Interesting.....particularly since virtually everyone agrees most future operations will be in the littoral.
And the Type 42 is primarily an Anti Air platform - but if there is no air threat as many insist......?
There are no plans to fit
CEC to the Type 42 either.
Anyway, surely battlespace superiority is a pre requisite of power projection (including amphibious operations)? This is what the recent exercise (see the link from the 801 NAS news) demonstrates. No T42s took part in Exercise
Aurora/Rapid Alliance/Blinding Storm, but the Sea Harrier did!
According to the Ministers the three T23s will be mothballed so they can be reactivated if and/or when needed. Assuming they don't get sold!!
Just to clarify my earlier point.........
Sea Dart has a considerably greater range than Sea Wolf (either version) and can therefore provide area anti air warfare capability. It was originally designed to counter medium to high altitude aircraft, although I believe modifications and improvements post 1982 means it can deal with missile threats, including low altitude threats. It does suffer from the limitation of having only two missiles ready on the launcher, s such it can be saturated my numbers. Whilst the reload time is not long, that time is very significant when dealing with multiple aircraft or salvos of missiles, particularly if these are flying at supersonic speeds.
Sea Wolf has a much smaller range, but was designed with anti missile capability in mind. It can destroy the target at a sensible range, 3nm for the conventional launch type the T22s have or 4nm for the vertical launch type the T23 has. More significantly, the two versions have twelve or 32 missiles ready to fire. As such saturation is unlikely to be a problem, although it can only defend ships less than three or four miles away.
Neither system can engage missile carrying aircraft before they get within missile firing range. The Sea Harrier can, which is why its loss is such a dangerous move. The recent announcement on defence talked a lot about Force Multipliers - could it not be said that the Sea Harrier is a force multiplier for a maritime task group? Local air superiority and all that...
It seems very odd that we bin organic air defence at a time when other nations are doing their best to get it, or improve their capability (Italy is building a second carrier).
Several other elements of the recent cuts have implications on these issues and on future maritime operations:
-Reduction in RAF air defence aircraft numbers - the idea of the RAF providing land based air defence is even less feasible.
-Loss of Army and RAF Regiment Ground Based Air Defence systems - this has implications for situations were forces are put ashore and still face an air threat.
-Reliance on a smaller number of larger ships (RFAs and Ro-Ros) for transporting equipment. Hence losing one is more of a loss.
-Reducing the frigate/destroyer numbers so that several peacetime tasks can no longer be done (according to CINCFLEET). Since it is unlikely that our commitment to fighting terrorism would be comprimised, so things like Atlantic Patrol Task - South look vulnerable.
The next few years may be very dangrous for the UK and her interests.