1. Most people here have been arguing for a bigger C3 than 2000 tons. Some (not me – see above) suggest it should share the hull of C2.

2. What StevoJH says: the LCS &r NSC are horribly expensive. C3 should be a fraction of the cost to buy & operate – and there are ships a-plenty out there that prove it’s possible. Look at the already-mentioned Danish Thetis & the Spanish BAM.

Quite frankly if someone is suggesting the NSC & LCS as possible designs i might as well suggest something along the lines of a modernised Type 12 frigate with Sea Cat removed, steam turbines replaced by diesels and the Mk.6 guns replaced by the single Mk.8. The later leander class ships could carry a lynx, they were ~2,500t displacement and to be quite frank if they could fit that stuff on a ship designed in the 1950’s there is no reason it can’t be fitted on a ship with 2,500t displacement now.

For that matter i might as well suggest that C2 be an upgraded version of the T23 design with IEP or diesel engines and with Sea Wolf replaced by CAMM.

Not quite – they are sending anything cheap out on patrol missions whenever they can get away with it. Basically gapping patrol slots that are meant to have an escort filling them without actually leaving the slot empty. Sending out the Largs Bay was very much more economical than sending out HMS Iron Duke (current APT(N)) early.

Dont see it. C3, as I have it, isnt a high-threat capable vessel just like OPV(H) isnt. Again the point is that for a high threat potential station you would have a C2 or better deployed….that being the whole point of C2. Why have your ‘cheap’ C3 tote around weapons systems that it would have no other use for just on the off chance that a low-threat scenario somewhere goes high-threat before we can have appropriate vessels deployed. If a real popup missile threat were to emerge to a C3 it would have softkill systems capable of providing a proper defence anyway and the simple virtue of retreating over the radar horizon from the ‘popup’ shore missile battery is a great way of stopping rudimentry inbounds.

Again I disagree that a C3 would ever see a land-attack missile in any shape or form. As soon as you give C3 GWS60 and CAMMs or even a multirole gun like the OTO or the Bofors you are hollowing out the foundations for C2. I’ve said it before but C3 cannot, initially, look like it is able to be modular converted into a high-threat capable patroller. That, to keep the numbers up and the costs down, has to be a seperate and distinct version of the common hull.

Or just drop the C2 requirement and build more C1’s and C3’s since the only difference between the two (C1 & 2) is likely to be size and the presence of a VLS for land attack missiles.

But, C3 will probably have either a 30mm or 114mm gun, if it has a 114mm gun then it will probably have a 30mm on each side of the bridge as a secondary weapon. Add on a work deck and/or flight deck, with possibly a hanger large enough for a Flynx or Merlin.

I would consider a hanger if fitted to be more likely to be FLynx sized, however if it was Merlin sized then it could carry MCM equipped Merlin’s while operating in the MCM role.

ashm can be used on different ways e.g. in a bearing only attack with wide fov and without range gates. and esm works in both directions, so why not firing a ashm on a track based esm only? most potential foes of the rn will not care if they hit a neutral ship so i would not necessarily assume that you will see a search radar first.

for sure but they generate a very large rcs in a very short time.

hsiung feng II for example is already fielded with a dual radar/iir seeker.

maybe thats the problem, you do not belief that new technology can turn the tide. nsm for example as a iir only ashm was tested successfully with decoys and distinguished between the decoys and the ship. with a second type of seeker and sensor fusion you can further improve such ashm.

you can call sea wolf whatever you want, the quoted range is 6 km so i call it a ciws (11km for crotale and 16km for rim-7 m/p/r/…). for the burkes i stil think that costs are one major point but yes essm may do the job and maybe if there is no use for the harpoons they do not see the danger which may require a last line of defence.

so you are depending on the onliest main user of the 114mm outside the uk. most of their ships are old, maybe in future they will switch to another gun mount because it’s foreseeable that the 114mm will die.

my work experience tells me that sooner or later you will reach a point where keeping a old system in service is a pure waste of money. but maybe the c3 will be sold first. 😉

i do not make an opv a warfighter, i get it more flexibal and 3p is no “fancy” anti missile ammo, it’s just a flexible pregrogrammable round. maybe you mixed it up with dart?

that is not what i sayed. the 76 mm will place more weight in 10 sec or 1 min than a mk8. it’s the time in which you can take down your target that counts, not the number of rounds spend.

lol. so now you have just placed the opv in a high density warfighting scenario. sorry but the falkland war perfectly shows where you will end without a ciws and this is definitely no place for an opv.

when, where against which artillery?
and how long does it take do get your uav or helo in the air (praying that an armee or a group of terrorists which are shooting at you with artillery do not have some manpads). it’s also a question on how many guns the shore battery has, 6 105 mm guns e.g. can provide round about 70 rounds per minute, hard to counter this with a single mk8.
so at the end with mk8 or not you will evade and call for an airstrike (and to say it again this is a warfighting scenario)

if you want to make gunboat diplomacy you will not send a opv. and the drug smuggler (which i agree is a non warfighting scenario and fits well to an opv) would also pay attention to an 57 mm or a 76mm because they have nothing to answer. they can also choose between give-up and try to escape. if they have speedboats and try to escape, a smaller gun with a high rate of fire like the 57mm or 76mm would be the best choice.

all this ends the same way: whenever a mk8 would be the right choice, it’s not a job for a opv/c3.

@Distiller: it would be interesting to see which type of missile was targeted (size, speed) but 75 % success rate isn’t that bad for a system in combat usage even it was not designed for this special usage. but yes in a high density scenario i would not rely on a ciws (which can be also systems other than phalanx) alone.

I’d rather use a cheap OPV worth 50-100 million and with a max of 50 crew for NGFS then use a 6000t C1 or T45 with 200+ crew and worth 400-600 Million.

The problem with Mk.8 is that it makes the thing look like a frigate. If a typhoon system was fitted to each side of the superstructure, the things would have more firepower then a Whitby, Rothsay or early Leander class frigate, these things were built in the 1950’s and 60’s, but they were still around till the late 1980’s (90’s in the case of some broad beamed leanders), which means that a lot of the politicians will still remember them.

In terms of current warships though, they’d fit the title of sloop perfectly, and they’d be ideal for gunboat diplomacy and just about anything short of a high intensity war.

Ok, well I could envisage a possible future for ‘cruiser’ size ships to carry their own air arm in the shape of a dozen (or less) vstol MRCAs… a kind of Multi Role Combat Ship.

I believe that the much criticised (mainly by large carrier fanboys) ‘through-deck cruiser’ concept arrived ahead of its time. It seems to me that this might actually be a more viable and credible option for navies which have limited resources but need a quantum jump in operational punch.

The Invincible class were never designed to be aircraft carriers, they were designed to command and support ASW hunter-killer groups, similar in concept to the Escort Carriers of WWII in the Atlantic. Their main offensive punch was supposed to be the 10+ Sea King and Lynx Helicopters in their flight wing. They had Harriers and Sea Dart for defense.

The most similar modern example is the Japanese Hyuga class ships.

The CVF are replacing Ark Royal (audacious class) and Eagle more then they are replacing the Invincible class. The Invincible class replaced the tiger class cruisers as well as Bulwark and Hermes. They don’t seem to be being replaced this time, similar to how Ark and Eagle were not replaced last time.

Actually after conversion Tiger only had 2 x 6″ and 2 x 3″ guns, the aft guns were replaced with the Hanger.

ah, forgot they only had one forward turret. 😉

Remember the minotaur had two forward. 😛

A little like the large Russian missile cruisers isn’t it 😛

Its also very function in terms of role and armament to HMS Tiger.

HMS Tiger final armament was something like:
4 sea king ASW
4 6″ gun in twin turrets
2 3″ guns in twin turret
2 sea cat launchers
plus assorted small caliber weapons.

Of course since this is pure fantasy we can make the two ships direct replacements for the Invincible class.

20,000t, two ships
through deck cruiser
Role: ASW & MCM command ship (for commanding ASW and MCM of C2/C3 flotilla)
Secondary Role: LPH
Weapons:
10*8 cell VLS (64*Aster 30, 64*Quad Packed CAMM, All cells are Sylver A70 so you can remove AAW missiles if you need to carry SCALP N)
Aircraft:
Up to 20 Merlins (ASW and MCM variants)

Build two ships without the VLS as the primary role LPH’s, secondary role them as ASW & MCM command ships.

Using identical hulls, though somewhat different superstructures and machinery, for C1 and C2 is a realistic approach, since an ocean patrol/convoy escort C2 is basically the same size as a strike group escort C1, but with less capable and non-specialized weapon systems.

I think the best hull form for a 2000 tons C3 is a monohull. What you’re looking for is basically an enlarged crew boat, where the aft ramp is used for modular mission (weapon) system.

As CIWS for a C3 I’d go for a pure autocannon solution, since those can also be used against surface targets.
And placing a 4.5″ gun on the bow is an overkill. A 57mm autocannon is just fine. Don’t see the need for anything larger for a C3 mission profile.

Word on the Phalanx: Forget it. The limited kill zone (distance between outer and inner engagement limits) and the re-targetting times (especially against maneuvering targets) make a single installation vulnerable to saturation against just three, maybe even two missiles. Go for an aft 35mm, the bow 57mm can take care of the frontal arc.

On reloading the chaff launchers – how realistic is that in a combat situation?

1) C1 is described as a Fleet ASW vessel of around 6000t with a land attack role, whereas C2 is described as a smaller patrol combatant/choke point escort. If you dropped the requirement of extra VLS cells for land attack munitions, a displacement of around 4000t is doable (thats about the size of a T23).

2) A CIWS for C3 is no go as they add significantly to the cost of what is essentially an oversized patrol boat, though you could possibly justify leaving space for a CAMM VLS and CIWS mounting. A 57mm cannon is also a no-go as it would mean inducting a new weapon and caliber into the fleet, whereas the 114mm Mk.8 Mod.1’s are already in the fleet and while some new builds might be neccessary, many would be available from retiring ships. Plus all the infrastructure for the 4.5″ guns is in place already and would not have to be built from scratch. Main weapon for C3 would be either a 4.5″ gun or the 30mm gun that is fitted to the current minor ships.

3) Reloading Chaff in combat conditions is about as realistic, if not more so as reloading phalanx under those conditions. Though of course it must be pointed out that any attack would most likely be over in seconds, or a minute at most, as the most chance of hitting a ship would be to attempt to saturate the defenses (in a conflict zone it wouldn’t be likely to be alone).