I agree the hangar could be used for other purposes, but then it is lost to helicopters anyway, my feeling is that given the volume a hangar requires on a modest hull like C3 will probably be could be better used for other things. These vessels are intended for MCM, offshore patrol, constabulary duties and low threat GP work and it is unlikely they will carry a fully embarked chopper, rather act as a sattelite landing platform for other vessels choppers. Unlikely they will be used for ASW unless things get really desperate, but it is true ASuW and Police interception roles would benefit from an armed Lynx or similar. My own view is that this comes down to where the RN put their money, C3 makes sense as a low capability low end vessel to free up frigates and destroyers from menial tasks and to serve as MCMV’s and OPV’s (which generally don’t carry helicopters), to that end low cost is essential to keep as much money as possible in C1 & C2 (and like I say, I think that itself a bad idea, IMO C1 should be T45 and C2 T23 replacement).

Not sure the RN now where they want to put their money, but then they probably not sure from one day to the next what they have 😡

My impression of the whole FSC concept is flexbility, thus my strong feeling on the whoe helicopter issue. Yes, it means that the RN will probably have to invest in more choppers, but then if this is providing a capability in, say anti-surface warfare, what need for the wiring in-place and a number of harpoon launchers back in Blighty? For the matter, if its a capability you can put on a chopper when you need it then you’re role-switching time is reduced (as opposed to bringing the vessel into a suitable port for refit).

If these vessels are going to serve as the primary MCMV units, then i hope they also take the opportunity to use a hull capable of speeds more comparable to fleet units, removing/reducing the need for MCMV on larger hulls better utilised for other tasks (soemthing earmarked for T1 IIRC?).

I agree that it is no more than an expensive publicity stunt, but I do consider that there is a need to ‘counter’ any Russian conventional rearmament. There are two very important aspects of deterrent. One is the obvious, the aspect of mutual assured bad day. The second, as important, is to have sufficient conventional forces that the other side does not consider it possible to mount any form of conventional attack without massive losses. This dictates that any proper strike to be nuclear, which is then deterred by the first deterrent. If Russia does manage to rebuild a fleet, and we lack the ability to monitor them all, the next stunt may very well involve surfacing a Russian sub in the Thames (not necessarily literally)!

Absolutely, nuclear deterrent alone is not enough – too much of a big stick. At what point would you trip the deterrent in, say disputes over resources?

Even though the need for these conventional forces now maybe low, there is still the need to “keep the hand in” so when/if things do start to look bleak, there is a suitable base to expand from.

A hangar, or even a flight deck, wouldn’t be necessary for every C3 unit.

But then your potentially splitting the class into two, defeating part of the point?

The RN’s helicopter fleet has become relatively modest in size, and many patrol tasks don’t require a helicopter. Drug interdiction and SAR might benefit from an embarked helicopter, but fisheries and environment patrols probably wouldn’t. Unless the UK procures minehunting/minesweeper gear for its helicopters, there isn’t much point of embarking a helicopter for the minecountermeasures task either.

This misses the point why a helicopter has been suggested. It gives the surface unit the flexiblity to adapt to a number of roles. As EdLaw says, it doesn’t necessarily need to be there, but the capability adds that flexbitiliy to the vessel. Indeed, perhaps I see it as a way of reducing the reliance on other modular requirents, most specifically Anti-surface.

e.g. there are a pair of C-3s sitting off the Falklands, and tensions with Argentina rise sufficiently, I would want to be able to fit them in Stanley, not in Portsmouth!

Agree absolutely, to my mind the biggest danger of “fitted for not with” philosophy.

Faulty fridge sends warship back to base

HMS Illustrious — 209 metres long with a displacement of 22,000 tonnes and carrying Sea Harrier jump-jet fighters — is likely to return to sea Thursday, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080123/od_afp/britainmilitarynavyillustrious_080123171326

Wow, when did they sneak those back into service? 😮
Oh, sorry, wishful thinking:mad:

I’d stick with steel for all three types, despite being old hat and the corrosion issue (which can be managed well enough) it is cheap, has excellent physical properties (steel alloy elements can be easily manipulated to optimise strengh, toughness, hardness etc.), is easily repairable (very pertinent to a warship) and is low risk, ultimately there are good reasons why steel remains the material of choice for almost all larger commercial and military vessels.

I only raised the GRP concern for C3 as it appears to be the closest to a dedicated mine warfare vessel we’ll have. As for the rest, steel all the way.

The largest military vessels I can find that are currently composite hulled are the current MCMVs and the Visbys. The latter are carbon-fibre – I’m not sure how this rates against GRP for signature, but is a higher stength-weight ratio still. A 2,000 tonne vessel would represent a bit of jump in size compared to these.

Agreed, a bit of amphibous/accomodation. But just a bit. I think fitting it for MBTs (like Absalon) is over the top for the RN. Personally, I favour the ability to carry at least one boat bigger than a RHIB, maybe something CB90 size.

Indeed, heavy vehicles totally unneccessary for C3 role. Troop contingent for boarding parties, restricted shore ops, maybe a couple of utility vehicles for ground transport – if they can be shipped/lifted ashore. The important parts are the boats and helos as far as transport and evac operations go.

Yes. The Bays should have enough weapons for self-defence (more than just MGs), & a real hangar to enable the support of helicopters on extended deployments. The embarked helicopters should vary depending on the predicted need, & what else is in the deployed flotilla. They can support a few bigger, faster, better-armed boats than an RHIB, even without using the dock.

I think EVERY vessel that is likely to find itself underthreat should have some self-defence assets. If the mooted Bay-class was operating in the role HMS Cornwall has been trying to fill, for example, would we see it as wise to expose it as is? I’d hope not, so you tie up an escort (maybe where the C2 comes in) or at least give it a basic missile/air defence system and anti small craft (with the helicopters again).

No factor in the fact the RN has six large and capable amphibious ships (which are seemingly looking for jobs at the moment) and the 6 point class strategic sea lift ships. All of these vessels have a large capacity and the potential to be very flexible. Maybe making greater use of these ships should be part of the FSC solution?

Perhaps, but with the operating costs I imagine they’d entail compared to a number of smaller (new-build) hulls, would they be looked on favourably? Your idea of the mothership role would appear to very applicable in certain areas, but not sure a Bay operating in the Falklands would really be an effective use.

I’m getting confused, so lets see if I’ve got this “right”…

C-1 is going to be a T23 replacement, it will presumably provide fleet ASW, as well as any other role (e.g. land-attack).

C-2 is going to be more of a stand-alone asset with much more of a multi-role flavour than C-1, so perhaps a GP frigate? Presumably capable of operating with the fleet at need.

C-3 is going to be a patrol unit with the ability to provide civilian support, survey and MCM functions?

If this understanding is correct, then it sounds like C-1 could share a common hull with T45 and operate as a DDH (as Jonesy seems to be suggesting) OR share a common hull with C-2, built as an ASW-frigate type platform (and thus perhaps just a modified T23 hull). Either way, sounds like a common hull can be used to cover two of the three classes (T45/C1/C2).

I’m not convinced by the multirole nature of our future minewarfare fleet. Perhaps C-3 should be an MCM first with helicopter and accomodation facilities to give it some of the other roles? After all they’re already used in the patrol role – with the larger design (1,500-2,000 tonnes), it could gain the endurance and limited weapons/sensor fit for the long-term deployment.