£750m was floated about on another thread for a new Type 45, development having been paid for – no idea what the export mark-up would be, or whether the ship would be nerfed (so cheaper) for export.

I’d imagine that Saudi Arabia would save a lot of integration costs, and there would be more commonality, if they went for the Type 45 over the alternatives, given what their Al Riyadhs are already equipped with.

[Disclosure: I am the world’s biggest Type 45 fanboy.:)]

The balanced, long ranged, long endurance fighting ship (admitedly more useful for some countries than others – and at some times more than others – but overall…).

What spec has not been met?

No, price is not a spec.

If “affordable” price is a spec, then define it.

[No real axe to grind, other than that I hate PR mendacity…]

From the very beginning:-

‘JSF/F-35: LETHAL SURVIVABLE SUPPORTABLE AFFORDABLE’

These were specified as attributes, and thus are spec(ification)s.

The burden of definition rests upon those making the claims (as official F-35 publicity still is, still using these very words); not me.

That’s that, but by way of friendly discourse, I’d seek to define those terms within the context of the aircraft that it is intended to replace, then add a decent margin for evolved tech, with its increased costs, and inflation… say Affordable would be not much more than half-again an F-16 or maybe a more expensive aircraft in that niche (I don’t need to define that niche surely).

When it costs more than planes in the next niche upwards, then it has ceased to be Affordable.

[I’m ignoring operating costs, since nobody knows really, at this stage.]

What spec has not been met?

No, price is not a spec.

Dunno, Affordable was a cast-iron, core specification…. All of the other specs were relevant inasmuch as they were balanced with that one – knocking that spec out adversely impacts upon all of the other specs.

It’s too early to make proper, informed judgements; but I couldn’t really let that one go by unremarked…. [Yes, I know that ‘Affordable’ is a pretty vague term.]

Jonesy: It’s tricky without knowing the hard data, so I’m trying to come at this from another angle (deductive reasoning, with all of the strengths and flaws of that).

PAAMS must be both superior to FLAADS and necessary, or it wouldn’t exist.

So it’s irrelevant how good FLAADS is (or how many FLAADS-capable escorts there are), if it’s still inferior to PAAMS, in a threat environment that requires PAAMS specifically.

I honestly have no doubt that CAMM will be an unholy terror to most threats (in the air and on the surface), and given my way every RN craft bigger than a rowing boat would have them… buuut….

PAAMS exists to deal with the top-end threats that CAMM simply couldn’t reach (in altitude terms, not horizontal range), or catch quickly and reliably enough, however many CAMMs are fired. It’s the acceleration, speed and agility of Aster that makes the difference in catching those top-end threats: which is why Aster 15 is still relevant on a ship that carries CAMM, despite CAMM having almost the same horizontal range.

My ‘2-3 times better than the brochure claims’ is in regard to these properties (speed, agility: ie compared to Aster). I’m not just going by the brochure, but by what seems reasonable in terms of its size, mass and niche, in view of the class of missiles that it’s replacing.

I’m still catching up with my military tech, but I suppose I should state some of the top-end threats I’m thinking about: high altitude/endurance extremely LO UCAVs (which you can’t hide your carrier from, so you can still be seen even if you zap the enemy’s surveillance sats, and carrier emcon and LO won’t help) which can drop LO gravity munitions; AShBMs; Hypersonic AShMs with some agility – these are what PAAMS is for, not for trying to hit more mundane targets an extra 100km further out than FLAADS can.

So if you need PAAMS you need PAAMS; and a few more FLAADS, or launching a few more F-35s and an E-2 instead simply won’t do. If you need PAAMS you need more than one of them there for basic redundancy. There aren’t enough Type 45s for a guaranteed two per BG (again, I’m assuming a serious, widespread war, and possibly a post-losses scenario), and its cheaper to fit minimal-PAAMS to the CVFs than buy additional PAAMS DDGs.

Ummm, what else?

I’ve already gone into it, but to minimise your frustration:) – yup I’m totally down with emcon and the advantages/disadvantages of active sensors, but that might turn out to be an ideal and luxury, say with the example of the UCAVs I mentioned, or against incoming missiles so fast (or/and launched from so close, or/and are so LO) that it’s active (coupled with an exceedingly fast and agile defensive missile) or dead.

Also, yeah I’m always very mindful of the Fighting G’s singular accomplishment, and there might be every chance that no anti-missile missile system ever works reliably enough to fully count, however uber-spangly… how can we know really? But the more and the better will always be better, and anything less a false economy when the AShMs start to fly….

Jonesy: Yup, fully agree about the evils of messing with a design as the object is being built – I suppose that I’m invoking a little hindsight as foresight: There will only be 6 Type 45s; the next level AAW escorts will have Artisan (so no Asters – and assuming that CAMM will perform less than 200-300% better than the manufacturer’s current brochure states); CVF design isn’t too finalised yet (as it still isn’t, really…); CVF won’t operate with full airwing, so there’s ‘spare’ deck space.

Obi Wan Russel: Any ideas about your PAAMs figure now that RDT&E etc (and all the little, niggly integration issues in trials) has all been paid for? Would that cost being halved seem reasonable?: £250m? IIRC, that is more than an entire Formidable Class frigate (which I assume we won’t be buying any of), but we’ll go with it, in lieu of firmer figures…. We won’t have as many Asters (and Sylvers) on CVF, so that’s £50m saved (the remaining 16 Asters can be part of a common pool, so they’re there anyway, for another ca £25m saved).

So £350m for a minimal PAAMS on both CVFs? Subtract two Artisans from that cost – wild (conservative) guess at £10m each, for £320m… add a few more crew (maybe) for this upgraded capability.

With similar savings applied, I’d guess that an extra Type 45 could be procured for, at best £700m? Then she needs a full ship’s worth of crew. Costs way more and still may not address the core problem: More than adequate – guaranteed! – CVF defence; where the CVF is, the CVF is (so it would be nice if she could protect herself, in emergency); there is no guarantee that the extra Type 45/s would be in the same place.

Here’s my point:-

There will be serious wars fought in the near future (ie against peers, in the next few decades);

CVF will never be deployed on a whim – she will be deployed when needed, so must be able to do her job;

It is already considered that there are threats that PAAMS is needed to deal with (or we wouldn’t have it), so nothing less will do;

So escorts must include an adequate number of Type 45s (or the Type 26 significantly upgraded for PAMMS-level defence);

There won’t be more Type 45s, and there is not an adequate number of them – even now, pre-losses (God forbid!);

The operational percentage of Type 45s may be spread thin across multiple theatres;

[Wildcard: The RN may procure a more tooled up (and expensive) AAW Type 26 variant… I’ll believe it when I see it…;]

So there may come a time when there is only one Type 45 available to escort a CVF who needs to remain on station (it’s pivotal to the war effort);

Stuff breaks down at the worst possible times: The survival and utility of that entire CBG (in a threat environment where PAMMS is needed) will hinge upon a single radar continuing to function properly:eek:;

If that radar malfunctions (or is damaged etc), the CBG has to retreat (which might lose the war), or remain on station, inadequately protected (by definition – see above);

For not that much more cost (see above), minimal-PAMMS on the CVF herself allows her to remain on station (until the Type 45’s radar is fixed);

In summary – something that potentially vital should not hang upon something as tenuous as a single ship’s not having a malfunction in one of its extremely complicated systems at an inopportune moment (or being damaged/sunk).

The USN does not have multiple top-class AAW escorts per carrier just to show off, nor is it paranoid: we poor Europeans don’t have the multiple top-class AAW escorts, cannot take US support for granted forever (they’re having their own fiscal problems, and adjusting their priorities accordingly) so need top-class defences on the carriers too, to make up the difference (and even that not enough, really…), that being the cheapest option.

[Incidentally, it’s not the same as fitting a TAS too: TAS requires particular ship movement – radar doesn’t; there will be more than a single top-class TAS in the BG already – there may not be more than a single PAAMS; CVF has excellent ASW helos, as do her escorts, which can sort of do the same job at a pinch – there isn’t anything else that can come close to the single PAAMS if that goes down.]

PS: Jonesy – I was attentive to your ‘several hundreds of millions of pounds per ship’ figure for Sea Viper, but I’m after breaking it down into bits to see what would be applicable here, in order to compare costs of options properly.

Cheers.:)

Cheers again Jonesy for the info; by the way, I genuinely am only seeking info as to why the idea might be flawed (or not, and having tried to find the answers from other sources) – I’m not after selling anything, deriding anyone or anything (there’s some excellent work being done these days), and am certainly not interested in ‘spinning’ anything, ever.

First, when I said ‘ignoring the radar’, I meant ‘at this point in the post’, since I went into the radar later in that post – trying to divide up the costs of the components for clarity. I know the other costs come into it, for integration etc, but would really love to get an idea how much Aster-capable radars cost (Sampson, Empar, Arabel, Herakles – in descending order of cost I guess? – and you wouldn’t need it to do everything that Herakles is purported to be able to do), as a building block. My spangly Fifth Edition ‘Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Sytems’ isn’t much use where these new systems are concerned – and nor are the manufacturers’ sites (for obvious reasons).

Would £30m per Sampson be about right (based on a late 1990s estimate)? Honestly, I have no idea; nor any idea how much cheaper Artisan ‘should’ be…. I’m doing my best – all info appreciated.

Also, if CAMM comes even anywhere near to what is claimed, then I am a huge admirer of that system: No disparagement from me!

However, it will fill only its niche (however admirably), and that niche isn’t up to dealing with certain emerging threats (it seems): I’m not valuing Aster for its idealised horizontal range, but for its altitude, acceleration, speed (double CAMM’s?) and agility (almost treble CAMM’s?); I think that we’ll be needing all of those in a decade or two, and CAMM just won’t be enough.

[Just from looking at other navies, shouldn’t it be: <3000t gets CAMM; 3000t-5000t gets Aster 15 as well; >5000t gets Aster 30 as well as CAMM and Aster 15 (for Aster 15’s better minimum range than Aster 30’s)?]

It also seems that sensor tech is in the ascendant, so emcon and LO won’t amount to much: you’ll have to actively fight the electronic battle in order to survive, so need the best systems possible… could well be wrong there (as always) and would appreciate any input.

Just to be clear, the CVF would have the Sampson (or whatever) switched off as much as possible, relying upon the escorts – only when it’s all gone horribly wrong does she switch on the MFR (probably fighting a rear-guard action for survival at that point). In the mean time, she’s a magazine extension for the Type 45 (in plural, hopefully, but I wouldn’t bank on that…), via datalink.

As always, could well be talking cack, but have always found that ‘worst-case scenarios’ turn out to be far more benign than what actually happens, and we’re certainly heading into ‘interesting times’.

Anyway my point is that it isn’t about magicing money for gold plating, but that upgrading the CVFs (even if only to the level of something like a Singaporan Formidable light frigate) is more cost/effective (and cheaper) than building the more escorts that would be more desirable – especially when including all of the costs (hull multiple and extra crew notably).