This project scheduling chart was meant to be the way Vospers were going to play their workload. I’m not so sure this is dead accurate as of today but at least it gives a ballpark representation. Credit to Richard Beedalls site where I have shamelessly pinched it from.

Looking at it, with the commonality from the Omani OPV’s to the 100m design they propose for C3, the optimum build start would seem to be around early 2011, as CVF-01 work tails off, for low-rate leadship construction with a ramp up to full production in 2013. The problem with that schedule is that none of the minor war vessels are scheduled to decommission in that timeframe. The Hunts aren’t due to go until the end of the 2010’s and early into the 2020’s and the Sandowns later than that.

Ironically we probably have a requirement for C2 before C3, with the 22B3’s decomming from 2015, but are then, rapidly, going to get into a situation where we have a lot of hulls to replace simultaneously as the early T23’s will start to go in the same timeframe as the Hunts!. Looks a bit of a mess to tell the truth, but, it does reinforce the idea of building the two ‘classes’ to the closest design possible!.

Werent the Rivers on a 10 year lease? that would run out sometime from 2013-2015 wouldn’t it?

Thats not even mentioning that in 2020 the oldest remaining Hunt class MCM will be 39 years old.

almost

The Mk8 is a waste of space IMO, too short ranged for shore bombardment and not capable of using existing developments of guided/ER rounds such as Volcano.

Artisan also seems a bit limited when it comes to FC.

Mk.8 has been used successfully for shore bombadment from the Falklands through to Iraq in 2003, if it was too short ranged for shore bombardment it either would have been replaced or had new ammunition developed. Its also the cheapest option for giving the C3 a medium caliber gun that does not involve purchasing new 155mm guns or introducing a new weapon caliber. Plus i’m fairly sure i saw an article saying the 155mm gun may be fitted to T23’s as well as the T45’s.

Artisan looks like becoming the standard air/surface search radar for the fleet, plus remember these are just outsized OPV’s so you could probably even get away without an air search radar as long as you could fit one later. If you ever had to fit those 8 Sylver VLS cells with quad packed CAMM, remember they are active missiles and you just have to put them in the right spot for their own seeker to do the hard work.

Is the covered Frigate/Destroyer yard in portsmouth building modules for CVF or could it be put to use building C3? Besides, even if its builds a module or two, it would take only a year or two to finish them and move to Rosyth for assembly, assuming 2009 and 2011 starting dates, you’d be able to start building C3 in 2013, meaning you could have 3-4 C3’s entering service in 2016 or 2017. Remember that once the hull and superstructure modules are finished, all the work will be occuring in Rosyth, leaving the Frigate and Destroyer yards free to build either escorts or MARS ships starting from around 2013.

I don’t see a problem with fitting the C-3 with the Mk8 Mod1 – even if it’s role would never normally include NGS, the gun is basically pretty useful anyway. The more guns available to any deployed force, the better, as proved in the Falklands. The C-3s performing MCM missions, especially in support of amphib ops, is going to be pretty close to shore anyway, so bolting on a reasonable gun makes sense anyway. There is no point adding yet another gun type into service, and having all the ships use a common gun does make sense. One thing to consider is whether we could get the Italian Vulcano round, modified for the 4.5in, since it is already meant for both 127mm and 155mm. A mix of normal rounds, Vulcano, and possibly also PGK-equipped 114mm rounds would be useful, and allow a good range of strike options.

Getting a new round designed for the gun would defeat the purpose of choosing it in the first place. The choices for the main gun for C3 are either the Mk.8 Mod.1 with the same ammunition that has been used in the guns for many years, or the 30mm guns fitted to the Rivers and Hunts, again with the same ammunition that has been used for years. The only thing on the ship that should be a new design is the hull and superstructure of the ship itself.

Fedaykin, Phalanx is overrated as a CIWS, it does not fire a heavy enough shell a far enough distance, thats why the USN are getting RAM, and a lot of european countries are getting CIWS style weapons of a larger caliber.

The biggest gun that would be fitted to C3 would have to be a refurbished Mk.8 Mod 1 (which is a Mk.8 4.5″ gun in a Mod 1 mount) from retiring T22’s and T23’s, as well as guns removed from the T45’s during upgrades to the 155mm gun.

I’m quite intrested in why you think that 2 C1’s should be fitted for flag duties as i thought that all the T45, CVF, Albion and Bulwark have the facilities.

Because there arent many of those?

Anyway, i know its off topic, but.
I vote that the T45 is redesignated as CLG or CG, C1 is designated as DDG, C2 as FFG and C3 as a Sloop or Corvette.

Reason:
-T45 could be seen as a modern Dido class.
-C1 is multi-role, similar to the previous generations of destroyers before the T42.
-C2 is a limited/second line combatant similar to the WWII and early post war era frigates.
-C3 is a patrol ship with very limited capabilities, but built to military rather then commercial standards unlike WWII Frigates and corvettes.

Steve

SSNs for Chinese SSNs and some fairly routine anti-submarine procedures will make an SSK attack in blue water a very limited threat level event. The greatest danger now and for the medium term future is not ASW in blue water. There was only one Red Banner Fleet.

Again though even in blue water there are no shortage of merchantment running around on a couple of diesels. Not many of them are propelled by 400hz electric motors though. Your threat submarine may not get the 400hz line until its very much closer than it would hear the diesels, but, it would be able to make a good guess at identifying the IEP ship as military where it may have to visual the diesel ship before it can get a POSID. Besides we are talking patrol ships here not ASW warflighters. According to released information the ASW escort is slated as being C1 – here we are talking about the propulsion fit of the C2 and C3 neither being an ASW type.

Who is a threat that in 25 years could contest the RN in blue water transit?. Even the PLAN aren’t going to be a proper blue water force by 2030.

Frosty’s specs listed C2 as being Diesel, i was disagreeing with that, because we both know that it will be pushed into being used as a fleet escort. 😉

Hi Frosty,

Yeah I remember we were pretty much on the same hymn sheet. I originally had Phalanx on my wish list for C3 until I realised just how many weapons we were starting to look at here!. T45 12 guns (6 hulls x2 mounts); C1 16 guns (8 x 2 presumeably); C2/3 28 guns (28 x 1 notionally) all adds up to 56 mounts!. To put that into scale the MoD Phalanx 1B upgrade program only covered 16 mounts!.

Giving minor war vessels CIWS mounts isnt something thats done in many navy’s routinely and a good softkill system will be present. Besides the value of the Phalanx was that it offered modest capability for little to no outlay. Once we start entering into actually having to buy stuff in we have to look at things in a bit more depth. It may be, in the future, that we do have to upgun the C3’s slightly. It may be prudent, at that time, to fit something a bit more capable than Phalanx 1B so we could look at SeaRam or something similar. For-but-not-with on the CIWS is probably a good idea early on in the C3 program to keep the costs down initially.

Same thing on the IEP/Diesel prime-mover or conventional CODAD propulsion arrangement. Both have advantages and disadvantages. IEP is obviously a wonderful thing from a maintenance, reliability, damage control and ship design standpoint. It will be more expensive upfront and high capacity electric motors are still very heavy things to have in a hull. Against this CODAD is going to be cheaper upfront but, arguably, more expensive in whole-life terms.

Then we come to the operational environment IEP is going to be lots quieter than CODAD, but, as a submariner aquaintance recently pointed out to me there are no shortage of vessels, of all types, banging around every stretch of water on the planet powered by a couple of big diesels!. Difficult for a passive sonar to tell the difference between a bulker chugging along at 12knts on diesel and something with a gray painted hull and a gun on the pointy end doing the same thing!.

Sometimes the simple solutions can be the best, so, IIRC the VT proposal was for conventional diesels and I dont think I’d necessarily be all that disappointed with it.

Isnt the issue with an ASW frigate needing to be quiet more that its own noise will interfere with the Passive Sonar, reducing the range etc, rather then the possibility of the ships being detected by a submarine?

@ Frosty, in my opinion C2 will get dragged into operations with any expeditionary force, whether its designed for that or not, it really needs a 28-30 knot design speed.

At 6000t displacement, C1 looks more like a Bristol or T22 replacement in capability/size terms, whereas a 3000-4000t C2 would be a pretty much direct replacement of the T23’s.

Planeman

I provided what I consider the optimal solution here weeks ago. I’ve still to see any solution presented by any official or amateur thats come close to offering the capability and efficiency of the operational concept I have been proposing. Quite a few people have balked at the concepts I have put forwards so to now be accused of conservatism, however light-heartedly, is a new one!. 🙂

Basically this is the design that VT put forward for C3. In C3 form the only difference is the FLynx sized hangar, the value of a hangar being someting we seem to be re-learning as a service, and the inclusion of a Mk8 replacing, as their artwork has it, an OTO SR.

The C2 removes the work deck in favour of a longer flight deck, adds 1-2×8 Sylver A43 or 6×4 Slyver A35 VLS fit for’d of the bridge, pushes the, lengthened, hangar farther aft to provide a weapons deck aft the mainmast and sites a refurb Phalanx-1A over the hangar covering the stern arc. Airgroup optimised for surveillance and MIOPS constituting the usual ships flight FLynx but adding at least two additional Firescout/A160 UAV’s.

The C3 as above being easily capable of extended patrol in any current UK low-threat tasking and offering vastly greater multirole capability than anything currently in the RN minor war vessels fleet. The only really high-price items being the radar and the combat data system (of which some type of open archtitecture system would be required anyway!).

C2 is equipped to deal with threat environments at least as adequately as a current T22B3. With a notional A160/Searchwater UAV embarked it could have vastly superior situational awareness over the extended oparea.

Anyway you cut it seperating C2 and C3 off as the ‘patrol’ force means we are covering low threat taskings like APT(N) with vessels far more capable of actually doing something meaningful against druggies in go fast boats or providing a bit more, immediate, disaster assistance to hurricane battered islands than some overblown OPV(H) will do. It also means that in higher threat environments such as the Persian Gulf we can undertake robust patrols without having to task a major fleet unit.

Which is nothing really revolutionary as even in non-IEP designs with conventional power trains the fuel bunkers are simply sited forward of the engine spaces. The problem is that your hull is narrower even than a conventional monohull of that displacement. So you are left with the question as to what you try and migrate out of the hull to make space.

Mission creep yet your C3 concept is a dual role warfighter?!. C3 is only going to be needed on fleet ops where there is a significant mine threat. With the REMUS/Seafox combination she would introduce a greater element of standoff in mine neutralisation compared to anything in the fleet now. One of the reasons I believe the Mk8-1 would be a good fit on this craft is it will allow the ship to lay off a shore threat 25kms off and suppress shore positions attempting to disrupt MCMW activities. Do that with a 57mm! :).

Which of the existing minor war vessel fleet has comprehensive anti-air capabilities?. If you are facing an air threat over mines then you are not going to fill that slot with an unescorted C3 tasking are you?!.

You tailor the output rating of the motors to the generation capability of your prime movers. Given 20MW of onboard generation capability from the prime movers you may want your motors to be 18MW output. You wouldn’t go to the considerable additional expense of speccing in 30MW motors just on the off-chance you might plug in an extra turbine once in a blue moon. As to shadowing opposition CBG’s why on earth would we do that with a surface vessel when we have some of the best SSN’s in the world which have the sensors to build up a profile of the ‘target’ vessels?. The RN has long been able to tell the difference between a patrol asset and a fleet asset Planeman.

ARTISAN should be able to direct fire for the medium calibre gun in anti-surface mode. It will also be capable of cueing a short-range active SAM like MICA or CAMM. Also, to an extent, providing Target Indication to any medium antiship missile embarked. So, realistically, there is nothing else likely to be embarked from UK inventory that would absolutely require a separate FCR of any type.

You do understand that we haven’t had the kind of Navy you seem to be thinking of since the 30’s dont you Plane?!.

Look at the capability mix we have, then at the taskings we actually undertake. We have a predominant tasking requirement for high endurance patrolling at extended range from home waters. We have assets optimised for state of the art warfighting that cost an arm and a leg to deploy to just pootle about picking half-drowned round-the-world yachtsmen out of the oggin. We need to address that gap far more quickly than we need to build the capability to chase down mythical PLAN carrier groups in the Pacific!.

I Agree, keep the Frigates and Destroyers needed to escort the CVGB and ARG, replace the rest with a *larger* number of long range helo capable patrol ships. In regards to C2/3 would it be possible to enlarge the design *slightly* in order to leave the work deck on C2. Use the exact same design for both, but without VLS, Harpoon etc on the C3 variant.

Also, a ‘K’ designation would probably be more appropriate. 😀