JonesyEd,
The major concern that the RN have at the moment is meeting the commitments we are tasked for. Put simply with the vessels we have we cannot afford the deployments to cover the patrol slots and we are gapping slots at present. Last year, for example, we sent a T42 off on APT(N) patrol with its 1022 radar inoperable because we didnt have the spares at hand to fix it – which sounds terrible until it was pointed out that the 1022 radar wasnt, really, all that necessary for the completion of the tasking as the vessel sported a perfectly functional 996 set.
This is the sort of thing that is driving the RN’s requirement for a gradiated capability level fleet composition.
The issue isnt one of getting the maximum number of warfighting assets possible out of the treasury its rather one of getting a number of hulls that we can keep deployed and on station covering our taskings. For APT(N) anti-drug and disaster assistance are far more essential than warfighting and for SNFM and IO taskings an economical, sustainable, MIOPS capability counts more than a SHORADS SAM embarked.
These are the reasons that C3 does not need to be a light frigate in any shape or form – just a hull that is big enough for extended deployment, be able to handle rough waters and complete chopper operations in those waters and be able to embark additional personnel/survivors or stores as the mission requires. Vospers C3 is, for my money, 90% there, but, I just feel that there is enough crossover to C2 to make it sensible to lift C3 a bit closer to C2 in hull/machinery terms.
Frosty,
C3 and C2 could be built around the same basic hull but be very different for example the Absalon class are quite different to the soon to come patrol ships which among other things don’t have a RORO deck.
I think you’ve hilighted something I’ve not made very clear here and I thank you for that. When suggesting C3 and C2 be a common design I was assuming it obvious that the differing roles would produce a marked difference in equipment fits…by saying that the hulls would be built in batches with C3 first then the more complex C2 afterwards I was inferring that C2 would be an ‘evolved’ C3 with the same basic hull but with more optimisation on the warfighting systems and sensors than on the OPV features such as the mission-adaptable deck, davits, cranes etc. C2, still being as much patrol vessel as combattant, would naturally benefit from the MIOPS relevant systems carried over from the C3 such as the RIB dock etc but would give away transient accomodation, for example, for the additional crew required for the combat systems or for an EMF contingent etc.
JonesyGarry,
Unfortunately his low opinion of the Russian Navy, which in his opinion is not the US Navy makes it wrong, because the US Navy is everything that is right about the sea today. US carriers can see all, hear and defeat all all at once and can be sneaky and use tactics to defeat enemies in a superior situation to them but the enemies of the USN cannot of course do the same.
I wish I could say otherwise but what you write is largely correct. I’d make the correction that ‘US carriers have the systems, on- and off-board, can see all hear all and defeat all’. Otherwise you show me one other nation that has the same level of, passively derived, situational awareness over as large a scope of operational environment as the USN.
The attack on the Cole was obviously planned by an American Admiral and is unlikely that anyone will ever touch a US Navy ship again. The only reason Osama Bin Laden hasn’t been killed by the USN is because the politicians are tying their hands…
The attack on the Cole is simple unconventional warfare and is defeated simply by tightened force protection measures. Would you suggest that all the Russians needs do is hire Al Quaeda and their coast is universally shielded against USN CSG’s?. No of course not. Unconventional tactics and techniques can pay dividends against a conventionally trained service – to say so is obvious beyond all comprehension surely – problem is that the Russian Navy is equipped to fight conventionally not unconventionally.
Your verbal meandering, however sharp and witty, ultimately says nothing about how the Russian Navy overcomes its hideous lack of surveillance assets in order to employ some of these fanboy-vaunted weapons systems. We can talk, I guess, about the new area surveillance system the Russians are developing to address the hideous lack of survillance that they KNOW they have, but, you may want to just sit back and make snide comments about the USN though?!.
1MAN,
Your articles from various USN figures is fascinating. Unfortunately they are all dated from the 70’s and early 80’s if not before. Back then no-one in the West, in open source, would’ve made any comment on the Soviet Legenda system’s drawbacks if indeed they knew of them. IIRC the US-A series RORSAT component of Legenda didnt fall apart fully until the mid-80’s anyway. Today, with the information that has become available since the end of the Cold War, we know that their fears were exaggerated to say the least!.
JonesyIf the arguments being put forward here were for C1 and C2 sharing the same design I’d agree 100% but it seems people aren’t reading the requirements or looking at what VT have proposed.
C1 and C2 sharing a common hull means C1 is barely capable of its job or C2 is massively over spec for the listed requirements. We have the T45 hull and BAE have, apparently, determined that it is suited for reroling into a hull that would fit C1. Replacing T23 would not and can not be with a like for like vessel. ASW isn’t towing a tail across the Atlantic now its poking about littorals and trying to dig out discrete SSK’s. An active LF tail is still extremely valuable in that regard, but, the weapons system of choice for ASW is the autonomous hunting ASW chopper. The RN have absorbed that lesson and verified it on AUTEC testing with Merlin.
C1 cannot produce a FREMM type hull if it is going to do the job we expect of it…that is forward ASW screening of a task group operating in the other guys littoral. C1 needs to be a pure warfighter platform capable of playing keepie uppies with at least a pair of Merlins. Thats not a FREMM sized hull and therefore not a platform suited to being the basis for C2.
C2 needs to be more combat capable than C3 but cheaper to deploy than a T23 or T22 is today. Simply we can not just replace T23 or T22 like-for-like because that does not solve the problem we have today. that problem is that the hulls we deploy have too much expensive kit that is unnecessary for the tasking and that expensive kit needs expensive people to run and maintain it. What C2 has to do is offer a degree of a T23 capability whilst being as dramatically cheaper to deploy than T23 as possible. This puts C2 in the C3 catchment, as I see it, very definitely not in the C1 bracket.
C3 however is not intended to be a Frigate, not intended to be a front line combat vessel beyond the arms needed for anti-piracy, anti-smuggling and probably counter-terror/insurgency, which is way removed from the capabilities of a Frigate.
I agree with everything you say here, but, you couldnt say that a Thetis-class is a frigate….nor the new Dutch design. Both are closer to what my concept of C3 should be than the kind of OPV(H) plus design S2C2 came up with!. As stated C3’s only approximation of a ‘frigate’ should be in the machinery and that only for commonality with the rest of the fleet. Machinery commonality makes sense on its own terms and, I believe, the year on year savings of having the same kit across a broad number of hulls would more than balance any short term extra outlay involved in providing C3 with more power than is absolutely necessary.
And what VT are proposing is not an austerity Frigate, it’s a large sea going GP/OPV design with capability of Policing/patrol duties and also survey/MCM, the hull is derived from an OPV as presumably the power plant, if C2 is going to be an enhanced OPV then the RN have big problems.
In that case, by your definition, the RN have big problems because C2 cannot be a frigate!. Another firgate design brings with it the costs of deploying a frigate which pushes us right back to square one just with C2’s tied alongside instead of Dukes!. C2 has to be some kind of half-warfighter/half-patrol ship.
The saying steel is cheap is true for high end warships only because the actual hull and machinery isn’t the main part of the cost of destroyers, carriers, frigates etc., on an austere vessel with limited military systems it does not hold true at all and on vessels like OPV’s steel is anything but cheap, bearing in mind as hull size goes up so does required power, that puts up bunker volume required etc. and gets into a circle of growth, and a 4000T OPV/MCMV/Survey vessel will not make sense unless that vessels primary role needs it (possible I admit, but IMO unlikely), whilst diesels are actually better suited to such a design on technical as well as cost grounds IMO.
What you are saying is, naturally, absolutely correct an extra 1000 tons displacement and extra length and beam is going to necessitate extra installed power over a strictly OPV-type design. For a cheap(er) vessel the cost increase is proportionatley higher than for a bells-and-whistles warfighter, again though, Vospers is offering a 3000ton/24knt+ hull already. Pushing this to 4000ton/27knt isnt the same as stepping up from an 18-20knt OPV!. Remember to that through all this the savings are not restricted to just C3 with the common hull the C2 fleet benefits too.
even if it is where are the RN’s future secondary vessels then going to come from if the intended replacement has transmorphed into a Frigate?
C3 will still be a secondary vessel just as the Thetis boats are or the USCG WHECs its just that they will be more optimised for the task of performing meaningful patrol operations than the historical ‘minor war vessels’ that we’ve operated to date and that seem to offer such limited value on Ops today.
JonesyAdditional Vospers C3 details from Industry Watch:
VT Shipbuilding unveiled its ocean-capable patrol vessel design which was developed to meet the lower tier of the Royal Navy’s Future Surface Combatant (FSC) programme. Under the current plans the programme will consist of three tiers of ships – CI, C2 and C3 – to replace the service’s Type 22 and Type 23 frigates, mine countermeasures vessels and survey ships. VT derived the 100-metre design with a displacement of about 3000 tonnes from the ocean patrol vessel developed for Oman’s Project Khareef. With an endurance of 45 days the ship will be capable of reaching a maximum speed of more than 24 knots and a cruising speed of twelve knots, covering a maximum range of more than 7000 nm. C3 class vessels will be used for a variety of roles including mine countermeasures, patrol duties and survey work. VT’s C3 FSC design incorporates a large crane and a flexible 26-metre-long mission deck aft, equipped with a stern ramp for payload deployment/recovery. The design also includes a 16-metre-long flight deck able to accommodate helicopters as large as the RN’s EH101 Merlin and a hanger with room enough for a Lynx helicopter. Weapons could include a 76 mm or similar medium- calibre gun forward, a 30 mm gun or Phalanx close-in weapon system port and starboard as well as .50-calibre heavy machine guns, and surface-to-surface missiles. VT has proposed that the Ministry of Defence could lease the C3 FCS vessels in the same manner as its does the RN’s River Class ocean patrol vessels also built by VT.
JonesyThe problem here is that if C3 becomes an austere Frigate, it’ll still be expensive, won’t be that capable without additional major investment and it’s going to be seen by politicians and civil servants as a “Frigate” so why do the RN need all those C2’s when they’ve got plenty of C3 hulls?
It is Industry that is advocating a frigate-sized hull for C3 though Turbinia NOT the RN expressly requesting such. Plus the case can very easily be made, citing examples from several other naval services, that a patrol ship can be bigger than frigate-sized and still not be a frigate. As we all know the problem with deploying T23’s etc at the moment is that they have a large crew in part embarked to operate and maintain systems that are unnecessary for the taskings they are asked to undertake.
A C3, even at 4k tons, who’s Warfare Dept is responsible for no more than a medium cal gun mount for’d and, perhaps, a Phalanx covering the stern arc and has a sensor fit limited to a 996/Artisan set plus optronics has a very much reduced crew/logistics requirement over a vessel packing all sorts of guided missiles, radar and sonar kit. It is, despite its size, a cheap vessel to deploy when compared to what we have now.
If we order enough of them we get cheaper hulls across both classes as well, not just ‘cheap C3’s’ we get ‘value-for-money’ C2 AND C3. Like I said look at what the US yards can do with a long production run….the last Arleigh Burke DDG came in at US$560mn whats that about £250mn for a FltIIA Burke?!!!. Its not often we are going to be in a position to take advantage of situations where we can fit our requirements to make a long production run viable…IMO we have such an opportunity here and we need to grab it for all its worth!!!.
Could the politicians turn around and suggest that C3’s are more than adequate for the majority of our requirements and cut C2 off at the knee….yes they could. it should be pointed out though that we could build a class of 2000ton OPV(H)’s and the Govt could do exactly the same!. I know which C3 I’d rather the RN got left with if C2 did get canned!.
JonesyThe problem is that fundamentally the C-3 and C-2 have very different requirements in terms of actual contents. C-3 can get away with moderate power diesels, where the C-2 really needs gas turbines. The C-3 can get away with a small gun, e.g. the 57mm Bofors, where the C-2 could really do with something more powerful, e.g. a 114mm or 127mm. The C-2 could really do with anti-ship missiles, possibly cruise missiles, and possibly Aster 15 missiles. In contrast, the C-3 can get away with little more than a short range defensive SAM, e.g. the RAM or similar.
Unless you are going to make C-3 quite big, which unnecessarily pushes up its costs, then you need a different hull. Do not get me wrong, I am supportive of the idea of making C-3 a highly capable hull, and indeed I do like the idea of copying the Dutch ‘patrol vessels’. I am just a little wary of the numbers issue (sixteen expensive ships probably being more expensive than eight very expensive and eight relatively cheap ones). The attraction, of course, is also that, by the back door, it allows the fleet to return to thirty-two ships, though of varying specs (I suspect that the C-3 could well end up as capable as, if not more so than, the old Type 21s).
It might, however, be worthwhile looking at acquisition of small patrol craft, i.e. something bigger than the RHIBs, but much smaller than the C-3s. These would be able to be used in the localised patrol role, and possibly act as motherships for the RHIBs (but themselves supported either by a shore base, or a C-3). Something in the size class of the Aussie Armidale class might be worthwhile – yes, they cannot self-transit to theatre, but one heavylift vessel would be able to carry four or more. They would be well enough armed to defend boarding parties, and go pretty much anywhere they are needed.
Look at the Vospers article though Ed – the C3 is looking less and less likely to be a vessel of less than 100m and 3k ton displacement. VT state that their vessel is intended to be good for 25knts which is knocking on the door of fleet capability from the kickoff so its not all that likely we are looking at a couple of cheapo diesels as a machinery fit.
This is the whole point…if it was acceptable to have C3 as an OPV(H) variant then there is the manifest gap between C3 and C2 – as you state ‘eight very expensive and eight relatively cheap ones’ – thats not the case though. The fact is that Industry here and in Holland, as well as a few Scandinavian countries, has noted that the Ocean Patrol tasking is most successfully served by a vessel closer the 3k ton mark than the 2k ton mark. The idea of cheap little 1500-2000ton OPV(H) type vessels to perform extended, independent, oceanic deployments seems almost a uniquely British preserve and IMO a little bit of wishful thinking.
It reiterates an earlier point but building a large ship with an austere equipment fit can often be cheaper than building a small ship with complex weapons and sensors. Everyone and his mum knows the axiom that ‘ship steel is cheap and fresh air free’ and so it is the case so building big does not necessarily engender a disproportionately higher cost.
Also it must be noted that naval vessels are costed on ‘whole-life’ terms not solely unit acquisition costs. Look at the problems we are having with the Escort fleet as it stands. The T23’s were one of the best bargains ever heard of in naval procurement, but, we are finding it costs a lot to deploy them so they sit alongside in various readiness states. In every respect they, especially the later units, were ‘cheap’ ships to buy but ‘whole-life’ that has not proven to be the case.
We then come to the economies of scale I was talking about earlier. If we are looking at a 3000ton frigate-sized hull for C3 and we need C2 to be some form of combattant there is an abiding and obvious overlap here. Look at what the Singaporeans are getting on their new frigates on a hull thats 3200tons full load. I’d say that there is little, in firepower terms, that C2 will require that isnt present on the Formidable-class ships. Putting all necessary systems for C2 on a 3k ton hull then is little problem…..putting that hull up to 4k tons at the design stage to provide more range and endurance is good conservative engineering for little real cost increase.
Building the same basic hull and propulsion fit for all C3’s and C2’s is just sensible inventory management and, despite the 8 C3’s machinery shipsets possibly being more expensive than is absolutely necessary, that is offset against logistics/training savings over 20 plus years for BOTH the C2 and C3 fleets. That’ll be £millions per year in savings times by the lifespan of the vessels!.
There really is very, very little merit, in value for money terms, building small cheap OPV’s for C3 and expensive full-warfighting frigates for C2.
JonesyThats the piece I was discussing earlier.
Vospers have identified that a 2000ton 20knt OPV(H) derivative just is not going to cut it as C3 and their offering is, basically, an austere frigate sized hull analagous to the new Dutch boat.
If we accept that the difference, in the main, between C2 and C3 is going to be the threat level in which they are intended to operate then isnt it glaringly obvious that a common hull with common machinery, built in 2 batches, first batch as austere C3’s then, the second batch, a modified version with greater warfighting capability offers so many economies whole-life as to make any other solution a near-absurdity?.
Ask Vospers to go back to their design and increase the displacement to about 4000tons and length up to about 115-120m to provide increased bunkerage, stores stowage and accomodation and develop a ‘batch 2’ MIOPS warfighter with appropriate systems fit. Offer them 16 plus hulls with common build apart from the batch 2 systems and watch them rub their hands in anticipation!.
C2/C3 could be solved just that easily if MoD had a bit of foresight!!!.
JonesySoooo….we have Garry running his usual interference – dragging the thread as far off any percieved Russian inadequacy as possible and throwing up enough spurious, but reactionary, topics to cover the tracks.
We have Dionis demonstrating the dictionary definition of denial regardless of anything trivial such as fact and Lawrence rupturing vital organs attempting to point out, to someone irrational, that they are being irrational.
If I was to suggest that the chances of anything meaningful stemming from whats left of this thread is astronomically remote would anyone disagree?.
If not will someone do the decent thing and put a bullet through the poor animal…its gone very lame!.
JonesyRepcobrab
….found the appropriate driveway and attempted to turn in same circa 50 mph and over she went! (rather norman wisdomish entrance) however we just flipped her back on to four wheels no damage done! no broken glass or damaged panels just a few light scratches,they built em solid in those days!thanks for that memory,
That vehicle sounds a lot more formidable than my first car, a mk2 Vauxhall Astra 1.2L, that underwent a much similar experience.
Combination of a bend suprisingly tighter than anticipated, a narrow and muddy country lane bordered by 4ft earthen banks on each side and, perhaps, a spot of the youthful exuberence most 17yr olds can be found in possession of. End result was the Astra heading up the bank on the left hand side, flipping onto its roof, and coming to a rest inverted and at 90 degrees to direction of travel. All 5 occupants got out more or less unscathed…my mate popping his seatbelt and, in obeyance with the well established law of gravity, landing right on his head was the kind of comedy moment that you keep all your life and, at the time, went a long way to changing the context of the event.
Anyway when we got the car back on its, somewhat oddly angled, wheels we found that the only undamaged panel on the vehicle was the boot hatch!. A less substantial vehicle than yours by some margin…as said though 5 of us got out of a fairly nasty-ish crash undamaged which was quite enough for me to send a nice letter to the good people at Vauxhall!.
Strange how some memories that should be ‘bad’, like crashing cars, somehow bring a grin!. 😉
JonesyRepcobrab
….found the appropriate driveway and attempted to turn in same circa 50 mph and over she went! (rather norman wisdomish entrance) however we just flipped her back on to four wheels no damage done! no broken glass or damaged panels just a few light scratches,they built em solid in those days!thanks for that memory,
That vehicle sounds a lot more formidable than my first car, a mk2 Vauxhall Astra 1.2L, that underwent a much similar experience.
Combination of a bend suprisingly tighter than anticipated, a narrow and muddy country lane bordered by 4ft earthen banks on each side and, perhaps, a spot of the youthful exuberence most 17yr olds can be found in possession of. End result was the Astra heading up the bank on the left hand side, flipping onto its roof, and coming to a rest inverted and at 90 degrees to direction of travel. All 5 occupants got out more or less unscathed…my mate popping his seatbelt and, in obeyance with the well established law of gravity, landing right on his head was the kind of comedy moment that you keep all your life and, at the time, went a long way to changing the context of the event.
Anyway when we got the car back on its, somewhat oddly angled, wheels we found that the only undamaged panel on the vehicle was the boot hatch!. A less substantial vehicle than yours by some margin…as said though 5 of us got out of a fairly nasty-ish crash undamaged which was quite enough for me to send a nice letter to the good people at Vauxhall!.
Strange how some memories that should be ‘bad’, like crashing cars, somehow bring a grin!. 😉
JonesyChalk up another vote for the Lurid Power slides/Handbrake-turnability of the Ford Capri.
As a struggling student I picked up a metallic blue 86 Laser (for the princely sum of £175 and a carton of Benson&Hedges) with the, quite astonishingly good, 2 litre Pinto engine. Had the thing oversteer then understeer on one orbit of a local roundabout until a friend advised me of the need to keep two bags of cement in the boot to keep the back end from the odd ‘uncontrolled departure’!. Worked like a treat too and after that all ‘departures’ were more or less of the controlled variety!.
I’ve had Honda Civic VTi’s and Lexus 200 Sports since, both being excellent cars in their own right, nothing though has made me grin quite as much as that knackered old Capri!!!!.
JonesyChalk up another vote for the Lurid Power slides/Handbrake-turnability of the Ford Capri.
As a struggling student I picked up a metallic blue 86 Laser (for the princely sum of £175 and a carton of Benson&Hedges) with the, quite astonishingly good, 2 litre Pinto engine. Had the thing oversteer then understeer on one orbit of a local roundabout until a friend advised me of the need to keep two bags of cement in the boot to keep the back end from the odd ‘uncontrolled departure’!. Worked like a treat too and after that all ‘departures’ were more or less of the controlled variety!.
I’ve had Honda Civic VTi’s and Lexus 200 Sports since, both being excellent cars in their own right, nothing though has made me grin quite as much as that knackered old Capri!!!!.
JonesyJacko
Not to give the responsibility for CAS to an organisation that has proven incapable of maintaining and supporting complex aircraft types, or that misuses its air power assets whenever a senior officer needs an airborne taxi (the Army Air Corps).
Absolutely no way in hell you can get away with that swipe at the Pongo’s if your trying support the RAF!!!. If you are unaware of the number of air taxi hops that Senior Crabs undertake in bloody Tornadoes I suggest you try and get access to a source or two at Cranwell air ops. I’ve never seen or heard of profligate wastage like it.
JonesyThere are three naval recon sats there which are part of the EORSAT.There are other recon sats and then there are wide area optical recon sats.
Sorry to burst the bubble Ray but I’d urge you to check the lifespan of a US-PU/PM EOSAT. There is precisely ONE ocean recce site in orbit and that, apparently, was an old vehicle refurbished and launched to provide some semblence of coverage. There is a rumour that it didnt fully activate on orbital insertion as well.
We can argue about the nitty gritties of the sats.But the point of significance is that the programe of launching military sats is going on.It was on the rocks for sometime in the early 90s but as you can see it is very much viable.It will be more so in the coming years with many sats already on the launch schedule. And this certainly doesnot qualify as “they dont have all those sats etc.”
The Russians are launching satellites…never said otherwise…they just aren’t launching satellites appropriate to to the task of localising and tracking carrier battlegroups. This, as Garry alluded to, is because there is no pressing need to replay ‘Red Storm Rising’ in the Russian Miinistry of Defence and they need their launchers to put up GLONASS and comms birds much more urgently!. In context of this conversation then my original point stands ‘they dont have all those sats!’.
JonesyWhat about the recon sats?
Useful for imaging empty berths at Norfolk/San Diego I guess?. Otherwise three or four optical imaging birds add very little real capability to the task of hunting carrier groups at sea.
Sign In
