The Royal Navy either is or should be involved in a wide range of missions that manifestly do not need a high end warship either in construction, sensor or armament terms, yet because of a lack of any credible alternative we often send the escort fleet; over stretching crews and vessels alike.
The old saying applies, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Some of the standing patrol taskings have recently been completed by RFA vessels; much to the horror of the Daily Mail, however, there is a sneaky suspicion among many that RFA type ships are actually much better suited to some tasks than frigates. A towed sonar array or Harpoon missile are not actually that useful in drugs interdiction, anti piracy or disaster relief operations. The standing patrols are often dual hatted with an escort and RFA vessel working together now, is this overly resource intensive.
The C3 concept envisages a low end ship that can support these low end tasks but also contribute in a meaningful way should the bullets start flying. This is a fundamental problem C3, the requirements for offshore patrol and warlike capabilities push the design towards a warship, increasing cost and inevitably decreasing number. It is the numbers that count and what will make the concept work. Because it will have to self deploy at across oceanic distances and have good sea keeping qualities the size starts sneaking up. As size increases so it seems does the crew, there is then a temptation to add more and more armament and sensors until you have turned a cheap multi-purpose vessel into a light frigate or corvette, a more warlike than utility vessel with the attendant compromise in the capacity for carrying useful payloads.
The end result is a design that is unaffordable in the kind of numbers needed.
Although proposals for C3 seem to be as numerous as the other FSC concepts there seems to be an inevitable drift towards a corvette type design i.e. a small warship, with all that entails.
There has been some discussion about so called influence squadrons, a term coined by Commander Hendrix of the US Navy, that combine soft power capabilities such as medical support, disaster relief and training backed up with a medium scale expeditionary ground component and the ability to conduct piracy or drug smuggling interdiction in the littoral environment. The squadron would have its own logistics and be covered by a missile armed destroyer. It’s a very interesting concept and although worthy of some discussion the concept would probably not suit the RN, a less patronising name might be needed as well.
It sparks a debate though, a different might be needed; an area ripe for the traditional Royal Navy innovation that has eluded us for so long. There have been many other studies and subsequent discussion on and off line, there does seem to be an awful lot of intellectual capital being invested in the concept but very little in terms of real capital. The area of most innovation seems to be in cost reduction and through life management rather than doctrine or design.
Of course the Royal Navy can and does assemble multi-purpose task groups as demonstrated on many occasions but these will generally comprise multi-purpose warships and RFA vessels, not always entirely suited to the task. Exposing very expensive frigates and destroyers to environments where a lucky RPG shot might put that very scarce resource out of action for an extended period is not a sensible use of resources.
We have made the point previously that the UK is actually doing very well out of piracy but this is short term, if we allow piracy to continue making a mockery of the rule of law then the effects will be significant and there are increasing signs of potential exploitation by terrorist organisations. African pirates seem to be doing a reasonable job of carrying out elements of sea denial operations and the massed ranks of the worlds navies seem to be only partially successful at their old fashioned role of sea control. Naval activity has concentrated on projecting force onto land and neglected the ability to deny and control the maritime domain to others.
Drug interdiction is also a valuable mission to carry out, despite the raging debate over legality, drugs have a corrosive effect on producer nations and beyond, it is likely to remain a key mission for the Royal Navy.
Weapons smuggling interdiction will also be a common mission.
These requirements need a blend of capabilities but none of them require anti aircraft missiles or dipping sonar and small patrol vessels like the River class are simply too small to be of use in missions that require stores or helicopter support, as many of them do.
Drugs interdiction, anti piracy, training/mentoring (an area that should be expanded), medical support, disaster relief and explosive munitions clearance would be typical missions.
In a higher threat environment whilst operating under the cover of the Type 45’s and C1’s, mine clearance and amphibious survey could be added. Patrol and presence type operations or amphibious force support may also be undertaken in the littoral in support of onshore operations
The list seems to be endless but all of them fall short of requiring a ‘warship’
Our modest proposal is to create a number of standing formations based on a four tier structure, a logistics support vessel supporting a number of general purpose vessels and two classes of inshore/offshore patrol boats. Force structures would flexible, being able to be supplemented with other vessels as needed but the general thrust is to create a flexible force that can deploy together as a package.
There is no point creating a force structure if no mandate exists for it to operate so at this point it might be a good time to review how the UK contributes to standing patrol requirements, with what equipment or if at all. Maritime defence diplomacy or soft power is under resourced and its effects under appreciated, this needs to change. This review would be the result of a wider review, of NATO for example. We will discuss this a little further in future posts, including forward basing and where our resources should be focussed for the benefit of the UK.
To counter asymmetric threats a network of vessels needs to be maintained, remote sensors or UAV’s are means to extend this network but are no substitute for boats on the water. The only way to achieve numerical advantage, unless a pot of gold is found at the end of the rainbow, is to recognise that miniature warships in small numbers is not the answer.
With our back of the fag packet costings we could afford 2 LSV and 8 GPV’s with its helicopters, patrol boats and UAV’s for a billion pounds, a reasonable sum given the costs of other naval equipment and the estimated cost of FSC.
When you read the key features it will become obvious that they are not warships, the main components are slow and have very little offensive armament but the utility is derived from numbers and its embarked capabilities.
This is quite removed from the original C3 concept and definitely creates a capability that would not be particularly survivable in a hostile environment of anti ship missiles unless it had cover provided by the escort fleet, but that is not its purpose.
Comparative costs and effects between a task group comprising this concept and others would be an interesting exercise.
With this concept the delineation between war fighting and other roles is very clear.
Basic design features as follows.
Contents
Logistics Support Vessel (LSV)
Providing logistics support and crew sustainment would be a single multi-purpose logistics and support vessel, persistence in the area of operations is a key success factor for this concept so crews could rotate in and out as required.
Key features would be…
- Able to carry significant sustainment supplies (fuel, water, food, spares & ammunition etc), disaster relief supplies, a range of mobile plant, transport vehicles and other equipment
- Appropriately scaled at sea replenishment capability, able to support a force of between 4 and 6 General Purpose Vessels (GPV)
- Containerised auxiliary water purification equipment, able to operate dismounted from the ship
- Containerised auxiliary power generation equipment, able to operate dismounted from the ship
- Containerised hospital, lab and diagnostic facilities, able to operate dismounted from the ship. Basic hospital facilities would also be retained as an integral feature
- Extended accommodation for embarked force (training, construction, signals, logistics and medical specialists)
- Equipment maintenance facility for vehicles, maritime and aviation equipment
- Enhanced command, control and communication facilities
- Able to load and offload in austere locations, damaged port facilities and at sea using mexefloat, RORO ramps, high capacity cranes and a vehicle landing craft in a well deck
- Roll on roll off loading facilities and high capacity deck cranes (100 tonne)
- Soft kill self defence systems and small calibre automatic weapons carried as standard
- Fitted for but not with Phalanx CIWS
- Weapon container position for possible future containerised CAMM
- Basic sensor fit
- 15-20 knot speed, standard electric diesel propulsion
There is any number of potential off the shelf or easily modified designs to fulfil this requirement but the most obvious one would be a modified Bay class or another derivative of the Royal Schelde Enforcer class.
Construction needs to be sturdy but not necessarily to full naval specifications and we should strongly consider building offshore. These should not be complex and any sensitive equipment can be fitted in the UK. Whilst the Bay Class would hardly be a shining example of low cost construction a follow on design, suitably modified and constructed as a result of international tender should not cost any more than £200million
General Purpose Vessel (GPV)
The GPV is the jack of most trades, definitely not a warship but possessing some warlike capabilities. The real utility of this vessel will be in what it carries (6 patrol boats, a light helicopter and mission modules), not what it is fitted with.
Key features would be…
- Able to operate a light utility helicopters including hangar, likely the Wildcat although a lower cost alternative like the AW139, Agusta Westland A109, EC135 or similar would be more appropriate as discussed many times on Think Defence
- The landing spot should support a medium sized helicopter like the Merlin but this would be the exception
- Capacity for large number of containerised mission modules on an open deck
- Carry a number of small UAV’s, the Boeing Insitu Scan Eagle as per our UAV post would be ideal as it is compact and easily operated from small vessels
- Able to operate a wide range of UUV for mine clearance, survey and other support tasks including the Sea Fox and Remus types already in service
- Able to carry, launch and recover 6 small patrol boats whilst under way
- Accommodation for mission specialists, boarding parties or other embarked personnel
- Moon pool for covert and convenient UUV deployment
- 12-15 knot with extended range and endurance
- 2x Containerised weapon positions
- Basic sensor fit
- Fuel for embarked boats, unmanned vehicles and helicopters
- Small command, control facilities with extensive communication support
- Soft kill self defence systems and small calibre automatic weapons carried as standard
- Fitted for but not with Phalanx CIWS
- Large open deck with power, data, water and sanitation connections for mission containers
Again, there are several construction options but a modified, sturdy and very low cost offshore support vessels from Rolls Royce UT, STX Europe designs or Ulstein S Series would be an interesting option to fulfil this role. There is a great deal of worldwide design and construction experience, with operation and construction costs been driven relentlessly down and and they are generally very sturdy and durable. Modifications would of course have to be designed in but even the larger offshore support vessels tend to cost as little as £30million although some of the more complex designs cost considerably more. It is presented here merely as a possible design route, using simple and economic designs and evolving them, rather than starting from scratch.
As with the LSV the design and construction could be split with the construction being subject to international competition to drive costs down. Even if we budgeted £75million that price would likely include the patrol boats (about a million pounds each) and a helicopter.
Could it replace a frigate or destroyer on a typical solo patrol, that would depend on where and when I guess but in many cases, yes it could.
Patrol Boats
The patrol boats will operate both on the open ocean and in the littoral so competing mission requirements might conspire to create separate designs. In this role, speed, reduced signature and toughness are key attributes.
The Royal Marines operate a number of assault boats, rigid raiders and other similar designs but they are more suited to assault type operations rather than sustained patrol.
Small arms, automatic weapons and RPG’s are likely to be ranged against it, so as ground vehicles are having to relearn old lessons about survivability so should patrol boats. All the current designs are lightweight or based on RHIB’s and against an RPG or sustained automatic fire are vulnerable. Speed and mobility provide significant defence but it is not enough and some form of armour must be a design priority.
Existing RHIB’s might be suitable for some roles but are vulnerable to small arms and the exposed crew will suffer in rough seas, however the situational awareness afforded by the open design may be advantageous in the littoral environment.
An obvious choice for the smaller type would be the Combat Boat 90 from Docksta Varvet, equipped with a remote weapons mount and heavy machine gun or grenade machine gun. Other light weapons might include anti tank type guided weapons or lightweight automatic cannons.
It is essential that this variant is fitted with additional protection against small arms and RPG’s, slat armour or even the Tarian cloth armour panels if they could be suitably marinised should be considered. A principle design objective is to retain the speed but improve protection for when operating close inshore. The CB90 is more of an assault boat than a patrol boat and Docksta Varvet make a number of larger, longer ranged designs that might be more suitable for offshore patrol in conjunction with the General Purpose Vessel.
Whichever designs are chosen the objective is to create a flexible force of differing capacities and characteristics that can be supported from the GPV and LSV as required.
Mission Modules
When BMT looked at concept of containerised mission modules using the standard 20foot ISO container they concluded that it was sub optimal and recommended a bespoke design. The advantages of standard ISO containers is their ubiquity and low cost, so it might be worth another look in the context of this proposal, especially as the BMT study looked at a relatively standard warship design rather than the more utilitarian proposal above.
The Danish Stanflex concept of mission and weapon modules is also worthy of a further look but there are disadvantages to this approach.
In one of our earlier posts we looked at the utility of ISO containers and the creation of a series of self contained systems, for example CAMM or other guided weapons for surface or land attack. These could be plugged into the power and open architecture combat management system and could augment the combat power of the GPV on a needs basis.
More conventional ISO containers can be used for accommodation, briefings rooms, medical facilities, stores, decontamination equipment, liquid tanks, generators, communications equipment and all manner of other ‘useful things’
Modules and containers should be obtained in quantity to provide flexibility and they could be forward based.
Extending the Concept
One of the main problems for the adoption of smaller patrol vessels is range, sea keeping and endurance. All these factors push up size and although size and cost are not directly related the general trend is. One promising idea is that of the semi submersible mother ship. Navies already practice this to greater or lesser degrees with bulk deployment of mines countermeasures vessels being transported to the Gulf region by semi submersible bulk transporters from Dockwise.
The Australian Armidale Class Patrol Boat would be an interesting choice for a more muscular patrol boat (once they get the toilets sorted) but at nearly 300 tonnes and 60metres is too big to carry on a conventional ship but is too small to self deploy and stay on station for any reasonable length of time.
Austal also have a multi role corvette design that looks novel, this could also be transported to its area of operations and the crew flown out to meet it.
Another idea worthy of some discussion would be to create a semi submersible mother ship with fuel, crew accommodation and stores and marry it to a squadron of patrol boats like the Armidale. The Dockwise Yacht Transporter could accommodate 12 Armidale’s, transport them to an area and retire to a safe distance. Although the embarkation process requires benign inshore sea conditions it could be a workable solution.
The semi submersible does not have to be large either, there has been proposed semi submersible version of the US Frank S Besson logistic support ship and this could be a smaller alternative.
Summary
There may be gaps in this concept, it might be total nonsense but is intended, as with all our stuff, to encourage discussion.
There have been several other interesting ideas on low cost but more numerous maritime security forces that can counter proliferating asymmetric threats but all of them are characterised by a move away from frigates and towards lower cost platforms, trading capability for quantity.
So, get discussing:D
Wow, venturing slightly into Information Dissemination and Small Wars territory with talk of motherships etc
I am not sure I agree with your comment on C3 designs – perhaps the closest to this is the VT based idea I sent you, but as for:
“Although proposals for C3 seem to be as numerous as the other FSC concepts there seems to be an inevitable drift towards a corvette type design i.e. a small warship, with all that entails.” well I am not sure I would agree with that, based on most of the open source designs I have seen.
Otherwise your GPV seems to be pretty close to most C3 concepts, except the moon pool, for which I really don’t see a need !
Your LSV is not a million miles away from what I have suggested in my piece on the future of the RFA I sent you – something based on a Schelde Enforcer class hull, mothership for some UAV’s and Dockstarvet Interceptors and CB90′s – all good stuff.
What I don’t get, is that everyone seems critical of the cost effectiveness of using a high end asset such as a T45 for ‘low end’ tasking such as anti-piracy, but no one seems critical of the reverse. Can the RN (or any navy) afford to buy vessels which are only of any utility in a very low threat environment ? What is the role of these vessels in a medium to high threat “shooting war” ? I am thinking of the possible wide spread availability of land launched AShM. So really the only thing I disagree with in your details is “fitted for but not with” Phalanx – I would make that fitted with 2 x Phalanx 1B, limited radar warning if not full ESM, Link 11 / Link 16 and a full set of rocket launchers for chaff, flares, off board active jammers and torpedo decoys.
In summary, not nonsense, but your main ‘gap’ appears to be what these units bring in scenarios other than anti-piracy, anti-smuggling constabulary ops. If the honest answer is “nothing” then I think we can no more afford them than we could an “exquisite fleet” of 36 T45 and T45 derived “high end battleships”.
My thinking on the whole mothership concept is more of a Bay with a bit of aviation maintenance and RAS, supporting the larger GPV’s rather than patrol boats directly but that would work as well.
Moon pool, most of these designs come as standard with them so probably easier to leave in than take out and they would be handy for sheltered diver/UAS operation like the Remus for example. My GPV idea differs from most of what I have seen because visually it does not look like a warship and has a much greater capacity for embarked craft and mission containers, emphasizing these over fitted weapons. The designs I have seen seem to make these features important but relegated to lower in the pecking order, I put them at the top of the list.
I know what you are saying about cost effectiveness of low end assets, its a good point. However it comes down to capital and running costs versus the actual threat environment the RN operates in for the vast majority of its time and the kinds of missions it does for the vast majority of time. I purposely made them pretty poorly armed because they are not warships, they are not warships because you dont need warships for watery COIN.
If you need an escort send one, not one of these.
Watery COIN and all that entails is the kind of thing the RN should be doing but it cant because it is hamstrung by its size and it would arguably make a greater contribution to UK maritime security than what we are doing at the moment.
Are they affordable, thats the billion pound question but quick calculations lead to me believe a 2 LSV, 8 GPV with all the trimmings (inc heli and UAV costs) would be about a billion quid. The question has to be, would that billion contribute more or less to UK security overall than if it was spent on the 6-8 Rivers or 1 and a half C1′s or a single Type 45.
I am going to post up your ideas later to create a couple of different ideas approaches to the issue for everyone to get their teeth into.
I really like the creative energy in this post. Will have more comments later.
Admin old boy, I am totally NOT dissing your ideas, I hope my comment did not come across that way. As Galrahn (the blogger who got my interest back in all things Naval !)noted, your to be applauded for “thinking outside the box”.
I just think we can go toooo far to “COIN” in a maritime context, just as you can on land. “Next war-itis” is bad, but so is blinkered, tunnel vision. I think in a U.S. context your GPV would be a U.S.C.G. vessel – in the RN context should they be RFA’s with Naval Parties onboard ?
Your LSV would obviously be RFA, and would even seem to have a “big war” role in the amphibious squadron, or as a general stores support ship.
As I said in my first comment – the threat evolves, so as long as the vessel has the capacity to evolve too (although our budget probably would not) might mean that your unconventional proposal would have great merit.
Still, where do you foresee us deploying these squadrons ? Gulf of Aden I can see, but Caribean for anti drug ops – seems a bit over the top. Northern gulf around the Iraqi oil fields – well I suppose under land based air support you might protect the squadron against Iranian air or AShM missile attack (hey you never know with those guys !).
Really enjoyed this post. The term “Influence Squadron” was used to suggest a role and mission, not necessarily to be actually used (InfRon as an acronym just doesn’t sing). I have done some additional research and thinking along the lines of what actually should be used to comprise the Influence Squadron, so look for an article later this spring. Thanks again for noticing and commenting. I did my PhD in the London, so its nice to have some notice over there.
I agree with many of this sites ideas mainly since I have been promoting many them myself for years. Let me give a little overview then speak specifically.
Motherships can run the gamut from warship (with all the cons indicated above) to armed naval auxiliary (a concept I like as much as you) to specialized sealift ships to include not only dockships, but clear deck Flo/Flos and converted container ships. Maersk has been marketing the conversion of one of its S-class container ship to large AFSB but that is far too large for the mothership being proposed here.
The GPV fits what I think an armed naval auxiliary can perform quite effectively.
The USN is buying CB90 as Riverine Command Boats don’t like the name confuse you that type plus the RPB aka USMC Small Unit Riverine Craft could perform naval raiding party mission quite nicely.
A dockship like the Dock Express 10 class could be a large mothership very easily. Its well dock could be filled with boats and barges to support those and helos as well as crews for both.
In terms of influence squadrons etc it’s something I’ve always thought about although I think it’s an excellent idea I’m not exactly decided upon what the Royal navy should do in this area. I largely agree with Galrahn’s thinking of partnering and training and then if they are good students over a long period of time e.g. 10 year or so then they get the equipment. The Royal Navy however cannot really afford this model only the US can afford to give away equipment on a large enough scale to make an impact. What Galrahn has suggested is in my opinion possibly the best way of doing maritime security in the littoral getting those who own it to look after it. By incrementally increasing the responsibilities of the local forces over a long period of time it has a much higher chance of being successful. It’s not just about training people it is about creating the whole ethos and community that is needed for long term success. Some nations have a long naval tradition of security at sea while some simply do not and without it chances of success are much lower as there is sometimes little to build on.
The biggest flaw I think is that long term commitment, politicians control things and change their minds depending on which way the wind is blowing. It might be highly popular for a few years to pour resources into building up for instance the Kenyan Coastguard to help fight piracy but things change and it may no longer be supported. There is also the chance that resources will be cut too quickly, for instance the Kenyans are doing really well piracy has dropped off regional security has improved job done. In reality Job not done, there might still be cracks that are not easy to see and they could grow after support and resources have moved on. It may be for instance it worked because some nice people were always there making sure things happened and you were being watched.
For the United Kingdom I cannot see something like influence squadrons happening because defence and defence spending are far down the list of priorities perhaps I would argue not even on it. Defence seems to be done as an afterthought, well at least it is currently, and while I know we would all like that to change the chances are quite slim for many reasons not least voters. Here in the UK there seems to be a massive disconnect between the two at least where I live, In the US there appears to be a much closer link between those who serve and those who they are serving. I would maybe even say that the DoD in the US is the sacred cow equivalent of the NHS and Social Protection here in the UK.
On the Blog post I agree largely with what has been said but I also agree with what Jed has said in the comments. My own idea of an influence squadron would be based on a C2, the fabled Absalon I go on about, accompanied by 2 C3’s based on an evolved BMT Venator design these would still have a useful role in shooting wars. These would be further supplemented by a class of offshore/inshore patrol craft similar to whatever the fantasy coastguard would use as they would be doing a somewhat similar role. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a Coastguard taking a strong role in this concept as they should have better expertise in this area. Small vessels can still self deploy for instance the Royal navy deploys MCM vessels albeit it in pairs to the Gulf once they are there the crews rotate rather than the ships although they do have to come home for maintenance. This all would be supported by an RFA ideally purpose built support ships like what is proposed, a Bay class development, but most likely a standard supply ship accompanied by a Bay class. I would like to point out the RN has been doing this for some time now in the Gulf hosting and supporting Iraqi patrol craft from RHIBS to coastal patrol craft with a Bay class. We don’t really need specialist mother ships in my opinion when a tanker and bay class can do the job well enough and still be more useful in traditional roles.
Pretty boring plans mind you nothing new or complicated just pretty simple and naval rather than COIN centred which could be a drawback in maritime security operations. The idea being vessels would still have an important role in times of unrest the smaller patrol vessels bolstering the Coastguard while the C2 and C3 vessels can be upgraded and incorporated into the naval force. We simply cannot afford to have a fleet that is split so cleanly between shooting wars and COIN or maritime security operations. There is also the huge problem of no tasking will really last the test of time especially with scarce assets and UK politics happy to sign the UK up to everything and anything. The obvious point that could be made is the chances are wherever we would consider sending ships in a large number of cases so will the USN so we will no doubt integrate to do a better job.
I’m not sitting down around a campfire eating what is on offer yet I’m the idiot fumbling around with a torch looking for some Tomato Sauce.
All, I am quite taken with this “Mother Ship” concept for the FSC C3 role. My concerns are that you end up creating a massive logistics overhead when you only want to deploy a small number of Corvette size vessels!!!
Are we not in danger of missing the point in that what the C3 role calls for is really a Global Corvette type vessel. With the “Mother Ship” option we end up sending a massive RFA type vessel that then can only deploy very small fast attack craft. Now if they are CB90s then these are very capable craft, but they are not capable of the same firepower that a Corvette sized vessel could bring to the fight.
I mention this as much as playing a devils advocat as I do a serious comment. To me its a bit like wanting a sports car and your dad convincing you that a family hatchback is much more practical. Yeah not the best analogy but it will have to do for now.
Along those lines I can see your point. A small flotilla of a large RFA style mothership, a number of (in my concept) smaller vessels with their attendant fast patrol boats and helicopters might seem overkill but this concept is about doing something different than sending a single patrol type corvette.
Its about recognising that maritime influence and security operations (or watery COIN in my ham fisted description) will contribute more to the maritime security and general security of the UK than a single corvette on its lonely patrol.
Maybe there is room for both, the mothership concept in the Gulf, Indian Ocean, Caribbean and West Africa with the more ‘traditional’ C3 ocean going patrol boat in other areas.
This debate goes beyond tonnage or whether CAMM is a better idea than a 76mm Super Rapid and is about fundamentals, how the RN can contribute to the UK Defence and Security mission.
Phil, my C3 concept was modular, the oil rig supply vessel type could deploy alone and still be useful with its 6 CB90′s, 2 helicopters and 4 Scan Eagles, or in a group or in a big group supported by the converted Bay. The converted Bay mothership was there to support extended on station patrols. We already send an RFA vessel to these standing patrols anyway but this can do more and the crew numbers are quite modest anyway.
Admin, I take your point and as I stated my comments were deliberately to take a different view. I think we probably do need both the Mothership as you described but probably also a number of Global Corvette types as well. However, finances are very tight and I cannot see us getting both. Further more I cannot see the MoD doing anything except cock the whole thing up.
Whatever happens I want to see Scan Eagle in wide use by the RN. They have already proven onboard a type 23 I believe and lost of CB90s and the PASCAT (Partial Air Cusion Catamaran) that is currently under development.
I hope CAMM is as good as the MBDA media make out and lets have a decent replacement for the 4.5″ gun and some standardisation on the cannon front be it Millenium or CTA.
I’ve been thinking about this C2/C3 thing (dangerous I here you say) but how about this for a crazy alternative.
Why do we need several ships, Large Mother Ship, supporting a smaller mother ship which then deploys a handful of CB90/RHIB types. Jed, magical Absalon class, can also carry CB90s or I assume other landing craft or patrol vessels, it can also perfom ASW and Mine clearance, deploy helicopters and pack a punch should it be needed for the high-end war fighting role.
Why not standardise on this class of ship to perdom both the C2 and C3 roles. Now they can have slightly different weapon/sensor fits and be configured to perform the various roles required; but that way you could have huge economies of scale, possibly allowing for 20-30 vessels, all of which would be true warships not jumped-up RFA!!!
As for the C1, this in my view should be based on the T45, fitted with SAMPSON and PAAMS but stretch to carry considerably more missile (at least 128, considerably more if possible). This would plug the AAW gap of only having 6 T45 batch 1 for want of a better name, plus would also allow for extensive Land-Attack capability by carrying both PAAMS/Sea Viper and Tomahawk/StormShadow.
What do you think?
Phil I would like to say yes that is a brilliant idea and it is in a way. However the C3 I imagine is something like the VT C3 proposal but without much equipment so that it’s cheap about a third of the price of a C2. The idea being to have a more or less pyramid shaped force structure, 8 of each Type 45 and C1, 12 C2 and 24 or more C3. This would give quite a decent force and would allow all the current taskings to be fulfilled with less pressure on crews and equipment although politicians are pretty thick so would fine more things to commit to.
What I think of when I think C3 is:
•Large simple hull 2000+ ton
•Twin commercial diesel CODAD propulsion
•76mm OTO SR mount
•2 medium guns 30mm DS-30B or 40mm CTA
•Aviation facilities including hangar for one FLynx and a Scan Eagle launcher and Sky Hook recovery system
•Basic 3D radar set nothing fancy
•Stern boat ramp for 11m RHIB with storage for 3 more
•Rear work deck with folding crane for moving equipment and room for 4 20’ ISO containers
As for C1 have a look at the Type 45
now see that black mast aft of the main funnel delete that and replace it with another VLS system of around 32 cells or more. The equipment on that mast is mainly ECM, communications and electronic intelligence antennae which could be moved if the L-band search radar was deleted. The idea is to build the superstructure upto the same height as the hangar roof and fit the VLS launcher in the middle where the mast was while moving the RHIB alcoves forward so that they are on either side of the new VLS. This would then allow the hangar space to be increased to allow for 2 Merlin helicopters suitable for the ASW role. The only problem I can see immediately is the possible need to move the CIWS positions as they may have restricted firing arcs to the rear of the vessel. Of course I have no idea what is inside the superstructure but that is the idea in building the superstructure up allowing a proportion of the VLS launcher within that minimising space taken up within the hull. Doing this would result in 80 VLS cells enough for 32 land attack missiles, 32 Aster 30 and 16 spare cells for a mix of CAMM or other vertical launch missiles you could almost say overkill and it will be if classed as an ASW frigate.
Euan said: “you could almost say overkill”
OK, I will….
OVERKILL
Admin – how about instead of sending your LSV with a couple of C3′s, you just send the LSV instead ?
The Dutch amphib HNLMS Rotterdam, the first vessel of what was to become Schelde’s “Enforcer class” series (and thus a distant cousin to the Bay class) has hanger space for 4 x Merlin or 6 x NH90 and a well deck big enough for 6 x LCVP.
So an ‘Enforcer’ variant with similar hanger / dock space could easily patrol a much larger area of sea than 3 or 4 C3′s through the use of Helo’s, UAV’s and “small” boats.
If it can carry 6 x LCVP then it can carry 6 full size CB90H. A CB90H with its own radar, a mini-RWS (with TV/IR and a 17.7mm MG) and with the troop cabin fitted with a head, a small galley and a Comms rack (for 2 x HF radio, 1 for voice, 1 for data and datalink interfaces) and a boarding team of 8 to 10, plus some armoured self sealing fuel tanks on the external “mine racks” on the aft deck and et voila, self contained “patrol boat” able to extend Mothers survailance for a 48 patrol. With 6 you could have two out, two in transit and two in the dock. Add to this up to 6 Lynx or 4 Merlines, plus your Scan Eagles, and this can all be accomplished from a relatively cheap hull, which can be an RFA with a Naval Party onboard. RFA’s regularly rotate crew while deployed, and operate under less stringent diplomatic concerns as to where they can make port. So, a very flexible solution for Caribbean anti-drug, or Gulf of Aden anti-piracy ops.
Of course there would be nothing to stop if from using internal capacity to carry supporting stores for deployed C3 – and it would have a ‘shooting war’ role in the Amphibious squadron.
Plenty of commentors on Information Dissemination and Small Wars suggest the amphib is the true battleship of the 21st century, not the carrier, but they often complain about how the USN is actually reducing numbers of amphibs, and buying new ones which are very expensive. Perhaps the RN could be innovative and buck the trend by adding at least two such ships to the RFA flotilla.
How big a deal is long term deployment?
Obviously if your married and spend a year away from home chasing pirates, you probably wont be when you come back.
But if your 18 looking for adventure, or a bachelor in his mid 40′s, how big a deal would it be?
Obviously, the ship would have to be designed around being lived on for a year, but if the long deployment was coupled with increased manning(more free time), fast track promotion and better pay, would it be a problem?
Dominic asks how much it matters if your on a long deployment.
The answer, it can matter a lot depending on personal circumstances. I have done 5 to 6 months deployments on Leander Class frigates and Type 42 Destroyers, aged between 17 1/2 and my mid 20′s. I have to say, despite what would class as horrendous accommodation (compared to a T45 !) I never thought it was that big a deal, even though I had a steady girlfriend from an early age, we dealt with the separation. However, I don’t know how your going to put together a crew consisting entirely of single 18 year old men and women (and of course, I never served with women at sea).
A 9th month gulf deployment on a Hunt Class minesweeper was slightly worse, because the accommodation was even more cramped, and the air-con was crap, and we had to sleep in fire-proof overalls when in a minefield etc. Also these were the days of a single TV and VHS VCR, no email etc
Finally a 5 month trip from the Gulf, through the red sea and the Med on RFA Diligence, as part of the Naval Party was my easiest draft ever, because I shared an “enormous” two man cabin with another junior rating.
So, modern ships, with good accommodation, all those T45 “luxuries” like iPod power jacks, unclass ethernet LAN for your laptop (and email access ?) etc should make long deployments much more bearable, but thats only the opinion of this old salt….
Euan, I think we are suggesting the same thing with regard to C1. If you are building a new ship based on the T45, then you could make as much room (within reason) for a very large amount of VLS. The Navy Matters website has the details. My concerns are how to get more on the 6 we already have in the pipeline. The gap forward of the mast you talk about could be used, I don’t know how many VLS’s you could get in there 16-24 maybe. What about over the helicopter hanger. It is not just that 48 missiles is not enough, its that they are all in one place.
I understand the thinking behind the C3 pyramid idea, as I said it was as much to stimulate a debate as a genuine suggestion. IT did seem that by having multiple designs, that would probably lead to more confusion and overall higher cost. If you had one hull design but then adjusted the weapons/sensor fit we might get more bang for our buck and a fleet of ships that could ALL be made very useful for a high-end war.
The C1 definitely needs to have PAAMS/SAMPSON to compensate for only 6 x T45. I actually see C1 being what T45 was supposed to be i.e. a multi-role ship capable of AAW/ASW and Land Attack.
Phil, Euan
My problem with your ideas for C1 is that your actually stretching the T45 – while hull steel is cheap and this may not matter, your also suggesting more VLS cells for more missiles, which is more expense. On top of that your actually suggesting keep PAAMS / Aster 30, while widening hanger for 2 helos and adding Towed array – thus making these ships even more capable and EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than the 6 ‘Batch 1′ T45s’s !
That’s why I suggested a limited redesign for a C1 based on the T45 hull, with PAAMS / Sampson swapped out for a CHEAPER radar, and with Aster 15 and NO land attack capability beyond maybe dual role NSM3 and the medium calibre gun, so that we could actually afford at least 8 of these as the main blue water ASW force (with towed array and a Merlin).
So, while your ideas produce a very nice ship indeed, I doubt very much they could ever be afforded in the current financial climate
C1: Jed It is overkill they would be modern cruisers something like the Tico’s of the USN and would be the largest most powerful surface combatants in Europe but they would also be true multi-role platforms. The current T45 is a single role platform one that it cannot even do at present as the Sea Viper system or PAAMS is not yet operational it’s basically an 8000 ton chunk of steel with a gun. I do think the C1 should have Sampson as it increasing the production run lowering costs and increasing commonality. The main reason though is politically it is made here in the UK anything else would need to be bought in which would no doubt make headlines for all the wrong reasons. We should also be in the midst of producing lots and lots of AESA modules for Captor-E so leveraging the large production runs new Sampson sets could be cheaper. Artisan from what I understand is a low cost radar and the reason it exists is the unwillingness to buy the Smart-S Mk2 from Thales as it would likely be wholly build abroad. Something in between would not be built in the UK and would have no commonality with existing equipment therefore incurring support costs on an already tight budget. Sampson is at the top end of the capability scale more capable than perhaps what C1 needs but Artisan to me seems to be too far down the scale, I would rather go a bit above what is needed than below. Using Sampson would allow the use of Aster on C1 rather than just the short ranged CAMM and since T45 numbers are so low the additional capability could be warranted, I would still like to see 2 additional T45 at least.
Personally I am somewhat in agreement in regards to land attack beyond the dual role anti-shipping missile additional capability should be elsewhere. Land attack is best done by carrier based air power or by SSN’s which have the advantage of being extremely fast and stealthy able to get closer to shore without being detected and launching out of the blue. However SSN numbers are extremely low so that causes a problem as your likely not to have a sub anywhere nearby and any assets are bound to have a busy schedule. The 48 cells of the current T45 would be adequate with no PAMMS as then you cannot use Aster freeing up launcher space allowing the cells to be filled with a mix of LAM’s and CAMM missiles.
C3: I’m still sticking to what I said in my original comment I’m against specialist support vessels in particular but I’ve got no set opinion on this. I see both sides of the story and I don’t think either option is necessarily mutually exclusive but it might be for the UK for various reasons. I’m not sure if the small boat thing is really the UK’s niche do we really want to take the Global Cop idea to the next level with all that comes with it. Moving a small boat squadron anyone? http://www.austal.com/delivery/iFrameHiRes.cfm?imageid=66480BC1-A0CC-3C8C-D95BBDF643F49557&prodID=694676A7-A0CC-3C8C-D996E385B313F922
Not sure where this puts me, but I’d support 12-24 “Cruisers”, Type 45′s with top of the line Air, Surface and Subsurface equipment and the rest of the “escort” fleet being bay class ships carrying Merlin/Lynx/Equivalent and upgraded CB90′s.
Jed, Euan’s last post sums up my thoughts exactly. The current T45 (call them batch1). Have been so badly compromised, both in terms of weapons fit (48 VLS is not enough) and numbers procured (6 is less than half what is actaully needed). If the T45 issues are resolved (i.e both by a purchase of at least another 6 and the provision of more VLS), then the C1 needs to plug that gap.
The sampson is by all accounts a fantastic radar, its unit cost is abnormally higher as we have only bought 6 (plus I guess at least one of testing/development). We need to spread the cost by buying more and of course spreading the benefit amongst more of the fleet.
Where I disagree with Euan slightly is on the Land-attack front. I think using SSN’s although very stealthy is a very expensive way of carrying very few missiles. Ships (if built big enough and with enough care, can carry potentially hundreds of TLAM/ScalpN etc.
As for C3 are really am not sure what is best. The mothewrship idea as merit, my concerns are that if the only vessel they carry is something like a CB90 this may not be enough. What if you could build a mothership big enough to carry something more corvette sized (i.e big enough to carry at least a 76 SR fun, a couple of 30/40mm cannons and maybe a small number of anti-ship and anti-air missile. That way the ship you finally deploy has the range and endurance to act alone and defend itself. It then uses the mother ship for rest/replenishment and any maintenance. If the corvette was big enough to carry CB90 or RIBs then you have a very flexible force mix.
The Vanguards could loaded with seven cruise missiles in place of each trident missile.
An Astute can carry about 40, but presumably if you got rid of the one man one bunk and went back to hot bunking, you could get another 50 in.