Harry,

Just to make it clear I think that the NSC is the ‘type’ of vessel needed for C3, and as basis for an ‘upgunned’ C2 variant, rather than the actual vessel we need!.

The changes would be considerable. US ships are always overmanned and this vessel appears no different! . A design crew complement of 148 souls is excessive…especially when you consider that the Singaporean Formidable class mentioned earlier in the thread gets by with less than half that number despite being a design requiring a much greater Warfare Dept. The NSC’s complement, it would be anticipated, would cover the aviation dept and some form of constabulary/boarding detail but its still just 26 short of the crew requirement of a Type 23 frigate!.

The CODAG propulsion fit for 29knts is going to be a bit of a luxury solution and diesel-only machinery for closer 26knts performance is going to be cheaper in aquisition and year on year terms and probably quite adequate. Personally I like IEP for all the C-series boats as I think the ease of maintenance will more than pay for the added expense over the life of the vessels but I may be in a minority on that one!.

The comms fit of the vessel seems inordinately complicated, so much so that apparently tieing the systems to all necessary C3I nodes is proving difficult, legacy of the need for the vessel to establish itself as the netcentric master node at the scene of an incident probably. Needless to say that such complicated systems would be extra and over the RN’s requirement and a nice simple Link16 fit would probably do C3/C2 quite adequately.

Weapons and sensors we have covered before but, to reiterate, I cant see the RN inducting the Bofors 57 or, in fact, any new gun system in the immediate future. If there is a 4000ton hull to fit a gun to you’d put money on the RN refurbishing old Mk8’s into mod1’s and bolting one for’d!. Nothing else really makes that much sense for an austere hull of that size – the 57mm actually looks a bit dinky on the NSC for that matter but is obviously a highly efficient and effective mount.

I agree with all of that.

I agree that it seems to be the right sort of boat, but remember it must also be able to use that rear dock area for alternative mission fits (MCM and Survey fits), at least in the C3 form. AFAIK, this is not designed for switching roles like that.

I’ve thought from the outset that a new generation T23 derivative is the way to go on a lower end combatant with T45 as the high end. Newer machinery, lean manning, high level automation could slash the crew, I’m guessing you could reduce crewing by more than half if you really wanted to. And the basic hull is still a first class design and still one of the best ASW platforms anywhere.

Probably your idea I was picking up on then:)

As ASW is one of roles to be filled, it seems sensible, though you may end up with a carbon-copy T23 in terms of capability (e.g. no land-attack?), at least installing recycled Harpoon launchers and CIWS should be easy.

A C-2 variant, without the Harpoon and perhaps a smaller NexGen SeaWolf/A N Other missile system and maybe even smaller gun, to free up space for modular ops.

On the wider question, much as I am a follower of military affairs and an ex-service person myself (though not RN), for all I would love to see a better funded forces it’s also true we’re more than able to defend ourselves from any realistic threat, and IMO one of the things going for the UK is that military matters are not the defining issue and we’ve matured beyond ego driven vanity delusions in the field. If that means trading off military power for a better country then so be it, we don’t want to end up obsessed with military power as a means of hiding from the realities of everyday life the way some countries are doing and how the empire was used in such a way a century ago.

Indeed, though this is more about maintaining this ability to defend ourselves for the next 40/50 years.

a new T23

@ Fedaykin – all too true, but there is always hope (isn’t there?)

As some of the other threads are getting a bit – ahem, lively – I thought I’d resurrect this one. A number of people have commented on the soundness of the basic T23 design, but one of the current classes problems is crewing and costs (£13M pa per unit?). Two questions for the learned (and not so learned;) ) members of the forum:

(1) If it was to built today to much the same spec, but incorporating labour-saving devices (and I don’t mean a washing machine), would it be possible to make significant operating cost savings?
(2) If (1) is achievable, would it not make a good basis for C2, and if so, what would you alter to the make-up to better suit the (ill)defined role(s) of C2 in the FSC plan?

It might of course be used as the basis for a common hull-form C1-C2 group or C2-C3 group……

Pavel is just a guy. What he says does not mean anything more than what you or I say. He is not Russian military at the moment. That’s what count. You are like a broken record. Worse maybe. You are the US fan boy club LEADER on this forum. So like I said, discredit my suggestions with anything credible. You can’t. Keep going. I’m awaiting the same reply for the 10th time. Your spelling just proves you are an idiot. Period.

So let me see your points here:
a) For sources Wikipedia is to be trusted but “just some guy” isn’t?
b) If he was Russian Military he would be that much more trustworthy?

Now for your classic comments:
c) “You are like a broken record.” – pot and kettle perhaps?
d) “Your spelling just proves you are an idiot.” – care to cite a worthwhile source for that link?

You and SLL are clearly not going to agree and I strongly suspect that any source (unless Russian military of course!) that does not suit your purpose will be ridiculed. Please, for everyone else, give it a rest..

PS: “That’s what count” would be better as “That’s what counts“

On a 2,000 ton hull, even the flight deck for a Merlin, even without a hangar, is going to consume a large percentage of overall length. You can either have the aft deck area for the MCMV/Survey role, or a flight deck.

Over optimism by me then :rolleyes: Woudl still argue personally for the flight capabilities to be an integral part of the design, not necessarily for Merlin though. I can certainly see why 3,000 tonne are being suggested for C3 then.

Phalanx would be desirable, especially since it’s self contained, and many would argue that it was very much necessary for the MCMV role in the Persian gulf. The problem is locating Phalanx on such a small hull. If the aft area is devoted to MCM gear, that would only leave a forward placement like the Sa’ar V frigates.?

So, either a medium caliber gun or CIWS, but not both? Unless you want to give up the flight deck/aft MCM gear?

25 knots isn’t fast enough to keep up with the task force, or even to keep pace with a large modern container ship.

If the RN really wants a patrol capable MCMV, 20 knots is sufficient, but it also means that fleet escort or true surface combatant capabilities will be largely absent.

The thinking behind the fleet escort speeds (whatever they may be), is that with the C3 providing MCMV, the need for MCM modules for C1 is removed. Not worried about the surface combat capabilities, as it will be with the fleet in this case, but a defensive capability with Phalanx or similar would be important in the sort of regions it could end up in this role.

Yeah sure, wasn’t it you who said CVF would very likely be cancelled or hugely delayed? The budget will have to tweaked but it won’t be a “bloodbath”.

Well, Rosyth Dockyard is getting it’s upgrade, have a guess why?

a) Because they like spending money
b) Because Rosyth is the designated CVF assembly site

Its never too late to cancel. After all, if the next Government is blue, what need do they have to keep Rosyth ticking over? Even a part built warship can be sold-off, so until its in service I wouldn’t count your chickens. Even the current government have hardly been falling over themselves to place the orders have they?

As to the defence review, it will be interesting to see how many ships/aircraft/tanks=a tweak.

How big is a tweak before its a bloodbathThe constitutes a bloodbath?

meekness

A 16-cell VLS & Phalanx as standard equipment for a low-cost patrol vessel?

With all this size and weaponry inflation, the C3 described here is turning into the RNs C2, & C2 into C1.

I know, 😮 I got carried away with the commonality bit and thought “I’ve just made them into little T23’s!”, but posted it anyway for reaction. However, I would keep the Phalanx and/or ideally SeaRAM (presumably where a forward VLS would be located on C2). We concern ourselves with drug runners and the like as low-threat, but as the INS Hanit showed, even low-threat can be a nasty surprise.

plus wiring and space for things like Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

The one thing I didn’t put on my super C3 🙂 – surely the scenarios we are envisaging allow for sufficient anti-surface capability between a main gun and helicopter weapons?

So the C1 is basically an extended T45 with much greater helicopter facilities in terms of flight deck and hanger, a SeaRAM system at each side of the ship, at the bow there is a good lot of VLS in the form of 72 A70 which would have 24 of each missile with a 155mm BAE gun to finish it off.

Problem is, T45 was supposed to have 64 or 72 VLS cells and never made it, what chance a future design getting that much?