Grim901May as well spend the money on Merlins in that case, EC725 is a puma based airframe built in France, Merlin is a newer design built in the UK. I know where I want my tax money to go…
Also not too impressed with super puma safety record of late…airframe development pushed beyond limits perhaps?
Worst safety record in the RAF isn’t it? I know at least one pilot who’s crashed one.
Grim901The USS Nimitz – top speed ~56 knots
Attack class USN Submarine top speed 80+ knots
source: sonar tech E6, TS/SAP, USS CVN68 Nimitz
I lol’ed.
I can just imagine a 100,000 ton ship at 65mph, And an SSN at 90mph, can’t you?
Grim901Please god no!!! The Apache contract is absolutely dire to try and work with!
Care to elaborate?
Grim901Actually, my favourite so far would be the series of designs by MihoshiK and MSR (from Shipbucket)
These would seem to embody most of the capabilities I would hope for the C-2 and C-3 – though perhaps a little bigger than the design. I do love the series of drawings from these creators, with options ranging from an unarmed patrol ship, to ASW versions, ASuW versions, etc…
There’s no way C2 and C3 are going to have the same capabilities is there? There’d be no point in splitting them into C2 and C3 and giving them different roles and target hull sizes then would there?
Personally i’m not a fan of that particular design. C3 doesn’t need Aster, VLS, what appears to be quad packed Harpoon or a Phalanx in a pretty useless position unless you just want to shoot your own helos down on approach.
The other design a few posts back is much better I think.
Grim901Do they want to fly it off ships (or more precise: stow it aboard combatants)? = Chinook is out.
Do they need/want a ramp? = H-60 is out.
AW101 is the only one fulfilling both specs, folds neatly aboard ships (which of course makes it a bit heavy), and it has a ramp and volume for a jeep or a forklift. Does not have good high altitude performance, though (rotor design).
If no ramp is wanted, and the stuff lifted around is more of the underslung type, the MH-60S is the obvious choice. Probably can even again play around with the engines :rolleyes:.
Neither the Sea King or Puma have ramps, but it could be something they’ve decided is useful from operational experience. I read somewhere that a ramp was a pretty handy feature and the forces loved using them, but only time will tell whether they’ve decided it’s a necessity or not.
I can’t see the Chinook being bought to fill this role, although the more Chinooks we have the better. It just seems a little bigger than what they want.
Is there any chance a cheaper mass produced design such as the uh-60/mi-17 could be leased in the short term for say the next 5-10 years so a proper replacement program could be looked into to work out best capabilities? I know few of us like leasing aircraft, but it gives time for aw-149/super lynx to come online and the aircraft could definatly be sold on after
Also a design current to the RAF with an altitude listed as 20,000 is the griffin, a tried and tested 2 engine design, would be a good buy as i am sure its less fashionable and cheaper
I thought at least some of the ISAF nations were already leasing Russian helos in Afghanistan, can’t remember if we’re one of them yet though. I think the leasing issue isn’t a great substitute here, especially since they’re likely to be flying in some pretty nasty situations. I’m not even sure if they’re allowed to fly in those circumstances.
From everything I’ve read I still think a mixed buy of Merlin’s followed by the AW149 will be the best solution, although it probably won’t be the cheapest. A larger number of Wildcat’s would help too especially considering how many Lynx’s the AAC and RN currently rely on, but I doubt they’ll be part of the buy.
I have a feeling that the cheapest option might not be that much of a limiting factor here in comparison to the usual MoD procurement of expensive equipment when this could also be put under a UoR. Even the British media (not known for it’s excellent defence coverage) have picked up on the helicopter issue, which could mean the treasury might not be quite so stingy if we say they’re needed in Afghanistan.
Grim901For the sake of commonality i’d like to see mre Merlins being purchased, but I think they are a little heavy for all the roles the Sea King and Puma fulfil. Maybe a mixed but would be best, Merlins first to stop any capability gap followed by the AW149 when the purchase is complete. that gives a little extra tie to get the AW149 off the ground and provides a nice force mix.
Grim901I know what you are saying there Grim and I understand it perfectly. I’m almost loathe to make the next point owing to an element of jinxing the whole thing, but, there has been a recent track record of building ships to the needs of the service first and foremost….regardless of size:
1, Bay class LSL’s – twice the size of the Round Tables if memory serves and very much more capable in keeping with our version of ‘Forward from the sea’.
2, CVF – being built as three times the displacement of our current capability because thats the size that is needed to operate the specified airgroup. How many ‘knowlegeable’ people have bemoaned the size of these ships stating we could get smaller carriers to do the same job, but, the professional and correct design has been permitted to stand.
3, T45 – twice the size of previous capability because operationally it has HAD to be so.
There is, and has been for a while now, a quiet little undercurrent of applied common-sense somewhere in the DPA and whoever those revolutionary little beggars are I say fair play to them.
I’m not going to get carried away here, as I’ve already said, I expect the worst much as you seem to yourself and most here would agree. Just maybe though the bright element in the Civil Service might have just another couple of battles in them and we’ll get the ships we need to keep the RN effective and relevent.
A point well made there I must say. It may be pessimism on my part but I still can’t see it happening :(. I could come up with a few reasons too, including the politicians and treasury seeming to shift their favours even further from general defence issues and solely onto the current campaigns. As well as that I doubt the Navy will really fight for larger ships in the C3 role when they’re on the ropes already just trying to defend keeping basic capabilities, such as sufficient AAW ships to defend the carriers that they have sacrificed even more for. I have a feeling that they need to pick their battles and that won’t be one they find that important in the grand balls up that is RN procurement.
Also remember that cost cutting has appeared at every turn on the CVF and type 45 since the specifications were set in stone, which usually ends up with the phrase “fitted for but not with” involved and as yet, we still have no commitment on an air group for the decent sized carriers despite the fact they are meant to begin operations in 6-8 years. And on top of that, despite sensible sizes being set up, there has been a great sacrifice in numbers of hulls to do it.
Sorry that was more of a rant than a coherent line of reasoning. I’ll sum up just by saying that I hope that you’re right and that whoever has their head screwed on up at the DPA in Bristol hasn’t been hit by a bus since the last major decisions were made and that the defence apathetic Scot we call dear leader or the treasury doesn’t run them down.
Grim901For the USAF, don’t think the maneouverabily issues will be anything great, as am sure it will be heading in with the F-22, but for any export nations, where the RCS will be larger ( around the size of the eurofighter is the rumour), this will start to be a major concern. Losing that advantage, and then becoming a liability at shorter ranges could help the Eurofighter in places like Japan.
Any links to what you said about the RCS?
That pretty much takes away any pluses of buying the F-35 over a Typhoon if that’s true. It’s a shame that Britain will buy it anyway since we need a STOVL craft.
Grim901Grim
Sincerely do not take this the wrong way, but, its exactly THAT thinking that we need to shake ourselves loose from and I’ve not seen a more stark example of it than that posted above.
The C1 capability in the Cold War – a modest FFG design with a VLF passive tail was fine for the job. Now that needs to be twice the size and optimised for aviation.
T45’s AAW – the threat has now changed. A T42 with two mechanical directors and a fast, powerful, missile was considered sufficient for dealing with Mr Bear and Mr Badger. Now the 4000ton hull is nearly doubled so we can mount a masthead radar with enough scope to catch supersonic seaskimmers in good time to get a doubled SAM inventory into action.
What matters is capability and the hull size has to service that. In the Minor War fleet we are talking of replacing single/dual roled vessels with true multirole ones. This shouldn’t and isnt going to be a case of like for like replacement anywhere because the taskings and technology are not the same as those that generated the 500-1500ton hulls in the first place.
Our MCMW is now almost entirely expeditionary in role. We must therefore have a minehunting capability that deploys with the Fleet. Technology helps us here with UUV’s etc so that almost any vessel can become an MCMW asset. The same UUV carrier that does route survey for mines is a good platform for the droggies to do their thing. Change the configuration of the MCMW operator spaces for droggies to plot out their maps on. I doubt they still use rotring pens and draughting tables somehow!.
Lastly look at antidrug patrol, embassy evac, disaster assistance and the multitude of less clearly defined roles undertaken by deployed ‘patrol’ vessels. All of these are missions more readily and successfully undertaken by a larger vessel than a smaller one.
It all adds up to the right choice for C3 being the vessel that Vospers proposed with their circa 3000ton OPV or at least a very close relation of it. You can do quite a lot with a 100m 3000ton hull too!.
I don’t disagree with you on any point there. I’d love to see C3 as a larger multi role patrol vessel (more of a large corvette type vessel) but i’m trying to be realistic, and all indications suggest that it probably won’t happen and we’ll just end up with 2000t patrol craft that can be fitted for MCMW.
It’s a sad fact of the modern RN that the budget dictates the capabilities and roles, but a fact nonetheless.
Grim901Personally I feel that the post Cold War peace dividend was handled rather badly, it appears the politicians just took the cuts in funding without thinking of the wider strategic industrial implications.
Al – There are reports that suggest that Barrow still isn’t up to full staff now after the Vanguard to Astute production gap, despite a frantic recruitment drive.
For emphasis from Wiki:
As Al said, you’re preaching to the choir with that one.
I often wonder why they haven’t tried to increase sub manufacturing capability here. When demand outstrips in industry, you expand your manufacturing capability, that’s the normal thing to do in industry. Clearly we need more SSNs than we can produce in the time frame required and we also need to build 4 new SSBNs (no I won’t accept 3, I don’t care what the govt. might say, we can’t assure continuous at sea deterrence with 3, especially if the French keep ramming the damn things), and it’s like the workforce in Barrow is that spoilt for choice so how hard could expanding capability be?
On top of that, i’ve wondered whether Plymouth could be used to bolster the sub manufacturing capability. It has the biggest dockyard in Western Europe and does all the refit work for the sub fleet so at least some of the expertise and gear necessary is there already. And they’re going to have free space pretty soon with the frigates leaving.
@Jonesy: I agree the C2 idea would be good for chasing Somali pirates and the like, but not that it should be a bolstered C3. C3 is intending to replace vessels in the 500-1500 ton range right, so there’s no way they’re going to build something much larger than 2000t to replace them. There’s no way that is enough room on a C2 ship. (Those numbers are also those quoted by the MoD for the rough size of C3, so let’s be realistic with what we suggest in regards to it).
Grim901Can you link to a source on this new combatant? I haven’t heard anything about it.
What is it supposed to be replacing? Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser?
Grim901We’re somewhat limited with the number we can build, it’s unlikely that Barrow would be able to churn out more than 7 before the Vanguards need replacing.
That is quite a problem. I still debate with myself whether the MoD would order 8 if they could squeeze it into the timescale. It’s only theoretical because I know they can’t but it would be interesting to know if they value the RN at all anymore. I’ve had the slight inkling that they may be slightly more serious about keeping the SSN numbers up than the rest of the fleet and have just had bad timing. No way to know though.
Grim901Aster 15 is being fitted to lots of ships which don’t have volume search radars, so I think it’s safe to assume its full capabilities can be used with a medium range radar
Like Artisan? Sorry i’m not so good with radar.
I don’t have the height of A35, but from the Sylver brochure, where there are side-by-side photos, it looks to be just over 4 metres tall. A43 is 5.4m, A50 is 6m, & A70 8.15m. The part beneath the silos is the same size in the other three, & slightly smaller in A35. I reckon it should weigh quite a lot less than A70, & those few metres of height could be very useful.
What i’m saying is that the height is obviously there already or they wouldn’t say they could fit an A70. They wouldn’t say it if they could only do it with a significant redesign to the deck below. So between A50 and A70 there is about a 2.15m length difference, i’m still struggling to see where all this extra weight is coming from.
A70 hadn’t entered production when Type 45s started building. It’s unlikely they’ll ever want to carry more than a few SCALP or whatever: they’re AAW destroyers. Why spend money, weight & space on a capacity you have no intention of ever using, & which isn’t even ready yet?
I agree with you there, but there is the possibility of adding more new missiles through the ships life with the A70 if it becomes necessary. One of the key concepts of the vessel is that it can be upgraded through life as needed, e.g adding Harpoon etc. It’s a weak argument I know.
If you have VLS, you can potentially use them for different things – just not simultaneously. CAMM canisters only launch CAMM.
Oh I see what you meant now. I wasn’t suggesting removing the VLS, just using fewer (cheaper option) or allowing for more missiles of other types to be carried. At least some of the CAMM should be carried elsewhere, even if they can’t find space to fit them all away from the VLS. They tend to mount RAM in several positions, so there must be a reason/advantage for it.
Completely different. Aster 15 has the same top end as Aster 30, but a much shorter booster. CAMM is a one-piece missile (different from the Aster top end), with no separate booster.
So what is the actual difference in capability? I know the missiles themselves are very different but they seem to replicate a capability, except that CAMM will have more launch platforms.
I don’t know how many C2, but the logical number of C1s is 8: one for each 2087 TAS.[/QUOTE]
The numbers I quoted were from Navy Matters, which, his personal opinions aside, seems to be fairly reliable on what the government have said regarding their projects.
I’m glad they’re planning on more C1 than C2, obviously it’s better for the navy, it’s only worse for the treasury.
Grim901Aster 15 is being put on ships with only a medium range radar, e.g. ASW FREMMs (Herakles or EMPAR) & Formidables (Herakles) & is offered for FM400.
So is that a no, or a it’s not usual but possible?
I don’t really care what the hull is: a MEKO version (quite right, Distiller), or something based on the Holland-class OPVs, beefed up, or FM400, or a stretched Khareef (though I think it’d have to be stretched quite a lot – I think 4000 tons, maybe a bit more, may be desirable). What I care about is that we get enough of them – which means I agree with Jonesy it has to be something relatively cheap, & therefore rules out a T45 based ship, & sets limits on the armament & sensors – and that it can do the job. That means good range & endurance (diesels for economy? – and room for a fair bit of fuel & supplies), fast enough (25 knots or a bit more?), & the right configuration & gear. It must have a work deck, like the FM400; self-defence SAMs & appropriate radar, decent gun (but I’m not dogmatic: whatever other RN ships have in the future, whether 4.5″, 155mm, or even 127mm;, a bow sonar; hangar for at least a Wildcat & preferable something bigger, & deck for a Merlin; carry high-performance RIBs or even a couple of CB90s or similar; space for some Marines or passengers; and I’m sure you can fill in the blanks for the other kit.
If C1 ends up as a smaller ship than T45, then a common C1/C2 hull might make sense, with C2 being an austere version. But I’ve come round to the idea that T45 & C1 commonality is best, & that puts C1 too high-end for C2 commonality.
I agree when it comes to C2 price is going to be a big factor, in this case I think it’d be better to have 12 C2’s that have very little in common with C1 and T45 than 8 C2’s that are effectively just poorly equipped C1’s. In an ideal world it’d happen my way, with C2 being common with C1 without sacrificing numbers but beggars can’t be choosers.
1. No idea, but it should be a bit cheaper, being much smaller. It weighs less, & is much shorter. Therefore, fitting A35 allows you to use weight & space for other things.
It can’t weigh much more, it’d weigh a little more, maybe the weight of 4 metres of steel. There isn’t much else different between the 2 is there? What I was after with this question is trying to understand why the A70 wasn’t fitted to the T45 hull when the brochure implies there is room for it (and weight isn’t an issue either because it says 16 (I think?) cells for TLAM could be added in addition to the A50’s already present. I can understand them not actually fitting the extra cells until/if they are needed but fitting the smaller A50’s by default seems odd.
2. Putting CAMM in VLS allows you to use the VLS for other things, if you wish – and a 4 metre tall canister which shoots missiles out of the top can’t be put just anywhere, though it has more mounting options than an even more bulky VLS.[/QUOTE]
That didn’t make sense to me, can you clear up what you mean by each use of VLS, it looks like you’re talking about 2 separate things in the same sentence without differentiating. The first phrase contradicts itself for example. But if you mean what I think you do, wouldn’t mounting CAMM separately take up similar amounts of room to RAM, i.e not that much?
Here’s another question, what is the difference between CAMM and ASTER-15? It looks like the only difference is 10km extra range for the Aster and an extra metre in length.
Finally, the current planning is for 10 C1’s and 8 C2’s right?
Grim901OK, FM400 with different kit. Based on the land attack version? It doesn’t need the special capabilities of the AAW or ASW versions.
http://www.dcnsgroup.com/files/pdf/FM%20400.pdf
I like that as a candidate for C2. Although it loses the benefits of commonality as the design is too small for C1.
I think C1 should definitely be based on the Type 45. There is already room for the addition of longer Sylver’s to accommodate SCALP/TACTOM and there is plenty of room to reconfigure the ship for different roles, which could possibly increase depending on how it is redesigned to remove the air search radar.
The best possible scenario I see for the C2 design and I think is the feeling in the RN, is for it to share a hull with C1, without much difference except for a less expensive/different use weapons loadout (e.g no towed array and no Land attack missile in the Sylver) but that can be upgraded or refitted to C1 design without much trouble if necessary.
For example:
C1 – T45 hull
Torpedo tubes and towed array
Room for 2 helicopters
At least 16 x A70 for SCALP-N/TACTOM/Harpoon
More A70/A50/A35 for CAMM (32 missiles)
155mm main gun
Organic MCM
C2 – T45 hull
Torpedo tubes
Room for 2 helicopters
Enough A35/50/70 to accommodate 32xCAMM + room for A70 addition (as is current T45 set up) or a few cells installed for Harpoon/TACTOM/SCALP use.
155mm main gun/or smaller gun on same mounting.
Space for ISO containers to be mounted (eg. to add MCM role)
A few questions: Are they planning to mount Harpoon on any of the new vessels since TACTOM can be used in that role now? Can SCALP be used in the anti-shipping role?
Is there much difference in price between an A70 and an A35? Is it that cost effective/other factors that lead to A35 being fitted over A70 when it is stated that there is room aboard for some A70 to be fitted?
Why would you put CAMM in precious and pricey VLS when it can be soft launched from a canister mounted just about anywhere on deck?
How significant a redesign would be needed to add torpedo tubes to the Type 45 hull?
How much space could be created by removing the rear T45 mast and radar (only necessary for the AAW version) or would the block construction simply mean the hull is shortened? Would the space be enough to increase hangar space to fit 2 Merlin’s?
Does the ASTER 15 need the air search radar to function effectively or could it conceivably be mounted onto C1/C2 using only the C1/C2 sensors and its own seeker in an A35/A50/A70 launcher in an emergency to fill the gap left by building too few T45’s?
That was a lot of questions that I doubt many of you will be able to answer since it’s mostly theoretical at this point. Thanks if you can though.
Sign In
