Can we switch the AGS out for either a modernised version of the semi-auto 6″ guns from the Tiger class or a twin turreted version of the 6″ that BAe is developing?
Switch the Helo Deck for the turret, which puts the helo deck closer to the center of gravity which means it can be operational in heavier weather. Depending on who you plan on having operate this monster, cut the number of VLS cells. The USN doesnt have enough missiles to fill all the VLS cells it has at the moment let alone more.
Oh, and give the ship more automation (aka. the amount that every navy except the USN puts into their ships) and you could probably get away with a crew of 250-300 (how much of the crew of an SSN or SSBN are reactor techs?)
And what the hell is “Sea Talon”?
Since this is an RN thread, any idea what the power output of the PWR2 is?
I think you might be underestimating the crew requirement, also it appears to have 128 vls cells?
Ah, i only saw the US flag and thought “burke”, yeah, probably 500+ crew on that thing going on how the US crew the burkes which are probably less then half the displacement of that monster.
How about this….
No thanks, they roughly duplicate the capabilities of the T45 destroyers however they require double the crew of the T45.
I see 6″ AGS and ships without guns. I really don’t like that……
I agree about the C2 Hull sizes you are probably right about it needing to be more like 4000 tonnes. I Know the T45 flight deck is pretty big I think it can take a Chinook if I’m not mistaken but it only has a single hanger because on either side of the hanger there is a space for the RHIBs couldn’t the RHIBs be moved and make a double hanger I’m sure some smaller vessels than the T45 such as the F124 have double hangers able to take a medium helicopter each. The Artisan is supposed to be pretty cheap and I expect it to be fitted on C2 and C3 but I thought C1 would get something a bit better a proper multi function radar so it can use the Aster 15 it doesn’t need to be anywhere in the same league as the SAMPSON which is from what I’ve heard a very very good system.
The Hanger on the T45 isnt small, it can take either a pair of Lynx helicopters or a single Merlin, so basically the hanger on the T45’s (and the T22’s actually) are about the size of the two hangers of an OHP or Burke combined.
I find it amazing that MODERN Russian boats are so menancingly streamlined and no-nonsense whilst their skimmers are still a crazy profusion of bolt ons, port holes and mess
Al
Modern? Aren’t all of their current in service designs modified variants of late cold-war Soviet designs? Where they arent ships that have been in service from the 70’s or 80’s anyway.
“The other (implication) is that….the number of new destroyers falls short of the 12 originally planned and the eight subsequently proposed, making it very difficult for the MoD (Ministry of Defence) to meet its requirement of having five ships at sea at any one time,” he said.
Incentives should be provided for the industry to help keep five ships operational at all times, the report said.
Hence why the original plan was for 12 ships, so that only 40% rather then 85% of ships had to be ready for sea at any one time to meet requirements. Eight ships would have reduced the requirement to 62.5% of the class needed to be ready for sea at any time.
Steveo-
I’d still say a Mk8 is a bit OTT. 40mm is going to be the biggest thing you would fit to a C3 surely. In many ways this is a new type of ship. The C2 is the decendent of the Type 81/21 ships, and I think they loosely point to the sort of direction C2 will be headed, mid calibre gun, helo, some SSM, Light AA. Capable of standing in the line but in many respects a traditional frigate of old.
C3 on the other had is something a bit new, perhaps more akin to an old sloop or wartime corvette but really something not seen before. Global reach, oceanic capable but doing roles usually carried out by much smaller ships. It will have armament fit for close self-defence and constabulary duties but not much else, its tricks will be in the flexible kit you fit to it for MCM, SF, patrol, survey etc, not things that make a loud bang (unless they are clearnce charges!).
C1 is where the whizz bangs will be. To continue a 19th Century analogy the C1 will be the equivilant of the 74 gunner- fast, powerfully armed, the meat on the fleets bones. Daring/Astute/CVF make up your Line of battle, C1 backs that up with quantity, C2 is the eyes and ears able to stand alone if necessary while C3 is the presence and special duties vessels.
It isnt actually fitted with Mk.8 and would only be fitted later if the mounts became available. All it means by FFBNW is that there is a strengthened area of the bow where a module including a Mk.8 gun system could be installed if needed.
As for C3, i’d consider it a mix between a sloop and an MCM asset, however the 81’s and 21’s were the successors to the old sloops anyway. I would see C2 as a direct T23 replacement with C1 being more along the lines of a cruiser replacement as a much larger ship is likely.
Surely this is much more a C2 fit, all a bit overkill for an OPV/MCM??
Why have SeaRAM AND CAMM? A bit belt and braces?
An overlapping weapons fit, and expensive, however not at C2 level, besides this stuff is all FFBNW, whereas with the exception of SeaRAM the C2 should have all this stuff right from the the beginning as a minimum.
Look at my modified version of his list just below his post.
+ LMM.
Right, plus Air to Surface Starstreak.
First, 20mm or 30mm’s along each side of the superstructureas suggested.
Just to be difficult i’d like to suggest an alternative FFBNW scheme.
FFBNW:
Mk.8 @ A
SeaRAM @ B (with 40mm gun fitted in this position in the meantime as standard)
40mm @ X above hanger (migrate the gun from B here if SeaRAM is fitted)
Forget harpoon and just make sure there is a big enough magazine to carry a few Sea Skua 2’s.
The real question is not, “what is the USS Nimitz Class carriers top speed?” The real question is what is the top speed of the escorts? How fast can the Burke or Ticonderoga Class’ go. As the weather / sea state increases increases, their speed decreases. The submarine escorts can keep up with the Nimitz carriers but, due to the boundary layer of water around the sub, it’s sonar is useless, it is as blind as a bat!
In perfectly calm water they could probably go 28-30 knots, they’d never hear an enemy submarine approaching though. A speed of advance of 15-20 knots would probably be more likely since it gives the escorts enough of a speed advantage that they can sprint forward and then slow down to hear anything near.
True – that appears to be the warfighting force mix we’re going for. One carrier group plus one ARG at any one time with limited ability to sustain it.
We’ve always had to gap other commitments, to some degree, to put together large fleet actions. The Kiwi’s and Yanks covered for us with NATO when we went down south in 82.
What you say does underscore the importance of C3 and, to a lesser extent, C2 though. If our routine patrol taskings are already within the purview of the minor war fleet and C3 can handle APT N&S etc then we are already much freer to deploy the fleet units.
The likelihood is also that those fleet units will be sharper, and at higher readiness, having more time to train and upkeep and less time steaming all around the place doing runs ashore god-knows-where to build toilet blocks for under-priveliged orang-utans!.
Remember the RN had the small Type 14 and Type 81 “second class frigates” and “general purpose frigate” that were basicly OPV’s with bigger guns, built convoy escorts and as colonial gunboats respectively. The C3’s will probably be the spiritual successor to these vessels, with the added role of MCM. These were the ships the RN used to fill in the roles of the ships that headed south in 1982.
Phil if the requirement they have is for 5 hulls deployable or at near-readiness to deploy at any one time, as stated, then the cancellation of hulls 7 and 8 is beyond ludicrous and that point is beyond any rational debate.
The point I was making was that that cancellation wasn’t just on a whim of some little beancounting gnome in the Treasury though and that the capabilities of C1 if augmented in local area air-defence, something entirely new for a non-AAW vessel in the RN, with a system such as CAMM then that at least mitigates some of the loss of the last 2 Darings.
Ultimately therefore, in naval procurement anyway, there is at least some consideration of capabilities and tasks before the axe is swung. The comments of us being likely to end up with vessels wholly unsuited to the taskings for C3 and ludicrously short in numbers i.e 8 vessels replacing 24-25 where likely to be taking cynicism to the point of irrationality!.
The funny thing is, if all twelve T45’s had been ordered and if the three T23’s hadn’t been retired. The RN would still have 32 escorts.
With half available at any one time, the RN would be able to organise and ARG and CVBG simultaneously with an escort of 3 T45 and 5 T23 each. Remember that “at any one time” doesn’t mean instantly available, but “available by pulling ships off other taskings” or rushing short refits to conclusion.
Didn’t the Gannets and later the Shackleton’s use the radars off retired Skyraider AEW’s?