The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

the radar horizon for the apar ships (f-124/de zeven) is little more than 20 km if the target high is 0 m. so i think that your numbers are wrong.

If the radar is placed ca. 30m above ground, that is correct.

But can the radar detect and track an LO object that close to the sea at that distance? The radar will see the object against a back screen of water and it will require pretty good range and directional resolution to distinquish something like a, say, flying golf ball, in that siuation. Line of sight is not the same as detection range.

I don't know the answer. To my knowledge, in actual combat, these surface skimmers has been difficult to spot. To my knowledge USS Stark didn't detect the exocets, Though much has change since then.

 

[ASFC]

HMS Sheffield supposedly had her radar turned off whilst using satcomm equipment (if the Book Secret War for the Falklands is to be believed), so would never have seen the missiles coming regardless of how good or bad the Type 995 radar she was carrying at the time was.

 

[Palnatoke]

HMS Sheffield supposedly had her radar turned off whilst using satcomm equipment (if the Book Secret War for the Falklands is to be believed), so would never have seen the missiles coming regardless of how good or bad the Type 995 radar she was carrying at the time was.

OK (Removed the bad info).

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the radar is placed ca. 30m above ground, that is correct.

Thats why aircraft (and nowadays in most fleets) its helos, are used to catch the leakers. In primitive terms they are mobile OTHR systems.

But can the radar detect and track an LO object that close to the sea at that distance? The radar will see the object against a back screen of water and it will require pretty good range and directional resolution to distinquish something like a, say, flying golf ball, in that siuation. Line of sight is not the same as detection range.

yes it can, and esp if it has air up with look down and even GMTI radar will assist.

I don't know the answer. To my knowledge, in actual combat, these surface skimmers has been difficult to spot. To my knowledge USS Stark didn't detect the exocets, Though much has change since then.

most of Starks problems were human/process system issues. The same happened with the Israelis a few years back. bad or inapprop mandrolic influenced SOPS cascaded the into "system of system" technical problems.

there is a reason why the USN extends its air screen, the helos and prev fixed wing ASW also double dutied as leaker catchers - they were ideal in that picket role as mobile OTHR/SWR type systems. Their job was to not to provide a targetting solution, but a heads up on incoming and to lengthen the reaction defensive times. The brits did the same thing wherever they could in the falklands, but the SOPs and technology in those days was fundamentally primitive in capability and execution.

 

[Palnatoke]

yes it can, and esp if it has air up with look down and even GMTI radar will assist.
.

I am currious;
In the situation in which you just have your ship with a, say, APAR, Smart-L or Sampson config and not all other sorts of assets. At what range do you think that a low observable surface skimming object, let's say with RCS of a few cm^2 (the flying golf ball) can be tracked/detected?
(If the antishipping missile with such a RCSs doesn't exits, let's assume that the enemy will produce one in near future)

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am currious;
In the situation in which you just have your ship with a, say, APAR, Smart-L or Sampson config and not all other sorts of assets. At what range do you think that a low observable surface skimming object, let's say with RCS of a few cm^2 (the flying golf ball) can be tracked/detected?
(If the antishipping missile with such a RCSs doesn't exits, let's assume that the enemy will produce one in near future)

I'm not sure I'd want to discuss that in an open forum.

the ultimate issue is tertiary response of the defensive layer. a long lead time is always preferred, but its how the tertiaries sense, react and engage even in the last 500m that counts.

 

[radar07]

I am currious;
In the situation in which you just have your ship with a, say, APAR, Smart-L or Sampson config and not all other sorts of assets. At what range do you think that a low observable surface skimming object, let's say with RCS of a few cm^2 (the flying golf ball) can be tracked/detected?
(If the antishipping missile with such a RCSs doesn't exits, let's assume that the enemy will produce one in near future)

imho the rcs isn't a problem at the range we assumed for the radar horizon (20km+). the big advantage with apar and sampson is they are aesa's. maybe a convetional radar will need some rotations to ensure that the small echo is a target before it starts tracking it but the aesa's can immediately use a second and third beam on this small echo to ensure it's a real target and no false echo. it can also adapt it's radar parameters to increase the tracking quality.
keep in mind that both apar and sampson were designed with LO sea skimmers in mind. sampson uses the 2 face back-to-back arrangement in a rotating antenna head not only because it's cheaper than for fixed arrays but also because it's lighter and can be installed higher on the ship than a fixed array system. apar and the other hand uses the preferable x-band and it's main task is horizon search and target tracking (no volume search).
so both radar systems should perform well on LO-targets at sea level.

 

[Palnatoke]

imho the rcs isn't a problem at the range we assumed for the radar horizon (20km+). the big advantage with apar and sampson is they are aesa's. maybe a convetional radar will need some rotations to ensure that the small echo is a target before it starts tracking it but the aesa's can immediately use a second and third beam on this small echo to ensure it's a real target and no false echo. it can also adapt it's radar parameters to increase the tracking quality.
keep in mind that both apar and sampson were designed with LO sea skimmers in mind. sampson uses the 2 face back-to-back arrangement in a rotating antenna head not only because it's cheaper than for fixed arrays but also because it's lighter and can be installed higher on the ship than a fixed array system. apar and the other hand uses the preferable x-band and it's main task is horizon search and target tracking (no volume search).
so both radar systems should perform well on LO-targets at sea level.

Agrees with the benefits of AESA radars..

While well are of the quadratic dependence of distance for radars, I fell that the RCS of the target should matter a lot in this scenario. The scenario is not just the radars ability to pick up the (re)emitted signal, but also it's ability to distinquish this (asumed weak) signal from all the clutter and noise that I would suspect that the radar will also recive when it "looks" at an object near water (with waves and ribbles and all).

I do not have and havn't been able to find technical information of the properties of these radars, that can shed light on this matter (possibly of good reasons) though somehow I fell that, dispite quadratic dependence on distance, an ability to detect a stealth missile at or near horizon at 20 km would have some dire consequvences for a number of other, likely less stealthy, objects that doesn't operate as surface skimmers, such as F22 and JSF.

In any case whether the detection range is 10km, 15km or 20km, in the previous "missile-gun" scenario, there is another parameter; The speed of the missile. The enemy can do better than a mach 1 missile. So, in my view, no matter how we cast it, detection and reaction time will be of essence.

 

[1805]

One problem with this proposal is that your super-Absalons won't have docks. They'll therefore be incapable of performing many of the tasks an LSD does. They won't even have the big stern ramp of a Point-class ro-ro, unless you're going to compromise them even more for all their other roles. They'll therefore be effectively limited to alongside loading & offloading in a port. This is a severe limitation.

They'll also be very expensive to operate in the logistics role. You'll need to send a few of them to do the job of one Bay, burning far more fuel, & tying up a large multiple of the number of sailors. What'll be doing all the other stuff while they're doing that? The Bays are very busy ships now, not just in a hypothetical major operation. Replacing two of them with the flex decks of super-Absalons implies that those super-Absalons won't be doing much else. To me, that's an extraordinarily expensive way to get some logistics capability, & a waste of destroyers.

Why not just keep the two Bays & buy one fewer escort, without the flex decks? You spend less money & get more capability. If you worry about not having logistics capability in as many places, buy a few more Point-class. You should be able to do that for less capital cost than one super-Absalon, & a similar operating cost. More logistics - much, much more! - and more deployable escorts than in your proposal. Or buy more Bays - still doable cheaper than your idea, while providing more capability..

Fighting ships cost a lot more than pure transports, even when built as cheaply as Absalon & Esbern Snare. LSDs come in between, but an austere LSD is still a small fraction of the cost per ton of a destroyer, & with small manning needs.

The Absalon class is designed for a small navy which lacks the resources for a range of specialist ships, & is an interesting solution which I think could also be appropriate for some other small navies. But even that navy leases ro-ros for most of its transport needs. It's neither meant for, nor suitable for, replacing real destroyers & frigates, except in low-intensity conflicts.

I wouldn't see such a ship being a direct replacement for a LSD, or logistic support for army units ashore. More providing the logistics and equipment/vehicles for the embarked marines/shore landed sailors, enabling independent operations.

In most small interventions we would have access to port facillities (I think we had such for Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Bosnia?). Where we didn't have such access we could use the 4 dock capabible ships (LPD/LSD). Additionally the ships would have their two Merlins for logistics (assume no port facilities in Haiti?). I think adding 1000-1500 to a T45 design would enhance not compromise the design, enabling radars to be mounted higher.

The flexibility of a enhanced T45/Absalon combination would enable it to also act as a ASW/commerce command ship (high threat anti sub or even anti pirate patrols) , AWD or independent intevention. Unlike a Bay these ships don't require escorts and carry their own helicopters (athought I think the Bays can mock up a hanger?)

I think any logistic capability lost by selling a couple of Bays could be replace with more Points built at H & W,

Actually as I was thinking about this, as a principle if we say helicopter/long range radars are better suited to big hulls than small, prehaps there are more hybrid opportunites. Could a future LPD not be fitted for (if probably not fitted with due to cost!) a full Sampson/Area Missile fit, at c20-25,000t it must be able to mount a Radar far higher than even a T45, and it would remove the burden on the escorts (preventing a Galahad/Tristram)

 

[1805]

Agrees with the benefits of AESA radars..

While well are of the quadratic dependence of distance for radars, I fell that the RCS of the target should matter a lot in this scenario. The scenario is not just the radars ability to pick up the (re)emitted signal, but also it's ability to distinquish this (asumed weak) signal from all the clutter and noise that I would suspect that the radar will also recive when it "looks" at an object near water (with waves and ribbles and all).

I do not have and havn't been able to find technical information of the properties of these radars, that can shed light on this matter (possibly of good reasons) though somehow I fell that, dispite quadratic dependence on distance, an ability to detect a stealth missile at or near horizon at 20 km would have some dire consequvences for a number of other, likely less stealthy, objects that doesn't operate as surface skimmers, such as F22 and JSF.

In any case whether the detection range is 10km, 15km or 20km, in the previous "missile-gun" scenario, there is another parameter; The speed of the missile. The enemy can do better than a mach 1 missile. So, in my view, no matter how we cast it, detection and reaction time will be of essence.

Agree if you look at a Brahmos its much more challenging. This is a big missiles with a heavy warhead, which must have restricted launch options for small Navies, but is planned for exports. A smaller say 75kg warhead/50 mile range, mass produced missile fired from FAC, shore based lorries, even small subs in narrow waters like the Gulf would be more difficult to handle.

 

[Hambo]

I wouldn't see such a ship being a direct replacement for a LSD, or logistic support for army units ashore. More providing the logistics and equipment/vehicles for the embarked marines/shore landed sailors, enabling independent operations.

In most small interventions we would have access to port facillities (I think we had such for Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Bosnia?). Where we didn't have such access we could use the 4 dock capabible ships (LPD/LSD). Additionally the ships would have their two Merlins for logistics (assume no port facilities in Haiti?). I think adding 1000-1500 to a T45 design would enhance not compromise the design, enabling radars to be mounted higher.

The flexibility of a enhanced T45/Absalon combination would enable it to also act as a ASW/commerce command ship (high threat anti sub or even anti pirate patrols) , AWD or independent intevention. Unlike a Bay these ships don't require escorts and carry their own helicopters (athought I think the Bays can mock up a hanger?)

I think any logistic capability lost by selling a couple of Bays could be replace with more Points built at H & W,

Actually as I was thinking about this, as a principle if we say helicopter/long range radars are better suited to big hulls than small, prehaps there are more hybrid opportunites. Could a future LPD not be fitted for (if probably not fitted with due to cost!) a full Sampson/Area Missile fit, at c20-25,000t it must be able to mount a Radar far higher than even a T45, and it would remove the burden on the escorts (preventing a Galahad/Tristram)

Add 1000-1500 tonnes to a Type 45 design and it isnt a Type 45 design, its a new design with a completely different underwater shape to accomodate this logistics deck at the rear. Hence different speed, stability, and fuel economy. So be ready to commence a whole new ship design process.You could add a hull plug to a 45, similar to the 42 stretch, but this wouldnt allow any additional height to radar, it might allow a few more VLS cells, but I assume they have learnt from the lessons of Batch 1 Type 42 and gave the Type 45 good seakeeping charcteristics from the beginning.

As I understand it, the machinery fit of GT's on the Type 45 doesnt make it a particulrly good ASW ship, its not the role its designed for afterall, so the Type 26 is ASW ft will need the silent sub stalking ability of the Type 23, its a specialised task to isolate machinary noise, and to make a stealthy hull, I have read that from numerous people within the industry on these boards. A fat arsed flex deck slamming up and down in the waves would add noise.

I would like to see the Ebay add for the two Bays that you will flog, what reserve price will you place on them? You will lose capability and gain very little back, I doubt the fee for the pair of used LSD's would pay for third a Type 45 so what would be the point??

So fit 20-25000 tonne LPD for but not with PAAMS? What would be the point, do you actually think it would get fitted. On one hand you would flog off two extremetly versatile 18,000 tonne LSD, then replace them with something bigger? What happened to the build 12 Absalon type hybrids? If you are going to purchase more PAAMS/SAMPSON then surely add a couple of escorts that could guard CV or Amphibs?

The Type 45 is a complete system, a very stealthy hull with a small RCS with powerful sensors, the low RCS gives it an enhanced ability to survive, easier to soft kill a misile of you are a small target. The Sampson should have a Low Prob of Intercept in search mode, I imagine it will be quite hard to locate and attack a Type 45 in air defence mode, especially as it will be taking feeds from other ships and AEW assets. A big slab sided 25,000 tonne LPD flooded down seems a completely unsuitable and unstealthy ship in which to mount a £600m air defence system, unless you happen to be the USN, and even they dont seem to be doing something so costly?

I think Type 26 will look pretty traditional ship , weapons plus Camm that we currently use.

I dont think the RN should or will go to hybrids between civil designs, if it does, it may never get "proper warships" again, I think you are playing lego, plugging bits on, mixing and matching bits of ships to create a franken-fleet, I would suggest the RN knows what it is doing after several hard lessons, it will get warships, that look like and are warships, not something cobbled in foreign yards with the cheapest costs designed to appeal to Liberal politicians who like the disaster relief sections of the brochures rather than the section that refers to its ability to kill people.

 

[1805]

Add 1000-1500 tonnes to a Type 45 design and it isnt a Type 45 design, its a new design with a completely different underwater shape to accomodate this logistics deck at the rear. Hence different speed, stability, and fuel economy. So be ready to commence a whole new ship design process.You could add a hull plug to a 45, similar to the 42 stretch, but this wouldnt allow any additional height to radar, it might allow a few more VLS cells, but I assume they have learnt from the lessons of Batch 1 Type 42 and gave the Type 45 good seakeeping charcteristics from the beginning.

As I understand it, the machinery fit of GT's on the Type 45 doesnt make it a particulrly good ASW ship, its not the role its designed for afterall, so the Type 26 is ASW ft will need the silent sub stalking ability of the Type 23, its a specialised task to isolate machinary noise, and to make a stealthy hull, I have read that from numerous people within the industry on these boards. A fat arsed flex deck slamming up and down in the waves would add noise.

I would like to see the Ebay add for the two Bays that you will flog, what reserve price will you place on them? You will lose capability and gain very little back, I doubt the fee for the pair of used LSD's would pay for third a Type 45 so what would be the point??

So fit 20-25000 tonne LPD for but not with PAAMS? What would be the point, do you actually think it would get fitted. On one hand you would flog off two extremetly versatile 18,000 tonne LSD, then replace them with something bigger? What happened to the build 12 Absalon type hybrids? If you are going to purchase more PAAMS/SAMPSON then surely add a couple of escorts that could guard CV or Amphibs?

The Type 45 is a complete system, a very stealthy hull with a small RCS with powerful sensors, the low RCS gives it an enhanced ability to survive, easier to soft kill a misile of you are a small target. The Sampson should have a Low Prob of Intercept in search mode, I imagine it will be quite hard to locate and attack a Type 45 in air defence mode, especially as it will be taking feeds from other ships and AEW assets. A big slab sided 25,000 tonne LPD flooded down seems a completely unsuitable and unstealthy ship in which to mount a £600m air defence system, unless you happen to be the USN, and even they dont seem to be doing something so costly?

I think Type 26 will look pretty traditional ship , weapons plus Camm that we currently use.

I dont think the RN should or will go to hybrids between civil designs, if it does, it may never get "proper warships" again, I think you are playing lego, plugging bits on, mixing and matching bits of ships to create a franken-fleet, I would suggest the RN knows what it is doing after several hard lessons, it will get warships, that look like and are warships, not something cobbled in foreign yards with the cheapest costs designed to appeal to Liberal politicians who like the disaster relief sections of the brochures rather than the section that refers to its ability to kill people.

I was not talking about adding to a T45 design, I was talking about the concept of bring together a T45 capability and a Absalon capability. I don't think fitting a Sampson/Area Missile is such a mad idea, if you think about it. why shouldn't they have the capability if it is in a hostile enviroment one less ship to protect and they would have much higher radars. Its not a franken-fleet its called innovation, if the RN is always last it will remain behind the pack, as it has been and still is with AWD. Also cheap does not mean bad, although I am prepared to pay a premium for UK build ships (employment and industrial capability) I am not for unnecessary gold plating.

 

[Hambo]

I was not talking about adding to a T45 design, I was talking about the concept of bring together a T45 capability and a Absalon capability. I don't think fitting a Sampson/Area Missile is such a mad idea, if you think about it. why shouldn't they have the capability if it is in a hostile enviroment one less ship to protect and they would have much higher radars. Its not a franken-fleet its called innovation, if the RN is always last it will remain behind the pack, as it has been and still is with AWD. Also cheap does not mean bad, although I am prepared to pay a premium for UK build ships (employment and industrial capability) I am not for unnecessary gold plating.

Why is the RN last? Behind the pack?

What do you mean by the pack? I would suggest in Europe the UK and France are in the same pack. We are both nuclear powers, similar sized in population, similar in GDP, similar in power projection capabilities, able to deploy and operate over long distances..

France, 2015 2 LPD'S, Mistrals ( upto 3), escort force of Horizon, Fremm, Lafayette, one carrier (maybe a second CV at some point) 6 SSN, 4 SSBN. Airdefence of Aster,Mica, Rafale,Hawkeye.

The UK 2015, 2 LPD's, 4 Bays, Ocean. Escort force of Type 45, Type 22, Type 23 (with replacement pending in Type 26), Two small carriers replaced by 2 larger CV's, 6 or 7 SSN, 4 SSBN. Airdefence of Aster,Sea Wolf/Caam, F35, Sea King AEW/MASC.

Both forces have pros (hawkeye) and some cons (no sea BVR AA unti 2015ish )but both projected to be broadly similar depending on the economy recovering (a big if I accept) without an Absalon in sight!

HM Govt took a gamble scrapping Sea Harrier but I think over the next 5 years we might just get away with it

Create hybrids that can do a bit of everything and I think you would end up with a 12 ship surface fleet, at maximum that doesnt offer anything world class in any area. At present we will have world class AA on 6 Darings, and world class ASW on the 8 upgraded Type 23, with good all over GP on the remaining 22/23's, along with France we will have the biggest Amphib fleet in Europe, I just cant see how your innovations fit in, and I think you babdly under estimate the capability of the RN.

 

[Palnatoke]

Hambo&1805

While I don't necessarely agree in all of 1805s ideas, I think it's quite healthy to try to think a little bit out of the box, which I think 1805 is.

I am sure that the RN and french navy are europe's navy leaders. It also looks like the they have problems in getting good value for money.
When you f.ex. compare a project like the T45 to other very comparable European frigate/destroyer programmes you kinda get the feeling that the RN didn't get good value for the money. The french carrier has likely also been prohibitly expensive for the french socity compared to it's value.

Since I am all for a strong european defense, I really hope that the french and brits can sort such out in the future, since much depends on them.

And therefore, as I read him, 1805 raises a relevant question: "How can we make a smart navy".

 

[Grim901]

Hambo&1805

While I don't necessarely agree in all of 1805s ideas, I think it's quite healthy to try to think a little bit out of the box, which I think 1805 is.

I am sure that the RN and french navy are europe's navy leaders. It also looks like the they have problems in getting good value for money.
When you f.ex. compare a project like the T45 to other very comparable European frigate/destroyer programmes you kinda get the feeling that the RN didn't get good value for the money. The french carrier has likely also been prohibitly expensive for the french socity compared to it's value.

Since I am all for a strong european defense, I really hope that the french and brits can sort such out in the future, since much depends on them.

And therefore, as I read him, 1805 raises a relevant question: "How can we make a smart navy".

Thinking outside the box is always good, but it doesn't hurt to point out where people are making mistakes when they do so.

I'd like to add that T45 will/is actually the most powerful AAW in Europe (admittedly with a lot of cost issues that could have been avoided with hindsight) but still a world leader and better than it's European competitors.

It's very easy to look at a ship superficially and compare it to another and say simply "that was poor value for money", but you'll never really know until both ships see similar combat. Civilian construction standards make me a little uneasy, sure it saves money, but for vessels that are supposed to go into harms way, it might be better to listen to the navy, not the bankers, the UK has had plenty of experience in building ships that actually see combat, with respect, that can't be said of many of our European neighbours.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agree if you look at a Brahmos its much more challenging.

How is Brahmos more challenging?

The USN during the cold war was up against faster and more numerous supersonics (and some were much much faster) than the Brahmost/Yakhont/P800 family.

There is a reason why the west deliberately steered their own AShM development towards subsonics - they could have quite easily travelled the supersonic path as they had the frames and family to punch them out with little modification.

 

[1805]

Why is the RN last? Behind the pack?

What do you mean by the pack? I would suggest in Europe the UK and France are in the same pack. We are both nuclear powers, similar sized in population, similar in GDP, similar in power projection capabilities, able to deploy and operate over long distances..

France, 2015 2 LPD'S, Mistrals ( upto 3), escort force of Horizon, Fremm, Lafayette, one carrier (maybe a second CV at some point) 6 SSN, 4 SSBN. Airdefence of Aster,Mica, Rafale,Hawkeye.

The UK 2015, 2 LPD's, 4 Bays, Ocean. Escort force of Type 45, Type 22, Type 23 (with replacement pending in Type 26), Two small carriers replaced by 2 larger CV's, 6 or 7 SSN, 4 SSBN. Airdefence of Aster,Sea Wolf/Caam, F35, Sea King AEW/MASC.

Both forces have pros (hawkeye) and some cons (no sea BVR AA unti 2015ish )but both projected to be broadly similar depending on the economy recovering (a big if I accept) without an Absalon in sight!

HM Govt took a gamble scrapping Sea Harrier but I think over the next 5 years we might just get away with it

Create hybrids that can do a bit of everything and I think you would end up with a 12 ship surface fleet, at maximum that doesnt offer anything world class in any area. At present we will have world class AA on 6 Darings, and world class ASW on the 8 upgraded Type 23, with good all over GP on the remaining 22/23's, along with France we will have the biggest Amphib fleet in Europe, I just cant see how your innovations fit in, and I think you babdly under estimate the capability of the RN.

I was talking about the ability of the RN to get equipment ahead of the other major western naval powers, not a comparison of naval strength with France, but I notice you have convienently used 2015 as the comparison date. However if we look at the acquision of 3rd Generation AWD (not sure if the right term), you can see how badly the RN has done.

1991 Burkes
1993 Kongo
2002 F100
2006 Fridtjof Nansen class
2002 De Zeven Provinciën
2003 Sachsen class frigate
2007 Horizon France & Italy 2008

I know there are excuses why they are so late but I am sure Admiral Byng had those, I think as tax payers we should expect more. I don't think it is an overly harsh judgement to say the T45 are late and overbudget. Only RAN is behind us.

As for them being he most advanced in the world, I am afraid I believe the MOD about as much as the Defence Select Committee does. Bits probably are but overall it will be years before it get an theatre ABM capability and the RN has little practical experience of S300 based systems.

On the subject of Sampson/area missiles on an LPD, completely with hindsight I know but would you not have found Sead Dart on Fearless/Interpid a huge advantage over the useless Sea Cat and well worth the small about of space (in relation to the size) it would have taken up.

The expense of Sampson is the development cost stick it only 6 ships and it will be very expensive (because we can't export as no one can afford it)

 

[1805]

How is Brahmos more challenging?

The USN during the cold war was up against faster and more numerous supersonics (and some were much much faster) than the Brahmost/Yakhont/P800 family.

There is a reason why the west deliberately steered their own AShM development towards subsonics - they could have quite easily travelled the supersonic path as they had the frames and family to punch them out with little modification.

I only said Brahmos because it is the most likely to be available on the export market. But since you mention it, why did the West not go down the supersonic route? I know France/German did have a project: ANS or something?? I have always wondered. I know the Russians had to go for big, as the targets were bigger (USN CVs) but I actually think Brahmos is to large, a more dangerous missile would be c1000kg, Mach 2, 100kg warhead and mass produced on FAC/lorries etc.

 

[1805]

Thinking outside the box is always good, but it doesn't hurt to point out where people are making mistakes when they do so.

I'd like to add that T45 will/is actually the most powerful AAW in Europe

Are we now excluding Russia from Europe, what about the S300FM?

(admittedly with a lot of cost issues that could have been avoided with hindsight) but still a world leader and better than it's European competitors.

It's very easy to look at a ship superficially and compare it to another and say simply "that was poor value for money", but you'll never really know until both ships see similar combat. Civilian construction standards make me a little uneasy, sure it saves money, but for vessels that are supposed to go into harms way, it might be better to listen to the navy, not the bankers, the UK has had plenty of experience in building ships that actually see combat, with respect, that can't be said of many of our European neighbours.

Its easy to blame funding but actually when you look at it, its difficult to say the UK armed forces are underfund. 2.4% of GDP and actual spend in the top 3-4 in the world?
.

 

[radar07]

I'd like to add that T45 will/is actually the most powerful AAW in Europe (admittedly with a lot of cost issues that could have been avoided with hindsight) but still a world leader and better than it's European competitors.

It's very easy to look at a ship superficially and compare it to another and say simply "that was poor value for money", but you'll never really know until both ships see similar combat.

so how could you claim that the type 45 is better than a de zeven or f-124? right now the type-45 has never shot a single sam whereas the other already had done a lot of live firing. imho there is no reason wich makes the type-45 clearly a "world leader" or the "most powerful aaw ship in europe".