T23 and C1 (and C2 and C3)

Propulsion T45 don’t reinvent the wheel snip

I agree with almost everything Admiral Jones wrote. But Why shorten the mainmast? Doing so gives the Naval Architects a whole new set of equations to plough through (even if they just change some FE er elements on a screen) and possibly get wrong. Also with Artisan’s inherently lower performance I’d rather give it the maximum physical boost not reduce that as well.

I Did say fantasy fleet

But you are quite right The C1/C2 numbers included the type 22, i had forgotten they were for the chop.

figures should have been 14 C1/C2 (hoping for an extra hull)

and an additional 4 C3 – help in covering the loss of frigates hopefully reduced manning and costs elsewhere could fund this.

Playing fantasy fleet

I would like to see T45 7&8 built sans Sampson for now if needs be to get hulls in water

8-10 C1 5-6000T – Im thinking along lines of a stretched/enlarged Type 23 (capability wise not actual ship) with TAS with provision for 24 VLS tubes (+8 used by CAAM if not a dedicated launcher) +Mk 8, CODAG IEP propulsion

8-10 C2 hull same as above, with manning and savings on equiptment fit
ie No TAS, space for but possibly no VLS fitted beyond CAAM, on the propulsion side same diesels and IEP as C1 possibly without the gas turbine installed (again just as a cost saving)

If the wiring harnesses are FFBNW on the C2 the ships could conceivably swap roles if required (ie a C1 is in extensive re fit)

C3 I would licence build the sweedish BAM I have seen a lot of proposals for larger vessels but i believe that in many cases the proposals are just to big (6000T colonial sloop being one) to big to my mind for the mcm role + running costs

14MCM
2 Hydro
8 Patrol – possibly a BAM 2 here with a 10 M stretch 3 river replacement 1 Cllyde replacement 4 used as pirate chasers and general light presence work

Give them the usual cannon, provision for a point defence system and a hanger.
I would also give them a bow mounted sonar and ASW tubes – my rational is that (particuarly after the nimrod withdrawal) whist carrying out there OPV role they can also conduct basic ASW surveilance, I admit they wont be a significant threat but 1 more thing a hostile skipper has to keep tabs on. Also in a shooting war they could be pushed into the littorals as escorts for amphibs/ logistic vessels

I know the last addition will push up costs but with an ever shrinking fleet double hatting the OPVs seems sensible.

regards

C3 was disjoined from the FSC programme a couple of years ago, it’s also been kicked into the long grass with upgrades for the MCM fleet running on, I also note that you’ve just turned them into a frigate, or at least have given them a weapons fit comparable to a T23 (minus Harpoon).

There’s a good chance that the C1 and C2 have been merged together now as the type 26 Frigate.

If you’re building 2 Type 45s without Samson what are they going to be armed with? You’ve basically got a top of the line AAW destroyer without the AAW; sounds like the biggest most expensive OPV in existence.

Your numbers give RN a minimum of 26 escorts, SDSR says 19, we’re not going to get any more than that unless something very unexpected and drastic happens (war against a country with a relatively advanced military).

Playing fantasy fleet

I would like to see T45 7&8 built sans Sampson for now if needs be to get hulls in water

8-10 C1 5-6000T – Im thinking along lines of a stretched/enlarged Type 23 (capability wise not actual ship) with TAS with provision for 24 VLS tubes (+8 used by CAAM if not a dedicated launcher) +Mk 8, CODAG IEP propulsion

8-10 C2 hull same as above, with manning and savings on equiptment fit
ie No TAS, space for but possibly no VLS fitted beyond CAAM, on the propulsion side same diesels and IEP as C1 possibly without the gas turbine installed (again just as a cost saving)

If the wiring harnesses are FFBNW on the C2 the ships could conceivably swap roles if required (ie a C1 is in extensive re fit)

C3 I would licence build the sweedish BAM I have seen a lot of proposals for larger vessels but i believe that in many cases the proposals are just to big (6000T colonial sloop being one) to big to my mind for the mcm role + running costs

14MCM
2 Hydro
8 Patrol – possibly a BAM 2 here with a 10 M stretch 3 river replacement 1 Cllyde replacement 4 used as pirate chasers and general light presence work

Give them the usual cannon, provision for a point defence system and a hanger.
I would also give them a bow mounted sonar and ASW tubes – my rational is that (particuarly after the nimrod withdrawal) whist carrying out there OPV role they can also conduct basic ASW surveilance, I admit they wont be a significant threat but 1 more thing a hostile skipper has to keep tabs on. Also in a shooting war they could be pushed into the littorals as escorts for amphibs/ logistic vessels

I know the last addition will push up costs but with an ever shrinking fleet double hatting the OPVs seems sensible.

regards

The lowest of those looks most like my view of the way forward if we are simply stepping back to direct FSC T23 replacement. I’d tailor it a bit to maximise flight deck and hangar as below, but, essentially very similar.

Personnal view about a British C1 (a scaled-down version of the Type 45 hull with many Type 26 features)

Thought the individual cell width/depth sizes were smaller with A35 over A43/50 thus suggesting a single missile over a quad?. That accepting, of course, that there is no publically acknowledged quad fit arrangement for A43 either and that the only imagery (at least that I am aware of) is of bespoke launch cells hence earlier comment. 😉

In the Sylver brochure I downloaded there’s a drawing showing what can fit in each type. A35 & A43 are both shown with 4 VT1 or 1 MICA, A43 also with 1 Aster 15, & A50 with 1 Aster 15 or 30, A70 with 1 Aster of any kind, Scalp N, SM2 Block 4, or Tactom.

Apart from the length, A35 seems to differ from the bigger ones only in being in blocks of 4, not 8, so you could have a pack of only 16 VT1 (or perhaps CAMM) missiles instead of 32. They all seem to have the same hatches on the top. I reckon they’re the same internal width.

MICA VL in a Sylver seems to waste a lot of space. It’s the fins . . .

Anything beyond a single Scottish newspaper to confirm this? I can’t find anything. Having said that, £500m per ship seems astonishingly pricy, especially considering it’s future as the Navy’s operational backbone.

IIRC CAMM should fit into Sylver A35, which would save a bit of weight, space & presumably cost over A43.

Thought the individual cell width/depth sizes were smaller with A35 over A43/50 thus suggesting a single missile over a quad?. That accepting, of course, that there is no publically acknowledged quad fit arrangement for A43 either and that the only imagery (at least that I am aware of) is of bespoke launch cells hence earlier comment. 😉

IIRC CAMM should fit into Sylver A35, which would save a bit of weight, space & presumably cost over A43.

Propulsion would seem to be the most obvious target for an upfront cost reduction, but, it may not stand scrutiny if the Treasury take whole-life costs into the picture as they should. IEP is very economical in maintenance terms as it does away with so many of the intensive service items in the power train.

I’m told it also simplifies the design and build of the main machinery spaces owing to the dispensation of precisely aligned shafts through multiple compartments etc with the knock on reduction in hull build cost.

I think the figure of £500mn upfront, for a vessel who’s principle weapons and sensors will be hand-me-downs from the T23’s, is a very early doors number and unlikely to be representative of what would be delivered anyway. This possibly is about setting expectations on specialised UUV and USV mission equipment etc. ie that we are back to looking at a more traditional frigate hull than a real multimission wonder-hull. If this sees the ditching of the big-dog/little-dog hangar approach in favour of a simple conventional twin-spot hangar so much the better.

I’ve still no idea why we’re wasting money on designing a new ship in the first place. Start at T45 – shortened mainmast, ARTISAN in place of SAMSON, delete the VSR, lengthen the hangar forward and adapt the stern for SONAR2087. Replace the existing Sylver A50’s with 4 A70 modules for whatever LACM we propose and a pair of A43 modules or whatever is finally chosen to quadpack CAMM into for 48-64 missiles and lo you have all the capability necessary plus growth.

Is the hull beamier than it needs be without the SAMSON mast and with more propulsion than a narrower hull would need. Yes – but we’ve just saved better part of £130mn on design so who cares?. The Darings have shown themselves delightfully frugal on the dieso…lets have some more of that!. Never understood the need of officialdom to continuously try and see if the wheel could be made just that bit more round?!.

Hard to say really, certainly using as much off the shelf systems as possible would help. For a frigate the sonar fit would be a major cost so they could do the same as they did with Type 45 with a competative tender. ARTISAN is pretty much set in stone and I don’t see much savings from dropping CAMM as its going in the Type 23.

I think there might be scope to drop the CODLAG gas turbine solution and go for a CODLAD configuration, the latest generation of diesel frigates have performance and range so a diesel/electric/diesel propulsion system might have savings especially if they go for an off the shelf solution already used by other vessels.

You could tender out major sections of the hull blocks to cheaper foreign yards but I see legality issues as its a war ship and you would have to keep tight quality control.

The UK has scaled back the specifications for a new type warship to shrink costs, tackle a record budget deficit and allow more vessels to be ordered, a senior defence source has said.

The specifications of the Type 26 frigate will be partly modified, while costs will be slashed from £500m to £250-300m.

“We want numbers. We want quality, but if you have cheaper unit costs, you can have more of them,” the source added.

The Type 26 frigates will replace Type 23, of which there are 13 in service. The reduced cost of the Type 26 would save up to £3.25bn if 13 ships were ordered, according to Reuters.

The UK has cut its defence budget of £36.9bn by 8% in real terms up to 2015, according to a strategic defence review.

The review reaffirmed the government’s drive for cheaper, more adaptable and less specialised equipment that is more suitable for export markets.

So what do we think we will be losing on the Type 26?

Below is my propsle for a C3 using Stan’s Shetland Class name.
It is a lengthened version of the Wapato Class high endurance cutter with US gun (didn’t have time to replace), Starscream (Modded for surface defence) and a crane etc aft. For ASW the bay where the container is on the drawing is used to mount a towed array sonar and torpedo tubes. For ASuW the vessel remains as is for disaster relief (as shown) and for AAW the forward Starscream is replaced by a 4 cell vls quad packed,

Looks like C2 has been scrapped and we will just be getting something like 12 T26 to replace the T23 and then 14 ships than can perform the MCM, Survey and offshore patrol operations.

Yup. Like the ex-Brunei ships. Fine for their intended purpose, but to operate far from home they need a local base, or support from a ship with the facilities they lack.

😮 That make’s sense, I feel a bit dumb for asking though I naively assumed that if the RN brought them they would use them in a similar way, and looking at the pictures of the Port of Spain Class it looks likes there is no room to even fit a retractable hangar.

So why did Trinidad and Tabago order three OPV’s for primarily anti-piracy work without hangars?

Maybe because the ships were only ever intended to operate in the vicinity of the islands, so if they needed any maintenance they just head back to base?

So why did Trinidad and Tabago order three OPV’s for primarily anti-piracy work without hangars?

I really would at this stage advocate, leasing the Port of Spain class OPV from BAE, send 2 of them to the Carib to work out of Barbados doing this same role and waiting for Trinidad to comes to it’s senses.

No hangar. The single most important feature of a ship engaged in counter-narcotics, as with counter-piracy, is the embarked helicopter.

But disaster relief, not counter-narcotics, is currently the primary mission of APT(N), which is why APT(N) has been gapped outside of hurricane season.