Does anyone know anything about her radars? I can’t work out what she has got

There is a lot of crap talked about CEC Dave so be careful what you believe. In short, Link 11/16 allow the sharing of general situational awareness of all sensor data. Whereas CEC allows the sharing and indeed improvement of fire control accuracy data. Thus the latter has less lag, better accuracy but less scope.

Given the sharing of fire control accuracy tracks, it allows a ship to fire on a target it has not even detected yet.

This all sounds great and sexy, but when you factor in the geometry of real world situations then usable cases become fewer than you might imagine. For obvious reasons, in the majority of cases, a unit that can detect and track a target is more likely to be the one who is best able to engage than one which has not (yet). That is not true in all cases of course, but in those cases it does not always add much value

Many claim it should be fitted to QEC for example. But QEC has no weapons that could take advantage of it, and is likely to detect threats after her escorts do. So the geometry suggests she is the last ship that needs CEC, but of course desperately needs L11/16 (which she will have)

CEC is also more expensive than is claimed, the unit cost ignores the huge development and integration cost for incorporating into RN.

I used to be an advocate of CEC, but the more i learned, the more I felt that in these cost constrained times, there are more pressing needs. But once QEC and Trident II is paid for, and the technology has matured a bit, I might be convinced again

CEC goes beyond that as it effectively treats all the different platforms as one system.

Not entirely true, but it doesn’t matter for this discussion

The higher performing SAMPSON on a Type 45 could be providing fire control to a Type 26 extending its engagement range or acting as a missile bin if the Daring has expended all its missiles in an engagement and hasn’t time to reload.

In fact because the T26 missiles will be the shorter ranges ones, it is unlikely that a T26 could do much to assist a T45 if the target is out of the T26 sensor range, especially of not a crossing (to the T26) target. The reverse situation is more likely in all honesty

Another possibility (and a capability that would of been useful 30 years ago in the Falklands war) is the engagement of targets by the Type 45 with its longer range missiles when its sensors are masked by terrain by using information from ships and aircraft that are not masked.

A true case (though it relies on a few other ifs and procurements), and indeed I recognise there are others. But if those are the most likely operational scenarios you can construct, does it really warrant all that money? Ahead of so many other competing programmes which we also cannot fund? I can certainly think of several I would rate higher priority

as far as I am concerned future procurement should be focused on buying kit that are … and known to work off the shelf. … CEC is an established known to work technology

I read your quote 3 times, you clearly imply that CEC falls into the category of what you think should be considered, and what you thought should be considered had to be “known to work off the shelf”

Which part of that understanding of your quote is incorrect?

Deterring whom? that’s the question. .

Would you advocate doing away with flood defences just because you cannot see any thunderclouds?

In fact the real comparison is whether you would advocate doing away with flood defences because you have not been flooded in the last 30 years and ignoring the fact that maybe the flood defences helped prevent the flood in the first place.

And yet are there not rain clouds on the horizon?
Iran? North Korea? Both also developing ballistic missiles

The first duty of the armed forces is the protection of the UK population. Notwithstanding the Falklands et al, Trident is a greater factor in that than all the Astutes and QECs combined

The bottom line is that Trident is the best nuclear deterrent we could have, but does it make sense to invest so much money in a Rolls-Royce system when we are cutting vital projects, such as LRMP and carrier strike, which are going to actually be used in the next few decades? In an ideal world I’d go for Trident, but in the world we have we need to be more flexible. It’s not 1980 and we don’t have to deter the USSR any more.

Given that Tomahawk will not stay in service for the timescales envisaged for Trident II, have you worked out which cruise missile you are going to use, where the nuclear warhead is coming from and how much it costs in comparison to Trident II (where the missile, launcher and warhead costs are shared with the US which results in a great saving for us). Would in fact the Robin Reliant cost more than the Rolls Royce?

And lets not even get in to the subs that were powered by steam turbines.

Works OK on the modern SSNs/SSBNs !