You often bang on about Gold plating. Isnt point 3, ie adding a large area defence SAM to your ASW ships Gold plating? If the ships are tasked to hunt subs in the GIUK gap, why do they all need Sea Dart? Wouldn't the existing concept of one escorting area defence T42 be sufficient to provide cover for the TAS towing frigates. As it was they built 14 T42, plus bristol, plus the 3 Invincibles so there was ample area defence missile capacity across the fleet. Unless you add an expensive search radar to each frigate you will possibly never exploit the full range potential of your missile system, and that costs a packet. A frigate, built cheaply for the ASW mission needs a moderate radar, good horizon tracking and the ability to defeat low fliers and soft/hard kill missiles on top of its ASW tool box.
Rapier was a decent land based system but suffered in the falklands from being fragile and because as a "hittile" it lacked a proximity fuse, which supposedly would have made it more effective against crossing targets rolling in on san carlos. It could possibly have been adapted for sea use, but would have needed additional tracking systems, be linked to the ships warfare computers. Wasn't part of the later blindfire system used in some of the later SW trackers? Still not a cheap option.
Take away AEW and adequate air cover from any contemporary navy from 1982, I don't think the systems would have faired much better in the face of a similar enemy.The RN evaluated NATO Sea Sparrow but went with SW. Contemporary NATO frigates of the day mainly had two trackers and 8 ready missiles, so the Type 22 with 6 at each end would have been attractive.
Had there been more development money then I'm sure the sea cat adapted light mount for 4 SW missiles would have been an export success. But the electronics of the day made the system complicated and bulky, but then most frigates had huge computer rooms in those days, you needed several cabinets to come close to one low cost modern laptop.
Just checking the timeline of the two missiles, SW developed from 1967-1976, in service 1979, SD started as project CF:299 in the early 1960's becoming SD around 1965, in service 1973 on HMS Bristol. so both were being developed in a similar timeframe and both taking over a decade to develop, both initially entering service with limitations compared to later models. I only mention that because it shows that even if you wanted to further develop any weapon system, these things take many many years to do, so start a single missile programme ie VL SD in 1970 something, you might not see a working product until 1980something, so wouldn't we have some form of missile gap, where Sea cat and Sea Slug would need to fill...badly??
I think the RN was in a very difficult position in the late 60s with what seemed at the time the exit of carrier aviation. Therefore a Perry class solution of mass deployment of an area system would make sense, also from an R&D and production prospective a single missile makes more sense.
Surely Rapier on both ship and shore is what the French did with Crotale, US with Sparrow and what we eventually plan to do with CAMM. That said I don't know the performance history of it so well and if was so crap agree makes less sense as for either the Navy or Army.
Its all a case of maximising production and bring cost down, look at the French use of Aster 30 on a land based system.
I was talking about VL SD much later for the T23s. The focus on the original SD would hopefully have reduced the missile gap but it would still have been there.
Where the T22 ever a cheap frigate?? thought they cost as much if not more than T42, difficult to compare as the production cycle is different and inflation was high. But its fair to say a common design with a 30 ship run would have been cheaper.
I thought the Falklands proved a few T42 protecting lightly armed frigates did not work very well?
For me it boils down to what would you rather take into an air defence scrap a Batch 2 T42 or a T22? Remember the RN has let most off the T22 go before the T42 despite their age, heavy crews and acknowledged poor sea keeping.
I do feel there was still room for a small number of cruiser/destroyer type ship with a heavier radar fit and maybe following on from the Counties/Bristol which could have become the RNs Burkes.
But really the RNs approach to BPDS/CIWS has been all over the place for 40 years, completely against guns in this space (medium 3" or light CIWS) they build SW without consideration for retro fit, the Falklands creates a conversion with modern optical 20/30mm guns added as an emergency measure replacing the old junk bashing 20/40mm fit, to then be replaced with Phalanx on T42, but then 30mm Goalkeeper on some ships. Yet the evidence from the BPF in 1945 was 20/40mm were inadequate and both USN & RN went for 3".
I know in 20 years time you will claim this is hindsight, but what stands out and wacks me in the face, is the "money no object" USN is fitting 57mm guns on the DDG1000 as what looks like a CIWS, but we will still fit Phalanx?
Hey the Kashtan look pretty hot to me....
