Royal Navy C3

I love this ship and its design.

Im right there with you. Let me order 16 of these babies now.

Slight extension to the ship

i would change it to the 57mm becuase isnt it designed by BAE?

How about just making sure there is enough room for the Land Based version to be bolted down somewhere? I’m assuming it will be a mobile system like Rapier, so you just need a place to tie some trailers down, hopefully you can tie the missiles into the ships CMS though. 😛

You know that’s a pretty brilliant idea!

I think C3 should have the option of containerised VLS CAMM I think this would make a lot of sense because you could say have enough containers for a third of the fleet and only put the system on the ships that need it for their tasking. I hope the ships are getting artisan 3D radar which more than capable enough. Then in times of war you could post C3 in the littorals as a fire support ship, MCM and deployment of special forces.

How about just making sure there is enough room for the Land Based version to be bolted down somewhere? I’m assuming it will be a mobile system like Rapier, so you just need a place to tie some trailers down, hopefully you can tie the missiles into the ships CMS though. 😛

I think C3 should have the option of containerised VLS CAMM I think this would make a lot of sense because you could say have enough containers for a third of the fleet and only put the system on the ships that need it for their tasking. I hope the ships are getting artisan 3D radar which more than capable enough. Then in times of war you could post C3 in the littorals as a fire support ship, MCM and deployment of special forces.

[EDIT]

I would love to leave the VSL on there but you are probably right, wont happen.

I do think though that this would be an excellent vessel on which to base the C3, what I would be worried about though is the MOD changing the design, ending up with something a little bigger but without the missiles and it coming in at 200mill a piece.

You give me this ship at £100 a pop and we should eat them up. I really would look at the RAM system though, its dirt cheap for what it does!!!!

There are a few things that are wrong with that ship like the range which only half of what is probably required by the Royal Navy and the lack of a work deck that is essential for MCM equipment and also UUV, RHIBs.

I would love to leave the VSL on there but you are probably right, wont happen.

I do think though that this would be an excellent vessel on which to base the C3, what I would be worried about though is the MOD changing the design, ending up with something a little bigger but without the missiles and it coming in at 200mill a piece.

You give me this ship at £100 a pop and we should eat them up. I really would look at the RAM system though, its dirt cheap for what it does!!!!

Can someone give me the specs on the Khareef’s? Weapons systems etc.

And what were the proposed changes for C3?

That VLS is making me think it’s expensive. But it does look ideal, it would just need room for 2+ ISO’s.

Pretty much what you see on the video.

99m hull, displacement about 2500tons, CODAD plant for 25knts and 3500nm range. Crew complement allegedly about 100 strong – prob inclusive of the aviation dept.

Electronics fit is almost exclusively Thales sourced – TACTICOS CMS fed by a SMART-S Mk2 MRR, STING FCR for the gun plus Link Y – comprehensive for the class and size of vessel.

Armament is the OTO76SR, VL MICA in two 6-pot VLS packs for 12 rounds total, Exocet MM40, a pair of REMSIG DS30’s and a full MASS offboard softkill suite – on the heavy side for an OPV, but, understandable for boats that will live in the Gulf of Oman. Rounds off with a permanent embarked aviation capability of a Lynx-class chopper with AVCAT bunkerage and air-ordnance magazines.

The big news is the price. Contract value for three ships plus initial support is £400mn. Good guess that puts unit price in the £120mn region. Tweak that design a bit, dropping the missiles and adding a work deck aft of the chopper pad with space for a containerised UUV hangar/launch system plus a RHIB ramp/davits etc. Then put 16 on the order book and, IMHO, you wouldnt be looking at much more than £1.5bn for the whole class and, effectively, sort out a, hugely, economical and cost-effective minor war fleet for a good twenty years!.

Can someone give me the specs on the Khareef’s? Weapons systems etc.

And what were the proposed changes for C3?

That VLS is making me think it’s expensive. But it does look ideal, it would just need room for 2+ ISO’s.

I love this ship and its design.

Im right there with you. Let me order 16 of these babies now.

Slight extension to the ship

A very cool and rather imaginative video.

Possibly one for the Navy News thread but it seems apt to go here first.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/video.aspx?VideoPath=PPP/oman_naming_22july2009.wmv&VideoID=38959&ArticleID=5486874

Vid clip of the newly launched 1st of class Khareef hull for the Omani’s. Needs a hull stretch for increased bunkerage, a work deck/garage space aft and perhaps a tweak on the power plant to keep perfromance the same, but, if someone put an order in for 16 of these for C3 tomorrow I’d dance a bloody jig!.

You dont get away quite that easy PJ!. Busy yesterday and didnt have much opportunity for intense keyboard bashery!.

Wasn’t sure if I would be about myself for a couple of days, but i’ve managed to squeeze 5 mins in!

This was the point I was making…since T42 B1, surely the worst example of blatant treasury tinkering, the situation has improved measurably. Perhaps, partly, something of a post-Falklands honeymoon, but, we’ve not done all that bad in terms of capability in the fleet.

Yeah agreed if you put it like that. I think the thrust of my arguement has been the more recent cuts and how defence procurement has panned out since SDR.

I think you are missing the one fundamental point that will govern the range that weapons realease will be made under. The survival instincts of the pilots flying the strike!….

I would have said it depends on the Air Force and the cause. Can’t see (just for instance) Chinese pilots holding back. Agreed though PAAMs will be in the Anti-missile business, but still aiming to bring down launch aircraft. If we get CEC then all things are possible.

We had a CPOWEA at Collingwood who used to bang on about it as he was aware that BAE had an active-seeker Sea Dart and a VLS system in the works which could’ve done the area job and been at sea in the early 2000’s.

Actually I know quite a bit about that and it was first put on the table in the late 70s along with VLS SoggyDog but was deemed too expensive to even study particularly hard. It was brought up again in the same way SeaTyphoon (in regard to F35) was in order to gain some leverage at the workshare discussions.

Provided that is all they ever are and we dont get this idiocy reappearing of trying to turn them into an Arleigh Burke by bolting on SSM’s, serious NGS-capable artillery etc 8 would be more than sufficient. 6 isnt right, but, at least we will have a measure of capability to backstop the T45’s if CAMM delivers on its promises.

It will be fine as long as C1 and Astute are where the LAMs go and we don’t need more than one large battle group at sea….

Jonsey- Good debate, enjoyed it!

You dont get away quite that easy PJ!. Busy yesterday and didnt have much opportunity for intense keyboard bashery!.

But it was what was affordable and also perhaps underlines some of the points people have been making about treasury interference etc.

This was the point I was making…since T42 B1, surely the worst example of blatant treasury tinkering, the situation has improved measurably. Perhaps, partly, something of a post-Falklands honeymoon, but, we’ve not done all that bad in terms of capability in the fleet.

Like our discussion of how far a PAAMS shoot down will occur, it is also reading too much into the dealers brouchre to believe that a strike aircraft will actually be able to accurately launch a strike at a range in excess of 100km, like Sea Vipers 120km range allows manoeuvre and chase, so the longer ranges of AshM are more to do with fancy dog-legs and multiple directions, launch aircraft will be much much closer, or at higher altitude and therefore detectable at a greater range.

I think you are missing the one fundamental point that will govern the range that weapons realease will be made under. The survival instincts of the pilots flying the strike!. Those Argentine Etendards did not have positive target identification before releasing any of the 5 warshot AM39’s they had. That was despite knowing exactly how far they could close on a T42 from their own practice runs!. In future, with a knowledge that Sea Viper is ahead of them, opposing AShM shots will be from the extent of a missiles range. Which is good for us as it means the hostile targetting solution is that much more of a difficult proposition. It is bad for non-combattants in the operational zone though!.

Well you must have had precognisence then because that was the stated need of the RN given its commitments at the time.

Nah not when they were talking of figures in the billions that the continentals were dropping into PAAMS (as it became). We had a CPOWEA at Collingwood who used to bang on about it as he was aware that BAE had an active-seeker Sea Dart and a VLS system in the works which could’ve done the area job and been at sea in the early 2000’s. As soon as we agreed to the european system though the costs were always going to, if you forgive the pun, sky-rocket and that would impact the hulls bought to field it. Remarkably accuracte prediction as it turned out.

12 Destroyers aren’t really a luxury?

12 are a luxury when you arent needing to keep them out on a permanent station somewhere. Darings job is AAW consort. Provided that is all they ever are and we dont get this idiocy reappearing of trying to turn them into an Arleigh Burke by bolting on SSM’s, serious NGS-capable artillery etc 8 would be more than sufficient. 6 isnt right, but, at least we will have a measure of capability to backstop the T45’s if CAMM delivers on its promises.

Anyone else listening to Radio 4 at the moment.

Key points made about PFI

PFI borrowing doesn’t show on national balance sheet (even though taxpayer will ultimately have to pay all debt off via the commercial partner) but Treasury deny that this is a driver for using PFI funding

Typical interest on government borrowing 4%. Typical interest on PFI borrowing 10%

So looks like PFI for C3 then ………..
Al

Ahh, but PFI makes the government’s friends in the financial sector very happy….

Anyone else listening to Radio 4 at the moment.

Key points made about PFI

PFI borrowing doesn’t show on national balance sheet (even though taxpayer will ultimately have to pay all debt off via the commercial partner) but Treasury deny that this is a driver for using PFI funding

Typical interest on government borrowing 4%. Typical interest on PFI borrowing 10%

So looks like PFI for C3 then ………..

Al

I thought that it was criminal how little use was made of HMS Bristol. She was potentially a genuine cruiser but fitted out with the square root of naff all. Then a more learned chum led me gently through the work required to fit new/extra systems and the (very approximate) cost and I calmed down a bit. Even the drawing and structural calculations made me balk somewhat.

Yeah, 7,000 tons and a crew of 400 and she didn’t even have a whirrlybird. She didn’t have an SSM either (yeah I know Dart has a capability…but really) which for a 7,000 ton ship is shocking, until you look at the Type 45s…..

Yeah that’s the big one, the hull has some structural issues from various reports.

No worries we’ll just get the Vikings to rivet on a second hull for us.

Al

Surely this is much more a C2 fit, all a bit overkill for an OPV/MCM??

Sure, sure. Certainly an entirely reasonable point of view and one which may be much more in line with UK gov thinking than mine.

My view is that FFBNW doesn’t cost a huge amount (in relative terms).

It is easy to read FFBNW as ‘lets leave off the stuff which we definitely need and hope for the best if we say FFBNW no one will notice‘ and that again may be the intention but I also see it as potentially ‘lets make the platforms as flexible as possible so that we can do something with the later‘

It is a reality that warships are tasked with, um tasks for which they were not originally designed. It would be nice to be able to fit them out to tackle those tasks. Any fitting out which requires a big refit probably ain’t gonna happen. Any fitting out which requires structural work or provision of services (air, water, power, signals in and signals out) from scratch will cost lots (much more than providing those services when originally built) and hence is not cost-effective and probably ain’t gonna happen.

I thought that it was criminal how little use was made of HMS Bristol. She was potentially a genuine cruiser but fitted out with the square root of naff all. Then a more learned chum led me gently through the work required to fit new/extra systems and the (very approximate) cost and I calmed down a bit. Even the drawing and structural calculations made me balk somewhat.

Al

Swerve – OUCH!

Jonsey- Good debate, enjoyed it!

As for the new Coast Guard cutter, I have heard on the grapvine that it has all sorts of build quality and design issues that may have an impact on its planned lifetime. As an overall design it would fit into a similar sort of spec, but does need the venator adpatations to make it work for the RN how they want it.

Yeah that’s the big one, the hull has some structural issues from various reports.

Government is worse only because it’s bigger.

plus one

And genuine commiserations in being caught up in the cycle of management inadequacy.

Al

Swerve – OUCH!

Jonsey- Good debate, enjoyed it!

As for the new Coast Guard cutter, I have heard on the grapvine that it has all sorts of build quality and design issues that may have an impact on its planned lifetime. As an overall design it would fit into a similar sort of spec, but does need the venator adpatations to make it work for the RN how they want it.