I would be tempted to keep to a few core systems, e.g. radars, missiles and guns, as well as propulsion types (where possible…). I would probably try to go with:

3 Juan Carlos type LHDs

These would be modified a bit, just to beef up their capabilities. Firstly, I would add a good radar system, preferably something like the SMART-L, along with the associated bits and pieces. Secondly, I would add proper self defence capability, with three or four good CIWS, plus 8-16 Mk41 VLS cells, to be packed with ESSM. Finally, I would just make sure that they have good modular gear, to allow them to switch roles between carrier and amphibious roles. Though not as capable as the Cavour type, they do allow a balancing of carrier and amphib capabilities, depending on what is needed.

12 Iver Huitfeldt (the new Danish “Patrol Frigate”) or De Zeven Provincien

These would be the core of the escort fleet, and as such, they would need to have a couple of modifications! The Iver Huitfeldt is basically a modified version of the Absalon, beefed up for fleet roles. With the combination of the SMART-L and APAR, either of these types have a lot to offer. The Iver Huitfeldt class has a good gun armament, and a lot of potential. In either case, I would add in a good sonar (2087?), and switch back to Absalon’s helo facilities (it accomodates two EH-101s, vice one in the Iver Huitsfeldt). Furthermore, I would boost the number of VLS cells, with a full 64-cell Mk41 fore, and ideally a 32-cell Mk41 amidships. Matched with the SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, Tomahawk, VL-ASROC and ESSM, this makes for a pretty good capability.

12 Standard Flex built C-2-esque frigates

These would be something like 4,000 tons, carry a good radar (SMART-S or even CEAFAR?), good sonar (2087 again?), sort of like the Anzac class is to be upgraded to, but with fewer problems. They should have a good weapons fit, e.g. ESSM, VL-ASROC etc… Overall, these would be ships that could either escort the LHDs, or stay home to protect home waters. The Standard Flex build method is very attractive, with the ability to rapidly install equipment, but especially the cost of construction, as evidenced by the Absalon and Iver Huitsfeldt designs. I would also include a mission payload bay, as discussed previously for the RN’s C-3 design.

6 Decent submarines, something like the Collins class, but with fewer problems…

These would need to meet similar requirements to the Collins class, such as long range, good capabilities, and a good weapons load. Given the newer systems being introduced, e.g. the German IDAS and AUVs/ROVs, I would aim for a weapons load around the 24 torpedoes (or equivalent) mark. Torpedo-wise, I would probably go with something like the Spearfish, and possibly supplement these with a shorter-range, lightweight torpedo (324mm or 400mm), for the less demanding targets.

6 Enforcer-type LSD/LPDs

These would haul the equipment for a full Marine Battalion, and as such, would probably be expected to be able to accomodate a good number of helos and landing craft. In terms of size, I would go relatively large, and perhaps basically copy the capabilities of the American LSD-41 Whidbey Island class, mated to good aviation capability. This would give them the ability to carry out the actual amphibious role, allowing the LHDs to focus on hosting the aviation, command and medical facilities. Even without extensive helo facilities (I would still stick aviation facilities onboard, even if helos weren’t permanently embarked).

3 Fleet Replenishment ships, e.g. Patino or similar, but maybe a bit bigger

Probably built South Korea or similar, something along the lines of the British MARS project, but actually funded…

3 Militarised Roll-on Roll-off ships

Same deal as with the replenishment ships, built in South Korea or similar, and given a basic defensive fit (soft-kill defences, and mountings for bolt-on CIWS for more dangerous situations). Ideally, something like the American Bob Hope class strategic transports, but preferably a bit cheaper…

Fleet Air Arm:

This is a bit harder, more from cost than anything else!

– 36 (50 ish including spares) F-35B – sufficient to put enough on the LHDs when needed.

– 48 (65 ish inc. spares) EH-101 ASW – sufficient to put eight on each of six surface groups.

– 12 (15-16 ish) EH-101 AEW – Cerberus radar package, a la Sea King ASaC-7, but with more operator’s stations.

– 12 (15-16 ish) EH-101 AMCM – airborne mine clearance roled, as with the Japanese ones…

– 12 (15-16 ish) EH-101 Vertrep/COD – ramp equipped version, probably identical to Marine transport helos.

– 12 (14-15) P-3 Orion or P-8 MMA for long range MPA roles.

Marine Air Wing:

– 36 (50 ish) EH-101 troop transports

– 36 (50 ish) OV-10X – the mooted new build, which should be able to operate off the LHDs, hopefully…

– 12 (16 ish) WAH-64D – with the RTM-322 engines, for commonality with the EH-101s, as well as the benefits of more powerful engines.

– 12 (16 ish) CH-47F – for cargo hauling, etc…

I know that many of you have stated that the designs I have posted are “pure fantasy” and other such criticisms. But seeing the post above Ed Law’s post above had made me think and remember of the project (and I do mean project, I’ve spent years researching and tweaking this project/hobby of mine) on which I have worked very hard. Please pay no mind to the fact that the ship flys American colours, since I am an American. She could just as easily fly the colours of the Royal Navy. If you like it fine, if you don’t, just as fine. But I just resent being spoken to as if I am some sort of fool when I present something perhaps for some constructive criticism that isnt some half baked idea from a kid who has phalic issues.

If this is an American ship, I would name her Lexington. If she were Royal Navy, perhaps HMS Lion. Afterall, she’s a battlecruiser, not a battleship. 😀

I apologise if you felt that I was making light of your design or efforts, this was far from my intent. In essence, such a design does actually have relevance for the US Navy, especially in light of the efforts in Congress to push for a new nuclear powered cruiser type. For the Royal Navy, such a ship would, of course, be far beyond the budget.

In terms of actual procurement for the US Navy, I would argue that designing a replacement for Tomahawk might be a more immediate benefit. If you can get a long range, stealthy replacement for Tomahawk, then you have more options. More SSGNs, along the lines of the current modified Ohio class SSBNs is probably a good bet. Building a new common base design for both SSBN and SSGN roles then makes a lot of sense – ~12-18 SSBNs and a further ~6-12 SSGNs gives the US a very big stick, both conventional and nuclear. The other major benefit is of course that, with suitable foresight, the SSGNs could be refitted as SSBNs if another Cold War type situation emerges.

I would be concerned that a new CGN type, built in modest numbers could end up becoming another DD-21 Zumwalt type mess. The project has a lot of potential, but only if it is underpinned on low risk approaches. Ideally, I would go very low risk:

– Use a stealthy but conventional hullform (not the Zumwalt type hull).
– Use the basic Mk41 VLS, a very known article.
– Probably stick with conventional propulsion, i.e. LM2500 (possibly LM2500+) engines, driving through full electric propulsion system (also quite well known commercially).
– Stick with the 127mm, but buy into the Italian Vulcano ammunition, since it gives excellent range, and is basically already available. Any follow up design then has to prove itself against a working design, rather than endless projects promising the Earth, then being cancelled when it all falls apart.
– New Tomahawk replacement, as I discuss above, preferably with good range, i.e. 1000km+, and stealthy enough to survive penetrating an IADS.
– Get the POLAR GMLRS design into service; it basically calls for a naval version of the Army’s GMLRS, packed four per VLS cell (a la ESSM), with ~100km or more range.

Wow, you weren’t joking were you.

Looks pretty mean

Is it a trimaran? Looks like its got outriggers.

Don’t think so, though you’d need to ask the hull’s designer, Rabid Stoat; I thought the two outer parts were more like small sponsons for the close in weapons. Basically, it would carry a few good sized VLS’ of Aster 30, CAMM (I opted to just use the Aster missile body, sans booster for CAMM) and Scalp Naval, plus a few Trident missiles. For the main guns, I opted to cross breed the Oto Melara 127mm stealthy turret with a lengthened version of the 155mm gun from the RN’s 155mm, since I much preferred the Oto’s looks. Basically, the whole idea was to build an even more theoretically impressive ship than the South Korean KDX-IIIs! Ahh we can dream!

The issue of age is, as bgnewf says, not as simple as the age of the design. Witness the Russian Soyuz, which was designed at the height of the space race, yet it is going to outlast the Space Shuttle in support of manned spaceflight.

I do feel, however, that there may be some benefit to replacing the Minuteman with a land based version of Trident. The Trident is test launched from land, so land based use is viable, and it would allow for a common land and sea based nuclear deterrent.

Just a quick one,

Does anyone know of any operations in the Edinburgh or Fife area at the moment.

Reason for asking is that we have had a few Chinooks around this area for a couple of days now. Something that is not very familiar around these parts.

Thanks in adavance if anyone knows

There was a Chinook over Dundee the other day, heading in the general direction of Leuchars. Probably related…

What the hell is a “Talarion”? :confused:

It’s the name of the sandals worn by Hermes, in Greek mythology. Yes, random!

The way I see it, there are a few things to bear in mind for the nuclear force:

– The air launched deterrent is not really much use for the strategic role nowadays… However, I do feel it is of use for the tactical deterrent role, i.e. leverage against smaller states, such as North Korea or Iran, where use of an ICBM/SLBM is not sensible.

– A replacement for the AGM-86 ALCM and AGM-129 ACM would be the best first step. I don’t think the JASSM-ER is viable for this, so probably something like a modernised AGM-129 may be best. The ACM design, suitably modernised, should be suitable for use from the B-2s, and any follow-on to the B-1/B-52 should carry them as well. Ideally, something like the FB-22 should be able to carry at least two internally, for the tactical nuclear strike.

– For the actual strategic deterrent role, the best bet is almost certainly to just go for ICBMs for first strike, SLBMs for second strike, as Grim points out.

– Possibly the best option for the ICBM and SLBM would be to simply use an updated version of Trident for both roles. Trident has the range for both duties, and is could easily be modified for land based use (they were test launched from land anyway). This would allow for a single strategic missile design, with commonality for both USAF and USN.

On the other cancellations in general, a lot of them are pretty bad decisions – not because the programs were wonderful examples of how to run projects, but more because cancellation is the wrong outcome.

-The F-22 should be produced in greater numbers, given the need to replace the F-15Cs, some of which are more than thirty years old. The new bomber is needed, albeit a difficult project to fund at the moment.
– The C-17 is needed, given the rate at which the hours are piling onto the current fleet.
– The F136 engine is a good plan, unless we want to hand the whole fighter engine business to P&W.
– The new UAV projects need funding, if they are to meet their potential, and also unless America wants to find itself slipping behind on UAVs again. During the sixties, America was really at the forefront of UAV use, with the excellent Firebee drones, and their kin, being used for everything from recce, jamming, and even strike missions (something forgotten by many). Then, after the Vietnam war was over, the funding dropped, as now, and the lead disappeared almost overnight. It wasn’t until twenty or so years later that the US regained its position at the forefront of UAV development.
– Air Force One, and the new Marine One fleet; again, a case of right general idea, but completely unrealistic goals. The HMX-1 role shouldn’t have called for a helo version of AF1, but rather a really comfortable helo with the latest defensive aids suite. Buying two dozen EH-101s almost off the shelf, and just adding the same sort of systems used currently on the VH-3s should have been the plan.
– AC-27J, this is the sickest one; the US Army desperately needed a replacement for it’s elderly C-23s (I know, I’ve been in one). The USAF threw a hissy fit at the prospect, and made up a requirement for them, to take over the project, and has thrown spanners in the works as much as possible.

Without AEW and data handover there is no way an AAW escort can protect its ducklings while standing off. The limited detection range against seaskimmers makes that impossible.
And even with AEW a T45 with just 48-something Aster can run out of ammo real fast.
There is no way around that all larger ships have to be able to protect themselves from anti-ship effectors. “Offboard” protection just doesn’t work. A T45 will be busy protecting UAV and helicopters from enemy aerial action during a landing, no time to play nanny for landing ships.

This is actually why I am a great fan of the A160 Hummingbird – it has the potential to offer a long endurance airborne surveillance capability, yet operate off standard escorts. The prospect of having sustainable, though basic, AEW coverage, operating off frigates and destroyers is a game changer. It is another reason why I am a believer in ensuring as high a capability as possible is available for the C-1 and C-2, even if it is very much a ‘for but not with’.

As discovered to our cost, the Type 21 frigates were built to a pretty basic spec, with the intention of making them affordable. Unfortunately, this meant having almost no margin for growth, and thus when it became apparent that they needed ‘beefed up’, this simply wasn’t viable. My fear is that C-1, -2 and -3 risk going down this same path – deliberately building them with limitations to keep costs down and numbers up.