Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

[mike wheatley]

For what it is worth:

"3 Carriers, within budget":
Astute Class x8 Unit cost=747 Total cost=5976 Unit ops=27 Total ops=216
Vanguard Class x4 Unit cost=1500 Total cost=6000 Unit ops=35 Total ops=140
QE Class x3 Unit cost=3000 Total cost=9000 Unit ops=90 Total ops=270
Albion Class x2 Unit cost=332 Total cost=664 Unit ops=38 Total ops=76
Karel Doorman Class x4 Unit cost=187 Total cost=748 Unit ops=16 Total ops=64
Type 26 x13 Unit cost=350 Total cost=4550 Unit ops=22 Total ops=286
Type 45 x6 Unit cost=800 Total cost=4800 Unit ops=20 Total ops=120
BAM Class x8 Unit cost=200 Total cost=1600 & Unit ops=3 Total ops=24
Victoria Class x2 Unit cost=18 Total cost=36 Unit ops=2 Total ops=4

Total Procurement Costs =£33374 m
Total Operational Costs =£1200 m

...I suspect some of your operational costs are off...

[Engaging Strategy]

Okay, so the way I see it Missiles, Railguns and Laser CIWS are the way of the future. This concept also gives something to those who think that the RN needs a two tier fleet.

46x Zumwalt class:
Build Cost- £92000m
Operational Cost- £1196m

4x UKBF Cutters:
Build Cost- £6m
Operational Cost- 4m

Total Build Cost- £92006m
Total Operational Cost- £1200m

[Repulse]

Fantasy Fleets my favourite

Astute Class x9
Vanguard Class x4
QE Class x2
Bay Class x3
Karel Doorman Class x3 (shame no San Giusto LPDs)
Type 26 x9 (ASW)
Type 45 x6
Venator Class x12
Black Swan Class x12

Total Procurement Costs =£30315 m
Total Operational Costs =£1169 m

[Tiny Toy]

Okay, so the way I see it Missiles, Railguns and Laser CIWS are the way of the future.

If that's true then nuclear (with huge overcapacity) is the way of the future since the latter two need huge amounts of energy to operate. However the UK is shying away from nuclear propulsion on cost grounds.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the UK is shying away from nuclear propulsion on cost grounds

Maybe we understand better (??) or actually have some transparency in Gvmnt accounting as to what will the costs of the 17 boats (nuclear) be, once decommissioned, but still afloat (until more is done to them; a huge n-boat parking lot up in the Murmansk area; one already caught fire a few years back).

[ArmChairCivvy]

As soon as I had written that, came to my mind that only the military is required to consider over the life costs (all stages of decommissioning included) for the projects they propose for funding, whereas the free-for-all sectors can do what ever they like over the useful life of a project, and then declare that "entity" bankrupt.
- or may be not; there are regulated sectors (airlines, banking, nuclear) but what is the horizon in the brief their Regulators have been assigned?

[Engaging Strategy]

If that's true then nuclear (with huge overcapacity) is the way of the future since the latter two need huge amounts of energy to operate. However the UK is shying away from nuclear propulsion on cost grounds.

Firstly, I hope you could see I was joking. I don't really want the RN to operate 46 Zumwalts!

Secondly, there's nothing suggesting you need a nuclear power plant for either the rail gun or the high energy laser system. Indeed, the US version of the latter is a singe plug and play package that comes with it's own diesel generator. Zumwalt is designed with plenty of power overcapacity for her future rail gun armament and she's not nuclear either.

As for RN nuclear power, with the exception of SSN/SSBN it's too expensive and requires trained specialists that are very hard retain.

[shark bait]

As for RN nuclear power, with the exception of SSN/SSBN it's too expensive and requires trained specialists that are very hard retain.

That is indeed the only time it makes sense, and that's only because of the lack of oxygen.

To make nuclear competitive with gas it needs to be running with a capacity factor of 95%, which makes the idea of putting them on ships running at half speed for half of the year a terrible idea. Especially when the ships weapon's need shit to burn any way (looking at you Nimitz).

The UK isn't just shying away on cost grounds, their shying away because its a terrible idea.

whereas the free-for-all sectors can do what ever they like over the useful life of a project, and then declare that "entity" bankrupt.

These days projects in the public sector, in the UK at least, also have to consider the end of life in planning

[Ron5]

"Indeed, the US version of the latter is a singe plug and play package that comes with it's own diesel generator"

I believe you are mistaking a test rig for a yet to be designed, mature weapon system.

[Engaging Strategy]

I believe you are mistaking a test rig for a yet to be designed, mature weapon system.

A test rig that works and continues the US Navy's preference for plug and play CIWS systems like Phalanx and C-RAM. If the test rig can be run off a simple DG why would you expect the real thing to require vastly more power, to the extent that some are suggesting the ship would need a nuclear powerplant?

[shark bait]

Since a CIWS is essentially the last line of defence, the more independent it is from the ship the better.

Having its own generator is an advantage. If the platforms is stranded, and its main systems fried, a modular independent CIWS will be very valuable. I would very much expect the final product to keep the diesel generator.

[Ron5]

I believe you are mistaking a test rig for a yet to be designed, mature weapon system.

A test rig that works and continues the US Navy's preference for plug and play CIWS systems like Phalanx and C-RAM. If the test rig can be run off a simple DG why would you expect the real thing to require vastly more power, to the extent that some are suggesting the ship would need a nuclear powerplant?

Because the rail gun will require a rate of fire comparable to a gun. Quite beyond the test rig. Multiple Megawatts needed & far beyond "a simple diesel generator". Will need to tap into the host ships main grid. AB's dont have enough spare capacity so just Zumwalts need apply but only if they ditch their every expensive pupose designed guns. Mmm I wonder if that will happen. Nope.

[Ron5]

Since a CIWS is essentially the last line of defence, the more independent it is from the ship the better.

Having its own generator is an advantage. If the platforms is stranded, and its main systems fried, a modular independent CIWS will be very valuable. I would very much expect the final product to keep the diesel generator.

Today's CIWS don't come with their own generators. No space. No money.

[shark bait]

Today's CIWS don't come with their own generators. No space. No money.

I know, that's why I saying the laser systems that do are a much more robust system.

[Engaging Strategy]

Because the rail gun will require a rate of fire comparable to a gun. Quite beyond the test rig. Multiple Megawatts needed & far beyond "a simple diesel generator". Will need to tap into the host ships main grid. AB's don't have enough spare capacity so just Zumwalts need apply but only if they ditch their every expensive purpose designed guns. Mmm I wonder if that will happen. Nope.

You'll see that I was talking about the LaWS CIWS, not the rail gun, which comes as a plug and play unit and can be powered by a simple integrated DG. Obviously the rail gun requires the ship to be able to generate a lot of electrical power, something the current generation of warships (like the Burkes) aren't designed to do. I'm confident though that you could develop a warship without a nuclear power plant that's able to generate the necessary power. The Zumwalts can do this even if they won't necessarily be fitted with the rail guns until later in life, or at all for that matter.

[Ron5]

Because the rail gun will require a rate of fire comparable to a gun. Quite beyond the test rig. Multiple Megawatts needed & far beyond "a simple diesel generator". Will need to tap into the host ships main grid. AB's don't have enough spare capacity so just Zumwalts need apply but only if they ditch their every expensive purpose designed guns. Mmm I wonder if that will happen. Nope.

You'll see that I was talking about the LaWS CIWS, not the rail gun, which comes as a plug and play unit and can be powered by a simple integrated DG. Obviously the rail gun requires the ship to be able to generate a lot of electrical power, something the current generation of warships (like the Burkes) aren't designed to do. I'm confident though that you could develop a warship without a nuclear power plant that's able to generate the necessary power. The Zumwalts can do this even if they won't necessarily be fitted with the rail guns until later in life, or at all for that matter.

I misread your comment. Thought you were talking about rail guns.

I believe that LaWS is not a stand alone system but adds to an adjunct to Phalanx. Phalanx provides tracking & control. LaWS lasers are rather weak so it's not capable of taking over Phalanx roles but rather provides a cheaper way to sink RIB's in perfect conditions at very short range. It might be able to down a drone as long as the drone coperates by flying slowly in a straight line. Not really a weapon system yet. More like a research project.

Anyway, I agree that nuclear power is not required by any surface warship. Even CVN's could be oil powered and still be extremely effective.

[ArmChairCivvy]

These nxt-gen things will get the answer from your mobile phone
...i.e the pulses of power needed for a non-prototype can only be satisfied from improved storage solutions, rather than upping the generator capacity, to match.

Check out the generators planned for the Zumwalts (and the down-scoping of the ABM radars on the next Burke's just because the retro-fitting - to new build ships! - can't match the demand (some people say it is a centre of gravity and a safe margin for buoyancy "question"... but, hey! it's all part and parcel of the same thing).

[Jake1992]

2 x QE class aircraft carriers
1 x Ark Royal aircraft carrier ( 45,000 - 50,000 tn 40 aircraft Charlse de Gaulle like) £2.5bn extra
2 x LHD ( 30,000 - 35,000 tn 244m lenth 35m beam 30 aircraft F-35b use enlarged Canberra class ) £3bn extra
12 x Type 45 ( £6bn extra )
12 x Type 26 ( £4bn extra )
12 x Type 31 ( 5,000 tn 135m +, stripped down type 26(£5bn extra )
10 x Corvette ship ( 3,500 tn ie BMT venator 110 £3bn extra)
10 x River class 2 ( Up armed £600m extra )
10 x Astute Attack Sub ( £4bn extra )
4 x Successore class
Bay class replaced like for like
Albion class replaced like for like

Procurement Coast £28.1bn extra on already planned over a 15 year build cycle

[R686]

2 x QE class aircraft carriers
1 x Ark Royal aircraft carrier ( 45,000 - 50,000 tn 40 aircraft Charlse de Gaulle like) £2.5bn extra

What's the point in two different types of aircraft carriers (STOVL/CATOBAR)

2 x LHD ( 30,000 - 35,000 tn 244m lenth 35m beam 30 aircraft F-35b use enlarged Canberra class ) £3bn extra

So you want an JC1 with enhanced aviation facility why, you already have STOVL carriers plus CATOBAR

12 x Type 45 ( £6bn extra )
12 x Type 26 ( £4bn extra )

Can't complian about those I'm sure the RN would love you for those

12 x Type 31 ( 5,000 tn 135m +, stripped down type 26(£5bn extra )

Don't see the point when you have T45/26 in above numbers

10 x Corvette ship ( 3,500 tn ie BMT venator 110 £3bn extra)

If they were cheap and cheerfull, might come in handy for Atlantic convoy duties in WWIII

10 x River class 2 ( Up armed £600m extra )

I would not bother up arming them as they are EEZ patrol boats

10 x Astute Attack Sub ( £4bn extra )
4 x Successore class

Would like Astute number up to 12, and Successor up to 9 for 3 on patrol at any one time

Bay class replaced like for like

Yes please an enhanced with room for 2x Merlin's or 1x chook

Albion class replaced like for like

No point you have LHD's & enhanced Bays

[dmereifield]

How about trying to put together the fleet with say 1/3 of the budget? That would be a bit more aligned to our current funding and likely fleet moving forward? Would have to rename it the austere fantasy fleet.....

Still hoping that May and Hammond increase defence spending in the Autumn budget, perhaps then we can increase the (austere) fantasy fleet budget to 40%

[Jake1992]

2 x QE class aircraft carriers
1 x Ark Royal aircraft carrier ( 45,000 - 50,000 tn 40 aircraft Charlse de Gaulle like) £2.5bn extra

What's the point in two different types of aircraft carriers (STOVL/CATOBAR)

I wasn't thinking of two different launch setups for the aircraft, more along the lines of similar size and dimension of Charlse de Gaulle
I would love a 3rd QE but at 3.3bn a peice that is out there I saw this as a cheaper opion

2 x LHD ( 30,000 - 35,000 tn 244m lenth 35m beam 30 aircraft F-35b use enlarged Canberra class ) £3bn extra

So you want an JC1 with enhanced aviation facility why, you already have STOVL carriers plus CATOBAR

Yes I want 2 enlarged JC1 but enhanced over all so larger troope facilities as well as enhance aviation
In times of real need they could be used a light carries, but main role would be as commando carries

12 x Type 31 ( 5,000 tn 135m +, stripped down type 26(£5bn extra )

Don't see the point when you have T45/26 in above numbers

The RN is already looking at a GPFF to me a stripped down type 26 would fit this role well giving room for future proofing
We just need to wait and hear what the RN wants them to do

10 x Corvette ship ( 3,500 tn ie BMT venator 110 £3bn extra)

If they were cheap and cheerfull, might come in handy for Atlantic convoy duties in WWIII

The venator 110 would be perfect for 2nd tier roles such as ain't drug smuggling, this would relieve the pressure on the T types to do the more high end jobs such as escorting the carries

10 x River class 2 ( Up armed £600m extra )

I would not bother up arming them as they are EEZ patrol boats

Up arming the B2 would give them greater self defence for the worse case situations witch in my opion the RN should always be planing for

10 x Astute Attack Sub ( £4bn extra )
4 x Successore class

Would like Astute number up to 12, and Successor up to 9 for 3 on patrol at any one time

We will never see an increase in Successore numbers as we are reducing our nuke arsenal

No point you have LHD's & enhanced Bays

I'd be looking to increase the RM capabilities The LDHs will be to replace HMS Ocean with greater troope and aviation abilities than Ocean aswell as being able to give the bay's and albinos a helping and if need be

[marktigger]

LHD's would probably replace the Albions as well.

[R686]

I know this is fantasy fleet but......

I wasn't thinking of two different launch setups for the aircraft, more along the lines of similar size and dimension of Charlse de Gaulle
I would love a 3rd QE but at 3.3bn a peice that is out there I saw this as a cheaper opion

How is the third different design going to be cheaper, you are awere that the only reason the price went up for the CVF was the goverments fault in slowing down the build and flip flop from STOVL to CATOBAR and back again

The more you build the more economy of scale kick in.

Yes I want 2 enlarged JC1 but enhanced over all so larger troope facilities as well as enhance aviation

In times of real need they could be used a light carries, but main role would be as commando carries

I've got no beef with going JC1 but there's no need to change it as 2x LHD will give more capabilty than what you have now with the Albions and Ocean, a third would have better implications with 1x avalible at all time surging to 2 and 3 if you were really lucky.

The RN is already looking at a GPFF to me a stripped down type 26 would fit this role well giving room for future proofing
We just need to wait and hear what the RN wants them to do

Only reason for T31 existence is that the T26 is unaffordable under the existing budget for 13 examples, if it wasn't for that T31 would not exist. Also don't quote me but from memory 9x T26 were to be fully kitted out and the remainder fitt but not with, a GPFF

The venator 110 would be perfect for 2nd tier roles such as ain't drug smuggling, this would relieve the pressure on the T types to do the more high end jobs such as escorting the carries

I don't really have a problem for them as they become OCV, but it's what the Rivers can do just as well

Up arming the B2 would give them greater self defence for the worse case situations witch in my opion the RN should always be planing for

You overlapping your role with above OCV

We will never see an increase in Successore numbers as we are reducing our nuke arsenal

Well to be honest I've not really look at the strategic number of the nuclear arsenal, but it would be a safe bet that they would be able to put to sea in an heightened alert 3x boats worth as a safe keeping measure as they would be more secure at sea than on land, a more of use it or lose it proposition

[Jake1992]

I know this is fantasy fleet but......

I wasn't thinking of two different launch setups for the aircraft, more along the lines of similar size and dimension of Charlse de Gaulle
I would love a 3rd QE but at 3.3bn a peice that is out there I saw this as a cheaper opion

How is the third different design going to be cheaper, you are awere that the only reason the price went up for the CVF was the goverments fault in slowing down the build and flip flop from STOVL to CATOBAR and back again

The more you build the more economy of scale kick in.

I do have to question if the economy of scale would really come in to it here as we are only talking about 3 vessels with the 3rd being built separately ?
If it does bring down the price then brilliant a 3rd QE defo, but if a mid size carrier is the cheaper opion then welll

Yes I want 2 enlarged JC1 but enhanced over all so larger troope facilities as well as enhance aviation

In times of real need they could be used a light carries, but main role would be as commando carries

I've got no beef with going JC1 but there's no need to change it as 2x LHD will give more capabilty than what you have now with the Albions and Ocean, a third would have better implications with 1x avalible at all time surging to 2 and 3 if you were really lucky.

I'd like to enlarge them to give us something between the JC1 and the wasp class in what they are capable of aviation wise and troope deployment
I'd like to do a amphibious op the same way we do now with the Albion and bay replacements and the new LHD taking the role HMS ocean would of

The RN is already looking at a GPFF to me a stripped down type 26 would fit this role well giving room for future proofing
We just need to wait and hear what the RN wants them to do

Only reason for T31 existence is that the T26 is unaffordable under the existing budget for 13 examples, if it wasn't for that T31 would not exist. Also don't quote me but from memory 9x T26 were to be fully kitted out and the remainder fitt but not with, a GPFF

My thinking here is that the 12 type 26s will be full fat complet ASW 26s and the type 31 will in sence be the GP type 26 or the original type 27 idea
I think for a 2 stroke carrier and 1 commando carrier set up we ideally need a core of around 36 escorts but that's just my opinion

The venator 110 would be perfect for 2nd tier roles such as ain't drug smuggling, this would relieve the pressure on the T types to do the more high end jobs such as escorting the carries

I don't really have a problem for them as they become OCV, but it's what the Rivers can do just as well

Up arming the B2 would give them greater self defence for the worse case situations witch in my opion the RN should always be planing for

You overlapping your role with above OCV

Once again my thinking here is that these could work with the venators in that 5 plus 1 in uk EEZ and 1 plus 1 both at gib and the Falklands, with others place forwards as in the carabian

We will never see an increase in Successore numbers as we are reducing our nuke arsenal

Well to be honest I've not really look at the strategic number of the nuclear arsenal, but it would be a safe bet that they would be able to put to sea in an heightened alert 3x boats worth as a safe keeping measure as they would be more secure at sea than on land, a more of use it or lose it proposition

As far as Iv read HMG have a commitment to keep the nuke deterrent but reduce the numbers we have
To get 9 successors we would have to maintain our numbers in really terms so I can't really see this happening, even though I do like the idea of 9 successors

[shark bait]

No, the system is being replaced like for like.

4 vanguard's being replaced with 4 successors. The only thing that's changing is reducing the capacity from 16 to 12 missiles.

Absolutely no need for 9 successors, 4 is the perfect number. That is unless the extra 5 are a hunter killer sub class with the launch tubes removed, that would make sense.