Royal Navy FSC two tier thing or whatever it is called now

Has anyone seen the recent issue of international fleet review?

In the rant (a well argued rant and I agree with much of it, but a rant nonetheless) on what the money spent on a VAT cut should actually have been spent is an interesting piccy of a BAe proposal for FSC (nothing in the way of figures or specs though sadly)

Picture here FSC

Al

He’s got a point about the VAT cut though, spend it on FSC and you get the replacements the navy needs, jobs protected (and votes won), and tax revenue, instead what we got was……………………..?

Has anyone seen the recent issue of international fleet review?

In the rant (a well argued rant and I agree with much of it, but a rant nonetheless) on what the money spent on a VAT cut should actually have been spent is an interesting piccy of a BAe proposal for FSC (nothing in the way of figures or specs though sadly)

Picture here FSC

Al

The magazine should be renamed “WARSHIP International Fleet Rant…it’s the nasty government and RAF’s fault”.

At least they don’t pretend to hide their dark blue bias.

Has anyone seen the recent issue of international fleet review?

In the rant (a well argued rant and I agree with much of it, but a rant nonetheless) on what the money spent on a VAT cut should actually have been spent is an interesting piccy of a BAe proposal for FSC (nothing in the way of figures or specs though sadly)

Picture here FSC

Al

Absolutely, DCNS and MBDA have been scurrying around trying to make Sylver as versatile as possible, hence Scalp, VL-MICA and VT-1 on top of the ASTER series.

and CAMM.
Could Fireshadow be used as a basic UAV to mark targets for F35 or Stormshadow/TLAM. Seems a neat missile system

True, but it also shows that investigation has been done, & that it’s considered a desirable capability. It’s an official RN brochure, not a press article. A question of money, I expect. But think – this could be sold to other Sylver users. MBDA will probably be quite keen to integrate it.

Absolutely, DCNS and MBDA have been scurrying around trying to make Sylver as versatile as possible, hence Scalp, VL-MICA and VT-1 on top of the ASTER series.

True, but it also shows that investigation has been done, & that it’s considered a desirable capability. It’s an official RN brochure, not a press article. A question of money, I expect. But think – this could be sold to other Sylver users. MBDA will probably be quite keen to integrate it.

Dont get carried away, the article basically just says that it could physically fit within a Sylver cell not that anything has been even thought about beyond that.

Complete agreement Swerve, also if it will fit in a Sylver there must be a decent chance of it fitting a MK41 too with a little outlay on integration.

I’ve posted it in the missiles etc forum, on the appropriate thread.

I see it’s down as a possible future capability, but it sounds like a damn good idea. It could also be sold to other Sylver users.

Interesting news taken from the T45 Brochure:

Fireshadow Loitering Munition

“LMs are launched into the air and provide a persistent loitering capability whilst targets are tracked/identified. On operator command, LMs can be authorised to engage and execute a terminal dive. The Fireshadow design is compatible with the space envelope of T45s Sylver VLS.”

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/08_489_HMS_daring_VIP_low_20090122125408.pdf

Thanks to pymes75 for pointing this out on Warships1

Irrelevant, though for clarity perhaps I should have used BVT instead of VT, as the Khareef design and, subsequent work undertaken for C3 OCPV, transfered to BVT intellectual property.

Whether its VT or BVT that is the entity that moves forward with naval shipbuilding the fact remains that a developed hull exists that is suitable for purpose as the basis for C2.

Agreed, I just see it as only a matter of time before this leads to a major restructuring of the UK shipbuilding industry. And it represents the end of an illustrious shipbuilding name in the form of Vosper Thornycroft.

Irrelevant, though for clarity perhaps I should have used BVT instead of VT, as the Khareef design and, subsequent work undertaken for C3 OCPV, transfered to BVT intellectual property.

Whether its VT or BVT that is the entity that moves forward with naval shipbuilding the fact remains that a developed hull exists that is suitable for purpose as the basis for C2.

VT have already come up with the basic hull form that fits from its Khareef work. With that done the rest is a systems integration and packaging job. There is nothing in that list that would overly tax a 3500ton hull – the hardest thing potentially being the provision of aviation stores for a multi-element airgroup.

VT is out of the naval shipbuilding business, it is selling the whole of its shares in BVT surface fleet to BAE making BAE the sole naval shipbuilder in the UK. The Khareef work will remain but VT is now a services group only.

Swerve,

No major disagreement at all – the only point I was making was in response to your comment: “I think the FM400 is about the smallest ship that would be capable of carrying the required weaponry & have the desired range & endurance for C2”

Just wanted to drill a bit deeper there to make the point, IMO, that you dont need a 127m long hull displacing up to 4500tons for C2!.

BTW, what is your ideal C2, given that you say (& I’m not disputing it) that we can do better than a ship based on the Dutch OPV? I speculate that you’d specify some different systems, e.g. ARTISAN, for commonality with other RN ships, rather than that Thales sensor mast. What about displacement, speed, range, weapons, crew?

The key to ‘better’ for C2 is hull numbers i.e a C2 capability delivered by 10 3500ton OPV/FFL’s is, IMO, far superior to a C2 capability resting on, for sake of example, 6 FM400’s.

For my money we are looking at the following:

VT have already come up with the basic hull form that fits from its Khareef work. With that done the rest is a systems integration and packaging job. There is nothing in that list that would overly tax a 3500ton hull – the hardest thing potentially being the provision of aviation stores for a multi-element airgroup.

Swerve,

The point I was disputing was that a hull – approximately the size of the Formidable – could not embark sensors, weapons, range and endurance suitable for the C2 mission.

Uparmed with the RAM mount and SSM added to the medium calibre gun the Dutch vessel is there or thereabouts with the only ship impact, in any measurable sense, being the additional crew requirement in the warfare and engineering dept. That keeps the displacement strictly on ‘my side’ of the 4k ton benchmark ;).

Jonesy,

I don’t see why you’re trying to disagree, when as far as I can see there is no disagreement. I didn’t put 4K tons forward as an absolute limit (I wouldn’t dare – I don’t know enough about precisely what can be fitted into what hull), but as a rough guideline. You’ve proposed a ship which looks to me like a minimalist version of C2, & it’s maybe 5% off my guideline. The other way, up from the Formidable, we’re talking about ca 20% extra displacement.

That is exactly the substance of my original claim: the Formidable (not something “approximately the size of”, but actually 20% larger) is too small, & you need to add at least several hundred tons to it to get the minimum weapons fit, range, & endurance needed for C2.

By bumping up the size to that of the Dutch OPV, to which you add a small amount of extra weight in weapons & equipment, you do exactly what I said was necessary.

As for the FM400 – I’m not claiming any of the FM400 configurations put forward by DCNS is ideal for C2, or even the hull, only that a hull of that sort of size is needed, rather than the smaller Formidable.

BTW, what is your ideal C2, given that you say (& I’m not disputing it) that we can do better than a ship based on the Dutch OPV? I speculate that you’d specify some different systems, e.g. ARTISAN, for commonality with other RN ships, rather than that Thales sensor mast. What about displacement, speed, range, weapons, crew?

I’m sure the Admiralty are hoping to get all the escorts that are promised under SDR as well. When they find they arent going to get them they’ll start to realise what they need C3 to be!.

For some reason i think they worked that out when the T22’s and early T23’s started to be decommissioned without replacement. 😉

Wan,

Bit steep in terms of the old shekels the NSC both in acquisition and, it could be reasonably anticipated, in running costs too. Good design, by all accounts, but other options exist that could do the approximate job very much more efficiently!.

Swerve,

You see what I’m getting at? You have just, rather nicely, proved my point! You have defined a ship which might meet the requirement, and it’s on my side of the minimum size divide.

The point I was disputing was that a hull – approximately the size of the Formidable – could not embark sensors, weapons, range and endurance suitable for the C2 mission.

Uparmed with the RAM mount and SSM added to the medium calibre gun the Dutch vessel is there or thereabouts with the only ship impact, in any measurable sense, being the additional crew requirement in the warfare and engineering dept. That keeps the displacement strictly on ‘my side’ of the 4k ton benchmark ;). Though I do, of course, accept that its not a directly comparable hull in armament or performance terms it would be my view that it would be an adequate hull in those criteria for the C2 requirement. Certainly you would need little more to meet the tasking.

Then we come to look at the FM400 concept. Is this really, one wonders, a hull that offers frigate performance, battlespace management and firepower with OPV range and endurance on a 4000ton hull?. An impressive packaging job to say the least.

Until you note that the FM400 is offered as a range of hulls, in 4 generic types, from 3500-4500tons offering a ‘range of options’!. So for your chokepoint escort, an austere 2nd class capability by any definition, you are now conceivably looking at a hull just 1500tons off a FREMM and one, given the actual orders for FREMM, probably not all that far removed in cost terms than the bigger unit.

Certainly in value-for-money terms a consideration of FM400 for C2 would have to raise the spectre of FREMM participation. This from the standpoint if we are looking at a hull so close to FREMM for C2 whether there is greater value in acquiring FREMM for C1 and an austere specced variant for C2.

DCNS would certainly be happy to provide a good quote for 8 FREMM ASM and another 8 or so bespoke patrol variants. The whole-life costs of the single class could also be quite favourable. Especially over a dual class approach like T45-based C1 and FM400-based C2.

Problem is it doesnt provide the numbers or quality we need. C1 needs to be bigger and much more capable than FREMM-ASM and we need more patrol hulls in the water than we’ll get by buying in an expensive thoroughbred warfighter for C2.

C2 needs to be the cheapest hull, in whole-life terms, we can get that provides the range, endurance and space for weapons and sensors to deal with a limited but modern threat environment. I’m sorry but thats not FM400 anyway you cut it – the Dutch boat is actually a better fit, but, one we can do better than ourselves!.

BTW, I think the C3 you refer to is not the one the Admiralty have in mind, which is smaller & more lightly armed than what you – and many others, think of as C3. I think the VT proposal has been rather too influential.

VT came up with that design on the basis of the requirements. The Admiralty might want a smaller and lighter armed vessel though apart from one officers comments more than 12 months ago I’ve seen nothing official (or unofficial!) on that point. I’m sure the Admiralty are hoping to get all the escorts that are promised under SDR as well. When they find they arent going to get them they’ll start to realise what they need C3 to be!.

But it isn’t “this size of hull”: it’s bigger. Not hugely bigger, but enough to make a difference, I think.

I’m no naval architect, & my estimates are derived crudely, from looking at ships & their published specifications, but it looks to me as if you can’t get the range, endurance, performance & minimum armament expected in C2 in anything much less than 4000 tons, which is why I cited the FM400. The Dutch OPV might just squeeze in at the bottom of that range. The Formidables are that bit smaller, nearer 3000 than 4000, & can’t do it. Compare them – Dutch OPV about 600 tons heavier, top speed 22 knots vs 27, a crew of 50 vs 85 – and all that without the Aster, Harpoon & torpedo launchers . . .

I agree, you could modify the Dutch OPV to take the required armament (though I think the bigger Sylvers of the Formidables would be a step too far), at the expense probably of the overload personnel transport capability (extra crew, a bit less space), & adding a little – but easily supportable – weight. You end up with a ship 20-25% heavier than a Formidable (pushing 4000 tons), & still less heavily armed & slower. You see what I’m getting at? You have just, rather nicely, proved my point! You have defined a ship which might meet the requirement, and it’s on my side of the minimum size divide. 😀

Let us go the other way, & consider how to modify a Formidable to give it the needed range & endurance, without increasing size. I think you end up with something too lightly armed, & probably slower – a Floreal!

BTW, I think the C3 you refer to is not the one the Admiralty have in mind, which is smaller & more lightly armed than what you – and many others, think of as C3. I think the VT proposal has been rather too influential.

4000 tons eh? Anyone considered the USCG National Security Cutter (NSC) as a basis?
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/NSC.php
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/img/concepts/MAR07/NSC_SpecSheet.pdf

Or the somewhat smaller 2900tn Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/objectives/cutters/OPC.php
http://www.icgsdeepwater.com/img/concepts/MAR05/ICGS_OPC.pdf

Some reads on the Dutch patrol ship
http://publishing.yudu.com/Apnqm/WTJul-Aug08/resources/20.htm
http://publishing.yudu.com/Ab9xx/WTMay08/resources/34.htm

Some reading on a reconfigurable warship
http://publishing.yudu.com/Ab1hd/WTJan08/resources/35.htm

As for mission systems themselves the Dutch OPV you list is perfect illustration as to what can be achieved on this size of hull if the requirements are properly defined.

But it isn’t “this size of hull”: it’s bigger. Not hugely bigger, but enough to make a difference, I think.

I’m no naval architect, & my estimates are derived crudely, from looking at ships & their published specifications, but it looks to me as if you can’t get the range, endurance, performance & minimum armament expected in C2 in anything much less than 4000 tons, which is why I cited the FM400. The Dutch OPV might just squeeze in at the bottom of that range. The Formidables are that bit smaller, nearer 3000 than 4000, & can’t do it. Compare them – Dutch OPV about 600 tons heavier, top speed 22 knots vs 27, a crew of 50 vs 85 – and all that without the Aster, Harpoon & torpedo launchers . . .

I agree, you could modify the Dutch OPV to take the required armament (though I think the bigger Sylvers of the Formidables would be a step too far), at the expense probably of the overload personnel transport capability (extra crew, a bit less space), & adding a little – but easily supportable – weight. You end up with a ship 20-25% heavier than a Formidable (pushing 4000 tons), & still less heavily armed & slower. You see what I’m getting at? You have just, rather nicely, proved my point! You have defined a ship which might meet the requirement, and it’s on my side of the minimum size divide. 😀

Let us go the other way, & consider how to modify a Formidable to give it the needed range & endurance, without increasing size. I think you end up with something too lightly armed, & probably slower – a Floreal!

BTW, I think the C3 you refer to is not the one the Admiralty have in mind, which is smaller & more lightly armed than what you – and many others, think of as C3. I think the VT proposal has been rather too influential.

The Formidable class are fine ships, with all the gear needed for C2, but they don’t have – because Singapore doesn’t need or want – the range & endurance the RN wants for C2. To get the range & endurance needed in a Formidable-sized ship, you’d have to sacrifice weapons. That means you turn C2 into a big OPV, like the new Dutch ships, & it stops being C2 & becomes a big C3. To extend the range & still carry the weapons load, you need a bigger ship.

Its by no means that straightforward an equation though Swerve.

Isnt a ‘big C3’ exactly what the requirement for C2 effectively is?. A chokepoint escort – ie the gunboat component of gunboat diplomacy?. 30knt speeds are, in recent history, solely of value in chasing diesel submarines and we try to use a chopper for that, rather delicate, task today anyway. No way a circa 4k ton hull is keeping up 30knts, in any kind of seaway, on oceanic transit so thats out as a justification. Likewise, if the conditions are calm enough that you can crank up to 30knts after, say, a druggie go-fast boat then its odds on he’s good for 40-50knts and your best option is a few discouraging shells in his path or waking the wafu’s up!. Hard to see what you need 30knts for on a boat that needs to do economical patrol routinely and will rarely, if ever, see fleet duty?.

As for mission systems themselves the Dutch OPV you list is perfect illustration as to what can be achieved on this size of hull if the requirements are properly defined. 8000nm, endurance in excess of 21 days, organic aviation support, comms and sensors better than a great many warfighting escort vessels in service.

The only lack is in the weapons department and replacing the forward 27mm with a Mk49 GMLS for RAM and fitting Mk141 cannisters on the hangar roof for Harpoon Blk2 gives the ship rough parity with any light frigate in the world for the price of minor mods to the superstructure and, worst case, fitting another panel into the combat data system.

If you were prepared to undertake a more significant scope of works you continue the foredeck extension, housing the OTO and magazine spaces, for’d 12ft or so and push the mount to its forward extent. Behind the gun there is suddenly space, by my reckoning, for at least 4 Sylver A35 modules. With the sensor suite fitted thats automatically full-function VL-MICA territory for 16 rounds!.

What you have, bottom line, is an advanced high endurance patrol combattant. A platform capable of extended chokepoint coverage and optimised for MIOPS to undertake suveillance missions in support of friendly vessels transitting those chokepoints – in essence C2. All on a hull not wildly larger than the Singaporean frigate originally mentioned.