T45 will probably go within gun range of land if giving AAW support to an ARG conducting a landing. In that situation there is no reason why it could not join the gunline.

The other thing to bear in mind is the modern gunline. If the ships have to be on the line at around 25km, then it’s pretty risky (witness INS Hanit), but if you can stand off around 50-60km, then it is at least a little safer. If we end up in something like a Falklands scenario (not necessarily the Falklands specifically, just a big important op), then having the ability to have a dozen ships on the gunline is worthwhile.

As an interim, I would be happy enough to see the C-3s equipped for, but not with, the Mk8 gun, and instead just have an MSI DS30 in its place.

Jonesy: as an aside, since you have infinitely more knowledge of this than me, do you feel that the GCM AO-3s could be upgraded to take advantage of the newer airburst rounds? I know they are 30mm x 170 not the 30mm x 173 that Oerlikon/Rheinmetall offer ABM/AHEAD rounds for, but I doubt adapting the rounds would be a show stopper. Any thoughts?

It was my understanding that they had basically worked out most of the issues with migrating the Mk8 gun turret to use either (easier) the L/39 155mm, or (a bit tougher) L/52 155mm. The L/39 version would be suitable as a sort of drop in replacement for the existing mounts. The L/52 is more attractive in terms of range (especially if it can take some of the longer ranged V-LAP rounds developed by Denel). The L/39, in my opinion, doesn’t really offer much benefit, but the L/52 does, with excellent range, commonality of ammunition (even if not commonality of propellant charges).

Though our ships haven’t been on the gun line of late, it is far from unheard of, e.g. the Aussies using one of their Anzac’s 127mm guns during the opening phase of GW2/OIF. The RN may well find themselves needing to carry out this sort of role again, in support of coastal ops. Having the ability to stand off the coast by less than 27km (114mm Mk8) might not be ideal, compared to nearly 70km (155mm L/52 with newer rounds).

The whole point of this program has been to give a much longer reach, without needing to spend ridiculous amounts of money starting from scratch. The intention is to allow a straight switch over from 114mm to 155mm, so that pretty much anything currently using the Mk8 could switch over to the 155mm version. This may also open up the potential for selling this upgrade to overseas users of the Mk8 gun, e.g. Chile and Brazil.

Dont know about that. If Venator is C3 as per the imagery above its pretty much self supporting on deployment. You could put C3 in the IO or the Gulf based on that imagery.

God only knows what we do with C2 but it would be a return to the fleet structure of primary role AAW and separate ASW ships plus a third class of GP frigate that we used to have with the 42, 22 and 21 classes.

Patrol/Minor war fleet can do its own thing, as is status quo, as it can pretty much look after itself wherever it goes. 8 of those C3’s, as initially mentioned, backed with 8 C2’s is actually a reasonable level of deployable capability. You would want a second batch of the Venators to replace the Sandowns completely when they go, but, you would get a lot of capability off the deployed hulls. Not going to be cheap to deploy them though!.

This is actually one of the reasons why I advocate a more capable C-3; a self sufficient C-3 could be deployed by themselves (well, with an RFA ship). If we are talking about an end fleet of 6-8 Type 45s, 8-10 C-1s and 8-10 C-2s, then having the C-3s being capable of defending themselves is a good idea.

You have a very valid point in describing the C-3 as being the spiritual successor to the old Type 21s. This is also my concern – the T21s were great in theory, but hampered by a lack of room for growth. As long as this can be avoided, then they should be great ships.

Bin C2, beef up C3 a little, buy more T45…?

The problem is that you would effectively need to beef the C-3 up to at least the spec currently mooted for C-2, if not C-1. The fleet needs to be balanced, with high end ships, to escort the carriers (etc…), reasonably capable ships for use in places like the Gulf, and low end for straightforward patrol tasks.

I am in favour of seeing a couple more Type 45s ordered, and pretty capable C-1s built, to complement them. The C-2s could use the same basic hull as C-1, just with a different weapons fit. Ideally, the C-2s should be the spiritual successors to the Type 23’s capabilities, e.g. AShMs, CAMM (at least), and with the ability to take the 2087 sonar from the T23s.

The C-3s should be capable of operating in more than just benign environments, such that we don’t always need to assign C-2s to them, just to let them do their job. Most minesweeping/hunting now is expeditionary, so almost by definition, they will probably be needing to be used in non-benign environments.

I agree, Scooter, there is probably more sense in focussing on the MCA, and making it the multirole fighter it should be. I worry the PAK FA is just going to end up being a Russian project, with no Indian content other than money! The same could be said of the MTA transport project, which has been pretty underwhelming!

The one problem would be going too far down the Tejas line, with too much emphasis on making it an Indian project, not a fighter project with as much Indian content as possible. I would aim for a patchwork solution, with emphasis on making the project work, as soon as possible. I would probably draft in help from good partners:

– Get modern engines from whichever type wins the MRCA contest;
– Use a good Israeli radar, e.g. the AESA EL/M-2052, or from the MRCA;
– Airframe design can be done with outside assistance, but built in-country by HAL;

Basically, the MCA should be seen as more than just a spiritual descendant from the Jaguar and Mig-27’s roles. Ideally, it should be able to ultimately replace the Flankers, and supplement both Tejas and MRCA.

The only viable way for Japan to strike would be in retaliation for a strike on Japan (e.g. an existing No Dong type missile hitting Japan, intentionally or by sheer screw-up). This could then lead to a limited strike, e.g. a Japanese copy of Israel’s Operation Opera, the strike on Osiraq. This could take the form of a limited strike, perhaps using GPS/INS guided ASM-2s or similar. This would allow for a relatively modest strike, with perhaps two dozen F-2s each carrying two ASMs, with F-15s providing close escort and air defence.

This sort of strike is probably the most viable, and the most justifiable. However, it will not happen – Japan is highly unlikely to carry out any sort of unilateral strike.

Given the pretty high degree of commonality between the A-330 and A-340, I suspect the A-340 would be almost as convenient as the -330. Ideally, the FSTA deal would collapse (sooner rather than later), and we would just make a normal purchase of A-330s and A-340s, with the -330s as tankers, and -340s for the future ISTAR roles.

One question would be the viability of a new C-5 derivative (i.e. take the C-5M design, but using far more composites). The C-5 is generally big enough for the job, just getting old and expensive to run. A new-build version, with weight savings made where possible (composite wings, composite/titanium or alloy flooring, etc…) might be viable. If we can shift some of the existing weight, use the -5M’s new engines and cockpit, then we might, I repeat, might, be able to get EAGL on the cheap. On the other hand, this may be the worst idea, if it risks being more expensive than a clean sheet design…

Alternatively, it might be possible to buy a license for a US-built Antonov An-124, based on the work done for the An-124-200 series. This would use the same engines as the C-5M, i.e. the GE CF-6, and could even be given a common cockpit with the -5M. This option would allow for some commonality, both in spares, and in training. New build An-124-200s would make some sense – arguably, of course, we could probably just produce new-build C-5Ms with only modest headaches though…