The alternative would be to build a few non-moving versions of the ‘Mobile Offshore Base’ concept. They may be expensive, but placing a couple of them in routine trouble spots might make some sense. They are designed to be capable of taking regular USAF aircraft, up to and including C-17s – park one of them off South Korea, one off Oman, and perhaps another couple in other trouble spots, and you have a very useful capability!

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that the ESSM is not capable of anti-missile, merely that it is the RAM that is intended to provide the final protection – SM-2s, ESSMs, RAM and Phalanx all play their part (SM-2s have two main role in anti-missile work: shoot down the aircraft before it launches, and failing that, try to hit the missile).

The point I was making was that the RAM missile is the replacement for the Phalanx, which, as Vortex rightly states has little chance against the faster anti-ship missiles. I am a great fan of the ESSM, and think it should be more widely used, but if building a ship, I would certainly want RAM and/or Phalanx/Goalkeeper.

Neptune: I am not sure where you got the info that the US is replacing RAM with ESSM, but that info is not accurate – RAM is only just entering service. The ESSM is intended to bolster air defence, but it is not intended for the anti-missile role. The RAM will be used in place of the Phalanx, in one of two forms:

SeaRAM – the Phalanx system, modified to carry an 11-round RAM launcher
Mk49 box launcher – with a 21-round RAM launcher

Currently, the A-B class normally carry two Phalanx systems, and these will probably be modified over time to the SeaRAM configuration. They were not fitted to some, but this has been recognised as being a mistake, and they will be refitted in the near future. The A-B class are going to carry ESSMs, probably in part to offset the reduction in SAMs caused by carrying SM-3 ABMs. The ESSM is as capable as the old SM-1MR in range, and thus is sufficient for most purposes, but it is not intended to replace Phalanx or RAM.

Basically, the RAM is being fitted to CVNs, LPDs, LHAs, LCSs and probably just about every future vessel. I suspect the absence of Phalanx from a few A-B class was just a misguided cost cutting measure, it is not a sign that the end is nigh for the RAM.

The USN uses RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile as a subsitute for CIWS, but only because it was designed as a missile CIWS. The ESSM is intended as a conventional SAM, with some anti-missile capability, much like the Perry class FFGs used SM-1 missiles. The Mica is an A2A missile, modified for ground launch, and has not really been modified for anti-missile work. I guess the French feel that Mistral is capable enough for the moment, though I would rather have a genuine CIWS personally…

In fact, take a look for Samos and Satan, they were French projects for a CIWS, very similar to the Goalkeeper, but they never entered production. It used the GAU-8 30mm cannon, but apparently the French did not seem keen on using an American system, and French industry was pushing Mistral missile mounts, like the Sadral etc quite hard. They presumably decided that buying an almost off the shelf domestic system was more attractive than developing a complex new CIWS using foreign technology.

Neptune: I agree, using DDGs to hunt mines makes no sense, but I was actually meaning having dual-role small vessels, more akin to the Hamina. I actually think that DDGs should carry some countermine gear – having the ability to clear mines is important in enclosed waters, if only for self defence (if a DDG wanders into an area with mines, I do not want to wait a week for a minehunter to arrive!). The idea I was proposing was to fit smaller patrol boats with a few UUVs, to allow mine hunting as a secondary duty.

As Gollevainen says, the Flyvefisken is a good example of a patrol vessel that can carry out MCM. With modern minehunting systems, having a dedicated minehunter does not always make sense, but having a large fleet of patrol boats that can carry out the mission does make some sense.

Bager: I know the CVF lacks the amphib qualities of the Wasp class, it was partly tongue-in-cheek, and partly a reflection of the fact that the San Antonio class et al could handle some of the amphib duties if a proper carrier were bought. The point I was making was that the CVF, for the money, would offer a lot of deck space for the money.

I am very well aware of the nature of the amphib carriers, but the fact remains that they are increasingly wanting to use them as genuine carriers. One of the biggest problems they have at the moment is that the Wasps and Tarawas can only carry Harriers if they disembark all their helicopters, made undesirable due to the lack of helicopter capacity on the other ships in the ARG. If the Marines could get CVFs, they would indeed need to find somewhere else to put all the ground equipment, and probably would need to relocate a large number of the troops, but this is not an absolute non-starter.

I have a feeling that two main reasons apply – the French like their Sadral launchers with the Mistral, and the fact that French industry does not produce one. Goalkeeper, Sea Zenith, Meroka and Phalanx being the main western systems, all notable for their being non-French! I have a feeling they have had projects, but never actually adopted a particular system, may have something to do with Giat constantly going bankrupt…