Grim901Jonesy, I assumed they’d thought about addition of an SSGW to T45, it was supposed to be part of the upgrade package that got scrapped.
However, as I said, part of the PAAMs cost wil be needed as the VLS launchers are a part of that, and we’ll need more for C1 than T45 and possibly 2 different types. We will also need to purchase a new SSGW (Tactoms/SCALP-N) for use in them since the only ones we have are of the sub launched variety and they won’t want to split a stock among 10-12 new ships. I know they won’t be part of the price but really should be.
I know some costs will be avoided as CAMM/radars/TAS will be reused but I still think that £400mn is too low. Going by the numbers in #603, it would be £520mn just to build a T45 with no redesign or addition or any extra equipment on top of the basic T45 fit (excluding PAAMS). Some of those costs are liekly to go down, but others need to be factored in. C1 is going to be the workhorse of the fleet, the jack of all trades by necessity, so it is only fair to assume that it will come in at under half the cost of a T45, even with its fancy radars.
Grim901Frosty, Kitted out prices. Seems ok in my head especially if kit is coming off old ships.
I think that the price you gave for C1 is a little unrealistic. If we use a T45 as a base, the hull will cost £400mn. The rest of a T45 cost comes from PAAMS, parts of which will still be needed (i’m thinking the VLS part here), plus a little redesign work to make it an ASW/GP version not AAW. I’d guess at around the 600mn mark all inclusive.
The T45 would cost even more if it had Harpoon and stuff actually fitted, which will be required of C1 as well.
Grim901So we can say that this was just a misunderstanding and move on…………
Has anyone come across any piccies yet of any of the parts of CVF being assembled no matter how minor ?
Every little helps:
Grim901Intersting idea Swerve. It would be nice to see spare space on C2 being given over to effectively turn it into a mini-assault ship. Extra RHIB’s and if possible, an extra helo. That combination with a bunch of marines would make it potent for dealing with a lot of what the RN seds its frigates to do (Drugs, piracy etc).
As a side note, but if the T45 design is used, it will reduce costs for C1. The machine tools and labour skills and experience will already be there too. You know what issues first of class ships have. An existing design could significantly reduce those for C1. Using a single common hull for C1 and C2 just means that instead of those costs being incurred just on C2, it is incurred on C1 first. It really comes down to, I thin kT45 is better for C1 and with the budgets the way they are, it would look better to say “We’re being cost effective and using an existing design here.”
Grim901Good points Grim.
I accept those on the C1/Type 45.
Tonight I shall sit down for a drawing session. Lets see what I can come up with 🙂
As always, I look forward to it. You always seem to come up with good ideas.
Grim901I read a while back about the upgrade schedule for T45. They basically planned to give it all the capabilites we’ve said it should have over the next few years (up to 2014) in 3 stages. That included integration of Harpoon and even addition of A70’s and TLAM. It was cancelled I think. But the plans are probably still there to add the stuff in the future. Just wish I knew when.
Stan, it might be better to think of it this way. If we use the T45 hull for C1 as well, we’ll save money there. We then use a new smaller hull for C2. It means we have 2 different hulls, but then your idea gvies 2 different hulls as well in that T45 will be differnet to C1 and C2. So how is your way better than having c1 the same as T45?
Sure if we just look at costs for FSC (C1 and C2) it’d probably work out cheaper to use 1 hull type rather than 2. But if you lump in T45 and count up costs it wouldn’t be that different to having C1 and T45 the same and C2 different. See what I mean? Also note that 48% of the cost of T45 is PAAMS. A C1 derivative would be signifcantly cheaper.
With the different roles of C1 and C2, C1 will undoubtebly need more equipment on board, so either C1 will be too cramped, or C2 will be overly spacious if we use a common hull. If we take the idea of a mix of A70/A35 on C1 and just the same number of A35 on C2, you have a large space where A70’s would be. You also have space where TAS would be etc.
I admit that we need spare room on our frigates for future upgrades, but if you consider that extra space I mentioned as that upgrade room, then where does the upgrade room for C1 go? C1 needs to be a larger vessel than C2, so it makes sense to use the already large enough T45 hull for it and a smaller (possibly off the shelf design) for C2.
Grim901To be honest I think it would be a bit wasteful to develop a new anti ship weapon just for the RN when there are alternatives out there already.
And if you applied that logic to all defence projects, wouldn’t almost every project carried out be wasteful. Most defence projects replicate another going on somewhere in the world. Who knows, maybe ours will be better than those on offer and gain the export orders. Not bothering means we definitely won’t get the orders and may not get a missile that does the job we want it to.
Grim901Anyone else think maybe the RN should have a think about a new Anti ship Missile? There’s a few alternatives to Harpoon out available now like RBS15 and NSM that sound quite interesting.
I think it might be a good idea, to get something a little newer, but the NSM and RBS15 don’t exactly do much more than Harpoon do they?
Maybe team complex weapons should get on the job and build one. FASGW(H) could provide a basis, the range would need to be extended though. Also, wouldn’t it be better to have something supersonic? Or it could be that SCALP-N could be used for anti-shipping. Not sure if the French are working on that, but if they’re not then Britain always could. Wouldn’t it be better to have one missile instead of Tomahawk and Harpoon?
Grim901I would definatly like to see quite a few VLS cells on the C1 especially with so few T45’s that have been built. But if the C1 is only due to be fitted with an Artisan radar, then sensor wise that would be Insufficent for AAW should it need to provide cover for other assets. Therfore i suspect that there would be a mixture of A70 cells for land attack and A35 if they are quad packable for CAMM.
I dont think larger launchers would be chosen unless a better radar is chosen to enable the use of larger SAM’s or there was some significant cost benefit.
The larger launchers are not for AAW, we all know that they’re only going to be given CAMM and CIWS for self defence. The A70’s have plenty of other uses. Most of us are expecting to see Tomahawks or SCALP-N’s aboard in addition to the current Harpoon, which means larger VLS will be needed.
It would be nice though if the design could be altered slightly (changed radar) to allow for a C1 vessel to become an AAW with the right sensor upgrade. With A70’s/A50’s it would be possible, with TLAM’s being replaced by Aster.
Anyone think that’s feasible, or are there things i’m missing?
Grim901How much would it cost to integrate this into one of the VLS systems? AFAIK it is not available in any VLS mode at present.
I know the tubes are supposedly easy to mount and dismount, and IIRC T45 is wired for them, but surely dropping them is even easier, and removes the need for a separate space.
I thought about that too, but space is easy enough to create in the large hulls we have/planning to have. It would be more costly to convert them to VLS, it’d also use up valuable room in the VLS. The MoD seems to use as few as possible. They’ve left room for more on T45 but are unwilling to pay to put more in.
I’d suggest keeping Harpoon as it is and seeing if the guidance on whatever cruise missile we are putting in can be upgraded to perform the Harpoon role, that way we can eliminate the need for Harpoon entirely. This is what’s happening with the new Tomahawk right?
@Stan: I agree. especially if the main difference between C1 and C2 is the addition of TLAM. What ASW differences are there?
Grim901The A43 shouldn’t be needed for CAMM. A35 should be enough.
A50 & A70 are longer & heavier. The weight probably isn’t an issue, unless high up, but the height could very well be, especially for A70. The smallest difference is between A43 & A50, & to be frank, I don’t see much point in A43. Might as well fit A50. But A35 is significantly smaller, & A70 a lot bigger.
My point was that if, as Stan suggested, you are going to use A43 for CAMM, you may as well install A50’s or A70’s as then, when circumstances dictate, change what is in the tubes to a larger variety of weapons. 32 A70’s is clearly more versatile than 16 with the other 16 only being usable for CAMM.
I can’t see weight and height being an issue, with A70’s already installed, unless the plan is too place the A43’s elsewhere on the ship then the issues wil already have to be dealt with to fit the first 16 A70’s.
Realistically, if we can’t have 32 A70’s then yes I thin the mix of A70’s and A35’s would be a good idea. A43 is just not worth it.
I think given the information just shot around, I will change to
C1 would pack 16 A-70 tubes (12 with Sea Scalp loaded and 4 with possible the RUM-139B VL-ASROC adapted )and 16 A-35
C2 would pack 16 A-35C1 must have some A-70 tubes though, we are missing a land attack surface vessel and I dont believe just relying on Astutes is an option.
I also think to leave the C1 / C2 without Harpoon would be one of the biggest mistakes around.
My future CVBG would include 1x CVF 1x Type 45 1x C1 1x Astute + RFA vessel.
Thats more like it! I like what you’ve done for the difference between C1 and C2. I agree on Harpoon too. And with so few Astutes being bought, it’ll be nice to have a little flexibility on what is launching the TLAM’s. Still waiting on info on your other systems (TAS, radar etc.)
Thinking about it now though, will we really need 16 A35’s? That equates to 64 CAMM missiles. If it were me i’d say a mix of 12 A35’s and 20 A70’s would be a better mix. Especially if you are thinking of having more than just TLAM’s in the A70’s as you mentioned.
Can you give us a general overview and rough size etc? Are you using the same hull for C1 and C2?
Finally, you not planning on keeping any C2’s in the CVBG? Seems a little escort light right now.
Grim901Stan, couple of questions:
Will 1 CIWS be enough, we must use 2 usually for a reason?
Is there a hangar, can’t see from the picture, if so, how many helo’s an it support?
I take it the A43’s would be used for CAMM yes? Would it really matter if they added the A50 or A70 instead of A43, they’re the same diameter and there can’t be much cost difference, and it would make a more versatile vessel.
What caliber is the main gun?
What does the C1 have, differeing from C2, apart from more VLS? TAS etc?
I’m happy this thread is back.
Grim901There is still no conclusion here as to what did cause the round hole in her Stbd side. The indented metal around the hole too. I’m not a submariner, but I am an engineer. The hole and the dent were caused by a hit from the outside.
Did you really need to drag up a 4 year old thread about a conspiracy theory?
Grim901Does an anti-ship version of Storm Shadow Exist, i doubt it would be hard to switch out the guidance system.
I don’t know. The French are developing a naval version to be launched from ships, but whether both/either system will be used in the anti shipping role is unclear.
Grim901They have said no such thing.
2050 was when they expected to have 6 CBGs.
They best hope oil prices pick up again then.
And I would post the Aster percentage kill ratios if I had any. The weapon is still in testing and won’t be cleared for use for another 2 years. When the numbers come along I will. And if you believe that a brand new weapons system is somehow worse than the 25 year old weapons it was designed to kill then there is little point in continuing this discussion. The Type 45 weapons and radar combination is widely regarded as the best AAW destroyer in the world and will be for several years.
Sign In
