though not as much as Absalon, since it allows the ships to house mine warfare kit, UAVs (like the ScanEagle) and lots of other kit.
EdLawFor the C-1, I certainly agree that the Type 45 would be the best baseline design. I would agree with the mods, i.e. 155mm gun, as has been proposed by BAE, and delete some of the more expensive radar systems. One question is the VLS – would it be practical to fit two different VLS systems on the same ship (Mk41 and Sylver)?
My aim would be to finish the current AAW-configured Type 45s at eight hulls, and then follow them up with the C-1s, hopefully meaning another eight hulls.
For C-2 and C-3, it is a little less clear – the LCS may be one route to go down, i.e. a common ship design, but with half having only the ‘basic’ weapons fit, and the rest being fully armed. The basic fit would be the obvious, i.e. main gun (57mm or 76mm), and secondary guns (30mm Mk44s and CIWS probably). I would look very seriously at fitting the SeaRAM system, which gives a similar level of capability to the Sea Wolf systems, yet takes up a fraction of the space. Both the C-2 and C-3 would carry, as on the LCS, two helicopters, allowing the C-3 to carry armed lightweight helos, to support boarding operations and anti-piracy missions, and the C-3 would carry ASW helicopters. The attraction of having a common design for -2 and -3 is obvious – larger numbers of ships, all capable of being upgraded to a common spec if the need arose. The problem is, of course, that it lays them open to cuts, either building them all to C-3 spec, or more likely just cutting their numbers down. Sixteen C-2/C-3 ships would be pretty ideal, yielding an escort fleet up at 32, which would be a healthy improvement on today!
I do like the Absalon, and I’m not necessarily convinced that its cargo capacity is a bad thing – yes, we have amphibs and RoRos for lift, but it would allow them to carry more RHIBs for interdiction ops. They could function as motherships for coastal patrol units, allowing larger, better armed boats to be carried to protect the boarding parties. The Absalons carry the SRC-90E, which is a 12m special ops boat, but could probably carry grenade launchers and heavy machineguns, which would prove very useful for protecting boarding parties.
EdLawIt is perhaps worth noting that, pre-’90s China was far less capable of carrying out a major destabilising war (e.g. Taiwan); but more capable of surviving economically, since it wasn’t particularly economically integrated. In contrast, now the Chinese military is far better trained and equipped, and more capable; but the Chinese economy is now quite heavily integrated, and would be crippled by a major conflict. As much as China may like to throw its weight around in future, it cannot really afford to rock the boat too much.
EdLawFlex: I think the reference was to either the Apache or the Cobra, both of which are capable of doing the same missions. The ‘armed recon helo’ aspect was more because that was what they are replacing, i.e. the OH-58, which is an armed recon helo, not an attack helo. It is an attack helo by any other name, it is just easier to classify it as a replacement of an existing type…
EdLawVery nice! Six hours is plenty for tactical AEW (okay, you might want more for long endurance surveillance, a la NATO E-3s during Kosovo etc…), and would give the carriers so equipped a massive capability boost. I would expect an Invincible class carrier to be able to operate a dozen Sea Harriers, four of these aircraft, and a couple of Sea Kings for AEW. A Hermes sized carrier would be even better, being capable of carrying at least sixteen Sea Harriers, four of these, and four or so Sea Kings! Pity the Invincibles weren’t simply built as modern versions of the old Centaur class (i.e. at least as big as Hermes…).
By the way, Happy Christmas to everyone!
EdLawAnyway, dorsal mountings aren’t really necessary, a ventral mounting would work fine. The only issue is whether the aircraft would have sufficient endurance to be useful – if it only has, say, two or three hour endurance, then thats not great, but if it has five or six hour endurance, thats good enough.
EdLawI’m pretty sure the CAMM system will be the de facto Rapier replacement, and it seems to be an ASRAAM-derived system. There have been suggestions that it will not actually be a simple ASRAAM launched from the ground though, but rather based heavily on that missile.
EdLawThere’s a certain resemblance to aircraft like the OV-10 Bronco and GAF Nomad in the three view! Nice looking design, I have to wonder what effect they might have had if the Royal Navy had bought them for the Harrier carriers in the ’70s! An AEW aircraft might have helped a lot, pity they didn’t pick up the project…
EdLawIn an ideal world, the carriers would have a three-layered defence, consisting of Aster 15 (or preferably booster quad-packed Meteor), CAMM or RAM, and a final layer of 35mm Millenium guns.
On the subject of the CAMM I would have hoped that Rapier would be replaced by something more capable than a ground launched ASRAAM type, preferably a Meteor derivative. Given all the moves in the US towards using a ground based AMRAAM, it would seem logical for the UK to look at the same sort of system, but using the newer Meteor. It might be worthwhile to have a shorter range ASRAAM anti-missile weapon added, but I would really want the longer range capability of the Meteor as well.
EdLawI would, at the very least, hope that the new carriers will be fitted with decent sized sponsons, allowing other systems to be fitted when/if needed. It is always easier to update weapons when there is already space, but adding it later is a nightmare. The new carriers should really have four defensive points, i.e. either side aft, and either side of the flightdeck just ahead of the angled deck. The 35mm Millenium gun certainly seems to be a very good way to go, especially if it is supplemented by a missile based system like the RIM-116 RAM, probably fitted just on the forward sponsons. I wouldn’t bet on getting much in the way of Aster missiles though – they simply take up too much space (if you want a sensible number). A better bet might be to develop a quad-packed boosted Meteor, to fit into the Sylver launchers. This would be a heck of a system for both the carriers and the destroyers/frigates – the smaller ships would be able to carry a mix of Aster 15 and Meteors.
EdLawWanshan, I have no doubt the French would opt for that, but I was really meaning the CVF, not PA2…
I would hope for them to have at least some layering of their air defences, but there wont be much I suspect. The best to be hoped for would probably be a similar Aster 15 fit to the CdG (though I doubt it), and more likely just something in the RAM class, probably plus some 30mm Bushmaster cannon for basic defence needs (i.e. anti-boat use). Phalanx is the most likely initial fit, but at least would allow for conversion to SeaRAM, where most other cannon fits would force a pretty major change to adopt a new missile.
I just sincerely hope it isn’t going to be anything involving Starstreak, given the lack of a proximity fuse on that missile’s darts. This means that the darts actually have to hit to kill, which would be very difficult for anti-missile work. To be honest, my preference is definitely for an off the shelf purchase of the RAM, and failing that, another suitable SAM, perhaps even the Mistral.
EdLawIt will be interesting to see what happens for the self defence capability, given all the various illustrations and suggestions made. I have heard such a wide variety of options being mentioned (Aster, an ASRAAM derivative, a Starstreak derivative, RAM missiles, 20mm Phalanx and 30mm Goalkeeper all being mentioned). Since these decisions will likely influence the equipment fit on the other RN surface combattants, it will be interesting. Arguably the simplest will be to simply fit them with off the shelf Phalanx, since these can easily and cheaply be updated to the SeaRAM system. This would be of use for a lot of the other ships, which could all be fitted with Phalanx, and SeaRAM when needed (or ideally all of them in future).
EdLawCongratulations Phantom! Hope it went well!
Congrats to Morocco as well, of course, for getting a darned good aircraft!
Sign In
