Typer 45 Destroyer. 6 not 12 but better equipped!

[Sea Dragon]

Hi again. As you can guess by my previous post i am in a state of frustration about the state of the Royal Navy. While i'm relatively unexperienced about the Navy and the true potential of ships and systems i do want to join as an officer and am currently studying a degree to do so. So the state of the Royal Navy is of a vested intrest for myself! As such i thought i would ask for some thoughts of the Type-45 Destroyer and of the number and quality in relation to my previous post about the worrying size of our Escort fleeet! So without futher ado:

Many people seem to be disapointed about the number of Type 45 destroyers we have recieved. Saying 8 was the minimum number we should have had and that 12 would have been ideal. While this as a knee jerk reaction is understandable due to our lack of ship hulls in the water i think it is a misconcieved and potential disasterous reaction. I think it stems from what people call frigates and destroyers and the different meanings for those ships. In America a Destroyer is a high end multi purpose weapons platform? At least i think so from the ship designs they use, any Americans in the know can feel free to jump right in an correct me on the finer points of that statement. However in Britain a Destroyer has evolved to be the principle AW ship in the task force. As was shown by the county class DDG's (It could be argued they were in fact cruisers), The Bristol and of course the current type 42 destroyers.

So i challenge the view that we need 12 ideally and 8 as a minimum. I actually think that as an AAD ship that will be primarily working therefore with a task force that 6 is the minimum we need and potentially 8. This is because with 2 escorting each medium sized task force then we can have 2 with 2 Task forces... The other 2 in refit. Ideally 8 would be around to allow for small CAG's to have a type 45 or for a task force going into a high air threat area to be placed with an additional Type 45.

I also believe that although it should have a decent level of multipurpose ability, it should not be placed on WIG's or other small patrol places. It most certainly shouldn't be in the gulf on its own as a patrol ship due to the nature of mines, terrorists and other threats that can write off a high level warship like that in peace time when a smaller cheaper and more expendable ship could be used.

Heres the crux though. I don't think it is well armed enough. At 7,205 tonnes light seagoing load it is a pitifully armed ship. 48 Aster missiles, 1 114mm gun, 1 Merlin Helicopter (capable but really needs a weapons upgrade so it can be multimission and carry out ASUW and ASW missions) and 2 Orelikon 30 mm guns. It is also "fitted" for 2 Phalanx, 8 RGM-84 harpoon ASM's and upgrade to a 155mm gun and 6 torpedo tubes.

This is pitiful really. The ship has space for a 15 cell Sylver A70 VLS. Research could be conducted into dual or tripple packing the aster 15 into this cell, along with perhaps designing an aster capable of TBMD not to mention the launcher being able to carry a TLAM. Straight away the Daring class would look a little more Daring if you will excuse the pun. The "fitted" for really needs to be fitted i would also go so far as to stick either another Phalanx on her or a bolt on ESSM type CIWS?

When it gets down to it, instead of trying to get 12 expensive warships and only get 6 ill fitted ones, why not try and get 6 well equiped warships and another 6-8 vessels that are small enough and well equiped enough to be placed in high latoral (is that the word they are using at the moment?) threat areas to patrol and keep them safe while being expendable. Afterall a Carrier escort and AAD ship shouldn't be doing patrols in the gulf sea lanes by itself now should it!


I just think its a farce at the moment. A 7,205 tonne warship with such potential in it that is to be honest, so unbelievably underarmed... I know this is because the Navy really needs hulls in the water, but i really think someones going to regret doing that when we lose a T45 or having it heavily damaged in patrol in the Middle east... It's just waiting to happen.

I mean i think we all have ideas of what the type 45 would have looked like? Actually i'm quite interested in what people think of her, what people would have done with her?? I know what i would but i'll see what others think or if they even reply before going into that.

[JMS]

Interesting post. I would say that 6 hulls is too few, if you pick up neighbouring navies your will get:

Spain:

4+1 F-100 frigates, smaller but as capable as the T-45 for AAW
6 FFGs

to escort one carrier and 1+1 amphibious group.

France:

2 Forbins + 2 Cassards (to be replaced by 2 AA FREMM frigates)
9 ASW frigates of the Tourville and Leygues classes to be replaced by 9 FREMMs
5 Lafayettes

to escort 1 carrier and up to 2 amphibious groups

Italy:

4 AA destroyers of the Durand and Orizzonte class (only this last equivalent to the T-45)
12 general purpose frigates (to be replaced by 10 FREMMs)

to escort 2 carriers and 3 LPDs

The Royal Navy will have something like 6 T45s and 13 frigates to escort 2 carriers, 1 LPD and the Bay class LSDs
2 carriers and 3 LPDs

[Sea Dragon]

This is very true, however my point is that the potential the Type 45 has, if used to its full, could place the warship as a very very powerful AAD asset. I said 6 as a minimum simply because of the Mod being the MoD (of course my layout of the Type 45 would take time to get because of the funding as well... but there we go). I would have 8 myself.

Then using the money spare from the other 4-6 hulls, including the money spared from another 4-6 very very expensive sensor suites (that is where the majority of money goes in ship building) you could build more 6-8 more basic hulls using Aster 15 as close escorts and picket ships. Perhaps give them a slightly less powerful radar but the ability to carry longer ranger Harpoon or land attack.

My point is the Daring has a lot of space and is a large ship that could easily be outfitted to be closer to a Cruiser type AAD ship as opposed to a destroyer type!

[Fleet Command CC]

Great post by the way Sea Dragon, I would like RN to have 3 batches of 12 T45 ships, but that will never happen, about the weapons I agree the T45 is underarmed. :(

If I was fitting the warship with weapons, I would have has follow.

200mm main guns, one on the bow and one on the stern, the ship would need to be redesign.

Four Goalkeepers (one on the bow, two at midships, one on the stern).

100+ Aster missiles, bow and stern launchers.

100+ RGM-84 harpoon, bow and stern launchers.

50+ Tomahawks missiles, bow and stern launchers.

4 to 8 torpedo launchers. midships launcher.

2 Helo's.

All of this is going to make the ship a lot heavier and make the costs per ship a lot higher, but if we want to play with the big boys, like the USA, Russia and China its needed big time.

[Sea Dragon]

Great post by the way Sea Dragon, I would like RN to have 3 batches of 12 T45 ships, but that will never happen, about the weapons I agree the T45 is underarmed. :(

If I was fitting the warship with weapons, I would have has follow.

200mm main guns, one on the bow and one on the stern, the ship would need to be redesign.

Four Goalkeepers (one on the bow, two at midships, one on the stern).

100+ Aster missiles, bow and stern launchers.

100+ RGM-84 harpoon, bow and stern launchers.

50+ Tomahawks missiles, bow and stern launchers.

4 to 8 torpedo launchers. midships launcher.

2 Helo's.

All of this is going to make the ship a lot heavier and make the costs per ship a lot higher, but if we want to play with the big boys, like the USA, Russia and China its needed big time.

Even with increased funding or funding similar to the USA that is not going to happen lol. I mean that would rival the Kirov class BCGN's in weapon layout not even taking into account the far better weapons sensors that the T45 have on them! We would get one T45 in the whole fleet. Now it might be powerful but you'd end up with the old battleship problem. Too expensive to risk except in a major situation... But then what is a major situation??

I mean if we are talking about dream layout while being reasonably plausible i would have the T45 equipped as follows.


1 155mm gun
3 Goalkeeper CIWS, 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 on the hanger so it gets decent coverage
4 30mm cannons (2 port, 2 starboard), for the engagement of small boats etc
1 Sylver A50 launcher with 48 Aster 30 missiles
1 Sylver A70 launcher with 15 cells capable of either being dual packed with Aster 30, carrying 15 Navalised Sea SCALP. Ideally and in the perfect world a TBMD capable aster would be developed so 15 of those could also be carried as well as the development of an ASW missile, allowing for a mission module layout
2 Quad Harpoon launchers

1 Merlin, ideally the new HM.2 that is rumoured to be floating in the air (ha with MoD i think not!!). Make sure that it can carry a Sea Suka type missile for ASUW duties as well as ASW.


That makes it multipurpose but really i would say that with that layout it should carry the following for carrier escort duties would be its primary role.

1 155m gun. Would allow synergy with the BA and therefore a more cost effective method.
3 Goal Keeper CIWS
4 30mm Cannons
1 Sylver A50 with 48 Aster 30's
1 Sylver A70 with 24 Aster 15's and 6 ASW missile type weapons
2 Quad pod AGM-84C Harpoon's

1 Merlin HM.2 Hanger equiped with a small number of light/medium wieght ASM's but mostly carrying equipment and ammo to allow the Merlin to run ASW duties

With this layout it could co-ordinate with the Merlin in ASW duties with either the Merlins torpedos or even in a high threat area use the ASW missile's allowing the Merlin to be kept in the air to hunt subs for longer! The 72 SAM's would mean with 2 deployed in each battle group one could run goalkeeper with the carrier to provide full support via Aster 45 and Aster 30's. The other could be in range to provide Aster 45 but a bit further out so as to provide more coverage with Harpoon and ASW missiles!

It would also be entirely plausible. The only difficult parts would be making the A70 dual packed with Aster 15's and also developing the ASW missile compatible with the Sylver launchers. Apart from that the whole thing would be entirely doable with the current hull and size.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Interesting post. I would say that 6 hulls is too few, if you pick up neighbouring navies your will get:

Spain:

4+1 F-100 frigates, smaller but as capable as the T-45 for AAW
6 FFGs

to escort one carrier and 1+1 amphibious group.

France:

2 Forbins + 2 Cassards (to be replaced by 2 AA FREMM frigates)
9 ASW frigates of the Tourville and Leygues classes to be replaced by 9 FREMMs
5 Lafayettes

to escort 1 carrier and up to 2 amphibious groups

Italy:

4 AA destroyers of the Durand and Orizzonte class (only this last equivalent to the T-45)
12 general purpose frigates (to be replaced by 10 FREMMs)

to escort 2 carriers and 3 LPDs

The Royal Navy will have something like 6 T45s and 13 frigates to escort 2 carriers, 1 LPD and the Bay class LSDs
2 carriers and 3 LPDs

JMS:

Modern warships have become so expensive that even the USN is cutting back on the number of ships it intends to build. On the flip side, I don't think you will see any massive naval battles in the foreseeable future so you can get away with a smaller navy. The main problem being if you are in littoral waters (the most likely place for any naval conflict), you have far more threats to contend with and it becomes risky to have a warship suffer major damage (i.e. what Chris likes to call a "mission kill") because the repair times means that ship is out of the war effectively. I wonder if NATO has convened any conferences on what its future naval requirements would be?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Great post by the way Sea Dragon, I would like RN to have 3 batches of 12 T45 ships, but that will never happen, about the weapons I agree the T45 is underarmed. :(

If I was fitting the warship with weapons, I would have has follow.

200mm main guns, one on the bow and one on the stern, the ship would need to be redesign.

Four Goalkeepers (one on the bow, two at midships, one on the stern).

100+ Aster missiles, bow and stern launchers.

100+ RGM-84 harpoon, bow and stern launchers.

50+ Tomahawks missiles, bow and stern launchers.

4 to 8 torpedo launchers. midships launcher.

2 Helo's.

All of this is going to make the ship a lot heavier and make the costs per ship a lot higher, but if we want to play with the big boys, like the USA, Russia and China its needed big time.

Fleet:

Why 200mm guns? The ship is not going to get into a slugging match with guns, it will use its missiles to kill another ship. Also do navies need a gun that large to provide offshore fire support to an amphibious force? Seems like a 155mm gun would be more than adequate.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Even with increased funding or funding similar to the USA that is not going to happen lol. I mean that would rival the Kirov class BCGN's in weapon layout not even taking into account the far better weapons sensors that the T45 have on them! We would get one T45 in the whole fleet. Now it might be powerful but you'd end up with the old battleship problem. Too expensive to risk except in a major situation... But then what is a major situation??

I mean if we are talking about dream layout while being reasonably plausible i would have the T45 equipped as follows.


1 155mm gun
3 Goalkeeper CIWS, 1 port, 1 starboard, 1 on the hanger so it gets decent coverage
4 30mm cannons (2 port, 2 starboard), for the engagement of small boats etc
1 Sylver A50 launcher with 48 Aster 30 missiles
1 Sylver A70 launcher with 15 cells capable of either being dual packed with Aster 30, carrying 15 Navalised Sea SCALP. Ideally and in the perfect world a TBMD capable aster would be developed so 15 of those could also be carried as well as the development of an ASW missile, allowing for a mission module layout
2 Quad Harpoon launchers

1 Merlin, ideally the new HM.2 that is rumoured to be floating in the air (ha with MoD i think not!!). Make sure that it can carry a Sea Suka type missile for ASUW duties as well as ASW.


That makes it multipurpose but really i would say that with that layout it should carry the following for carrier escort duties would be its primary role.

1 155m gun. Would allow synergy with the BA and therefore a more cost effective method.
3 Goal Keeper CIWS
4 30mm Cannons
1 Sylver A50 with 48 Aster 30's
1 Sylver A70 with 24 Aster 15's and 6 ASW missile type weapons
2 Quad pod AGM-84C Harpoon's

1 Merlin HM.2 Hanger equiped with a small number of light/medium wieght ASM's but mostly carrying equipment and ammo to allow the Merlin to run ASW duties

With this layout it could co-ordinate with the Merlin in ASW duties with either the Merlins torpedos or even in a high threat area use the ASW missile's allowing the Merlin to be kept in the air to hunt subs for longer! The 72 SAM's would mean with 2 deployed in each battle group one could run goalkeeper with the carrier to provide full support via Aster 45 and Aster 30's. The other could be in range to provide Aster 45 but a bit further out so as to provide more coverage with Harpoon and ASW missiles!

It would also be entirely plausible. The only difficult parts would be making the A70 dual packed with Aster 15's and also developing the ASW missile compatible with the Sylver launchers. Apart from that the whole thing would be entirely doable with the current hull and size.

Hi:

It appears that the RN is facing the same situation that the USN is with determining what capabilities to include in its next generation of DDGs. The USN has dropped the order for its DD(X) class from 12 to 3. These ships were designed with a gunfire support mission in mind and will field the 155mm Advanced Gun System (a weapon that is having developmental problems). Costs drove the decision to build a few of these ships primarily as technology demonstrators while the navy and the Dept. of Defense wrangle over what is needed.

[Fleet Command CC]

Fleet:

Why 200mm guns? The ship is not going to get into a slugging match with guns, it will use its missiles to kill another ship. Also do navies need a gun that large to provide offshore fire support to an amphibious force? Seems like a 155mm gun would be more than adequate.

Hey ED

I have just got a thing about big guns, I was going to say 400mm but that going a bit too far LOL. :D The 155mm would be enough in the real world, but I'm a chap that is still into big ships with big guns blowing the crap out of each other. :D
I guess you could say I'm a battleship fan.:cool:

[Sea Dragon]

Hi:

It appears that the RN is facing the same situation that the USN is with determining what capabilities to include in its next generation of DDGs. The USN has dropped the order for its DD(X) class from 12 to 3. These ships were designed with a gunfire support mission in mind and will field the 155mm Advanced Gun System (a weapon that is having developmental problems). Costs drove the decision to build a few of these ships primarily as technology demonstrators while the navy and the Dept. of Defense wrangle over what is needed.

The navy is facing the same problem it always has. Chronic underfunding is really hitting its capabilities hard. While capabilities and multipurpose are all well and good we need a lot of ships and we don't have that. I just don't see the Royal Navy being able to deploy what the government (in specific Labour in the recent years) wants in relation to its foriegn policy with other countries.

I think its utterly pathetic that the British as a whole let the state of the Navy and to a certain extent the other forces get this way. 90% of our trade comes from sea, we are an island with all our territories surrounded by water and the only way to deploy our forces is with the navy... Despite all this the public opinion is the navy is just.

"A force that transports the army to places so they can win the battle, while the airforce uses planes off the Navy to provide strike capability."

It is such an ignorant, blasie view of our forces and it depresses me no end at times.

[Fleet Command CC]

I'm with you all the way my friend, and I couldn't agree with more you, the crap that is going on today with the RN would have never happen in Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson day.

[Sea Dragon]

Actually the best ships in Nelsons day were all foriegn captured ships. British ships were made of an inferior wood, they where smaller and often slower if handled the same way, they had less guns which were made to a poorer quality and often they where over due for a refit due to extended blockade duties.

This was all because of the same problems we have today. Not enough ships, not enough balance between small patrol and 2nd rate fighting ships against 1st rate dream battleships :rolleyes:. The only reason the British navy was such a highly thought of navy was because of the sheer fighting skill and bravery of the Sailors and Captains. That and british sailors where made of steel back then, the ships of wood. Its the other way round now a days... Or so most of my family say...

Meh, I just come from a family full of Sailors well back in my family tree. It is hard to watch the fighting spirit and ability of a Navy decline because of poor nourishment!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hey ED

I have just got a thing about big guns, I was going to say 400mm but that going a bit too far LOL. :D The 155mm would be enough in the real world, but I'm a chap that is still into big ships with big guns blowing the crap out of each other. :D
I guess you could say I'm a battleship fan.:cool:

Fleet:

I understand that completely (why else would I playtest for NWS?). The USN tested a light weigth 8" gun during the 1970s on a destroyer to show that it was feasible to mount the gun on smaller warships, but the project died for reasons that I can't determine.

You may recall that during the summer there was thread on naval gunfire support (I believe Mike Dobbins started it). There were many positions put forth as to what were the realistic requirements for the Marines/Army in terms of gunfire support. As part of the debate, one of our members (it was either Mike or Kyle) posted a link to a paper published on the subject. It pretty put forth that anything less than an 8" gun would not meet the fire support needs of ground forces during an opposed amphibious invasion. Now personally I found the paper to be so much nonsense. If such a large weapon is needed, why have armies abandoned guns larger than 155mm? Who even fields an 8" artillery piece anymore? Airpower in the form of fixed wing and rotary wing craft provide the long range heavy punch augmented by missiles like Tomahawk or the MLRS system.

I think a warship should always have some type of gun system, one for small craft and one for surface bombardment or larger ships. The CIWS mission is still a viable one for rapid fire small caliber cannon although the RIM systems seem to be a better choice.

It's unfortunate that the Type 45 destroyer got emasculated by the MoD. Its original specs made it pretty much a British version of the USN's Arleigh Burke class, probably the best multi-mission surface warship currently afloat. When I look at the numerous books I have on warships and see how large and proud the RN was back in the day, it makes me sad that a nation as great as the UK doesn't have the navy it used to have.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The navy is facing the same problem it always has. Chronic underfunding is really hitting its capabilities hard. While capabilities and multipurpose are all well and good we need a lot of ships and we don't have that. I just don't see the Royal Navy being able to deploy what the government (in specific Labour in the recent years) wants in relation to its foriegn policy with other countries.

I think its utterly pathetic that the British as a whole let the state of the Navy and to a certain extent the other forces get this way. 90% of our trade comes from sea, we are an island with all our territories surrounded by water and the only way to deploy our forces is with the navy... Despite all this the public opinion is the navy is just.

"A force that transports the army to places so they can win the battle, while the airforce uses planes off the Navy to provide strike capability."

It is such an ignorant, blasie view of our forces and it depresses me no end at times.

Sea Dragon:

Hopefully the current state of affairs will not prevent you from serving in the RN as you have stated is your goal. Good luck with your studies.

[Sea Dragon]

Fleet:

I understand that completely (why else would I playtest for NWS?). The USN tested a light weigth 8" gun during the 1970s on a destroyer to show that it was feasible to mount the gun on smaller warships, but the project died for reasons that I can't determine.

You may recall that during the summer there was thread on naval gunfire support (I believe Mike Dobbins started it). There were many positions put forth as to what were the realistic requirements for the Marines/Army in terms of gunfire support. As part of the debate, one of our members (it was either Mike or Kyle) posted a link to a paper published on the subject. It pretty put forth that anything less than an 8" gun would not meet the fire support needs of ground forces during an opposed amphibious invasion. Now personally I found the paper to be so much nonsense. If such a large weapon is needed, why have armies abandoned guns larger than 155mm? Who even fields an 8" artillery piece anymore? Airpower in the form of fixed wing and rotary wing craft provide the long range heavy punch augmented by missiles like Tomahawk or the MLRS system.

I think a warship should always have some type of gun system, one for small craft and one for surface bombardment or larger ships. The CIWS mission is still a viable one for rapid fire small caliber cannon although the RIM systems seem to be a better choice.

It's unfortunate that the Type 45 destroyer got emasculated by the MoD. Its original specs made it pretty much a British version of the USN's Arleigh Burke class, probably the best multi-mission surface warship currently afloat. When I look at the numerous books I have on warships and see how large and proud the RN was back in the day, it makes me sad that a nation as great as the UK doesn't have the navy it used to have.

A 155mm gun is more than capable enough i would imagine, you have to remember the rate of fire from these guns now a days is very impressive. That alone can be a telling detail. I'd sooner have a 10inch shell hit me every 10 seconds than a 6inch every second :p.
The Type 45 was unbelievably emasculinated to be honest. Although i think it was right to use Aster because of the money it will put into a European company and so therefore the british economy. I do believe that a joint design venture is foolish with all but the Americans. Also the ship is soo Underarmed.. I still think its ironic that the Admiral of the fleet could blow the UK off the face of the planet and yet they never give him what he wants :p:rolleyes:




Sea Dragon:

Hopefully the current state of affairs will not prevent you from serving in the RN as you have stated is your goal. Good luck with your studies.


Oh not at all, for all my moaning i will join as an Officer. I have a ship i want as well, one day i will captain the HMS Dragon. I am studying at Cardiff and her Patron City is Cardiff. I will finish university the year she is finished and enters Service. I was born in the chinese year of the Dragon...

She is most definately my ship :p

[Ed Rotondaro]

A 155mm gun is more than capable enough i would imagine, you have to remember the rate of fire from these guns now a days is very impressive. That alone can be a telling detail. I'd sooner have a 10inch shell hit me every 10 seconds than a 6inch every second :p.
The Type 45 was unbelievably emasculinated to be honest. Although i think it was right to use Aster because of the money it will put into a European company and so therefore the british economy. I do believe that a joint design venture is foolish with all but the Americans. Also the ship is soo Underarmed.. I still think its ironic that the Admiral of the fleet could blow the UK off the face of the planet and yet they never give him what he wants :p:rolleyes:






Oh not at all, for all my moaning i will join as an Officer. I have a ship i want as well, one day i will captain the HMS Dragon. I am studying at Cardiff and her Patron City is Cardiff. I will finish university the year she is finished and enters Service. I was born in the chinese year of the Dragon...

She is most definately my ship :p

Sea Dragon:

Well I hope you get the ship you want. Are you a native of Wales by birth? Also are you in an officer candidate course? Here in the US there are several ways to become a naval officer:

Attend the naval academy at Annapolis
Attend a college/university as a Naval Reserve Officer Training Candidate
Rise up through the enlisted ranks by taking courses

[Sea Dragon]

Nah i'm a native Scot!! Nope, i was told that to have the best chance of getting in as an officer i should show some life experience. So i decided to do a degree in Physics at Cardiff University. Gives me some time living away from my parents and of course shows i can learn and adapt outside of the spoon feeding you recieve at school.

I am certain it will be very difficult to get in as an Officer in the Royal Navy. However it is something to aspire towards i feel.

Something i noticed earlier was that people said a 200mm gun is not needed. Why is it then that the American's keep the Iowa battleship class in mothball? I know it comes with a silly number of SSM's and LAM's but surely that could have been fitted on another cruiser type design that doesn't have the upkeep or crew requirements that the Iowa class BB's have?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Nah i'm a native Scot!! Nope, i was told that to have the best chance of getting in as an officer i should show some life experience. So i decided to do a degree in Physics at Cardiff University. Gives me some time living away from my parents and of course shows i can learn and adapt outside of the spoon feeding you recieve at school.

I am certain it will be very difficult to get in as an Officer in the Royal Navy. However it is something to aspire towards i feel.

Something i noticed earlier was that people said a 200mm gun is not needed. Why is it then that the American's keep the Iowa battleship class in mothball? I know it comes with a silly number of SSM's and LAM's but surely that could have been fitted on another cruiser type design that doesn't have the upkeep or crew requirements that the Iowa class BB's have?

Sea Dragon:

As I mentioned to Fleet, the USN gets tasked with the fire support mission for the US marines. The Marines are always complaining about the inadequate capabilities of the existing 5" guns on US ships. So on the off chance that the Marines need more firepower, a pair of Iowa class BBs including the Iowa herself are retained. But the amount of time and money needed to put either ship into service means this will never occur. I'm not even sure if the navy ever bothered to repair the damege to Iowa's number two turret that suffered the fire that killed the turret crew.

The debate over what type of fire support is needed and how to provide it continues to go on. There are several mobile missile systems that the Marines could use to provide long ranged fire support. They could also buy M109 Paladin 155mm self propelled guns. But they have a sentimental attachment to the battleship and the 16" gun.

[Fleet Command CC]

Fleet:

I understand that completely (why else would I playtest for NWS?). The USN tested a light weigth 8" gun during the 1970s on a destroyer to show that it was feasible to mount the gun on smaller warships, but the project died for reasons that I can't determine.

Most likely the cost of it.


You may recall that during the summer there was thread on naval gunfire support (I believe Mike Dobbins started it). There were many positions put forth as to what were the realistic requirements for the Marines/Army in terms of gunfire support. As part of the debate, one of our members (it was either Mike or Kyle) posted a link to a paper published on the subject. It pretty put forth that anything less than an 8" gun would not meet the fire support needs of ground forces during an opposed amphibious invasion. Now personally I found the paper to be so much nonsense. If such a large weapon is needed, why have armies abandoned guns larger than 155mm? Who even fields an 8" artillery piece anymore? Airpower in the form of fixed wing and rotary wing craft provide the long range heavy punch augmented by missiles like Tomahawk or the MLRS system.

I think a warship should always have some type of gun system, one for small craft and one for surface bombardment or larger ships. The CIWS mission is still a viable one for rapid fire small caliber cannon although the RIM systems seem to be a better choice.

Yep I would agree. :)


It's unfortunate that the Type 45 destroyer got emasculated by the MoD. Its original specs made it pretty much a British version of the USN's Arleigh Burke class, probably the best multi-mission surface warship currently afloat.

I would have to agree with you their the Arleigh Burke class is the best MMSW in the world and it look great too.:cool:


When I look at the numerous books I have on warships and see how large and proud the RN was back in the day, it makes me sad that a nation as great as the UK doesn't have the navy it used to have.

Me to I don't think we will never see Great Britain back in the day of Britannia Rule Waves, but I guess we have done that bin their and got the T-shirt, the UK need to set it's sights doing something for the greater good of the world. Also the history books and the Internet will always reminded the world how great and powerful the UK was back in the day. :)

[Fleet Command CC]

Oh not at all, for all my moaning i will join as an Officer. I have a ship i want as well, one day i will captain the HMS Dragon. I am studying at Cardiff and her Patron City is Cardiff. I will finish university the year she is finished and enters Service. I was born in the chinese year of the Dragon...

She is most definately my ship :p

I wish you the best of luck in becoming a RN Officer and getting the command of the HMS Dragon, just don't forget us lot on this forum went you be become a Captain. :)

[Fleet Command CC]

Sea Dragon:

As I mentioned to Fleet, the USN gets tasked with the fire support mission for the US marines. The Marines are always complaining about the inadequate capabilities of the existing 5" guns on US ships. So on the off chance that the Marines need more firepower, a pair of Iowa class BBs including the Iowa herself are retained. But the amount of time and money needed to put either ship into service means this will never occur. I'm not even sure if the navy ever bothered to repair the damege to Iowa's number two turret that suffered the fire that killed the turret crew.

The USN should put the Iowa class BBs back in to service to do some flag waving, has the RN should put the HMS Belfast back in to service, to do the same thing. We should have never cut up the HMS Vanguard, it would been nice to see the USS Iowa and the HMS Vanguard flying the flag of are two great Nations. :)

[paladin5]

The USN should put the Iowa class BBs back in to service to do some flag waving, has the RN should put the HMS Belfast back in to service, to do the same thing. We should have never cut up the HMS Vanguard, it would been nice to see the USS Iowa and the HMS Vanguard flying the flag of are two great Nations. :)


Those ships each cost $15,000 - $25,000 per hour to operate. There are far more economical flag waving platforms out there.

[Fleet Command CC]

Those ships each cost $15,000 - $25,000 per hour to operate. There are far more economical flag waving platforms out there.

Hey paladin5

That's very true, but I have just got a thing about big navy ship, and seeing them at sea, big warship shouldn't be stuck in their docks, they should be out at sea where they were design to be. :)

[Ed Rotondaro]

I wish you the best of luck in becoming a RN Officer and getting the command of the HMS Dragon, just don't forget us lot on this forum went you be become a Captain. :)

Fleet:

At the very least he has to invite us on board for a tour and tea (pity the RN doesn't serve rum anymore).:)

[Fleet Command CC]

Fleet:

At the very least he has to invite us on board for a tour and tea (pity the RN doesn't serve rum anymore).:)

Hey ED,

Yep that would be cool, we will have to wait and see I guess. ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

The USN should put the Iowa class BBs back in to service to do some flag waving, has the RN should put the HMS Belfast back in to service, to do the same thing. We should have never cut up the HMS Vanguard, it would been nice to see the USS Iowa and the HMS Vanguard flying the flag of are two great Nations. :)

Fleet:

The problem is twofold. While a BB makes a great flag waving impression, it requires lots of crew and lots of support ships. It is sad that HMS Vanguard was not retained at least as a museum ship with the possibility of being restored to active duty. Mike Dobbins, one of the NWS team members posted this link to a website that covers the topic of naval gunfire support. Personally I think the paper as written was flawed and should have never gotten presented. But it does point out some of issues of what land forces consider to be adequate fire support.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2007-05_JFSC_Thesis_NFS_and_DDG-1000.pdf

I loved touring the Belfast when I first visited Britain in 1981, but she's too old to even consider reactivating. You might as well build a new ship.

[Sea Dragon]

You can never have too much Naval gunfire support. I do think that is something that should be heavily considered for the Royal Navy. The main fleet escorts, including the type 45, should really be carrying 155mm guns with the same amount of rounds as they carry now. That does mean extra weight however several recent conflicts show that despite the ability to use TLAM's to knock out key targets, there is simply nothing that can compete with Naval Gunfire support for a shore landing.

As to tea and a tour of her, if i am so lucky to achieve my dream then of course... I just have to achieve my dream and that will in all probability only take about another 20-25 years outstanding work before i'm even considered for a rank high enough to command a destroyer!

[Ed Rotondaro]

You can never have too much Naval gunfire support. I do think that is something that should be heavily considered for the Royal Navy. The main fleet escorts, including the type 45, should really be carrying 155mm guns with the same amount of rounds as they carry now. That does mean extra weight however several recent conflicts show that despite the ability to use TLAM's to knock out key targets, there is simply nothing that can compete with Naval Gunfire support for a shore landing.

As to tea and a tour of her, if i am so lucky to achieve my dream then of course... I just have to achieve my dream and that will in all probability only take about another 20-25 years outstanding work before i'm even considered for a rank high enough to command a destroyer!

Sea Dragon:

One of two things will happen: The RN will be reduced to a coastal navy (no!) or you'll be commmanding a high tech trimaran hulled muliti-mission warship with rail guns, lasers and VTOL aircraft. I'm hoping for the latter.

[Jittery]

The other thing about Fire support is with those 6-8 Hulls you want them with the carriers and landing craft sitting 100 miles offshore not with the little tin cans taking the soldiers ashore. The ideal thing would be the Tin cans going into shore are the same mechanically as the AA DDG's sitting off shore, but with 2-3 155mm guns for fire support and less long range AA missiles, just area or close in missiles. The reality is the air is dominated by the fighters from the cariers (if this is achieved your not going to try going ashore) and you have to defend against sea skimming missiles that you can only sea out to 25 nm's or so with the radar horizon.

So after building your 6-8 AA DDG's build 4-6 of the same hulls but with less focus on AA and more on fire support. Modern 155mm guns have laser guided projectiles these days that would do a treat on prepared positions for the infantry commin ashore.

The question is, will this senario happen anytime soon or are other things more likely. IMHO most navy's around the world in the future will be restricted to humanitarian efforts and when/if there is a conflict due to the nature of all the agreements out in the world if Britan is in a war they are goign to have the US with them. Just like at present the US is in a war and they have the Brit's with them. compadability with each others forces is the main thing heading into the future. Allowing the British DDG's to communicate and use the rest of Europes supply lines when the need arrises.

My 2 cents.

Back to the question, are they under-armed. for the weight compared to other nations navy's DDG's or even FFG's: YES.

[Ed Rotondaro]

[QUOTE=Jittery;16989]
So after building your 6-8 AA DDG's build 4-6 of the same hulls but with less focus on AA and more on fire support. Modern 155mm guns have laser guided projectiles these days that would do a treat on prepared positions for the infantry commin ashore.

The question is, will this senario happen anytime soon or are other things more likely. IMHO most navy's around the world in the future will be restricted to humanitarian efforts and when/if there is a conflict due to the nature of all the agreements out in the world if Britan is in a war they are goign to have the US with them. Just like at present the US is in a war and they have the Brit's with them. compadability with each others forces is the main thing heading into the future. Allowing the British DDG's to communicate and use the rest of Europes supply lines when the need arrises.

My 2 cents.

/QUOTE]

Jittery:

What you are proposing is the DD(X) class that the USN is building but in small numbers.

[john964]

Here is my 2 cents worth, with the advent of helicopter born air assult going ashore against a hostel beach is less problematical than it use to be. Because now a days you don't have to look for ideal or nearly ideal beaches you can look for less than ideal beaches or beaches that you can improve to bring supplies across. It is sort of like the allies hitting Normandy the Germans expected the allies to hit Calais the narrowest part of the channel the allies hit at the widest part. The Germans expected that the allies would land near a seaport, the allies didn't but they brought one with them.

[Mike D]

I think there is a common misconception that is understandable historically and through the lens of Hollywood. (I'm going to go off thread topic here.) We have discussed the pros and cons of the DD(X) type of fire support platform which I personally think is needed, with caveats.

The misconception I think is that of forced beach assaults, I think the days of Normandy and Tarawa are well over. Think of a beach as nothing more then a Maginot Line. You don't attack it, you go over and/or around it, isolate it and attack from the rear as john964 implied. Then you own the beach and can bring your heavy ships to port.

I think the concept of a fire support ship is a good one but physics, cost and practicality may dictate another tactic such as a low cost missile carrier such as the B-1, B-52 or even a modified commercial aircraft like the 747 with long loiter capability loaded with a low-cost medium range cruse missiles on call for fire support.

So in the UK's case their priority needs to be protection for the shiny new carriers they are going to build. For that I would tend to agree that the Type 45/Horizon ships actually are the minimum capability needed. Only 48 SA missiles, the total lack of ASUW capability and the technological step backwards in using the Mk15 Phalanx really limits the endurance and capabilities of the Type 45. Its like building a massievly expensive aircraft to perform a single role that ignores current need for future potentialities. (Opps! That sounds like the F-22!) Its good for one thing and one thing only, like only having one tool in your tool box. So saying that the Type 45 has fire support capability and sending it in harms-way in a beech assult is a bit specious.

All this is subject for another thread though.

[old_pop2000]

....
The misconception I think is that of forced beach assaults, I think the days of Normandy and Tarawa are well over. Think of a beach as nothing more then a Maginot Line. You don't attack it, you go over and/or around it, isolate it and attack from the rear as john964 implied. Then you own the beach and can bring your heavy ships to port.

I think the concept of a fire support ship is a good one but physics, cost and practicality may dictate another tactic such as a low cost missile carrier such as the B-1, B-52 or even a modified commercial aircraft like the 747 with long loiter capability loaded with a low-cost medium range cruse missiles on call for fire support.

So in the UK's case their priority needs to be protection for the shiny new carriers they are going to build. For that I would tend to agree that the Type 45/Horizon ships actually are the minimum capability needed. Only 48 SA missiles, the total lack of ASUW capability and the technological step backwards in using the Mk15 Phalanx really limits the endurance and capabilities of the Type 45. Its like building a massievly expensive aircraft to perform a single role that ignores current need for future potentialities. (Opps! That sounds like the F-22!) Its good for one thing and one thing only, like only having one tool in your tool box. So saying that the Type 45 has fire support capability and sending it in harms-way in a beech assult is a bit specious.



Mike:
I support your conclusions with some comments.

Traditionally, Navies support and defend coastal areas, most their own. Modern naval strategy is returning to the littoral zone or coastal zones. The primary threats in that zone are aircraft;AshMs; Diesel submarines; Mines. Those are the threats and the environment for most navies. Traditionally, sea lanes occur near the coast, except for transatlantic, transpacific or trans-indian lanes. But the current pirate activity is strictly along well travelled coastal lanes.

This defines the missions and requirements for any naval vessel. Prioritization of those threats will define the ships weaponry and sensors along with its endurance. The absence of any ASW capability seems to be a definite negative for the ship. I don't believe that fire support should be the primary function or even a secondary or tertiary function. But the ability to defend against three out of the four basic threats in the littoral certainly is basic requirement.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mike:
I support your conclusions with some comments.

Traditionally, Navies support and defend coastal areas, most their own. Modern naval strategy is returning to the littoral zone or coastal zones. The primary threats in that zone are aircraft;AshMs; Diesel submarines; Mines. Those are the threats and the environment for most navies. Traditionally, sea lanes occur near the coast, except for transatlantic, transpacific or trans-indian lanes. But the current pirate activity is strictly along well travelled coastal lanes.

This defines the missions and requirements for any naval vessel. Prioritization of those threats will define the ships weaponry and sensors along with its endurance. The absence of any ASW capability seems to be a definite negative for the ship. I don't believe that fire support should be the primary function or even a secondary or tertiary function. But the ability to defend against three out of the four basic threats in the littoral certainly is basic requirement.

Dennis:

Against pirates, I would argue that a variety of rapid fire light caliber cannons would be the weapon of choice (why waste a costly missile?). It appears that Bofors new 57mm gun is becoming the choice for corvette designs around the world. The amphibious warfare ship USS New York will carry two of them.

Fire support as you say is very far removed from whatever a navy can expect in littoral warfare.

[john964]

Dennis:

Against pirates, I would argue that a variety of rapid fire light caliber cannons would be the weapon of choice (why waste a costly missile?). It appears that Bofors new 57mm gun is becoming the choice for corvette designs around the world. The amphibious warfare ship USS New York will carry two of them.

Fire support as you say is very far removed from whatever a navy can expect in littoral warfare.
If you want a anti-piracy vessel, I think something along the lines of the old Marathon class PG or maybe Swift boats. These ships/boats should have highspeed, mixed armaments with nothing bigger than 76mm, the larger ones should have a mixed crew of Navy/CG/Marines with the smaller having 1 or 2 CG on board for law enforcment duties.

These small ships/boats should operate from a local base or maybe a LPD.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If you want a anti-piracy vessel, I think something along the lines of the old Marathon class PG or maybe Swift boats. These ships/boats should have highspeed, mixed armaments with nothing bigger than 76mm, the larger ones should have a mixed crew of Navy/CG/Marines with the smaller having 1 or 2 CG on board for law enforcment duties.

These small ships/boats should operate from a local base or maybe a LPD.

John:

The SEALs have some sort of medium sized boat that they use for extended operations as a support platform. That could also be ideal depending on what it is armed with.

[Sea Dragon]

If you want a anti-piracy vessel, I think something along the lines of the old Marathon class PG or maybe Swift boats. These ships/boats should have highspeed, mixed armaments with nothing bigger than 76mm, the larger ones should have a mixed crew of Navy/CG/Marines with the smaller having 1 or 2 CG on board for law enforcment duties.

These small ships/boats should operate from a local base or maybe a LPD.

This is something that i have suggested several times. In fact the current line of thinking was what i was trying to hit on earlier on.

Ideally the navy needs an escort fleet of 35+ ships, however i think people have mistaken me in what i mean by escort fleet. I envisage
6 capable T-45 AAD destroyers armed with a proper 64 cell VLS system
6 High end high force frigates optimized for surface and land attack (say FFG1). armed with a 64 VLS with plenty of TLAM and TSAM along with a missile similar to Aster 15. Both the T45's and the FFG1 would carry capable towed arrays and Merlin HM.2 Helos. The FF
That would form a base of 12 1st rate ships of the line very capable of dealing with escorting the carriers very deep ocean patrol or generally causing Havoc. Each of these ships would be between 6000-8000 tonnes

Next i would see a class of 10 2nd rate frigates. Capable of around 28 knots and so able to keep up with an ARG or CVBG if required, they would be similar to the 1st rate ships in that they would be capable for ASUW, TLA, ASW and AAW duties but less specialised. Medium weight weaponary and possible CAAM's for AAW. Possibly focus in on having a large hanger space for these ships at the expense of weaponary.. Allowing for Apache attack helos, Merlins. Make sure they can house 2 helos this size.

Finally i see a class of 16 3rd rate ships able to be based in small RN ports around the world. These ports would be in key points. Acenssion islands, Falklands, Mediteranian, Indian Ocean and the Gulf. 2 ships to each port maybe 1 in the Acenssion islands and 4 in the gulf. That leaves 5 at any one time to be in deep refit at home or indeed doing patrol vessels at home. The ability to do resupply and basic maintaince on these ships in the port of base is a must. They would be 3000 tonnes maximum. 2 57mm rapid fire gun, 2 SeaRam CIWS for defence against missiles, 2 30mm guns, 2-4 Torpedo tubes and a modest sensor suite. They need to be fast enough that they don't have to rely on a Helo to hunt down pirate vessels etc. This will save space and make them cheaper allowing more to be deployed in an area as well as working together to deploy Marine teams to strike at pirate type bases in land. With 2 57mm guns they will be more than capable of laying down enough firepower to cover multiple small targets not to mention the 30mm's being able to cover small raider craft. SeaRam would be an reasonable defence. 2 six cell launchers so they can cover port and starboard but placed so they can both cover fore and aft together would allow ensure redundancy with their anti missile system as well as the ability to bring both to bear using their manouverability

Navy and with a goodly amount of marine personel is the key to this type of vessel. As is the ability to have multiple boats in the same area.

I don't know what people think of this but personally i think it would be a good way to cover the duties the Navy needs at the moment. 16 2,000 Tonne ships like i suggested would be relatively cheap as they have mostly guns or more simple weapons systems. Only 12 large ships would be opperated. The difficulty would be in ensuring the 10 2nd rate ships where capable enough to support the 12 ships in a large engagement while being a reasonably cheap running cost in peace time allowing them to be deployed to the Rougher Ocean patrols as well as running active patrols in the ship lanes.


What do you rekon... Tear the idea to pieces, argue about the finer points. Personally the 2nd rate ships are the problems i see, mainly because they would end up being glorified 3rd rates perhaps? However if done right they would allow the 1st rates to do constant war senario and group training exercises with the ARG's and CVBG's to hone their group skills while having a reaonable strength vessel on deep ocean patrol and near the sea lanes. Maybe within a few days steaming of the small 3rd rates should a nasty situation develop that requires an Apache helicopter type thing..

Thats another thing, the small bases that the 3rd rates run off could be made just large enough to hold one or two Merlin's or Apaches. This would mean that although the 3rd rates might not have support they could call for it if the need really arised??

I donno, just throwing out ideas?

[Jittery]

No not a DD(X). You get your high end ships that are not going to go in within range of shore or whatnot./ Your type 45. Then using the same Hull or possible a different one i don't know what would be more efficient you have ships that arnt full of missiles but are able to defend themselves from missiles and have a range of guns for shore bombardment. I don't know that old battle cruiser syndrome that gets thrown about sometimes but having something like the DD(X) is a waste because its never going to be used. You need the hull's and machinery to be the same if possible to make it cheap. (i would think it would be cheaper im not sure, correct me if im wrong).

The DD(X) is the last thing i would think of. what is the point having everything on one platform for 2 billion dollars when for 2.2 billion you can get 2 hulls break the sensors up between them and spread it around. (Not that simple i know but basically)

[Jittery]

Sounds good with tiers of weapon systems.

The UK has around 3 capital ships for lack of a better word so you need one tier one ship with these at all times. and the ability to have them refitted etc. So yes you need at least 5-6 of these as you said. With these i don't see why they cant be the AB class or slightly larger (than the present type45).

As for the next as you go down the line. 6 FFG's like the new German ones with 48 + VLS.

Tier 2, Somethign along the lines of the current LCS concept from the US. able to do everything, cheap to build. No point re-inventing the wheel here call it a FFG-7 Mk2.

I think that would be fairly well balanced. Remeber the French made the La'Fayette just for the tier 3 job you have specified from memory. Patrol waters along way from home in a low threat environment. Showing the flag. I think you would want some more capabilities built in but they have already built your tier 3 type class, all be it a bit slow.

[Sea Dragon]

Sounds good with tiers of weapon systems.

The UK has around 3 capital ships for lack of a better word so you need one tier one ship with these at all times. and the ability to have them refitted etc. So yes you need at least 5-6 of these as you said. With these i don't see why they cant be the AB class or slightly larger (than the present type45).

As for the next as you go down the line. 6 FFG's like the new German ones with 48 + VLS.

Tier 2, Somethign along the lines of the current LCS concept from the US. able to do everything, cheap to build. No point re-inventing the wheel here call it a FFG-7 Mk2.

I think that would be fairly well balanced. Remeber the French made the La'Fayette just for the tier 3 job you have specified from memory. Patrol waters along way from home in a low threat environment. Showing the flag. I think you would want some more capabilities built in but they have already built your tier 3 type class, all be it a bit slow.


The UK econonomy could benefit in the long term through the amount of jobs that would become availiable if our ships where made in the UK and not bought off the shelve. To do this however we need to build a steady stream of them and always have active docks. The new carriers, 6 DDG's, 7 Astutes, 2 Bulwark and 4 Bay class have gone a long way to doing this. Despite the econcomic "crash" we must continue to keep doing this. Keeping people in jobs means they can keep putting money back into the system. That is a seperate issue.

I still believe the numbers 12, 10, 16 are right. 12 Tier 1 vessels allows for 2 AAD vessels and 2 optomized for TLA and TSA capabilities to either a CVBG or an ARG. The remaining 4 are in refit or resupply.
The 10 tier 2 vessels should be capable of ASW, being cheaper they can then be placed further from the task force allowing for a better range in the ASW net. The AAD should still be able to cover them however a CAAM's type system would be useful to provide self protection. Besides that basic harpoon and a 155mm gun would be good enough. The ASW could come from 2 Merlin HM.2 helos. This would also allow, while on normal peace time patrol of the shipping lanes a Apache to be stationed with them. If they did research into ASuW weapons then it would be interesting to have a ship capable of deploying marines from a Merlin with the Apache riding support with some nasty lightweight/medium weight AsuW weapons as well as ground support should it be needed. Nice synergy with the British army as well, especially with the 155mm rounds and the CAAM system.
The 16 tier 3 vessels could be built on a shortened hull and the hanger replaced to allow for a very fast small vessel to be built that can be resupplied in small RN ports around the world.... As i said the speed would allow them to bring their multiple lightwieght guns to bear, with SeaRam being decent in defence for a small vessel like this. Possibly make room for organic Minehutning abilities on them. This would allow ones stationed in the middle east, and other such areas to keep the shipping lanes free without worry of attack from littoral threats. The nunmbers of these ships would allow them to team up, and be in multiple places at once.. Perfect for dealing with the growing number of pirates, deisel submarines and mine based weapons (im including suicide bombers there)

i donno how much a 2,500 tonn warship capable of 25+ knots, armed only with a rapid fire 57mm gun, 2 30mm's and 2 SeaRam would cost but it couldn't be much. Maybe throw in some fire and forget torpedo tubes as well for disiel sub hunting. The savings made by basing them in small RN ports and rotating crews by flying them out to the base would be considerable.
The savings made by having the tier 2 vessles patrol the common sea lanes due to their decent but no specialisation roles would mean they could always go to sea fully armed thus allowing them to overlap patrols and be within a few days steaming of the tier 3 vessels should they require a bigger ship

Antoher advantage is 16 small tier 3 ships would show the flag, naval bases would crop up to house them and the public would see a greater number of actual ships patroling areas including those at home. The tier 2 warships do the deep sea lanes and the tier 1's are left out of the public eye, our true fighters. Kept in tip top shape and always ready to react quickly and efficiently with one of two constantly ready task forces.

Although i say the government underfunds the Navy i do think it has a habbit of asking what it deserves instead of what it needs. We dont need 12 T45's and 10 C1's, 8C2's and 8C3's we need 16 C3's, 10C2's, 6 C1's and 6 T45's.
This also allows dedicated minesweepers to be built up that are capable. Even place one at each of the bases for the small tier 3 ships. 4 small Naval ships, 3 fighting/corvette type ships, 1 minehunter... Thats a significant presence in the gulf. Especially if we drop 2 tier 2 ships doing rotational duty for the sea lanes round there.

The only problem with this senario i feel is that we would get the tier 1 ships being very capable...We are no longer asking the government for 22 Tier 1 escorts.. Only 12. We would get decent enough tier 3 ships that would be able to show the flag, help stranded yaughts, sieze drugs shipments and patrol constantly in the gulf, med, falklands etc.
However the tier 2 would become tier 2 in size but with the tier 3 ships weapons load out knowing the government... That would defeat the point of deep sea lane patrol vessels, disaster relief and quick reaction to help teir 3 in a spot of bother or support a CAG or ARG. Hence the need for a ship that is capable of doing all duties but is balanced.

Ie, 32 VLS with CAAM's design the missile so it can be dual-triple packed. Thats more than enough AAW. Maybe make sure the VLS can take ASROC and a medium weight TLA type missile as well as medium weight SSM type weapon. A hanger big enough for two medium weight helos (Lynx or Apache), a 76mm gun, 2 x Goalkeeper (has ASuW value) CIWS, 4 Torpedo tubes and 2 30mm guns. A modest sensor suite but a good Sonar suite.
Given the rise in nuclear and diseal submarines the Tier 2 ship thats in the sea lanes is the one that will want the good sonar. The CVBG would have numerous Merlin HM.2 helos from both the carrier and the 4 escorts to provide ASW as well as a Tier 2 ship or 3 in an action situation.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Sounds good with tiers of weapon systems.

The UK has around 3 capital ships for lack of a better word so you need one tier one ship with these at all times. and the ability to have them refitted etc. So yes you need at least 5-6 of these as you said. With these i don't see why they cant be the AB class or slightly larger (than the present type45).

As for the next as you go down the line. 6 FFG's like the new German ones with 48 + VLS.

Tier 2, Somethign along the lines of the current LCS concept from the US. able to do everything, cheap to build. No point re-inventing the wheel here call it a FFG-7 Mk2.

I think that would be fairly well balanced. Remeber the French made the La'Fayette just for the tier 3 job you have specified from memory. Patrol waters along way from home in a low threat environment. Showing the flag. I think you would want some more capabilities built in but they have already built your tier 3 type class, all be it a bit slow.

Jittery:

The LCS concept is already proving to be more expensive and controversial than originally thought. I don't expect this class to be a success.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The UK econonomy could benefit in the long term through the amount of jobs that would become availiable if our ships where made in the UK and not bought off the shelve. To do this however we need to build a steady stream of them and always have active docks. The new carriers, 6 DDG's, 7 Astutes, 2 Bulwark and 4 Bay class have gone a long way to doing this. Despite the econcomic "crash" we must continue to keep doing this. Keeping people in jobs means they can keep putting money back into the system. That is a seperate issue.

Ie, 32 VLS with CAAM's design the missile so it can be dual-triple packed. Thats more than enough AAW. Maybe make sure the VLS can take ASROC and a medium weight TLA type missile as well as medium weight SSM type weapon. A hanger big enough for two medium weight helos (Lynx or Apache), a 76mm gun, 2 x Goalkeeper (has ASuW value) CIWS, 4 Torpedo tubes and 2 30mm guns. A modest sensor suite but a good Sonar suite.
Given the rise in nuclear and diseal submarines the Tier 2 ship thats in the sea lanes is the one that will want the good sonar. The CVBG would have numerous Merlin HM.2 helos from both the carrier and the 4 escorts to provide ASW as well as a Tier 2 ship or 3 in an action situation.


Sea Dragon:

Old_Pop posted on warship costs several months back that the biggest cost on the ship is not hull, weapons or power plant. It's electronics and sensors and without cutting edge systems, your ship is a target. Warships have always been the most complex weapon systems in existence and they are not getting any cheaper.

[Jittery]

I said concept not ship. From the sounds and previous threads its a total flop at present. The concept however is still valid if you don't keep adding stuff on and increasing the cost per unit. Figure out what you want what will do it at a minimum and what will do it best and then budget accordingly adding the systems in to get it at the required cost. Once thats done stop changing it and build it. The design phase for your capabilities shouldnt take more than 6 months once you have the threat figured out. Why not call it OHP Mk2 instead of LCS.

The one thing that you have to make sure you do is figure out the high end systems that you cant afford originally (might be VLS tubes, towed array) and leave space for the systems to be added later if the need arrises. Build it at the given cost and ensure that there is sufficient space to upgrade or replace later in life.

[Sea Dragon]

Sea Dragon:

Old_Pop posted on warship costs several months back that the biggest cost on the ship is not hull, weapons or power plant. It's electronics and sensors and without cutting edge systems, your ship is a target. Warships have always been the most complex weapon systems in existence and they are not getting any cheaper.


Now see this is why the whole, ships that can do everything idea is something i refute. A modest sensor suite is fine for peace keeping and patrol duties as a Tier 3 warship would expect to have. Given the small hull there would be multiple ships and quite frankly they would be expendable, well as far as any ship is expendable.
That is the whole point of them, they are in an environment where suicide attacks, land based light-medium weight missiles can be expected, possible air attack in a similar function as well as mine attacks and MSS (Multiple small ships) attacking them. There is no need to place a high end warship with a good sensor suite in this situation. Given not only the size but also the vulnerability due to the single ship issue you are asking to lose it!

As to the tier 2 ships, their Sonar and Surface Search radars are the ones that need to be capable. They are patrolling deep seal lanes and the chances of Air based attack are lower, however should missiles be launched they will come from Sea Skimming missiles launched from a SSN that a high altitude AS radar isn't going to pick up.
Should they be involved in a senario featuring a heavy air attack or Surface attack something has gone wrong if they are by themselves!

This is the whole point of tier 3, tier 2 and tier 1 vessels. A tier 1 vessel can hold its own, opperate independently and be a fierce defender of a high value asset.
The tier 2 is capable for patrol, convoy, deep sea lane protection duties. In a wartime senario it can opperate capably so long as it has a tier 1 vessel in the area to provide reasonable defence.
The tier 3 is for costal patrol, station patrol in places like the gulf, drug and pirate hunting not to mention providing a cheap escort for a Mine hunter in these higher threat level environments. They also free up the tier 2's to stay in the deep sea lanes, and generally in blue water.

This means the tier 1 should never be involved in these patrol type duties. 26 ships to do patrol, convoy protection, drug hunting and peacekeeping.
This leaves the 12 warfighters to swap opperational deployment to save money, while still meaning 1 task force is always close at hand for far reaching reaction while the other task force in port can react to threats closer at home.

Given media coverage, world politics and the like it would also be possible with this layout to lay back into place the old "gunship diplomacy". When tensions get high and the opperational areas of tier 2 and 3 vessels look to be in danger, well then the tier 2 vessels in the area rendevous with a task force. They bulk out the number and provide a vessel that can risk damage to provide close in Naval gunfire for marine raiding parties, that or to be picket ships but within the protection of the T45's Aster 30 umbrella not to mention the CAP patrol from the CV. In short you force the enemy to engage these less capable ships and pay dearly for the result.


Sensors may be expensive however there is no point having a world class sensor suit and only 48 missiles and a 144mm gun. That is not a naval asset, it is a liability.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I said concept not ship. From the sounds and previous threads its a total flop at present. The concept however is still valid if you don't keep adding stuff on and increasing the cost per unit. Figure out what you want what will do it at a minimum and what will do it best and then budget accordingly adding the systems in to get it at the required cost. Once thats done stop changing it and build it. The design phase for your capabilities shouldnt take more than 6 months once you have the threat figured out. Why not call it OHP Mk2 instead of LCS.

The one thing that you have to make sure you do is figure out the high end systems that you cant afford originally (might be VLS tubes, towed array) and leave space for the systems to be added later if the need arrises. Build it at the given cost and ensure that there is sufficient space to upgrade or replace later in life.

The main problem is just that what is the ship's mission? If it is serving in the littoral zone it faces submarine threats, mine warfare threats, land based air threats, etc. You build a warship that can meet these threats and it will not be cheap or small.

[john964]

The main problem is just that what is the ship's mission? If it is serving in the littoral zone it faces submarine threats, mine warfare threats, land based air threats, etc. You build a warship that can meet these threats and it will not be cheap or small.Ed, you can get away with modular construction IIRC the Spruance class was built with modular construction and look how much they were modified over there 30 year lifespan. On my ship they added a new hull mounted sonar, a VDS ie a tail, a VLS launcher and an upgrade from LAMPSI to LAMPSIII ASW helicopter. Remember the Block I Burke class were built with no helicopter hangers but Block II and beyond have them and as the Block I's come in for overhauls they will be brought up to Block II or III standerd. It is much like what Casper Wienberger(?) said about the M1 "lets build the thing and worry about the upgrades later" and how many upgrades and modification did that system go through in the first 10 years of its service life.

[old_pop2000]

The main problem is just that what is the ship's mission? If it is serving in the littoral zone it faces submarine threats, mine warfare threats, land based air threats, etc. You build a warship that can meet these threats and it will not be cheap or small.

Ed:
The problem with the LCS was the Navy itself and it has admitted that failure. They kept changing the specifications as the program moved along and this required extensive design changes. One aspect of the long lead times for weapons is that successive administrations in the Navy have a chance to put their changes into the program. The Navy is going to put some safeguards into their procurement process to alleviate that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, you can get away with modular construction IIRC the Spruance class was built with modular construction and look how much they were modified over there 30 year lifespan. On my ship they added a new hull mounted sonar, a VDS ie a tail, a VLS launcher and an upgrade from LAMPSI to LAMPSIII ASW helicopter. Remember the Block I Burke class were built with no helicopter hangers but Block II and beyond have them and as the Block I's come in for overhauls they will be brought up to Block II or III standerd. It is much like what Casper Wienberger(?) said about the M1 "lets build the thing and worry about the upgrades later" and how many upgrades and modification did that system go through in the first 10 years of its service life.

John:

I'm not opposed to modular construction since as you point out this allows for easy upgrades or modifications. What I found flaw with was the concept of mission modules that would be swapped out along with crew for the various missions that the LCS would tasked with. Scott Chisholm of the NWS team did some concept work on this topic while he was in service and described potential problems awhile back (cue to lazy Scott to jump right in here).

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:
The problem with the LCS was the Navy itself and it has admitted that failure. They kept changing the specifications as the program moved along and this required extensive design changes. One aspect of the long lead times for weapons is that successive administrations in the Navy have a chance to put their changes into the program. The Navy is going to put some safeguards into their procurement process to alleviate that.

Dennis:

I agree completely. If you look at the history of most failed weapon systems it was due to the changing specifications as each group tried to add some capability or advance their own agenda. Remember the A-12 stealth attack plane?

[paladin5]

It is much like what Casper Wienberger(?) said about the M1 "lets build the thing and worry about the upgrades later" and how many upgrades and modification did that system go through in the first 10 years of its service life.


Now those are wise words.

[Jittery]

you have to figure out what you need and then build in room to upgrade at a latter time. No initial capability is always spot on the money. You do however have to make it to a budget or your not going to get it made at all.

For the LCS build the thing and leave room to upgrade latter in life. If you think adding ESSM's is a must but cant afford it leave room for the VLS tubes and radar modules and budget it in to be installed in 5 years after commissioning. For the next 5 years you cant send it where its going to be in a major SSM threat environment. This isn't saying the ship is incapable as as you can install a seaRAM system in another spot (i would assume it wouldn't cost a huge amount, the mother of all F*$& up's) so it is still able to operate to a degree where their is a air threat.

Likewise with the other missions. Add the mine detection sonar and leave room for the tail to be bolted in later. Or leave room for the Harpoons to be added in latter. Whatever it is that your risk assessment perceives to be the least needed.

With this it wont be popular and you run a VERY high risk of price rise latter in the project life but the way to counter this is a decrease in cost of the systems added in latter as your not buying 3 a year for 12 years but 12 in a year over 3 years. You also have less risk of the systems once added in being obsolete, in this case your going to need to replace them anyway.

The LCS idea works in concept but take everything away with requirements the first one is the cost. You have to work around this before anything else. If you cant build it for the cost your initially given you have to either put the cost up or drop the requirement.

[Sea Dragon]

you have to figure out what you need and then build in room to upgrade at a latter time. No initial capability is always spot on the money. You do however have to make it to a budget or your not going to get it made at all.

For the LCS build the thing and leave room to upgrade latter in life. If you think adding ESSM's is a must but cant afford it leave room for the VLS tubes and radar modules and budget it in to be installed in 5 years after commissioning. For the next 5 years you cant send it where its going to be in a major SSM threat environment. This isn't saying the ship is incapable as as you can install a seaRAM system in another spot (i would assume it wouldn't cost a huge amount, the mother of all F*$& up's) so it is still able to operate to a degree where their is a air threat.

Likewise with the other missions. Add the mine detection sonar and leave room for the tail to be bolted in later. Or leave room for the Harpoons to be added in latter. Whatever it is that your risk assessment perceives to be the least needed.

With this it wont be popular and you run a VERY high risk of price rise latter in the project life but the way to counter this is a decrease in cost of the systems added in latter as your not buying 3 a year for 12 years but 12 in a year over 3 years. You also have less risk of the systems once added in being obsolete, in this case your going to need to replace them anyway.

The LCS idea works in concept but take everything away with requirements the first one is the cost. You have to work around this before anything else. If you cant build it for the cost your initially given you have to either put the cost up or drop the requirement.


You see this is a sound idea in practice, afterall it gets hulls in the water based on what they ABSOLUTELY MUST be capable of. However given the Royal Navys experience with this type of planning i am going to add a word of warning.
Once a ship is built, governments can get quite... stingy... about further upgrading the potential of the warcraft. "Fitted for, but not with" only ever works if you know you will get that 'for' in the end. Overall it can be a sound idea because fitting a weapon takes hardly any time to building the ship hull and sensor suite. So long as the software is built into it all you have to do is add the weapon hardware and possibley the sensors for it. However as i said you may never get the capable ship and instead there is a chance you will have a lovely 7,205 tonne warship running round without its Helo, harpoons, torpedo tubes, Phalanx CIWS's or the extra 16 Cell Sylver A70 launcher and in fact only have a 144mm gun, 30mm guns and a 48 VLS Sylver A50.
Kinda a little bleak no?