I think it’s a simple confusion. When I first saw the Absalon design a while ago, I thought the exact same thing. Not too far off the mark, it seems, as the Germans are reportedly putting CB90s on the Berlin-class support ships.

The CB90H certainly seems to be an inspiration for the SRC90E design; Some quick research indicates that the SRC90E was, indeed, derived from the CB90H design, with “E” for “Enkal” (Simple). So the SRC90E is a simplified CB90, built by a different company with a reduced capacity and size to match. Both vessels were designed by the Swedish defense materials agency, which certainly added to the familial resemblance.

The tricky bit is that Dockstavarvet has also developed similarly-sized patrol/landing craft that would compete with the SRC90E. The main distinction (visually) is in the orientation of the pilot house…it tips forwards in the Dockstavarvet craft and slants back in the Storebro craft.

The matter is also helpfully complicated by the original language for the boats. The CB90H “Combat Boat 90″ was originally known as the “Stridsbåt 1990 Hav pluton” (SB90 H, or Strb 90). The SRC90E is marketed as the “Storbro Rescue/Reconnaissance Craft” (SRC), also known (depending on the customer) as “Stridsbåt 90 Enkal” or “Storebro 90E” (SB90E).

I like the idea of sharing the LCS MCM / MIW packages – but aren’t they delayed and over cost?
Delayed (overly ambitious, technically), unnecessarily complicated (not having an organic towed sonar array and thus trying to figure out how to put one on a robo-RIB, using multiple UUVs where 1-2 models would work) and more expensive due to underestimated technical challenges and larger cost per unit development costs as the programs are down-sized.

Given the time period to the C2 adoption, the problems should be smoothed out by then…maybe. At worst, the RN could pick up some of the better bits (like the RAMICS and other helicopter-based systems) and drop the less good bits.

Imagine how we could keep the costs down if the RN bought them, the USN, the Canadians…the Aussies and Kiwis…
So you still miss your old empire? Seriously, though, who knows? Make it work well enough and they might go for it.

True, the Absalons were not constructed quite in that fashion (in terms of Radar, when and where things were installed) but it seems to be OSS’s new MO for such future projects (especially since they reportedly lost money, or made only a little money, on the Absalons). The problems included having the different systems installed in less than perfect order, thus delaying the completion of the ship.

My bet is on the Danes for project management…they seem to still be hungry for their ships and don’t worry about internal politics as much as a working ship. The boost in prestige would also certainly be welcomed.

The idea is that the United Kingdom would largely follow the same route however with the Odense Steel Shipyards new naval division being the contractor rather than equipment being government furnished. Or an alternative would be to possibly hire or place the contract with the Danish defence materiel command them being the main contractor or project managers for the UK MoD as the customer (Similar somewhat to the US FMS). I realise I may be talking from another orifice as I am not familiar with this contract or UK MoD contracting so I am happy to listen to those with greater experience in this area. However the UK MoD’s record in the past is enough for me to try and keep the MoD at arm’s length to try and limit any possibility of any purchase simply being another chalk mark under ‘fail’.

Your absolutely right about the boats being smaller – I believe the CB90E is a different designation for the same boat, but I could be wrong.

Ref the Typhoon, you might be right about the weight of the CTA 40 – the telescoped round is supposed to be a similar size to a 25mm round, but I admit I have no data on the mass of the weapon.

I like the idea of sharing the LCS MCM / MIW packages – but aren’t they delayed and over cost ?

Imagine how we could keep the costs down if the RN bought them, the USN, the Canadians (at least 4 to replace Iroquis), the Aussies and Kiwis (to replace ANZACS) – of course we could never be that coordinated could we !

A few (very) minor points:
- The Absalon carries two SRC90E utility/landing boats. Although somewhat similar to the CB90, they are constructed by a partner company of Dockstavarvet (the CB90 manufacturer) and are much more oriented towards utility missions. I’d love to seem them try to fit in the CB90, however, especially since it could be a quite heavily armed interceptor for the Absalon. The boat deploying crane might need some reinforcement to deploy the CB90.

- I see no reason to eliminate the extra flex space. It would be reasonable to adapt much of it to other duties, semi-permanently, as you suggest…but I think that it would be nice to be able to drop in a infantry or mechanized company on short notice (in case of future Falklands-type situations), which doesn’t replace the existing amphibious capabilities, but certainly augments them for contingency operations. I like the idea of a dedicated UAV shop and the lift.

- As far as towed arrays go, couldn’t the boat crane be used to support/deploy a towed sonar? Why not just take whatever tech works best from the LCS MCM/MIW packages and deploy that? Make the USN happy it can afford the systems (due to increased production volume) and let the RN not worry about developing the same tech over again.

- The Typhoon RWS is only (currently) rated up to a 30mm cannon. I’ve never looked into what the recoil forces are for the CTA Int’l 40mm cased munition, which is a bit over sized for the platform, but it might be possible to upgrade the station (I’m sure Rafael and BAE would be happy to help). I’m not sure how much ammunition capacity you’d lose by going to the 40mm (the telescoping helps) vs. benefit.

BAE’s website for the Mk38 Mod2 has some information about the ability to upgrade from 25mm to 30mm, increase the ammunition capacity (from 250 to 400rds) and add a second, smaller (7.62mm) machine gun (also with 400rds) for lesser targets.

Even better, there is an AHEAD-styled Air Bursting Munition (30×173 ABM from Rheinmetall) for the 30mm Bushmaster gun that can be optionally fired depending on the target. The Bushmaster has dual ammunition feeds for this gun, so the operator could switch between an API, ABM or other rounds based on the threat profile. It also adds to the local small target defense for the ship.

- That being said, the Typhoon GS (Gun and Spike ATGMs) seems to mount only 2 SPIKE-ER ATGMs. The Typhoon GSA (Gun and SAMs)likely also takes 2 missiles, though that is better than not having them.

I must politely disagree with Euan. The Danes got the Absalons from OSS, but the OSS contract didn’t include the radar and weapons. They weren’t included in the contract with OSS, although it was installed at the yards.

According to a recent issue of DTI (p. 29), the radar mast shells are shipped from OSS to Thales (Hengelo, NL), where all of the systems are incorporated under a separate contract. The mast, with systems, is then shipped back to an OSS yard for installation. The final connections are completed by the radar specialists (who also installed the supporting equipment at the shipyard). The weapons related systems are installed by the Danish defense ministry.

The weapons were provided from existing fleet vessels (as you suggest, excellently, the RN should do) and the Radar and FCS systems were installed by other contractors (including a fair bit of work at the OSS yard, during primary construction, but not under OSS direction). By using existing (on-hand) weapons systems, the first Huitfeldt-class frigates will have 2, 76mm main guns forward, until they are replaced (as budgets allow) by one millennium CIWS and one 127mm gun…but it means that they get a working warship earlier and can bring it up to full capability as funding priorities allow. These allowances are good news for the RN, as it allows a great deal of customization and leaves something for local industry.

Ref non-flex deck space – basically we don’t need the full length flex deck and could use it for something else – having said that if it makes the difference between getting 12 and 8, then keep it ! (and role in additional C4I equipment in containers as required).

Ref propulsion – OK, sure I read somewhere that T45 has pods – but again, if keeping the propulsion plant exactly the same made a difference in how many we got, then keep it the same.

In regards to UK equipment and commonality I would suggest trying to install as much common equipment as possible. However within what the shipbuilders, designers etc will agree to on a fixed everything contract that would get us ships for £200mln including equipment. We would say we want this list of common equipment must haves and after that we would like as much UK based work as your happy to agree to under the fixed everything contract. The shipbuilders would be responsible for the project etc the MoD would not be the project managers they would be the customer. Main equipment I would change is the Radar, Sonar, missile systems and command system but not much else I can think of because of what I said above.

One main thing that jumps out at me is the proposed change to the propulsion from what you’ve written I don’t think you know that no ship in the Royal Navy uses pods for propulsion. Even although the T45, Albion and the CVF are ‘electric ships’ they all use shafts turned by large electric motors. The fuss about the T45 propulsion is that the electric motor is the sole source of propulsion the shafts are no longer coupled to mechanical gearboxes the motor is responsible for the full speed range. Type 23 frigates have diesel electric propulsion at low speeds it runs on electric motors so it’s quiet for ASW but at higher speeds the gas turbines are directly driving the shafts via a gearbox. You probably know that about the type 23 but it helps explain the point better to anyone reading this.

The Absalon as is uses 2 large commercial diesel engines arranged in a CODAD set-up which is simpler, cheaper and easier to maintain and should be very efficient. I would prefer not to change the propulsion system as change would mean tinkering deep down in the hull moving more structural things around. Which is quite different compared to partitioning off a big open space both from a cost and engineering design point of view. The current propulsion system is fine from my point of view as the diesel engines are supposed to be mounted on vibration dampening mounts “the machinery is installed on vibration isolation elastomeric mounts”. I’ve no idea if this is specifically aimed at being quieter for the ship’s crew or for lowering the acoustic signature of the vessel. I would imagine it does a bit of both and since the C2 is not a specialist ASW platform it does not need an excellent acoustic signature but if needed additional measures could be taken to further lower the ships signature.

The other proposed structural design modification the shortening of the Flex deck I’m not sure about if it was a fixed everything contract and if shipbuilders/designers agreed to it then yup no problem. It would add more space for things but one thing I noticed on the diagram was the tag saying “Laundry and Gym”. The ratings mess is also in the tag and from the colours they are all in a stack on different decks and having the mess and gym close to each other as well as the accommodation does make sense. If things are sized to support 300 people that will include the laundry so there will be more space down there for a bigger gym, the mess also might be bigger than needed but that can stay. I wonder what the junior ratings accommodation is like how many to a cabin etc.

In response to the comments. Phil I think you have a point it’s a foreign design but times are changing and they need to change with it or essentially not last very much longer without learning what others have learned. If it were between Absalon derivatives and something costlier therefore only bought in smaller numbers I would hope they would see the light and choose the numbers vs design nationality. As for how it looks Absalon looks alright curves and angles whereas to me the Type 45 is fugly maybe because it has no clothes on, such as CIWS or Harpoon. I agree with the adoption of the 127mm gun as it’s pretty logical to join the masses if we are to operate much more in combined operations with shared support assets.

Dominic I agree with Jed a gun costs very little and is a flexible asset even against pirates, smugglers and drug runners it has a purpose and that is making them sh1t themselves by plopping a shell in front of them. Also as Jed has already pointed out if we are going to spend more time in the littoral environment having a gun that can hit targets well inland or pound a closer target is useful. There was the discussion before the Falklands do we need a naval gun I think they sure found the answer to that one and subsequently it was must to have a naval gun.

Mike your comment seems to be a bit wonky maybe try typing in Word and then posting it. It also makes very little sense as the C1 and C2 class are mean to replace the frigates and C3 is meant to replace the various other vessels such as the River, Hunt and Sandown classes. The numbers are debatable but I would say 8:12:12 seems to be what some people seem to agree on as what the MoD/RN are thinking and would most likely order.

I think a medium calibre gun endows a great deal of flexibility. With modern IR guided and laser guided shells these are about more than just Naval Gunnery Support to the Marines / land forces. However who is to say that we won’t need NGS – there is a lot of discussion about how many of our ops in the future will be in the littoral – so a gun with over the horizon range, precision guided rounds could be very useful.

Who said the RN’s main class of warship (as in there would be more of these than T45 or C1)) will only ever chase pirates ? I don’t claim a crystal ball, but equipping your ships only for the current threat is very, very short sighted, and as far as weapons systems go, a medium caliber gun is cheap, so why not hedge your bets and carry one anyway ?

I am totally with you on the medium calibre gun front, I have always said that we should be using the NATO standard 127mm – I have some figures on rate of fire and shell weight somewhere, and in my eyes the higher potential number of 127mm rounds makes up for their smaller size in HE terms. Plus of course, its tried and tested kit, which is non-developmental and “off the shelf” – I stuck with the 4.5inch above just for sheer budget reducing pragmatism !

In normal usage, they’ll be fighting unarmoured speed boats and the odd cargo vessel, in the event of a fight is it not likely several 20-30mm cannon would be more much more useful than a single big gun, or even just heavy machine guns and grenade machine guns?

In the event of a proper war, are they ever going to get a chance to use an artilery piece?
Lets face it, they’re either going to be launching missiles at extreme range and running, or being used as cannon fodder to take the take the bullet for more valuable assets.

It just seems an odd medium capability to retain.

I fear that this is far too sensibly a vessel for the MoD to adopt and the Admiralty would baulk at foreign design.

My concerns with all the existing and proposed ships is the armament. We really do need to upgrade and standardise our weapons. The 4.5 needs to be replaced but I don’t thing 155mm is really the answer I would prefer the 5″ / 127mm. The number of different cannons and calibre used by the RN is crazy. The Millenium gun idea seems to be a perfect way of providing both a CIWS function with excellent Anti-Ship / Surface strike capability. As you say, if the CTA is capable of providing the same capability as the millenium then that would be excellent.