In the near term, I would expect to see Typhoons ordered, as replacements for F-4s and F-1s; in the longer term, F-35s do make sense. The Typhoons offer what the Japanese need, but importantly, it would make the point that Japan is no longer going to automatically turn to American equipment. The F-35s then offer a very easy stepping stone towards carriers – they can simply build a few ‘big amphibs’, add skijumps, then add F-35Bs….

Given the awful mess the Airbus A400M is in, and Japan’s requirement for a replacement for their F-4s and F-1s, a trade deal might make sense. Japan agrees to buy the Typhoon (F-35 doesn’t fit their timescales), in exchange, the UK (at least) buys the C-X instead of A400M, and possibly P-X (with the MRA-4’s avionics inserted) instead of the MRA-4. The C-X would beat the A400M, and is pretty much ready, and boasts superior capabilities – add in a few more C-130Js to round out the fleet, and the RAF ends up a lot better off. The C-X could probably be built in the UK by BAE, and the Typhoon in Japan by Mitsubishi, heck, the C-X could probably be switched to use RR Trent 500s, and the P-X could probably use the RR BR700/710s (a la Nimrod and ASTOR).

No, it’s Jon Lake saying that carriers are a waste of money that could be better spent, especially on the RAF.

I seem to remember a few of his other multi-page rants about how carriers are pointless. It is a wonder that they actually keep publishing them! 😮

Sadly I think that you are correct.

For any similar role USN ships are significantly larger than RN. (The closest which I can think of are T45 and Arleigh Burkes where the difference in displacement is ‘only’ the displacement of a corvette)

USN ships also tend to have larger manning requirements that RN ships with a similar role (or even similar displacement). DDG1000 is a very big departure from previous USN practice.

Also submarine technology is one of the few areas where the RN has some degree of technical edge and UK may not wish to give that up so easily as USN partners would expect.

Al

This hasn’t always been the case though, there are plenty of cases where USN ships are either smaller or similar in size. For example:

– The American SSNs prior to the Los Angeles class were not all that big, e.g. Skipjack, Permit (/Thresher) and Sturgeon classes. These were all pretty similar in size to their RN contemporaries.

– The RN’s frigates were generally similar in size to, or larger than, many of their USN equivalents (excluding the huge Spruance class ASW destroyers). Look at the Garcia, Knox and Perry classes; all of these were equivalent in size to, or smaller than, the RN’s Leander, Type 21, Type 22 and Type 23 classes.

– As for the SSBNs, it is not likely to be a common class, but rather two classes with a common mid-section. As I suggested in response to Scooter’s post, it is highly unlikely to be a common hullform, but rather a common missile compartment, probably mated do a Virginia and Astute hull. This returns to the original SSBN designs, where they were essentially an SSN, cut in half, and a missile compartment inserted in the middle, then re-attached. This gave commonality of parts, but there were sufficient orders that follow-on classes of SSBNs were completely individual.

Throwing my two cents in…

Retiring the Enterprise to reserve status is probably a good enough idea. As long as there are still ten carriers in service or available (at modest notice). The important thing is to ensure the long-term viability of the fleet, i.e. ensuring the future carriers actually get procured, preferably on time and on budget.

As for the Perry class, retirement is an option, but they still have their uses. I would certainly look at adding in a basic defensive missile capability, probably by installing a RAM launcher on the bow, where the old Mk13 sat. It shouldn’t be too much of a stretch, and would at least give them some self defence capability, beyond the limited range of the Phalanx. This could keep them useful for another decade, hopefully, pending a suitable replacement.

Unfortunately, the replacement for the Perry class is not even on the horizon at the moment. Too much emphasis seems to have been put on littoral combat programs, notably LCS. While I do agree that there is some need for proper littoral warfare capability, I think it has been given too much emphasis, at the cost of genuine fleet capability. The important thing here is to not let it become yet another five year program, pontificating about which hullform, sensors and weapons combination is the best choice.

We have the potential to rebuild the Navy, and shape it’s future. However, every penny needs to be spent wisely. Using off the shelf designs is an excellent way to save money – as long as it is done properly. Even ships like the LHA-5 America class are examples of how the most expensive options are favoured. Rather than simply following on from the turbine-engined LHD-8 Makin Island (for which a lot of development money was spent), they go back to the drawing board, because it gives the shipyards lots of development money!

Ideally, I would encourage Austal USA and others to set up as a proper entity, to encourage competition with the current monopoly firms. Take the LCS-2, and enlarge it, with more bunkerage, and fit it out properly, with a good radar, e.g. SPY-1F, or possibly the excellent Aussie CEAFAR radar. Add in a few Mk41 cells, and a bigger gun, and you have a pretty capable ship!

The same thing may work for submarines. Rather than making the Virginia class another Seawolf, sign larger contracts, getting the production rate up, to reduce unit costs. Multi-year large procurements may be expensive, but given the projected ‘submarine gap’ between op taskings and available units in the future, it is the only option. The Los Angeles class will need to be retired in the near future, and the current production rate will not see anything like one-for-one replacement.

We can probably do the same for the Trident replacement subs, going back to the days of taking an attack sub hull, and splicing in a missile compartment. Taking the Virginia class, and putting in sixteen missile tubes is likely to be viable, and would surely save a lot of money.

Basically, if you want to renew the fleet, you need to get new, affordable ships, not a repeat of DD-X, LCS, and the Ford class. Baby steps may not sound like the best option, but frankly, it may be the only real option.

For the UK and Germany (and possibly Spain and Italy), a better bet might be to persuade Japan to lift their ban on exporting military kit, and negotiate a deal – Typhoons for Japan, and Kawasaki C-X in exchange! Hey presto, the Typhoon consortium gets to sell dozens more Typhoons, and get a good transport aircraft in exchange!

The C-X seems to be at least as ready as the A-400M, and appears to be a more capable option. The Antonov 70 would need a fair bit of work to get it ready; production lines would need to be organised, complete with extensive flight testing. It also brings the risk of lawsuits due to the complexity of it’s IP rights, due to Russia’s degree of involvement in it’s development.

The C-X, on the other hand, is Japanese, and it may be possible for them to get around their ban on arms exports in the same way the Swiss did. In Switzerland, they worked around export problems in large part by having production located outside Switzerland (e.g. SIG’s arrangement with Sauer). Japan may be able to offer the C-X for export, by licensing it’s production to the UK and/or Germany…

Forgive the semi off-topic what-if, but what impact on RN carrier ops (especially Vicky, Eagle and Ark) would selection of the F-8 Crusader have had? What changes to the carriers, if any, would the adoption of the Crusader have mandated?

In essence, would a slightly earlier adoption of the F-8 have given the RN a better chance of continued carrier ops, despite the tight budgetary situation? It seems unlikely that the RAF would have misappropriated a batch of Crusaders, in contrast to the situation with the Phantom deliveries!