Grim901It would indeed, i would like to see it be able to operate 8 Missiles though and i dont think it would be too much hassle to do. A couple of these would give some un-suspecting small boats a very nasty shock if they tried the USS Cole style attack. I especially like how the Starstreak can pack one hell of a punch for a shoulder launched SAM.
It’s a good weapon. And it would make for a very useful system, especially if they upped the number to 8 missiles. You’re right, it shouldn’t be too hard.
Grim901Yup agreed on that a Venator would be overkill for some roles but excellent for most. If you’ve read the PDF’s that are on the BMT website you get an idea why the Venator is as large as it is. Mainly for the deployabilty that the MoD demands and Ocean handling when transiting.
Anyhoo thats a bit off this threads topic there is a C3 thread if you want to carry on over there.
Sorry, was watching the video. That Thor system would be excellent in place of the Mistral Launchers, similar size too. Would make an excellent point defence system with Starstreak/LMM.
Grim901Hey, Thats using too much common sense for the MoD.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7-VvFn4iE) Thats the video im on about enjoy. Handy thing is it’s British as well:)
I really like the Venator design the CAMM could be removed and a proper hangar put in it’s place. I would really like the proper hangar.
Yeah I forgot to mention that, a proper hangar instead of the retractable one and you’ve got yourself a damn fine C3. A bit on the pricey side though. You’d probably have to separate the minor war vessel fleet into blue water high end stuff (Venators) and some small cheap patrol vessels for home tasks (something more to fill the roles of the <1000t vessels we have atm.)
Grim901If the numbers of hulls were high enough then yeah the T45 hull wouldnt be a problem price wise. Personally after looking a bit more in depth into costs if more T45’s were not ordered i would like C1’s to be carrying SAMPSON which is’nt quite as expensive as it sounds after i done the digging. The horrendous cost of the T45 so far has been paying for the PAAMS research which was lumped into the T45 program. But yeah thats a bit optimistic:)
I wish you luck with the CAD drawings i might PM stan and ask if he would have a go if he has the time.
The main reason i like the Flex deck is that it can support modular facilities such as hospitals, offices / command centres or could just carry various kit to re-role C3’s in theatre the Flex deck on an absalon can carry quite a few containers. The way i see them being operated most of the time is to support C3’s doing mine warfare tasks. The Absalons could carry larger choppers and also maintain the C3’s choppers it could also use it’s medical facilities etc. Most importantly of all the Absalon derivative would provide AAW cover to the C3’s against anybody upto no gd.
Basically i can go on and on about what the Absalons can do. We must not forget the price as well:) tell the bean counters and they will be all over it like a rash.
I’ve always been for sneaking a couple of extra AAW ships into C1 at the start (another advantage of using the T45 hull). I don’t think it’d matter too much because they’d look nice and cheap if they were part of the C1 buy, the research costs for PAAMS wouldn’t get mentioned.
I do like the Absalons and their capabilities. Especially the room available for helo’s and RHIB’s. With an extra 2000t to play with the T45 hull must be able to do something similar with some redesign work.
For C2 it is important to remember that, although they’d be very useful as a hub for C3’s, they’d also be needed to do quite a bit on their own doing piracy patrols etc.
Grim901Grim we are having a wee game of ping pong between threads atm 🙂 Nice talking to you.
I just thought of that as it’s the same interface etc as starstreak and the Thor system (Nice video on youtube btw you’ve probs seen it) would be able to use it without too many problems. It has the added bonuses of being cheap and already developed.
I originally thought of using the Thor for the C3 bolt one on the Hangar with 8 starstreak just in case any helo’s came looking. It should be cheap to do i never really mentioned it as i thought people would just sink it.
The Lightweight Modular Missile is Similar i think it’s a single warhead though not the three darts. It uses the same rocket motor and many other systems though. It will also be in the Navy inventory for use on FLynx.
Ahh! you have a gd point with the one in each corner back and front. A35 should fit easily as it’s quite a small launcher. As you’ve said even if it couldnt it could be placed in another launch system.
I think if we done that the French might be thinking woops we should have thought of that.
Hmm yeh, shame we haven’t heard any plans of LMM being used aboard ships except on Wildcats. Seems like a chance to gain some more commonality by using that system.
And no, I haven’t seen the video, care to link me to it?
As for C3, my favourite design is the BMT Venator, which actually has 16 CAMM missiles as part of the design, but if we could get Venators but not afford the CAMM VLS for them all, then the LMM alternative would be good for self defence at least.
Grim901Grim i’m outta my depth with shipbuilding rules as well.
You are thinking exactly the same as me where the 30mm guns would be placed i would pop in A35 launcher at each corner on the bow. The French are currently studying their options to upgrade self defense capabilities of the class. The most likely and cheapest would be to replace the twin manual mistral launchers with quad automatic sadral launchers.
If it were equipped with CAMM in the UK it would have a far more robust self defence capability. For surface self defense i would like to see something like the Thales thor system with the LMM instead of starstreak. This could be part of some sort of Automatic SSDS (ship self defense system)
Hmm intersting, I hadn’t thought of LMM in a SSDS role before. I suppose it could work well in a similar role to RAM. LMM is effectively a more versatile Starstreak right?
If I were kitting out the Mistral, I’d have a CIWS in 2 corners (1 front, 1 rear) where the mistral missiles currently are (either a current CIWS or a LMM based launcher) and some sort of CAMM launcher in the 2 corners where the 30mm are supposed to go. Not sure if A35’s could be put in there, but CAMM can theoretically be box launched anyway. That would be a pretty formidable defence package against most threats out to 15-20km or so. It’d stop the risk of the odd anti-ship missile or small boat packed with TNT for sure.
Grim901Im still waving my Danish flag for C2:)
I do agree a frigate front end with the back end of a support vessel. Helo’s to me are important for C2 they allow it to be a vessel with reach. With UAV’s coming along in leaps and bounds i see the C2 eventually deploying things like Firescout or the Boeing A160 Humming bird for surveillance and other missions to do with the Littoral enviroment. The T45 as is has already been designed to have an EMF of around 30 RM’s.
I think the T45 hull would cost a bit much for the C2 role though:( If we chose an existing design for C2 *waves Danish flag like a loon* then we wouldnt have design costs to worry about furthermore my choice dosent cost much to build at all compared to other choices it does have it’s downsides however i concede that.
My problem is that the C1, C2 and C3 are all fundamentally diffrent and a similar hull would have disadvantages.
The T45 hull itself, by the time C2 was being built, would already have at least 16-18 hulls built (T45 and C1) which would reduce costs, what i’m proposing would also be a pretty stripped down version. The back end of the ship would pretty much just be open space (hangar/work deck). I might try some of those ship drawings Stan does to see what I can come up with on the T45 basic hull. It would be useful in future too, because it could be used for multiple UAVs.
Absalon would be a good substitute, but i’d rather see a similar concept in use on the T45 basic hull. Perhaps for C2 there’d be enough room aboard to shift stuff about and create a work deck beneath the flight deck to house some RHIBs. It sounds expensive though.
Grim901I stand corrected. I’m a Fawlty Towers fan, so I’ll have another look.
It has though been used post 2003 by others not knowing the fawlty Towers reference, with the 1940 time frame being used to imply that the French have always been as such. Those who know a little more realise the political undercurrents and externally sponsored labour unrest that hamstrung the French in that year. Either way, thanks for the reference.
I can’t remember exactly which episode it was in, but I have a feeling it was “The Germans”. I also have a feeling that episode was never aired in Germany (for obvious reasons if you’ve seen it) so if you are german you may not have seen it.
Swerve, i’m pretty useless with ship building rules, I just assumed that civilian construction, while cheaper, would have a reason for being cheap and called “civilian”.
I’m also worried by the lack of self defence available onboard. They actually say that the class can’t currently enter hostile waters without considerable escorts, which both the French and British are short of). I suppose a British derivative could replace Mistral with CAMM and where the proposed 30mm turrets go, could be replaced with CIWS systems.
Grim901I’ve been thinking about C2. And when it comes down to it I think that i would be better to have a fairly large vessel. The main things they’ll be doing (drugs, piracy related stuff etc) always need RHIB’s and Helo’s. In that case, they effectively need the front as a frigate (enough A35’s to hold at least 32 CAMM – but that is only 8 cells + main gun, etc) then the back could be given over to a large work/flight deck and hangar for a mix of helo’s and RHIB’s. Something around T45 size could pack quite a few things in without many of the expensive systems. The extra internal space means that quite a number of marines could stay aboard to use the RHIBS and Helo’s. The work deck could also be useful for supporting C3’s.
Thoughts?
Grim901And the term was instigated on the internet after the invasion of Iraq by Americans to view their displeasure at the French who, rightly as it has turned out IMHO, thought the evidence against Iraqi involvement in 9/11 was rot. The insult clearly has no long term historical veracity and is a short term political one. It is insulting to The Fallen and therefor has to apply to the fallen at Verdun. It is distasteful.
Woah, calm, Cheese eating surrender monkey is actually a British term (See Fawlty Towers), I don’t think it is meant to disrespect the French fallen, more the actions of the French government during a few years in the mid 20th century.
I don’t see any of that as having anything to do with “hate”. The EU block had many reasons, & I don’t think fear of US influence was a major one, if it was a reason at all. Remember that when the EU was formed, the French were all in favour of us joining, & we said no, & even tried to keep others out. By the time we’d changed our minds (only a few years later, & with the Prime Minister condemning the organisation up to immediately before asking to join), so had they, not least because they suspected that after our previous performance, we might be planning to join it in order to disrupt it from inside, an impression reinforced by the terms we wanted to join under. And what has their reaction to the 2003 war to do with hatred? Remember 1990-1 & 2001. How did they react then?
Why construe a foreign policy disagreement as hatred? You seem to incline towards the common US view that anything short of slavish obedience to the USA is enmity, which I find rather depressing. There should be room for friends to disagree. I wish we disagreed with the USA more.
But we digress.
Crikey, calm down, it was tongue in cheek to begin with. I was trying to convey that ever since De Gaulle came along there has been “distrust” in France about American influence. It was a very real reason behind blocking the UK in the EU and NATO. It has only been recently that De Gaulle’s legacy has waned (thankfully, he was an ingrate).
Thanks i’ve been looking closely at the Mistral class mainly as i would like some for the RN so i’ve a fair idea about costs and capabilities.
Swerve, I agree that we should disagree with the US more as it would make for a healthier relationship. Im personally not a big fan of blindly following Europe or the US i would rather see a balance between the two. I think the UK would get further and have more influence if we were a strong and independant nation.
It would be nice to strike a balance. In the procurement system up until recently we had that balance, it meant we bought, US, European or British more or less as we saw fit, it worked. Now we seem to be thrust into EU projects that cost a lot and do little that we could easily have avoided by keeping the balance.
There is a reason why the San Antonio’s cost so much more than Mistral’s. I think it comes down to the fact that the US tends to use these as the tip of the spear so to speak, they get into harms way a lot so need to have the best kit and strictest military build standards. I think that is a similar role to what we’d use our Assault ships for. The French however, have, as pointed out earlier, gone for a commercial build in civilian yards. That might mean that they get a cheaper platform, but I worry what would happen when it got in harms way compared to a similar ship of military standards.
I know that we would not go for San Antonio’s, they are too expensive for Britain and we don’t need all the fancy stuff aboard, but I think that when it comes down to it with LHD’s/LPH’s, we really shouldn’t be trying to build these cheap for numbers but well so they don’t sink under fire. Maybe a little over dramatic but you get the idea.
Grim901BTW – Grim – what was that “one who has finally decided they don’t entirely hate the US” about? Remember 1990-91? September 2001? Afghanistan a little later? And much, much, more. France has traditionally been very supportive of the USA, just not slavishly so. Unfortunately, some Americans (& even some British, e.g. Blair) think that only blind obedience to the USA is good enough. 🙁 I wish the UK would behave a little more like France sometimes.
Hmm I was thinking that they’re finally integrating into NATO because every single French government up until now was scared of American influence. Or you could think of French blocking the UK entering the EU up until 1973 out of fear of American influence or more recently, their bad reaction to the invasion of Iraq.
Grim901Yeah i know they will remove the sensitive parts but Mistral heavily uses commercial techniques hence why they are so cheap. So i dont think it will give too much away.
Yeah i totallly agree with you the fact that they would conisder buying it shows that they cant even afford to design it themselves. It will be intresting to see how this pans out.
Hmm yes. Interesting that the French have made no comment. I was a little shocked to see a NATO member, especially one who has finally decided they don’t entirely hate the US, to be making this move.
I have the feeling that the Russians want to use this to try and get their shipyards working on something with a price that they know in advance and will actually work well, avoiding and addressing several recent major fiascos in Russian naval construction.
I think we’ll end up seeing these units becoming the centre pieces of the Russian navy if the deal goes ahead. They must have finally realised that they aren’t going to get/afford 6 operational carriers (or something like that an admiral said last year) by 2015, so they’re trying to buy a decent design that’ll no doubt be altered/enlarged etc over the next few years to make them a cheap carrier that they can claim is their own and not french. That’s what I reckon will happen. There’s simply no money for them to design and build everything anymore, but there is still the pride and strange need to return to superpower status.
Grim901This was mentioned a while back, but firmly denied by the Russians. Who would have thought you couldn’t trust them?
Flubba, it’ll almost certainly be russianised, otherwise the french would effectively be handing over all their most current naval tech to the Russians. I doubt there’ll be much redesign though, the fact they can’t even afford their own design shows they’re trying to rebuild their naval and industrial capability as cheaply as possible.
Grim901I have not really followed the design process up ’till now. What is the reason they have gone for 2 islands?
The placement of a single island has to be optimised either for air operations (best stationed aft) or ships operation (best stationed forward). The Americans go for air ops, the French go for ship ops, Britain has chosen to do both.
It means that air ops can be optimally controlled as can ship ops. It probably build some redundancy into the ship as well, the island always looked like a bit of a juicy target for a SSGW to me.
Grim901Why do we need a new SSGW we have plenty of Harpoons to port over from the T22B3’s and the Dukes?. Adding in Sylver launchers does not entail bringing across any element of PAAMS(S) its just adding a VLS. The publicised documentation suggests that CAMM will need no more cueing than VLMICA does and that an Artisan 3D set, i.e a fairly standard TI-capable mechanical rotator/electronic elevation unit, would suffice for the task.
Sorry I didn’t mean Harpoon, current thinking seems to be that the role filled by Tomahawk on the SSNs should also be returned to the Frigates (and if the T45 upgrade package hadn’t been cancelled, to them as well). It might be that the change was forced on them, what with SSN numbers dropping too low for them to be performing the role they keep being seconded for, land attack. That means either integrating Tactoms or SCALP-N’s to C1. And I doubt that the stock we currently have of Tactoms will be enough for the Astutes and the C1’s, so more would be needed to be bought. Note, they won’t be a replacement for Harpoon (in the short term at least). This requirement is called FLAM I think.
And by parts of PAAMs, I meant the VLS system that C1 will need. It’ll need them to launch the FLAM and CAMM if it is quadpacked inside. This will cost money, not as much as PAAMs, but still a proportion of it, just without the radar system etc.
There will obviously be a cost associated with the development of CAMMS but that seems to be a seperate issue with the intent for CAMMs to replace GWS26 on the Dukes before it ports across to C1/C2. There should, therefore, be no PAAMS-hangover for C1.
True, I’ve explained what I meant by PAAMS above. But there will still need to be at least an 8 cell VLS bought for C1 to fit the quadpacked CAMM’s into. I assume that the VLS system itself won’t be taken from the T23’s, just the missiles.
Not so. C2 and C3 are going to be the workhorses – these will be the ships that are always deployed. T45’s and C1’s will be the glory hulls doing the multinational exercises and task force deployments with the duty big flat-top. That being entirely appropriate as well. Why would you want to dull your fleet warfighting edge doing runs ashore in Sierra Leone having the ships company build toilet blocks for orphaned Orang Utans!.
There won’t be enough C2’s to perform all those jobs and too many C1’s not to have them doing anything except escorting carriers. They’ll end up doing grunt work like every other escort in the fleet. And as a side note, the Sierra Leone stops usually occur to and from deployments to the Falklands patrols. They are a suitable task for C1.
The figure of £520mn also includes a value for design costs. These are now paid. Subtracting them and you get down to, by that lists figures, £440mn. THEN, again, you remember that those values are across a 6 hull run – triple that hull run and see how far down the ‘combat mission systems’ value and ‘management’ value per hull come down. You would be confident, by those figures and with a long build-run, of seeing a low-mid 300mn’s unit price for a minimum-change T45 based C1.
So you’re saying that if we use a T45 hull NO redesign whatsoever will be needed? No need to remove the tower used to mount the T45’s extra radar, no need for torpedo tubes, no need to alter the area and depth of where the VLS’s will go, no need to make some accommodation for TAS except to bolt it to the back and run the cables across the flight deck?
Let’s be realistic, even using an existing design, some redesign work will be needed.
And even ignoring that, on top of the low-mid 300mn’s cost you give, there is the need to buy the VLS system which for the T45 is part of the PAAMS cost so isn’t included in the combat systems figure you used. You’ll need to pay for torpedo tubes etc too and integration of TAS and other frigate related systems that aren’t found on T45. It’s not correct to take the costs for T45, exclude it’s specialist systems costs and then ignore the specialist systems being added to the new ships.
I’m sure a larger build run will drive down costs, but not by anything over £100mn at best. Looking at the Type 23’s costs will tell you that even with a long run by British standards, costs don’t decrease by a large percentage.
Sign In
