Royal Navy FSC

Global Cruiser/Global Corvete all over again!

Strangely this entire topic is giving me a sense of “Deja Vu”.

Cheers 🙂

Yeah it does doesn’t it!

C3 has been removed from FSC because the Navy want to do away with C1 and C2 and go for a single large hullform fitted for but not with absolutely everything, much like the FREMM, thus giving them the ability to grow into a single multirole class over time.

C3 was always going to be much smaller, but the point being made on these boards (and many others) is that given the reduced fleet size it needs to be flexible, Hanger for its own Helo, Merlin capable flight deck et al.

Global Cruiser/Global Corvete all over again!

Strangely this entire topic is giving me a sense of “Deja Vu”.

Cheers 🙂

Floreal. Is it too small for the oceanic transits it routinely does?

And yet again, there’s not much point in us blathering on about pie in the sky. What’s the best we can actually get? I acknowledge the strength of your arguments, but the RN seems firmly set on a single hull type for C1 & C2, with the types distinguished only by equipment fit, & for the ship formerly known as C3 to be completely different, with no perceptible overlap. I suspect the politico-financial reasons I put forward for such a distinction some time ago may have contributed to this choice, & I suspect the French experience with the La Fayette class being reclassified by the government as first class frigates & offset against FREMM cancellations may also be a factor (an obvious precedent), but whatever the reasons, it looks as if it may be a done deal now.

Given these constraints, what is the best solution we can realistically hope for?

Floreal is 93m and all but 3000tons full load. She represents the minimum, low cost, end of the spectrum to accomplish the task. The new Holland class the Dutch are building are probably the upper end of the scale 3750tons full load on, if memory serves, about 105m.

The minimum required to do the job is Floreal with a stretch for the multimission deck. 100m probably 3500ton full load and diesels for low 20’s top speed with 18 or so sustainable. If we cant do that then there is no point progressing with the design at all and we need to rethink what the requirement is. That, btw, meaning that C2 will have to accomodate much more of the oceanic patrolling task and, consequently, we’ll either need more C2’s or less taskings!.

Either way the optimal, efficient, solution is to get son-of-C3 right and build in serious volume as it offloads the routine taskings from the expensive-to-run combattant ships. If we cant get that then whatever is ‘achieveable’ is almost certainly not worth building.

Two concepts that may stand a little reiteration here gents. The hull formerly-known-as-C3 (dont get me started on that one!) is being termed an OPV and people seem to have that mentality for it. Its not an OPV as OPV stands for Offshore Patrol Vessel. Former-C3 is an Oceanic Capable Patrol Vessel the two are quite different in scope and, by necessity, size…

Son-of-C3 needs to be circa 110m, 3000tons plus, 25knts sustained on diesels, equipped with a 3D surf/air set and armed commensurate with its tasking. That is just to do its job.

Floreal. Is it too small for the oceanic transits it routinely does?

And yet again, there’s not much point in us blathering on about pie in the sky. What’s the best we can actually get? I acknowledge the strength of your arguments, but the RN seems firmly set on a single hull type for C1 & C2, with the types distinguished only by equipment fit, & for the ship formerly known as C3 to be completely different, with no perceptible overlap. I suspect the politico-financial reasons I put forward for such a distinction some time ago may have contributed to this choice, & I suspect the French experience with the La Fayette class being reclassified by the government as first class frigates & offset against FREMM cancellations may also be a factor (an obvious precedent), but whatever the reasons, it looks as if it may be a done deal now.

Given these constraints, what is the best solution we can realistically hope for?

Agreeagreeagree. And as said in previous posts a couple of times displacement for an aviation capable unit creeps towards 4.000ts (fully loaded), which is kind of the other side from 3.000ts plus. The tonnage between 500/600 and 3750/4000ts is no-mans land.

Two concepts that may stand a little reiteration here gents. The hull formerly-known-as-C3 (dont get me started on that one!) is being termed an OPV and people seem to have that mentality for it. Its not an OPV as OPV stands for Offshore Patrol Vessel. Former-C3 is an Oceanic Capable Patrol Vessel the two are quite different in scope and, by necessity, size.

To cope with oceanic transit 90m’s is the absolute bare minimum hull length required for adequate pitch response in higher sea states and 100-110m far more suitable. It could therefore not be a cheap little vessel, as some here attempt to put forward, and still do the job required of it.

The gun issue here is tied into the same thing. Role suitability. There seems to be a misconception here that the gun only has value when its firing and therefore the most efficient all-round mount is king. I’m sorry but thats a nonsense. The point of a patrol vessel like this is to provide military presence in a defined geographical area….implicit in that is the threat of force…simple coercive power. A ‘tripwire’ if you wish to see it that way.

The OCPV carries far greater coercive presence on its patrol station if it has the power to lob 46lb HE shells 20km’s inland if so ordered. It also acts as discouragement for pirates/terrorists to think they can have a crack at one of the ‘big boys’ ships – plenty of ‘Sea Tigers’ boats put out with 20-23mm cannon aboard that would give them a fair crack at an RN boat sporting only a 30mm REMSIG – no reason others couldn’t do the same. Overkill, when you could be the sole forward deployed unit, is a good thing!.

Son-of-C3 needs to be circa 110m, 3000tons plus, 25knts sustained on diesels, equipped with a 3D surf/air set and armed commensurate with its tasking. That is just to do its job.

In my opinion C2 is still, most efficiently, batch 2 of the same hull just uparmed and with enhanced aviation facilities replacing the flexible mission deck of the austere hull. That way we can pour the funds into building something really special as C1 – which is where the money needs spending now.

Yep, 100m (ish) 2500tonnes (ish), hanger, an all aspect forward gun (it’s not doing NGS so nothing massive), decent crewserve (including something fairly heavy, say M242s for commanality with F35 ammo) fit, flexdeck for containerised systems (CAMM, Fireshadow, MCM etc) decent radar, good range and endurance, couple of RHIBs, CEC no need for much else, it’s enough to scare the **** out of somali Pirates and drug runners around the islands, which is what it’ll be used for short of another war

C3 was always going to be much smaller, but the point being made on these boards (and many others) is that given the reduced fleet size it needs to be flexible, Hanger for its own Helo, Merlin capable flight deck et al.

Agreed, & that means something a bit bigger than Clyde, which can take a Merlin but lacks a hangar. Something BAM size, maybe? That fits your description, I think.

C3 has been removed from FSC because the Navy want to do away with C1 and C2 and go for a single large hullform fitted for but not with absolutely everything, much like the FREMM, thus giving them the ability to grow into a single multirole class over time.

C3 was always going to be much smaller, but the point being made on these boards (and many others) is that given the reduced fleet size it needs to be flexible, Hanger for its own Helo, Merlin capable flight deck et al.

I remember you posting something but couldn’t recall if that was the official name. It’s getting to the stage where it looks like people at the MOD are having competitions to come up with the crappiest possible anachronisms, surely they’re turning the act of making up instantly forgettable project names into an art form?

Didn’t you notice? I posted it, & even I couldn’t remember it a few posts later.

I’m never going to remember that.

Swerve quoted it somewhere above.

Post no. 152.

Future Mine Countermeasures/Hydrographic/Patrol Vessel (FMHPV), previously identified as FSC C3

The C3 has been separated from the FSC programme for some time now, I’m not even sure its still known as C3, its probably got another completely different name by now.

Swerve quoted it somewhere above.

Swerve makes a good point. The C3 needs to be a seperate programme in order to rule out that sort of cost cutting exercise.

The C3 wont ever carry out shore fire. It needs the gun to deal with pirate skiffs, drug vessels and possibly cargo ships it wants to search but dont want to stop 😛

The C3 has been separated from the FSC programme for some time now, I’m not even sure its still known as C3, its probably got another completely different name by now.

Swerve makes a good point. The C3 needs to be a seperate programme in order to rule out that sort of cost cutting exercise.

The C3 wont ever carry out shore fire. It needs the gun to deal with pirate skiffs, drug vessels and possibly cargo ships it wants to search but dont want to stop 😛

You’re falling into the trap of imagining the RN is ever going to even think about using this ship for bombarding a coast. What you’re doing is like saying that Nimrod doesn’t have a good BVR AAM.

C3 with a big gun (& all the other things proposed for it) will, in the eyes of the Treasury, remove the rationale for C2. I think the RN realised this a while ago, & decided to protect C2 by putting clear water between the capabilities of C2 & C3.

Major problem I have with the 57mm is that it has no NGS role, its purely a ‘naval gun’ in the sense of shooting at ships and aircraft.

Yes, it has a hangar big enough for an NH90.

I presume that for C3 crew size would depend on role, with accommodation provided for significantly more than the minimum – as with BAM, which has room for 70 at the same standard as the crew.

Does the BAM have a Hanger – its not clear on my image and i havent really read up on it. If it does great, if not im not a fan of ships operating helicopters without hangers.

I do know they want a crew of about 35 which seems about right. With the C3 I would imagine we would be looking at closer to 50 with the roles of Mine Countermeasures/Hydrographic included (modular I imagine).