Under the UK’s Surface Combatant Sustainability programme (later the Future Surface Combatant or FSC) the surface combatant fleet’s capabilities is seen as being provided by no less than 3 separate classes of ship in the future, the ‘lower end’ C3 variant being described as an multirole vessel replacing the current Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV), Mine Counter Measures Vessels (MCMV’s) and even the survey vessels of the Hydrographic squadron.
I wrote the majority of this piece early last year, before the current Think Defence articles, however as FSC seems to be still on the go, I think this article fits well with what ‘Admin’ has said so far about the C3.
Some comparisons.
The exact nature and size of the vessels depends on whether the programme omits the mid-size (5000 tonne) C2 frigates or not. If the C2 goes ahead the C3 / OPV’s could be between 2,000 and 2,500 tonnes but if it is decided to build more slightly capable OPV’s then they might grow to around 3000 tonnes / 100 metres.
To put this in perspective, lets look at some older RN ‘escorts’ and various international OPV type vessels (as these are generally bigger than MCMV):
[table id=1/]
As can be seen above there is considerable spread across the size range of what have been called OPV’s by their manufacturers or users, with the Dutch ships being bigger in displacement than previous RN frigates. The French Floreal class ‘patrol frigates’ are the most heavily armed of this group, but there are plenty of ‘light frigates’ or Corvettes which are far more heavily armed. However these vessels are generally about long patrol ranges, ability to carry embarked forces or rescued ‘victims’ and generally are not fitted with anything bigger than the ubiquitous OTO 76mm, but also note that many carry an embarked helicopter. The very large US Coast Guard vessel is not heavily armed, but can carry 2 helicopters !
In the RN context, if the C3 is to be built to replace HMS Clyde (and the other River Class) as a patrol vessel, HMS Enterprise and sister ship as ‘ocean going’ survey vessels, and Hunt Class ‘deployable’ MCMV’s, plus take on the ‘long deployments’ required for the maritime security operations role required by the ‘global war on terror’, then they will need to be at the larger end of the scale to provide the multi-purpose capabilities required. Further more, as these vessels will be a mainstay of the RN surface fleet, not an addition, they will need to be able to take on a ‘major war’ role such as ASW escort or MCMV in a medium to high threat environment.
The Spanish Navy’s 2500 tonne BAM patrol vessels provide one model of what is required for a long range patrol ship:
The BAM is sized a round the hanger and flight deck for the NFH90 helicopter, and the 76m main gun. They have a multi-purpose working deck aft, with cranes and the ability to carry a number of containers:
The Dutch navy vessels are considerably larger than the Spanish ones, although they will carry a similar size helicopter and have the same main armament:
The French manufacturer DCN has a number of designs (which look very similar to VT’s designs)
Since I originally wrote this article the shipbuilding company known as Vosper Thornycroft (VT) has ceased to exist and has become VT Group Plc and their new website does not appear to give much details on their product portfolio. [ED: I think VT are out of the shipbuilding game now]
However VT have along history of building patrol vessels, and have recently built the River class OPV’s, including the ‘batch 2’ helicopter capable HMS Clyde. They have also designed larger vessels for Malaysia and Oman. VT have previously shown a design based on an enlarged Omani OPV, which includes a larger stern multi-purpose working area, a helicopter deck (and Lynx sized hangar ?) and the standard 76mm gun
The Ideal design for the C3 ‘Multirole OPV’
The C3 can itself sit somewhere in a spectrum between 2000 tonnes to 3000 tonnes, between UAV capable and full Helo capable, between “cheap and cheerful” and “more capable”. The features below describe what might be considered as the ‘high end’ for C3.
There are a number of possibly conflicting requirements for the C3 OPV:
- Primary peace time ‘global constabulary’ maritime security patrol role
- Primary ‘major war’ ASW escort role
- Secondary peace and war roles such as MCMV and survey
There appear to be a number of main features which can provide the desired flexibility:
- Helicopter capability
- A flexible deck area able to be configured for a particular role
- A base sensor fit good enough for the ‘major war’ role
- Long range / endurance with small basic complement and low running costs
Basic design
To achieve the basic long range requirements, a direct drive diesel, or diesel-electric power plant is required. To keep the complement down the latest ship control automation mush be used, including automated damage control sensors and systems. All equipment must be COTS / MOTS and non-developmental to both keep costs down and ensure programme viability.
Aviation capabilities
A key to multi-role flexibility is the aviation capability. The Spanish vessels show what is possible with a 2500 tonne ship fitted with a hanger and flight deck sized for the Eurocopter NFH90. An RN vessel would probably carry a Lynx, but could ideally have hanger sized for a slightly larger future replacement (for example the AW139), providing additional space for alternative roles.
The helicopter is also key to ‘major war’ roles, carrying Sea Skua (or its eventual replacement) anti-ship missiles, or lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes. As such a major element of the design should be a flexible main magazine space, capable of storing Stingray torpedoes, Sea Skua, HellFire, or other munitions.
The magazine should ideally be constructed of armoured steel with Kevlar spall liners, even if the vessel overall is constructed to “civillian” merchant marine standards.
Sensor fit and Major War capabilities
The main ‘fleet’ role for these vessels in a major operation is ASW, however they should have sufficient self defence capability against air attack, including sea skimming missiles. For the ASW role a bow mounted active HF / MF active sonar should be fitted. This might have a secondary obstacle avoidance / MCM capability. Additional capability would include passive surveillance towed array, active / passive towed array, and anti-torpedo systems fitted on the ‘flex-deck’ aft.
The vessels should be fitted with integral hull mounted dual torpedo tubes port and starboard, fed from the main magazine. Of course the torpedo carrying helo is also a main ASW weapons system.
Anti-air capability is restricted to self defence, including the latest version of the 76mm gun with radar-guided sub-calibre ‘darts’, with its anti-missile capability. The main anti-missile system however might consist of either a Phalanx gun CIWS, a Phalanx SeaRAM or a MK49 RAM launcher, the later giving the largest amount of ‘rounds’ (21) carried.
The main radar surveillance fit would probably not stretch to the ‘integrated mast’ fit of the Dutch vessels, even SMART-S MK2 might be ‘over the top’, however the smaller MPR3D, 3D surv. set with its 180KM (90 nm) range is probably a good compromise. An EO sensor set will also be fitted. A missile based CIWS is better for a decent kill distance against hi-tech (supersonic) threat, the MK49 launcher weighs in at 5.7 tonnes and carries 21 rounds that have a similar range to SeaWolf (RAM Mk1 about 7.5km).
Two launchers (hanger roof, bridge roof ?) would give 42 rounds, pretty good ‘combat persistence’. Perhaps standard fit would be one launcher, the second being ‘fitted for but not with’, until required for a major war scenario ? However it may even be possible to fit the new, under development Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM) system, especially as it appear this is to be developed with a ‘cold gas’ (or soft launch) VL system.
A commercially available command, control and communications fit should be employed, with modular consoles which can be re-roled (i.e. depending on the towed array, or MCM fit). The system should however be able to take the radar (and data linked provided) data and cue the anti-air weapons fast enough (30 to 20 seconds) to deal with supersonic anti-ship missiles.
A full fit of multi-barrelled SeaGnat or SRBOC type decoy launchers should be employed to launch chaff, flares, active ‘off board jammers’ , anti-torpedo countermeasures and even IR smoke ‘obscuring’ rounds.
Secondary armament might consist of port and starboard cannon, with on mount sensors for remote operation, preferably with the new 40mm Case Telescoped Ammunition gun in an IAI Typhoon mounting. If the main 76mm mount was fitted in an Danish Stanflex type ‘containerised’ fashion, then this gun might be replaced by a third 40mm for ships acting in the survey role or on ‘West Indies Guard Ship’ etc. There would probably be at least four .50 cal MG / 7.62mm “mini-gun” mounts for close in defence against ‘asymmetric’ threats.
The base complement might be around 70, with an additional 40 berths to include the ‘ships flight’, embarked military forces (RM boarding parties or SF) or ‘war’ augmentees (extra sonar operators and Damage Control parties).
Flexible ‘mission fits
It is suggested the VT design provides a good basis as what provides a flexible mission specific equipment area on the Quarterdeck aft of the flight deck, similar to the Spanish BAM, it has a crane, space for two 20ft ISO containers, an over the stern launch well for boats and what appears to be storage for additional boats, the low res graphic below has been enhanced with my ham-fisted attempt at outlining some of the major features:
1 – boat on over the stern slipway
2 & 3 – 20ft ISO containers
4 – Crane
5 – x 3 additional large RHIB type boats under covers ?
This would appear to provide plenty of space for different equipment fits, in fact if midships boat provision is port and starboard as other photos of models and artists impressions suggest, then with this fit there is a total of 6 RHIB’s (of varying sizes ?) available for ‘fast pursuit’ and boarding activities.
So what might the different equipment fits be that would utilize this area ?
- Patrol Ops – 2 x 20 ft IAO containers with various stores plus the 4 extra boats mentioned above
- Littoral ASW – Thales CAPTAS-NANO active/passive towed array, and possibly Spartan USV’s with FLASH dipping sonar
- Open Ocean ASW – Thales CAPTAS / Type 2087 towed array and SeaSentor torpedo defence system
- MCMV – Unmanned Surface Vehicles with side scan sonar, acoustic and magnetic influence arrays, Unmmaned Underwater Vehicles with sonar, TV and demolition charges (and FireScout UAV with ‘MagicLantern’ mine hunting sensors ?) or containers containing the kit for Clearance Diving teams, plus a 1 man emergency decompression chamber etc.
- Anti-ship – two quad Harpoon or NSM3 launchers in place of containers ?
- Anti-air – Based on information released so far the new VL Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM) being developed to replaced SeaWolf and Rapier as a point defence system.
- Land attack – containerized VL silo’s in place of the standard containers could contain vertical launchers for Lockheed Martin’s new 7 inch diameter, 220lb P44 precision attack missile (Inertial-GPS guided rocket with tri-mode terminal guidance; semi-active laser, MMW radar and imaging infra-red seekers and a 28lb metal-augmented charge warhead) with a 70km / 43 mile range. A standard HIMARS / MLRS pod can carry 10 of these missiles.
- In fact if VL is not developed then a HIMARS type launcher on each quarter (where the containers are) would provide 20 rounds, with additional pods carried where the RHIBs are stowed in the photos of the models.
So, it might be possible to give a enhanced anti-air and even a littoral land attack role as expansion options to the basic patrol and anti-submarine roles.
So the C3 OPV version by VT may look something like this:
Key
1. 76mm Oto Super Rapid in low observable mounting
2. Space above bridge for MK49 RAM launcher, Phalanx or SeaRAM
3. SMART-S MkII (?)
4. 4 x rocket launchers (chaff, flares, off-board active jammers etc)
5. Hanger between funnels,
6. Lynx helicopter on flight deck
7. flex deck including over the stern launching arrangement
8. Bow mounted sonar
9. port and starboard 40mm CTA gun mounting
10.port and starboard RHIB’s
11. 3 x RHIB for patrol role
Fleet numbers
So how many C3 OPV’s would we need, and how many could we get?
Well it depends on price, but if we say that we need to replace 4 x Type 22 and 13 x Type 23 Frigates in total, plus 6 MCMV’s, and that we might have 10 of the C1 highly capable Frigates then that leaves us with a requirement for say 16 hulls.
If we actually get 8 Type 45 destroyers, that still leaves us slightly short of the identified requirement for ‘surface combatants’ in the Strategic Defence Review.
So add on a couple more, plus two more later to replace Enterprise and Echo and we could see 18 – 20 of these multi-purpose vessels in service alongside 8 AAW destroyers and 8 – 10 multi-purpose Frigates, so its probably going to depend on what the price can be kept down to.
Jed, I think VT sold all Ship building to BAE systems when they pulled out of the BVT alliance. All VT do now in the ship arena is Naval training via its Flagship subsidiary. However, I may have missed read the details on the internet, but as you say they have nothing about ship design or construction on their GROUP website anymore.
Yes, this design, a similar one exists on the BAE site, which essentially is the old Global Corvette design seems to be just what is needed for the C3 role, if one hull form can actually perform all of the requirements, something which I am sceptical of.
It does seem so frustrating that other navies have already made their decisions and actually fielded ships and we are still contemplating our navels!!! Pun intended.
The other stupid thing is that we are decommissioning our existing fleet even before we have selected a design for replacement, let alone built replacements. If orders are not placed PDQ I really fear for the RN, it will be so small to be next to useless.
So essentially you are suggesting something very close to the US LCS ships?
I couldn’t really find much to disagree with in the post apart from the fundamental concept that I think it is easier to have the C2 requirements met by stripped down C1′s than it is to meet them using beefed up C3′s.
VT Group are no longer in the shipbuilding business. They sold their entire shareholding in BVT Surface Fleet to BAE Systems (the other shareholder) in 2009. BVT Surface Fleet no longer exists, and its business has been transferred into BAE Systems Surface Ships.
http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/SurfaceShips/index.htm
Phil and Tony – thank you for that information on VT / BVT / BAe and keeping me honest, my excuse is I wrote this piece sometime ago, and I did have this information in the back of my head – but that’s no excuse for crappy research or writing, so to Admin, you guys and all the readers I apologize.
Grim – something ‘close’ to the USN’s LCS ? Well yes, and no……
Not gold plated, oversized speedboat capable of 45 kts with a fully enclosed mission bay, but hopefully cheap, of commercial construction standards, with an open multi-purpose area.
However the general concept in that it carries the kit required for a specific role such as ASW or MCM is the same.
I’ve been doing more thinking on the C3 and if we wanted to go down the route of a larger vessel then I’m pretty much set on a modified BMT Venator design. This is my own personal preferred approach to the C3 part of the Future Surface Combatant tiered concept. I’ve had another read of this paper http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/BMTVenator.pdf by BMT as the last time I read it was a while ago. There are several options laid out in the paper for variations in the hull in regards to the length and beam. With the larger hull option 9 then it should be fully possible to comfortably fit a hangar large enough for a lynx helicopter while still retaining the general upper deck layout. The upper deck boat davits could easily be deleted as there is already a large boat garage below decks that can also launch and recover craft. The additional hull length would allow for additional fuel and stores allowing for longer periods between replenishment at sea while also in some circumstances improving sea keeping. Additional hull length should perhaps most importantly of all cost little during the build stage however more powerful diesel engines may be needed to maintain design speed. There is a balance that would need to be struck between size, capability and overall cost.
My reason for supporting this design is partly because it was purposely designed from scratch around the C3 criteria given to industry by the Royal Navy and Ministry of Defence. Therefore the design most certainly includes everything that would be desired by the end user and most importantly the dreaded bean counters. The design seems simple in my mind but I’m only a random person with an interest in this area. Simplicity is a good attribute as there should be little to no risk of unproven technology causing problems in the construction of such a vessel hopefully keeping costs lower. There are drawbacks with this design and those mainly centre on the fact that it is entirely a paper design from a design house rather than shipbuilders with recent experience. It must be noted however that BMT does have an excellent design team and have been involved in many projects both in the United Kingdom and abroad so that helps mitigate some of the risk. We must also remember that the Venator design is essentially an armed auxiliary NOT a warship and is not designed to warship standards. This is a double edged sword and would need to be thoroughly looked at by professionals to balance the survivability requirements against the overall design using some innovative thinking.
I think the equipment fit on such a vessel should be kept intentionally basic to restrain cost and allow for hopefully larger production runs further pushing down unit costs. If unit cost is within an acceptable limit there may even be the possibility for exports to foreign customers bolstering a fragile UK shipbuilding industry. What I mean when I say basic equipment fit is no developmental unproven equipment everything on board should be already proven in military or commercial service. Ideally common UK equipment should be fitted form a long term support perspective however this may not always be ideal if such equipment is UK specific with a small user base as these ships are designed to be deployed alone for long periods. I see little need for expensive or sophisticated C4I capabilities as these can be the among the most costly equipment sets in warship procurement. They should also not be required because if they are needed then frankly a higher class of vessel should be in the area to fulfil those requirements rather than lumping costly equipment onto what is supposed to be an inexpensive class of ship.
From the ‘Fun’ to talk about perspective of weaponry the basic fit as shown in the images a 76mm gun and 2 standard 30mm medium calibre guns, additional remote small calibre weapons systems would be an idea. This armament should be adequate for most missions that the C3 should be assigned to alone such as maritime security operations, presence missions or OOTW. If any significant threat exists then in ‘peacetime’ another more capable vessel should be made available and in times of conflict the C3 vessels should be in the process of being reequipped to cope with a larger threat library. Ideally if cost is negligible the C3 should be fitted for but not with CAMM so that a later date if deemed necessary it could be so equipped. Sensors is another area that is often discussed in regards to warships as it is an important capability area, after all if you cannot see you cannot hope to do much. My thinking is a basic 3D radar such as the Saab Sea Giraffe would be ideal for an OPV as it offers both sea and air surveillance hopefully at a low price and importantly is a proven low risk option. Electro optical equipment is an area saturated by various systems and one where I have no knowledge the standard RN fit would be a sensible and obvious option. Countermeasures are an area that is debatable whether they should be fitted or not to a C3. If they are fitted there may be an inclination to send a vessel into harm’s way when it is stupid to do so however having no countermeasures leaves a vessel vulnerable. My own view is the C3’s should be fitted for but not with such a capability although equipment should be fitted ASAP during the service life.
I thought I would post this in the comments on Jed’s post as it’s mainly focussing on the larger vessel ‘corvette’ option which I prefer. However as you should have gathered I prefer a less well equipped C3 to what I gather Jed would like to see although I think it’s based on having no C2 class.
Euan – I am right with on this one, if we could get 12 to 14 BMT Venator type vessels as you describe in your comment, alongside 8 x T45, 10 x T45 derived C1 and 12 x Absalon derived C2 that would be fine by me !
I’d be looking for more than a dozen wishful thinking maybe but I would call them Armed Auxiliaries and just order them in two’s when I could scrape the cash together or when there was blip in production. Ideally I would aim for around 20 or more perhaps in 2 slightly different batches the second batch incorporating the lessons learned from the first. The idea is that they will be built at smaller yards in blocks, yards such as Fergusons on the Clyde and assembled at a dry dock somewhere. Basically it’s economic stimulus for the fragile shipbuilding industry to keep the smaller yards ticking over and stop the few remaining shipyards going down the pan it could also help them improve and innovate. Since the Venator is largely designed to commercial standards it should be possible to do this without much hassle and it should be politically feasible and attractive if they are cheap enough. The big BAE yards on the Clyde and should be kept busy with proper warships frigates and the like for a while then a new LPH etc going in a cycle.
I would be pretty content with 8:10:12:XX as a force structure nice balanced and with some sensible designs affordable while sustaining the shipbuilding industry.
*pops up and defibrillates the post* Zzzzzzzzzap!
Something J Waller mentioned in another comment thread on the latest MSM blog post about developing the C3 sooner. “Perhaps we should seriously think about developing the C3 variant of the Future Surface Combatant/ frigate programme sooner.”
Well in my opinion categorically YES, in the last few years BVT have managed to sell about half a dozen OPV’s to Oman, Trinidad and Tobago as well as elsewhere I think. So it would make sense to feed them more work in that area immediately or sooner rather than later so it’s still fresh in their minds. Although it’s money we don’t really have right at this point in time for what they cost compared to other vessels and their utility in the modern world it’s well worth finding some money. With budgets projected to be tight it would be an option to push back frigate replacements even further and as a temporary measure replace them or bridge the gap with C3 class vessels for a couple of years. As for producing them I would vote for the BVT Portsmouth Yard which has built the OPV’s sold to foreign customers and could specialise in smaller vessels for domestic and foreign customers.
I can naturally find problems with the idea as well for instance the shipyards are going to be busy with the 2 CVF hulls for probably quite some time at least for the next 6 years I would say. Soon after that we will have to get moving and start replacing the frigate force with C1 and C2 designs if not the escort fleet will drop further still. However the hunt class will be nearing the end of their service lives by mid decade so the C3 could simply be proposed as a replacement for the existing MCM vessels which is part of its role. So the shipyards will be busy probably not to capacity as more work would obviously be welcomed but financially there are a lot of programs needing to produce results close to each other. (Although I would have the MARS program wholly built abroad)
Historicaly corvette vessels and small vessels in their class have proved to be poor patrol vessels especially in the Royal navy. There short range and small size mean they find it very difficult to carry out long patrols especially in the rough seas of the Atlantic which is ultimately where Royal navy ships spend a large part of their time. The experience of the type 21 frigate pays tribute to this. The vessel was simply too small and suffered in the ruff seas of the atlantic. This vessels is also considerably larger than what we a proposing. During World War 2 the corvette proved to be a poor escort due to its low sea faring abilities and where quickly replaced by frigates. Ultimately its the systems that cost the most not the actual vessel. If you are going to by the systems at least house them on a larger vessel that can go any where at anytime and don’t restrict your capabilities by housing them on a smaller vessel which has a resicted sea faring ability. Corvettes at present are only successfully used on short patrols though home waters and in calm seas. You just have to look at a map to realise we are an island surrounded by the roughests seas in the world with territories that are thousands of miles apart. The royal navy need vessels that are flexible and can go anywhere at any time and the C3 vessels simply aren’t capable of that. If you where to want to have a vessel that could easily and quickly swap systems and so roles in harbour(as proposed by in the C3 concept) you could still do this on a medium frigate hull. This illusion that a larger ship must be increadibly better armed is silly its whats on the ship not its size which determines its importance. Ultimately its the systems that make up the most proportionate cost not difference between a 100 metre vessel or a 135 metre vessel.