Concept Study: a European Corvette Recipe

[kato]

Many European nations are currently in the process of planning out their future replacement of MCM ships, FACs, and/or corvettes and light OPVs.

Nations that have such projects under consideration are almost all nations of the WEU for a "future mine countermeasures concept"; other examples would be Germany for K131, the UK with C3, Italy with its Minervas. Envisioned IOC dates for such projects mostly range around 2020, notably none of these nations as of yet have a design in mind for this. Denmark's Flyvefisken, for example, might also be up around the same time.

With regard to mine countermeasures, most nations involved here do envision a somewhat larger, ocean-capable combatant as a better solution, often coupled with extensive use of drone technology; this replacement project actually is considered a priority item by the EDA.

I'd like this thread to be about what kind of ship could bring the above replacement projects under one common successor - a smaller LCS-like concept, or a broadening of C3, if you want to call it that.

Treat it as a C3 discussion if you want, but keep it a bit more general.

Conceptual type replacement:
- usage as C3, and requisite replacement of austere hulls
- replacement of Tripartite, Einheitshülle Minenabwehr and Lerici I/II
- replacement of Gepard FAC and Minerva corvettes

Conceptual numbers replacement:
- minimum equal tonnage for overall project (current for above: about 67,000 tons)
- minimum half the number of hulls (current for above: about 90 hulls)

(an example would be 48 ships of full load displacement of minimum 1,400 tons, or about 75 1,000-ton ships - like that)

Conceptual role requirements:
- limited blue-sea capability; minimum 14 days endurance; capability to receive RAS
- modular or fixed mine countermeasures systems (austere drone control systems, observation drones, destruction drones, requisite deployment equipment)
- modular or fixed combat systems (sensors/effectors) with a primary ASuW and MIO role
- potential usage in a few other roles (such as ASW picket)
- helicopter deck for medium helo; with or without hangar and further support facilities
- reasonable pricing (gross region for overall project: 5-7 billion Euro)
- low operating costs (affecting crew size and propulsion primarily, obviously)

Anyone game? :unknown

[Todjaeger]

Anyone game? :unknown

I am game. I will be at work in a few hours, so I will need to postpone putting up anything until then. Need time to collect my thoughts and put something together.

-Cheers

[Jon K]

I'd like this thread to be about what kind of ship could bring the above replacement projects under one common successor - a smaller LCS-like concept, or a broadening of C3, if you want to call it that.

Treat it as a C3 discussion if you want, but keep it a bit more general.

What's the idea of having corvettes? For what missions would they be critical?

Personally I'd scrap the idea of a corvette and build ships which would be something akin to Danish Absalom or Singapore's Endurance class. They would offer enough room for various small patrol craft / AUV's, USV's, UAV's / humanitarian missions etc. needed for most missions. They would also offer room for possible upgrading in case of increased budgets. Only thing I would change would be to change the basic layout to San Giorgio style to offer even more deck room. European Local MCM requirements can be mostly handled by operating minesweeping equipment from shore.

As for overall project cost, 7 billion euros for ca. 75x 1000 tonners is far too low. Finnish Navy's recent single-role MCMV purchase cost about 80 millions apiece. (IMHO, one of the worst purchasing decisions ever at time when organic MCM capability development is at full swing and transition time solutions could have been bought fairly cheaply)

As for additional requirements we should take a look at air defense and land attack requirements. I would guess the AD armament would be perhaps MICA naval with some sort of close defense system as backup (RAM, CIWS gun system etc.) As a gun is useful for littoral scenarios perhaps ca. 76mm main gun?

By adding these system we would have a corvette actually capable of defending itself and operating in patrol roles even in threatened environment. The question now is how much tonnage could be used for touted modular roles?

[Twister]

The evolution of European Corvette can be consider started when the concept of Swedish Visby Class being publish which promote a stealth technology, multirole and smaller size/weight.

The evolution also can be consider by needs of most european navy to decreased number of troop (with deactivated of consription).

[kato]

Personally I'd scrap the idea of a corvette and build ships which would be something akin to Danish Absalom or Singapore's Endurance class.

Gee, the requirement for 8-10 meters of water depth might kinda make them only suitable for standoff operations? And, even with downsizing, the Navies involved will still want numbers.
Okay, let's not call it a corvette. Let's call it a sloop.

European Local MCM requirements can be mostly handled by operating minesweeping equipment from shore.
Have you ever seen pictures from the annual live MCM operations such as Open Spirit? They typically involve 8-10 MCMV plus 3-5 drone minesweepers, and all these ships are fully needed to cover the typical areas. There are still some 5,000 WW1 and WW2 mines waiting just in the Irbsen Street for these operations.
And let's not forget other operations such as "Southern Flank" - clearing 1200 mines with 40 MCMV (30 of them from exactly the countries i'm involving) in the Persian Gulf in a space of only 3 months.

As for overall project cost, 7 billion euros for ca. 75x 1000 tonners is far too low. Finnish Navy's recent single-role MCMV purchase cost about 80 millions apiece.
50-100 million per unit (depending on size) is about the amount i'd aim for, especially with this kind of large production run. Reuse of existing or otherwise funded systems such as Troika can keep the cost a bit lower.
The Finnish got a recycled concept that Germany cancelled exactly for cost reasons btw.

[Jon K]

Gee, the requirement for 8-10 meters of water depth might kinda make them only suitable for standoff operations? And, even with downsizing, the Navies involved will still want numbers.
Okay, let's not call it a corvette. Let's call it a sloop.

Numbers are irrelevant if most of the time is spent on transit and RAS. With a mothership more time can be spent at scene. On extreme littoral operations, such as river deltas, smaller patrol craft will be needed anyway. A mothership could haul smaller utility craft, something akin to French L-CAT but perhaps smaller:

http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

for patrol, transportation and MCM gear carrying duties. These vessels could act as long arm of mothership. The concept of operations would have mothership providing long range support with replenishment, medium/heavy helos, perhaps attack helos, and necessary mission module swap. Depending on size of smaller craft these could have additional patrol vessels / unmanned vehicles.

And let's not forget other operations such as "Southern Flank" - clearing 1200 mines with 40 MCMV (30 of them from exactly the countries i'm involving) in the Persian Gulf in a space of only 3 months.

And these MCMV vessels take a long time to deploy and for operations use mostly their remote guided equipment. MCMV's also cannot operate helos for MCM duties by themselves.

50-100 million per unit (depending on size) is about the amount i'd aim for, especially with this kind of large production run. Reuse of existing or otherwise funded systems such as Troika can keep the cost a bit lower. The Finnish got a recycled concept that Germany cancelled exactly for cost reasons btw.

Even Finnish Hamina costs some 80 million, though with larger production run cost would have been smaller. Small price tag means that the craft, let's call it sloop, can't be constructed out of composites and cannot have complicated weapon systems. How about basing it on offshore service vessel, like following:

http://www.hornbeckoffshore.com/pdfs_mpsv/HOS%20Iron%20Horse%20Spec%20Sheet%20rev%201.pdf

That would keep the costs down.

[kato]

Even Finnish Hamina costs some 80 million, though with larger production run cost would have been smaller. Small price tag means that the craft, let's call it sloop, can't be constructed out of composites and cannot have complicated weapon systems. How about basing it on offshore service vessel, like following:

France recently commissioned a 1700 ton mine disposal tender (A645 Alize) for overseas operations with a pricetag of 20 million.
Armament can be reused, at least as far as guns go. Not really much of a price tag to that. Giving the system the possibility to mount additional modular weapon systems doesn't cost much either.

Composites are not a must, even for a mineclearing vessel - in the current mineclearing environment, as said most "dangerous" operation is handled by drone systems already (UUVs and USVs).
Europe doesn't use helicopters for minesweeping at all, btw, and afaik has no plans to introduce such systems.

[Jon K]

France recently commissioned a 1700 ton mine disposal tender (A645 Alize) for overseas operations with a pricetag of 20 million.
Armament can be reused, at least as far as guns go. Not really much of a price tag to that. Giving the system the possibility to mount additional modular weapon systems doesn't cost much either.

Composites are not a must, even for a mineclearing vessel - in the current mineclearing environment, as said most "dangerous" operation is handled by drone systems already (UUVs and USVs).
Europe doesn't use helicopters for minesweeping at all, btw, and afaik has no plans to introduce such systems.

It seems that said ship is exactly based upon an offshore support ship and was built in a shipyard specializing in civilian ships (SOCARENAM). I just wonder to what standards the ship has been built upon. Construction up to warship standards costs much more than normal construction. Reserving places for additional armament modules won't cost much but naturally restricts capabilities. The question is that with less capabilities in which threat environments are operations viable? Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in 2006 showed that even non-state actors may have modern ASM's and ATGM's.

EDA is currently developing an UAV to support minesweeping operations and at least Swedish navy choppers sport a LIDAR to support littoral underwater object recognition.

[kato]

Well, COTS and commercial standards are en-vogue.

My guess is that in any next generation mineclearing vehicle, what few actual MCM-related equipment there is will almost entirely be offloaded to standoff drone equipment. The ship itself needs nothing more than a crane or two, perhaps some protected flexible space for UUVs, and space for the necessary modular drone C2 equipment.

One could of course place this equipment and modules on a 500 million Euro frigate (LCS) just as well as on a 20 million Euro oilfield supply vessel (or a 10 million Euro coastal cargo ship) - provided it can support the necessary crew and supply needs.

The question of the ship's capability would mostly come with the other possible applications for the hull. For example if we want it in a patrol role, it obviously needs to be faster than just 15 knots.

[Todjaeger]

Okay, here are some of my preliminary thoughts...

IMO one of the first things to be determined are what roles the "Eurovette" is to fufill, and what overall importance they are to be. Like what is the primary role, secondary, tertiary, etc etc. This needs to be determined as this very much effects the required and desired fitout of the vessels, as well as construction methods.

Secondly, the number of vessels and the overall budget need to be determined. So far, the numbers given (50-75 vessels) and a budget of 5-7 billion Euros works out to between 67 - 140 million Euros per vessel. This gives a fair idea of what could possibly be fitted to the various vessels.

As for roles, I do think MCM should be one of them, but not as a primary role. If one looks at the various dedicated MCM vessels, their design and construction characteristics, as well as ship performace, are markedly different from similarly sized FAC, patrol boats, and larger vessels like corvettes and frigates. This is largely due to the operational considerations when clearing sea mines, which required (or made a very good idea) composite or wooden hulls, equipment mounted to bulkheads vs, the hull, and a relatively quiet hull. In particular, the last requirement, AFAIK has also caused MCM vessels to have relatively low cruising and max speeds, which would result in a relatively poor performing patrol vessel since most other vessels could simply "out run" it.

Rather, traditional ASuW/ASW should IMO be primary roles with space and weight available for some of the current and upcoming modular MCM systems to be embarked on an as-needed basis.

As for ship systems, I very much prefer a modular weapons pack that can be switched around depending on what the mission needs are. To this end, I would be in favor of adopting a weapons system like Stanflex, or the one used aboard the LCS. Even better IMV would be for a modular weapons system to be developed to NATO standards, using common connections, databus, mountings, software language, etc. This way, different companies could produce their own modules for torpedoes, missiles, guns, etc which then various EU/NATO nations could purchase depending on need, and if need be, could in a potential conflict be supplied by an ally who uses different by similar equipment. This could also ease things as different class vessels are commissoned and decommissioned, as the mounting sockets would be the same from class to class.

The design I have in mind would be in the range of ~1,400 tons, of steel construction. It would likely be ~85m long, with 10m beam and 3m draught. Max speed would most likely be in the range of 26-30 kts, with a cruising speed around 15-18 kts, with a 3,000 n mile range at cruising speed.

It would have five space for five modules, one fore, one aft, and three amidships. There would be a helicopter landing platform, with an expanding/folding hangar.

Total normal crew would likely be around 70 people, though there would be accomodations for perhaps an additional 20 personnel.

In terms of sensors, there would be hull-mounted sonar, and air/surface search and navigation radars, comms, datalinks, E/O sights, all permanently mounted.

As for modules, I have in mind those developed for the Stanflex 300 of C-Flex, with some possible additions.

A modular torpedoe launcher for ASW ops
A rapid fire gun or guns (in the 20-57mm range) for use as CIWS & vs. FAC
A modular mounting for a towed sonar array (if feasible)
Modular MCM systems for launching and controling ROV and drones

For general operations, I would forsee the 'Eurovette' being equipped as follows (going from bow to stern modules)
1. 76mm/62 cal main gun
2. triple (quad?) lightweight torpedo mounting
3. a 6-cell Mk 56 VLS duo-packed with ESSM
4. a 35mm Millenium gun for CIWS
5. two quad Mk 141 Harpoon AShM launchers

My concerns with the design as laid out is whether or not the vessel would be an 'easy' sailor with the equipment indicated to achieve the desired performance fitting into a 1,400 ton hull of the given dimensions. The other concern is if the project would be feasible with the budget specified. At the high end of the concept and budget, it seems to be similar to what was originally envisioned for LCS, a roughly US$200 mil/vessel littoral combatant that is also capable of some ops in open waters...

As we have seen, that does not appear to have worked out, at least not as originally envisioned.

-Cheers

[Jon K]

My concerns with the design as laid out is whether or not the vessel would be an 'easy' sailor with the equipment indicated to achieve the desired performance fitting into a 1,400 ton hull of the given dimensions. The other concern is if the project would be feasible with the budget specified. At the high end of the concept and budget, it seems to be similar to what was originally envisioned for LCS, a roughly US$200 mil/vessel littoral combatant that is also capable of some ops in open waters...

What you've described seems to be somewhat like Danish "Niels Juel" class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Juel_class_corvette

Basic specifications for the hull you've describing indicates something quite similar to Finnish Hämeenmaa class ML/PC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4meenmaa_class_minelayer

Hämeenmaa-class has had a disastrous seakeeping record which has not even been corrected via installation of additional stabilizer fins. Small draft and high superstructure means bad seakeeping. That's why I wouldn't classify it as an OPV.

Idea on NATO-standard module is excellent, unfortunately with local national pork perhaps unfeasible.

[ASFC]

Idea on NATO-standard module is excellent, unfortunately with local national pork perhaps unfeasible.

Why is it? Surely if you have NATO standard connections etc as Todjaeger suggested then those who wish to use their prefered equipment can. Surely it bypasses the arguments that will happen between countries on what weapons to use, as they all know they can fit the ones they prefer using this new NATO standard system, and just concentrate on the ship design.

I have to agree on the seakeeping abilities. I can think of another now rather infamous NZ OPV that has similar dimensions to what is being suggested........

[Jon K]

Why is it? Surely if you have NATO standard connections etc as Todjaeger suggested then those who wish to use their prefered equipment can. Surely it bypasses the arguments that will happen between countries on what weapons to use, as they all know they can fit the ones they prefer using this new NATO standard system, and just concentrate on the ship design.

Creation of standardized connections would threaten package deals as customers would be more free to choose whatever weapons they would wish for. It would be also a threat to rather lucrative systems integration business.

I have to agree on the seakeeping abilities. I can think of another now rather infamous NZ OPV that has similar dimensions to what is being suggested......

Without knowing very much about ships it sure seems strange that NZ IPV's and OPV's have roughly same draft. The difference is that IPV's have displacement of some 340 tons and OPV's some 1700 tons. The Irish LE Roisin and STX's 75m OPV concept both seem to have much lower superstructures -> less topweight and "wind surface" (?).

Following page might be of interest in general in context of this discussion:

http://www.akeryardsmarine.com/ship_patrol.html

It shows various OPV designs.

[rjmaz1]

The answer to the game...

Austals multi role corvette.

http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9

The weapon systems is what will make this type of ship expensive. So an aluminium trimaran can still be very cheap. Wack a basic gun, radar and sonar on the ship and then have modular packages. The corvette can be left empty as a light armed transport- The huge flight deck for such a small ship allows for an advanced helicopter to be on board giving advanced anti-ship capability.

Weapon modules could range from air to air modules to air to surface and anti ship modules. submarine warfare modules would also be available etc. The key would be to make these modules cheap using off the shelf and proven technology. E.g the a2a package could simply be a launcher with six amraams, being active missiles they dont requre high levels of integration with the ships radar. The ships radar then doesn't require tracking abilities with the active missiles. so a longer ranged cheaper radar could be used.

anti ship modules could simply be hellfire missiles again using laser guidance requires little integration with the ships radar.

Just a few ideas, with the low end modules. If all modules were fitted you'd nhave firepower of a frigate, not a high end destroyer.

[Todjaeger]

The answer to the game...

Austals multi role corvette.

http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9

The weapon systems is what will make this type of ship expensive. So an aluminium trimaran can still be very cheap. Wack a basic gun, radar and sonar on the ship and then have modular packages. The corvette can be left empty as a light armed transport- The huge flight deck for such a small ship allows for an advanced helicopter to be on board giving advanced anti-ship capability.

Weapon modules could range from air to air modules to air to surface and anti ship modules. submarine warfare modules would also be available etc. The key would be to make these modules cheap using off the shelf and proven technology. E.g the a2a package could simply be a launcher with six amraams, being active missiles they dont requre high levels of integration with the ships radar. The ships radar then doesn't require tracking abilities with the active missiles. so a longer ranged cheaper radar could be used.

anti ship modules could simply be hellfire missiles again using laser guidance requires little integration with the ships radar.

Just a few ideas, with the low end modules. If all modules were fitted you'd nhave firepower of a frigate, not a high end destroyer.

As has been pointed out in the RAN thread, there are a few issues with the Austal MRC, which any user navy would need to take into account.

The vessel itself is not properly a corvette. The armament Austal has it with is a Typhoon mount with a 25mm cannon. It also has a multi-role mission/vehicle deck with a rear Ro/Ro ramp.

Being a trimaran design to be constructed from aluminum, it was designed to HSC standards. This in turn means that it should not operate more than 8 hours from port... Also, while the confined waters of the Baltic and Med might be less of a problem, I would imagine the ship would not fair well in the North Sea, or other blue water areas where some navies might have them operate.

Also, the design itself has a relatively low dwt, which means that not much (in terms of weight) additional equipment could either be fitted or added on using modules. In addition, the overall shape of the vessel can be an issue, as modular weapon and/or sensor systems would likely need to be placed relatively high on the hull, causing possible stability issues. This would likely cause problems with the vessel's suitability for ASuW and possibly ASW ops.

Lastly, in order to be effective, the corvette needs to be able to carry sufficient equipment to complete the required taskings, and the sensors and data systems to make use of the equipment. The weapons, sensors and electronic fitout of a ship is AFAIK where things get really costly, comprising half (or more in some cases) of the total cost of a given warship. As such, trying to use low end system would result in the vessel just being that much poorer a combatant.

As for using ship launched Hellfires... That is a good idea for small vessels (like the Dabur, Dvora & Super Dvora) which are in the 50 ton range FACs, and gives them sufficient firepower to destroy similarly sized vessels and damage vessels larger than them. For a corvette sized vessel, I would rather have it equipped with a 57mm or 76mm cannon, as it allows more flexibility, more options, and similar anti-ship performance.

IMO a properly fitted out and operated corvette would at the least have to be considered as a threat by a potentially hostile ship. By those criteria, I do not believe that the Austal MRC would succeed without a very significant redesign.

-Cheers

[alexsa]

As has been pointed out in the RAN thread, there are a few issues with the Austal MRC, which any user navy would need to take into account........
IMO a properly fitted out and operated corvette would at the least have to be considered as a threat by a potentially hostile ship. By those criteria, I do not believe that the Austal MRC would succeed without a very significant redesign.

-Cheers

Beat me to it. I would add the MRV is also going to be relatively expensive for the capability it offers.

Cheers
Alex

[Todjaeger]

Beat me to it. I would add the MRV is also going to be relatively expensive for the capability it offers.

Cheers
Alex

True. I did not really get into the relative cost issues between marine aluminum and mild steel... Never mind that in order to be effective, it would need a reasonably comprehensive sensor and electronics suite, which is, along with armament, something approaching half the cost of a combatant.

-Cheers

[rjmaz1]

IMO a properly fitted out and operated corvette would at the least have to be considered as a threat by a potentially hostile ship. By those criteria, I do not believe that the Austal MRC would succeed without a very significant redesign.
A race car fitted out might be consdered a threat at winning a race...

So by your logic you'd rather have something with such low performance you cannot win or even be considered a threat?

Why even try if you have already accepted defeat? :confused:

Having a ship that threatens hostile ships is exactly what a warship is designed for.

The Multi role corvette design is great, as most of the ships cost is in the weapons systems then it will not cost drastically more being an exotic design. Probably the best modular upgrade to a ship like this would be a armed helicopter. A helicopter can deploy to the ship quickly, increasing the firepower of the ship 10 fold. So if you focus on this helicopter centric design for increasing capabiliy then the MRC wins as it has more room for helicopters for its size. To get the same level of deck space on a single hullship you'll be looking at double the displaement and the bigger engines and fuel consummption that goes with it.

The only downside is its sea keepingg. Thats important for the open oceans around Australia but not so much around Europe. Apparently the MRC is quite stable for its size when in rough seas.

[ASFC]

The Austal design is not a warship, its expensive, not built to military standards and does not carry the weapons load or sensors I would expect of a Corvette sized warship.

For a Corvette it is going to need space for 57 or 76 mm Gun, a Flightdeck, possibly a retractable Hanger, Light AA and ASW weapons with space to upgrade the armament. Room for 'another' capability that can be changed depending on circumstances (MCM or Survey work or Diving etc). Plus Sensors, command and control stations............etc

In many ways calling it a corvette is misleading-it could just be a small frigate with a smaller crew, lighter weapons and a 'flexible space' for other purposes.

[alexsa]

A race car fitted out might be consdered a threat at winning a race...

So by your logic you'd rather have something with such low performance you cannot win or even be considered a threat?

Why even try if you have already accepted defeat? :confused:

Having a ship that threatens hostile ships is exactly what a warship is designed for.

The Multi role corvette design is great, as most of the ships cost is in the weapons systems then it will not cost drastically more being an exotic design. Probably the best modular upgrade to a ship like this would be a armed helicopter. A helicopter can deploy to the ship quickly, increasing the firepower of the ship 10 fold. So if you focus on this helicopter centric design for increasing capabiliy then the MRC wins as it has more room for helicopters for its size. To get the same level of deck space on a single hullship you'll be looking at double the displaement and the bigger engines and fuel consummption that goes with it.

The only downside is its sea keepingg. Thats important for the open oceans around Australia but not so much around Europe. Apparently the MRC is quite stable for its size when in rough seas.

There is no logic to this. If the helcopter is the main weapons system then you do not need an expensive, weight and weather retricted hull to carry it. You would be better off going for a conventional design with long range, a reasonably high sustained cruise speed and the ability of operate in more difficult conditions.

Don't confuse maximum speed with sustained speed as even a lightweight like the MRV is range restricted at speed, more so because the weight issue limits bunker capacity if other systems are carried ..... like a heavy helicopters and their stores.

The MRV would be very useful for brown water, multi role, low intensity operations, but is still expensive for what it offers in this regard for most small naval forces. Many would simply opt to take commerical RO-RO designs. This may be why Indoneisa use reasonably large (and now commerically designed) LPD as they offer range, persistnce and uplift.

[alexsa]

Actaully to give a relative indication of costs if you are willng to buy seond hand (even in the current market which is only now on the way down from a high) you can get a 1989 built (keel lay) 18 to 19kt 15000 to 25000 DWT RO-RO, LO-LO (just completed dry dock) for 15.5million USD ONO.

http://www.frankshipbrokers.com/Roro.html

On the other hand a 1995 built 77m wave piecer (34knots) with it capcity limted to 151 cars (about 300 DWT) will still set you back 11.6m. Note the mainteancen on this will be much higher than the conventional vesel and these things are very limited in sea state.

http://www.frankshipbrokers.com/PassengerandFerries.html

[Todjaeger]

A race car fitted out might be consdered a threat at winning a race...

So by your logic you'd rather have something with such low performance you cannot win or even be considered a threat?

Why even try if you have already accepted defeat? :confused:

Having a ship that threatens hostile ships is exactly what a warship is designed for.

The Multi role corvette design is great, as most of the ships cost is in the weapons systems then it will not cost drastically more being an exotic design. Probably the best modular upgrade to a ship like this would be a armed helicopter. A helicopter can deploy to the ship quickly, increasing the firepower of the ship 10 fold. So if you focus on this helicopter centric design for increasing capabiliy then the MRC wins as it has more room for helicopters for its size. To get the same level of deck space on a single hullship you'll be looking at double the displaement and the bigger engines and fuel consummption that goes with it.

The only downside is its sea keepingg. Thats important for the open oceans around Australia but not so much around Europe. Apparently the MRC is quite stable for its size when in rough seas.

Umm... What?:unknown

What I suggested was a corvettte with modular systems, allowing it to be armed on an as-needed basis with such weapons as a 76mm cannon (a la the Danish Flyvefisken-class patrol boat). The hypothetical design I have in mind would have permanently mounted the requisite sensors and electronics/fire control systems to make use of such weaponry, as well as others like Harpoon AShM, or ESSM SAM... Such weaponry IMO is a respectable level of firepower, particularly for such a small ship (in the ~1,400 ton range...) being potentially similar to a number of different frigates.

Essentially, a corvette is a smaller frigate. Due to being a smaller ship, there are typically a few more operating restrictions, such as shorter range due to limited bunkerage and stores. Also, the armament is sometimes a little lighter (i.e. a 57mm of 76mm cannon vs. a 5"/127mm cannon...) and it often is not able to operate in weather is quite as rough, as the design is just smaller.

Properly equipped, an embarked helicopter can certainly help a vessel equipped as indicated above, however IMO it would not bring a "10-fold increase in the ships firepower... Nevermind that a helicopter is not always available as it will be dow for rest & maintenance and only available for ops roughly a 3rd of the time, weather permitting.

Similarly,
anti ship modules could simply be hellfire missiles again using laser guidance requires little integration with the ships radar.

Such a capability is not all that great for a ship of the indicated size and cost that the Austal MRC would be. If the Austal MRC were to have a hypothetical encounter with something like the German Type 143A Gepard (a class of ship it would be to replace...) the Gepard would be able to engage with Exocet AShM long before the Austal's Hellfires could be brought to bear. It is also quite possible that the Gepard's 76mm cannon could engage before the Hellfires could as well, since a 76mm has IIRC a range of ~12km. I have heard various ranges for Hellfire bandied about between ~4-16 km, but there is a great deal of variation between different versions of Hellfire missile, and also the altitude at which the Hellfire is fired. Given that it would be getting fired from a ship, the altitude would be low, therefore the range would be less than if fired from a helicopter at 5,000 ft.

-Cheers

[Vajt]

How about the MEKO CSL or MEKO Fusion designs? They are highly modular and should fulfill most of what you propose.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/littoral-dominance-requires-broader.html

-----JT-----

[tatra]

Would the new dutch patrol vessel fit this bracket?
http://www.scheldenavalshipbuilding.nl/nl/news.htm?item=4

"The new vessels will measure 108 metres in length and will displace approximately 3750 tons. They offer hangar space and landing facilities for one NH-90 helicopter or equivalent types. Their armament will consist of one 76 mm Oto-Melara gun, one rapid-fire gun and two Hitrole machine guns. The weapons will all have full remote control. Thanks to the state-of-the-art integrated sensor and communication technology in the mast, detection and tracking of high- and low-altitude air targets, fast boats, periscopes, mines and even swimmers will be possible."

Offensive capability from the use of missiles and torpedoes on NH-90.

[crobato]

What about the SIGMA class? Any opinion on that?

[Jezza]

Would the new dutch patrol vessel fit this bracket?
http://www.scheldenavalshipbuilding.nl/nl/news.htm?item=4

"The new vessels will measure 108 metres in length and will displace approximately 3750 tons. They offer hangar space and landing facilities for one NH-90 helicopter or equivalent types. Their armament will consist of one 76 mm Oto-Melara gun, one rapid-fire gun and two Hitrole machine guns. The weapons will all have full remote control. Thanks to the state-of-the-art integrated sensor and communication technology in the mast, detection and tracking of high- and low-altitude air targets, fast boats, periscopes, mines and even swimmers will be possible."

Offensive capability from the use of missiles and torpedoes on NH-90.


I reckon it does.
Great armament and helo sweet.............:D

[harryriedl]

Would the new dutch patrol vessel fit this bracket?
http://www.scheldenavalshipbuilding.nl/nl/news.htm?item=4

"The new vessels will measure 108 metres in length and will displace approximately 3750 tons. They offer hangar space and landing facilities for one NH-90 helicopter or equivalent types. Their armament will consist of one 76 mm Oto-Melara gun, one rapid-fire gun and two Hitrole machine guns. The weapons will all have full remote control. Thanks to the state-of-the-art integrated sensor and communication technology in the mast, detection and tracking of high- and low-altitude air targets, fast boats, periscopes, mines and even swimmers will be possible."

Offensive capability from the use of missiles and torpedoes on NH-90.
would you be able to bolt on a RAM or a SeaRAM on it as having the option to add a missile armament is would be useful

[tatra]

I suppose adding RAM into the vessel would not be too difficult. There would be room for it behind the integrated mast, just between the funnels. Don't know how an installation there would affect the things that the integrated mast does.

Video on integrated mast (on this patrol vessel):
YouTube - Thales integrated sensor mast

Article on sensors contained in integrated mast (on this patrol vessel)
http://www.thalesgroup.com/netherlands/Press-Room/Press-Release-search-all/Press-Release-search-result/Press-Release-Article2.html?link=485b2c2d-5a02-375c-2b12-2b67772b6243:central&locale=EN-gb&Title=Royal+Netherlands+Navy+selects+Thales%27s+In tegrated+Mast&dis=1

Article on integrated mast (on this patrol vessel): http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Aae8245dd-2c90-4630-9a63-743f04d6c242

Article on patrol vessels' stern launch and recovery slipway for interceptor boats:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae771f395-cb02-4cfd-aec4-df54117b91c7

About the Patrol Vessel
The Patrol Vessel as designed for the Royal Netherlands Navy measures 108 meter in length and 16 meter in breadth. Total displacement is 3750 tonnes.

The vessel accommodates 50 crew and up to 40 non-listed persons, such as helicopter crew and medical teams. Further some 100 evacuees can be boarded. The ship's speed is approx 22 knots. To optimize the seakeeping behaviour of the vessel the hull has been stretched, and the bridge and superstructure are located relatively aftwards.
The propulsion plant consists of 2 main diesel engines of approx 5400 kW each. Alternatively electric propulsion can be chosen for low speed operations.
To support interception operations, 2 large RHIB's and one NH-90 helicopter are boarded. The stern RHIB will be launched and recovered via a slipway in the stern.
The weapon suit consists of one 76 mm gun, one 27 mm automatic gun and two automatic medium calibre gun systems.
In order to reduce the vulnerability, the vessel will be outfitted with ballistic features, blast resistant constructions, redundant and decentralized systems, a gas citadel, extensive fire fighting systems and additional measures to reduce the effects of flooding.

Automation level for this vessel is high, and includes a shore support system, a shore management system, a calamity system, a warning system, an overview system and extensive subsystem automation.
Also the communication and networks are state of the art, so as to support and direct all authorities involved.
The Patrol Vessels will be the first vessels of the Royal Netherlands Navy equipped with the Thales Integrated Sensor & Communication Systems (ISCS), an integrated mast module which integrates practically all RF systems, radars as well as communication and optical sensors on board of the ship in one housing
Together with this Integrated Sensor & Communication Systems (ISCS) these four advanced Patrol Vessels can face the threats and missions of today and tomorrow.
Source: formerly the Royal Schelde Group

The projected number of ships for the class is four. Commisionings will take place during 2009-2012:

P840: HNLMS Holland
P841: HNLMS Zeeland
P842: HNLMS Friesland
P843: HNMLS Groningen
On December 20, 2007 the contract was signed for 4 ships at a cost of around € (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro) 600 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Dutch_Navy_OPV's

Keel for First Patrol Ship Laid Down
(Source: Dutch Ministry of Defence; issued Dec. 8, 2008)
(Issued in Dutch only: unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.43386544.1228863505.FLH1fX8A AAEAAAJYJ1YAAAA4&cat=3&prod=100447&modele=release#

[Vajt]

would you be able to bolt on a RAM or a SeaRAM on it as having the option to add a missile armament is would be useful

How about upgrading the 76mm to fire the DART guided round to defeat missiles?

I believe it has a range of close to 10km which is similar to that of the RAM. It may not offer the firepower of the RAM but it would be a lot more cost effective seeing how the 76mm gun is already there. Plus I would imagine a guided 76mm round probably costs a bit less than a RAM missile.

Oto-Melara has provided a very comprehensive package with their stealthy 76mm gun. With the new Super Rapid gun (120 rpm) and newest ammo (from multi-use, to long range-30km, and guided rounds) it offers a fairly complete platform.

http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/mediumCalibers/76-62SR.pdf

http://www.otomelara.it/OtoMelara/EN/Business/Sea/Under_Development/index.sdo

-----JT-----

[kato]

Alright, let's go over the suggestions...

First off, the Holland class and the Damen corvettes - seriously, we're not looking for a 100m+ open-ocean patroller. Besides, both would have prices that would yield us perhaps 25-30 hulls at most on our budget. The same issue is also there with Meko CSL and Meko Fusion. We're effectively talking a ship in the 60-80 m OAL range.

Remember, as laid out originally, this is looking to replace minehunters and very lightly armed patrol ships primarily.

Such a ship won't have a fixed helo assigned to it - way too much cost. It'd be nice if it can support one, and for certain missions it'd sortie with one, but it's not a fixed asset. It won't have ASuW missiles, that's not its mission - there could be a modded version carrying some, but for most of the class, this is a non-issue. It will likely have a hull-mounted sonar, especially for minehunting.

What it'll need for it's stated mission is a certain amount of space - internal and external - to mount its mission-specific equipment. It could therefore be useful designing it with a multifunctional hangar - used for a helo, for MCM drones, for loose cargo or for accomodation depending on specific mission, for example. Same thing with a flight deck, always a useful thing to have - even if you just use it to park two 20' containers on it. It's unlikely the ship would be used to ferry around vehicles, cargo or personnel other than mission-related, so we won't need a RoRo deck or anything like that.
Speed and propulsion in general is a non-issue - within its context, it won't need to move at 20+ knots. It doesn't have to intercept anything, or move across the ocean at high speeds - just reliably cruise on. Say 16-17 knots should be enough for its operational needs, 14-15 would still be alright. It would be nice to have at least 3, preferably 4 weeks unsupported endurance, and to have a range in excess of 6,000 nm at a low cruise speed of 12 knots.

Regarding armament, we're primarily talking self-defense, with the possibility to expand this at wartime. The latter could be achieved in a modular approach - like Stanflex - but could also be enabled with builtin ffbnw growth space for say torpedo tubes, or missile launchers. Bolt it on, set sail in a few days again. Keep a number of hulls with certain armament installed at peacetime, if the specific customer wants it. Such things could partially also be relegated to helicopter mission packages. In its peacetime duties the ship won't need any of that, all the navies involved have other ships for such duties - and for the most part won't fund such expenses.
Obviously the above affects the choice of armament. Think about it - you want it ffbnw ESSM? You need the necessary sensors and illuminators. You want it to carry a ASuW/LA SSM with an active seeker and perhaps GPS, like RBS-15 or NSM? No problem, no sensors needed. And so on.

[rjmaz1]

Well if those are the actual requirements then that rules out a trimaran hull as there is no need for a 40 knot top speed. It also rules out gas turbines in a CODAG setup as there is also no need for a 30 knot top speed.

So that leaves a monohull design with a pair of diesels and two props. One diesel running both props for long distance cruise and two diesels running both props for fast cruise. If the target weight is between 1000-2000 tonns then there is a popular ship thats already in service with many navies.

The MEKO A-100 patrol corvette. It has various levels of weapons fit outs from a crew of 30 as a basic patrol shnip to a crew of up to 100 when equipped with a helicopter, land and sea missile systems. It also comes equipped with a 76 or 62mm cannon and comes fitted for but now with exocet anti-ship missiles. At 1,650 tonn it has excellent seakeeping and an excellent 6000 mile range when cruising on the single diesel engine. Most importantly it can support a helicopter and has a hanger. Price is all over the shop as the weapons set the cost. Anywhere from 100 million to 300 US dollar per ship. The hull is such excellent value for money that it will be cheaper with any given weapon package.

[B.Smitty]

Well if those are the actual requirements then that rules out a trimaran hull as there is no need for a 40 knot top speed. It also rules out gas turbines in a CODAG setup as there is also no need for a 30 knot top speed.

So that leaves a monohull design with a pair of diesels and two props. One diesel running both props for long distance cruise and two diesels running both props for fast cruise. If the target weight is between 1000-2000 tonns then there is a popular ship thats already in service with many navies.

The MEKO A-100 patrol corvette. It has various levels of weapons fit outs from a crew of 30 as a basic patrol shnip to a crew of up to 100 when equipped with a helicopter, land and sea missile systems. It also comes equipped with a 76 or 62mm cannon and comes fitted for but now with exocet anti-ship missiles. At 1,650 tonn it has excellent seakeeping and an excellent 6000 mile range when cruising on the single diesel engine. Most importantly it can support a helicopter and has a hanger. Price is all over the shop as the weapons set the cost. Anywhere from 100 million to 300 US dollar per ship. The hull is such excellent value for money that it will be cheaper with any given weapon package.

There are a few OPV hulls in that size range on which this could be based. The Meko A-100 is certainly a candidate, as is a stretched VT River class, and the Akers-designed NZ Protector OPV.

The River and Protector OPVs both offer very low prices (on the order of $60-80 million (USD)). They would need minor enhancement to allow carriage of MIW gear or modules.

Modular armament sounds nice, but whether you want to incur the cost of making it drop-in replaceable is an open question to me. Maybe you just send them back to the yard for a refit, if needed.

These aren't warships, so a 76mm or 57mm may be overkill. A 25mm-40mm is plenty to shoot up pirate ships or other small craft.

I also wouldn't bother with SSMs or SAMs - just too expensive. Maybe just have the option to partner with Lockheed to install a few Netfires containers on deck somewhere, if needed.

An open question is, will an OPV-like top speed of 20-23kts be sufficiently flexible for the range of patrol duties envisioned? I don't know. My gut says, "don't increase the speed, and use the savings to buy more ships."

[kato]

An open question is, will an OPV-like top speed of 20-23kts be sufficiently flexible for the range of patrol duties envisioned?
The ships being replaced, as laid out by me:

- Einheitshülle Minenabwehr: 14-15 knots
- Tripartite: 14 knots
- River: 17 knots
- Lerici: 14 knots
(- Minerva: 25 knots)
(- Gepard: 42 knots)

Currently, roughly: 20 hulls faster than 17 knots; 70 hulls up to 17 knots.
If at all, presumably a portion of the vessels could be acquired in a "Block 1B" with different, faster propulsion.

[B.Smitty]

kato,

You list ASuW as a primary role of this vessel. Do you mean small-boat ASuW? Or duking it out with warships?

For the most part, the ships being replaced do not have the later capability.

[rjmaz1]

There are a few OPV hulls in that size range on which this could be based. The Meko A-100 is certainly a candidate, as is a stretched VT River class, and the Akers-designed NZ Protector OPV.

The River and Protector OPVs both offer very low prices (on the order of $60-80 million (USD)). They would need minor enhancement to allow carriage of MIW gear or modules.
For 50% more cost you get a slightly faster ship with more range and room for 30 extra crew. The biggest advantage is MEKO 100 comes fitted for but not with many weapon systems and comes standard with a bigger gun. Ideally there would have to produce exact requirements for the ship, not some forum user making them up.


The ships being replaced, as laid out by me:

- Einheitshülle Minenabwehr: 14-15 knots
- Tripartite: 14 knots
- River: 17 knots
- Lerici: 14 knots
(- Minerva: 25 knots)
(- Gepard: 42 knots)

Currently, roughly: 20 hulls faster than 17 knots; 70 hulls up to 17 knots.
If at all, presumably a portion of the vessels could be acquired in a "Block 1B" with different, faster propulsion.
The MEKO being the faster of the OPV ships gives it comparible speed to the Minerva. So only the Gepard is significantly faster. I believe the best option here would be to have a helicopter permanently attached to the ships in that role. The life cycle cost of having two propulsion types would probably be greater than the cost to purchase and operate a few light helicopters.

[B.Smitty]

For 50% more cost you get a slightly faster ship with more range and room for 30 extra crew. The biggest advantage is MEKO 100 comes fitted for but not with many weapon systems and comes standard with a bigger gun. Ideally there would have to produce exact requirements for the ship, not some forum user making them up.


"For 50% more"...

5 billion Euro will get you,

- 83 x Protector OPVs (@ 60 million Euro)
- 55 x Meko 100s (@ 90 million Euro)

So does numbers or ship capability matter more?

Yes, the softness of the requirements makes it impossible to make a firm decision. The best we can do is come up with a range of options.

[kato]

You list ASuW as a primary role of this vessel. Do you mean small-boat ASuW? Or duking it out with warships?

Within reason. It'd probably be feasible to use it as a carrier for a relatively sensor-independent long-range strike missile (that only needs the rough GPS coordinates of a target, with an active terminal seeker), but unless this is an option for each relevant navy it'd probably be ASuW operations within onboard or helo sensor range (let's say 15 miles or so) against small boats up to the size of common coastal patrol boats. What i mean is: we're definitely not talking duking it out with the surface warfare assets of the Russian fleet.

[B.Smitty]

Within reason. It'd probably be feasible to use it as a carrier for a relatively sensor-independent long-range strike missile (that only needs the rough GPS coordinates of a target, with an active terminal seeker), but unless this is an option for each relevant navy it'd probably be ASuW operations within onboard or helo sensor range (let's say 15 miles or so) against small boats up to the size of common coastal patrol boats. What i mean is: we're definitely not talking duking it out with the surface warfare assets of the Russian fleet.

I, for one, would be leery of using an OPV like the Protector in a long-ranged missile duel with anybody. It really can't defend itself against this sort of attack. I would at least want RAM, if not ESSM, along with decent radar and ECM suites. This stuff consumes space and weight and costs a lot.

Maybe the right answer is a hi-lo mix of platforms. Buy a smaller number of high-end corvettes or small frigates, and a larger number of simpler OPVs.

[harryriedl]

I, for one, would be leery of using an OPV like the Protector in a long-ranged missile duel with anybody. It really can't defend itself against this sort of attack. I would at least want RAM, if not ESSM, along with decent radar and ECM suites. This stuff consumes space and weight and costs a lot.

Maybe the right answer is a hi-lo mix of platforms. Buy a smaller number of high-end corvettes or small frigates, and a larger number of simpler OPVs.
would they both be compatibility with modular equipment (in particular min hunting gear). Or would the basic OPV have the capability for mine hunting as you don't need SAM's or big guns for mine hunting.

Would a Mix of say for example a mix of FM400 and extending Rivers being the high low mix of a Euro corvette. with perhaps a using a Stanflex system for a common architecture and a mix of engine options

[rjmaz1]

I, for one, would be leery of using an OPV like the Protector in a long-ranged missile duel with anybody. It really can't defend itself against this sort of attack. I would at least want RAM, if not ESSM, along with decent radar and ECM suites. This stuff consumes space and weight and costs a lot.

Maybe the right answer is a hi-lo mix of platforms. Buy a smaller number of high-end corvettes or small frigates, and a larger number of simpler OPVs.
The OPV designs would require a fairly decent redesign to fit the weapon systems you suggest.

The MEKO 100 however has the option of having all of them fitted to make a powerful warship. You could order just a fleet of MEKO 100 and have a handful fully optioned out at double the price to allow it to handle enemy frigates and destroyers.

Th MEKO 100 no doubt comes at a premium price, but its available upgrades and extra space makes it attractive. It all comes down to how many ships you need.if numbers are most important then the OPV style ships are a better option.

Having a high low mix may not be a good option. As there is already high end warship so two levels of patrol ships would then make low-medium-high classses. I'd instead go with a medium capability ship and put any extra money into an extra destroyer or whatever ship the Navies in question already operate.

[kato]

The question is to what extent this will actually be an OPV.

I know C3 is primarily an attempt to go towards a dual-use OPV hull with other purposes, but influx from the other navies might actually keep it even more "simple" here to some extent.

Indeed, there are already high-end warships "above" these units. Of the navies mentiones, long-term, at least 23 in the UK, 11 in Germany, 8 in the Netherlands and Belgium, 18 in France and 10 in Italy. And these - except the UK and of course Belgium - have some sort of "high-end-OPV" patrol unit already; in the form of NUMC, K130 and the Holland class, and whatever France will at some point locally pick out as successors of the Floreal and D'Estienne d'Orves classes.

Basically, we are already at the "low-end" when it comes to a patrol role. With the exception of the UK.

[Todjaeger]

Just wanted to re-cap what the proposal was, because it sounds as though different members had rather different ideas as to the scope/goals of the "programme".

It now sounds as though the primary objective of the programme would be for a vessel capable of limited ocean patrolling which can also perform or be fairly easily re-rolled as an MCM vessel. The ability for the vessel to be up-armed to a limited extent would also be a plus. Is this a fair assessment of the goals of the programme?

I ask this because I had interpreted the end result or target to something a bit different. I had envisioned a vessel that was at least potentially, much more capable in terms of ASuW and Air Defence. I had considered this as being important since it seemed as though the desire would be a candidate for replacing the Danish Flyvefisken-class multi-role patrol boats and/or the German Navy's Type 143A Gepard FAC. Given that the former has a fitout which is very much ASuW and Air Defence-oriented, and the latter was designed to engage in ASuW, having a larger ocean-going corvette that at least had the same potential in those roles seemed important.

Based on later posts though, it seems the focus is more on MCM operations, and ocean patrolling of the sort that an OPV would engage in, though not necessarily operating quite as far from a coastline as an OPV might. What might then be worth examining is Canada's Kingston-class MCDV. It has a MCM capability, which can be one of three different modular MCM systems, a sweep system, route survery or ROV. The vessel itself is nearly 1,000 tons (though only 55m in length) with max speed listed of 15 kts and a range of 5,000 miles @8 kts. From what I have read, the Kingston-class, though able to operate in some of the rougher areas around Canada, can be a bit rough on the crew in bad weather. If the vessel were increased in size by perhaps 20m in length, and between 400-500 tons displacement, this might allow sufficient room for a helipad (and possible hangar/ISO container space) and additional modules for more MCM equipment, weapons, etc. The sensors would likely be sufficient, though perhaps exchanging Surface Search radar for an Air/Surface Search would work, as would adding in a datalink capability (if it does not already possess it).

The sort of design I end up with begins to resemble an up-armed USN Avenger-class MHO with a helipad, as opposed to what generally comes to mind when I think of corvettes. However, if this meets the desired design criteria, that is fine.

-Cheers

[kato]

Effectively we would be looking at a (light) OPV hull that would for the most part be roled for MCM, with probably at least half, more likely about 2 out of 3 ships fitted for that role at any time.

Only 4 of the 11 remaining Flyvefisken in Danish service are fitted out as FACs btw. The only other ship with a AD capability in this would be the Italian corvettes, although i actually have no idea to what extent the MM sees this as a useful capability. The Gepards are slated to be replaced by a patrol/escort corvette with a likely far less ASuW focus.

[tatra]

Suggestions:
- an improved Hameln/Frankenthal/Ensdorf design?
- Tenix' old 80m Offshore Patrol Vessel

[alexsa]

After reading thsi post for some time I find one problem with the 'concept' (as both Tod and kato have indicated) and that is the mission(s) has not been defined. The vessesls capabiltity will be defined by it mission(s) and that will then drive the design.

In the thread we have ranged between well armed escort to OPV only armed as requried for that role. If we have a compromise vessel that can cover all roles may mean it cannot do some roles effectively. If you are looking at a solution for many national interests (as this suggests) then perhaps a family of vessels (as oppsed to looking at modular systems) based on a common hull and machinery with reasonable speed, good range and decent stability and weight characteristcs would be a good place to start.

[tatra]

If you are looking at a solution for many national interests (as this suggests) then perhaps a family of vessels (as oppsed to looking at modular systems) based on a common hull and machinery with reasonable speed, good range and decent stability and weight characteristcs would be a good place to start.

E.g. Sigma range