Grim

You said that the priority would be for Type 23, then C1/C2 then Type 45 but you fail to show your reasoning. I’m sure we can build several (or a lot more) guns per year and we can build and refit more than one ship at a time, so who says the T45 will be operating with the Mk 8 all these years into the future?

I know it may not happen but there is no basis for your argument, there are too many variables.

Simple lack of requirement. The RN is not going to bang in a UOR for the T45 fleet to have a premier league NGS capability when no-one wants to see them on a gunline.

The 23’s systems will be needed for backfit to the new ships coming through. That much has been put in the public domain already. If we were going to be churning out weapons systems why would it be so critical to transplant stuff off decomming ships?. We would do what we’ve done before – put the new build systems on the new build ships and put the decommed kit in storage for refurb and installation on later units. That isnt whats been described so far.

The simple fact is that we know the T45’s are completing with Mk8 mod1 and that the first ships getting the 155 will be T23’s. The only variable in the equation, worthy of note, is when the C3 starts coming on stream. If it is before 2020, which I feel is almost guaranteed seeing as the Hunts will be going as a block around that point, then it still puts us in the situation of supporting 3 calibres to no benefit.

Will someone please educate me as to what advantage, specifically for the C3 mission – so not using the words anti-aircraft – that the 57 or 76mm gives the ship that justifies the purchase of the weapons and the establishment of an RN logistics and support chain?.

There seems to be a general view that the Mk8 mod1 will be somehow old and outdated by 2020.

This could not be further from the truth. As stated we’ve not even got it fully in the escort fleet yet in 2009!. The mod1 gun is a very, very different beast from the original and, by all accounts I’ve heard its finally been sorted out. It will still be a perfectly viable weapons system in 11 years and will very much NOT be fully replaced by a 155mm weapon in that time!.

First priority for the new 155, when it comes in, is going to be those vessels most required to provide NGS. Thats not going to be T45 and its not going to be C3. T23 will get it first. T23 will give up their fitouts to C1 and C2.

So the schedule for receiving the new guns will be T23-> C1/2 -> T45 and that is IF it is determined, by the end of the C2 build run, that T45 needs a 155. This means that, regardless of any other consideration, Mk8 Mod1 will be in the fleet, supported, until the end of the C2 builds. How old is Daring going to be by that time!.

If we decide that C3 must have a gun smaller than 114mm, though for what reason I cant concieve – the antiair capabilities of either 57mm or 76mm are hardly of any value to a C3 that wont have a comprehensive FCS to support it – we must look at the potential for simultaneously deploying a 40/57/76mm, 114mm and 155mm MCG in the fleet. Thats lunacy.

That’s all very well but the plan is too replace it with BAE’s 155mm, what’s the point of installing a MK8 mod 1 on C3 when the intention is for it to be replaced anyway? What sort of timeframe are we talking about for C3?

I thought the planned installation of a 155 on T45 had been shelved a very long time ago. Its not like its going to be doing much gunline duty when we have so few!. As I understand it the likelihood of the 155 replacing Mk8 mod 1 on the Darings is very small indeed!.

Actually another question I have for our fleet experts, but how many V22 would the RN need to support AEW for two carriers as well as a secondary tanking and COD role. Would we need an OCU as well or buy into American training?

The palletised system is appropriately, in my opinion, called TOSS!. The problem with it is its a con job. You wil not get reconfigurable options for TOSS/V22 as you still need to maintain at least 3 radar configured airframes. One coming down off cycle and in refit, one airborne on station and one being prepared to take over on station. You cant have any of those 3 airframes doing anything else. That is also only to post a single radar slot as well. Good as Searchwater AEW is its no APY-2!.

Covering multiple threat axis, to the depth necessary to alert the AAWCS to a long range AShM launch, whilst simultaneously providing look-down coverage over the Fleet assembly area might be a bit of a stretch. If we are going to have 8/9 V-22’s in each carrier airgroup that we can shunt modules between, to get multiple slots up, then perhaps we have something, but, are we likely to have that many?.

Merlin ASaC Mk1 with radar-UAV’s as outrider pickets is by far the smarter and more effective solution.

Interesting videos anyone else think the venator looks a little expensive for C3?

Venator is just BAE’s evolution on the VT C3 offering based off the Khareef hull. That will probably be what is being put in front of MoD for C3. It’s exactly the same capability creep that members on this board have been so keen on and terrified of in equal number.

The irony on this is probaby if you knock off the aft mission deck and develop it into aviation capability with a hangar and stretch the VLS (interestingly confirming the CAMM quadpack btw!) you have something close to what I want to see for C2!!!.

I don’t disagree with you on any point there. I’d love to see C3 as a larger multi role patrol vessel (more of a large corvette type vessel) but i’m trying to be realistic, and all indications suggest that it probably won’t happen and we’ll just end up with 2000t patrol craft that can be fitted for MCMW.

It’s a sad fact of the modern RN that the budget dictates the capabilities and roles, but a fact nonetheless.

I know what you are saying there Grim and I understand it perfectly. I’m almost loathe to make the next point owing to an element of jinxing the whole thing, but, there has been a recent track record of building ships to the needs of the service first and foremost….regardless of size:

1, Bay class LSL’s – twice the size of the Round Tables if memory serves and very much more capable in keeping with our version of ‘Forward from the sea’.

2, CVF – being built as three times the displacement of our current capability because thats the size that is needed to operate the specified airgroup. How many ‘knowlegeable’ people have bemoaned the size of these ships stating we could get smaller carriers to do the same job, but, the professional and correct design has been permitted to stand.

3, T45 – twice the size of previous capability because operationally it has HAD to be so.

There is, and has been for a while now, a quiet little undercurrent of applied common-sense somewhere in the DPA and whoever those revolutionary little beggars are I say fair play to them.

I’m not going to get carried away here, as I’ve already said, I expect the worst much as you seem to yourself and most here would agree. Just maybe though the bright element in the Civil Service might have just another couple of battles in them and we’ll get the ships we need to keep the RN effective and relevent.

HK,

As you’ve all probably figured out, I prefer option 2. IMHO it’s the more efficient solution, because the smaller number of hulls is compensated by the fact that they have very clear and complementary missions in both peacetime and wartime. Option 1 offers more hulls “in reserve”, but I find neither C2 nor C3 very convincing in that scenario, with C2 in particular straining to maintain the fiction that it is a real “warship”.

But if they cannot undertake the peacetime missions that they will be tasked for predominantly, and is their whole raison d’etre in the first place, what value are they?.

C2 shouldnt be a fleet warship at all, in my opinion, as the mission isnt one for a fleet warship. Back in the day we did gunboat diplomancy with just that…..gunboats!. If there was an inkling that something was about to go on we’d send a cruiser or a small flotilla to reaffirm our interest, but, we didnt try to keep major fleet units scattered hither and yon even at the very height of the RN’s power.

C2’s mission is patrol. Namely chokepoint patrol and forward presence in areas where threat systems exist. Will someone explain to me why we need a Fleet unit to do that kind of job?. If you dont have the ideal hull to do the job then you can press a fleet warfighter in to the tasking but, as we’ve found, that gets expensive. Thats hardly an efficient way to run a naval service though and it means you tire out your warfighters on missions they are wildly overspecified for!. Hasn’t anyone else looked at the number of AEGIS ships currently chasing Somali’s in speedboats around the IO and thought ‘what the Fu** is that all about?!’.

I still maintain C2, for us, should be a ‘C3 – batch2’ with sensors and armament derived and, in most cases, taken straight off decomming T23’s. Get them cheap and in sufficient number to do what the requirement states – provide an RN presence in contested littorals. Keep the cutting edge sharp with the warfighting fleet of T45’s, C1’s, CVF, SSN’s etc on joint training and coalition exercises all their lives and let the patrol boats do the patrolling!.

Shame that it will not happen!.

I agree with the 2 tier solution, since it would mean that C2 would become a real “Tier 1” GP frigate on the same level as a F125, FREMM AVT/GP etc. The risk with going for a “cheap” C2 is that some critical ASW or AA weapons system will be “forgotten” to cut costs, much like what happened on the French La Fayettes (no sonar/torpedoes) and their Taiwanese sisterships (only have Sea Chaparral). You can see some of this happening already with Type 45, since it’s currently missing Harpoon, Phalanx & torpedoes…

According to recent news briefs there is a view to divorcing C3 from the C1/C2 programme under way at present. This is potentially owing to the PFI natured offering of Khareef-styled OPV’s by BVT meaning that the funding paradigm has shifted so that C3 doesnt need costing in with C1/C2. I am seriously hoping this isnt the case, but, I fear the worst.

What that shuddering vision of a ‘leased’ navy means is that the two-tier approach is probably quite plausible. It does nothing for the RN though unless C2 is very cheap. Hull numbers are paramount. 9 advanced C2’s do nothing for us. We get to cover 3, 4 at a push, continuous taskings and thats it nothing in reserve.

C3’s, under the PFI paradigm, are not going to be allowed anywhere near harms way as they are BVT assets not the Queens!. If they are allowed to become just warmed over OPV(H)’s this is probably best for all around as they will be useless on a patrol anyway. C2 will have to shoulder the bulk of the RN’s routine patrol taskings.

Fleet Ready Escort will have to be a C1 as it will be the only thing left with a tail to support SSBN delousing out of Fas.

APT(N) will have to be a C2 as C3 isnt looking to have a permanent aviation department and wont be able to race or shell-splash go-fast druggie boats.

SNMG will be C2 as C3 wont cut it there either.

APT(S) another C2 for the same reason.

Gulf/IO. Two more C2’s unless we gap one to fill the other. Or plan to send a precious T45 through Hormuz with frequency!.

So there, just off the top of my head, is 5 C2’s tasked. Using the old wisdom of 3 hulls to support 1 station, now allegedly discredited, that means 15 C2’s would be necessary. Even with todays lean ops trying to cover all that with less than 12 will be tough. Once again I’d note that that number of hulls would be the utter bare minimum to cover what taskings we have now with zero spare capacity in the fleet. That is of course unless we press boldly ahead with the current, ludicrous, policy of tasking auxilliary’s and amphibs on patrols.

Anyone here with so little grasp of reality that they believe we could afford 12 F-125/FREMM level vessels for our ‘second-tier’ austere chokepoint stabilisation combattant?.

C2 has to have a lot more in common with Lafayette than FREMM AVT otherwise we get bells and whistles escorts that will destroy the RN’s ability to cover its taskings. Simple as that.