In 1915 the Turks kept out a relatively (to their navy) much larger & more powerful fleet with one small minelayer, after their shore batteries had been suppressed by naval gunfire.

I think the same principle would apply now. You can’t force the Bosporus or Dardanelles unless you control the shore. That means a major – really major – amphibious operation, against defenders who are pretty well-armed, & who all precedent suggests would fight very hard indeed. You’d have to occupy a large part of a city of several million people, some smaller towns, & several tens of miles of forested hillsides, just to keep your ships free of attacks of the sort you describe. And of course, the Turks won’t forget to lay mines.

Ouch, imagine trying to conduct MCM in that environment. 😛

I don’t think they are looking for destroyers but since the type-22’s will go out in a decade they will need replacements and FREMM’s seem to be a good addition though costly.

C1 and C2 would be possible options by then, as well as possibly an evolved version of the LCS, or the Australian ANZAC class replacement, there will be several new ships classes starting to enter service in about 10 years time in the frigate and general purpose destroyer category (C1 and FREMM for example are more like destroyers then frigates).

– Order PA.2
– Additional Rafale N
– Order enough Horizons that they can simultaneously protect two carrier groups and one/two Amphibious/ASW Group(s) based around the Mistral class.
– Upgrade the Lay Fayette’s so they can fire Aster 15.
– Give the FREMM’s EMPAR so they can fire Aster 30 (same as the italian FREMM’s).
– Enough FREMM’s to provide escort to 2 Carrier groups and 1-2 Amphib/ASW Groups.

At least 2 more T45 (just how many groups would we look to have at sea at once?) in their current form, maybe with the addition of the ASuW role they originally looked like having.

If the old focus on Russian subs resurfaces, perhaps the original Type 23 idea – a hull to carry a TA and helicopter would resurface i.e. a cheap ASW frigate relying on a support vessel for AD and aviation support- would reappear? I wouldn’t go this way personally, but it may seem attractive to some.

Not sure you would want to higher spec the C-3. I think it would make more sense to field the C-3 as it is currently envisaged in your scenario than it actually does now! Concentrate the funds and manpower at the “frontline” end. Better to up spec the C-2, which is part way to warship anyway.

Nothing to stop a modular or regular TAS from being fitted to the back of an ~2,500t C-3 later on as long as space and weight are saved. Cheap lightly armed platforms that are capable of supporting a single FLynx.

General characteristics (as modified)
Displacement: 2,380 tons / 2,800 tons full load
Complement: 235
Sensors and
processing systems:

Radar Type 993 target indication
Radar Type 903 fire control on director MRS3
Radar Type 978 navigation
Type 1010 Cossor Mark 10 IFF
Sonar Type 177 search
Sonar Type 162 target classification
Sonar Type 170 attack
Armament:

1 x twin 4.5in gun Mark 6
1 x Sea Cat GWS-20 SAM
2 x 20 mm Oerlikon guns
1 x Limbo A/S mortar Mark 10
2 x 8-barrel 3in Knebworth/Corvus countermeasures launchers
Aircraft carried: 1 x Westland Wasp HAS.1 MATCH helicopter
Notes: Other characteristics as per above

Final Weapon and Aircraft Loadout of a Type 12 Rothsay class frigate. Interresting thing i noticed is that they are slightly longer then the heavier type 21’s, but with a shallower draft and smaller beam.

Something along those lines or those of the Leander:

General characteristics
Class and type: Frigate
Displacement:

2500tons later 2790tons standard
2962tons later 3300tons full load
Length: 113.4m (372ft)
Beam: 13.1m (43ft)
Draught: 4.5m (14ft 10in)
Propulsion: two geared steam turbines delivering 22,370kW (30,000shp) to two shafts.
Speed: 27knots
Range: 7400km (4600miles) at 15knots
Complement: 260
Armament:

four MM.38 Exocet anti ship missile launchers. One sextuple GWS.25 launcher with 30 sea wolf SAMS. Two 20mm AA guns.
Two triple 324mm (12.75) STWS-1 tubes for Mk 46 and Stingray ASW torpedoes
Aircraft carried: One Lynx HAS.Mk 2 ASW helicopter

Replace the steam turbines with diesels, Mk.8 Mod1 or a 76mm gun where the 4.5″ and Exocet was placed, No Sea Wolf or Sea Cat (Sea Wolf was mounted forward of the gun mount/Exocet battery on the leanders), ditch the torpedo tubes and have one modern but basic air search and sea search radar, keep the 20mm guns (possibly a typhoon mount?), keep the space for a TAS spare and keep full helicopter facilities for Flynx or NFH-90.

Would Brazil go for KDX-II with american radars and weapons? I thought they wanted to buy 6 FREMM’s?

They Probably have DNCS and BAe trying to sell them Horizon and T45 as well. 😉

I do agree with the points raised (I raise the single class solution purely from a devil’s advocate position), however, I do feel there is some scope for open discussion of the genuine needs, as Jonesy says. Obviously, if we went for a single class solution, with the full C-2 level of weaponry actually fitted, then there is no chance whatsoever of getting the numbers required.

However, there could, perhaps be a middle ground; we have previously discussed building C-2 and -3 as ‘blocks’ of the same basic hullform. One possibility might be to actually build the single class in blocks, in much the same way, but have, say, half being fitted with full weapons and other gear, and half with a C-3 level of systems fit. Thus, we get notional C-3s, with much reduced weapons capability, and C-2s with full capability. The -3s would start out with, for example, no anti-ship missiles, and perhaps a space reserved for a non-fitted VLS (this is not wasted space, and can be used until a VLS is actually fitted). As such, the two classes would have nearly 100% commonality of basic design, with only differences in equipment fitout. If needs be, this could include just bolting a MSI Sigma or DS30 to the bow, over the space reserved for the Mk8. Heck, if it helps, we could always paint the C-3s in a different colour paint from the C-2s! :diablo:

No, because they will look identical to the C2’s and the polititians will just say, “Lets just buy more C3’s rather then the upgraded C2’s because were can always put bigger guns on them later”.

How about something similar to the Austral Multi Role Corvette? Its basicly a miniature LSC. The rough specifications for the MRC can be seen on the last page of the .PDF file here

I have to admit i find their listed displacement figure confusing though.

Oh, and theres an advertising video of it here

Don’t get me wrong, I think these could make a good basis for C3. I’m just wary of taking a reasonably well-armed design and “downgrading it”, then trying to justify a reaonably well armed C2.

Because the weapons it is equiped to carry are not in the inventory?

We’ve drifted away . . . . if we give up the idea of a common hull for C2 & C3, so C3 requirements are not colouring our view of C2, what can we do for C2? What’s the optimum hull size (more than 100 metres/3000 tons, I’d say), optimum propulsion, etc? I’d take Artisan, 4.5″ & CAMM for granted – what else? How can it be made to fit RN requirements, & also be exportable, without major design expense? Offer with alternative main gun, certainly – what else?

Redesign the superstructure of the T23, replace the machinery with IEP or soemthing similar, replace the Sea Wolf VLS with CAMM making sure that an Mk.41 VLS could be fitted instead if needed and make sure that it can mount either the Mk.45 5″ gun or the Mk.8 4.5″ gun.

I’m fairly sure that one of the requirements for future RN ships was that the designs be exportable. A ship similar to this could replace the Canadian Halifax’s, the Australian and New Zealand ANZAC’s, plus the Various T23’s and T22’s floating around in various countries.