If Scalp Naval is cheaper than buying a shorter ranged variant then buy it. I just think that land attack in terms of surface ships means tactical/operational land attack to support amphibious ops and ground forces, and for that a 1000Km missile probably isn’t neccessary, and if it is the SSN force can already do it, one reason the RN have been lukewarm on TLAM for the T45, although I do think a land attack capability is needed by the surface fleet. On Scalp Naval for the SSN’s, it could make sense, however my only caveat would be that the Tomahawk system is proven, in use on the subs and could well end up offering an easier long term upgrade path. This is one reason I thougt the German/Dutch approach of developing their own radar and battlefield management system to work with off the shelf US missiles made more sense than PAAMS, they’ve retained a high end industrial base in radar and systems, reduced risk on the weapons side and can piggyback US led upgrades on that side to share cost and risk. One of the problems with European weapons is that too often state of the art systems today wither away due to lack of adequate funds and will to keep them at the front of the curve and ignore evolutionary development in the US fashion.

The newer AIP systems are fantastic giving near nuclear capabilities, its one of the reasons I think that the Royal Navy should go back to a mixed nuclear/conventional sub force. Something along the lines of Astute light, a smaller version of the nuclear design with diesels and and an AIP system. Actually that would be along the lines of what Australia wants…

The RN should never have abandoned the T2400/Upholder class, which were basically a Trafalgar lite. Those boats have now got a bad name thanks to the never ending saga of their Canadian service, but they were extremely capable and powerful boats, it isn’t their fault they were never properly commissioned by the RN and that Canada hasn’t been able to manage doing it. The big advantage nuclear still has is endurance and fast transit speeds, but for inshore ops and defensive ops the SSK is the way to go.

Yes, it’s sometimes easy to forget that juggling defence budgets and struggling to pay for procurement programs is a problem common to many navies:(

Yes 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.

Calling the Collins class a failure is IMO a bit unfair, OK the class has had problems but they’re still very capable boats, and since no off the shelf design suitable for what the RAN wanted it’s hard to see any alternatives being any less problematic. Design and construction of advanced submarines is about as troublesome as it gets and it’s extremely expensive (look at Astute…), and at the risk of being a cynic I think most of the Collins issues would have been a problem whichever design house had been chosen by the RAN for that project. The only other country with a similar sort of non nuclear large ocean going attack boat with SSN levels of capability program is Japan, most of the other SSK’s are smaller boats with much less ambitious aims. I really think the RAN is one of the countries where the SSN makes sense, but that’s just me. I don’t think a non nuke SSN derivative would make sense, as it’d be awfully big and conventional propulsion would be extremely problematic and the levels of changes needed would make it effectively a clean sheet design anyway. You don’t need a SSN sized hull to carry a SSN torpedo room and sensor fit, the T2400 managed to carry the combat package of a Trafalgar SSN on a hull half the size (albeit at a cost of low endurance, but even increasing endurance to RAN requirements would still come out a lot smaller than the SSN).

I think the weakness of T45 is ASW. The type already has a state of the art AAW system, and I’d be minded to try and retain that on any subsequent multi-purpose derivative/upgrades. For ASuW anti-shipping missiles like NSM would give it an anti-shipping punch which IMO the surface fleet should still have even though RN doctrine is to use the SSN’s and presumably F35 JSF’s for this role. The design already has space for a 16 cell strike lengh Mk.41 VLS (and yes, there is no reason why a Mk.41 can’t be fitted alongside Sylver) or for more Sylver cells (navalised Storm Shadow), this would offer the RN an option of mission specific missile carriage, more SAM capacity for fleet air defence, TLAM if they anticipate land attack. To me that covers most bases except ASW for which T45 will essentially rely on embarked helicopters.
For C2, if cost is an issue then the basic hull of the T23 would still be a good starting point as it still has an excellent reputation as one of the best ASW designs out there. This is no shame, as T22 used the Leander hull as a starting point. Build a thoroughdred ASW frigate with point defence SAM and CIWS.
The question of CIWS is something I hope the RN are seriously thinking about, as they can’t continue to recycle old Vulcan Phalanx units forever, although I’m guessing they may refurbish them with RAM at some point. I really think the Franco-Italian idea of using larger guns for the role is the way the RN should go, even the USN are now going that way as the Zumwalt is to have two 57mm guns with smart fragmentation ammo for multi-purpose and CIWS use. The 57mm seems an excellent gun, and should be possible to fit to T45, I’d seriously think about fitting it to C2 instead of a medium callibre gun too so it could be part of it’s point defence system (similar to the Horizon class) as it’d be more useful than a medium callibre gun on that vessel IMO if the RN were to have a large number of 155mm fitted vessels for gun fire muscle. Certainly, for CVF I think I’d aim for a 57mm at each corner with RAM units as the vessels defence fit.

On C1 there are a lot of options and I’m not too worried about that being an effective ship. Like I say, I think continuing the T45 program would be very sensible and save a lot of money on the design and preparation of a new design, it’s a ship BAE and VT have shown themselves capable of building to a high standard and with each subsequent unit costs should come down and generally quality should go up as more and more little niggles are worked out of the design. In some ways it wouldn’t need any changes at all, fit the extra VLS cells for TLAM and the anti-shipping missile cells which are already “fitted for but not with” on the existing T45 design and the RN would have an extremely capable AAW and ASuW type. Although I’d fit NSM rather than Harpoon. The two changes I would make if possible would be to fast track the 155mm gun (and retrofit the first two batches of T45’s) and explore the possibility of fitting a 57mm BAE/Bofors on each beam in place of the CIWS Phalanx and light cannon planned, I’m not sure if that’d be possible but it would offer a much heavier gun still capable of CIWS and also much more capable for fending off light surface threats etc. If the RN could build six more T45’s improved with these enhancements it’d give them a hell of a surface combatant force IMO. That however would still be expensive even after leveraging R&D, manufacturing costs etc. already paid for, so C2 would have to be a much more austere vessel. And this is my worry, I think C1 and C3 will work out fine somehow or other, but I do worry that C2 is where the Treasury will set their sights, either by saying C3 will do the job of a lower tier surface combatant or cutting the budget so much it ends up a glorified C3 anyway. The traditional RN view on austere warships was that rather than build a ship that is jack of all trades and master of none it is better to build a ship with true capability in one area and accept a single role ship of extremely limited use for anything else. On the whole that is a view I’ve always shared, however these days drop in point defence missile systems give a dedicated ASW vessel good self defence from air attack (i.e. T22 & T23) so the vessels would still have some teeth to defend themselves. The other option which I know has a lot of support but which I remain sceptical of is mission specific modules to allow an austere hull to be fitted out for different missions (an approach which already seems to have been decided on for C3 anyway regarding MCM), one of the good things to come out of the LCS program is that a lot of work has been done on this concept and developing a lightweight drop in VLS etc.

Sounds a bit like a Danish Absalon:) Or a beefed up version of the Omani OPV that VT are pitching to the RN for C3, I really think that idea has great potential to provide the hull numbers and muscle for constabulary duties (anit-piracy etc.).

This post was in answer to one that appears to have vanished to explain why it doesn’t add up.