pjhydroI don’t think I’d call vessels of 49tons and less front line boats as in my original post, sorry.
What are they then? Looked pretty frontline to me when I popped out on Sabre a couple of months back.
The problem with corvettes (or whatever else you call them), is, as I said that they tend to be too small to carry full defensive and offensive armament. If you have a flotilla which is intended to be half and half offensive and defensive is that you can’t afford to lose boats in a battle because each loss weakens the effectiveness of the whole network. If you decide to carry the full offensive/defensive suites and want a boat that is suitable for blue water use then the boats tend to get bigger until they’re small frigates – if you like the ‘Duke’ class (this is the conceptual origin of that class).
The conceptual origin of the Type 23 was a pure ASW-Towed Array tug designed to operate in groups with a Fort Class AOR which would carry the engineering facilities for the aviation allowing the Type 23s to have minimal avaition facilities. In many ways it evolved very little from this concept, it has a basic self defence armament, minimal offensive aramament, a good sonar and a clip on towed array.
You can never afford to lose anything in battle but C3 is not supposed to be a stand up and fight ship, it will provide many of the supporting roles such as MCM, survey, recce, OPV etc. The problem with current ships that do these roles are they are too small to be adaptable and can’t be deployed world wide with ease, while frigates are too big to use on roles such as anti-piracy and drug busting. A “corvette” is exactly what the RN needs.
I’m not familiar with the German patrol boats, but I would imagine that they’re successors to the WW2 ‘E’ boat and are very much in-shore, sheltered waters boats rather than the blue water vessels the RN wants.
Indeed, but the point being more your assertion that small = can’t be useful and therefore easily destroyed by a Lynx with an oversized rocket. I notice you didn’t mention the Danish vessels of the same size as they are indeed blue water vessels and a in may respects a smaller version of the “sort of thing” the RN is looking at for C3.
Sorry to disagree, regards
You don’t have to apologise, its the point of debate. 😀
pjhydro@Pj: Can ALL the MCM functions be air based though? What about the USVs etc that they are using/beginning to use? Even if you manage to rig it up to a helo, how do you recover it? They aren’t very fast and can’t travel far, so having to pilot them back to the large aviation ship would be infeasible.
Oh I agree, I was just pointing out that people readily dismiss alternative ideas and fail to see some of the merit. A C3 system with a decent and not token air element would greatly improve the concept. By that it could be UAVs or an ability to pack a Merlin, maybe even an Apache. I think the RN needs to get as much value for money out of the next batch of vessels given the limited numbers, a C3 with no or limited air ability might not be a great idea.
pjhydroBut you can’t air base all the functions of C3, & although a big flat top can cover a large area, it can only cover one large area. What’s doing the EEZ protection, survey, etc. while all this is going on? Who is arresting smugglers, illegal fishermen, pirates etc? You can’t do that from a flat-top over the horizon.
The point of C3 is to be able to send a small vessel where that’s all that’s needed. It’s to save us from needing to divert a destroyer, LSD or (God forbid!) aircraft carrier to do the job of an OPV or minesweeper, not to enable those bigger ships to do that work.
As I said A**e-sky thinking, not saying I was a fan but ideas can evolve. A C3 with a compliment of UAVs would be a very great asset for instance.
pjhydroThe RN doesn’t like corvettes or gunboats or any other type of ships/boats that are smaller than a frigate for front-line use. The reason is that the vessels are too small to carry a useful range of weapons but are very vulnerable to a missile carrying helicopter against which they can have no defence because of their size, ie they can’t carry an adequate defensive armament and a useful offensive armament.
The last Sea Lord suggested that with networking this was now less of a concern for the RN as several smaller vessels can be networked together to provide a capability greater than their individual ability would suggest, so in normal peacetime ops they operate independently around the globe but in time of war they come together and network. One vessel maybe fitted out with AA kit another with MCM. Together they support each other, when not required to they give the UK the global presence by operating seperately.
The RN is a fan of small vessels its just had to make choices with limited funding and could no longer fund MGB/MTB/FAC type craft as the money dried up in 1970s. The RN after all purchased MV Grey Fox and her sister Grey Wolf (24 Tons) and comissioned them as the Gibraltar Patrol Sqn (HMS Sabre and Scimitar) and they along with the the P2000s (49 tons HMS Purser and Dasher) based in Cyprus are the RNs major element in the med and need to be small to do the job they do.
The experience in the Falklands where the Lynx destroyed several Argentine navy boats all too easily showed this to be true.
Well that showed that Lynx/sea skua was a brilliant combination against Argentine patrol ships that were not up to the job of fighting such a conflict, it doesn’t demonstrate that small vessels are inheirently vulnerable. There has been almost 30 years of technolgy development since, look at the Danish veseels like the Flyvefisken class (320 tons) which can carry Sea sparrow and harpoon as well as operate as MCM vessels or the German Gepard Class FACs (391 tons) that carry Exocet and RAM – I would not count on Lynx/Sea Skua doing so well against either of them. C3 as was/is planned is supposed to be far larger than these vessels, so the analogy with Argentine gun boats does not work.
I am surprised that NATO hasn’t organised convoys in the area of NE Africa/S Arabia. This is an old-fashioned solution, but still a valid one.
It has done. Most commercial vessels are operating in a strictly controlled corridor under escort. But its not compulsory.
pjhydroAgreed in parts.
IF
Thats a very big if….
one wanted to use an aviation ship in anti-piracy ops (presumably using a mix of all available helos and UAVs) then a nice cheap aviation platform with none of the expensive electronics which pushes up frigate prices is what you want.
So Ocean-replacement as the vessel previously known as C3 then
Well half jokingly (call it ****-sky thinking) the “C3 mission” including MCM could be performed by aviation, a mix of Merlins, Wildcat and UAV (or UCAV). In many ways a small avaition vessel carrying a useful compliment of aircraft fitted with specialist kit could dominate and patrol a larger area of sea than even half a dozen OPVs. Also by air basing the systems of C3 you could add the capability to any avaition equipped ship, say a flight of MCM equipped Merlins to a QE or LPD or even a frigate or destroyer.
pjhydroOut of interest would it be a worthwhile use of the QE go out with a deck full of Merlin’s (once they convert the ex-army ones for the commando role) and a detachment of marines and use the QE for anti-piracy duty, and if so would it be worth assigning any sort of escort?
It would be very large for the tasking, a lot of manpower, fuel and provisions for a job that smaller vessels could do. I’ve always thought if the RN wanted to really go after piracy then a small task force of RFA Argus, a frigate and an AOR would be the largest you would go for, perhaps packing a small mixed airgroup of merlin/junglies/lynx, maybe an ASaC7. and no more than a company of Royals, probably a reinforced Troop with some of their craft. Ideally you would want to replace the frigate with two corvette types…
pjhydro“Yes this destroyer has been fitted with the biggest hanger and associated flight deck seen on this class of ship….next question?”
pjhydroHow about Aviation Replenishment and Support Embarkment Ship.
pjhydroSo maybe we should stop calling them carriers and call them something like Mobile Air Operations Platforms. That way people will know that they are not aggressive “Strike Carriers” but just a floating mobile airfield with many uses.
How about and I know its a bit of a reach but stay with me…
Aircraft Carrier
By that I mean a ship that can carry a large number of aircraft. Crazy I know but it might just catch on…. :p 😀
pjhydroWhat I am trying to put across is that operating a full carrier air wing is something the RN has not done since the 1970s and is very different from operating small carriers like the invinsible class or what the Spanish and Italians do. We have operated our current light carriers more like the USNs LHDs operating USMC Harriers than true size carriers.
Except for the fact we operate ASaC choppers and do ASW. Yes they have been small airgroups but a combined RAF/FAA airgroup before the FA2s were binned was used in a way much more akin to a strike carrier than the USMC CAS focused efforts.
It takes time to train a crew to operate a carrier at full capacity and the carrier needs to operate at a certain tempo to maintain those skills. Operating a single squadron now and then will not suffice nor will one or two exercises a year where a full compliment is embarked.
But surely thats what the occasional USMC mass boarding of their ships and our ships proves! With a VSTOL aircraft its much simpler and less complicated to practice those skills. You are correct if we are talking about CATOBAR ops, but not with STOVL, rememeber the RAF boarded Hermes in the South Atlantic, with many pilots landing on ship for the first time.
Then there is the issue of how often will we need a full strike carrier air group? We don’t need it very often. As long as we have the capacity when needed and train for high tempo ops regularly then surelys its better to save the money than hand the treasury a big bill for constant strike carrier ops and have them say “feck off, you can scrap that little party.”
It is starting to appear that the plan is to simply get the carriers in the water and then work out everything else later. The usual non-joined up MoD planning
But we aren’t buying strike carriers! Thats the point, for once the MOD has been smart and bought a useful ship that can do many things and isn’t just a strike carrier or an LHD etc.
The French do operate the CdG as part of a CVBG i.e. with escorts and replenishment vessels, usually an AAW Frigate, 2 GP Frigates, 1 Light Frigate or Corvette and a Rubis class SSN with a Support ship. This is the equivilent of a USN CVBG of CVN, CG, 2x DDG, SSN and Support Ship.
The RN possibly will operate an Escort Group of a T-45 DDG, 2x T-23/FSC GP Frigates, Astute SSN and a Support Ship.
Maybe they will, no reason they should, it would be a rubbish grouping for a humanitarian op off of West Africa for instance or for a primarily CAS mission like Afghan where the threat to the carrier is minimal. There is no way the RN can afford to have three “escorts” and an SSN permantently tied up with a carrier.
pjhydroSigh – you make it sound like that it is inevitable that the Army, as the “victorious” face of the British Armed services will get the lion’s share of funding even if the SDSR make’s it clear that there is requirement to fund RAF or the RN to greater extent than the Army.
Still the interminable wait to see what the future Armed Forces will look like will soon be over if the various departments are expected to draw up their plans for cuts by the end of July, as by then Liam Fox should have some concrete plans on what he is going to cut.
The politico’s have to listen to the voters and as a result (due to voter general ignorance, fickleness and stupidity), the media that helps guide voter opinion. Therefore it would be a very brave minister that stood up and said “yeah this Afghan lark, only a couple more years left in it, lets spend the money on more frigates instead.”
(to be a mite controversial/middle class tw*tish for a second) IMHO this war has become the “chav war”. Guided by the tabloids, public opinion moulded by specials on sky and channel 5, mass grieving on a scale not seen since that Diana bird wrapped herself around a foriegn pole (read that how you will), Wooton Basset has become an undignified mess every time a hearse drives through and now we have this ridiculous “armed forces day”, its all so cheap and tacky, what ever happened to British reserve? But the upshot is the Army has control of the public minds at the moment and therefore the ear of the minister.
pjhydroThere is also a sort of media/public perception force at work in all this. If you look through the history of the armed forces in this country there is always a swing towards the force who is viewed by the media/public to be contributing the most to defence and or national prestige.
In Napoleonic era the Navy got the lions share- yes the Navy was the crucial defence of the era BUT even after Trafalgar when it was the Army that was going to actually defeat Napoleon and invade France the Navy was still the darling.
After WW2 the RAF was very much in favour as it had an air of invincibility about it and was seen as decisive where the Army had suffered infamous defeats and the Navy had been committed to an almost endless slog out of sight with no single decisive action. The RAF on the other hand had the audacity to “win” the Battle of Britain in full view of the public.
You look at more recent conflicts and the emphasis has ‘apparantly’ been on the Army, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and of course Afghan and Iraq. The role of the other two is apparantly in the background or non-existent. Even with the first Gulf War most members of the general public would emphasise the Desert Rats over the emense effort the RAF put in and the huge blockade and transport role the Navy played.
This is a failure of respective PR organistaions, service pride, media bias, political and public ignorance and the darwinian attitude we have to the seperate services in this country, it can appear like an extension of football supporter tribalism at times and is very unhealthy.
pjhydroCouldn’t help notice one circling over Liverpool last night for over an hour…
🙂
We thought it was polite to wave…!
Zeb
That was most likely India 66, belongs to Greater Manchester Polizei.
pjhydroNot sure I agree, it would be an advantage to have at least 1 squadron of F35Bs on board at all times, even if only to maintain carrier qualifications etc, of course we shouldn’t run full warload every day at sea, it’s always nice to have some free space to invite allies to crosstrain with their Helo’s and a few of our NATO friends with their Bs, I’m sure even the USMC is going to turn up sooner rather than later, even if only so they can make the case for Ski Jumps on LHA 6 and 7
Regular training I agree and yes 6-9 aircraft would likely be part of a regular load out, but its not going to be neccesary of indeed desirable to deploy fast jets to sea every time a QE sails, the RN will use them more intelligently and flexibly than that. They almost certainly will always carry Merlin though.
pjhydro.Looks like the F-35 took off in a 200 meters or so from a standard paved air strip.
Precisely! With F35B you are getting a GR4 morphed into a Harrier F/A2, whats not to like? Its the aircraft the UK has been searching for since the 40s. At every turn since 1940 the UK has needed a high performance aircraft that has the most minimal runway needs possible….think cratered runways in the Battle of Britain, think 2nd TAF forward bases in Normandy, think small airstrips in various colonial wars in the decades after the war, think RAF Germany, think Falklands, think Afghanistan….not to mention maritime ops, we have tried to build this aircraft before in the guise of the HS P1154. Finally we are going to get it.
Go back to my original point 80 F/A-18E’s versus 40 F-35B’s then unless I am completely wrong wouldn’t the mean a difference between 6 squadrons of F/A-18E’s and 3 squadrons of F-35B’s?
With 3 squadron’s of F-35B you would have one for operational conversion, and 2 front line squadrons, you are going to be hard pressed to be keeping a short squadron on the QE for training purposes, and be able to provide proper training for the pilots flying in Afghanistan or where ever, plus provide a squadron in the field (that is why I quite deliberately used 80 and 40). I am think that even 4 squadrons is tight and that 5 or 6 squadrons are likely the minimum needed to be able to have confidence that you can always have one squadron available for carrier operations.
80 aircraft will not get you 6 sqns, maybe 4, you need attrition stock, aircraft in the engineering cycle etc. The Kangeroo shaggers bought 71 Hornets, that gave them 3 sqns and an OCU and thats been tight and used a lot of airframe hours very quickly.
6 FAA sqns is never going to hapen, we don’t need 6 squadrons of FAA F35s. A combined RAF/FAA force may be in the realms of 6 sqns including OCUs and OEUs, but 6 sqns dedicated to the RN carriers is pure fantasy and probably uneccesary. We don’t need a squadron permanently availible for carrier ops, we need an aircraft that can deploy to sea and should do regularly, but not all the time. We need the option and the capability.
If you can guarantee me that the UK can have at least 6 squadrons of F-35B I will dance a little jig (and I will not even bother with a couple of beers first to loosing me up), but if we are heading for a token purchase of F-35B some sort of “lets buy 24 with an option for another 36” kinda of deal, then I would question a) if anyone in the MoD can find their bottoms with their elbows, and b) the value of F-35B if it is not brought in sufficient numbers to be able to do all the things we will need from it.
There is no evidence of a token purchase, it might come in batches over time and that is perfectly sensible, look at how we have built up the C17 capability when its been affordable. Chances are that F35 is going to be seen as the Harrier/Tornado replacement combined with future UCAVs such as developed Taranis. So the F35B force will be bigger than the current Harrier force but perhaps smaller than the GR4 force.
I agree with Swerve, unless Europe has an external threat, most of Europe, Germany included will quite happily carry on reducing their spending on the military and let someone else pick up the burden of their defence. I think the only thing that would bring the slumbering giant awake would be if the region around Europe destabilised and there were large numbers of refugees steaming into Europe, and then Europe’s interests would be roused to stabilise the region and get all the refugees back home! Even a more belligerent Russia would only result in Germany and France trying to re-double efforts to tie Russia into Europe
There is essentially nothing wrong with europes course of action, diplomacy is cheap, arms expensive. If there is a threat to the EU it will fight as an entity and even if its reduced further than it is now EU defence capability is still formidable. The combined armies of just the UK, France and Germany total over 300,000 and with the italians and the poles your looking at 1/2 million troops. I would say don’t sweat the reductions too much, there is no threat at present and not a obvious likely one for a long time yet.
Sign In
