Blue Water OPV

Mk 41 comes in three lengths;

Self Defence length (basically VL Sea Sparrow only)
Tactical Length (basicaly everything except Thomahawk and SM-3)
Strike Length (anything)

The advantage is you can optimise to suit your requirements.

Unicorn

I was under the impression that the T-45’s were designed to have space to take deeper VLS cells in the future?

That’s my understanding, as well.

Also, when mention is made of the Mk 41, it’s often forgotten that like Sylver, it comes in different sizes, & only the longest version can fire Tomahawks.

I was under the impression that the T-45’s were designed to have space to take deeper VLS cells in the future?

I agree that the ideal solution is a purpose designed OPV, but that will take years to get into service and will no doubt have to be funded at the expense of other programs.

Any Type 45 above and beyond the intial 4(?) will “have to be funded at the expense of other programs.”

If the UK was willing to buy and existing design from an overseas shipyard, cost and timescales could be managed. Moreover, operating costs could be decreased by retiring obsolete frigates – while maintaining the same overall number of hulls.

Buying ”bare-bones” T45’s with all gun armament is the compromise solution, it’s the easy option because it’s in production, it can be easily upgraded as necessary with off the shelf equipment and of course there would be savings from a larger production run and commonality of training, maintainance, etc.

There will never be any “off the shelf equipment” to upgrade anything. Lead times are tremendously long for complex sensor and weapon systems.

If you don’t buy a radar set, or missile system at the same time (or before) you order the hull, the odds are that it will long be out of production by the time of the midlife update.

A ”bare-bones” T45 could even be loaded with 48 cruise missiles when operating with a surface group.

This will require major re-engineering of the are forward of the superstrucuture for Tomahawk/Mk41 or Scalp Naval/Sylver A70. Currently, the Type 45 uses the Sylver A50 VLS, which is far too short for any cruise missile capability.

Transforming the T45 from a single-purpose AAW platform into a single-purpose land attack platform isn’t a cheap or effective solution.

It could also prove desirable not to give major upgrades to ”full capability” T45’s and instead upgrade the ”bare bones” T45’s to leap frog their capabilities.

That would simply shift costs further into the future, which always increases the ultimate size of the outlay.

At first observation here SteveO’s point about building a bare-bones Type45 hull without sensors or much in the way of weapons seems sensible. Follow the production run of full-bore T45’s and make the rest that little bit cheaper by virtue of numbers.

Tinwing’s got it nailed though that building the bigger ship with is full-size ship propulsion plant and crewing costs, plus the need for the redesign to accomodate the larger aviation group etc, would probably end up nearly at the same cost (in whole life terms) as building a fully fitted-out, more capable, light frigate design. The issue that must be remembered that its not necessarily acquisition costs that are the problem. We do have a funding crunch in progress with lots of big-tickets due at once, but, its the pressure on the O&M budget thats driving this kind of requirement.

Simply put the RN need a lean-manned, fuel-efficient, extended range vessel that can keep up with a CVF group. It must be capable of mounting a modest 3D search set as high up a mast as possible and offer enhanced aviation capabilities over that currently found in the escort fleet and thats about it!. Unfortunately no platform has been offered off-the-shelf yet that meets those criteria.

I agree that the ideal solution is a purpose designed OPV, but that will take years to get into service and will no doubt have to be funded at the expense of other programs.

Buying ”bare-bones” T45’s with all gun armament is the compromise solution, it’s the easy option because it’s in production, it can be easily upgraded as necessary with off the shelf equipment and of course there would be savings from a larger production run and commonality of training, maintainance, etc.

A ”bare-bones” T45 could even be loaded with 48 cruise missiles when operating with a surface group.

It could also prove desirable not to give major upgrades to ”full capability” T45’s and instead upgrade the ”bare bones” T45’s to leap frog their capabilities.

Its interesting that the USCG Hamiltons where brought up on this as they are a great indication of what we DONT want as a ‘Global OPV’ because the WHEC’s have proven the distinction, very starkly, between a high endurance cutter (what they were designed for!) and a Global OPV capable of dual-role warfighting.

No disrespect to the US Coasties here as many who are or have been ‘in the trade’ know sailing some of the waters they patrol demand the highest standards of seamanship imagineable and their role in the antidrugs war puts them in harms way as routine. That the USN chose to fit WHEC’s into their battlegroups is also proof of the faith.

Unfortunately its a known fact that the WHEC’s were not a perfect fit trying to keep up with the battlegroups. Basically their raision d’etre is tooling around a patrol station on one diesel and, that way, they can get fantastic endurance performance. Unfortunately the 12knts optimistically offered by the solo diesel doesnt allow you to keep up with 25knt warships. Turning the turbines the WHEC’s proved to be far from high endurance cutters.

At first observation here SteveO’s point about building a bare-bones Type45 hull without sensors or much in the way of weapons seems sensible. Follow the production run of full-bore T45’s and make the rest that little bit cheaper by virtue of numbers.

Tinwing’s got it nailed though that building the bigger ship with is full-size ship propulsion plant and crewing costs, plus the need for the redesign to accomodate the larger aviation group etc, would probably end up nearly at the same cost (in whole life terms) as building a fully fitted-out, more capable, light frigate design. The issue that must be remembered that its not necessarily acquisition costs that are the problem. We do have a funding crunch in progress with lots of big-tickets due at once, but, its the pressure on the O&M budget thats driving this kind of requirement.

Simply put the RN need a lean-manned, fuel-efficient, extended range vessel that can keep up with a CVF group. It must be capable of mounting a modest 3D search set as high up a mast as possible and offer enhanced aviation capabilities over that currently found in the escort fleet and thats about it!. Unfortunately no platform has been offered off-the-shelf yet that meets those criteria.

missed opportunity?

I think some of the bigger OPVs are more or less exactly that.

Well it seemed obvious 😮

I guess the RN have missed a trick with the new River-class then. They seem to have only limited helicopter facilities. Shame, with the marinised Apaches now being available.

I think ”fitted for but not with” is the key to the RN’s current situation.

Take a standard T45 hull, leave out all the expensive AAW and ASW stuff, keep the 4.5inch gun and place a single CIWS on top of the hangar. This gives you a global range OPV that can be upgraded to a real warship when needed.

Why pay for an expensive IFEP powerplant and two WR-21 gas turbines, while disposing of the only armament that might justify such an expenditure to begin with? Why pay for 7,000 tonnes of warship when 3,000 tonnes built to mercantile standards can do the job?

Sure, you can build a big, underarmed, overmanned warship that offers the same capabilities as an OPV that costs only a fraction as much to build, operate and man. In the end, you’ll still end up with a shrinking navy with far too few hull.

Don’t expect expensive upgrades later on, or even adequate quantities of containerized weapons and mission systems. Politicians almost never approve funding for substantial warship upgrades.

Some the roles ascribed to an OPV in this thread can be carried out by helicopter – ASuW, ASW, personel transport. How practical would an OPV centred around one or two helicopters be, assuming the ship itself was limited to defensive and logistic systems?..

I think some of the bigger OPVs are more or less exactly that.

I think people here are getting hung up on the idea that a ship is built for a particular role, equipped for that role, & that’s that. I have one word to say –

STANFLEX!

Steel is cheap. Weapons, sensors & crews are expensive. Lightly armed ships, fitted for but not with additional weapons, lightly crewed, could perform many roles that are currently done (expensively & very wastefully) by fully-equipped warships. With some reserve crews, & stocks of weapons & additional sensors for immediate use (& more could be bought much more quickly than new ships could be built!), a fleet of oceanic patrol vessels could do most of the peacetime roles of DDGs & FFGs, at lower cost, reducing wear on the expensive warfighters, yet still be available to support them in an emergency.

I think ”fitted for but not with” is the key to the RN’s current situation.

Take a standard T45 hull, leave out all the expensive AAW and ASW stuff, keep the 4.5inch gun and place a single CIWS on top of the hangar. This gives you a global range OPV that can be upgraded to a real warship when needed.

what would make a good OPV then

Some the roles ascribed to an OPV in this thread can be carried out by helicopter – ASuW, ASW, personel transport. How practical would an OPV centred around one or two helicopters be, assuming the ship itself was limited to defensive and logistic systems?

I would imagine weather would have a much more significant impact on operations than if the systems were ship-board, but that could be my ignorance:o

Yes, there is a strong role for this type of ship… if you can get your politicians to buy these in addition to the “higher-end” warships you also need, rather instead of them like the politicos will try to do!

At the moment I’m not sure the UK government is going to build any new frigates, corvettes or “blue water OPV”s. The Darings were absolutely necessary, and even all bar the first four seem liable for the chop. CVF is an important project but also a useful tool for the upcoming Scottish elections – even that might not be ordered this year. Apart from that, what has this government ordered? We still haven’t seen any real advancement for T-22/23 replacement plans.

With the NHS set to gobble up more and more money (something like £100 billion before the end of the decade), ever-increasing waste in public spending as a whole and a refusal in the Treasury to be more generous towards the military, I’m not terribly optimistic about the Royal Navy’s immediate future. I think we might not see a real improvement until midway through the next decade, in terms of ships in service and orders being placed.

I remember that the Irish Navy were looking at an LPD sized ship in the Rotterdam class for service there since they are now moving into peace keeping duties, has anyone heard anything about that’s going?

In an age of multirole everything else, it seems odd that our OPV’s are so limited (okay, I believe the Castles have a limtied ability to support helo operations). They have no ability to “step up” to any other role in a crisis, nor in any future conflict will they have the defensive capability to expect to survive for any length of time.

Well, they’re doing what coastguards do in some countries.

Personally, I think we could do with some more capable OPVs which could stand in for the frigates which we sometimes use as over-specced OPVs, & be beefed up in a crisis, as described in my earlier post. I suspect the navy brass don’t want such ships because they fear that a bunch of flex ships would cut into their tally of full-spec warships. I don’t think they wanted the OPVs, but accepted them because they discovered the drawbacks of using frigates for fisheries protection in the Cod War.

We have OPVs (River & Castle class), & one usually serves as a Falklands guard ship. But they’re purely OPVs. They’re lightly armed (max 30mm & a few GPMGs), with no provision for extra weapons AFAIK, & not exactly fast. Fine for chasing illegally operating fishing boats, but they aren’t – and are not intended to be – war fighting ships.

In an age of multirole everything else, it seems odd that our OPV’s are so limited (okay, I believe the Castles have a limtied ability to support helo operations). They have no ability to “step up” to any other role in a crisis, nor in any future conflict will they have the defensive capability to expect to survive for any length of time.

I’d have to go with the idea that its better to have an overspeced ship than an underspeced one. However, I think the RN could benefit from an OPV/corvette type vessel as a “low-intensity” combat vessel.

We have OPVs (River & Castle class), & one usually serves as a Falklands guard ship. But they’re purely OPVs. They’re lightly armed (max 30mm & a few GPMGs), with no provision for extra weapons AFAIK, & not exactly fast. Fine for chasing illegally operating fishing boats, but they aren’t – and are not intended to be – war fighting ships.

No? What’s the USCG doing in the Persian Gulf then? Fishing?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0630protector.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/29/gulf.coast.guard/index.html
http://www.uscg.mil/history/PersianGulfChron.html

Navy work. :p

Our coastguard is a completely different kind of organisation from yours. Yours is legally part of the armed forces, & is equipped & operates accordingly. Ours is not. Some other countries have coastguards like yours, some like ours.

You have to admit that for an organisation supposedly tasked with patrolling the nations coasts to be deployed half way round the world suggests severe confusion about its role.

Yes, there is a strong role for this type of ship… if you can get your politicians to buy these in addition to the “higher-end” warships you also need, rather instead of them like the politicos will try to do!

alternative force make-up

I’d have to go with the idea that its better to have an overspeced ship than an underspeced one. However, I think the RN could benefit from an OPV/corvette type vessel as a “low-intensity” combat vessel.

This could operate as guard ship (e.g. Falkland islands), support operations in “friendly waters” (e.g. Iraq?, Lebanon?), resources patrol (both local and friendly waters) and anti-smuggling. It would expect to have close logistical support and air cover and therefore have limited air/missile defence and endurance, but be capable of facing surface threats and supporting small combat teams (boarding parties, shore raiders). Possibly operating a multirole helo to give some ASW (and maybe AShW?) capability as well as support for the combat teams. If things get nasty, it has some capability to extract itself, and maybe has a supporting role in war-environment.

The other roles discussed – humanitarian support – are surely best served with a modified stores/LP-type vessel. Whether the same base hull could be utilised as a high endurance platform replacing comabt capability with stores/fuel/bunking is another matter. Would it need to be significantly different to current military vessels – perhaps more smaller units.

Just some ramblings…..
:confused:

But would you take one of those into the South Atlantic or either of the Capes in winter ?

Yes, Coast Guard Ships are frequently in bad weather saving people’s lives. That is their job and bad weather is what their ships are designed for. Even the smaller cutters that were designed for 14-day patrols are patroling for over 90 days in all sort of conditions. I would take most USCG ships over many ships in the Navy for their sea keeping abilities.