Both navies have an aircraft carrier which enables them to keep currency in carrier ops (a thing that the UK doesn’t have for instance).

I’m a little confused, Argentina doesn’t have an aircraft carrier.

The same could be said of the nuclear subs. If Argentina was able to add, say 3 brazilian built nuclear subs, it would mean that the UK would have to multiply its investment to keep the falklands severalfold, which could become just too expensive for them in the short to medium term.

Where is Argentina going to get the money to buy SSNs?

I’ve often thought that we could of just kept Lymes Bay and converted her.

So is the Black swan class sloop a real concept because if it is the only thing that need changing is the 30mm for 40mm or above main gun and at £65mn each a little over priced but close
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219221[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219222[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219223[/ATTACH]

It’s more like an RN case study.

A number of people (particularly on Warships1) have made points about unrealistic manning levels and a few other things. As an exercise it was probably a valuable one but I suspect the real MHPC programme would by neccessity be a little less ambitious.

I think he was a diver. This limited his career options. He couldn’t keep diving forever. He seems to bear a grudge against the Admiralty for this.

He seems to like submarines.

He was a clearance Diver.

Bloke has a whole sack of King Edwards on his shoulder with the MOD and European Defence Industry.

The small number of assets and units means they can’t for anything other than extremely short periods of time and then still require US augmentation for critical capabilities.

Libya was a great example with one partner (Denmark?) pulling out prematurely (sounds bad in more ways than one ) and other partners ran out of munitions.

Also there was an obvious deficiency in ISTAR, UAVs, tankers, and other critical assets.

Even in Mali, Uncle Sam had to come to party for things such as UAVs, tankers and transport.

European military capability is poor – they struggle with small ops ala Mali or Libya, and have no capability of tackling something more serious ala Syria or Iran on their own. The US can do these types of ops by themselves, though prefers Coalitions for political reasons.

This seems to present something of a confused message? You start off suggesting that the world is buying the wrong ships and should be spending money on corvette’s saying that larger ships with moe combat power are a waste of time, in the quote above you are criticising Europe for not having enough of the big fighty stuff to cope without Uncle Sam’s help. So what are you saying?

Brazil is busy spending money to get ready for FIFA World Cup and Olympics whilst FX program continuously gets delayed and M2000s run out of hours.

But they are buying four Scorpene class SSKs, plan to order 5 x 6000 tonne Frigates and are developing their own SSN.

German – Denmark – The Netherlands- Norway

As for HMS Ocean you are right it should be gone by 2025 but it might not be if tasks change

And the point of the post is that as individual navy’s they have some punch but as a European battle group they have a lot more punch and can make a differ ants in high end combat

If you counting LPDs you should probably include the UK’s 3 bay class as well.

In WWII there would have been a much larger correlation between the size of the ship and the cost, than there will be today. Nowadays thanks to the cost of modern sensors and weapon systems the scale of cost involved in warship building is much more incremental – Corvettes don’t cost significantly less than a decent Frigate, but don’t have the legs of a larger ship. Basically a decision to build a Corvette over a Frigate means economising on the cheapest part of a ships construction – the steel.