I thought the improvements to it had been funded by the US Government which would make subject to ITAR, however I surmised this based on the fact that it is a) improved over the original Bofors design, and b) being built in the US for the USN and Coast Guard. Makes it even easier if the BAE wants to flog it to the RN if it is actually does not come under US restrictions.

Why I suspect you are correct Al, I think that the Treasury might mysteriously come around if the MoD specification exactly matched the BAE Mk 110, especially as the ITAR treaty has been passed in the US so it should be easy to get agreement to build MK 110’s for RN

http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/l_and_a_sea_mk110.html
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_57mk3.pdf

I was wondering if the RN sensitivity to not running a supply chain for two calibres of ammo was standard, but my first quick look at the Royal Netherlands Navy showed they deal with the issue just fine. Looking at the French Navy they manage with more than one calibre as well.

(This means I sort of answered my own question with relatively little effort – I feel a bit stupid for asking it in the first place)

So realistically to maintain capabilities after paying off the T22’s, along with assorted minesweepers/hunters and T42’s we really need four large frigates with excellent command and control facilities and top rated sensors to replace the T22’s and likely we need 8 C2/C3 types, but we could upgrade T23’s instead of replacing them until towards the late 2020’s – does that sound right.

Presuming that we would accept an off the shelf solution – then I think that logically the RN should buy 4 Absalon command and support frigates, and 4 each of the C2/C3 design outlined here.

Normally keep out of this sort of thing – but I understood that Iran illegally acquired RBS-70 and that some of Sweden’s defence companies illegally shipped via Singapore arms to Iran. From what I read the general assumption is these companies did so without the Swedish Government’s permission or knowledge.

Confirmation of Iran’s ownership of RBS-70
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Naval-Weapon-Systems/RBS-70-90-RBS-23-BAMSE-Sweden.html

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-56687.html

Background:

http://www.pranaygupte.com/article.php?index=584
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/01/magazine/the-palme-obsession-the-murder-sweden-can-t-forget-or-solve.html?pagewanted=all

We have the baseline already developed with the Al-Shamikh class (Khareef) hull. Add a 10m hull plug amidships for additional bunkerage, stores and operations spaces and adapt the stern with the multipurpose mission space/garage arrangement BMT developed for Venator and strip off the expensive and unnecessary missiles and you have an optimum C3 for very modest development costs.

Take that basic hull, pare down the mission garage to twin RHIB/USV docks dead astern, a la Gowind, with enhanced aviation facilities and a permanent hangar forward of that with FLAADS, MCG, COMINT/ELINT and full LINK16 and you have an excellent high endurance stabilisation platform.

What about C2 class? Would you go for a scaled up version of the C3 with improved weapon and sensor fit or do you favour the current plan of building the C2 on the C1 hull but configured as general purpose frigate rather than a ASW platform?

Also what do you favour for the Medium Calibre Gun – if I am understanding current equipment fits correctly the RN has nothing between the Mk 8 4.5 inch gun of the destroyers and frigates and the 30 mm gun of HMS Clyde

First we are not retiring the Starsreak to my knowlegde just the Stormer.

Now back on topic.

While my question was an aside it was on topic to some extent. If they have retired the turrets off the stormer which mount 8 Starstreak with a targeting system what is to stop their conversion to use LMM and mounting them on the future C2/C3 platform to provide a turreted weapon system which can engage small boats a lot better than 20 mm cannon can?

The Leanders were, at the end of their lives, just over 3300tons 113m long and 13-14m in the beam. That, for my money, would be about the starting point for the C2/C3 hull.

Thanks Jonesy. Is there a design out there that you would use as a starting point?

Not to be funny but if we believe everything in the newspapers about defence cuts then you would have to conclude we are going to end up with boy scout company armed with incredibly expensive pen knives made in the South West at ten times the cost of buying them from the States as our sole armed forces 😀

After being a bit tongue in check I will say that I am willing to buy there is no smoke without fire and that they have had serious discussions and NSC are still having serious discussions on going CATOBAR or even STOBAR, but I also think they are also discussing how much extra it would cost to turn QE into an assault carrier and comparing the cost to the cost of any F-35 purchase and if that happens you can bet your bottom dollar that those newspaper stories of buying 40 F-35B’s will be the ones that are correct as that would be all we need if we decide to build two assault carriers, and keep one in extended readiness.