450 thoughts on “The Future of the Royal Navy 05 – (The Type 23 Replacement)”

1. ArmChairCivvy November 29, 2010 at 11:14 pm

   Hi TD,

   Nice piece. I understand that ship-to shore is not the foremost priority, and there are (or will be) other capabilities, from other platforms to cover this. For the particulars:
   ” Although it is rather old the Harpoon is still an effective weapon”
   - yes, and it has land attack capability (don’t know how that depends on the version)

   “Land attack would be provided by the MK8 4.5 inch gun, again from the Type 23’s. …Other options include the Oto Melara 127mm system with Vulcano long range ammunition.”
   - not having organic (airborne) targeting assets, save for the helos that might struggle in a defended environment, I am just wondering how best use will be made of the 100 km ship-to-shore range (being extended to 120 km)?
2. Jed November 30, 2010 at 1:18 am

   TD – thanks dude !

   All readers – In my design drawing I don’t have extra Sylver cells admidships as noted in the article. I have added sixteen ‘strike length’ Sylver A70 up front, there is space for them allowed in the current design, so I just chucked em’ in there.

   ACC – as far as I know our Harpoon’s are older models that do not have he “litoral” capabilities now being marketed for the latest veriants.

   As for NGS spotting in a “high threat air defence” environment, well it depends what your targetting, but EW / Comms intercepts, known locations of fixed targets, special forces teams, satellite imagery, etc etc there are plenty of other targetting mechanisms. Same of course counts for SCALP-N which has an even longer range.

   Reading up on the Slyver A70 today I was pleased to see it mentioned that it was sized to fit an ANSP-A length missile. I would love to see the French tactical nuke missile developed into a ‘conventional’ supersonic anti-ship / land attack missile !
3. Requiem November 30, 2010 at 2:39 am

   I’m skeptical about how much can be saved by building T45 hulls maybe if there were 8-10 t45s in the works and steel was being cut for the t23 replacements as we speak it’d be a much stronger argument with the continuation of production rather than a 10 year intermission, as it stands how much can be saved from not slimming her down a touch? (not entirely sure how many dress sizes she could drop whilst still keeping a twin Merlin hangar though)

   PS: splitting hairs a bit but is it really a 23 replacement though as opposed to conceptual c.1/t26 replacement which seems to be merger of 22B3 and 2087 23s with C.2(T83?) the replacement for non-2087 23s (whether it ever sees the light of day or not is another matter)
4. Tony Williams November 30, 2010 at 2:48 am

   A 120mm mortar against small boats? There is the not-so-small problem of trajectory, flight time and their effect on hit probability when trying to engage a fast-moving target. Even laser-guided projectiles have to fired into a window which will be pretty close to a hit to give the projectile a chance to steer itself onto the target, especially at shorter ranges.

   OTOH, rifle-calibre MGs are too ineffective and short-ranged in such a role.

   The optimum anti-boat weapon IMO would be a fast-firing high-velocity automatic gun in a stabilised remote-controlled mounting. The calibre is less important than the mounting but since such a mounting costs a lot it makes sense to give it an effective gun, i.e. at least a 20mm cannon. There should be more than one on each beam to allow for glitches and multiple attacks. A high-end solution would be a 35mm firing AHEAD ammo, which would have a greater stand-off range.

   Of course, it depends on how you define the “small boat” threat. If you’re talking about pirates carrying small arms or single suicide-bombers in speedboats, then 12.7mm calibre guns would be adequate. But if you’re talking about small, fast patrol-boats from minor navies or insurgency groups, which may be armed with automatic cannon themselves, that suggests pushing up the calibre of the guns.

   The Tamil Tiger insurgency bears some study. The rebels had cannon-equipped fast patrol boats and in one famous battle slaughtered a government patrol boat, also cannon armed. That kind of threat needs to be considered.
5. Michael (Civ.) November 30, 2010 at 5:29 am

   Pretty good adaptation of an existing design.

   Would it be quiet enough to go sub-hunting?
   How far away would a good SSN/SSK have to be to be able to detect it?
   With only 6 of them, would it be able to take a hit & stay afloat?

   As to armamnet, i really like the 5″ Gun, ruthless commonality with Nato is a sensible idea.
   The uav’s are a good idea but i’m not sure about arming them, revcovering a still armed uav might be problematic.
   Sea Ram is also good as long as it’s fitted to the Type 45 & the CVF as well.
   Got to agree with Tony’s thinking regarding the 35mm Gun & fast boats.
   However i’ll believe it when i see it.

   I might have found a way to get 4 more of them, not sure but maybe, please check my near 3 a.m. posted on the Single Task Group thread.
6. Lord Jim November 30, 2010 at 5:50 am

   The programme for the RN’s next platform to replace the T-23 already makes FRES look like a case study in how the run a programme. IPTs have been formed then disbanded, then caretaker teams formed and disbanded then another IPT formed and so on for almost 2 decades with nothing to show except some nice drawingsand costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds the MoD budget couls and cannot afford.

   Although I applaud the ideal of a hard as nails platform I cannot see it greatly exceeding the capabilities of the existing T-23 excpt in making it more flexible and suited to General Purpose duties. The capacity for a second helicopter is an obvious option or the addition of a rotar UAV is another. Our current Harpoon stocks are old and outdated, whether it is more cost effective to have then refurbised and updated or replace them with a new system is yet to be seen. Do these vessels need a 4.5 or larger main gun? If they are going to be so valuable are they going to be risked getting close to shore for NGS or should that be left to another platform.

   As for CIWS, Phalanx is too short ranged to be effective against serious threats as USN studies have founf, this being the reason they are replacing the system on many ships with RAM which has a far greater range and envelope.

   THe danger with the T-26 programme is because there will be so few the RN will want them to be Super Ships leading to mission and capabilitycreap causing delays and cost increases. It need to concentrate on its bare minimum capability to fulfill its role, lock the design and get hulss in the water. It the large T-45 hull is used and forward planning has been used, incremental enhancements and upgrades can be introduced as threats appear and disappear. SO rather than fitted for not with it will have the capacity to grow as needed.

   This is why I advocated a common hull for the then C1 and C2 with C2 beng the core platform and an incrementally upgraded variant taking the C1 position. This immediately moves the programme away from the supership idea. It also allows the programme to move faster with is more defined goals and provides commonality. For this the MEKO concept would be ideal allowing cost effective upgrades and maintenance programmes and we could end up with say 6 high end and 8-10 GP hulls in the water.
7. El Sid November 30, 2010 at 7:33 am

   You’ve been busy TD! However, I disagree with your need to cram stuff onto the C1. I take the view that as fleet escorts they’re operating under AAW cover, but they should be heavily optimised for ASW. I know you’re a bit down on ASW but to my mind, in a world where even “secondary” navies like Saudi and Singapore have multi-launch VLS SAMs with reasonable range (Aster15 on their La Fayettes) then if I wanted to sink some ships I’d rather spend my dosh on a SSK (particularly one with AIP if I can afford it) than I would on a squadron of F-16′s or Mig-29′s with missiles like the Kh-31 – or Tornado GR1B’s with Sea Eagle. Certainly if I was Argentina and fancied ruining the RN’s day I’d start with say a second-hand Kilo or two.

   So my starting question would be – what is wrong with the Dukes? They’re arguably the most functional bit of kit that the RN has, arrived at over a long period of gradual evolution. OK, for “fleet” use they need to be stealthier. Sea Wolf is showing its age, but FLAADS(M) is already scheduled as the last upgrade for the Dukes. That said, the RN has always skimped on point defences, and I’d at the very least be generous with potential Phalanx stations, with a view to having the option for SeaRAM and Phalanx lasers in the future – I’d also bear the latter in mind when sizing the power plant. Artisan is a nice modern radar, ditto Sonar 2087 – but son-of-2087 might need more room in the tail, it’s already tight?

   It’d be nice to have another helo, although from 2025 I’d be asking really hard questions of anyone trying to justify any manned flight in the RN. Certainly for lugging dipping sonars around my thoughts would be turning to a UAV – and continuing the containerisation theme I would be starting with something like an unmanned K-Max switching between a sonar module and a cargo module for VERTREP. Pencil in room for a Merlin HM4(?) or two, in case the K-Max development doesn’t work out, but that’s where I’d be heading. Be generous with the flightdeck – you never quite know when it could be useful to have visitors bigger than a Merlin, and it could be useful for later life when they’re deployed as “presence” vessels away from the main fleet – for the same reason it’d be nice to have room for a few Marines even if it wasn’t needed when part of a task force. An ASROC version of Stingray/Mk54/L5/MU90 would be nice to have, but not essential. You might as well throw in a Stanflex module which could hold redundant Harpoons for the time being but subsonic SSMs are so 20th century, they’re not a priority. If we’re talking about systems that never get used, am I right in thinking that ship-launched Harpoon’s only success was thirty years ago during the Iran-Iraq War? If we’re going for ruthless commonality, then it makes sense to use the same 155mm guns that are being carried in the holds of the amphibs we’re escorting – an AS-90 is pretty much a Stanflex container with tracks. Always worth looking at how automation can reduce manning, but the easy gains were made between T22 and T23, so at a complement of 170 or so I’m not sure how much scope there is for reduction.

   So overall – where does that leave us? Unlike TD, I’m tending towards an “unbalanced” design for C1, prioritising ASW above all else, more like an evolution of the Type 23 (perhaps with a slight stretch to accommodate another Merlin) than an adaption of the Type 45. In mission I’m thinking something more like the original non-VLS Spruances – or better still, the Russian Udaloys, rather sturdier than NATO designs and with lots of SA-N-9′s and Kashtan (but obviously we could do a bit better on the sonar front). If you’re going to do land attack, leave that to the T45′s – and leave firing Tomahawks to the SSN’s. The “extremism” with my C1 (“Type 24″? ) comes in the optimisation for quiet working – the major innovation could come not in the sexy weapons fit, but replacing the diesel-electric with a fuel cell system. In fact I wonder if plane tickets to visit fuel cell companies accounts for a good chunk of the FSC development cash? Cuts down maintenance and vibration versus rattley old diesels, of course the technology is already in place as AIP units on various SSK’s. Fuel cells are discussed a bit in http://www.powermag.com/renewables/wind/Roadmap-for-the-all-electric-warship_1044.html – ONR surface prototypes (http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Fact%20Sheets/Fuel%20Cell%20Program.ashx) running off F-76 fuel are 0.5MW and they’ve looked at 2.5MW, subs use about 10 distributed 0.1MW systems, so the 1.3MW needed for the T23 electric drive is plausible. I’d have thought that within 5 years or so you could see a fuel cell being dropped into one of the less upgraded T23′s (Monmouth?) or perhaps as a one-off newbuild T23 variant to further put off the day when they start building FSC’s.

   So in some ways my C2 would look more scary on paper, not least because it would have Aster 15 and SYLVER whereas I’m happy for C1 to have basic FLAADS (you still get commonality with the Rapier replacement) – maybe leave space for SYLVER in future when it’s cheaper and has something useful to the mission, like an ASROC. Presumably a Block II Artisan could work with Aster 15, given the commonality with Sampson? C2 would look something like the ASW version of FREMM, but I’d like a few more VLS tubes. At least FREMM exists, but AIUI it’s still pretty expensive, I think I’ve seen €500m/ship somewhere? Is that a programme cost, like the £1bn for T45, so now that the Frogs have done the design incremental units are cheaper? Since they slashed their order of new frigates to pay for the new aircraft carrier (sound familiar?), they are desperate to sell some abroad to spread the cost of development.

   However, this all seems moot in the wake of the SDSR, which from what I can make out has effectively eliminated C2 and is almost certain to make C1 a jack-of-all-trades version of the T45, more like a stealthy Burke with shorter-range SAMs and radar. I’d be the first to admit that whilst my Type 24 would suit the RN pretty well, many export markets are looking for something with more anti-air capability, more like a cheap version of FREMM – think Micas in Sylver A43 rather than Asters. But it looks like we’re going to sell all our secrets to the Brazilians for a few pieces of silver : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d6adeb4-bf6a-11df-965a-00144feab49a.html – after all the Foch will need some escorts whilst the Argentines train on it. Funny how the RN are more relaxed about that kind of thing when it helps them get new toys. Looks like Brazil would be an obvious home for the Trinidad OPV’s?

   The reason why I’m pushing the Type 23 Batch 2 is mostly because 10 years ago we could knock them out for £120m, whereas a Type 45 hull costs us what, £250m before the toys go on? And that’s for something that’s less suited to ASW. Even if you were to tart up the T23 with a small stretch and some stealthing, plus inflation, it’d be no more than £200m before you started adding things like 2087 (first batch cost £40m/ship) – and so £300m all in? Whereas they’re already talking about £400m for Type 26, which we all know will turn into £600m plus. Still, we are where we are.

   I think I’d be more interested in a land attack missile that could fit on as many ships as possible than going out-and-out for distance. So I’d let MBDA sort all the problems on the A70 MdCN (I think 2014 is the in-service date?) and then ask them to shrink it into A50. Even if that only gave us the ability to lob 450kg say 250 miles and 225kg say 400 miles, that would still be a cheap way to get most of the fleet a pretty useful capability – comparable in range to a Harrier. Unlike the French we have the Tomahawks on the SSN’s to give us very long-distance strike should we need it (how many Tomahawks have ever been fired from ships/subs more than 300 miles from their target? Genuine question – Baghdad is about that distance from the sea, no?) An ASROC would hopefully be another quick-and-dirty programme to get a useful “fill-in” capability.

   [dons flameproofing]
8. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 8:33 am

   Hi El Sid @ 7:33,

   As an aside to “after all the Foch will need some escorts whilst the Argentines train on it. ”
   - Have the PLAN officers vacated; they were learning carrier operations while their navy pilots practice take-off/ landing on a replica of ex -Varyg’s flight deck, built in a landbase back at home?
9. Fat Bloke on Tour November 30, 2010 at 10:12 am

   TD

   Have to say that the ship design looks a bit weak, a case of a new tomorrow based on all our better yesterdays. Consequently not really for me.
   Too much is current tech in a new but derivative hull.

   Hull looks packed.
   Helo deck too small.
   Med speed diesels only.
   Little style and limited presence.
   Two big batteries for silent running Italian style.
   Gun has to be 155mm, possibly two if the hull can stand it.
   AAW needs to be worthwhile, point defense is not good enough.
   Sylver silo plus a cheap Samson style unit would be good.
   Does Moores law ever affect the RN / military.
   10 years od progress would mean the same capability for a lot less.
   Why is the MOD / RN so different from the real world?
   Same story with the TAS, surely the capability can be improved for the same money?
   Also on TAS why would better have to be bigger?

   Consequently I think that the T26 needs to be ASW first but GP second and third.
   It needs a big boxy hull for growth and cheapness.
   Proper armour is the game changer, the “Dreadnought” moment for the 21st century.

   18″ lattice armour would be the way to go.

   The rest of the world will be the final arbiters of any design we put forward, if they want it we know it is good. If they walk on by we should accept that we have another thrifted, limited RN blind alley on our hands.

   That question has to be asked and asked again.
   If our kit is so good why can’t we sell it to anyone else?
   That is the killer question the Treasury always asks itself.

   Sort that out and the MOD / RN may regain some credibility.
10. x November 30, 2010 at 10:17 am

    FREMM by Hyundia
11. jedibeeftrix November 30, 2010 at 10:21 am

    no real objections to a T46 ASW destroyer, which is effectively what a 7,500 tonne warship with two Merlins represents.

    if we wish to keep surface warship building as a strategic industry we would need to rapidly move on with something else however, otherwise the design talent atrophies….
12. x November 30, 2010 at 10:30 am

    @ Jed

    British naval architecture is quite vibrant. It is only British ship building that is dying.

    If the likes of Stephen Payne had designed CVF and we had built the hull somewhere else we would now have carriers. (We wouldn’t, but you get my drift…..)
13. Tony Williams November 30, 2010 at 10:50 am

    @ FBOT:

    “That question has to be asked and asked again.
    If our kit is so good why can’t we sell it to anyone else?
    That is the killer question the Treasury always asks itself.”

    As I’ve mentioned before, it’s too specialised, too finely-tailored to British needs, and therefore too costly. The Leander frigates were the last time we got it right for the international market. Flexibility is important these days – look at the French plans for the Gowind class of patrol ship, in the 1,000-2,000 ton range; buyers can more or less specify whatever they want.
14. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 11:38 am

    This is exactly it;the reason why I contributed a detailed piece on Holland class, as the first reaction on the blog was : looks good, but we will of course need it bigger!

    Ref Tony’s “the French plans for the Gowind class of patrol ship, in the 1,000-2,000 ton range; ” + “buyers can more or less specify whatever they want.”
15. A friend of Mr Gladstone November 30, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    A little off topic, but with reference to the C2 need and Forward Deployed Squadrons, I have been wondering whether something of the layout and scale of the Italian San Georgio LPDH as originally built might be appropriate as a support ship for C3s or as the C2.

    The Italian concept could be adapted with modern manning (reducing ships company to below 100), a suitable combat data system, provision for CAMM and fitted for, but not with, Harpoon and then the RN could have a number of 7500 tonne 21kt small LPDA with 3″ gun, 3 davits for CB90 or LVCPs, a well dock and hanger space for either three Merlins or five Wildcats plus accommodation for half a Commando (who could be surged on as required). The vessel would be valuable for most non core tasks and in a more high intensity role provide excellent additional lift for 3 Cdo Bde or work as an ‘ASW Escort Carrier’ for the CVF to free up hanger space for surged RAF F35Cs

    Naval Technology showing previous configuration http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/san_giorgio/
    Wikipedia showing current configuration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giorgio_class_amphibious_transport_dock
16. Fat Bloke on Tour November 30, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    ArmChair …

    The question should never be sized based when it comes to OPVs / colonial sloops. The question has to be cost / value based.

    Go-Wind – Stripper spec = 90m
    The next question is cost and what can it do?

    Just as the smallest or cheapest is not the best seller in most markets, so should this maxim not work in the market for “Second Rate” naval vessels?

    Consequently I would stick with my £50mill frigate / 6K ton colonial sloop as an unofficial benchmark.

    My marker for any build cost differences in marginal terms between a Go-Wind and the £50mill frigate would be of the region of £5mill per 1000 tons of steel.

    One issue here is what is the cost of a 30 man or a 50 man crew to the RN? Another is that there will be no differences in the base crew between a 90m Go-Wind and a 125m Colonial Sloop. Any differences will be down to mission and systems fit.
17. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Hi FBOT @ 12:09,

    We are not far apart (I am not a ship building expert):

    6 kt vs 4750 t (I liked the Holland design, with small tweaks related to mission, and therefore likely threats)
    £50m (??) vs eur 120 minus 30m overspec for the mission =90 @ fx .85= £77m

    Now, I cannot resist a definition on innovation :

    Previous thread @ 9:41 a,m, “1970′s style with huge push to build the 9′ Mini. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.”

    Now: Smart car length 106.1 inches = 8.84 feet, and works?

    (Sorry, sorry! … but could not resist)
18. Repulse November 30, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    I’m not going to comment on the detailed weaponry / layout of the T26 as other people are better placed than I to comment. Though I will say that I would expect that any replacement for the T23 should be a first class escort and therefore pretty heavy weight. Also, as the number escorts is expected to decline further, they will need to have reasonable all round ASuW/AAW/ASW capabilities.

    I have said in a previous post that the building ASW vessels on a T45 design would be a mistake as it was never part of the design requirements. We should broaden the T26 requirements to cover the ASW role and as a AAW replacement.

    I suggested that a force of around 15 (6 AAW, 6 ASW and 3 GP) feels about right to cover 2 task groups (one in reserve) plus other limited high end commitments. Based on an average lifespan of 30 years, we would expect a production drum beat of 1 every 2 years (5 a decade). Based on this production can start comfortably from 2020.

    I think dumbing down the T26 design to make it more attractive globally would also be a big mistake. The high end RN requirements are probably still unique enough to focus on a UK only version. Any idea of a C2 should be consigned to history, with the C3 concept (now light frigate) being beefed up. This would be the export showcase. For the RN, perhaps a light frigate production drumbeat of 1 a year, based on a 30 year life? Perhaps wishful thinking, but it you think it would be replacing the loss of 8 frigates (pre SDSR), 15 MCMV, 4 OPVs and 2 Survey ships (a total of 29) it does not look that unreasonable.
19. Think Defence November 30, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    That’s and interesting alternative, evolve an ASW optimised T26 to be the single hull, replacing Type 45 in due course

    I like that, does it fit with timescales though?
20. Fat Bloke on Tour November 30, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    ArmChair …

    The Mini has 4 seats.
    The Smart has 2.

    The parable of the story was the quest of something unobtainable just as the whole world and his dog moved into big selling B and C vehicles.

    That is the Fiesta / Polo / 205 and the FWD Escort / Golf / Ritmo to the non car folk amongst us.

    Where my analogy does fall down is the Toyota IQ, 3.5 seats at under 10′ and full 21st century safety kit. Great for trendy city couples but still niche and still not mainstream

    Great product, great engineering but the Corolla (Auris) / Camry will still bring in the bucks.
21. Fat Bloke on Tour November 30, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Repulse

    Why can the rest of the world get by without our world beating kit that no-one wants?

    As currently configured the RN wouldn’t make it into 10 tean premier league of the world’s navies.

    The SSN stuff would make us giant killers in the cup but we would Championship promotion material at best.

    This is not the way it should be given the money that is spent and mostly wasted.

    Do the same thing for the number of admirals, desk warriors, cushy jobs and perks and the RN would be Top 4 / Champion’s league material.

    World class ASW is no use if the bad guys don’t have submarines.
22. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    FBOT @ 1:36,
    “The Mini has 4 seats.
    The Smart has 2″

    Excellent! What is the mission? Mini was already (’70s) winning rallies left, right, and centre (so no need to re-engineer for that, read “a hot war”… of course there was also a marginal contribution from the driver)
    - call this 23/ 26?

    If you want to get around on good and cleared roads, and trim down the crew while still meeting the mission goals (getting those two around to the gun boat cocktail parties, at a reasonable cost)
    - call this the OPV?

    Don’t take the Smart Car into deep snow if you don’t have bigger vehicles/ vessels clearing the way, or at least at the ready to pull you out from trouble
    - presence alone not enough, if not backed up

    Get either one kitted out for special circumstances that, considering the mission and environment, are likely to arise
    - that’s your fog lights (CIWS, either might need, depending on what they are tasked with and where); not a big cost relative to either (their total cost to buy; if manning is a problem for OPEX, automate as on the Holland class, but do put them onboard)
23. Repulse November 30, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    TD,

    Back of a fag packet analysis, but give or take a small fluxation in numbers I think it could. If you extend the 25 year life for the T45 by another 5 years (they are always likely to be stretched a bit), would give:

    Year T23 T45 T26 Total
    ++++ +++ +++ +++ +++++
    2020 13 6 19
    2021 13 6 19
    2022 12 6 1 19
    2023 12 6 1 19
    2024 11 6 2 19
    2025 11 6 2 19
    2026 10 6 3 19
    2027 10 6 3 19
    2028 9 6 4 19
    2029 8 6 4 18
    2030 7 6 5 18
    2031 6 6 5 17
    2032 5 6 6 17
    2033 4 6 6 16
    2034 3 6 7 16
    2035 2 6 7 15
    2036 1 6 8 15
    2037 6 8 14
    2038 6 9 15
    2039 6 9 15
    2040 6 10 16
    2041 5 10 15
    2042 3 11 14
    2043 2 11 13
    2044 1 12 13
    2045 1 12 13
    2046 13 13
    2047 13 13
    2048 14 14
    2049 14 14
    2050 15 15
24. Repulse November 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Sorry for the formatting in the previous post, wasn’t sure on how to insert tables – can someone clean it up please?
25. Fat Bloke on Tour November 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    ArmChair …

    You have lost me.
26. Jed November 30, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Dear all

    My original idea for T45 derived T26 was based on financial pragmatism of building an ASW optimised design to replace Towed Array T23′s. It is levering investment in T45 design and would in my SDSR continue directly on from completion of last T45, there would be no hiatus. Also to put it in context, I would have 8 x T45 and 8 x T45 derived T26′s. That would be our “high end war fighting” equipment. If T26 is the old C1, then I would just buy between 8 and 12 Absalon straight from the Danish yard as C2 or “work horse” presence frigate and I have no intention to use the old C3 as anything other than global ocean going MCMV / survey.

    As noted in a previous article my “innovation” would be to lever the RFA as the supporting Flotilla for MSO / “operations less than war” – I don’t believe in Global Sloops with 50 person crews but that’s just my opinion. As someone (DominicJ ?) said in a different thread “Go big or go home”

    @Tony Williams – I understand your point about auto cannons – perhaps to have at least some inter service commonality we should replace the 30mm with the 27mm Mauser, very fast firing and the same piece of kit as used in RAF fast jets. However I believe that with modern radar, a 120mm smooth bore mortar can put down a curtain of fire using cargo rounds to dispense air bursting sub-munitions in the anti-small boat role – I agree they are not going to drop individual rounds on a heavily maneuvering boat. They can also drop smoke screens, and with the EO systems fitted on our ships can be used in a direct fire role out to about 1.5km, even used as simple launch tubes for missiles such as IAI LAHAT. What really interests me on an ASW role ship though, is whether a thin plastic walled shell could be filled with enough explosive to make it a useful anti-sub “depth charge” type round – it may even have an anti-torpedo role (again as a noise maker disrupting the sonar tracking, I don’t think we could drop one right on an incoming torpodo !). Just trying to be innovative with existing kit….
27. Tony Williams November 30, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @ Jed – cargo rounds (or rather, the submunitions they carry) have been banned by international agreement, with most countries (including the UK) signing up and currently destroying existing stocks.
28. Repulse November 30, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    FBOT @13:47

    “World class ASW is no use if the bad guys don’t have submarines.”

    But in the real world where the bad guys do; which would mean that the RN would be too scared to leave port. North Korea have up to 20 Romeo class subs and a large number of midget subs. Iran have 3 kilo class and again a number of midget subs; even the Tamil tigers had a couple. The sinking of the South Korean Cheonan should be an example for everyone.

    The point is ensuring that the RN has the right balance between hi and low mix. The small high end core we are talking about should be capable of counteracting all probable threats. The low end is there to ensure that the RN does not tie down it’s high value escorts on piracy, general patrolling and the like.

    “Why can the rest of the world get by without our world beating kit that no-one wants?” – As long as the RN is getting the right kit I don’t care if no-one else wants it; as long as it is the right kit. I agree that the RN has been historically poor (and over optimistic) when specifying kit, but going too cheap on the high end stuff will just lead to avoidable deaths of UK service men and women.
29. Jed November 30, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Tony – you might be right, but I thought that what was actually banned was scatterable mines delivered by cluster munitions / cargo rounds – not the delivery vehicle themselves? Like I say I could be wrong, but I think HE sub munitions designed airburst, detonate on contact or after a set period, or just sink into the ocean may or may not have issues with international laws.
30. hedgy November 30, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Maybe we should look at the designs of other navies…we do not have a monopoly on design. That we we could minimize development costs and reduce the time scale involved….what might be suitable?
31. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Tony/ Jed @ 4:58,

    ” but I thought that what was actually banned was scatterable mines delivered by cluster munitions / cargo rounds – not the delivery vehicle themselves”
    - correct

    I copy over from the land/ artillery thread (which I haven’t followed at all):” At just under 300km range the ATACMS missile compares favorably with the range of the Storm Shadow, can even be fitted with the same BROACH warhead as Storm Shadow and costs less than $0.75million each.

    … Putting an ATACMS module on a Royal Navy vessel sitting 100km offshore puts them within easy reach, of course I am not suggesting ATACMS can replace CVF/JCA but it is food for thought and worth considering as part of the force mix.

    GMLRS, Storm Shadow, ATACMS and submarine launched Tomahawk are overlapping and complimentary but taken together, would be a powerful capability and if we can achieve some commonality with naval mounting of the GMLRS and ATACMS then the overall costs can also be managed.”
    - GMLRS/ ATACMS, same launcher, different rockets
    - ATACMS/ German 155mm gun. same smart munition (Diehl, no detail on the website… only to paying customers, I guess?, doing away with the cluster mines (range still to 300 km as stated!)
32. Tubby November 30, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Firstly I will admit to skimming some of the posts so apologies if this is already covered – but would it not be a good idea (if the money can be found) to replace the Type 22′s with 4 GP versions of the Type 45, using current systems which we could switch out later, i.e. port over the Type 22 sonar and radar, but linked to modern computer system with lots of redundant process power, the Sea Wolf batteries, the 20 mm guns, the Goal Keeper CIWS, the torpedoes, the 2 x quad Harpoon batteries and the Mk 8 gun. You could then swap out the radar and other key systems as part of the same upgrade programme as the Type 23′s. With regard to the Aster VLS, in the spare space not taken up by Sea Wolf and later FLAADS I would do as Jed suggests and install strike length Syler VLS for SCALP/N.

    Then we can make the Type 26′s dedicated ASW platforms, though I think you could make an argument for a mix of 2 – 3 ASW through deck cruisers at 10,000 – 15,000 tonnes, and smaller ASW corvettes in the 2,000 – 3,000 range, designed for ultra quite operation to hunt SSK’s in littoral waters, networked with the Merlin’s and UAV’s from the ASW through deck cruisers.
33. Think Defence November 30, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Armchair, yes, ATACMS is a very interesting option isn’t it, 300km, precision, relatively low cost and available off the shelf. It could also be spread between the Army and RN. If you look at the history you will see it had a bit of a star turn taking out air defence sites in Iraq, one of the missions for the low observable F35!!

    Of course it has a ballistic profile profile which is not a effective as SCALP/Storm Shadow so maybe a mix might be sensible. GMLRS and ATACMS will be figuring in my plans for ‘Capability Plus’
34. Tubby November 30, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    RE: ArmChairCivvy

    I like the idea of GMRLS/ATACMS, but I have always wondered why some one has not deployed them before now. Is it due to the space the GMRLS/ATACMS system takes up? I also wondered how many GMLRS/ATACMS launchers would be needed to make the launch platform useful, as it strikes me that this is one of the few systems you could install on a dedicated platform to accompany the amphibious element of the RN at low cost, as presumably you could start with a cargo vessel, bolt on the launchers, some sort of crane for reloading, and appropriate targeting system and have a useful support ship for less than the price of one shiny new frigate. Am I right in assuming that they use inertial guidance or GPS and are called in currently by a forward observer, but could the be controlled by a suitable radar system?
35. Jed November 30, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Breaking news – T26 reduced from C1 to C2 type specs ?

    From the Scotsman: http://news.scotsman.com/news/New-frigate39s-spec-to-be.6643926.jp

    “One senior defence ministry source said the cost of a ship will be cut to £250-350 million from about £500m. Another senior defence ministry source said that could allow more ships to be ordered, countering criticism that the navy has sacrificed numbers in favour of fewer hi-tech vessels, leaving it more vulnerable if they were lost.”

    Could they be any more Machiavellian – the RN has been accused of gold plating, now it says it does not have enough ships, so we will reduce the spec so it can have more ships – they won’t be able to do bugger all, but it will have more ships….oy vay!
36. Jed November 30, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Ref ATACMS – there was originally supposed to be a Naval Tactical Missile System or NTACMS too – vertical launch from Mk41, but development was binned by USN.

    So we will never have it as we don’t have MK41 VLS. You an always tie down the MLRS launcher on the helo deck of a Bay !
37. Pte. James Frazer November 30, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Hello All

    T45′s:

    Let’s fit them with recycled kit NOW i.e. 2x Phalanx amidships P & S from decommissioned T42′s and Harpoon from decommissioned B3 T22′s and stop this ‘fitted for but not with’ crap! At the first refit specify SCALP(N) in the space provided for Sylver 70 and either 155mm army compatible gun or 127mm/64 + Vulcano guided LR/ER from Oto Melara/Babcock.

    Then we’ll have a decent high end ‘escort’/light cruiser.

    T26′s:

    I like TD’s idea of modifying T45′s with a new towed array optimised stern & superstructure. Not too much redesign as they’re block built and this gives systems/training commonality and cross crewing benefits. The WR21 turbines and electric motors are meant to be pretty quiet. Agreed remove volume search radar but why not stick with Sampson and Aster 15 – commonality & capability – and aforementioned Harpoon/SCALP(N)/gun kit as per upgraded T45′s? Presume marginal unit costs must be way below £1bn a piece.

    A class of at least 6 T26′s (or is that B2 T45′s?) immediately following on from T45 to give 12 ‘hot war’ super escorts – enough for 2 Task Groups. Keeps the design teams warm and the production drumbeat going while BMT/BAE/Thales design a long overdue, exportable, modularised global corvette having a multipurpose and adaptable capability – C3/’New Leander’.

    C3:

    Following on from TD’s Forward Based Squadrons idea:

    Replace Hunt/Sandown/Echo/River classes with a forward based C3 something like BMT’s Venator i.e. a competitor to Meko/Gowind/LCS with some innovations e.g. electric propulsion like Converteam’s Advanced Propulsion Motor. I’d like to see the spec along the following lines:

    2500 (ish) tons (steels relatively cheap…better sea keeping..room for more kit in higher spec export version + RN mid-life/’hot war’ upgrades); 25+ kts; Crew of 50-60 with space for a 24-man RM platoon; Double crewing i.e. 120 per vessel in total; Innovative hull form e.g. Triton anyone?

    Core kit: Artisan radar/CAMM; ESM/EW/Intel systems; 76mm Oto Melara Super Rapid general purpose gun (or maybe Bofors 57mm – yes even on vessels engaged on fisheries protection); Usual small arms pintles; Small hanger for Wildcat or NH90 helo/UAV but flight deck Merlin size capable; Stern ramp/launch systems for modularised payload mine/survey UUV/USV’s & RM RIB’s.

    ‘Plug and Play’ space for Harpoon/Exocet class SSM, torpedo tubes + CIWS (e.g. Phalanx/RAM) in an export spec or quick RN upgrade to ‘hot war’ variant.

    The key design point would be offering highly customisable customer specified systems e.g. prime movers/combat management systems/primary sensor & weapons systems choice to make it EXPORTABLE or TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERABLE.

    If the MOD(RN)/Treasury/MCA/SOCA/DfiD committed to a 1 for one replacement of the classes mentioned = 18-20 hulls that should keep the shipwrights in Glasgow and Portsmouth busy and the unit procurement, maintenance and training costs down plus provide a global RN ‘presence with an edge’ serving Brish interests – whether fisheries protection/assistance/counter piracy/drug work or ‘harder’ tasks e.g South Atlantic/Persian Gulf – as most think prudent from previous threads.

    Cost: can’t see why the whole 18 vessel C3 program as outlined should cost more than 6 T45′s i.e £6bn tops or £300m (max) each (less if johnny foreigner buys some), which seems exceptional value for the capability offered and quite reasonable compared with other programs (e.g. CVF). We’ll then be back to having a proper navy of c.30 useful/quickly upgradeable vessels rather than apologetic OPV’s or using RFA cargo vessels (that should be confined to Task Group/out of area support) ie. 12 ‘kick ass’ hulls + 18 adaptable ‘eavesdroppers’ 12 of the latter which are forward deployed + 6 available for Task Group or UK activities/refit.

    More wishful thinking? As J-L Picard said “make it so”.
38. ServingRN November 30, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    The concept of saving money through the utility of the T45 hull is flawed. Each type 45 costs 1 billion with regards to the current programme, half of that is spent on the sampson and sea viper sensors (forming PAAMS) but £500 million is spent on the hull and basic services. £500 million is alot for a frigate! Thge type 22 cost approx £160-170 million and the type 23 cost approx £120-150 million each (when factoring P&D costs)

    One of the design considerations for the Type 26 is its exportability. In that it has been designed specifically with that in mind making it as flexible and economical as possible. We wont be able to compete on the export market asking people to pay over £500 million per unit. Look at past costing comparing frigates to destroyers and you should notice the cost differences. Putting it in a 45 hull will make it more expensive for us and our ship building customers

    The vessel is also being designed with general purpose in mind and I think the stern ramp is an amazing display of that. From our point of view we are looking forward to it, seeing it as the successor to the Type 22 as opposed to simply the 23. So not just ASW but combining ELINT and ASuW as well. It will be equipped in these roles. Several of the Type 26s are however being decked out with ASW as their primary focus just another display of how flexible we will require the platform to be which I doubt that the T45 hull would be able to provide.
39. Michael (Civ.) November 30, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    I’ve got a serious question please.

    Why are people talking about a development of the Army 155mm Gun for the Navy?

    Every other country in Nato uses a combination of Naval 100mm or 127mm Guns on their ships. We, or the Royal Navy is the one who is already out of step with everyone else.

    Why seek commonality with an Army system when, very probably, any future conflict fought at sea will be alongside some sort of Nato Coalition?

    I really don’t get it, i’m not being funny, i just don’t get it.
40. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Hi Michael (Civ>) @ 8:15,

    I have been wondering myself (I thought someone knows something I don’t and better be quiet);

    It was also the (part) reason why I put this on, as a teaser
    “- ATACMS/ German 155mm gun. same smart munition (Diehl, no detail on the website… only to paying customers, I guess?, doing away with the cluster mines (range still to 300 km as stated!)”
    - I doubt whether ours and theirs are compatible, but someone might know
41. Michael (Civ.) November 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Jed i just read the story about the T26 spec being changed from C1 to C2 an i can’t believe what i’m reading.

    Are they incapable of making a decision over at the MoD(N)& then just following it through?

    Or has someone decided to scrap the combat ship concept completely & just go with fewer numbers of a basic GP Frigate instead?

    Cause sure as eggs are eggs, the navy wont get 12 ships to replace the Type 23.

    Procrastination like this could really hurt the Navy in a future conflict.
42. Michael (Civ.) November 30, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    ArmChairCivvy

    I was in the same position and have been waiting for someone to explain why they want it for some time

    Yeah i have read everyone’s idea’s, i just don’t know enough to ask any intelligent questions
43. Think Defence November 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Hi Pte Frazer and Serving RN, welcome to Think Defence and thanks for your input

    @ Pt Frazer, the rest of the posts in this series are still work in progress although the concepts have been roughed out

    @ ServingRN, when I was thinking about the most cost effective means of fulfilling the T26 requirement AND keeping a reasonable cost with a decent enough capability there were a number of options I mulled over. One things that pushed me towards the Batch 2 T45 was the cost savings long term of commonality. Its a hobby horse of mine, through life costs and overwhelming benefits of commonality. The UK armed forces have too many major and minor systems, how many types of 30mm class cannons do we have in service for example, or the number of vehicles that fulfil more or less the same roles.

    We have to stop this and it seemed logical that to achieve the through life benefits of commonality in all things we would also achieve economies of scale in manufacturing, something we usually fail to achieve because we have boutique manufacturing rather than volume manufacturing.

    I did wonder if the design compromise in having a non ASW optimised hull form would be a compromise too far, then Jed’s similar proposal dropped into the inbox and I was convinced this was the right thing to do.

    Your points about cost of the hull are interesting though, if we are claiming that the T45 hull and non AAW equipment/machinery is about £500million then how can we possibly get the T26 to be any cheaper, especially if it will be different?

    What is so special about the T45, AAW aside, that means it costs this much

    I do wonder if the cost of the basic machinery of a Batch 2 would be that high.

    The suggestion that has surfaced today is that it will be de specced to lower cost and increase numbers. I have to say I remain quite sceptical about this because the initial specs released seemed pretty basic anyway, I mean how basic can you go before your premier surface combat vessel that is supposed to win in a stand up fight becomes in reality, a C2 of limited utility but with a high end price.

    I do despair
44. Think Defence November 30, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    What does the 155mm bring to the party?

    The costs of maintaining 2 medium calibre ammunition natures is expensive, especially if you consider there are multiple variants, smole, illum, HE etc. Because it is pretty unique to the RN we have to pay and therefore not share with anyone else, development costs for new rounds. Given the demands for insensitive munitions and precision natures these costs become disproportionate.

    Therefore, making use of surplus barrels in the same or slightly modified mount means you rationalise logistics and can tap into the worldwide development of 155mm. In addition, you get get a useful range and payload increase.

    It makes perfect sense if you can get it to work economically.

    127mm might be off the shelf but it would mean another system with no commonality. Thats not strictly true because everyone else uses 127mm so your commonality comes from other nations

    As ever, its a big game of swings and roundabouts
45. Pte. James Frazer November 30, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Michael (Civ.)

    155mm calibre guns being studied because they provide greater standoff ranges and more effect per round for NGS so the firing hull is less vulnerable to counterattack. However, the primary reason is because the development and proceumement costs of future ammunition (i.e. extended range and precision guided shells) will become prohibitive.

    Too few hulls with different (and in the case of 114mm / 4.5 inch Mk8 unique to RN) calibres = can’t justify the expense of ammo development hence exploration of common claibres with army to drive purchase volumes. The alternative is a standard NATO calibre i.e. 127mm / 5 inch.
46. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Hi TD @ 8:53,

    I appreciate “multiple variants, smole, illum, HE etc. Because it is pretty unique to the RN we have to pay and therefore not share with anyone else, development costs for new rounds” as I have been banging on the role and importance of ammo as opposed to the gun (rather, its size) myself.

    But what is the commonality of the types of rounds used (army/ navy) other than in shore bombardment?
47. Think Defence November 30, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    Armchair, remember the role of the gun is primarily for naval gunfire support for ground units so the benefits of having the same HE, smoke, illum and IR illum as the Army’s AS90 weapons will reduce training requirements and the ashore storage and management of ammunition stocks will be simplified. Plus the capability benefits means its worthwhile pursuing if we can do it economically.
48. IXION November 30, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    TD

    I’m with you in principle, but it seems in practice no one has been able to make it (155mm on a ship) work at realistic price.

    Lots of proposals projects and tests, but no actual bums on seats (guns on Hulls). Germans tried it but seem to have given up for unspecified reasons.

    US have given up after the Zummwalt fiasco.

    Bae say it would not be very difficult or expensive to modify the 4.5 Yea right excuse my whilst express a certain amount of cynicism.

    So no 155 in service or likely to be in service, soon.

    So 5 Inch by default.
49. ArmChairCivvy November 30, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Hi TD @ 9:21,

    I wasn’t fully aware of ” the role of the gun is primarily for naval gunfire support for ground units”.

    As there are lots of S-to-S(hip) alternatives that are quite economical as for space (and presumably, how many will need to be fired in quick succession), then I am becoming a convert to finding a way to shipmount GMLRSs.
    - I worry that the US/ German RAM missile pack is less multi-use than a rapid-firing gun, though
    - so if we become over-enthusiastic in the substitution, we might find situations where there are no applicable weapons onboard (with RAM and low-calibre guns the trade off is easier as for their weight and other requirements it is possible to find positions for both, ie, a balanced mix)
50. Michael (Civ.) November 30, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    Pte. James Frazer and Admin.

    Thats what i really don’t get, there is already the alternative of NATO 127mm/5 inch guns & various ammo types.

    The 5″/62 Calibre Mark45 Mod 4 gun is already built by BAe Systems Land & Armaments division (according to Wiki), why not just use that instead of yet again going for a unique weapon.

    I mean it’s not like the German Army is going to be able to re-supply you at sea!

    There’s commonality with our most important partner which means that in a conflict, our supply ships & their’s could re-supply our ships with Ammo & spare parts no problem.