Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

you are right but it dose not mean it can't be done I would of preferred 16 Mk-41 cells in Type 45 could of given it a great load out of 48 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM plus 8 NSM's or 48 Aster 30 , 32 CAMM , 8 x TLAM and 8 NSM

Type 31 with 32 Mk-41 cells , 8 x NSM and a containerised TAS would be a great ship for EoS and could allow a group of 3 ships to carry 96 x CAMM , 24 x NSM , 24 x Aster 30 and 54 x TLAM

You like it, but I do not. CAMM is light weight, can be mounted elsewhere. No need to use heavy and expensive Mk.41 VLS.

Especially if it is strike length with CAMM in ExLS installed, a half of the Mk41 VLS will be filled with air, another half with ExLS, and within it, their will be the CAMM canister, which contains CAMM within.

I will rather simply put CAMM canisters, instead.

If I want to ride a bike, I will not buy "a bus, carrying a pickup truck, in which carrying a bike, on which I am sitting".

What is needed is higher density CAMM-loadout to replace the mushroom tubes.

[Tempest414]

you are right but it dose not mean it can't be done I would of preferred 16 Mk-41 cells in Type 45 could of given it a great load out of 48 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM plus 8 NSM's or 48 Aster 30 , 32 CAMM , 8 x TLAM and 8 NSM

Type 31 with 32 Mk-41 cells , 8 x NSM and a containerised TAS would be a great ship for EoS and could allow a group of 3 ships to carry 96 x CAMM , 24 x NSM , 24 x Aster 30 and 54 x TLAM

You like it, but I do not. CAMM is light weight, can be mounted elsewhere. No need to use heavy and expensive Mk.41 VLS.

Especially if it is strike length with CAMM in ExLS installed, a half of the Mk41 VLS will be filled with air, another half with ExLS, and within it, their will be the CAMM canister, which contains CAMM within.

I will rather simply put CAMM canisters, instead.

If I want to ride a bike, I will not buy "a bus, carrying a pickup truck, in which carrying a bike, on which I am sitting".

What is needed is higher density CAMM-loadout to replace the mushroom tubes.

But you can't put a TLAM in a mushroom or any other CAMM launcher the point being I can put what I want in it anything from CAMM to TLAM and this also has flexibility and is there for not without good reason

[SW1]

Increasingly struggling to see the point of mk41 for the RN. We aren’t putting camm, aster in it we’ve bought NSM which is canister launched and we are developing a new land attack/anti ship missile with France which is likely to replace tlam and we are unlikely to pay to put it in mk41 especially as we can be damn sure the French won’t.

[Tempest414]

Increasingly struggling to see the point of mk41 for the RN. We aren’t putting camm, aster in it we’ve bought NSM which is canister launched and we are developing a new land attack/anti ship missile with France which is likely to replace tlam and we are unlikely to pay to put it in mk41 especially as we can be damn sure the French won’t.

Maybe we are letting the side down i.e maybe we are supposed to be integrating CAMM and FC/ASW into Mk-41 and France do the same for Sylvia there for opening the door for MBDA but I do agree we need to pick a horse

I still think TLAM could work as a cheap option for land attack on the Type 31's

[donald_of_tokyo]

But you can't put a TLAM in a mushroom or any other CAMM launcher the point being I can put what I want in it anything from CAMM to TLAM and this also has flexibility and is there for not without good reason

Thanks, I do understand your rationale, and do not think it is wrong. Just I have different opinion. Of course, I might be wrong, in some sense.

My dream for more CAMM is in very different way (pipe-dream still).

Can we integrate "48 CAMM" in the "wall/bulwark" surrounding the 48-cell Sylver VLS of T45? How about around the sidewall of hull in the bow section, just like the periphery-VLS of Zumvolt class DDG?

Mushroom tubes are inclined for safety reason, is compact, and does not put big blast on the hull. And, in stealth escorts, there are many inclined walls on which some rooms will be remaining.

Another point is, CAMM is very light weight. For example, we may design a PoD-based-VLS-CAMM. From weight point of view, "8 canister NSM" can be replaced even with (more than) "24-cell CAMM VLS Pod". This is tactically the same as saying "Mk 41 can carry TLAM or CAMM", but in more flexible manner?

# But still a pipe dream...

[SW1]

Increasingly struggling to see the point of mk41 for the RN. We aren’t putting camm, aster in it we’ve bought NSM which is canister launched and we are developing a new land attack/anti ship missile with France which is likely to replace tlam and we are unlikely to pay to put it in mk41 especially as we can be damn sure the French won’t.

I think I've posted on this time and time again...

Been saying for an age that I do not understand what everyone’s fascination is with Mk.41 VLS…or the RN's interest...

What is the point of Mk.41 for the Royal Navy??

We long ago made the decision to go with UK/European guided weapons where possible. You can see that in our air to air missiles and surface to air missiles. And so far its been a very good decision. Once you remove the Standard series of missiles and ESSM from the mix, as we’re never going to buy them, what is the point? Mk.41 doesn’t actually launch much else. Theres just the Tomahawk and ASROC...thats it...nothing else in production available.

And thats a big problem…

Tomahawk is leaving production soon. By the time T26 arrives with Mk.41 the line will be closed, and we’re not going to order a large batch now of a soon to be obsolete missile…the UK is also committed to the FCASW programme that aims to replace Storm Shadow with a stealthy, subsonic long range cruise missile and a supersonic medium range weapon. If we’re going to be mounting a cruise missile on our ships it needs to be a UK solution. But as the French are also involved it will be Sylver A70 compatible (plus the French will likely want it sub-service launch and air launch, good news for the RN’s SSN’s…).

ASROC is a tremendously underwhelming weapon. It’s got a inferior torpedo payload (Mk.54) compared to Stingray and has a 12 mile range. Remember IKARA could do 10 mile range 40 years ago….the US cancelled the Sea Lance replacement decades ago which had a decent range. The Russian equivalent goes out to 60 miles…

The only other reason to get Mk.41 is because the RN hopes one day that it can do BMD so would like the SM-3 missile. But that’s a problem because they’re putting Mk.41 on the wrong ships then…(T26 rather than T45). And SM-3 is hugely expensive (Japan bought 73 missiles for $3.3bn, thats $45m a pop…thats Trident missile cost. Does anyone seriously think the RN will have that sort of money soon???

It makes no sense whatsoever, and in truth never has.

We need to forget totally about Mk.41. I’d even go as far as to cancel the Mk.41 order for T26.
It would have made sense years ago if we’d specified that Aster had to be compatible, but we didn’t….

The solution is simple. Go all Sylver. Forget about Mk.41.

*I wrote the bit in Red an age ago...turns out the RN is doing exactly this...

• For BMD, we buy the Aster 1NT or the Block 2 BMD variant if we want to do it. We already operate Aster and we understand it.
• The Italians are multi-packing CAMM-ER in Sylver, Sea Ceptor/CAMM has its own cheaper solution than Mk.41 anyway Easy firepower upgrade for T45. A mixture of CAMM and CAMM-ER covers the mid to close range areas.
• We could the re-life the Aster 15 stockpile with the Aster 30 booster and get more long range missiles on the T45 at minimal cost. CAMM-ER would take over the medium range engagements.
• FCASW will be built to fit in Sylver A70. That gives us long range, subsonic stealthy cruise missiles and a supersonic anti ship missile.
• For ASW forget about ASROC. It’s garbage. Buy the MBDA MILAS instead. Its got twice the range, is launched from deck mounted canisters not VLS, and MBDA would happily put Stingray on it. And we have loads of upgraded Stingray in stock already…
• This is good for MBDA and UK/Europe. We already buy enough from the US.
• Sylver is already in service with the RN. We know it and understand it.

Someone convince me I’m wrong….

[tomuk]

The reality is there are a lot of Navies out there who have Mk41. They could be potential buyers of MBDA missiles such as Aster, FCASW etc. but won't buy them because they are only Sylver compatible.

What the UK should be doing MOD, Navy and wider government is getting the MBDA to make their missiles Mk41 compatible, including a cheaper CAMM option than EXLS. That would boost sales and development of MBDA missiles that would be good for everyone.

Now it shouldn't be down to the Navy alone to force the issue by equipping its ships with Mk41 instead of Sylver as on the current outlook it is going to mean a lot of empty VLS floating about on T26.

[Timmymagic]

The reality is there are a lot of Navies out there who have Mk41. They could be potential buyers of MBDA missiles such as Aster, FCASW etc. but won't buy them because they are only Sylver compatible.

What the UK should be doing MOD, Navy and wider government is getting the MBDA to make their missiles Mk41 compatible, including a cheaper CAMM option than EXLS. That would boost sales and development of MBDA missiles that would be good for everyone.

Now it shouldn't be down to the Navy alone to force the issue by equipping its ships with Mk41 instead of Sylver as on the current outlook it is going to mean a lot of empty VLS floating about on T26.

Yes industry should take the lead and make it compatible if they want the sales. But...

- The Aster system is primarily for Navies not wanting to be in the US eco-system. If you're buying Aster you're not bothered about Mk.41 capability. People with Mk.41 are already buying the US Combat Systems and Radars...no market there...
- CAMM/CAMM-ER/CAMM-ER have a dedicated launcher already that is far cheaper and easier to install than Mk.41. If someone is installing Mk.41 pound to a penny they're in it for US missiles....no real market. For the few that might straddle the 2 different eco-systems there is ExLS. Canada is the only purchaser to date after 15 years of marketing....and they're using it as a standalone...
- Cruise missiles....Hardly anyone actually has the capability. Lots of countries have wanted to purchase Tomahawk....only the US and UK have to date. There are potentially a couple of others...they're firmly in the US orbit and are Mk.41 users already. And they have been 'investigating' purchases for an age...with no order yet.
- Most navies are purchasing Strike Length Mk.41 these days....there is zero point putting CAMM in that....huge expense for a small missile. The launcher costs more than the missile, and occupies valuable real estate...that might change when CAMM-MR arrives at a later date, but thats a while off. The RN's current mushroom farm installation is about as cheap and easy to place as a VL farm gets.
- For anything else Canister Launch is still favoured. FCASW will come in canister's as well so will be available to customers. Integration could happen with an order but why spend up front? If someone wants it that bad they'll be willing to take canisters or wait 2 years for integration...

Thats it really...what other MBDA products need to be VL launched?

Making things Mk.41 compatible is a chimera, sounds like a good idea but once you dig into it there is little real market for anything other than US missiles, or homegrown (see Japan and SK). Plus once you get a Navy on your VL solution you've pulled them into your missile solutions for a long time as well...the VL is just the gateway drug...and locks them in for decades.

Incredible as it may sound Mk.41 doesn't open up a world of different capabilities than Sylver...both have a range of SAM's and a land attack cruise missile integrated. The only missile system's Mk.41 has extra is a extra-atmospheric interceptor in SM-3 that no-one but the US or Japan can afford....and a very tired ASW system that is outclassed by other options.

What we should be doing is expanding on the range of missiles and capabilities that can be launched from Sylver to make it a compelling case in place of Mk.41 for Navies...

[Poiuytrewq]

I agree that the priority is to get CAMM slotted into something more space efficient than the mushroom farm but what are the options if not Mk41/Sylver?

If CAMM via PODs is really going to become a thing then a mushroom farm setup is going to a hugely inefficient way of achieving it.

The only way to fit CAMM into a TEU sized container without protrusion is longitudinally. Both CAMM and CAMM-ER will fit but marinising such a system won’t be easy if the cells protrude.

Looking forward to seeing how they make that work.

[Tempest414]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

[wargame_insomniac]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

Currently we have five T31s ordered. They were supposed to be all ready in service by 3028. Given that we have only now just started cutting steel for the 2nd in T31 class, I would realistically expect the 5th T31 to be completed by early 2030's. So this is not an immediate prospect.

The first of the River B2's was commissioned in 2018. So it is not a 30 year period of overlap between the proposed classes. Maybe a dozen or so years, if we assume that the fifth T31 would be completed by say 2030.

If we were then to assume that at least three T31 batch two ships to be ordered to give your suggested 8*T31 ships, then that period would be yet further reduced I am assuming that by the time that Babcock were ready to build ships 6/7/8 of the suggested Batch Two T31s, that they would take at least one year to build and thus the suggested 8th T31 wouldn't be completed until at least 2033, i.e. reducing this period of overlap yet further.

A further assumption would need to be made to assume that Royal Navy would have had some extra funding allocated to it by the mid 2030's and thus would be able to cope with additional crew required for any overlap of active service between the River Batch Twos being retired and the proposed 105m long Sloops being introduced.

So with that caveat of additional RN funding being realistic by 2030's, then yes I am comfortable of having some overlap between these ships.

[wargame_insomniac]

I have less of a problem with low end 90m and 105m ships for different roles, than I do have for unsustainable 140m and 150m frigate classes.

[SW1]

What makes you think 140-150m frigate classes are unsustainable? While small ones are

[Repulse]

What makes you think 140-150m frigate classes are unsustainable? While small ones are

Quite simply:
- Money: Smaller (minor) warships are cheaper to build but a higher percentage of the money also goes on metal bashing, rather than equipment.
- Need: Whilst some believe this will change, in a high-low navy, the number of units in the low part (minor warships) will always number the same if not more than the high.
- Expected Life / Resell: Minor warships typically have a 20yr lifespan, compared to 30yr for major warships. I know the recent review suggested reducing the number of years for major also, but that’s not financially sustainable unless there is a very significant increase in budget. Also, reselling minor warships is easier as the market is bigger.

[SW1]

What makes you think 140-150m frigate classes are unsustainable? While small ones are

Quite simply:
- Money: Smaller (minor) warships are cheaper to build but a higher percentage of the money also goes on metal bashing, rather than equipment.
- Need: Whilst some believe this will change, in a high-low navy, the number of units in the low part (minor warships) will always number the same if not more than the high.
- Expected Life / Resell: Minor warships typically have a 20yr lifespan, compared to 30yr for major warships. I know the recent review suggested reducing the number of years for major also, but that’s not financially sustainable unless there is a very significant increase in budget. Also, reselling minor warships is easier as the market is bigger.

Has it not been the chirp for the last 20 years that size doesn’t relate to cost why change now? Does your take account for habitability and thru life cost or just up front cost? If your Hypotheses is correct then why did a tide tanker cost almost the same as a river patrol vessel?


Need for what? with unmanned off board systems replacing most of the roles of small warships does that simply not mean mean the calculations change. If your argument is equipment fitted defines the classification between minor or major then a larger vessel with less equipment won’t cost any different.

We have resold type 22 and type 23 frigates fairly easily even LHAs why would that not continue? It is financially sustainable if you understand thru life costs. I’ve seen it documented that delays and running on of older equipment costs the defence budget up to 2.5 billion pounds per annum due to increased maintenance/obsolete components and training. I believe one of the efficiencies of the Japanese navy is exactly that it has shorter service lengths before replacement.

[Tempest414]

UK ships built - operated and then sold from the mid 70s

Island class OPV's x 7
Castle class OPV's x 2
River class OPV x 1
Type 21 x 6
Type 22 x 7
Type 23 x 3
HMS Ocean
Bay class x 1
Upholder class SSK's ( built for the UK but sold ti Canada )
Hunt class x 5
Sandown class x 7

So as seen we have a good record of selling ships on if they have not been worked to death first as we have also seen the cost of the Type 23 life ex has cost the same as an extra T-26 plus a T-31

[RichardIC]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

[Tempest414]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

As from above my thinking is that we should have 8 x Type 31 this is a big ship with lots of growth in terms of systems great range very good habitability and good easy of maintenance

I also think the RB2's offer very good capability for off board systems as said before they could if needed carry 2 x Camcopters , 3 x unmanned 9.5 meter armed ribs or 3 x ORC or 2 x ARCIMs 11 meter MCM/ASW

I also find it funny that you picked up on the Armament and not the fact that I would like the next class of global OPV's to have

A good radar , good CMS , SH-60 capable Hangar , Merlin capable flight deck , A 25 meter covered working deck , a 30 meter open working deck with 30 ton crane

For me having 8 x Type 31's and 8 x 105m OPV's for global patrol is going to be key as China ramps up its activity in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic

[donald_of_tokyo]

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

Small ship has its own merit. If not, why not T26 has a displacement of 20,000t, as large as Invincible class CVS? In other words, size is relative to its required tasks.

Many here says, T31 is under armed. Then, many here think that a 6000t FLD hull is too large for "a 57mm, 2x 40mm, 12x CAMM with hangar for Merlin, 3 RHIBs, 6 ISO containers".

I think it is this simple? So, hoping for 105m / ~3500t FLD hull is not a surprise.

On the other hand, as RN already have,
- 3 River B1 (1800t),
- 5 River B2s (2000t)
- 5 T31 (6000t),
- and (up to) 5 OSV/LSV for MHC-support

I'm not sure at where a 105m / ~3500t FLD hull sloop is needed. The only hope is the "(up to) 4 LSVs".

[wargame_insomniac]

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

Small ship has its own merit. If not, why not T26 has a displacement of 20,000t, as large as Invincible class CVS? In other words, size is relative to its required tasks.

Many here says, T31 is under armed. Then, many here think that a 6000t FLD hull is too large for "a 57mm, 2x 40mm, 12x CAMM with hangar for Merlin, 3 RHIBs, 6 ISO containers".

I think it is this simple? So, hoping for 105m / ~3500t FLD hull is not a surprise.

On the other hand, as RN already have,
- 3 River B1 (1800t),
- 5 River B2s (2000t)
- 5 T31 (6000t),
- and (up to) 5 OSV/LSV for MHC-support

I'm not sure at where a 105m / ~3500t FLD hull sloop is needed. The only hope is the "(up to) 4 LSVs".

To me T31 are neither fish nor fowl. At 140m & 6,000t I expect them to be able to act as proper General Purpose Frigates to take over from the T23 GPs, and therefore in my opinion they need improvements to armanent and sensors. At the simpler and thus cheaper end of improvements, I would like to see increase in CAMM to 24, transferring the NSM Containers over from T23 GPs as they retire, and adding a sonar.

As discussed previously, this uparming will enable T31 to act as proper General Purpose warships, albeit at extra cost of equipement and probably some extra crew and annual maintenance, thus less time at sea.

For patrolling British Overseas Territories EEZ and assisting our allies with patrolling global sea lanes and anti-piracy we still need ships. The T31 are IMO too big and the River B2s lack helicopter hangar and are underarmed IMO. Hence the proposed 105m-110m 3,000t-3,500t sloop with 1*57mm and 2*40mm. As I said before this presumes that RN will have gotten increased Budget by the early 2030's by the time the last of the T31s are completed (and also upgraded).

The River B2s still have a use but more as soft power assisting our diplomatic efforts and (re)building relationships with nations across the Indo-Pacific, not to mention Africa, south and central America.

[wargame_insomniac]

Has it not been the chirp for the last 20 years that size doesn’t relate to cost why change now? Does your take account for habitability and thru life cost or just up front cost? If your Hypotheses is correct then why did a tide tanker cost almost the same as a river patrol vessel?

Based on publicly available numbers a Tanker is three time more expensive to operate that a River Class and has fewer days at sea.

You really do not seem to grasp that small size has a capability all in its own. Sure, you need large ships, but this obsession that big is always good and “steel is cheap” is quite puzzling.

[Repulse]

UK ships built - operated and then sold from the mid 70s

Island class OPV's x 7
Castle class OPV's x 2
River class OPV x 1
Type 21 x 6
Type 22 x 7
Type 23 x 3
HMS Ocean
Bay class x 1
Upholder class SSK's ( built for the UK but sold ti Canada )
Hunt class x 5
Sandown class x 7

Plus 12 River-class minesweepers

[wargame_insomniac]

Moved over from the Falklands thread

@ wargame_insomnica

I have noted previously that I believe several ships in the RN have been built bigger than they need to be for their actual armanent. That is why I would like to see ship in between RB2 and T31, a 105m-110m sloop fits that perfectly, as minimum practical size for helicopter operations. Yes the S100 Camcopter is being trialld and it MIGHT augment / replace Wildcats in RN, but I still beleive there is currently a benefot to have a mix of manned helicopters and unmanned UAV to fullfill a variety of missions,

I have no problem with a 105m ship I just don't see the need for a 90 meter and 105 meter ship in the same fleet in my ideal world we would have 8 times 105 x 15 meter ships fitted with a good radar so so CMS 2 x 40mm guns and would have a SH-60 capable hangar Merlin capable flight deck under the flight deck would be a 25 meter covered working deck leading on to a 30 open working deck with a 30 ton crane. These along with 8 x full fat T-31's would conduct global patrol duties in support of the UK and allies

I find it hard to believe anyone is trying to build a case for building smaller ships to fit their initial operating capability armament.

So no taking into account capability insertion through-life? Not to mention the intrinsic benefits of improved sea-keeping, habitability, endurance, ease of maintenance, provision for off-board systems that a larger platform gives you.

So you would build bigger ships, more expensive to build and probably requiring higher crew numbers.Which has lead to RN reducing the numbers ordered of both T45 and T26, and large ships with littl armanents as they were "Fitted For But Not With".....

Or as House of Commons Defence Committee Report “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”.....

That is without considering that the Sloops I was proposing would be advance depoyed, and as well as being cheaper and requiring less crew than T31s, would also be smaller and shallower draught, and thus able to access a far wider variety of harbours in the developing countries in the Indo Pacific (and also Africa, south and central America).....

[SouthernOne]

Increasingly struggling to see the point of mk41 for the RN. We aren’t putting camm, aster in it we’ve bought NSM which is canister launched and we are developing a new land attack/anti ship missile with France which is likely to replace tlam and we are unlikely to pay to put it in mk41 especially as we can be damn sure the French won’t.

I think I've posted on this time and time again...

Been saying for an age that I do not understand what everyone’s fascination is with Mk.41 VLS…or the RN's interest...

What is the point of Mk.41 for the Royal Navy??

We long ago made the decision to go with UK/European guided weapons where possible. You can see that in our air to air missiles and surface to air missiles. And so far its been a very good decision. Once you remove the Standard series of missiles and ESSM from the mix, as we’re never going to buy them, what is the point? Mk.41 doesn’t actually launch much else. Theres just the Tomahawk and ASROC...thats it...nothing else in production available.

And thats a big problem…

Tomahawk is leaving production soon. By the time T26 arrives with Mk.41 the line will be closed, and we’re not going to order a large batch now of a soon to be obsolete missile…the UK is also committed to the FCASW programme that aims to replace Storm Shadow with a stealthy, subsonic long range cruise missile and a supersonic medium range weapon. If we’re going to be mounting a cruise missile on our ships it needs to be a UK solution. But as the French are also involved it will be Sylver A70 compatible (plus the French will likely want it sub-service launch and air launch, good news for the RN’s SSN’s…).

ASROC is a tremendously underwhelming weapon. It’s got a inferior torpedo payload (Mk.54) compared to Stingray and has a 12 mile range. Remember IKARA could do 10 mile range 40 years ago….the US cancelled the Sea Lance replacement decades ago which had a decent range. The Russian equivalent goes out to 60 miles…

The only other reason to get Mk.41 is because the RN hopes one day that it can do BMD so would like the SM-3 missile. But that’s a problem because they’re putting Mk.41 on the wrong ships then…(T26 rather than T45). And SM-3 is hugely expensive (Japan bought 73 missiles for $3.3bn, thats $45m a pop…thats Trident missile cost. Does anyone seriously think the RN will have that sort of money soon???

It makes no sense whatsoever, and in truth never has.

We need to forget totally about Mk.41. I’d even go as far as to cancel the Mk.41 order for T26.
It would have made sense years ago if we’d specified that Aster had to be compatible, but we didn’t….

The solution is simple. Go all Sylver. Forget about Mk.41.

*I wrote the bit in Red an age ago...turns out the RN is doing exactly this...

• For BMD, we buy the Aster 1NT or the Block 2 BMD variant if we want to do it. We already operate Aster and we understand it.
• The Italians are multi-packing CAMM-ER in Sylver, Sea Ceptor/CAMM has its own cheaper solution than Mk.41 anyway Easy firepower upgrade for T45. A mixture of CAMM and CAMM-ER covers the mid to close range areas.
• We could the re-life the Aster 15 stockpile with the Aster 30 booster and get more long range missiles on the T45 at minimal cost. CAMM-ER would take over the medium range engagements.
• FCASW will be built to fit in Sylver A70. That gives us long range, subsonic stealthy cruise missiles and a supersonic anti ship missile.
• For ASW forget about ASROC. It’s garbage. Buy the MBDA MILAS instead. Its got twice the range, is launched from deck mounted canisters not VLS, and MBDA would happily put Stingray on it. And we have loads of upgraded Stingray in stock already…
• This is good for MBDA and UK/Europe. We already buy enough from the US.
• Sylver is already in service with the RN. We know it and understand it.

Someone convince me I’m wrong….

In some ways, you could argue that BAE's Global Combat Ship wasn't designed specifically for the RN. It seems more aligned to RAN and RCN needs.

The RAN has used Mk 41 and predecessor USN launch systems for a long time, similarly the USN Mk 45 gun and its earlier equivalents. The RCN is also USN centric.

Both the RAN and RCN both wanted a large hull so they could install long range radars for a high-end AAW capability.

[shark bait]

bigger ships, more expensive to build and probably requiring higher crew

The size/cost correlation is weak.

The biggest driver of cost is 'design density". A high density of complex systems creates multiple interdependencies that drives up design, build and operational costs.