PhelganDoes this mean they failed to interest the Saudi’s?
PhelganYet again cynicism is proved triumphant 😡
Only 6 T45, I expect the S2C2/FSC/whatever will never make the oft talked about 8 per “level” either.
PhelganI think that part of the problem is that making some space for the slanted Harpoon-type launchers, whereas a VLS needs a lot more space, and also weighs a lot more than just a missile in a fairly simple tube. As it is, Boeing have designed a VLS-compatible version of Harpoon, but as far as I know, there hasn’t been much interest in adopting it. The US Navy seems to be perfectly happy using Standard as an anti-shipping missile, alongside smaller numbers of Harpoons. Basically, for a variety of reasons, the US Navy has placed a lower priority on the classical anti-shipping mission, especially given the lack of major surface threats (other than small ships).
I wouldn’t suggest putting the VLS launcher specifically for anti-surface missiles, but if you are carrying a common launcher anyway, then having the capability to swap out a few SAM for SSM would add useful flexibility, especially to the rather vaguely defined roles currently in circulation for the RN’s future fleet.
Its interesting that Boeing have done the devlopment work – I couldn’t find any mention on a previous (quick) search.
PhelganNATO action requires US approval. I don’t know about you, but needing US approval for everything we do grates with me.
Having freedom of action is a fundemental of soveriegnity, but also comes at a cost -which we (Europe) have been increasingly unwilling to play. With the focus on the Red Menance in the postwar years, Western European nations were happy to let someone else increasingly take the load of the NATO mission and couldn’t generally wait for the chance to quietly slim our contributions down over the years. So now we find we have developed a dependance on the US. Alas (maybe) we (UK) are not the power we were, but that is a situation we made damn sure of in the post war years.
Only EU can compete against country like China, India, Russia or USA: that what we want to show you with this project. So we don’t care and don’t want to discuss about political and/or command problem. A navy like this can exist only with a political union so questions like who control the SSBN or who’s in command have nosense: no one is strong enough to hold this hammer except bruxelles.
On what basis are we competing with these nations?
You can’t ignore the fundementals of command and political staus (especially if you going to maintain that Brussels would be strong enough to wield a hammer!). Political union is not going to be forming a new state from scratch, but combining some of the world’s oldest existing states into one blob and hoping all the old concerns and interests will still disappear just like that. This is not like forming a USA, but probably better compared to Yugoslavia.
And talking about CVBG’s and SSBN’s is a bit of an assumption. We have no idea what foriegn/defence policy a united europe will choose or develop. There is certainly no guarantee that it will involve nukes or expeditionary forces.
If the EU wants defence cooperation, then instead of touting ideas of “centrally” controlled fleets, it should concentrate on developing from the base up. In the naval case this would involve sharing designs and technologies, reinforcing national building capabilities (not promoting one or two European yards above the rest).
Ironically, the time for European defence collaboration was probably the 40’s and 50’s where a common threat was perceived (USSR) and the tools to fight it were similar to all nations. Also countries like the UK and France found common ground on some issues. Britain may also have been able to develop with the Commonwealth.
Having a structure in place which can be used without prior US consent (note: that is not the same as actively opposing the USA), & in which we’d have at least an equal say, would give more scope, especially if it was set up so that it could deploy with whoever was willing to participate, with no veto from the uninvolved. That might involve some operations being “official EU”, & some being ad-hoc subgroups without the EU imprimatur, but personally, I don’t care.
Sounds fine in principal, but in practice it could easily end up relying on the same few nations providing certain key assets e.g. France and the CdG. France not interested, then what?
Without being a combined political entity, any descision on whether to act or not act will be snarled down in diplomacy, because it will still be seen as a tool for someones national interest.
PhelganNice drawing…looks a little like the HSC N130.
One question, any ideas why the NATO navies don’t use multi-use VLS in their ships that would fire SAM and SSM? The Russians seem to use this a lot more. It would help with the stealth and space since you don’t need a special boxed off area for the SSM launchers.
—–JT—–
A point made before, Harpoon may not take masses of space, but it is still space that could be used for something else. A launcher that could combine Harpoon/Exocet/whatever with a SAM would have great potential for any future C1/2/3 for the RN.
I believe the latest version of Exocet is/will be “VLS-able”
PhelganWhat about upgrading to the Multi-Mission Combatant Standard (proposed export version):
SPY-1F radar
8 VLS w/32 ESSM
8 Harpoon
2 Phalanx
6 torpedo tubes
towed array sonarhttp://www.gdlcs.com/documents/MMC-Brochure.pdf
http://www.gdlcs.com/documents/MMC-DataSheet.pdf
http://www.gdlcs.com/documents/MMC-PostCard.pdf
Kinda of think they’ve missed the point with the Multi-mission thing. Surely the design was based around the need of a light combatant with the ability to take-on specialised modules as required. Then they generate a GP corvette/frigate design out of it?
PhelganStandardized ship self-defense should be a given. Not to be discussed with each new class. (Add two laser dazzlers to the stuff I listed above). There is no cheap’n easy way to do this. And it is not to be confused with the mission weapon system!
Well said! Lets hope RN/MOD think like this (ha!) when C2/C3 finally come around.
PhelganThose Harpoon launch tubes. :rolleyes:
Wonder how many people will go for the Exocet MM40 Block III, the first Western AShM suiteable for vertical launch systems. Only with the upcoming Harpoon Block III the U.S. will also have VLS capable AShM. Shows that competition is a good thing.
About time……wonder what launchers they’d be compatible with?
PhelganI thought that had been pretty well settled. The common story is that FAA pilots were dropping bombs from below the recommended heights, because of trying to fly below the AAA & SAMs, & the bomb fuses not being re-set accordingly. In other words, the pilots, despite their great flying skill, didn’t know enough about how their weapons worked to know that they should tell the armourers what height they were dropping from, so the armourers would know how to set the bomb fuses. That was humble techie business, beneath their dignity to take notice of.
Yes, I know. The point being that the RN was saved by Argentina’s bomb problem, but this came about in part because the RN was forcing them low in the first place (make you opponent operate where he doesn’t want to / isn’t equipped to).
PhelganEvery modern ship should have a flight deck. A helicopter is by far the most valuable multi-mission piece of equipment available.
Absolutely. Every ship in the C1/C2/C3 should have that capability in my opinion.
Do you mean the 8.000 t hull which can carry … wait…. ONE helicopter only?
Why does the T45 need to carry more than one helicopter? Its a specialised AAW vessel. The point is that the same hull design has the capacity to have enlarged flight facilities. So if the RN want to avoid the risk of the “gold-plated” solution of a scratch design, they can have an imported design and modify it….or an existing design and modify, the latter having the benefit of experience, common machinery, etc.
And which is so expansive that the RN will get 6 ot of its envisioned 12 unites?
If T45’s came in at half the price they are will still have been cut. The RN is an easy target and will remain so without an amazing change in Government heart and/or (even less likely) public indifference.
Ok, if C1 is only slated to be the ASW follow on design, I stand correct. But than again C2 is supposed to be “a big fitted for not with” empty hull, preferably the same general design than C1, right? Not a simple OPV either.
C2 is so vague as to be a joke, but appears to be a jack-of-all-trades/GP frigate with endurance. FREMM might be better suited here, but the danger is that C2 and C3 may end up with common hulls.
PhelganYou could do with less – if you don’t forward deploy. You could even do with less with more forward basing.
The Falkslands expedition is a problematic example, as the RN was saved by Argentina’s bomb problem. Had more of those, which actually hit, also have exploded the RN would have been sunk off the Falklands.
But you also have to ask yourself WHY those bombs failed to go off.
PhelganThat link didn’t work, I think this is the correct one.
Phelgan[QUOTE=GarryB;1234862]
Funny, that you down play India’s need for Aircraft Carriers. As New Zealand would have likely become part of the Japanese Imperial Empire in 1942. Had the USN lost its only remaining Carrier (Enterprise) in the Pacific!
Hahaha, you are really funny. The Japanese would more likely have attacked the US in 1942 than New Zealand if the US had lost its pacific carrier… :rolleyes: Then you’d be speaking japanese… 🙂
Speaking Japanese is a bit OTT – they may have attacked the West Coast, give the public something to turn on the Government about, but in no way could they have feasibly held US (mainland) terrority for any length of time. Australia and NZ on the other hand are different stories (which is not to deinigrate those countries, but reflects their relative size and population).
PhelganThe Brits and the Japanese have a strong naval history centered around the Destroyer, so no wonder they preferred to keep its name. Ditto with the Australians. The USN had the traditional sailing frigates once, but modern history is dictated by its destroyers as well.
Typically (post-WW2) the RN have used destroyer to describe ships with a primary-AAW role, and frigate as ASW/GP ships. On the otherhand I believe the USN have tended to classify by size?
PhelganSo would we be looking at about £100 Million for C3 and £200-250 million for C2?
Going on the inflation figures in the DD(X)vsF100 thread, £250M would probably be the cost of a lead-of-class Type 23. Not sure they’d want to spend quite that much on C2, as they’ve got to find money for C1 as well.
Sign In
