Does Lewis Page have any clue what he is actually talking about?

Nah, he told us a while ago that we don’t need an ASW capability any more, now that the Cold War’s over (with much scorn about the Type 23)… so it’s alright….

It’s a question of priorities and affordability as well: what type of vessel is needed now, and can we afford it? A less sophisticated ship, carrying helicopters and boats and basic sensors and weapons, would be a lot more useful and affordable for the next ten years at least, than a very expensive high-end frigate. RN frigates very little of their time escorting carriers at 25 knots these days.

First, “basic sensors” means less-capable, and therefore a greater possibility of a RN ship taking a torpedo or two, resulting in the loss of a ship & many of its crew, and (with the current/planned small numbers) likely a delay or cancellation of whatever operation the sunk ship and its ineffective escort were engaged in.

Hoe is this “more useful” than a ship that can actually find and sink the sub before it launches its weapons?

And even if approved NOW, they wouldn’t be in service for at least 5 years.

The military-ignorant vote-addicts running the government would never authorize their replacement before at least 20 years service, nor would they authorize an increase in numbers to provide faster escorts for the carriers.

This would leave the carriers with under-speed escorts for at least 15 years.

And this would be good how?

With only 1 fast carrier that is not sent anywhere, no, you don’t need many high-speed frigates.

With 1 fast carrier deployed into a combat zone (and the other getting an emergency re-activation due to the emergency), you need several high-speed frigates in service just for them… as well as for other missions requiring a fast repositioning and/or fast tactical maneuvering of a/some frigate(s).

Lewis page is and idiot, there’s so many holes in his cheap and cheerful merchantman hull stuffed with expensive stuff idea it’s hilarious.

Using RFA’s with big hangers is fine for disaster relief and even hunting pirates, they wouldn’t be much use in any sort of serious conflict against an opposing navy though.

Just for reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO-t2rMaXjc

Remember the little 1,000 ton Flower class corvettes that did precisely that, back in WWII? There were times when the weather was so bad that the big fleet destroyers had to turn back, but the corvettes were able to keep going.

Seakeeping is about a lot more than just size.

All too true , Seakeeping is also about being able to operate in those sea states. I was once told by one Corvette sailor about being the only escorts that could keep up with a convoy during the worst weather.
“Although god know what we’d been able to do if a U-Boat attacked!Just about very one of had injured in one fashion or anther during the voyage .I didn’t brake anything but was so badly bruised I could barely move .”

I agree with Jonesy a global presence frigate like the Thetis class would be very good for the Royal navy. At 3500 tonnes its roomy enough, it has a gun for NGS and a reasonable sensor fit for role. Its modern diesels give it the range and speed to keep up with other fleet units if needed and chug around the rest of the time. It has a hanger for Lynx and the space for mission modules to be installed. The only thing I would add is a capacity for a last ditch air defence missile to be added. For me that should be the bolt on SeaRAM, its 11 cell launcher is enough for self defence and its autonomous. You could even leave it off most of the time and bolt it on when required. As it uses Phalanx as its basis the current knowledge of the RN is leavered in. In a San Carlos type scenario its gun for NGS and SeaRAM would be highly useful protecting the amphibious ships.

Remember the little 1,000 ton Flower class corvettes that did precisely that, back in WWII? There were times when the weather was so bad that the big fleet destroyers had to turn back, but the corvettes were able to keep going.

Seakeeping is about a lot more than just size.

Yes but the Flower class was a stop gap measure! Whilst very sea worthy it had horrible handling characteristics in heavy seas. Crewing them tended to be cold, wet and miserable. They ended up carrying twice the crew then intended who slept in any corner they could find. In those dark days the largely reserve officer and merchant crews accepted those living conditions, that isn’t going to happen now. Modern sailors want bunks and iPod docks not a hammock! The other issue with Corvettes is whilst you can cram on highend weapons it tends to restrict the upgrade capacity of the vessel. Of course with modern technology and lean manning things are better and its worth noting that the Turkish MILGEM is nowhere as much compromised as the similar size but older Type 21 Amazon/Tariq class. Of course when you get to the 2000 tonne plus displacement class the fine line between Corvette and Frigate is blurred. Also note that the Turkish navy intend to use the MILGEM in the med close to her bases rather then in the middle of the North Atlantic.

It’s a question of priorities and affordability as well: what type of vessel is needed now, and can we afford it? A less sophisticated ship, carrying helicopters and boats and basic sensors and weapons, would be a lot more useful and affordable for the next ten years at least, than a very expensive high-end frigate. RN frigates very little of their time escorting carriers at 25 knots these days.

Absolutely incorrect and a lesson, I’m thankful to say, we’ve already absorbed in this country.

T23 was originally intended to be the austere hull you allude to above. A bare minimum hull, sporting Sea Wolf for point defence, principally intended to operate choppers and tow a 2031 array. Same financial hand-wringing was given as the reason for such a limited design being chosen.

Then the Falklands brought back the glimpse of reality that a general capability level was required for all the other tasks that warships are expected to undertake that fall outside of its designed primary function. Bring that lesson forward to today – witness HMS Cumberland laying off a potentially hostile coast. Had she been an earlier batch T22, without the Mk8 forward, would she be as valuable in providing coercive presence in her present duties?.

Whether the frigates spend more or less of their time actually escorting carriers (and this is something that they very much have been doing as a matter of routine) is utterly irrelevent. They are the assets that provide that capability. You have/want the carrier then there is no choice other than to get/maintain the fast frigate screen for that carrier. Simply put this is not a debateable issue – anyone who disputes that basic fact doesnt understand the way that ships are deployed.

In terms of the rest of what you said, that a more affordable ship is needed for the undertaking of the routine patrol taskings, I agree. A vessel similar in concept and size to the Danish Thetis class boats, leveraging off BMT’s Venator multimission capability, would be perfect for the RN’s needs. The important thing you have to understand is that such a hull does not replace the requirement for the fast frigate. It would allow for breathing space and lower optempo’s to stretch the lifespan of the current frigate force out though….T26 would still absolutely be needed….just not as soon as it would be otherwise.

IIRC in the Caribbean the RFAs have supported warships as the warships do the capture and the RFA does the search etc. Also the RAS and the fact two ships no mater what the speed is better than one.

Many Thanks

Nick

A couple of the Royal Navy’s high profile missions – anti-piracy off Somalia and the Caribbean Patrol – have recently been carried out by RFAs with helicopters and RHIBs embarked.

As Fedaykin said, we’re short of ships to do it, so why not send whatever’s free?

But that isn’t an argument for RFAs replacing escorts. Pirates are lightly armed & have no sensors to speak of.

A corvette in North Atlantic waters say in mid winter ? Sorry no sale I don’t really know anyone that I hate that much that I could do that to.

Remember the little 1,000 ton Flower class corvettes that did precisely that, back in WWII? There were times when the weather was so bad that the big fleet destroyers had to turn back, but the corvettes were able to keep going.

Seakeeping is about a lot more than just size.

So?. You cant screen a carrier doing 25knts, on a run, with an RFA-style hull that can sustain 18 at best.

Is there room for an austere vessel that can do MIOPS and patrol taskings cheaper than current frigates?. Yes – many of us have long been clamouring for a real oceanic patrol vessel for exactly that purpose for the C3 requirement. Doesn’t mean we dont still need fleet capable escorts though.

It’s a question of priorities and affordability as well: what type of vessel is needed now, and can we afford it? A less sophisticated ship, carrying helicopters and boats and basic sensors and weapons, would be a lot more useful and affordable for the next ten years at least, than a very expensive high-end frigate. RN frigates very little of their time escorting carriers at 25 knots these days.

Well this video of a far larger destroyer pretty much answers the question:

45 seconds in, imagine that in a Corvette!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neBVG7HUhT8

Of course Lewis Page isn’t the only one to get confused with the whole Corvette thing. Yes you can put pretty much the same armament as a frigate on a smaller Corvette but then you need to look at how they are used and who uses them. By in large they are operated by navies who don’t do blue water operations and they keep them in coastal waters close to a base. This allows fairly basic crew facilities to be installed as the crewman will mainly sleep in barracks. Also means you can ditch the hanger as the helicopter will operate from the base and purely use the landing deck as a place to refuel or transfer personnel. Finally a Corvette can have a bare minimum air defence capability as they will operate under land based fighter cover. If you want to do anything out of area then you need something the size of a frigate or destroyer.

Something I’ve wondered is whether the upper ranges of the generous tonnage allowance – “up to 2000 tons” – for Australia’s future Offshore Combatant Vessels was laid down with the possibility in mind of their also supplanting the ANZAC frigates.

A corvette in North Atlantic waters say in mid winter ? Sorry no sale I don’t really know anyone that I hate that much that I could do that to.

A couple of the Royal Navy’s high profile missions – anti-piracy off Somalia and the Caribbean Patrol – have recently been carried out by RFAs with helicopters and RHIBs embarked.

So?. You cant screen a carrier doing 25knts, on a run, with an RFA-style hull that can sustain 18 at best.

Is there room for an austere vessel that can do MIOPS and patrol taskings cheaper than current frigates?. Yes – many of us have long been clamouring for a real oceanic patrol vessel for exactly that purpose for the C3 requirement. Doesn’t mean we dont still need fleet capable escorts though.

A couple of the Royal Navy’s high profile missions – anti-piracy off Somalia and the Caribbean Patrol – have recently been carried out by RFAs with helicopters and RHIBs embarked.

Well that happened for two reasons firstly the UK didn’t have anything else to do it and secondly in that narrow role it isn’t a bad idea. On the other hand if you want to go to war against a peer or near peer rival sending the RFA in to fight with a few helicopters and RHIBs is hardly going to end in glory.

Of course Lewis Page isn’t the only one to get confused with the whole Corvette thing. Yes you can put pretty much the same armament as a frigate on a smaller Corvette but then you need to look at how they are used and who uses them. By in large they are operated by navies who don’t do blue water operations and they keep them in coastal waters close to a base. This allows fairly basic crew facilities to be installed as the crewman will mainly sleep in barracks. Also means you can ditch the hanger as the helicopter will operate from the base and purely use the landing deck as a place to refuel or transfer personnel. Finally a Corvette can have a bare minimum air defence capability as they will operate under land based fighter cover. If you want to do anything out of area then you need something the size of a frigate or destroyer.

A couple of the Royal Navy’s high profile missions – anti-piracy off Somalia and the Caribbean Patrol – have recently been carried out by RFAs with helicopters and RHIBs embarked.

Thats exactly the thing Al – its the fundamentals that he misses. Things an operator just knows because they do it.

How do you conduct fleet operations with 18knt escorts and 27/28knt carriers?. How do you do a speed run inter- or intra-theatre when you are pootling about at amphib cruising speeds. How do you nudge away a 30knt snooper, trying to keep eyeballs on your carrier, when he’s got an easy 10knt speed edge and far superior acceleration?.

Too much time reading the Janes books and not enough time with the warfare dept is Mr Page’s issue.