Out today from RUSI is a paper from Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham KCB and Gwyn Prins from the LSE that makes a case for spending on the Royal Navy
The defence review is occurring at a time of extreme financial pressure at home and considerable military risk in Afghanistan. Yet it would be a grave failure if it attended principally – or worse, exclusively – to the clamour of those issues. The deepest principles of national security are silent. They explain why bad things don’t happen and they must be given voice. This article also argues that geopolitics prescribe a primarily maritime framework for any British SDSR, and that the core strategic challenges are naval. The Royal Navy, however, has become dangerously weak. Urgent steps must be taken to reverse this trend before it is too late
Its timing is of course related to the pre SDSR buzz but I hope it doesn’t get get labelled as Senior Service Special Pleading because its is very interesting and relevant.
Acknowledging the dire state of the public finances, but arguing national security is not a discretionary expenditure, the paper suggests the strategic need for more surface combatants must be met through reassessing the choice of ‘seriously cost constrained’ new ships, looking closely at examples from Denmark and the Netherlands that offer a modular, adaptable design at a quarter of the price of currently planned purchases.
The paper argues for a cost constrained general purpose class of ships that make extensive use of modularity. It argues for 12-15 of these to compliment a force of 12 to 14 Type 45 and Type 26 (that’s in total, not 12-14 each)
This is a strong argument, a return to the two tier constabulary nature of forward defence with the ability to surge highly capable ships into an area should it be needed. Although the numbers and capabilities might be different it is fundamentally in line with the Think Defence position, that of a high capability core surrounded by lower capability but more numerous types.
Jed wrote a couple of great posts on this, here and here
I also looked at it from another angle with the C3 modular concept and other posts here and here.
The authors also published a similar paper in 2007 called ‘The Royal Navy at the Brink’, arguing for a 30 ship Future Surface Combatant (FSC) comprising a 10 C1, 20 C2 ratio but the new paper recognises the financial constraints we are in.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
120 Comments
Similar to what i argued for on the warships1 forum.
I have no problem with T26 and T45 being high-end platforms, they need to be if they are to escort capital ships such as CVF, but there is no point using a billion pound vessel on constabulary duty.
My solution was:
2x CVF
6x T45
6x T26
12x C2
12x C3
C2 could easily be that cheap and cheerful 3500 tonne general purpose warship.
C3 being a 2000 tonne vessel, the minimum necessary for good seakeeping and global range.
I see your deck Jedibeeftrix and I raise you:
To protect the carriers and the amphibs, which are the jewel of our maritime capability, against high end threats, I would like to see 8 T45 and 8 T26, but as that appears fiscally unrealistic (within the farcical caveat of ringfenced DfID budgets etc) I would settle for:
6 x T45
8 x T26
12 x C2
IF the T26 is a straight T45 hull without long range 3D air search radar or SAMSON, but with a Cooperative Engagement Capability allowing T45 to control T26′s Aster 15′s (and with hangers re-arranged for 2 x AW101 and the T2087 towed array fitted).
AND the C2 is a variant of the Absalon Class patrol frigate, kept cheap and cheerful with 4.5 and other kit lifted from T23′s as they are withdrawn etc….
That is still only 26 “major surface combatant” the majority of wich are being describe as “cheap and cheerful” :-(
Personally I think the minimum requirement is for 30 such ships (based on global deployments and task forces to defend amphibs).
well, i will double up since that is all you have to offer! :p
what i would actually like to see is classes of seven, because this is the generally accepted ratio through which one vessel will be in deep refit, leaving six in the work-up / deployed / work-down routine.
this would leave:
7x T45
7x T26
14x C2
14x C3
There is an argument for more T26, as there role is not purely HVA escort, but also sea sanitisation for trident infiltration/exfiltration from faslane, but i would prefer to see this role kept by the Nimrod MRA4′s.
The Danish STANFLEX design is often cited as a good example of a multi-role warship, but don’t forget that the Danes have stopped swapping them in and out of role. Instead they’ve locked them into one role each and will only use that role in future. The problem was the time taken to change around, and the lack of crew currency in the different areas – you could theoretically turn an MCMV into something else, but would the crew be up for the job?
I’m a big fan of emulating the French model – we need a certain number of high end combatants, and I think a future fleet of about 16-20 hulls is realistic. At the same time, we need to be more sensible about buying better OPV(H) and the like to do the ‘constabulary tasks’ such as APT(N). In other words an elite of large ships for the big stuff, and a larger number of smaller ships for the day to day stuff.
My concern about mid range vessels like C2 is that its hard to justify buying a C2 and a C1 to HMT, because they will make the point that the C2 is going to be able to do most of the C1s job. We then end up losing hulls and reducing capability. Far better to keep a C1 / C3 split, but up the numbers considerably.
I’d expect to see up to 20 C3′s as replacements for the MCMV, Survey and OPV fleets, with a fleet of around 16-20 main escorts. This gives us a versatile fleet of about 40 escorts of all types (as opposed to about 50 now) but which will provide a lot of capability.
Just for how long are we expecting to be financially constrained….forever?
The Type 23s are not due to replaced for another 10 years although I can see the need to withdraw the crew heavy Tyoe 22s earlier.
I’ve argued for a more ambitious programme. It has two tiers (collapsing C2 into C1 and C3). A Sloop programme (similar to Jed’s C3 post) based on the VT vessel (cousin of Khareef) 2 per year starting soon and a high end frigate (T26) 1 per year replacing T23.
6 x T45
16 x T26 6000 Tonnes (2021-2037)
16 x Sloop 3000 Tonnes (2013-2020)
Basically, I think we need to get back to always having one frigate/destroyer in build per year. Each new class a straight development of the previous. It would make life so much easier.
Why would we need sixteen high-end high-expense specialised ASW frigates?
The only real purpose is as a dedicated and inflexible [escort] to a CVF or ATG, and there is talk of conflating these two separate and distinct capabilities into one.
Why is the RN carrying out “constabulary” duties anyway?
The days of the British Empire controlling a third of the worlds economy are long gone.
Should the Royal Navy really be intercepting drug dealers in the Carribean?
Surely thats a law enforcement issue for the local police?
Even if the UK handles it, surely its a coast guard issue?
The RAF dont police the air and the army dont police the land, but the RN are being expected to police the oceans, all of them except the pacific apparently.
There, I’ve said it.
That also leaves one more matter.
We’ve been here before.
The T21 Frigate was designed on a somewhat similar mandate, to be a cheap general purpose vessel that wouldnt see combat.
It did of course, and a third of the squadron was destroyed in the falklands.
*****
Yes, I know I’ve been very strongly for these things, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
If we’re considering cutting the RAF to a single fast jet type and the Army to 6 small brigades, perhaps we should ask why the navy is preparing to defend singapore and raid columbian drug shipments.
*****
“Constabulary” might be the wrong word, but there is a need for a general pupose frigate to undertake non-escort duties such as APT(N) or APT(S), where a billion pound escort would be utterly wasted, especially given that we have so few of them there are none spare from their primary task; escorting HVA’s.
Maybe High End is the wrong phrase. T26 is designed to be a potentials multi-mission frigate that could be configured for ASW, AAW, ASuW. Perhaps 8 of these would be designated ASW ships. CEC and CAAMM makes them capable AAW assets. Scalp or Fire Shadow gives them powerful surface attack capability. As it happens we have 17 frigates now.
We didn’t only lose Type 21s in the Falklands. We also lost Type 42s and they we supposed to be our AAW ships.
“As it happens we have 17 frigates now.”
That is a cold war legacy if anything can be defined as such, due to the need to hold the G-I-UK gap against Soviet subs hell-bent in sinking Operation Reforger.
Now, we need high end ASW to escort CVF or ATG.
I would be amazed if options for vertical launch system for Tomahawk, SCALP or a modified GMLRS. Harpoon and a 155mm main gun are taken up.
If any ship-of-the-line requires or would most benefit from a 155mm gun then it would be C2.
I like playing fantasy navy as much as anybody but as fun as it is saying we need a dozen of these and some of those extra it won’t happen. Defence reviews aren’t about making our armed forces leaner and meaner to meet future defence needs. (Apart from ‘planes where is the real difference in the A-stan campaign now and the ones in the 19th century?)
Reviews are about reducing budgets and that is all.
What we have seen since the end of the Cold War is the invasion of the defence sphere by commercial business practices. Defence is an insurance policy and we live in a “safe” world so we can cut back on our premiums, supposedly! Also though peace movements like CND have also suffered due to the end of the Cold War. These movements have become anachronistic because also because our governments seem to have a more socialist outlook when it comes to security. Frigates are built to protect jobs and not to protect the country as war is bad (tell us something we don’t know.) Physical security takes a back seat to social security; even though without the former the latter will never be achieved. Collective public knowledge is at a low. But even worse our “political masters” seem to have even less understanding; this is despite all the junkets MPs get to Salisbury Plain and Thursday Wars. I shall overlook the influence of industry.
What I would like to see in October is the T26 scrap and replaced with orders for 2 more Darings. And the 100million that was to be wasted on design of these ships (which seems to take longer than in the ’30′s despite all the hi-tech computer aided design) to kitting out Darings with Harpoon, a CIWS, and giving Merlin an ASM capability. I would like to see civi’ subcontractors given the boot so RN specialist had to be used shore side. Hopefully this would aid retention and save money. I would like to see this happen even it meant “the Fleet” spent less time at sea. Echoing views below I would scupper deployments like WIGS (or whatever it is called this week;) it is absolutely stupid to send a frigate for these duties and it is equally stupid sending an RFA tanker (a force multiplier.) It would make more sense to deploy to the Indian Ocean………….
link to the actual paper, and not only the ‘press release’:
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/blackhamprins.pdf
Thanks for that GVG, I should have linked to the PDF directly, it is on the press release!
my own response to this latest RUSI paper:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/britain%E2%80%99s-future-strategic-direction-12-%E2%80%93-naval-deterrence-presence/
It is quite clear RN will not be getting PC. Without a second carrier to worry about, less high-end escorts are needed. In fact, 2 of the last T45s can be sold off and used for cheaper vessels. The French really have the right idea by canceling the last two Horizons and going for the much cheaper FREMM. Costs on Aquitaine are dropping 25% which will allow MN to boost their orders.
Outside of the MOD there seems to be a clear consensus that a key pillar to our future defence is a balanced and well funded Royal Navy. I sincerely hope that both the MOD and Admiralty have come to the same view and have the boldness (and room for manoeuvre in these austere times) to make it a reality.
Yes we do need a two tier navy. The top tier must include both carriers even if we cannot afford the latest aircraft to put on them, that can come later if need be. We need around 16 high end T45 and T26 escorts with top end ASW / AAW / ASuW capabilities to these protect assets and other amphibious capability. Also, we need submarine force of at least 6, to assist in this fleet protection and also add to the offensive capabilities with their cruise missiles. This is our “big stick” in the world.
In my view, what we do not need are high end T26s which are flexible combat ships. To pretend that these are ever going to be built in numbers which would mean that they were not tied up on escort duties for the top tier navy is madness. Keeping the design of the T26 to this key purpose will ensure that they are effective in their primary role and should save money.
We need a navy of 30+ surface combatants to ensure that we can meet our worldwide commitments and have some backup when things go wrong (they always do). Therefore, in my view we need also around 16 light frigates which are flexible general purpose vessels capable of operating independently for long durations. The base configuration for these obviously needs to be cheap, though not so cheap as to put our forces at unacceptable risk. They also need scalable so they can be upgraded in time of a major crisis. The worldwide market is awash with £100 mil to £200 mil vessels that fit this role (probably at a 1/3 of the cost that a C2 will end up being) and should not be beyond the great naval design and construction skills this country still has.
You will note that I have not mentioned OPVs yet; yes they do have a place in a balanced fleet but only for specific tasks such as the coastal patrol of the UK. In my view, they are not and never will be serious war fighting vessels.
Anything less than this then it’s time to consign ourselves to be a regional European power, the tools for which are very different from the ones I describe.
Armand
The French and Italian Navies have considerably different needs than the Royal Navy, which is why the common frigate program fell apart in the first place.
The RN will operate primarily without land based aircover, wheres the FN operates primarily with land based air cover.
For me if I am forced to play fantasy navy ASW FREMM is the way to go over redesigning the wheel yet again. Merlin capable, Aster 15 missiles, and heck I would even buy the Otobreda 127/64 instead of throwing more money at BAE. I would want 8 frigates to match 8 T45. As long as we could have some 4 AIP SSK and a Mistral (which means we could have 2 ARG with 1 ASS, 1 LPD, & 2 Bays.)
Somebody said 6 submarines. Economics suggests that submarines are best purchase in multiples of 4. It is interesting to note that when HMG bought Polaris the plan was for 5 boats to keep one at sea all the time. Even with 2 crews per boat and 4 boats it still quite achievement for the RN to keep the deterrent patrol permanently at sea. Submarines are scarily complicated things.
PS: BAE,for the love of Neptune, how long does it take develop a 6inch gun?
I’m not a naval expert but more cuts feel intuitively wrong. Still, this game is like Thunderbirds, “Anything can happen in the next half hour.”
Step forward Iran and the Straits of Hormuz. As you know, the two sea lanes, one in and one out, which are both two miles wide and carry significant amounts of oil each day could easily be disrupted by the Iranians should Israel attack their nuclear facilities. That’s why we have minesweepers there.
If an “event,” was to occur, and we’re into the likely timing zone for such an “event,” then such would be the impact on the oil price and the subsequent economic impairment for the West then there would be an reappraisal of our sea power, or lack of it, in quick time.
Quite something though, when we have to rely on a geopolitical and economic shock for commonsense to prevail……….. just as it did post Falklands.
DominicJ said “The RN will operate primarily without land based aircover, wheres the FN operates primarily with land based air cover.”
True up to a point. Interesting though that the French have Europe’s only full sized carrier equipped with Europe’s only purpose built carrier aircraft. While the Italians have their Harriers fitted with RADAR unlike the British Harriers that are mere mud movers………..
Hunk Of Junk
I believe the SoH is a bit of a red herring.
The Oil states would likely consider it an existential attack and retaliate with everything they have.
Which in Saudi alone means a variety F15/16/Tornado/Typhoon numbering close to 400.
They cant occupy Iran, but they can bomb it until the most advanced piece of technology is the horse shoe.
If they decide to wreck Iran every powerstation could be destroyed in the first few hours.
If they “just” hit the gas network, the death toll would likely reach a million in the first winter.
X
True enough.
But lack of Radar Harriers was a recent political decision to cut costs and the cancellation of the full sized carrier was a historic cost cutting measure.
The RN has never said it doesnt want a full sized carrier operating air superiority fighters.
DominicJ said “But lack of Radar Harriers was a recent political decision to cut costs and the cancellation of the full sized carrier was a historic cost cutting measure.
The RN has never said it doesn’t want a full sized carrier operating air superiority fighters.”
Yes, I know all that. And what you said leads us back to the whole thrust of this in that our government since WW2 hasn’t placed any importance on the “sea.”
Though it could be said that even in these days of ubiquitous “air power” there are some admirals (and generals too) who are as air blind.
DominicJ said “If they “just” hit the gas network, the death toll would likely reach a million in the first winter.”
Better still hit the cracking towers at their refineries. Even though are one of the largest oil exporters they still need significant imports of refined petroleum goods.
And I agree with you that going to war doesn’t mean you have to occupy the place.
@ Armand
“It is quite clear RN will not be getting PC. Without a second carrier to worry about, less high-end escorts are needed. In fact, 2 of the last T45s can be sold off and used for cheaper vessels. The French really have the right idea by canceling the last two Horizons and going for the much cheaper FREMM. Costs on Aquitaine are dropping 25% which will allow MN to boost their orders.”
I’m not sure that it is clear at all, but if one is cancelled then it will be because a land based doctrine has been selected, similar to Global Guardian.
I personally feel that France was wrong to stop at two Horizon’s, as it means the unit cost will be massive, and FREMM can never hope to wield the same AAW capability.
Regarding fleet defence, I think the RN has shot itself in the foot over this. IT justified the loss of the SHAR stating the T45 was capable of defending the fteet with its state of the art systems, it then grudging admitted it could do the job with only 6 T45s. I can see the reasury saying “Why do you need fighters on the CVF if you have coped up until now, surely you only need attack and ISTAR platforms?”
As for the T26 I can easily see it becomming more in line with the C2 platform than C1 due to the need for cheap and cheerful platforms for the majority of roles not requireing High End capbilities. In future I can see the T26 becoming the core of a C1 platform.
“Why do you need fighters on the CVF if you have coped up until now, surely you only need attack and ISTAR platforms?”
The primary purpose of CVF is strike, but its a bit of a non issue anyway as there is no candidate for a CVF airgroup that isn’t also a competent air-defence plane, i.e. has a radar and medium range AAM’s.
About the second comment i am a little confused…….. but the name doesn’t matter at all.
If platform x receives the 2087 sonar and EH101 from decommissioning T23′s then it is a high end and specialised ASW platform.
If it gets a lynx and a bow mounted sonar it is effectively a C2 – a choke-point frigate with an appropriately cheap price-tag.
You are correct regarding the airgroup but I am worried that the Treasury might use this as leverage against the MoD when it comes to numbers and what weapons are integrated.
Regarding the C2 you have actually clarified my point. Initial C2s would be the latter configuration but space allocated for future growth and the hanger could accept a Merlin. These are the intial by followed by units fitted with hand me downs from the T23. They will still be more affordable than a dedicated platform and share maximum commonality wiith the “Choke Point” variant. I see the C2 being built with a fair amount of empty space so they could be as large as a T45 but have far more frugal systems initially. AS the funding situation improves then batches could become more capable but not at the cost of numbers.
I suppose we should be slightly glad that someone connected with the Navy ( V Admiral Blackham – joint author of the paper) concedes that the navy should be looking at cheaper equipment options. But the concession is grudging given among underlying protestations of underfunding. Bernard Gray’s assessment that one third of the current budget has been effectively wasted is acknowledged, but seemingly no blame for that falls on the navy!
Actually, it’s not beyond dispute that the navy is underfunded. In the 15 years between 2003 and 2018, assuming projects currently underway are completed, the navy will receive the T45 programme, the Astute programme, two major air craft carriers and a fleet of aircraft. Not a bad haul. If the numbers are down it’s not unrelated to the fact that the ticket price on all these items is considerable.
Yes, the frigate and destroyer fleet is much depleted and all of us would wish something be done to reverse that sorry state of affairs. Unfortunately, in our finance constrained world, a rough tote up of the numbers suggests we will not see any new surface combatants for a good long time yet – the T45 deliveries are still to be paid for, the carriers are being built with outlay falling all the way through to 2018 at least, I’m not sure of the duration and size of the Astute programme but there are some years still to pay for that. Around the end of the decade there will be an outlay dwarfing everything that has gone before to purchase the JSF. Then there is Trident. If the navy effectively has to meet one third of the cost of Trident as well I’d guess that that is the navy’s major equipment budget spent out to somewhere potentially as far away as 2025. 2025 therefore becomes the date we might first expect to see a new surface combatant enter service.
So debating what that future combatant might be is probably premature. More to the point is how the existing fleet is going to be preserved until a replacement arrives?
“but its a bit of a non issue anyway as there is no candidate for a CVF airgroup that isn’t also a competent air-defence plane, i.e. has a radar and medium range AAM’s.”
I was thinking exactly that, however…
Is there a reason why F35′s couldnt be bought without Radar?
Blue Circle Radar jumps to mind…
Or with a much cheaper one?
“Is there a reason why F35′s couldnt be bought without Radar?”
nope.
too much of the utility of F35 derives from its sensor-fusion.
DominicJ – what would be the point of buying a UK only version of F35 without radar ? It certainly would not be cheap enough to warrant it.
Anyway, ref the RUSI paper, I know they are trying to build up the GP surface fleet, but they do not mention ‘sweating’ our other assets for standing taskings.
If we had 2 x LPD (Albion class) 4 x ALSA (Bay class) plus 2 x LPH as replacement for Ocean, then you could easily use them for example as:
1 x Bay with Helo shelter and Lynx – West Indies Guard Ship (or whatever its called these days) with RHIBS in the well deck for anti-drup running ops and various supplies plus some engineering kit in the garage this would be ideal during the hurricane season.
1 x Albion as TF Command ship for Anti-piracy ops off Somalia, again with a well deck full of RHIBS (and hovercraft ?)
(note, both of the above have been done before)
1 x LPH on Atlantic (South) station, exercising with Brazil etc,
With a second Bay class available in UK waters for RM training etc. Of course all these assets could steam to wherever required for any amphibous ops if need be.
Finally if ‘high end’ is to be limited to 6 x T45 and 8 x T26 (based on T45) then T26 should retain SAMSON and Aster 15 (and maybe even Ater 30 ?) as well as providing the ‘sea frame’ for the T2087 towed array. With only 6 x T45 they are never going to be used as general purpose ‘singletons’ on patrol stations, so why not remove the 4.5inch and just fit a 76mm super-rapid – it could provide another layer of close in air defence.
However as the RUSI paper discusses ‘sea control’ in the context of (non-nuclear) deterence ALL surface combatants MUST carry at least 8 x Harpoon or its replacement (should we invest in the new Japanese supersonic ASM that is currently in test?)
The T45 has been designed for more ‘sea hours’ – it has great accomodation, and modern kit should be much more easy on the maintenance requirements, plus there are maintenance innovations in the hull itself. As the RUSI paper mentions the Absalon, lets fantasize that 12 Absalons provide the C2, plus 14 T45/T26 based on the T45 hull.
We could still cover an awful lot of operational tasking with 26 such surface combatants, that are built to spend more time at sea – perhaps the standard deployment being stretched from 6 to 8 or 9 months (with a 3 week maint. period in the middle for 1 weeks leave at home). Plus we would have enough hulls to build protective Task Forces around a CV and Amphib group if we needed to.
By the way I dont see any potential C3 flottilla helping out with this sea going political deterence role. If you build 6 as Ocean going / deployable MCM (Hunt Class replacement), plus say 4 to replace OPV, and 2 to replace Survey ships, then thats how they are going to be used. You could surge a MCM roled C3 into a patrol role in emergency, but you can’t keep doing it or they MCM specialists will loose currency in their skills. So I see a common hull type providing through life cost savings from commonality of kit, training etc but I don’t see them taking up the slack on ‘global policing’ roles.
If the principle job for a specialised ASW/AAW warship is to escort HVA’s such as carriers and amphibs then I am not sure I see much utility in having slightly more of one than the other, the same, or 50% more, or double even, but if we can manage with six T45 to carry out those duties we should be able to manage with six T26 provided they have enough individual capability.
If six T45 isn’t enough, then the same goes for the T26.
Put two ASW EH101′s on a T26 and it should be able to competently escort a task-force against submarine threats between its 2087 set and two dipping sonars.
I can accept the argument that more T26′s might be needed because they have an additional core role over escorting task-forces, i.e. they are needed to sanitise the entry and exits points for deployed SSBN’s.
However in this instance, i would rather leave that job to the MRA4′s, as this permits the retention of long-range maritime recognisances.
The additional benefit being that not buying those two extra T26′s allows one to buy four extra cheap absalon style craft.
re the C3, i accept your argument, but the new MCM capability will have to deploy from some platform, so either buy more C3 or chop down low-threat tasks accordingly.
JBT said: “If six T45 isn’t enough, then the same goes for the T26.”
Well I would agree and say that in my own RN experience, 8 would be a minimum size for any class, BUT I was working within the realistic financial constraints that appear to have things set in stone – so we only get 6 x T45 because that is what has been ordered so far.
JBT also said: ” if we can manage with six T45 to carry out those duties we should be able to manage with six T26 provided they have enough individual capability” – well there is of course some logic to that, but I am basing the number on the fact that we have purchased 8 x Sonar T2087 towed array sets. To me this means a minimum of 10 Type 26, so that vessels in deep maintenance / refit can pass their set onto another vessel, however that might not be as easy as it sounds – so, 8 towed arrays means 8 T26.
I can assure you that one towed array ship, and 2 Merlins (none of which may be available at a given time due to maintenance emergencies, weather, ‘action damage’ etc) is NOT enough to screen even a small task force from a submarine threat. Convergence zones for towed arrays, the usual thermals and other oceanic conditions etc mean you need multiple ASW vessels deployed in different positions around the HVU’s. Think of concentric circles or zones (just like AAW in this respect). The Merlins are gonna get a lot of flight hours and expend a LOT of sono-bouys…..!!
However if el-cheapo C2 is Absalon based or of similar size, it too can carry two each of Merlin “dippers” – BUT again we have the caveat that only so many Merlins (22 ?) are to be upgraded to HM2. El-cheapo GP escort can of course also have MOTS bow mounted active/passive sonar for close range use (and shipboard TT’s for Stingray).
So while you might get 2 or 3 (4 ?) El-cheapo C2 (Absalon) for the price of a T26, you will not have enough dedicated ASW dippers to fly from all those flight deck spots. By the way the Lynx, even in Wildcat mode, is NOT an ASW helo, it just a delivery system for torpedo’s under close control of its mothership, on who’s sonar it must rely.
Finally there could be the added AAW boone of a T45 based T26 carrying SAMSON and Aster 15 versus ARTEMIS radar and CAMM for point defence on the El-cheapo frigate :-)
“I can assure you that one towed array ship, and 2 Merlins (none of which may be available at a given time due to maintenance emergencies, weather, ‘action damage’ etc) is NOT enough to screen even a small task force from a submarine threat.”
Ah, coolo, that is what i was aiming at when talking about having either same number as T45, fifty percent more, or twice as many.
If the intention is to have a carrier group and an ARG, with a single T45 to be tasked to each, then you would appear to be saying that the kind of environment a carrier enters will require at least two T26′s to provide a decent ASW screen, with the ARG perhaps needing only one given the low-threat environments its likely to operate off, e.g. west african coast.
This would set the baseline up to nine, to keep three on station, and back to the tenth if we consider deep refit.
The alternative is that we give up the means to generate a separate carrier group and ARG, because we can only protect one or the other with less than nine T26′s…….
As the the C2 and lynx, no, i wasn’t expecting them to be subhunters. :) I was leaving it up to basic self defence insomuch as a bow sonar, with the ability to deploy a merlin ASW heli if the situation required.
Many thanks.
“Finally there could be the added AAW boone of a T45 based T26 carrying SAMSON and Aster 15 versus ARTEMIS radar and CAMM for point defence on the El-cheapo frigate”
A lot of the cost of a T45 apparently rests within Sampson and Pamms, so i wouldn’t expect to see this in a T26.
I can easily see the cost effectiveness of equipping T45 with CEC, and T26 with Aster 15 in addition to a cheap fire control system.
If we really don’t have enough T45, and i think everyone recognises that we dont, then this would be a great force multiplier.
with six T45 and nine T26 the carrier group would have the following:
AAW –
T45
> T26
> T26
ASW –
T26
T26
> C2 (with merlin)
likewise the ARG would have the following:
AAW –
T45
> T26
ASW –
T26
> C2 (with merlin)
With that I could just about see it being possible to sustain a separate carrier group and ARG.
thoughts?
““Finally there could be the added AAW boone of a T45 based T26 carrying SAMSON and Aster 15 versus ARTEMIS radar and CAMM for point defence on the El-cheapo frigate”
A lot of the cost of a T45 apparently rests within Sampson and Pamms, so i wouldn’t expect to see this in a T26.”
Perhaps not SAMPSON but why not SPECTAR rather than ARTISAN for Type 26.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/SPECTAR-multifunction-naval-radar-United-Kingdom.html
If Sylver A50 VLS is certified for quad packed CAAM this would enable T26 so fitted to carry Aster 30/CAAMM mix (in the AAW role) and conversely, T45 to carry CAAMM/Aster 30 instead of Aster 15/30 increasing number of missiles carried.
Also if ISD for T26 is assumed to be 2020 or thereabouts, then why assume 2087 will be chosen ASW sonar. It will be 10+ years old.
I was wondering when Spectre would be suggested, it is a perennial ‘bloom’ over at Warships1.
I am not against the idea, but it comes down to a cost trade of between it an Artisan………
As to 2087 and its future beyond the refitted T23′s; it is highly capable already and i’m not sure that there is the will to sink more development budget immediately into a new ASW suite, i may be wrong, but i believe it more likely that it will receive incremental updates with a possible replacement in the late twenties, much as the 23′s are being refitted with 2087 today.
To all those who decry the low quantity of frigates/destroyers:
You should look at this in the context of either the Lisbon Treaty or North Atlantic Treaty alliance.
A frigate is a kind of basic building block for a navy – an aircraft carrier isn’t.
The Dutch navy has six modern frigates.
Norway has five AEGIS ships.
The Spanish Navy has four AEGIS ships and a small carrier – but they won’t sail on their own against a powerful opponent.
The German Navy has seven modern frigates.
The Italian Navy is in a similar situation as the Spanish one; a small aircraft carrier, five AEGIS ships.
Doctrine compatibility, interpreters, data link compatibility and generally many free-play (even life fire) exercises with these allied fleets to minimise friction might be more important for the RN’s effectiveness in war than the whole Type 45 class.
there is no doubt that NATO task-forces will play an important role in the future, more important in collective effect that Britain’s naval forces alone, but if a nation does not have complete confidence that a military response its deems essential won’t be treated as ‘discretionary’ by its allies then it needs to possess sovereign force.
If there is that lack of complete trust, for whatever reason, and the capability lies within grasp then it is only sensible to retain sovereign capability, which in this case means sufficient escorts to transit a HVA to its theatre of operation.
Sven, doctrine is largely similar within all NATO nations, English is the language of the sea, all NATO ships use the same data links and there are plenty of exercises
Admin – I fully agree / concur with your resonse to Sven.
Jason – why fit T2087 to the T26 – because in my fantasy land the T26 is just a modded T45 and the drumbeat of shipbuilding we see the first modules being built before the last T45 is launched. There are many practical reasons why retiring the T23 earlier (i.e. closer to its actual design life) would be a good idea, but of course the 4 x T22BIII would go first.
Bryan McGrath has waded in with some comments on the RUSI paper over at InformationDissemination and one of his comments got me to thinking: Admin, do we need a post on Missile Defence ?
We (as in UK / Europe / NATO) are relying on the USA for anti-ballistic missile defence, principally relying on an number of specially equipped AEGIS cruisers / destroyers. It has been written that the T45 PAAMS has anti-ballistic missile tracking capabilities, but that we need an Aster 45 with a bigger booster to actually shoot at incoming ballistic missiles. SO, would we be better off spending more on T45′s for ballistic missile defence instead of replacing the SSBN based deterrent ???
“Bryan McGrath has waded in with some comments on the RUSI paper over at InformationDissemination and one of his comments got me to thinking: Admin, do we need a post on Missile Defence ?”
Missile defence is one of the core missions being considered for the new NATO doctrine:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/britain%E2%80%99s-future-strategic-direction-8-%E2%80%93-what-should-our-nato-allies-expect-of-us/
A few scattered thoughts
Have we given up on actively destroying the enemies submarine capacity?
I would have thought a likely none discretionary war task force would be launched in two waves anyway.
The Carrier group first, the amphibious group second.
The carrier group is always ready to deploy whereas the landing force has to be organised and embarked, and the carrier has to reduce the enemy defences before the landings can commence anyway.
That also leaves the question, can a combined Carrier/Amphib fleet be protected by fewer 26′s than two seperate fleets?
Thats got a bit lost.
Should we be thinking in terms of protecting our assets or sinking theirs?
Numbers are tricky.
I still think we should be thinking in terms of the T45′s receiving the kit they were designed with, so harpoon and the bow sonar, and a towed one if that can be done.
The T26 can then be a T45 without the £500mn radar and possibly with a better ASW kit.
12 hulls would allow 4 “actives”, two with high end AAW, two with low end AAW, two with high end ASW, two with low end ASW.
Any sloops attached the fleet are then extra groovey bits.
1. “I still think we should be thinking in terms of the T45′s receiving the kit they were designed with, so harpoon and the bow sonar, and a towed one if that can be done.
The T26 can then be a T45 without the £500mn radar and possibly with a better ASW kit.”
2. “12 hulls would allow 4 “actives”, two with high end AAW, two with low end AAW, two with high end ASW, two with low end ASW.”
3. “Any sloops attached the fleet are then extra groovey bits.”
4. “Should we be thinking in terms of protecting our assets or sinking theirs?”
1. I agree about bow-sonar and harpoon, the cost difference is i believe more than £500 however, as PAMMS if extremely expensive in addition to Sampson itself.
2. Essentially what i am suggesting, but I like the self-reinforcing nature to the two types, provide CEC and allow the T26′s to network into the T45 sonar, and vice versa allow the T45′s to treat the 26′s as handily positioned Aster silo’s for its PAMMS suite.
3. Just to clarify, i don’t consider C2 a sloop, and i see it as a standalone vessel whose harpoons and gun allow it to provide a picket duty when with a task-group.
4. This is where MPA4 and Astute are particularly relevant.
Ouch, BMD! Will get very interesting, once the Iranians got their bomb. I bet, out of six T45s, two will be used as stationary BMD-assets covering London.
Back to topic; I think the writers have made a fair amount of good arguments. But – again – same failure at the last page. No vision how to fix shipbuilding and defence inflation, just some we-need-this-and-that-numbers, which look good on paper.
Isn’t adding vessels to papersheets instead of fleet-bases the problem?
Why, oh why, is it so impossible to beef up the T23-design, adding some stealthy bells and whistles, replacing the costly VLS in front of the bridge with module-space to accomodate CAMM-containers, pay £200-400m (dunno how to give a realistic number), requiring 25 or better 30 years service life? Build one each year, two if a surge is needed, and the problem is gone. And if extra funds are available in a particular FY, convert the aft section to something UXVish.
Brings me to another point. What is the current annular shipbuilding budget? Any ideas?
McZ said: “Why, oh why, is it so impossible to beef up the T23-design, adding some stealthy bells and whistles, replacing the costly VLS in front of the bridge with module-space to accomodate CAMM-containers, pay £200-400m (dunno how to give a realistic number), requiring 25 or better 30 years service life?”
So your just keeping the hull ? The hull plus the current machinery fit ??
Its all OLD – how much will it cost to redisgn the hull from an 18 year service life to 30 years ? You may as well design something new in the first place. Also accomodation is way behind that of the T45, smaller crews on longer deployments need better living spaces (its a retention thing).
Of course if we are to takle defence inflation in anyway at all, stop spending on design, and either:
1. Mod the T45 for the C1 / T26
2. Buy “off the shelf” for the C2 – Absalon or FREMM for example.
Been too busy of late to really dip into this thread until now — it’s been like that redhaired girl at school (lifelong fascination there, just ask my ginger half-Scots wife) you couldn’t work up the nerve to talk to but wished to fondly. For right now, just a preliminary comment before I come back to the thrust of what folks have been saying here.
First, loved the paper. While I might not have agreed with every single detail it was a model of clarity and purpose, and a real gem compared to the combinations of unfocused yearning and newspaper-feed fluff one gets a lot about where to go with the RN at this pass. Several fist-the-air moments too. Paging Sir Jeremy (perhaps even more than Lord West) for dusting off the First Lordship of the Admiralty? (Might be nice to bring back some of those jobs as non-politicals, interlocutors between the vote-grubbers and the cap-badgers.)
Second, it’s very interesting to me how the RN at the moment seem to be not simply “prisoners of the past” but much more specifically prisoners of the recent past. Hop in the TARDIS a moment (though you have to go to the crabs to get one ;) and come back to the end of the Sixties, after the RN’s worst defeat, possibly, since Beachy Head in 1690, the death of CVA-01. That, plus the growth of the Soviet fleet, collapsed several trend lines and ended a period of no less than two hundred seventy-five years (since the post-Beachy Head victories up to that moment) when the Royal Navy was either the first or the second most powerful fleet on the planet. Dazed, and also trying to keep up with a potential Third World War seascape where surface capital ships were nuke targets and Soviet subs would be death to American reinforcements, they came up with a procurement plan. Wikipedia does a nice reproduction in their “Type 22 Frigate” article which I’ll crib quickly:
- An ASW cruiser with helos for punch (the roots of the Vincis, of course)
- An air-defence ship, labeled a destroyer, to become Type 42 (“let’s do it right this time” gives us a handful of Type 45s, anyone?)
- A big-boned, destroyer-sized ASW frigate with room for lots of useful gear and adaptation to general-purpose, as Type 22 (the gold-plated fudge of Type 26, anyone?)
- A cheap-and-cheerful patrol frigate on commercial lines, as Type 21 (various C2/3 notions?)
So, basically, the RN are playing out an over-specialised, 40-year-old procurement plan, based on having a lot of over-taxed line of battle escorts on a variety of stations (some make a lot of sense, others are like claiming lordship of Calais while you should be paying attention to that big ocean behind you that you can now navigate.) And they’ve over-specialized (and so, in terrible English, “over-project-ized” as well as overengineered — created too many procurement processes that a handful of contractors can spin overcharges out of) ships for the wrong purposes. And they’ve been willing to trade them off in batches to get the carriers, which are vitally important because any sane opponent not stuck in a desert now knows “make sure you deny your high-tech Western foes any airfields,” mostly just so they can look butch to the USN and let Sir Caspar John (the charismatic 1SL who resigned in the good fight for CVA-01) rest in his grave.
There’s a bright and necessary future for the RN, and that ain’t it. I like what the paper ahd to say and I’ll try to come back to engaging with our lot here about where to go.
Admin,
Yes, boss, (hangs head) I’ll write a piece about it if you twist my arm — they sell arm-twisters at the Sapper Store don’t they ;-)
Another scattered thought.
If we have a General Purpose Warship fleet for the not really military standing deployments, do we need an In/Out/ShakeItAllAbout mix for the specialist ships?
We only have two Capital Fleets (1xQE 1xAlbion 2xBay), so why do we need three escort fleets?
If the GPW handles constabulary 365 days a year, we need three ships, but if all the high end warfighters do is escort the carriers to a full blown war, could they not be cut to two fleets?
As for Ballistic Missiles
A Ballistic Missile with eight independant warheads costs as much as four interceptor missiles.
You need eight interceptors, at least, to intercept eight warheads.
Until there is a new technology that alters that balance, its almost always going to be better to retaliate than defend.
jackstaff – “Yes, boss, (hangs head) I’ll write a piece about it if you twist my arm — they sell arm-twisters at the Sapper Store don’t they ;-)”
I’d be very interested to read that.
DominicJ – “If we have a General Purpose Warship fleet for the not really military standing deployments, do we need an In/Out/ShakeItAllAbout mix for the specialist ships?”
The choke-point frigate (GP) are entirely engaged with standing tasks, the only one that could be considered ‘free’ is the fleet ready escort, and that is really a ready reserve, one warship.
Not quite sure what you mean re. In/Out/ShakeItAllAbout mix for the specialist ships….?
Sorry, Sleep/Caffene deprived and rather ill.
If all the “Standing” tasks are met by three General Purpose Frigate Fleets of 8 C2/3, on a one (Fleet) in work up, one on station, one in work down mix can we then have a Fourth Fleet, consisting of 1 QE, 1 Albion, 2 Bay, 2 T45+, 2 T26+, and a Fifth Fleet consisting of the same.
That would allow 4 T45′s with PAAMS, Harpoon, Bow Sonar and 4 T26′s with harpoon, bow sonar and towed sonar.
We dont need a third expeditionary fleet because, well we dont have the carrier even if we have the escorts, but the escorts arent deployed all the time, or any time.
that is effectively creating a single task-force navy by conflating the carrier and ARG missions into one.
it may be inevitable because of escort cuts, but it is undesirable because:
1. if the ‘fleet’ is deployed, that is it, all resources are soaked up.
2. there will be circumstances when the utility of the ARG is needed, but not the carrier, such as disaster relief.
3. there will be circumstances when the utility of the carrier is needed, but not the ARG, such as serbian bombing.
In a significant war the ARG would need the carrier for CAP/CAS, fine, bring them together, but to keep them together would create a fairly inflexible force.
If we only have 2 carriers and 2 LPDs for our Carrier and Amphib Groups how do you see the work up/on station/work down in relation to the CV/LPD themselves?
Well that is the traditional rule that has always been applied to escorts, since time immemorial, but the acquisition of 2x CVF was determined to be sufficient to provide permanent coverage of one carrier.
Partly this will be due to engineering considerations whereby clever design and lots of space allow quick and non-intrusive maintenance and refit schedules.
Partly this will be due to crew size and facility scale allowing for a different operational tempo from that typical to an escort.
Partly this is fantasy, because we all appreciate that it would have been better to acquire 3x CVF to guarantee permanent availability.
It is possible that modern design may permit work-down-work-up / deploy cycle for escorts, but this becomes a very technical discussion regarding whether it is desirable/efficient/possible from a human resources point of view (see Warships1).
Regardless, it is deemed possible to to keep one CVF on station at all times, and I am ‘presuming’ that the same division of resources will be possible with the Amphib fleet.
i’ve forwarded the question here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/14206/master/1/
lets see what comes of it……. :)
A few of the responses here:
CVFoptimist – “I believe the RN has been officially generating one LPH and one CVS simultaneously from 4 pretty old ships (Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal and Ocean). I don’t know what availability they’ve actually has in practice.”
Jedibeeftrix – “1. can we expect 80% availability of modern warships?
2. if yes, would it make sense to keep the fleet-escorts on the same 1:1 ratio as their HVA’s, thereby freeing up escorts for standing tasks which require a 2:1 ratio?”
MSR – “1. Yes we can so long as neither of the following occurs:
1a: you do not fight any wars
1b: you do not accidentally prang any of your ships
Summary: so long as everything works perfectly and functions as designed “right out of the box” and never suffers any accidents, failures or takes any battle damage, then yes, you can get 80% availability from your machinery. The remaining 20% down-time will be due to human-factors like the crews getting tired and having unreasonable demands, such as shore leave.
2. Yes, so long as you can completely satisfy requirements 1a and 1b.
Escorts are the hardest working ships in the fleet and part of the reason we have so many, and use a 3:1 ratio to manage their deployment, is because we need depth of resource. You might try an exercise in which you imagine the result of the Falklands War if we hadn’t had sufficient numbers of escorts available to permit us to lose a few, because remember that some of those ships were intentionally placed in harms way so as to protect the high value units. If you then limit your escort fleet numbers, you have by default created high value units out of your “expendable” escorts!”
We’ve had a similar discussion on these forums about the small number of Type 45s. If we’d got 12, then they would have been escorts. As we’re only getting 6, and as their function as the only AAW assets in the fleet is so vital, they are by default high value units instead and should, strictly speaking, never go anywhere without their own escort!”
MSR – “Escorts work harder than HVAs. They do more and go further than the HVAs ever do. They are also smaller and have smaller crews and there is a very common rule regarding the size of a thing, especially a ship: the complexity increases as the cube of each additional unit of size.
So you might now ask why don’t we build Type 45s that are as small as rowing boats in order to reduce the cost/complexity?
Well, because up to a certain limit, this cost of complexity is acceptable because the gains outweigh the losses. Type 45 is the size it is because of two primary reasons: 1. it needed a big, wide hull to provide stability for a very tall radar mast and, 2. it needed a big hull to accomodate the WR21 gas turbines. These sacrifices were worth it because the gains outweigh the costs of running a big ship. The gains are 1. the ship now
has the biggest practicable radar horizon and 2. it has one of the most advanced, most economical and flexible propulsion systems afloat. A tertiary benefit is the big flight deck and the ability to carry more stuff as needed, like troops or stores. But that alone isn’t reason enough to build a big destroyer in a navy replete with auxiliary craft able to do that job much better (RFAs, amphibs, carriers, ships taken up from trade, etc.). Type 45 is as big as it needs to be. Any bigger would be a waste. Ideally, it might be a bit smaller but would sacrifice benefits 1 and 2 in the process.*
* Just because the Yanks build huge testosterone-fueled Uberships doesn’t mean it’s the best option or even a very efficient solution. The USN is a fiscal and political mutant, bigger than anything that has come before and probably bigger than anything that will come in the future. They have big-ship-itis and the condition is chronic and is exsanguinating them.
Thus, HVAs are big and complicated and have many more crew and so are much more expensive to equip, to run and to maintain. So THAT is why you don’t buy many of them and because you haven’t got many and because they cost a lot to run, you don’t deploy them for every little piddling escort or guardship or patrol task. For that, you have escorts. That’s what escorts are for.
And that is why you need more escorts. And that is why you need a higher deployment ratio for those escorts.”
JimWH – “The key difference Jedi, is that the UK’s high end naval capabilities aren’t predicated on continuous in-theatre availability, and haven’t been since 1966. The 1:1:1 ratio is still the golden rule if you intend to maintain a ship in-theatre, but the UK ceased basing capabilities around continuous deployment when the decision was made to withdraw from East of Suez. In it’s place is the idea that capabilities can be surged and maintained for extended though not indefinite periods of time.
Take the ‘phibs for instance. Current thinking is that at any time at short notice the UK should be able to provide an LPH (Ocean or a CVS in the LPH role), an LPD, and a couple of LSD to act as an amphibious task group able to transport and deploy a short brigade. That could be replaced at around the 3-4 month mark by a second rotation of basically identical composition. However after those two rotations have gone through there will need to be a period of refit and repair in order to be able to deploy a similarly group again. Alternatively, if there has been enough warning, a larger task force can be sent composed of a greater proportion of the amphibious fleet, however doing so means that the follow-up will be smaller.
This deployment structure is what is driving the HVA platform availability numbers. With 80% individual availability the CVF class will be perform these surged back-to-back deployments, which will give the UK the ability to theoretically manitain a strike carrier off St Elsweheres for 6-8 months, which is hardly to be sniffed at. Alternatively for more run-of-the-mill deployments, having 80% individual availability is enough for one CVF to be online at all times available to go out to St Elswheres at short notice (days to weeks) to persuade the locals to behave, whilst the other CVF’s remaining availability is used for training back in the UK.
And for it’s worth, a large part of the effort which has gone into the design of CVF has gone into making that availability possible. It’s one of those ‘measure twice, cut once’ situations: the time has been spent up till now working on the design and the systems so that once the ships are built the 80% availability is actually really possible as opposed to just an aspirational goal.”
I am quite content with the 1:1 HVA ratio when contrasted with the 2:1 escort ratio, for while you might argue that we could ‘getaway’ with 1:1 for the actual HVA escorts (T26 + T45), it provides some slack for deep-refits/operational loss etc that will not otherwise be factored into numbers here.
Hope this helps.
I rather fear WS1 has missed the point, but I cant check at work.
“Escorts are the hardest working ships in the fleet”
True, but the T45+/T26+ would cease to be the workhorse of the fleet.
The C2/3 would maintian the role of workhorse.
For all I care, the Active Expeditionary Fleet (1xCarrier 1xOcean 1xAlbion 2x Bay 2xT45+ and 2xT26+) could be sat in Port with its crew debarked and getting plastered for the 6 months its “active”
“You might try an exercise in which you imagine the result of the Falklands War if we hadn’t had sufficient numbers of escorts available to permit us to lose a few, because remember that some of those ships were intentionally placed in harms way so as to protect the high value units.”
This could still be done with C3, C2, T26 and then finaly the T45, but I’m rather against the idea of planning to sacrifice ships.
Fantasy Fleet has a frankly stunning work up of how the UK could, with only the assets it has now or could ready at short notice, crush an Argentine/Venezualan coalition in the South Atlantic.
The Submarine Fleet and the GR9′s with Storm Shadow could put airbases out of action, then destroy planes on the ground.
The Amphibs can land an advance party via helicopter to set up a fierce air defence before a ship goes anywhere near land.
The T45 doesnt have the “clutter” issues of T42 either.
From what you’ve copied here, I see no reason why with a few days notice we couldnt deploy an expeditionary fleet and maintain it (and its fellow) in theatre for 6 months to a year.
We couldnt use T45 to chase drug dealers in the Golden Triangle, so?
the argument advanced by JimWH and MSR (at the bottom of the post) is that the RN is already is zero-fat machine with zero margin for loss in a contested navy theatre.
remember, the purpose of the the RN/amphibs is not to refight the Falklands, it is to provide a level of capability that will allow a war to be fought and won under a level of threat similar to that faced in 1982.
if we embarked a carrier and amphib fleet into a similar modern day environment with a fleet of only two T26′s and two T45′s (predicated on 4+4), then one successful strike from the opfor on a T45 causes the entire fleet with its embarked brigade to turn around and go home.
an ASW+AAW escort will always deploy with a carrier/ARG, they are two valuable to do otherwise, and in the majority of forseeable deployments such as:
1) serbia bombing (carrier against land power)
2) sierra leone (ARG against developing nation)
this will be sufficient.
but, in a serious conflict with a naval theatre you will want more than a single ASW+AAW asset to protect each HVA, you would need to deploy three or four to provide depth against a luck hit.
OK, the more I read all these comments, and the more I consider the papers real point about visible presence = deterrence (of the non-nuclear type!) the more I think the the low end type of vessel is worthless for the task.
I am talking about our mythical C3, lets say a vessel based on the Venator design, with its multifunction rear deck. A vessel built for ocean going MCM which could apparently undertake ‘global constabulary’ ops by replacing MCM USV’s with maybe 4 big RHIBS on that after “flex-deck”. I beleive the main (only real) armament of the design is a 76mm gun. The flight deck is sized for a Lynx, but one cannot truly be embarked for global ocean patrol ops because it only has the fold out ‘shelter’.
My issue is, are we conflating the “global oceanic policeman” role with the “military deterrent presence” role espoused by the RUSI paper ???
Lets face it the current River Class are “fishery protection” vessels only, pathetically armed units which are suitable for a Coast Guard role. Why do we keep one in the Falklands, well because it can do the Coast Guard inspections, SAR tasking etc If it was painted white with “HM Coast Guard” on the side, what would the difference be ? It has little to no military value in the protection of the Falklands from any aggressor.
Similarly what benefit does a River Class / Venator type vessel provide to the anti-drug / people smuggling operations in the Carribean ? None, I would content, because the best asset there is a helicopter (or even better more than one). And before you content that a UAV such as FireScout could do the job, see this article on why the USCG is not buying UAV’s for the NSC yet:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0ad1aca2-21f2-4076-b03f-f6606f714165
Mind you, thats one reason why I suggest using Albion Class, Bay Class or anything else of carrying mutliple helo’s or fast boats (plus disaster relief supplies) for the Caribbean role, making themselves useful so to speak.
Look at the Natonal Security Cutter itself – a real global patrol vessel. 2 Helo’s, 57mm and at least a 20mm CIWS. Not that heavily armed for a “frigate” size vessel, but good enough to protect itself from subsonice anti-ship missiles fired from ashore by hostile groups of “non-state actors”. (Of course NSC itself is way overpriced due to US ship building issues).
So yes, only 6 x T45 makes them HVU’s themselves. Same will apply if we only get 8 x T26 for open ocean ASW with towed array. However the answer is for global pressence / deterrence is NOT a OPV, not a River evolution, not a Venator type, nor a Dutch OPV veriant. It ‘COULD’ be a FREMM or an Absalon, or something similar. For all those who will cry foul that a 4.5 inch gun and 8 to 16 x ASM, plus a battery of CAMM is overkill for ant-drug running, anti-piracy ops, well yes it is, but so what. An OPV with a 30mm pop-gun cannot provide a “deterrent presence”. An Absalon with 2 x Merlin worth of Marines on board, 16 x NSM 3 which can hit targets 50 miles inland, and a 4.5 inch gun which can “reach out and touch” closer targets converts mere presence into the ability to ‘do something’ even on a small scale, thus providing the deterent effect.
In summary, I agree with the RUSI paper, but more C2 not C3 is the answer to turning global naval presence into a conventional deterrent to protect UK national interests.
i agree with you, which is why i’d like at least 24 high-end warfighters, but there are standing tasks which don’t require a C2, so there is a wider role for C3 outside its specialised ‘packages’.
Jed, The C2/C3 argument seems to encapsulate this confusion between deterrence and policing.
Really C2 is a general purpose frigate and is required for deterrence.
I am agreed that C3 Sloop needs to have an embarked helicopter for policing not just a deck for it to land on.
So which ships (leaving carrier/ARG escorts to one side) should be allocated to the standing tasks?
FRE C2
NRF C2
APT (N) and (S) C2 or C3?
Falklands C2 or C3?
Armilla C2 or C3?
Combined Task Force (Anti-Piracy) C3?
MCMFOR C3
agreed, i tried to separate out the “hi” from the “lo” in my article but may have confused matters; while the C2 is a cheaper frigate, that is because it is not specialised for area-defence of the air or sub-surface domains, it remains a high-end warship.
the low-end is occupied exclusively by C3.
“but, in a serious conflict with a naval theatre you will want more than a single ASW+AAW asset to protect each HVA,”
Well that depends how you define HVA.
The Carrier is easy, but does the amphib group get 2 escorts per vessel?
Or two for the full fleet?
Can a single T45 and two T26′s defend a carrier and 3 other vessels over a small area, I dont see why not, obviously two would be better, but really, we should be looking at destroying the enemy beyond its range, or at least disabling.
Carriers move so need a 100km distance to fire, airstrips dont, so stand off munitions can be fired from almost any range
does rather depend on whether one intends to maintain a separate carrier group and ARG.
six is sufficient for one, but only barely capable of two.
Jasons – from your list the only thing C3 is fit for is MCM
Jedibeeftrix – actually I am not sure you do agree. I am saying that C3 is not fit for anything except Ocean going deployable MCMV and survey (well maybe close inshore ASW if fitted out appropriately?).
So I do agree that C2 needs to be a ‘cheap frigate’ but it needs to be a reasonably capable asset BUT that still makes it “low end” to me, not “high end” (the defintion of which is Daring / Arliegh Burke / Ticonderoga etc) – hence fittings are more of the issue than size or shape of vessel.
SO, would an Absalon with new CAMM plus ARTEMIS Harpoon, 4.5 and Phalanx lifted straight from retiring units be cheap enough to afford 14 or more of them ??? Apparently CAMM will be good enough for these real ‘escorts’ to accompany the HVU’s which only have CIWS. On the ASW front the same hull mounted sonar as carried on the T45 would meet the strict standardisation requirements (!) along with shipboard tubes and helos’.
Then of course the key point becomes the Fleet Air Arm budget – what is the point of having say 8 x T26 “High end” ASW ships, and 14 x C2 ‘cheap frigates’ each capable of carrying up to 2 x AW1012 Merlin sized helo’s if we dont have enough Merlins and Lynx’s available to do the job…….????
I would argue that the Combined Task Forces – terrorism and piracy in the gulf region and the horn of Africa, and the East-of-Suez – Armilla Patrol for safety of British shipping in the Persian Gulf, are roles that could be undertaken by C3.
Re C3, if we can’t get it for half less than two thirds the price of a T26, or half the price of a T45, then we are going wrong.
[edit]
Re C2, if we can’t get it for half less than two thirds the price of a T26, or half the price of a T45, then we are going wrong.
Sven, with all the pre SDSR news coming out thick and fast its hard to keep up and I can’t post on every piece of nonsense that comes out of the mainstream media, it would be a full time job!
Anyway, I would like to think we see things happening before the news :)
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/07/sharing-with-the-french/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/07/linking-a400-and-fsta/
Hello just thought I would add my thoughts to this comment thread as I’ve been somewhat silent.
First of all I have the strongest sense of Deja Vu because we have been here before. Last time round I think especially me and Jed had a heck of a lot to say and Jed even wrote some excellent posts which are still there to be found along with the extensive detailed comments. In response to the most recent subject I suppose we could get more out of our escorts and I’m sure we will if we ever really end up with a properly tiered escort fleet with T45, C1, C2. Hopefully if done properly the only times a T45 or C1 will be outside of home waters will be when it’s escorting either a carrier or one of the major amphibious vessels. As for how much protection the major vessels should have? Well in my opinion a Carrier should never leave Home waters without a T45 a T26 and a supporting RFA in tow. If were talking about entering a higher threat environment then frankly as many escorts as we can muster because if a carrier or other major vessel gets hit then >GAME OVER<.
Anyhow the more I think about it the more obvious it becomes how important whatever becomes the C2 will be to the future of the RN as the C1 is only likely to appear in a very small number probably 8 hulls. That small number coupled with the tiny number of T45's that we already have means that they will simply be too valuable and too few in number to use for anything but escorting our high value assets. Therefore the C2 class will be left to do the bulk of the work that the Ocean capable MCM/Survey C3 class is simply too small and under-equipped to handle beyond that it's call in the big boys. Me and Jed have said It before and we'll say it again we should really look closely at the Absalon class which ticks all the boxes and to me is in the Goldilocks Zone.
As for what has been mentioned about the C3 all I ask is when can I get my proper paramilitary 'Her Majesty’s Coastguard' to patrol and defend our domestic and overseas EEZ?
Euan – your right, I (we) have said it all before, and the articles are still here to read…. I just can’t help myself….
So, that being said:
JBT ref:”terrorism and piracy in the gulf region and the horn of Africa, and the East-of-Suez – Armilla Patrol for safety of British shipping in the Persian Gulf, are roles that could be undertaken by C3.”
No, no, no, no, no, no, no…..
That is my point – how is an OPV with limited helo maintenance facilities useful for anything along the lines of anti-piracy ? If it does not have a full set of spares and a full “ship flight” for its Lynx, it is pointless, OR we go the full Mike Burleson route and its is much smaller, used for persistent patrols and has a mother ship to provide helo’s, crew downtime / R’n'R and fuel / provisions. Maybe four such patrol boats per mothership.
All the designs that want to keep C3 below 100m and 3000 tonnes (because that appears to equate to cheap) can’t fit a full hanger because they compromise on the fitting of the ‘flex-deck’ type quarter deck for boat / unmanned vehicle ops. OPV’s had their time in the RN during the cod wars, we have moved on ….. :-)
Jed, I see the combined task force/anti-piracy as policing rather than deterrence hence the C3 vessel. BTW my view of C3 is a 3000 tonne vessel WITH a hangar/facilities for embarked Lynx but no CAMM: gun only (this after all is Leander Class size/capability once upon a time).
This is what I’m really getting at. What is the C3 vessel for? Spain with “BAM” class, the Dutch “Holland” Class, French “Floreal”, Lots of nations are deploying this type (ie No SAM or organic ASW sonar) and size of warship but looking at our list of standing tasks it’s difficult to foresee them fulfilling any other than MCMFOR and Anti-Piracy.
It seems to me that a bare minimum of 6 C1 and 18 C2 are required. But this is neither the current RN plan nor what is called for by Blackham and Prins.
If we go with fewer vessels then we have to get rid of some tasks (which tasks?) but this totally undermines Blackham and Prins’ assertion “Why things don’t happen”.
“how is an OPV with limited helo maintenance facilities useful for anything along the lines of anti-piracy ? If it does not have a full set of spares and a full “ship flight” for its Lynx, it is pointless”
make it 3000 tonnes and fit a full hanger then.
steal is cheap, air is cheaper.
Jedibeeftrix and Jasons
OK, I ageee, but most of the talk of C3 is of smaller 2000 tonne not larger 3000 tonne vessels, and as I said the helo deck hanger complex is often compromised by the quarter deck / flex deck designed for unmmanned surface and sub-surface vehicle operations.
There is a big difference between BAM (which I like a lot), the Dutch OPV’s and the Italian design like the BAM who’s name I forget – and the Venator and other designs which are based around the ability to conduct MCM ops.
Well, here goes. Been putting this off for a bit and trying very hard not to get pulled into the “island” thread up the masthead (JBT laid out basics without me rattling on about strategic considerations.) Quick thanks to all the good souls populating this particular thread w/ smarts.
Jed,
I like the cut of BAM too. (I think the Italian design you have in mind are the Commandantis, and the broader MOSAIC framework, which like MEKO and the Dutch Sigma, can work down to a fishery cutter and up to a decent patrol frigate. Mileage may vary on the Marina Militare itself (although the San Marco Regiment, based on old friends in the British and American marines, are a sound bunch) but they design and build some excellent ships. I’ve said before and will again, much rather go in with the Italians, or the evolving Dutch-Spanish combine, on ships than the French.
Back on topic (maybe :),
On that note, in a perfect world where the Treasury craps rainbows, the right C2 would basically be a Dutch M-class with the hangar and stern modded properly to handle a Merlin. (I like the cloggies half-way house of an integrated mast on their mid-life upgrade, and they had sense to sneak thirty austere bunks for booties into the design.) I love the Absalon. That smaller navies around the world aren’t queuing up in Odense shows how many knaves and fools are loose in the general population. But I’m against it for C2 on two grounds. One, I don’t like the people who will look at it — quacks a lot like a GP frigate, excellent single-hull support for personnel ashore, can carry an austere company of the green death — and see it as a floating excuse to meddle. Also, unless you’re willing to jack the cost up to Type 26-land, it’s vulnerable against missile saturation if your minor enemy goes all-in. (On the other hand I think its ASW and small-boat/aircraft defences are underrated.) They’re really meant to operate as part of a general coalition (so Sven would probably want a navy’s worth ;) or, if the Danes ever had cause for a national-interest op, they would operate in the Belts or abroad with a Huitfeldt-class air defence frigate as partner. I could see idle British pols raised on Kipling letting these “versatile chokepoint patrollers” wander into all kinds of creative messes with up to three hundred vulnerable souls to pay for their folly. Better to have escalation dominance — you don’t need the flex deck for relief ops if you properly fund and use the right hulls (basically Fort (ii) and Bays) in the RFA, and you don’t need the company-carrier capacity if you can get an SSGN on permanent station in the South Atlantic trenches and an available ARG. Plus, those bigger options give politicians at least a little pause to consider whether bashing a problem over the head will yield the desired results.
I’ll do a shorthand on a replacement fleet in the next comment.
How to remake the RN, and what to do with it? I won’t get into the fine grit like a replacement for HMS Biter (my favourite name in the fleet, like the crazy little chav who’s still standing at the end of a Glaswegian pub brawl.) But I’ll start from the top.
Carriers?
- Currently still sailing the Vincis, bless them (like my Methodist great-grandma noted of the judge Samuel, “Here I am, send me”.) Three in class, Vinci effectively retired save for duct tape in an Article 5 emergency.
- Moving to the two CVFs, lots more deck space, and perhaps in an alternate universe jets to fly off them.
- This drops you from three hulls to two that you have to maintain, and based just on napkin math, even if they go CATOBAR, lets you cut between three and five hundred personnel afloat depending on how decent your Vinci’s air group is at a given time.
Amphibs?
- Currently Ocean remains the useful engine with the high-tech Albions as command ships, and the RFA’s bays.
What to do instead?
- Contract with the Spanish for two BPEs, done to Juan Carlos standards, keel to deck in Spain with sensors and some interior specifics (like proper arrangements to carry Merlin) done as UK workshare. With that much build in Euros, and development costs for the class (plus towing hulls to yards in Oz? Jeebus) you can get the pair for a billion quid.
- With that contract in motion, move to sell *all* the RN’s current amphibs. Note I said RN, not RFA. Part of the deal here is to protect the versatile Bays. The Albions are a good property if you will let HMG rather than BAe handle the sale, and profits from that plus getting someone to take Ocean will probably knock the BPE deal costs down to a stand-alone Type 45 (around 750-800 million.)
- You save the Bays, which are really quite important. You get two manifestly more capable amphibs, real LHAs (Hermes and Ark Royal, perhaps?) that can even cart a handful of knackered Harriers (or USMC offloads) as CAP at basement costs. And, again napkin math, you have two hulls in place of three and drop maybe two hundred at-sea personnel. (That’s with full air groups for each new LHA.) All for pretty cheap, and commonality with two long-term allies (Spain, Australia.)
High-end escorts:
- Right now there are twenty-three, in real terms, as the penny-pinched Darings come on line, plus the excellent T22 Batch 3s and the yeoman type 23s. What instead?
- “Type 26″ as a big boat is a gold-plated fudge. One thing that the many iterations of Burke-like designs (and Russian riffs on it like India’s Delhi-class) confirm is the trend back to “ships of the line.” These aren’t fleet-dominating vessels like the pre-carrier BBs, they are this era’s equivalent of line ships from the pharaohs one, big and versatile enough to handle fleet-on-fleet combat and sweep aside anything smaller, and at least survive against superior numbers that have inferior gear.
- Simple answer there: Type 45 *is* C1 and will need to go GP. Old Admiralty hands and about half the Warships/Defence Talk boards will just have to deal with the change of tactical eras. Beef up the current six with Harpoon (not eight, but sixteen, strip down all the retiring heavy-escort frigates, then start on UORs) and SeaRAM rather than Phalanx. Integrate Type 2087 and improve the hull sonar on refit, doesn’t have to happen now. Why 2087 on these? Aren’t you supposed to hunt subs at a distance with quietened hulls? Well, when you now come knocking abroad it will be with a carrier or amphibious strike group. Your sub-equipped enemy know you’re out there. They will come to you, you need to “find and fix” so Astutes and helos can kill them out of torp range. Unless T45 hulls will queer the pitch for 2087′s reception, this is where they belong.
- Build six more T45s, with the AAW gear and Sampson and all the tricks, but redesign the hangar a bit so that instead of one Merlin it carriers two Lynx. These are your ASW point defenders. (If some mild quieting is necessary, do it on these.) Commonality of parts and design (hangar excepted) will help make up for high costs of “proper” Darings, since a big, escort-sized T26 is likely to see costs spiral on redesign and gucci details.
- I’d see each of these boats mounting 40 Aster 30, eight cells for either quad-packed mid range (CAMM or, if we’d bought the right missile from the frogs, VT1), two SeaRAMs (total 22 missiles that can double up on small surface targets), Harpoon, and 155 gun.
- Twelve of these ships, I’m assuming crew size goes up to 220.
For C2?
- I’d go right to VT’s design for the Omani “Khareef” corvettes. C2 really needs to be a patrol frigate, I think: good quality but not gucci sensors, relatively small crew manning, effective self-defence but not necessarily lots of offensive punch, and a platform for a Merlin. (Plus some creative living space so you can at least hot-bunk an SBS team when required.)
- Lengthen the design a bit, probably have to broaden the beam slightly too, to handle one of its primary components, a deck and hangar for Merlin. Worry less about flexing ships at this size of vessel and more about flexing Merlins. They swap neatly between ASW and commando carrier. Look at adding in a “flex package” MCM system, like the Americans’ towed sleighs. Anything smaller than a Daring and bigger than a training vessel needs MCM capabilities.
- Get a good MCM hull sonar, a COTS towed array (doesn’t need to be fabulous, just needs to exist), Artisan. Put a Bofors 57mm up front, one of the new Phalanxes now meant for the Darings up atop the hangar. That plus the usual MSIs amidships is good gun coverage and CIWS layer. Get two SYLVER cells crammed into the B position, one quad-packed for air defence, the other versatile. (Lightweight Multirole? Some type of Ikara/ASROC successor? Something for land-attack? Varies by posting.) Do a good job on containerised space in the hangar so you can stow a couple of UUVs for MCM support.
- A dozen of these, do everything possible, using the Khareef design’s model as a base, to keep crew manning around 100.
As for C3?
- Right now there’s a mess of ships in various roles: MCM, OPV, survey, etc.
- Rationalise this to two. Build six of BMT’s Venator as is, keep the helo deck and some support facilities but drop the little hangar. Bofors 57mm up front, flex deck in back to shift between coastal survey and coastal MCM. Think about tweaking the bog-standard hull for those roles.
- Same time, go to the Norse and say: “give me six copies of that excellent patrol ship KV Svalbard, Bjorn, and be quick about it.” Good length for seakeeping, 57mm up front, proper hangar for Lynx right in the design, heavy weight with icebreaking capability. Your Lynx can be versatile (SAR, ASW, missile-armed patrol), and put in a “plug” aft to mount a SeaRAM (has self-contained fire control radar) in higher-threat situations. Based on soup-to-nuts COTS buy from Norway, you could get the set for 350 million quid.
- That’s a dozen of two models, Venator’s supposed to crew around 60 (might drop without hangar) and Svalbard crews at 50 with space for 25-30 spares, and that’s before you figure out what cabinets you can cram the green death into.
What’s all that then?
- You go from 44 hulls of seven types (seven and a half if you figure HMS Clyde that way) inclusive of HMS Endurance, down to 36. And, on those crew numbers, you cut about seven to eight hundred at-sea positions.
How do you work them?
- Four cycles for the flat decks. You run a rotation (unless one of the big girls is in deep refit) of CVF, LHA, CVF, LHA. One RM Commando is always on rotation (so the three take on a cycle) to either be EMF with an LHA afloat, or available if one’s called out to the next Sierra Leone/Lebanon evac/etc. (So in that cycle of threes, afloat deployment in caps, they go one-TWO-three, ONE-two-THREE, one-TWO-three again, etc. Not too onerous on afloat time and leaves units available for opex and contingencies.
- Three escort groups, in steady rotation. (You don’t need four because I can’t come up with a contingency where you’d deploy four at once, it’s basically a doubled-up “fleet force” for Whoops, Falklands and a CVF group held back for NATO’s sake, or one normal rotation plus one small emergency and the third lot in port.) So you’d run a group of 1 x big deck, 1 x MARS resupply, 4 x Type 45 (two Batch 1 AAW ‘specialists,’ two Batch 2 ASW ‘specialists’), 1 x Astute. Quite enough wallop. In practice, you’d have one group afloat, a single ship of the second group on standby as Fleet Ready Escort (don’t fuck around with FRE, if you’ll pardon my Saxon. Might as well scare a pantload out of whoever you mean to deter, and really protect who you’re protecting.) If your second group had to ship out for a contingency, one ship of the “off” group would have to stand up just in case.
- C2 (the downsized Type 26, keep the name, change the purpose, and make them actual frigates again) would do much of the rest. Four on regular duty: one Red Sea piracy, one Armilla, one a new West Africa station (keep that Atlantic presence up), one in home waters. (The Akulas are back.) A fifth on standby to beef those up or do a quick jaunt with STANAVFORLANT. (Now you’re supplying “proper” carriers and LHAs again, STANAVFORLANT can be a “sometimes” role. Concentrate instead on the diplomacy of being lead state in North Atlantic maritime ops.) You could probably have six abroad with at least some frequency if things demanded it. They show presence, have some real utility (good sensors, great helo, good bog-standard escort, can fight small foes without clumsiness), and do diplomatic work since they’re not feck-off enormous vessels that make your small-state friends jealous.
- For the others, one Svalbard remake takes the Falklands patrol. A second, since they’re built for mid-range icebreaking, replaces Endurance. A third, because one would work these rather hard, takes on EEZ patrol together with beefed-up SFPA and coast guarders. On occasion a fourth could play good neighbour up north with the Norse, Danes, and Canadians for diplomatic reasons. For the Venators, one could be off on survey work, a second on permanent MCM station for Falsane, a third journeyman when heeded.
For the Caribbean? Face the loss of both Fort (i)s and fight for a third Fort (ii). (The last “Sir” LSL was a Falklands replacement built twenty years after the rest of the class.) Brilliant ships for the job, cargo space for relief ops, multiple helos for counter-drug. Help the locals build up their OPVs and play good neighbor. APT(S) should be the job (in my perfect world ;-) of one of the new SSGNs, stocked up with conventional Tomahawks and permanently afloat in the South Atlantic trenches. Never more than a day’s steam from walloping range of any potential African or South American targets. Much more useful for “sovereign power projection” than letting frigate crews get their pictures taken on South Georgia.
Just noticed an error in that last one (wish we had text edit, more than once …) about the amphibs. Should be “with development costs passed on to the Aussies.” As they have been.
interesting idea, just one niggle:
“I’d go right to VT’s design for the Omani “Khareef” corvettes.”
I was under the impression that the RN wouldn’t touch the Khareef’s with a barge-pole, as they are overmanned for their limited capability and have very limited endurance so would struggle to deploy to places distant………?
jackstaff,
look at the costs and the statistics of the japanese helicopter flat tops. dirt cheap, 30+ knots to keep up with our newer hulls. newer bigger version with hangers big enough for v-22 therefore big enough for chinook. bigger one can also act as refueler or carry 4,000 troops that’s a lot of green death (probably have a bit of death from above as well).
Japan are lobbying to change their laws on being able to export defence items, this would open a whole host of new toys. I’m not a boat (ship) man so your opinion would be gratefully recieved.
JBT,
As you’d need to stretch them out a bit (probably from 99 to 112-115m, roughly Leander length) there will be some redesign involved anyway, and easier then if they’re already overmanned (great news there, rework the electronics for a better level of technical competence for your average matelot and cap the manning) to spend more space in the “stretch” model on both engine power and fuel capacity. There are a number of “straight” OPVs out there on shorter, more austere hulls that can loiter for weeks and go twice as far as the Khareefs at about the same rate of knots. The guts surely do need improving, it’s the framework (something you can conveniently upsize into a patrol frigate at reasonable cost) that’s sound.
paul g,
I like what the Japanese, and South Koreans, are building quite a bit. I’m also a fan (if a third CVF droped from the heavens) of the new Italian LHD design, especially since it’s built around Merlin and Chinook. But the Spanish got their Juan Carlos (slightly more austere and aircraft-focused than the Canberras, plus the cost of lugging a hull to Oz to finish work and paying everyone during the delay) for about 600m Euro. Most nations would be proud to call it an aircraft carrier, and it’s a true LHA. The deck’s not the best for aircraft spots but the amphib decks are a model of efficiency, and at cost (plus interoperability) it seems to offer the best combination of self-standing aircraft capability and battlegroup transport (even with a sizeable air group you can get around 950 green death aboard, plus enough vehicles to get them around.) Course that’s just me :-)
paul g,
I too look forward to Japanese-quality kit on the market. Like Jed (as so often) that new anti-ship missile of theirs has definite possibilities. And frankly their new Kawasaki transport, even more than Embraer’s C-390, might be a cost-effective way to square the C-130J/A400M circle. If they’d designed V-22 it might even work right ;-) Was it you who brought up Rotodyne in the videos thread? One of the three or four greatest lost opportunities for British industry since 1945. Lots of affection for Rotodyne, not just because of patriotism for Bristol’s aircraft industry (and it’s third-division football sides — come on you Rovers!)
paul again (have to stop meeting like this :),
If, however, the unctious tightwads at HMT said “Thou Shalt Have One Amphib, not three, for you are unrighteous squanderers of the public purse, not like all those weekend team-building junkets at the spa,” then definitely go for the stretch Hyuga. Better choice, probably, than the American LHAs. Plus, post-American arrangements (an insurance policy as the US whistles past the graveyard of insolvency, and while what used to be its conservative party is occupied by lunatics and kleptocrats and what used to be its populist party is occupied by corporate time-servers) for safe seas should probably be anchored around Britain (plus, if diplomacy works out, Brazil), India, and Japan. Lots of other contributory nations, yes, but they could each help anchor their neighbouring oceans. So Anglo-Japanese cooperation on contracts would be a good model.
jackstaff,
I commented on the rotordyne link and also put in a link to a website in the states (http://www.groenbros.com/) it has good background info and snazzy pictures, I reckon they will get it right and we’ll end buying technology that we developed!!
heads,cabins,galley,run ashore oh hang on that’s jackspeak!!!!
Rotodynes and airships, I feel a post coming on!
Admin,
Throw in heat rays and Dan Dare and you’ve run all the changes :-) I hear a casual Friday post coming on ….
paul,
We need to suborn one of those nice “venture capitalists” in the City spinning money out of whole cloth, get him to buy up Groen Bros. operation, and start shifting the physical plant over to the UK. If wishes were horses.
Just a quick post to say that I don’t really feel qualified to comment on this subject, especially after Jackstaff’s comprehensive and erudite analysis of the way forward for the RN!
Be nice to think that someone involved in the Strategic Defence Review might pass by these pages???
Jackstaff: Is that a touch of Sheridan? “then he has bowed as low to knaves and fools as to the honest dignity of genius and virtue”
Oh after googling the Juan Carlos, they do look a good design, and I like the idea of them being called Ark Royal and Hermes.
Oh and HMS Biter is based just down the road from me!
I am going to say it again….
All I want is for what we have to receive the weapons they were fitted for but not with. Sorry.
I mentioned Rotodynes over at New Wars recently; I think I was poking fun at the Osprey (again.)
Can someone point me to a source that says T45 is noisy?
She has fixed pitch propellers which are not noisy as variable pitched propellers. (Leander trumps T22!!) And I can’t see Their Lordships signing off a design that made too much noise.
Just noticed the latest comment and thought I would post some sort of reply to it. I doubt the T45′s are that noisy as standards will have improved as they always do and for a start the main propulsion is by electric motors similar to a Type 23 when it’s being quiet. Although saying that a Type 23 runs on Diesel Electric when it’s being quiet rather than Gas turbines powering IFEP so maybe all that extra high frequency noise is a problem?? However I’m certainly no expert but it would make sense that they are much quieter than a Type 42 and comparable if not better than a Type 23.
Hello George I wouldn’t worry about not being qualified to comment as I’m certainly not and the folks here are nice enough to point out when you are wrong without being harsh and correcting you.
Btw Jackstaff nice comments and from what I gather you essentially propose 4 capital ships of sorts (2 CVF and 2 BPE’s) covered by a core of 12 modified T45′s which would form the steel core of the Navy. This would then be backed up by 12 C2 Khareef derived vessels and then even further by half a dozen of each Venator and Svalbard derived vessels, I think I could actually live with this. I liked what you said about the Absalon class and I think you are right it would be a tempting excuse to meddle having them sailing around. However I don’t agree with your concerns about it’s ability to defend itself as CAMM and Artisan coupled with dual CIWS’s will be quite capable of handling multiple targets.
George,
Thanks kindly. Always liked “knaves and fools” and would have misremembered farther back than Sheridan, probably more in Marlowe’s neighbourhood. (That’s the trouble with a lower middle class education, I know the players and know what I like but at this distance couldn’t be relied on for who said what. Thanks for the correction.)
And say hello to your floating “neighbour” for me :)
Euan,
Thank you too, coming from one of our acknowledged naval hands — George and other newcomers, you should scroll back looking for Euan and Jed’s dialogues on RN reform — “I can live with it” is genuine praise in these times. You did read it right. Plus if I could say what I said as quick and tidy as you said it, I’d get paid much better! Also glad to hear your input on a C2 Absalon wrt air defence. Makes me feel better about self-defence capabilities if they did go down that road.
OK, lunch time post from work to get this comment thread to be the longest one….
Interesting news day:
1. Argentine Defence Minsiter pledges more money up from 0.9% to 1.5% of GDP
2. Argentina buys MI17′s – first major procurement of Russian kit
3. Astute class subs have sonar that can hear things 3000 miles away ! Oh yes, its from the BBC so it must be right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11173266
Maybe it was a typo and she added some zeros….
Jackstaff – ref the Absalon as a C2 – easy, cut of the flex deck at the forward end of the hanger, and use the extra space for better junior rates / embarked forces accommodation (or a gym). Absalon’s “hotel services” are designed for max 300 onboard, so reduce the size of the galley and then take out some washing machines so it could cope with maybe 160 – et voila, no one is now interested in miss-using it as a mini-amphib!
New thought on CIWS – would not a Oerlinkon Millenium revolver cannon re-chambered for 40mm case telescoped ammo be nice (Admin are you proud of my standardization effort ?). Ooooh, then take the enormous gattling gun out the Goalkeeper mounts and fit two of these 40mm……. well it is friday…. :-)
Khareef really? The Dutch Holland Class are a better bet.
Thanks for the kind words Jackstaff :)
Jed that is indeed interesting news regarding Argentina increasing defence expenditure it all depends on what timescale that increase is spread over and where it is headed in the budget allocations. I wonder what else they might have on their shopping list but it could be nothing as a buy of medium helicopters is something that would be useful for the UN missions Argentina supports. The thing about the Astute sonar is something that has been repeated for a while perhaps to somehow justify the cost to the generally uneducated general public as they might believe it. There could be some validity to the number under some special conditions but nothing that would be remotely operationally useful but hey it’s a nice big number to tell people that don’t know better.
Oh and a 40mm revolver cannon firing smart fused airburst munitions….*Drool*… I don’t think Christmas is quite here yet but that would be an epic present.
X, I suspect the Khareef was chosen as a baseline as it’s actually built and in the water and all importantly was built in a British shipyard but hey the Absalon modded as per Jed’s sugestions would be even better.
Euan I agree. But hypothetically in these days of business first I don’t see why BAE couldn’t buy the plans to the Holland or the plans to FREMM etc. etc.
Sharing with the French may be a new idea. But working with the Dutch is a fact. Remember the Dutch “bought” Leander.
X, Indeed hypothetically BAE or whoever could buy and/or license build the designs but we are still talking about politicians so starting off with a UK built design would be easier for them to think about. As for working with the Cloggies I know it is a fact but I like my Absalon class over and above either a Khareef or Holland class based design which are both still perfectly valid options.
P.S. Apologies the Holland class is actually built and in the water albeit not quite finished yet.
Euan, x, and Jed (and anyone else about at odd hours),
I too like the Hollands’ solid body and integrated mast, also the stern arrangement (and not too big a topweight issue to plonk a Phalanx at least, if not SeaRam around where the hangar fades into amidships, I’d wildly guess.) Frankly I’d love to see Babcock buy the rights to VT’s old IP off BAe and restart the auld firm as a surface-ships division under the old shingle. In the meanwhile it’s kind of like sitting through a long day with C of E: Rivers begat Clyde begat Port of Spain for T&T begat Khareef, so it seems like less of a stretch money-wise to turn the biggest so far (Khareef) into a 112-115m patrol frigate with decent gear and a Merlin as its centerpiece without giving excuses to ramp up costs (Big And Expensive ain’t just a nickname) borrowing and “tinkering” with someone else’s design.
That said I would run to Jed’s proposed Absalon redesign (oh, yes, you want to talk about choice crew accomodation, just hack back the flex deck to something that can hold a bit of MCM gear or a portable hospital, no more, and enjoy some elbow room.) With, probably, a bouquet of roses in hand. My only real worry is it losing all the deliciously well-managed costs in BAe hands. (The Canucks sure have by not just doing a deal for the Svalbard blueprints for their polar OPVs, instead it’s a “movie based on the book” for a lot more cash. So my saying, get the Norse to build.) I am all for much closer cooperation with the Dutch. Jaguar excepted (well, even so, remember Jaguar M) the UK goes in on big-ticket defence projects with the French at its own peril. Norse too.
So let’s get some more clock-challenged souls to chat a bit, we can get this over the hump past another (broadly) naval-themed thread to the top of the heap.
“Norse too” in the positive sense. Want to get a jump on UUV mine warfare? Put Kongsberg on speed dial.
Speaking of Kongsberg brings us to the Naval Strike Missile. Designed to be integrated with the F35 and for launch by surface ships. It also fills a hole in the Team Complex Weapons portfolio. If you want to co-operate with the Norwegians (apparently Liam Fox does) this is a good place to start.
Jasons,
Yup. And the chance one might talk Kongsberg, ambitious for growth partnerships, into finally designing a VLS compatible anti-ship missile since they already have an NSM-next generation on the drawing board. Also love to start ginning up a “reach out and touch” ASW system that’s not just “put something on the helos,” Ikara was well ahead of its time but never had a successor.
@ Jackstaff
I am not here at odd hours; it was Manx Grand Prix!! :)
I understand what you are saying about using a BAE design, but it is all fantasy navy (as fun it is to play.) All I want is my fully armed T45s plus another 2.
For the record I am not to keen on using warships (I mean OPV, frigates, etc.) as trucks to haul about MCM equipment. I think it would be a waste of the platform. The future of MCM is robots. And these robots could be delivered into theatre on other platforms and even controlled from another place that may be thousands of miles away.
PS: Abaslon as least can carry two Merlins; it will be interesting to see if T26 can do this. And MoD(N) should have gone with the HMS Cylde layout for all the rivers.
mmmm’ interesting, so there are many off the shelf possibilities for C3:
Spanish BAM
Italian Commandanti
Dutch Holland
Omani(UK) Khareef.
Commonalities include the ubiquitious 76mm Super Rapid, hangers and flight decks big enough our our Lynx’s etc.
So there seem to be two main issues to me:
1. Utility – we want C3 to do MCM via unmanned surface and unmanned submersible vehicles – so the stern launch and recovery and ‘flex deck’ working space appear to be an the main issue.
2. Cost and ability to “buy” the design to build in UK shipyards.
From the images available BAM seems to have the most suitable “quarterdeck” arrangement, with Holland coming in second. One would also think it might be quite cheap as the Spaniards are buying it in reasonable numbers.
Hello again:)
Jason(s), if you go back to the old naval threads the Naval Strike Missile has been discussed to great length including some reasons why the RN might not really like it nevertheless it appears to be an excellent design. Furthermore it is the Joint Strike Missile which is being integrated with the F-35 which is a related missile to the NSM although I’m unaware if internal carriage is an option on the F-35B with it’s smaller internal bays. Also as I suggested back then another excellent option perhaps a better one would be the Swedish SAAB RBS-15 especially the under development dual seeker version with supposed much greater range.
A VLS anti-shipping missile would be nice and hopefully one comes along soon enough and it’s a strong option when we need to replace the current stock of Harpoon or we may stick with updated Harpoon. The block 3 is also positioning the missile for possible spiral developments to enable vertical launch or may end up including that as a capability if it is required. I also agree a “reach out and touch” ASW system would be a very nice addition to really make the Type 26 one of the leading ASW platforms globally if not the best but it is another weapon system increasing cost.
X, You are right robots are the way forward hence why the smaller C3 will no longer just be or primarily be an MCM vessel but they will now be expected to be capable of a multitude of tasks. It’s also another reason I like the Absalon design as it could already carry, deploy, support and control quite a large number of (sub)surface robots alongside doing the other tasks it would normally do.
Jackstaff, what were you doing up at such odd hours anyway if you don’t mind me asking? I know Jed is in a different time zone and X was watching the Grand Prix.
Anyhow I agree about losing the cost advantage of the Absalon that is why I actually proposed just buying the things off the Danish and letting them build it or having a split order between the yards. Heck a competition between our yards and the Danes would be fun we build 4 they build 4 whoever does a good Job on time and cost get the other 4 but we all know the Danes would probably wipe the floor with BAE.
Oh and since you mentioned the Canadians they are an interesting bunch to keep an eye on which is why I’m sad that the Canadian American strategic review website has disappeared. Anyhow I would also think that the Absalon design is bloody perfect for the Canadians even more so than I think it would be a good design for ourselves. It gets even better as they could also buy the Ivar Huitfeldt class frigate which has some commonality with the Absalon class and uses the APAR radar which they invested in IIRC. However they really need to get some Arctic patrol vessels sorted out especially since they claim that the North West passage is part of their internal waters but I’m not going to get into that.
Also Jed excellent post I naturally agree and sadly there is not really more than that for me to say:) Apart from Congrats on post number 100 on this thread here’s number 101.
Euan,
Nice point ref: Absalon that one of the design ironies is, in terms of high-intensity defence of Denmark, Absalon was shaped around a frigate frame with frigate-like weapons that would contain a command and (spoiler alert, as the kids say) mine-warfare interior. The ability to manage a number of remotely-deployed, probably robotic (hat tip to X for the reminder) MCM units is to me one of the very best arguments for an Absalon frame as C2, that and having a pair of helicopters for patrol. You get something of an escort frigate mashed-up tidily with command/control for task force MCM resources and for serving as a mini-flagship for routine “sea policing” in company with the smaller vessels (OPVs and PBs) of local neighbours.
I can always come up, like you and Jed, with reasons for Absalon. But the contract would absolutely have to end-run BAe. With the exception of Swan Hunter’s death rattle ballsing-up one of the Bays for a time, those were neatly done out of the Enforcer design by a series of contractors. Perhaps working with whatever loose conglomerate Babcock is knitting together would work? Otherwise, I keep tending back to the patrol frigate model — letting frigates be frigates again rather than destroyers with SHORAD-only, as even the utilitarian T23s just about are. So I look at Jed’s potential C3 list and go down it saying, “yep, stretch that 10m, reinforce hangar and stern for Merlin and there’s C2.”
X,
Good points, and a sober point of view. My feeling on doing HVA anti-sub with Type 45 “Batch 2″ rather than a big T26 (reserving that designation for a C2 frigate) is that one might convince a “winners and losers”-motivated MoD/Treasury combo that it’s actually cheaper to do that now and provide through-life commonalities on ninety-five-plus percent of components, rather than wait ten years to start building, watch the T26 price tag do the Doubling Death Spiral, and get the same number of hulls (six, eight if annual economic growth hits Chinese levels) and next to no C2. Not when you can get a dozen perfectly good C2 a lot cheaper, and the whole run of two-type C3 I suggested (Svalbards for patrol, Venators for survey/intensive MCM where you have to get up close and personal to a particular system) for the price of a Daring.
Euan again,
Like (but not exactly like) Jed I’m in a non-British time zone these days, although the Manx Grand Prix is a perfectly legitimate and understandable reason to be awake if anyone’s asking. I do have access to HP Sauce though so it’s not too bad ;-)
And I miss CASR terribly. They were a fine, fine outfit and I wish someone would take up the standard with their archives. Just excellent. And it would be a nice Nixon-to-China on some of their grousing with the Danes wrt Greenland to get an agreement on production of Absalon/Huitfeldt “clones” in Canadian yards. The KDM are already talking, and it’s filtering out (for those of us who can read some halting Danish) that that future Danish defence reviews will take considerably more notice of the old “frozen empire,” equal with keeping Maersk’s ships chuntering through chokepoints and probably ahead of Baltic defence. So easy integration with an important polar ally (Canada) would be ducky.
Right, lads. At 102, let’s get it over the touch line!
OK, here’s a go at the tie …
So, Jed and other folks with real practical experience, what would a non-ASROC “reach out and touch” ASW system for the 21st century look like. Ikara, besides being a nice Anglo-Oz collaboration, was ahead of its time with those cruise missile-like features and tighter targeting radius than ASROC. How to get something VLS compatible in the same role. Love to (beats his drum again) get those in one front SYLVER cell of the “Batch 2″ T45s, while the “Batch 1s” had quad-packed CAMM for air defence in same. And very handy for any C2 you care to name.
Morning Jackstaff I was just being nosey since you pointed out that the time was a little odd so I presumed you were in the GMT time zone like I am so for me this is 10 past 5 in the morning:) I have no real reason to be up at this time.
I think we all agree that the Absalon design is like the Swiss army knife or Leatherman if you prefer, in the world of surface combatants and escorts it’s so flexible and adaptable it’s crazy it was allowed to be built. It is indeed sad if we cannot get hold of them without BAE getting the chance to make it a Big And Expensive mess like they seem to manage with more or less everything else we get them to do. However maybe we could get Babcock owned Appledore Shipbuilders in North Devon to have a crack at it, well at least they could build the bulk of it with systems integration done elsewhere but they might manage. Work for some of the Blocks could also be subcontracted out to folks like Fergusons shipbuilders on the Clyde or other small yards across the UK providing support to the industry and wider economy. BAE could perhaps be kept happy with the T26 program since they are the designers as well as the builders and perhaps by a miracle a second batch of T45′s :D, Ok I know but worth a try.
Mwhaha thee Absalon shall not die, maybe we should write a book and send it to folk?
As for Frigates being frigates again I would be fine with them only having SHORAD and by that I mean CAMM which is upto about 20km anyway but we would need enough destroyers which we don’t have. Therefore without a Batch 2 Type 45 they simply need better AAW capability in my view to protect both themselves and whatever they are escorting, it’s better to kill the archer than try to kill the arrow.
That last chunk of text just made me realise something that well frankly I should have spotted and thought about before when it was suggested. Since they both have an interest in the Arctic area the Danes could easily support and maintain their ships in Canadian ports if they are almost identical copies. The Canadians could also do the same on this side of the Atlantic if they needed to rather than going all the way home after deploying so far perhaps even doing some maintenance and heading back out with a fresh crew. Now imagine if us and the Canadians bought them? Ooo! I can but dream can’t I :)
I will have a think about that “reach out and touch” ASW system after I do some reading on Ikara, ASROC and MILAS hopefully we can get some good ideas. Anyhow this should be comment 104 which puts us in the top spot, WIN!! *Waves little White Ensign*
Have i missed anything out i wonder i have a feeling i have but oh well im hitting Submit.
A rocket-launched torpedo has no future when a UAV like FireScout will bring unspent ordnance back.
X
A rocket launched torpedo may be a much cheaper solution in the inner zone than a Firescout, and would be a lot faster to reach datum. God knows a simple VL missile with no guidance other than inertial + datalink is hardly expensive. If we hadn’t made the dumb decision to buy Aster rather than Aegis/MK41, we could have bought VL ASROC ….
Euan the Danes are Canada’s “competitors” in the Arctic. Remember the Canadians and Spanish nearly had a coming together over fishing so never say never.
There has even “grumbling” between the US and Canada about the North.
I think the “Scramble for the North” is more a threat to our security than what goes on in the Middle East.
@ Rupert
If the target is that close it should be dealt with by a ship launched torpedo.
X
Depends how you define inner zone. A ship launched torpedo would take around 200 sec to reach 5 kilometres, but after that would soon run out of puff. Having something with a horizon range (30K) and high subsonic speed would hold an area at risk where ship based sonars are supreme and radar is effective at periscope sightings, and at lower cost than having a relay of UAV’s on station. The other use might be to allow more and lighter UAV’s by dint of removing the need to carry weapons
@ Rupert
I give up!! We need ship launched, rocket launched, UAV launched, and helicopter launched!!! And if all that fails we can just pull the plug and let the water out. :)
I agree with you about Mk41. Perhaps if we did get Daring 7&8 we need to have a stretched version with a second VLS matrix back aft. I can’t see how T26 can be a land attack platform with out TLAM or SLAM or whatever. A stretched Daring would have spare cells to carry these missiles (plus your anti-submarine rockets!)
“I can’t see how T26 can be a land attack platform with out TLAM or SLAM or whatever.”
Do we want the T26 to be a land attack platform?
I thought the consensus was that high-end area defence platforms like T45/T26 were so limited in number that they had virtually become HVA’s in themselves………….
If, and I say “if”, any surface platform is to have a land attack capability it ought to be C2, the cheap and cheerful choke-point frigate. It is not needed as a close-in escort to provide area-defence for a carrier or ARG, and it is cheap enough to put in harms way (i.e. approaching the littoral for launch).
Arguably, no surface platform is going to be able to justify the inclusion of land-attack given that the SSN’s are already equipped with tac-tom.
No we don’t T26 to become a land attack platform; perhaps I was being a bit obtuse as I was actually criticising the idea. Nelson’s maxim that a ship shouldn’t be set against a fort should be remembered. I think the concept of a land attack ship is defence establishment double talk.
Over at New Wars some produced figures that show to effectively knock out one “average” airfield approximately 80 missiles would be needed. And though I like big guns I am highly sceptical that NGS (with anything 8inch and below) is anything but suppressive fire. As for basing something like MLRS at sea………..
The only real conventional naval land attack system we have today is the carrier.
Suppressive fire is a perfectly valid use of NGS and with precision natures can also be used for more requirements. Don’t forget, smoke and illumination rounds remain extremely useful and NGS is a good way of delivering these.
Land attack covers a multitude of missions and requirements
I agree with JBT that with limited budgets, land attack should go on the cheaper vessels, leaving Type 45 and Type 26 for other more important missions. That said, land attack might not always be carried out against a highly capable enemy in a high intensity battle so it is always a ‘nice to have’ on any vessel because it gives you more options and increases flexibility
“Over at New Wars some produced figures that show to effectively knock out one “average” airfield approximately 80 missiles would be needed.”
I suppose that depends how you define “average” and “knock out”.
If your fast jet needs 1000m for take off and landing, 1 missile “knocks out” any airstrip under 2000m.
At least temporarily.
http://fantasyfleet.blogspot.com/2010/08/falklands-2-could-we-win.html
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__PfGIt9QRc0/THeTOOUDbtI/AAAAAAAAAF0/Z_ypan34Bvo/s1600/Mount+Plesant+Attack.jpg
Fantasy Fleet has a go at knocking out Mt P with 18 sub launched tomahawks.
Seems pretty disabled, but you could always lob a few more at the runway.
Obviously if aircraft can take off over short distances on austere runways, it gets a lot more difficult.
Admin – “That said, land attack might not always be carried out against a highly capable enemy in a high intensity battle so it is always a ‘nice to have’ on any vessel because it gives you more options and increases flexibility”
But as you say, land attack is something of a moveable feast.
All major warship escorts will have a main-gun capable of NGS, i would merely argue that if any surface platform were to be prioritised for 155mm and/or tac-tom it would be C2.
Basic ASW/AAW for self-defence, with land-attack as the speciality and task-force picket duty as a secondary role that is complementary to the first.
@Dominic.J
Yes I speculated with similar numbers too; dumping a TLAM every so often down the runways and at the major intersections of taxiways and aprons. But it is that word “temporary;” it seems effective repairs can be rendered much quicker than I first thought. Let say we need 20 missiles. If we wanted to do this with Daring that would be 20 VLS cells we would loose. Unless we interpret the use of 20 cells as “offensive defence” that if the ‘planes can’t launch you don’t need those 20 SAMs. Of course 20 land attack missiles are for 1 (one) airfield. Using the Falklands scenario we would have needed 100 land attack missiles for 5 Argentine airfields. Though the greater enemy would be convincing MoD accountant that expending the cost of ship in ordnance was a good “investment.” Though perhaps buying cruise missiles instead of escorts would be cheaper. If you say one of these missiles cost 1million and your escort 500million. Having an arsenal of a few conventional land attack missiles seems a better deterrent than anything else. Seeing how thin the technological threads are that support modern living.
I don’t want to come over as too definite in my opinions and thoughts as they are constantly changing. I need to push stuff out so it can be judged by my betters. Perhaps I need to start revising all this stuff.
@ Jedibeeftrix and Admin
Like all armchair admirals I fond of big guns. I do know the importance of suppressive fire and secondary missions such as illumination. And I aware that the general rule of thumb is “one naval gun equals one battery.” But lobbing shells (even precision ones) in tiny packets though a technically a land attack it hardly a mass Western Front bombardment! A frigate/destroyer can’t deliver massive fire and perhaps risking a hull for few shots isn’t cost effective. I have wondered whether the Americans would be better getting a few big hulls, mounting 8 or so of those precision 155mm guns, and a buy fewer JSF using the money instead to buy precision guided shells. It would be the fortunate battalion CO who could call down en masse these literal magic bullets.
I shall stop twittering on…..
X
Dont worry, I dont really have a clue either, although I like to think I’m learning.
In my view, closing the airstrip is just a temporary measure, to give us time to do something else, be that land the invasion fleet, or destroy the aircraft on the ground with our bombers
But I have often prattled on about the usefulness of a “Guided Missile Cruiser”, an Invincible sized ship carrying really long ranged land attack missiles, 1500km or more, in really large numbers, 1000 or more.
“Seeing how thin the technological threads are that support modern living.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that?
Bomb Powerstations, is a frequent suggestion of mine.
A single Astute could reasonably expect to sit off most coastlines for 30 days lobbing TacToms at cooling towers or boilers.
I find myself looking around vainly trying to figure out why anyone would put up with that.
The Falklands sure as hell arent worth shutting down Argentina for 3 years.
Hell, they could buy them for less.
@ DominicJ
Yes there maybe some mileage in the “arsenal ship.” I have wondered about using a large commercial hull. One of those really big container ships that can move at a good 25kts day in day out. Fill the bottom of the hull with empty containers (perhaps even fill them with empty oil barrels) so you have a hull full of watertight zones to aid survivability. Fill the deck level with VLS. Perhaps even add a simple PDMS such as SeaRam. And then let it follow your carrier battle group about. Emma Maersk cost 280million. Yes I know 1000 cruise missiles would cost a billion. But all in its a bit cheaper than an aircraft carrier.
One of the forgotten possible targets that would rapidly bring a First World state to a halt are the distillation towers at refineries. Knock these out, not the whole refinery as that wouldn’t be too green, and it wouldn’t take long before the state would be forced to ration fuel. Prices would go up. etc. etc. Then there are telephone exchanges and broadcast relay stations. Forget hacking just take the whole lot down.
Not going to comment on arsenal ships and land attack – except to say SSN + Tomahawk, and C2 with NSM3 seems to have it covered. I would prefer OTO 127mm on all our sleek grey war canoes, but budgets probably mean sticking with 114mm…..
On Rocket lobbed torpedoes – damn fine idea. Using Aster booster to fit in Slyver A50 model silo ? Should not be too expensive – also good for scenario no one has discussed yet – when the weather is so bad you can’t launch helo / UAV – sub’s are not so much bothered by big waves dont forget !
On Canada – my beloved adopted country. Absalon would replace our current frigates just fine. With added bonus of being able to put ashore BVS10 on remote arctic islands during the summer. “Our politicians” are even worse than UK types when it comes to not backing up the rhetoric with cash, and our shipbuilding is a mess. I echo the feelings about the loss of the CASR site. Ref the Danes being an ‘arctic’ competitor – I am not sure which of our politicians said this on TV, but when it comes to Arctic defence: “Canada would not stand a chance against Russian or U.S. aggression in the far north, and as for the Danes – well Canada and Denmark are too of the nicest nations on earth, it would more likely turn into a party….”. Knowing some very nice Danish ladies, I would like to be at that party…..
Absalon for RN, Canada AND Australia – the Commonwealth Frigate Programme anybody…. ???
sounds reasonable to me.