I think that I’ve been looking at this all wrong

C1 role is ASW and land attack

Solution: More Astutes

Al

For that money (say 6.6 to 7 billion pounds for 16 hulls), one could pretty much order a complete new ship class in the 5000-ton range designed.

IFF there weren’t any snags in the design and build process.

I don’t know how modular T45s are but building lots of the same hull with GENUINELY* very minor changes could be the most efficient way forward.

Al

* i.e. if Artisan can be made as a straight swap for Sampson and SCALP and CAMM put in the same silos as Aster and the rear mast either left off or just built but without a Volume Air Search radar on top of it then this could be a winner. As tempting as it is to say ‘just add X’ that ‘just’ is more complex and expensive than redrawig it in paint or photoshop could lead one to believe.

Any one like the look of the ships or loath them 🙂

Some good drawing/painting first off

The Arsenal ship looks very nice; the others ugly, but no uglier than contemporary designs

I cannot see RN getting funding for the Arsenal ship (although maybe could get sponsorship from Emirates?!) and we will rapidly run out of escorts (1 T45 for each CVF, 1 for Ocean, 1 for each LPH and 1 for each of these and suddenly we have no AAW assets left) nice idea though.

Since GWS are so expensive building an unleaded Arsenal ship might not be too expensive though! And we have seen how much UK Gov likes paper tigers.

In my view none of the designs have a long enough flightdeck, move the VLS* to absolutely rear and shift everything for’ad a bit makes it much easier for the WAFUs to land in rough seas

*admittedly do we then end up shooting down the flyboys or having situations when the VLS is unusable? Certainly any kind of mission deck/bay could go aft of helo(s) to bring landing spot closer to midpoint with minimum displacement in high seas

4 different empty steel shells strikes me as an expensive solution (one of the reasons in my view that the spams have gone for a common shell for LCS and want to slot different modules in for each littoral role, not because they have any plans to swap modules out in service)

Or am I doing you a disservice those hulls look similar have you been more underhand and sneaky than I give you credit for?

Having 2 different CIWS on each combatant is a very nice idea but costs more.
Pictures of T45 show them with Phalanx so buying a different CIWS for all other new surface units misses an economy of scale
Also siting Goalkeeper where you have limits the size of the for’d/only VLS

None of the designs have any German-style remote-controlled assymetric warfare weapons which I think could be vital

Global Corvette
Certainly fit for but not with RAM (or SeaRAM to hold down costs of sensor fit) but for stated role I think that it’s being optimistic to fit with.

I’m with Jonesy on fitting a medium-calibre gun and that economies of scale would dictate using whatever the rest of the fleet is using (or MAYBE reusing the Mk8s once the frontline warfighters get BAe 155mm)

There’s no obvious work deck/work bay for MCM, boarding parties or other non warfighting activities

Al

The thing is although Australia and Japan could in theory co-operate, Japan has the greater experience of building submarines. As Distiller implies, what could Australia offer Japan that would make co-operation worthwhile? I’m asking this as a genuine question because Japan doesn’t seem to have the problems Australia did with the C-class.

Experience of submarine operations

The Aussie dolphins operate much closer to the edge than their island neighbours do. (And yes I’m aware that I’m commiting the cardinal sin, and one which I have criticised others for of stating a ‘fact’ and providing no source; I guess you either choose to accept it or treat me as an oaf and this (and my last) post as nonsense)

Al

I CANNOT see the Seaphoon happening

Marinising an airframe just costs too much money
If the maritime requirement was in original specification then ALL Typhoons could have been marinised (personal bugbear I get annoyed that any airframe that might be used from a skimmer is not marinised from minute one rather than making two (or more) sub-models)

But I do NOT see JSF as a done deal. There are too many unknowns (some unknown unknowns to quote the unlamented Mr Rumsfeld (sp)). IF it works as advertised and is available at the price agreed then it is an expensive luxury but offers a step change in terms of everyting being in one airframe. Any more attempts to limit UK access to technology/source code gives a reason/excuse (delete as fits your own prejudices) to pull out, demand money back and buy Rafaele-M

Al

plus SSGTs
plus ability to share data between all of the above
plus mines
plus undersea obstacles to restrict their mobility advantage

Al