The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

While we end up with more expensive C1s, that should be balanced by cheaper C2s. The marginal cost of additional C2s is less, making it easier to buy more. C2 & variants based on the same hull & machinery should be attractive on the export market.

But I'm not sure that these arguments outweigh those in favour of a common basic design for C1 & C2.

Thanks I was keen to understand your thinking, I have a similar view. I can't help but feel of all 3 concepts C1 has the greatest potential for cost overrun and therefore the danger of being cut back in numbers. If the C2 is related it could impact overall fighting numbers as the C3 is more of a patrol craft. I think the current c22-24 escort numbers are moving towards a critical number. I don't really like the separate C1 & T45 concept as I jsut believe a heavy escort should do both roles (as the Burkes). There is of course a role for a convoy escort more anti submarine focused but i would see this is the C2/T23 role.

I do agree numbers/longer production runs (including exports) are key to keeping unit costs down and the C2/C3 have that potential. I think you can build a very capabile anti submarine/patrol ship for 2500/3000t the T23 is near that (The Abukuma class is very interesting ships maybe near the original T23 concept?).

I am disappointed to hear the RN favour the C1/C2 common hull, as I think they seem to be going down a very dangerous course almost obilvious to the economic climate/pull for more resources for land forces. If it goes wrong we will be lucky to end up with 18 escorts (6 T45, maybe 6 C1 & 8C2)

 

[1805]

As someone on-the-outside-looking-in, here's what I think:

FREMM: short-legs. I thought the requirement for HMRN was a 7,000 n.m. range. That is an increase >16% in bunkerage over the 6,000 tonne design (assuming French turbines are as efficient as Rolls-Royce's). Can't see fuel being FFBNW yet....

Absalon: great-range, but armed like a C3. Take-out command-and-control and whats left? *

BAM: very short-legs. With a range of 3,500 n.m. it will require an RFA vessel to tow it around.

Sea-Gripen: It's not VSTOL so why sink the money into a single-engined fighter? Even I have given up on the fantasy of a Sea-Typhoon (sexily twin-engined though she may be) so how is a navalised Gripen going to be effective? [OK, I am a - :cough: - single-engined F-35C fan-boy.... ]

Swerve:

Thanks for the link. Not sure why C1 needs a dock-well. It's supposed to be the major ASW vessel for the Navy yet the document implies that the Towed-Array is a plug-in.

* Not fair. Absalon is a Logistics vessel.

[/B]


One of my big criticisms of the RN is the absence of creativity. Lets be realistic here this is why no one is buying the designs, which are nearly always the later of their type to enter service compared to foreign navies. We have spent a lot of money/time on the FSC concept, as a great innovative look at surface ships. We even built a demonstrator and what will we end up with; a big hulled ASW focused frigate. How will this be a breakthrough, surely it is the 1975 Spruance concept?? As for C3 we are going to end up with something remarkably similar to 1992 Floréal class.

I can hardly even discuss the Typhoon/F35 mess we are in, without getting emotional. We are all skirting round the truth no one can bear to admit (I hate even saying it), that the Rafale (spec not the actual aircraft) would have met RAF/RN/British Industry’s requirements perfectly and certainly better than dividing our limited numbers in two and investing in both F35 and Euro fighter. The sensible decision is now to move to F35c catapults offer more flexibility around AEW and potentially light cheaper attack aircraft to make up the numbers. (IT IS VITAL WE LEARN OUR LESSON SO THIS TYPE OF DISASTER IS NEVER REPEATED IT HAS COST BILLIONS!!!)

However the Danes have really shown us up with the Absalon (the French haven't been clever with the Rafale, the RN/RAF/MOD have just been stupied). A brilliant innovative concept perfectly meeting the needs of small squadrons, projecting power ashore. They are not that lightly armed they have VLS giving a lot of flexibility. There is a real Dreadnought moment to be had here, sooner or later someone will match Aegis (I wouldn't say PAAMS as it will not be us!!) capability with their logistics capability. No doubt 10 years afterwards the RN start a feasibility study into the idea. In the meantime we have to make do with a mini dock for RIBS, the Absalon's can carry CB90s!

 

[swerve]

Absalon: great-range, but armed like a C3..

Not really. I've not seen any indication C3 is planned to have ESSM & Harpoon, or anything equivalent? Or a radar equivalent to Smart-S Mk2? Or (I could go on & on . . . )

Not sure why C1 needs a dock-well. It's supposed to be the major ASW vessel for the Navy yet the document implies that the Towed-Array is a plug-in

I'm a little confused. I don't see any mention of a dock well. A loading ramp, yes - but I understand that to be something like the boat ramp at the stern of Absalon.

The towed array being removable could be to do with commonality between C1 & C2, or to do with the arrays being swappable between ships.

 

[1805]

Since when is C3 planned to have ESSM & Harpoon, or anything equivalent? Or a radar equivalent to Smart-S Mk2? Or (I could go on & on . . . )

I agree, and the concept of merging logistics/assault capability with a frigate/destroyer concept will make for naturally big hulls which are both easier to operate big helicopters from and mount Radars higher. Also they can protect themselves unlike a Bay class. They only cost £100m?, even if we added 150-200m of advanced kit like towed array, Samson & ESSM (not Aster/Sylver) that would be an impressive FSC. We could built c20 (and be in 20 places unlike 4 Bays/2 Albions) of them the cost would come down further. No need to replace the Bays/Ocean, they would be flying out of yards.....fantasy I know as we have to have FSC because the RN knows best despite taking the wrong direction on nearly everything for the last 50 years

 

[MrQuintus]

Since when is C3 planned to have ESSM & Harpoon, or anything equivalent? Or a radar equivalent to Smart-S Mk2? Or (I could go on & on . . . )

CAMM is expected to be fitted, not ESSM, and with the proposed modular nature of C3 is is not impossible to think she might take a rack of Harpoons at some point, even if only to type qualify them

C3 isn't being designed to take over from the HMS Clyde's of this world, it is a low intensity combatant not a fisheries protection vessel

 

[kev 99]

CAMM is expected to be fitted, not ESSM, and with the proposed modular nature of C3 is is not impossible to think she might take a rack of Harpoons at some point, even if only to type qualify them

C3 isn't being designed to take over from the HMS Clyde's of this world, it is a low intensity combatant not a fisheries protection vessel

Actually it's being designed to do both roles, it's primarily a replacement for the Hunts and Sandowns which also happen to do fisheries protection. I'd be very surprised to see it armed with CAAM despite the BMT CAAM launch videos.

 

[1805]

CAMM is expected to be fitted, not ESSM, and with the proposed modular nature of C3 is is not impossible to think she might take a rack of Harpoons at some point, even if only to type qualify them

C3 isn't being designed to take over from the HMS Clyde's of this world, it is a low intensity combatant not a fisheries protection vessel

I am not sure I know what the difference between a "low internsity combatant" and an "OPV Fisheries protection" vessel is? Either you just carry an automatic gun for policing or you have to have a proper armament, because if the enemy is armed with anything more than a AK47 you have to have the later. I think the C3 will end up being a Clyde replacement and probably similar numbers, if Afghanistan drags on 10-15 years (mind I doubt we have the stomach for that long so we might find it easier to just lose again)

 

[harryriedl]

on a an unrelated note new pictures of the construction of Queen Elizabeath blocks
Navy's new carriers take shape in Scotland
Navy's new carriers take shape in Scotland
Build programme 'well under way'...


The Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) is forging ahead on the Queen Elizabeth (QE) Class, having recently made contract awards worth £325 million that will drive momentum into the ongoing build of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

On 14 January, Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy MP visited Govan to welcome the contracts which have been placed in Scotland. Following the visit, he said:

"These contract awards are great news for Glasgow, the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs. There has never been any doubt how important the aircraft carriers are to Scotland as a multibillion pound project securing thousands of jobs."

The contracts have been awarded to five new suppliers to the Queen Elizabeth (QE) Class Aircraft Carrier Programme and will provide a number of vital services and parts for the ships, including fire fighting equipment and the transportation for the massive super blocks from the build yards across the UK to Rosyth for final assembly.

The award of these contracts by the Alliance is a clear indication of the progress that is being made on the QE Class programme and the momentum achieved in 2009. In total, the Alliance is expected to award around £1.5 billion of contracts across the programme.

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support Quentin Davies said:

"This news should reassure those who doubt this Government's commitment to the programme. These sub-contracts will contribute thousands of jobs throughout the supply chain in addition to the thousands of jobs at the main shipyards which are building the ships.

"The build phase of the Carrier programme is now well under way. The first units have already been delivered to Rosyth where these ships - the cornerstone of the Royal Navy of the future - will be assembled."

The innovative ACA is a single integrated team formed from Babcock, BAE Systems, Thales UK and the MOD (which acts as both partner and client). It is responsible for delivering the Queen Elizabeth Class ships to time and cost.


The contract to build the two new Aircraft Carriers for the Royal Navy was signed on 3rd July 2008. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed for the UK and represent a step change in Joint Capability. They will enable the delivery of increased strategic effect and influence around the world, at a time and place of the UK's choosing, and will be a key component of the improved expeditionary capabilities needed to confront the diverse range of threats in today's security environment.

nice to see so much progress.
In regards to the C3 and its potential missile armament it realy shouldn't have anything with a footprint larger than Sea RAM a local controlled CIWS with missiles rather than cannon. So im lukewarm about any VLS solutions as they just take up lots of space.

Im keen to see what CAMM and the launcher will look like both Army and Navy versions it being a Cold Launched VLS should make a RAM-ski do-able.

How much extra support dose Harpoon add to a ship. extra cannisters to check another station in use for. Still preferred the utility of a copter launched missile. Merlin should be capable of carrying NSM (2) which has most of the befits of Harpoon. and the update to the sea Skua from TCW should be similarly useful

 

[swerve]

I am not sure I know what the difference between a "low internsity combatant" and an "OPV Fisheries protection" vessel is? Either you just carry an automatic gun for policing or you have to have a proper armament, because if the enemy is armed with anything more than a AK47 you have to have the later.

Consider the roles identified so far -

Fisheries & other EEZ protection.
MCM.
Chasing smugglers & pirates.
Survey.

What armament is needed for them? A gun able to overwhelm any pirate, certainly. The ability to carry a helicopter & weapons for it, yes. Mounts for HMGs. Fittings for Seastreak/Mistral or whatever, so that it can be installed quickly if needed. What else? And what would it be used against?

 

[swerve]

CAMM is expected to be fitted, not ESSM, and with the proposed modular nature of C3 is is not impossible to think she might take a rack of Harpoons at some point, even if only to type qualify them

C3 isn't being designed to take over from the HMS Clyde's of this world, it is a low intensity combatant not a fisheries protection vessel

I was referring to Absalon, which was described as being armed like C3.

There is a great deal of bandying about of internet forum opinions as fact, & this is an example. There has been no official indication that I have found that CAMM will be fitted. Perhaps fitted for but not with.

I wish all those who claim 'C3 will be armed with a 4.5in gun' or 'C3 will have CAMM' would give their sources.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

I was referring to Absalon, which was described as being armed like C3.

There is a great deal of bandying about of internet forum opinions as fact, & this is an example.

Unfortunately most of us are outside-the-loop. Our interest and concern is genuine, but we only seem to foot-the-bill. How much is speculation/phishing is questionable, but the dirth of constructive information only encourages our fantasies.

There has been no official indication that I have found that CAMM will be fitted. Perhaps fitted for but not with.

Blame BVT.

I wish all those who claim 'C3 will be armed with a 4.5in gun'...

Who has made such a claim? I'd be happy with a 40mm beer-can projector. Considering the deck-space and weight implications the 114mm is a no-no.

...or 'C3 will have CAMM' would give their sources.

See above.... ope

 

[Sea Toby]

Im keen to see what CAMM and the launcher will look like both Army and Navy versions it being a Cold Launched VLS should make a RAM-ski do-able.

Maybe this video will help. BMTGroup Venator with CAMM.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m81ede8b9g"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

With C3, one does not need a sledge hammer when a tap hammer will do...

While I am not certain, I believe the RN wants a mixed surface fleet of area air defence destroyers, general purpose frigates, and smaller, cheaper ships capable of doing a multi-role missions such as ocean patrol and mine countermeasures tagging along with the larger ships if necessary.

I believe the British have found along with the Americans that coastal minehunters are expensive to buy and operate in distant seas and home waters as much as frigates. The RN would rather have a multi-role smaller ship... One multi-role ship for low intensity conflict is cheaper than two different ships...

You will notice that the USCG was facing buying a new class of environmental protection ships with oil booms. At that time the USCG decided to make their new classes of buoy tenders slightly larger so that they could carry the oil boom equipment. Therefore removing the need to buy a number of specifically designed environmental ships the USCG never wanted, or had the funding to operate...

 

[1805]

I was referring to Absalon, which was described as being armed like C3.

There is a great deal of bandying about of internet forum opinions as fact, & this is an example. There has been no official indication that I have found that CAMM will be fitted. Perhaps fitted for but not with.

I wish all those who claim 'C3 will be armed with a 4.5in gun' or 'C3 will have CAMM' would give their sources.

Completely agree the C3 will be a Clyde replacement with space for a few standard containers, pure uneducated guess on armament: 30mm cannon, which for the above requirements will do, and probably only 6-8 of them max. A helicopter with hanger would be nice but I suspect they will go for a bigger flight deck. You don't have to be "in the know" with the RN they are unimaginative and completely predictable.

 

[Sea Toby]

As far as the helicopter hangar, you will notice the area aft of the vertical CAMM missiles above in the video is a telescoping hangar, which when scoped out can house a helicopter and its tools/spares. Another video of the Venator showing its mine countermeasures capability. One can assume a ASW sonar cable array can be installed as well... Surely a 30-mm Typhoon gun is suitable for this ship...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i14CeDEq-e8&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[1805]

As far as the helicopter hangar, you will notice the area aft of the vertical CAMM missiles above in the video is a telescoping hangar, which when scoped out can house a helicopter and its tools/spares. Another video of the Venator showing its mine countermeasures capability. One can assume a ASW sonar cable array can be installed as well... Surely a 30-mm Typhoon gun is suitable for this ship...

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

I do like the Venator concept, but it is not an official design just a industry proposal and I think unlikely to be the end design, I don't see what it offers over the Clyde other than better boat handling. I seem to be missing something, but I can't see any helicopter hanger facility in the video, it looks exclusively a boat hanger.

I can't see any C3 having CAMM. BTW why are they talking about a CAMM when the RN is using Aster 15/30? They really are a joke, no strategy on SAMs until we adopt Aster. The time to have had a CAMM was when we had a decent missile Sea Dart now we are buying French. Still at least if they do develop CAMM they will be able to do their usual trick and spend a lot of money on development, achieve minimal exports and then stop development at a key stage and then just buy French

 

[ASFC]

BTW why are they talking about a CAMM when the RN is using Aster 15/30? They really are a joke, no strategy on SAMs until we adopt Aster. The time to have had a CAMM was when we had a decent missile Sea Dart now we are buying French. Still at least if they do develop CAMM they will be able to do their usual trick and spend a lot of money on development, achieve minimal exports and then stop development at a key stage and then just buy French

CAMM-does what it says on the tin. Isn't just the RN needing new missiles.

And i'd like to see you shoe horn Aster into the Type 23s when they come up for MLU in a few years time...........

 

[Sea Toby]

Frankly as a mine countermeasures and ocean patrol vessel, does a Venator need to house a helicopter? But as an ASW escort housing a helicopter is a must. The USCG has been operating cutters for decades with a telescoping hangar. I will agree I prefer a permanent hangar....

 

[1805]

CAMM-does what it says on the tin. Isn't just the RN needing new missiles.

And i'd like to see you shoe horn Aster into the Type 23s when they come up for MLU in a few years time...........

Get real T23 will never be refitted with any new SAM, it will cost to much when they are to old, hopefully the RN has learned that from the Leander heavy rebuilds in 70s ...still you never know they good at forgetting nearly every other lesson.

A common missile across all services has been an obvious opportunity to everyone apart from the defence establishment for years, but the RAF is not interested in advanced SAMs, it abandoned serious missile defence in the earlier 70s and focuses all is money on Jets. There was a proposal to use Sea Dart as a land based system but it jsut died. Sead Dart would also have been a better weapon for T23/T22 (obviously it would need to have been in VLS) and removing the need to buy Harpoon. This would have helped logistic, but more importantly our limited funds could have been focused on one missile. Who knows if this had been done then we may have seen it matched to Samson in the later 90s and an active verison about now.

How can it be CAMM when the RN has gone off and brought Aster 30. I don't have the detail on CAMM size but surely it will be similar size to Aster 15? or we could just instal quad pack Crotale. When is CAMM due 10 years time?? Once again the French are ahead Aster 30/15 is to be deployed as a common SAM in the Navy and on Land about now?

 

[1805]

Frankly as a mine countermeasures and ocean patrol vessel, does a Venator need to house a helicopter? But as an ASW escort housing a helicopter is a must. The USCG has been operating cutters for decades with a telescoping hangar. I will agree I prefer a permanent hangar....

I agree with you a helicopter and hanger for a ASW escort is useful, but there are alternatives, the original T23 concept was a basic ship with TOW array and a support ship (the Waves) with helicopters, also original Invincible concept? I actually prefer heavy helicopters working from big hulls.

However C3 is not planned to be an ASW escort, although I suspect you and I think they are mad not to give it some capability in this area.

However I think there is a common theme coming out here: Typhoon/F35, CAMM/Aster, FSC, T45, Merlin, Ocean/Bays/Albions, Viking APCs, when it comes to procurement of kit the RN......couldn't run a bath!

 

[1805]

I saw this very interesting link posted on the RAN thread:

RAF urged to cut ‘Cold War’ new jets for cheap propeller aircraft - Times Online

I think it raises a number of opportunities and threats for the RN:

1, It is very army focused, and the COIN war in Afghanistan, which is a danger for RN funding.

2, The next fight might well be low intensity aswell, like Horn of Africa Yemen/Somila however it could be high threat Iran,

3, However I think the idea has merrit, it is not cost effective to use £85k/hour Eurofighter (I understand twice cost of Tornado) over targets with almost no hi tech SAM defence. I don't think Turcanno is a serious proposition however what about a BAe Hawk 200. I hear you say how is this relevant to the RN thread.....time to consider a Goshawk/Hawk 200 option and catapults/arrest hooks on the CVs. Huge opportunity to provide a cost effective solution (hi/lo mix with F35) and sort the AEW issue out at the same time. At the same time maintaining the Hawk production line.

4, Finally most worrying thing mention of across the board 20% cut, I am not sure this will happen but the RN planners need to work to anticipate cost cuts rather than do the usual "rabbit in the headlight" approach.

Also great "head in the sand" comment from the RAF spokesman....don't we love them!