The funny thing is, if all twelve T45’s had been ordered and if the three T23’s hadn’t been retired. The RN would still have 32 escorts.

With half available at any one time, the RN would be able to organise and ARG and CVBG simultaneously with an escort of 3 T45 and 5 T23 each. Remember that “at any one time” doesn’t mean instantly available, but “available by pulling ships off other taskings” or rushing short refits to conclusion.

True – that appears to be the warfighting force mix we’re going for. One carrier group plus one ARG at any one time with limited ability to sustain it.

We’ve always had to gap other commitments, to some degree, to put together large fleet actions. The Kiwi’s and Yanks covered for us with NATO when we went down south in 82.

What you say does underscore the importance of C3 and, to a lesser extent, C2 though. If our routine patrol taskings are already within the purview of the minor war fleet and C3 can handle APT N&S etc then we are already much freer to deploy the fleet units.

The likelihood is also that those fleet units will be sharper, and at higher readiness, having more time to train and upkeep and less time steaming all around the place doing runs ashore god-knows-where to build toilet blocks for under-priveliged orang-utans!.

Thats what its for. It has an anti missile function but the point of 120km range is to at least drop some of the launch aircraft first because an attack is harder to stop once weapons have been released – Lesson 101 of Operation Corporate.

OK. Lesson 101 from Corporate was the need to detect a contact at that kind of range – not try shooting it down!.

Just as with aircraft-launched weapons naval SAMs have a No Escape Zone. Sea Vipers NEZ does not extend to 120km off the boat!. IF we are presented with an altitude target, or manage to get CEC someday, then we might have a chance at trying a shot at a contact 70/80km downrange. If the target aircraft doesnt turn and drop to the deck we might even hit it. Otherwise forget trying to shoot the archer at any range where a halfway competent arrow could be released.

We stand more of a chance using Sea Vipers range to knock down any MPA’s that try and close the group for an ident or for engaging missiles farther out than local defence would allow. Taking out launch aircraft, reliably, is the job of aircraft outside the fleet MEZ!

Most of it has been sacraficed for CVF. Admirals have time and again stood quiet on cuts on the understanding that CVF is safe (which it still isn’t).

The mob has been called the silent service for a lot longer than CVF has been on the scopes. T22, T42 were both examples of treasury interference in naval requirements and they were acceeded too with relatively little outcry.

T42 has many faults, but 14 were built and they have served well for three decades. USS Missouri was very glad of a T42 escort in 1991….

Gloucester missed with her first shot and had the inbound cross her bows before she took the second shot. She ended up launching back towards the battlewagon with her second in a tailchase to catch the Iraqi missile. Area defence it wasnt!. Sorry to dispell that illusion but, while its the only missile-missile warshot kill on record, it was not a glowing performance from GWS30!.

of course if you would build the other 6 type 45 hulls to begin with you would save a lot of money on development costs

No, the development costs would be pretty much the same. They would just be spread over more hulls to make the hull unit cost lower!. The only way to get a development cost saving out of T45 is to build C1 off the T45 hull so as to save design costs on that class.

Once again though I know we are all used to the idiotry that masquerades as a Defence Procurement policy in this country but I think some of you are applying far too much of the ‘We’re doomed Mr Mannering’ mentality to this.

Look at what is being said here then look at the hulls that industry are actually putting forward to accomplish the taskings. Also look at what else is being bought for the money in purely commercial terms.

You cannot replace 14 T42’s with 6 T45’s this is true. If you look at whats been said about that though the MoD and Treasury acknowledge that fact as well, but, are saying that local area air defence is going to be more of a major role for FSC/C1, which will be accelerated, meaning that having 4 C1’s each with, say 64, CAMM will provide a reasonable offset against having an additional T45 hull available to the group. If the choice is a between a limited point-defence-only missile on C1 and an additional 48 Asters or 256 local area capable CAMM’s in the escort group I wouldnt be too troubled by the latter.

Both is better of course but the fact is that the decision is not taken in isolation of the capabilities required in the Fleet.

In the same vein the concept of withdrawing 25-odd minor war hulls and replacing them with 8 ships is plainly absurd. I think even the early commentry so far on C3 is that the 8 hulls is only an initial batch and that follow ons of some description would be necessary to complete the replacement.

In terms of costs again look at what the Omani’s are getting with Khareef for £125mn a pop across a run of only three hulls. Stretch that 2500ton design up to 3500tons for a bit more range and endurance and swap some of the weapons/sensor systems about with RN standard and how far off C2 is it really?. Remember the price £125mn – 2 Typhoons price tag – for a ship that will last 20yrs. Take off the expensive weapons and spread the development costs, to move Khareef towards Venator, over 8 initial hulls and where do you think even that price goes?.

We have the basis of a very good product here in the Khareef/Venator portfolio. If the government support it, to acquire hulls that offer huge efficiency benefits, we have a likely win-win scenario. In other such situations, notably CVF, the Treasury have been slapped back into their box. There is no reason to expect any different here.

Unfortunately Jonesy, I doubt the Treasury won’t see it that way. All they’ll see are bigger hulls replacing small ones, and much more expensive ships replacig cheaper ones.

How many times do I have to say this? Whole life costs!!!. 7 classes down to 1!.

The C3’s arent going to be the expensive ships!. Doing the jobs the way they are being done now is the expensive way!. The Treasury should actually go for C3 like a terrier after a rat.

Cynicisms good guys and is the default position for most observers of UK defence procurement but enough is enough!

I thought Roebuck performed a different mission. Echo and Roebuck both essentially do a civilian vessels job and there is absolutely no need to send a large armed vessel to do there job. It is wasteful.It would also require a significant amount of space/reroling to allow for it to happen.

No way on that one. Accurate charting and route survey are very vital tasks that are, very correctly, the Admiralty’s responsibility to undertake. There are areas of the world were civillian vessels on these tasks would be discouraged from their work by local regimes not keen on others having up to date charts of their waters. Doing the mission with a big grey boat that has a radio link to other big grey boats is a very good way of ensuring that the work gets done.

There is nothing wasteful about sending a big armed boat to do that kind of tasking and, as stated earlier, if the vessel has a useful coercive armament fit it is showing the flag and providing constabulary presence simply as a byproduct of its survey mission. Far from wasteful its actually providing huge mission capability off necessary investment.

It’s highly unlikely that some of the systems needed for the survey role could even be carried without being included from the design stage, and that means the entire class will have equipment that only a couple of vessels need.

Multibeam side scan sonars are already deployed on UUV’s for mapping purposes in civvy street. The same UUV handling array that services the MCMW UUV’s can easily deploy droggy UUV’s. At a push I’d expect the self-same UUV’s could be used for both roles. Certainly minehunting route-survey work builds and records a picture of the sea bed topology in order to identify ‘new’ features that are roughly mine sized!.

Add in a launch for inshore survey work and a reconfigurable space with enough workstations to undertake planning and mapping activities and you have a fairly comprehensive droggy hull!.

Some of the vessels don’t even need to be ocean capable, so their roles will have to be incorporated into a larger ship which is not cost effective as many people have said when pointing out the benefits of C3 over C2

Which vessels dont need to be ocean capable?. The MCMW boats do as they are expected to provide fleet support. The droggy hulls definitely do for obvious reasons. That leaves only, really, the Rivers as the boats to be replaced that dont absolutely need oceanic capability. Is it worth designing a sub-oceanic hull to cover 3 boats taskings or does it make more sense to just keep building the C3’s, keep the commonality, and simply use a boat thats a bit bigger than is absolutely necessary for local patrol?. We wont be the only ones to use a 3000ton hull for patrolling local waters by a long way!.

PJ,

If we want C3 to happen then it needs to be simple, flexible and above all cheap, otherwise it will never happen. When designing “a C3” you need to think more like an accountant and go for cheap options that can be adapted latter.

Much as I recognise the wailing and hopeless tone in your post you do have to remember why the C3 is being looked at in the first place. It already is an economising measure replacing:

1, Hunt class
2, Sandown class,
3, River class
4, Clyde class (ultimately)
5, Echo class
6, HMS Roebuck
7, HMS Scott

Altogether, what, 24 vessels of 7 distinct types with a single class of minor war combattant able to undertake all taskings above. The savings in support costs alone of standardising on a single hull are significant. From a deployability standpoint being able to transfer personnel from a droggy ship to a MCMW vessel and have him immediately familiar with the vessel are enormous.

The Treasury can’t complain about C3 on any kind of cost grounds as they will offer a reduction in hulls, a streamlining of support costs and an uplift in deliverable capability. In short everything that they require from the armed forces.

The BMT study shows that for a true oceanic capability 90m barely cuts it. Removing the oceanic part of the C3 brief sinks the project. The whole point is to create an oceanic patrol vessel. Are the Treasury going to want to cut C3…..no!. See above – 7 classes to support down to 1 – they cant claim to be demanding economies from the forces and at the same time reject the steps taken to provide those economies.

Stretching Clyde another 10m isnt feasible as it would be only done by BVT. BVT already have their own 100m C3 design on the boards that they will want to progress with off the back of Khareef (which is a real ship – and the foundation for Venator!) – so thats not going to happen either!.

Worst case is that C3 is going to be pushed to the right to clear the immediate funding crunches that are going to hit up until CVF/Astute clears. Seeing as we dont start running out of Hunts til 2020ish, the droggy fleet whilst heavily employed dont get too hard a battering and the OPV’s are still fairly shiny that shouldnt be too much of an issue. Design freeze on C3 by 2016 with first-in-class sea trials completed by mid 2019 for 2020 commissioning and a healthy build rate thereafter should be quite fine.