I’ll happily criticise the LCS concept ’til the manatees come home but I think that you may be looking at the 57mm v 76mm all wrong.

The USN have invested (and developed) in ‘Bofors’ 57mm as their new CIWS for LCS, Coastguard and Zumwalts and presumably whatever comes next. They clearly feel that it can do CIWS better than Phalanx or Oto 76mm. It is not instead of MCG it is instead of Phalanx

Putting 76mm on LCS may (will) give them more punch v surface targets (ship and shore) but if that was the idea then they would have speccd for 5″ in the first place.

The study above mentioning this and any third party discussion (for which thanks) goes in the box marked ‘completeness’ in my view.

Now if only BAe can get their bottoms in gear and make each equipment and weapon position on T26 truly modular there’s a big export to USN to fill in between LCS and Arleigh Burkes.

IN MY OPINION the causes of circular x vs y arguments (and even occasionally discussions) are twofold

1. T’internet which enable (and possibly encourage) poor reading of previously made points (it was worse on mailing lists admit it) and hence positing an opinion which is identical to one made 1 hour/1 day/ 1 week previously on the same topic. I have both done this and had it done unto me.

2. That bloody superficial and overly quoted ‘simulation‘ and its ‘Typhoon is second only to F22 vs Flankers‘ summary.

Which raised the hackles of every Frenchperson, Francophile, Anglophobe and technically literate plane buff on t’planet.

HOWEVER

It worries me that in a Rafale thread not nearly enough time has been spent discussing the MOST VITAL upgrade.

If Raf is to really secure the place as prettiest warbird then the MN must pull their fingers out and paint it in SuE colours.

It may just be a typo on the Beeb’s part but according to the article on tgheir site those hoping that the switch back to the B will mean both CVFs will be able to operate fixed-wing carriers may be in for a disappointment.

Fingers crossed

In my super shiny fantasy wish happy place the RN also gets:
*two squadrons of P1s (Red and Blue doncha know …….)
*which are built in UK by Kawasaki subsidiaries (Nissan Sunderland is Nissan’s most efficient plant innit, we have sites and redundant skilled workers aplenty and building in EU makes export to our continental chums easier)
*using up all of those historic names we no longer have skimmers enough for
*equipped with Stormshadow for that there long range strike mission
(actually I’d settle for only one squadron having Stormshadow the other can stick to MPA duties, no one can call me unreasonable)

more endurance always better, except RN want their aircraft merely to protect the fleet

Curiously enough, no. That is pretty much the only thing which CVF’s airgroup is not expected to do. These are STRIKE carriers not FLEET carriers. Some (including I) wax lyrical about the lack of organic airpower and thus CAP meaning we could not re-re-retake the Falklands but that’s not why CVFs were ordered.

…F-35C will end up cheaper over long term…

As with most things JCA ‘should’ or ‘is planned to’ not ‘will’. There is still a long way to go.

well I know sun has set now in the british empire but….

Fog in the channel. Europe cut off.

Either we stick to JCA (spams can call it what they like, that’s their right for their programme but its JCA to me) and order Bs and Cs or we get out of dodge and go completely different route.

Bs operate off of QE and allow quicker (not gonna be quick) return to naval strike
Cs operate off of PoW and allow EMCAT to be worked up

Eventually we will have enough data to decide whether to equip QE with EMCAT, EMCAT light or not at all

When QE is alongside Bs are RAF asset
When PoW is alongside Cs are RAF asset

Comparing Type 26 with the FREMM, it occurs to me that for export (I don’t see the need for it in the RN),

Garn that’s the complication alright.

I was happily looking down my nose at suggestions of ‘Type 26 with extra’ thinking that RN would be better served buying more ‘Type 45 with less’ if their lordships were concerned by a lack of hulls. But ……… that does miss the point that this time we seem to actually be wanting to ‘do a Leander’ again and sell some hulls NEW overseas rather than wait and sell them secondhand.

IFF we are actually learning the modularity lesson this time then we should be laughing.

A position will take one MCG
choose from Oto 5 inch, Oto 3 inch, US 5 inch

B position will take 2 short silos
choose from CAAMM, VL Mica, ESSM, Barak

and 1 CIWS
choose from Phalanx, Goalkeeper, SeaRAM, Fast40, Mk57, etc

C Position will take 3 strike length silos
choose from Sylver, Mk41, Mk57

Main mast will take one mast
choose from short with Artisan, tall with SAMPSON, tall with Artisan, Aussie CEAFAR CEAMOUNT, etc

If instead we decide to go for a tailormade RN solution for each position (ideally each with its own proprietary databus) and demand that export customers fully fund any other integration then we will sell the sqrt of fnckall again

My little theory:

There’s an old (ancient) joke that all generalisations are useless and no doubt there will be spams posting on this forum who can point out and reference individual exceptions to that summary BUT …………….

As an overall description of national corporate cultures that seems about right.