Cheers Jonesy for the info; it’s as certain as anything in the Type 26 programme that it’ll have Artisan – so it’s doomed to not have any SAM more potent than CAMM then?

That’s disappointing and a little embarrassing, in view of Singapore having frigates of half the displacement with Asters.

Which, along with the fact that there won’t be any more Type 45s, makes it even more important that CVF can properly defend herself against high-end threats.

Of course I agree that more hulls and planes would be better, but we’re not comparing similar costs there are we? Ignoring the radar, the missile side (say 16xAsters and 20xCAMMs for one carrier) will come to around a third to half of an F-35. With fiddly scheduling/transferring, it could cost little more than the armoured box that the silos fit into, if both carriers and escorts shared a common pool and facilities.

I simply can’t find the costs of the newer, Aster-compatible, radars anywhere – how much to upgrade CVF’s Artisan to the cheapest of them? Sampson would obviously be the best choice (performance, UK jobs/pride, doesn’t advertise the fact that you’re the carrier as it would if it had a unique radar within the RN). The R&D etc etc costs have all been paid for now within the Type 45 purchase prices, right? So you’re just buying Sampson plus mark-up?

How many F-35s – or what fraction of an additional capable AAW destroyer – would two Sampsons cost?

Again, I fully take the point that she would be better off with more escorts, but they should be Type 45 class (not Type 26, as far as AAW is concerned), which cost vastly more than moderately upgrading the CVF. Yes, ideally she should be keeping electronically quiet but that might turn out to be a luxury against some threats, with only a single Type 45 in the BG (plus a bunch of stuff with Artisan and CAMM).

Dunno. I’d love some hard numbers though….

Jonesy: I know they’re only concept pics and the commentary is merely extrapolation (at this stage), but don’t the latest Type 26 pics show CAMM, Aster VLS and Artisan?

Re: Seawolf’s suggestion about tooling the carriers up a bit (but not the nuclear reactors) – a few questions:-

1 Given that there’ll be only two (hopefully), with a maximum of one deployed, would the cost of the missiles be that great?

They could be transferred from ship to ship as needed?

2 Given the shortage of top-class escorts, would it not be best to give the carriers more defensive capability?

I can imagine a time when there’ll only be one Type 45 available, and if she has a failure it’s all over (I assume that the Type 26s won’t get Aster 30s?). This isn’t the USN, after all….

3 Since she’s – by definition – at the centre of her BG, shouldn’t she be carrying longer ranged SAMs (Aster 30s), for BG mutual support?

4 Any definitive source on the difference in cost between CAMMs, Aster 15s and Aster 30s?

5 How much impact would the increased length of the A-50 (over the A-43) launcher have on the deck below, in a ship that big with thick decks?

6 How much more expensive is Sampson than Artisan?

Artisan can direct Aster 30s, right?

7 (Sorry if this has already been gone into, but I’m doing my best in my mountain of research, and want it right) Is she intended to be armed at all, already?

8 So if we didn’t upgrade Artisan to Sampson, but fitted a modest SAM nest to both carriers, the cost is: a bit of lost deck space (say a plane’s worth, allowing for the Aster exhaust), but it’ll probably never operate with a full airwing anyway, due to costs; some space lost in the deck below, with some complexity for the Aster exhaust; two VLS nests (or could one be transferred over?); one lot of Aster 30s (say 16) and CAMMs (say around 24, depending upon dimensions/geometry)?

I suppose the real cost would be the beancounters deciding that since ‘she can now look after herself’, we could pare the escorts down even further (a replacement rather than augmentation)?

9 By the way, her GTs will follow the very efficient model of the Type 45’s, right? So a bit more than 50% efficient at best. How does that compare to diesels? [I’m having a hell of a time getting straight numbers on that one, but the sources I’ve found have the Type 23’s DGs only a sliver more efficient than the Type 45’s GTs, which are much lighter.]

[Sorry for the question-salvo, but the answers can be hard to come by, and the product of the questions is one that you will all enjoy… I hope.]

Nah, he told us a while ago that we don’t need an ASW capability any more, now that the Cold War’s over (with much scorn about the Type 23)… so it’s alright….