It’s like me saying I’d like a 10 bedroom house with a private beach: no point, however nice it might be, because I don’t have the money.

Sure, sure but if you have the opportunity to buy a 4 bed house with a VIEW of the beach and insist that the builders instead build a 3 bed house 500m further away (as there will now be two negative drivers on cost and give you the spare money to send Swerve junior to pony club) and do that just as inflation is hitting double figures and you try to pull out half way through the contract and then insist that the house must be built with 2 bedrooms and a wall between the house and the sea then don’t be surprised if your new cheaper house costs more than the original solution offered and is inferior.

[twang goes the point as it stretches past its plastic limit]

Al

May be in the Collins replacement timescale. It isn’t immediate.

😮 quite right too. Must try and remember that time continues to pass and that the Upholders aren’t going to last much longer than the time taken to formalise design Collins replacement

Al

I wonder how much a bare T45 hull with modifications for a TAS at the back and with 16 VLS up front would cost? Leave the bare ship identical to the T45 except without some systems.

Theoretically its too expensive. And it looks (and is) big

My view (oft repeated) is that building an existing, snagged design is cheaper than designing, tooling up for, building and snagging a theoretically cheaper design

That’s why I’d like to see T45s as C1 (and – I am only half joking – C2s) with changes limited to:

Not including modules (i.e. leaving off the aft mast and all of its gubbins)
Swapping out expensive electronics for cheaper versions (i.e. Artisan not Sampson)
Swapping out expensive modules for cheaper versions (i.e. stick to Sylver but quad-pack with CAMMs not fit Aster)

I see no reason why a silo (which has already had all the design and tooling work done) with 16 CAMM in and lots of room (FFBNW) would be more expensive than a new custom made silo with the same number of cells but no room for growth

What I DON’T know is how much work would need to be done physically fitting a TAS and getting it to talk to C^3. I would guess that less and cheaper than starting from scratch but ’tis but a guess.

Al

http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never%20Built%20Designs/USA%20FF%20TSSE%20Combined%20Patrol%20Corvette%201995%201.gif

Is very much what I had in mind

The problems with going constantly high end and huge is that
a) USN runs the risk of not having enough platforms (at the moment this is mitigated by everyone else arsing up procurement at least as badly as the spams but that may well change)

b) with the exception of a tentative Israeli order US industry is not selling its fine warships overseas. The US is bankrupt and everyone (everyone who matters, my opinions and statements are of no import) is just being too polite to mention it as they don’t want their big trading partner going belly up; if the USN (and USAF) are to stay as worldbeaters then their funding nation/supporting society MUST find a way of offsetting defence spending as they have done historically

Al

A smaller Frigate (although this being the USN i would expect ‘smaller’ to still be larger than Seven Provinces or F100)

Super-efficient Aegis (SPY-1E) using the floated idea of open source Aegis which would be suitable for export

Peripheral VLS (read a net rumour that peripheral VLS can quad-pack Standard, if so wonder how many ESSSSSSSSS will fit? i doubt that it will be 16 though!)

Medium calibre gun

Remote-controlled small calibres for assymetric threats

Torpedo countermeasures

LOTS of softkill

LOTS of ESM and ECM (modular)

Fully enclosed Work deck for MCM, minelaying, Survey, Troops or extra fuel/ordnance for long deployments (in USN i would expect mainly the latter as LCS, Coatguard and other assets would be tasked with former roles)

Big hangar and bigger flight deck

Build in quantity as new Frigates.
Cheap(er) enough to be put in harms way
Cheap(er) enough to go and rescue LCS ambushed by bigger boys on the way to/from littoral

Sell to allied nations (hence the SPY-1E, E for export, see? and modular EW a la SLQ 32’s 3 levels of system in one box)

Al

Fortunately none of the companies which went together to make up Lockheed-Martin have EVER done anything to misrepresent their aircraft when selling to allies of the US……………….

Al

It’s a sad fact of the modern RN that the budget dictates the capabilities and roles, but a fact nonetheless.

I almost wouldn’t mind if it was true budget related. If we only have £X then we must cut our cloth to suit.

But ’tis not. The lack of capability comes from money WASTED by

Prevaricating (presumably in the hope that the steel faeries will build the platforms for us or that inflation will somehow magically NOT make things ccost more later)

Changing specs immediately preceeding or even during production

Demanding cost cutting measures for headline-grabbing reasons which actually then raises the price

Selling off our independent technically-literate civil service so that you can no longer have access to genuinely competent and independent technical advice and evaluations. Whilst you’re at it why not do so at an (allegedly) artificially low price so that a few (alleged) insiders can make a financial killing and who cares about the technical capbilities lost or compromised.

And I’m sure many more which you lot could ID easily

Al