Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Using the T-26 as the basis for a T-45 replacement should be possible, but the amount of work needed to alter the design may negate any savings such an idea may possibly entail.

Until their is a complete turn around in our Governments attitude to defence spending we are going to be lucky to maintain the number of effective escorts we have at 19 and that depends on how the T-31e programme turns out. Numbers aside, once the problems with the propulsion on the T-45 are dealt with and the T-26 enters service the RN will have a number of very capable escorts, both retaining a fair amount of potential for their capabilities to be increased.

Against the wishes of many Admirals, I think the Royal Navy is going to have to accept it is heading towards a two tier navy, with a core of high end escorts supporting the Carrier and possible Amphibious groups, and a similar numbers of less capable platforms able to perform patrol duties, but also be able to conduct low and possible medium intensity warfighting roles.

Again funding is key to all this, as ideally we would follow say the Italian navy how this what standard this lower tier would be equipped, in fact their plan to have three levels of capability on a common hull, but allow a platforms capability to be increased if needed could help our funding issues. What the RN needs to avoid is for example having a fixed design for the T-31e, one that already is at its maximum potential like the old T-21s. It might be said these are only a short term stop gap but then so were the T-21s and they ended up going to war and suffering disproportionate losses.

The Royal navy needs to look at what it has already got planned before making any plans to expand the service. It needs to ensure that it has the personnel to crew all the vessels currently planned as its highest priority. After that is need to try to ensure that it get the maximum out of the platforms it has, having a clear upgrade path of each platform to maximise their capability. This together with a joint approach from all three services toward getting the most out of the new carriers should leave the RN in a far better place than they have been for quite a while. More capable but smaller.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:Is hms Albion not a warship then? I didn’t mention civilian standard build not that it doesn’t work. If I have 4 scan eagle, 3 armed wildcat or a couple of mq-8c or something like with riverine craft which if you look at the us mk 6 patrol craft are about the size of our archer patrol craft and you could have a design covering both tasks or some atlas usvs, or with the likes of himars on the ship, with phalanx or 30mm Seahawk sigmas or even energy based weapons it covers all those tasks but with some stand off capability. If we want to deploy for a long time then habitability for the crew will be important.
Yes, Albion is an amphibious assault warship and I have suggested ideas for replacements, even using the T31e budget. The principle I am objecting to is that the RN doesn’t need smaller Patrol (Minor) warships for UK (and BOT) Protection like OPVs (Sloops) and also small fast Patrol craft like the 2 being upgraded in Gibraltar - I actually see these ships becoming more important not less.
I’m not suggesting the RN doesn’t need opv for uk eez protection or indeed fast patrol boat quite the opposite I think serious money is needed to be invested for the archers and smaller patrol boat replacements. However suggesting upgunning rivers opv passing them off as ideal presence vessels far from home they are not.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote: But what exactly does it mean to use the T26 as a basis for a T45 replacement?

...I could go on. But basically, why?
Was the T26 hull not at one time a possible candidate for the USN's Tico replacement?

If it was worthy of consideration for the Tico replacement why not the T45 replacement?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:manufacture super quiet
is the first thing about the internals that can be changed (=savings). But rather than discuss specifics about hull dimensions (compare ;) ) or how using Gan components is driving size/ weight down in what needs to be "hoisted high", let's look at the basics - or the 'big picture'.

Assuming that the pledge not letting frigate numbers dip below 13 is kept, and further that the latter part of the Type 26 programme is not to be sped up - when did that sort of thing last happen :?: , we will simply need to carry on with a 'hot production line' as BAE in Glasgow remains the only yard - let's call it one, not the two close together - capable of such high-end warship's construction.

We could carry on about how the other takers have chosen to to modify their T-26s (Canada does not have 'T-45s', but Australia does). Or, about why the T-26 hull grew so big in the first place
... all good fun :)

But for simplicity: let's call it us doing "a Burke". (Not building one)

As LJ quickly said (while I was "away" watching Jack Dee moving out to the country):
Lord Jim wrote:The Royal navy needs [...] to try to ensure that it get the maximum out of the platforms it has, having a clear upgrade path of each platform to maximise their capability.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:What the RN needs to avoid is for example having a fixed design for the T-31e, one that already is at its maximum potential like the old T-21s. .......... having a clear upgrade path of each platform to maximise their capability.
It was my impression that that is exactly what they have asked for with the T31e RFI. Possibly why Babcocks suggested the A140 platform - masses of room for upgrade.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:Possibly why Babcocks suggested the A140 platform - masses of room for upgrade.
... and has already been a playground for somebody else's thinking on modularity
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Is anyone else surprised how quiet things have become regarding the T-31e programme even with the MDP last December. I wonder is people in the MoD are trying to square the circle regarding what they want to what can be afforded with the platform.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:surprised how quiet things have become
Unusually, commercial [multiple] negotiation is running in parallel with the current phase... might be the reason? As the requirement was templated, I guess that becomes viable as opposed to first picking the winner, then negotiating the price (under the threat of going to the next best match, if the price is not becoming "right". That old approach went really well with the T-26 (which was uncompeted, to begin with ;) )
- any conspiracy theories? They are always good fun :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote:the Company manufactures the Artisan 3D shipboard AESA radar. GaN-based
Whats the source for this please? Like RetroSicotte I have had little luck finding any decent confrontation Artisan uses an AESA panel. (not that it really matters)

By BAEs own literature the transmitters are based on the RAF's commander radar, which is not AESA.
  • "solid state transmitter distributed in antenna is 60% commander based"
Also by BAEs own literature Sampson uses GaA modules, with contradicts your source, leaving me with little confidence.
  • " GaAs transmitters and receivers for each array element with digital phase control for beam steering"
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

My reading of the Decca Legacy section on MESAR/Sampson/Artisan, is that Artisan is an AESA radar, using GaAS Tx/Rx modules (c. 800-1000 thereof). It describes the issues with what I understand to be a PESA system as being something that MESAR set out to fix.
http://woottonbridgeiow.org.uk/decca-le ... .php#10.12
An ideal would be to implement a solid-state transmitter (with its associated phase shifter and receiver) at each element. This was the implementation scheme, which drove the MESAR 1, 2 and Sampson radar programmes. The pulse pattern to be transmitted is distributed through an equiphase network to each of the transmitting amplifiers at the array face.
A PESA radar would have a single transmitter, with phase-shifters in the array, rather than individual transmitters.

You would need to read the relevant section to get the full sense of what is (sometimes obliquely) being described. It may be that Artisan is some sort of halfway house, with Tx and Rx modules being separate, rather then integrated, but that's not how I understand it. If Artisan is a development of MESAR and SAMPSON, which are both AESA, then I think it's unlikely that Artisan took a step backwards. Simplified, perhaps, but it seems to me that they took the best elements from two existing radars (Sampson and Commander) and produced a very capable offspring. From the description of Commander in the BAE brochure, I'm not convinced that it's a PESA radar either.

The whole article is very interesting (but long), if you are into radar.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:What the RN needs to avoid is for example having a fixed design for the T-31e, one that already is at its maximum potential like the old T-21s. .......... having a clear upgrade path of each platform to maximise their capability.
It was my impression that that is exactly what they have asked for with the T31e RFI. Possibly why Babcocks suggested the A140 platform - masses of room for upgrade.
All three T31e candidates have no problem to have future growth margin. Leander and MEKO A200 being 3600t ship, and Arrowhead 140 around 6000t, there is a big size difference between them. But, even Leander and MEKO A200 is not fully armed in its initial order. (Arrowhead will surely be blamed for being hollow ship, ironically).

The ship will commission with
- a 57/76 mm gun
- 12 CAMM (or a CIWS), not both
- 2x 30 mm gun
- 1 Wildcat
- 4 RHBIs
- chaff/flare kits with ESM and a 3D radar

In future, we can happily add (*1)
- hull sonar
- towed active/passive sonar
- ship torpedo defense decoy system
- a CIWS (or 12 CAMM), to make it both
- 8 SSM launcher

As an option, they can have
- 2 20ft ISO containers
- 2 of the RHIB shall be 9-12m size, which could be replaced with 2 ARCIMS-like USVs.

In addition, the 2 of the 4 RHIB alcoves, or even the ISO container space can be transformed into more VLS, more SSM, more accommodation, or even additional command center.

If it is Arrowhead 140, yes, we can add more. But, all items below (*1) is not funded yet, which means they are all "growth margin", not the default package. I think Leander and MEKO A200 has large enough growth margin. Not because they are large, but because the initial armament is so limited. No problem, MOD in its initial program, is only paying a money equivalent to "5 heavy corvettes" and even adding "longer range" requirement. They are already great (for their cost) :D.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:All three T31e candidates have no problem to have future growth margin.
Yep. Especially because there most probably will be no future growth whatsoever, at least based on last 20 years of history of the RN. :lolno:
Just the opposite, future shrinking is more likely.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The ship will commission with
- a 57/76 mm gun
- 12 CAMM (or a CIWS), not both
- 2x 30 mm gun
- 1 Wildcat
- 4 RHBIs
- chaff/flare kits with ESM and a 3D radar
I would say they will come on line with CAMM and a Mount for Phalanx so they can take one from the pool if needed but most of the time they will knock about without

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:They are already great (for their cost)
If the Arrowhead 140 can really be built in the UK for £250m it won't just be great, it will be just about miraculous.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

For some reason I always thought Artisan was simply one half of a Sampson and a but smaller, that being the reason it was a cheap(ish) replacement radar for the T-23 as there were few developmental costs.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote:Yep. Especially because there most probably will be no future growth whatsoever, at least based on last 20 years of history of the RN.
Just the opposite, future shrinking is more likely.
Cynicism is all very well, but the reality is that most RN ships are continually upgraded over their lifetime.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:the reality is that most RN ships are continually upgraded over their lifetime.
Like the vessel it's replacing for example.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Like the vessel it's replacing for example.
If you mean the T23s, then yes - the list is quite impressive- they got new drive train, new radar, upgraded main gun, two upgrades to their AAW missiles, (and their control systems) replaced towed array, upgraded hull sonar, transom flaps and new paint (gained 2-3 knots in speed and reduced fuel consumption by 13%), 30mm ASCG and, undoubtedly, new computers, updated comms, improved ECM & EW etc. etc. All of which made them more effective than they had been before.
If you mean the T21's, then they were, unfortunately, pretty much maxed out before they hit the water - the T31 RFI seems to want to avoid that issue.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:Yep. Especially because there most probably will be no future growth whatsoever, at least based on last 20 years of history of the RN.
Just the opposite, future shrinking is more likely.
Cynicism is all very well, but the reality is that most RN ships are continually upgraded over their lifetime.
Well, let's see- Type 45- torpedos not installed, Harpoon soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, CAAM probably not installed, Tomahawk not installed; Type 23- Harpoons soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, half of them without towed sonars; submarines- Sub-Harpoon dropped, Tomahawks in minuscule numbers, probably not replaced once out of service; Type 26- currently firm commitment just for gun and CAMM, same thing for Type 31; QE-carriers- planned for 36 fighters, probably will never see more than 24 ( and that's with USMC jets )...
So, if aynthing can be concluded from this, eventually simple replacement of one system with another ( CAMM instead of Sea wolf ) or dropping systems.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote:Well, let's see- Type 45- torpedos not installed, Harpoon soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, CAAM probably not installed, Tomahawk not installed; Type 23- Harpoons soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, half of them without towed sonars; submarines- Sub-Harpoon dropped, Tomahawks in minuscule numbers, probably not replaced once out of service; Type 26- currently firm commitment just for gun and CAMM, same thing for Type 31; QE-carriers- planned for 36 fighters, probably will never see more than 24 ( and that's with USMC jets )...
There have never been plans to fit torpedoes on the T45 - it uses it's helicopter to deliver them. The RN appears to be taking that approach with all it's surface ships now, as the T23 (an ASW specialist) was the last ship to have them fitted). I believe that they have taken the view that lightweight torpedos are obsolescent as a ship-borne weapon in open water.
There never been plans to fit CAMM to the T45. Aster 15 is a better missile, as is Aster 30.
Harpoon is nearly obsolete, but there are a number of potential upgrades. A decision will probably be be made when it needs to be.
The 2031Z towed sonars were dropped (as obsolete) after the end of the Cold War, when it was deemed unlikely that there would be a need for them to counter Soviet submarines.
The USN also dropped sub-harpoon (20 years ago) - another "end of the Cold War" decision.
Tomahawk - no UK surface ship can currently use it, so why do we need them? The T26 will get them (or a successor system) when they are finished. As for the sub-launched version - probably only useful against an opponent without access to satellite surveillance - rather gives the position of the sub away when you fire it and negates their prime advantage. Far better for them to be on surface ships.
Equipment fits for the T26 and T45. Plenty of time for that. The only T26 is a few sections of steel hull waiting to be bolted together. There are a lot of potential weapons systems near to fruition - why make a decision when you don't yet have to?
Type 31 isn't even a concrete proposal at the moment, never mind a design.
And the carriers will probably see more than 24 aircraft if the USMC want to contribute.

.... and I used "probably" less than you did 8-)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Ron5 wrote:
manufacture super quiet

is the first thing about the internals that can be changed (=savings). But rather than discuss specifics about hull dimensions (compare ;) ) or how using Gan components is driving size/ weight down in what needs to be "hoisted high", let's look at the basics - or the 'big picture'.
I was referring to the shape of the hull, not its contents.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote: But what exactly does it mean to use the T26 as a basis for a T45 replacement?

...I could go on. But basically, why?
Was the T26 hull not at one time a possible candidate for the USN's Tico replacement?

If it was worthy of consideration for the Tico replacement why not the T45 replacement?
I do not think so.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Is anyone else surprised how quiet things have become regarding the T-31e programme even with the MDP last December. I wonder is people in the MoD are trying to square the circle regarding what they want to what can be afforded with the platform.
After a bunch of negative press, the MoD issued a strict "do not talk" about the program.

Your "open government" at work.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:What the RN needs to avoid is for example having a fixed design for the T-31e, one that already is at its maximum potential like the old T-21s. .......... having a clear upgrade path of each platform to maximise their capability.
It was my impression that that is exactly what they have asked for with the T31e RFI. Possibly why Babcocks suggested the A140 platform - masses of room for upgrade.
All three T31e candidates have no problem to have future growth margin. Leander and MEKO A200 being 3600t ship, and Arrowhead 140 around 6000t, there is a big size difference between them. But, even Leander and MEKO A200 is not fully armed in its initial order. (Arrowhead will surely be blamed for being hollow ship, ironically).

The ship will commission with
- a 57/76 mm gun
- 12 CAMM (or a CIWS), not both
- 2x 30 mm gun
- 1 Wildcat
- 4 RHBIs
- chaff/flare kits with ESM and a 3D radar

In future, we can happily add (*1)
- hull sonar
- towed active/passive sonar
- ship torpedo defense decoy system
- a CIWS (or 12 CAMM), to make it both
- 8 SSM launcher

As an option, they can have
- 2 20ft ISO containers
- 2 of the RHIB shall be 9-12m size, which could be replaced with 2 ARCIMS-like USVs.

In addition, the 2 of the 4 RHIB alcoves, or even the ISO container space can be transformed into more VLS, more SSM, more accommodation, or even additional command center.

If it is Arrowhead 140, yes, we can add more. But, all items below (*1) is not funded yet, which means they are all "growth margin", not the default package. I think Leander and MEKO A200 has large enough growth margin. Not because they are large, but because the initial armament is so limited. No problem, MOD in its initial program, is only paying a money equivalent to "5 heavy corvettes" and even adding "longer range" requirement. They are already great (for their cost) :D.
I don't think you can be so specific and definite about the Type 31 yet. Systems haven't been specifically funded or not funded.

The answer is what can be contained within the 1.25b cap.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:Well, let's see- Type 45- torpedos not installed, Harpoon soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, CAAM probably not installed, Tomahawk not installed; Type 23- Harpoons soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, half of them without towed sonars; submarines- Sub-Harpoon dropped, Tomahawks in minuscule numbers, probably not replaced once out of service; Type 26- currently firm commitment just for gun and CAMM, same thing for Type 31; QE-carriers- planned for 36 fighters, probably will never see more than 24 ( and that's with USMC jets )...
There have never been plans to fit torpedoes on the T45 - it uses it's helicopter to deliver them. The RN appears to be taking that approach with all it's surface ships now, as the T23 (an ASW specialist) was the last ship to have them fitted). I believe that they have taken the view that lightweight torpedos are obsolescent as a ship-borne weapon in open water.
There never been plans to fit CAMM to the T45. Aster 15 is a better missile, as is Aster 30.
Harpoon is nearly obsolete, but there are a number of potential upgrades. A decision will probably be be made when it needs to be.
The 2031Z towed sonars were dropped (as obsolete) after the end of the Cold War, when it was deemed unlikely that there would be a need for them to counter Soviet submarines.
The USN also dropped sub-harpoon (20 years ago) - another "end of the Cold War" decision.
Tomahawk - no UK surface ship can currently use it, so why do we need them? The T26 will get them (or a successor system) when they are finished. As for the sub-launched version - probably only useful against an opponent without access to satellite surveillance - rather gives the position of the sub away when you fire it and negates their prime advantage. Far better for them to be on surface ships.
Equipment fits for the T26 and T45. Plenty of time for that. The only T26 is a few sections of steel hull waiting to be bolted together. There are a lot of potential weapons systems near to fruition - why make a decision when you don't yet have to?
Type 31 isn't even a concrete proposal at the moment, never mind a design.
And the carriers will probably see more than 24 aircraft if the USMC want to contribute.

.... and I used "probably" less than you did 8-)
My bad about the USN Sub-Harpoons, but it seems that even they are admitting their mistake:

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/12/nav ... e-harpoon/

About other things (shipborne Torpedos, Harpoons ), RN can think this or that, but if only the RN does something and no other navy in the world- I really wonder who's right there...
But yes, I presume USN is also foolish for buying NSMs. They have to ask RN- they will tell them it's all obsolete sh**...

About Tomahawks, yes, the whole point is that surface ships don't use them. And there might be some space on T45.
About CAMM, yes, Aster 15 is better, but you can put 3 CAMMs in place of one Aster 15.

And about carriers, I sincerely hope that your'e right about the numbers, but not for once-in-a-decade photo-op...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply