A GUEST POST FROM IXION
Recently when discussing in comments one of those who opposes the patrol ship idea asked the question: -
Apart from Anti Piracy what are these things for?
It is a good question and deserves consideration, and if (like me), one is a proponent of such ships one as to be prepared to answer.
After all, I have joked about the army missing the threat of the Third shock army, or the Navy missing Red banner Northern fleet. I could be accused missing the Somali Pirates!
Considerations of the design of the ship.
Contents
How Big?
- Well we have talked about Endurance and Bay class types. Some factors driving increases in size are: -
- A well dock. I think it needs one. It brings with it duel functionality, (see below), and a flexibility about craft carried that makes it worth the extra cost.
- Sea keeping. One of the things that I remain convinced of, is that a lot of ‘Littoral’ is in fact open Ocean. A lot of coast lines of Africa and South America etc are open top the Atlantic/Pacific/Indian oceans waves will be big, winds high currents strong.
- Range/endurance. There is little point in having a ship designed to patrol the oceans cheaply if it has to be followed around by a support train.
- Capacity for air wing. Whether it carries it ordinarily or not, it should be able to handle, park, and support up to 4 EH101 and couple of small choppers and RPVs.
Sensors, I suggest as basic as can be got away with but still sufficent to track targets both on air and sea properly and defend itself. So as high in the air as possible.
Factors driving a reduction in size.
- Cost. Steel maybe cheap and air free, but steel still costs, and pipe runs, cabling etc, all costs do go up bigger engines and all that.
- Usability. Particularly port facilities, really the smaller the better, as not all ports are, panamax size. The thin really should be able to manoeuvre well as it may get close to the shore.
How Much?
Factors driving up cost.
- Construction. Personally for this ship I think SOLAS classifications sufficient with a rather better bulkhead division, and upgrade fire fighting.
- General sophistication
- Machinery wise AZIPODS are now proven technology. They should be adopted along with commercial engineering plant.
- Sensors. There should be a sufficient radar/ FLIR, and Elint capability to track and follow targets, and defend itself.
- Weapons. I would prefer guns alone, Perhaps goalkeeper. But I remain convinced anything in The RN that calls itself a ship, should have a full real 360 degree effecting CIWS, if that means RAM or other missiles then ok. (BTW that includes RFA) A few cells of Aster 15 if you want to push it. It is not a warship but it should be able to deal with someone taking a ‘pot shot’ at it.
Factors driving down costs
- Commercial equipment should be used wherever possible
- Commercial yards should build the ship even if that means abroad.
So Where Does That Leave Us?
Firstly size:-
- I don’t think that any ship worth having in that role can be ‘done’ for less than 12,000 tons. I also thing that once you get past say 22,000 tons it gets a bit silly and the cost benefits go wrong.
- The Point class is I understand a better sea boat than the Bay class, so I an suggesting something like Bay with greater draft and a better hull for rough weather. Or a Point with well deck. I do realise that putting a well deck on the end of a point is not simply a wielding job!
- Hanger facilities mean a large superstructure. But remember the helicopters / RPVs are at least in part the key to this. Perhaps only 1 or 2 carried for a routine deploymen, Up to 4- 6 depending on size for specific tasks.
- A good sized ‘Flex deck’ will be needed for all TD’s containers.
Secondly Sensors/ weapons: -
- A good commercial communications fit with military grade secure satcom and data links, should be fitted.
- Radar etc perhaps of the same grade as the Holland Class integrated mast?
- Weapons as discussed full ciws, some soft kill capability, and some rail mounted miniguns / 50 cal.
- With the well deck comes the real flexibility akin to the air wing. CB90/ mine warfare kit/ patrol boats/ landing craft, can all go in.
OK big question:-
What Is It For?
It is there to provide a ‘presence’.
WTF does that mean?
Consider the following:-
- It’s what we did in Lebanon, Libya, and France/ Spain (when we had to get all those holiday makers home). 3 essential, high profile operations. We sent ships to ‘get our people out’
- It includes such mundane jobs as oceanographic surveying.
- It includes intelligence gathering. Electronic monitoring, and a perfect base for ‘them’/ secret squirrels/special forces. If you fancy such dramatics.
- It flies the flag. Good will visits etc. Carrier junkies have fantasized about the business deals that will be done around the captain’s table. Well the patrol ships should have conference facilities as well as the odd table. If WASAWPYK, then one thing that says it louder than a lot of far more deadly stuff like having SSBNs, is having a ship on the scene.
- It offers genuine disaster relieve capabilities. Once a year at least nature shows us whose boss, and these ships are the perfect immediate response to earthquakes/tsunamis/volcanos. And hurricanes. Again boosting prestige.
- Finally it will do the anti piracy/law enforcement/ anti smuggling.
So that’s what it is for.
But: -
What Else Can It Do Well Enough to Earn a Place in a War Fighting Fleet?
After all the real criticism of this idea is, when the chocolate mousse substitute hits the rotating ventilation device, and we have to retake the nameless isles what can they do? After all we can use a T26 to do the patrol stuff (not as well), what use are these things when we need a T26?
What we are talking about is in reality not far from a modified LSD. With more thought given to Seakeeping, Air wing, armament and sensors, and less on actual ship to shore heavy transport capability. So point one, they will have the emergency carrying capacity similar to a Bay for amphibious operations. With better air wing 2 or 3 could they do some of the job of An Ocean?
In short although not purpose designed they would add real capability to amphibious warfare
- They would make a good Casualty receiving ships so that’s Argus covered.
- I suspect with careful design they could cover the leaf class as supply vessels for single t26/t45 on longer range deployments.
- But what about other more ‘fighty’ roles? How about as well as supplying food and stores, partnering t 26 on heavy anti sub work offering extra helicopter and maintenance capacity to the T26 in effect a force multiplier for them.
- What about mine hunting from CB90’s and helicopters? Anti SSK work using choppers and UAV’s?
- Against some enemies such as those likely to use swarm attacks by sacrificial speed boats (our friends the Iranians for example). Such ships might do better than a conventional frigate!
What about numbers well you pay your beer tokens and take your choice. I have too say in reality I can’t see one costing much less than £250 mill. So say half the real world price of a t26. Maybe a little more. So what if we went with 8 full fat t26 and 8 of these ships.
‘Forward deployed’ that is enough to put one in the Windies, one in the Med, one in the Atlantic and one off Arabia in the Indian ocean.
But they are ships and can be moved around to fit.
So just some thoughts and questions.
uh you do realize that your patrol boat is the same size as an old LSD right? 4 EH101′s? a well deck? yep you’re talking about a stripped down amphib.
Firstly
Apologies Thanks to TD I think when sent it the format change means he had to put it right.
Sol
Not so much LSD stripped down as specked up for other roles. Although I do see the hull designs as a better seakeeper, perhaps finer bow deeper draught etc…
Stretched Singaporean Endurance with up rated engines. Need a top speed of 21/22kts, economic cruising speed 18kts.
Your specifications are broadly as follows, can you clarify on the question marks:
Construction to Merchant standards
Tall integrated mast – air search and surface search radars
IR/EO trackers
ESM suite
ELINT/SIGINT suite
SCOT
Survey sonar suite
Dock – how big?
2-spot(?) flight deck
Air weapons magazine
‘flex deck’ – internal RORO deck or open container deck?
Holds for HADR stores
Accommodation for ??? EMF
Hangar for 4 x Merlin
100 (?) bed Role 3 medical facility
Cargo fuel capacity ?,000CZ
Cargo food and stores capacity ???m³
CIWS/PDMS
Chaff/decoys
close-range MGs
Azipod propulsion – why?
Range?
Draft >6.5m
12,000 to 22,000 tonnes full load(?) displacement
Anixtu
Thank you for your questions.
I’ll try as follows
Part of this idea is that it has to ‘fight with the fleet’ and in terms of Electronics that forces a certain standard of radar and coms ‘fit’. It should be as much as is required to do the job but no more, and I think that is one of the big costs drivers, so yes all of the above. But the survey sonar could perhaps be a bolt on unit as I understand the North sea oil industry uses them…
Dock- I believe there is a ‘nato standard’ for minimum size which I think;(I stand to be corrected) is the size on the Endurance and the Bay. It seems sensable to give it that size in order to allow interoperability.
I think as a minimum two spots, I would prefer 4 spots, but as with the stores and fuel questions That gets into the question of do we go with 12,000 tons or 22,000.
Likewise I would like to see them with the fuel carrying capacity of say a leaf class in order for them to be able to support a ‘proper’ warship on a single long range performance.
RORO deck with the points to secure containers.
Air weapons stores.
Can you clarify, do you mean:-
Weapons for the helicopters,
Weapons stores for the ships own armamant.
Or weapons for transfer to other ships.
Yes the size/displacement varies, with the spec of how many helicopters boats and kit, stoes you want to put on it.
I think the Endurance and canterbury, set the small end size wise.
Sorry forgot to addres azipod question.
Primarily because it seems to be the future of ship design.
It is now popping up as standard on the ferries and liners and Rig support vessels. In short most of the things that have to stop and change direction quickly and get themselves in and out of ports unaided.
It saves space on board and the electric drive, allows for a more space efficient placing of plant.
An excellent post IXION. However, I don’t know if you can it a patrol ship; global fleet station ship or mothership/AFSB appear to be more accurate descriptions:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A475178&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ponce_%28LPD-15%29#Afloat_Forward_Staging_Base.2C_Interim_.28AFSB-I.29
Are we talking about a cross of the old Fearless class and the bays?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_class_landing_platform_dock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_class_landing_ship
I’ve to side with Sol on this. His analysis may sometimes be a bit sketchy, but this time, I think he’s spot on. Your “OPV” is a LPD in disguise. I suspect you might have accidentally skipped a few details on why you’re using a 12,000 ton ship as a 500 ton OPV.
Especially the part on using LPDs against swarm attacks.
And I seriously couldn’t stop smiling at the thought of using LSD on pirates. Drug em so badly they can’t see straight. Problem solved.
I’ve to agree that the basic outline of the baby sea control ship you’re describing is a bit too broad.
@x
Stretch them any more and you’d get an Endurance 160.
Which is, unfortuately, only a paper design at the moment. But I do think you can get it for 100-150 million pounds. The Thais got the standard 140 version at 80M pounds more or less. The numbers are the length in meters.
@ Observer
Yes though 160 fits his specs I think to keep it realistic he would be looking at a stretched Endurance. Stretching is nothing to do with increasing cargo capacity more about sectional density. That plus bigger engines means more speed. 15kts ain’t enough. Doesn’t matter how many helicopters and fast boats he wants to carry. Let him work his way up.
On the bright side, the proposed engine specs for the 160 actually hits his speed bracket, so I suspect some engine advances/hull redesigns were made in the last 30 years. Duh.
@Ixion
I agree with the general thrust of the article. I have no problem sending a 12KT ship to do patrol work or spending £250m each to build them. Its not written anywhere that patrol ships have to be 500T!
My question is about crews. Do we give this new ship full fat RN crews sufficient to undertake all the contemplated roles including a margin for general warfare, damage control etc etc? That would be expensive – effectively adding crew costs of 8 Albions to the fleet.
Alternatively do we give them RFA crews able to move the ship around and operate it safely but not do warfare or cope with serious damage? All mission crews would come on attachement and be task specific. Thats cheaper – we’ve only got 8 Bay Class crews to find plus an ad hoc pool of RN personnel to be shunted around from hull to hull depending on threat and mission. Kind of like the green Adaptive Force.
Finally – what other crews can we disband to reflect the fact that these new ships are now doing their work? You have offered up 5 Frigates crews. What about Hunt? Sandown? River? A lot would depend on whether a single mothership carrying a well deck full of plastic drones really can do the Mine Warfare work that our existing swarm of 500 tonners can.
I don’t know enough about crew numbers of all the different types to calculate if the equation balances – but the people at the MoD should do and are probably already churning the numbers as part of the ‘business case’ for Black Swan.
@ Observer – Endurance 160 for £150m each? They would certainly be good for the aviation training and possibly the Primary Casualty receiving ship – Deck 5 can be converted in to a full hospital without affecting its other roles apparently…
http://www.stengg.com/products-solutions/products/endurance-160-multi-role-support-ship
@ Observer
Yep. The thing looks too much like an aircraft carrier and aircraft carriers look like car carriers and car carriers are the bovines of the shipping world; nobody is going to be overawed by a car carrier. No he needs something pointy with a big gun at A.
Peter E said “I have no problem sending a 12KT ship to do patrol work”
Yes you do 12kt is far too slow. Do your local police cars have a sticker on them that say “Limited to 70″?
They don’t need to do 30+ but 12 no way. One of the things that cheered me up about the Rivers is that have a sensible range of speed. Have you seen the distances that he wants covering? One of things he wants to do is disaster relief, 12kts is about what 4 days to do a little over a thousand miles. Cape Town to the Maldives is just over 4000miles. We live in an era where containerships have service speeds of 25kts. 12kts just isn’t realistic.
Well if you went for a new Engadine, that could be under 10,000 tons, just.
Peter Elliot
Re Crews
Assuming RN i see them spending a lot of time lighlty crewed doing thier ‘presence’ job.
It is only when the trumpet blows for war that we have to start loading them up with crews and fighty kit.
However at least some of each of the MCM crews would become mission crews and ‘go with the kit’ and follow it where it was installed. Inded i see retaining/ replacing MCM ships perhaps with modified River class as has been stated elswhere- to give an smaller OPV funcionality. However I am all for commonality and if it is possible to do the entire MCM job via modules ROPV, and small(ish) boats then go for it!
Observer
I don’t care what it’s called.
The vague spec is quite deliberate.
I am asking for other peoples views, (given they like the idea of the basic role), for how big it should/needs to be. And what spec of weapons etc we can afford/need.
I am dead set against the idea of the 500 ton opv, that’s is my point. IF you are after international range / deployment then the Holland class at nearly 4000tons is the minimum.
X
Efficient cruising sopeed for most RN vessels is about 17 knots.
I certainly recon it needs a max service speed of 22-23Kts ata minumum, whic is why Baystyle ship won’t do.
You can see the rationale for such a vessel (Bay Mod), but, the question keeps coming back if a Bay-like hull could do this job, and we have Bays in the Fleet that are not tasked to Exercises etc, why not simply use them….as we have been doing for APT(N).
The LCVP’s are more use than CB90′s for disaster assistance. If you squeezed a couple of Offshore Raiding Craft in the welldeck (or a Survey Motor Boat for limited droggy taskings….perhaps even shallow water MCM) and put a pair of Wildcats in the tent you’re most of the way there and it hasnt cost anything yet. WIGS used to be a decent posting back last I remember of it (early 90′s) so it may even be attractive from a recruitment/retention standpoint to have the Bays keep doing it.
My view on the patrol tasking, for the RN, is that sharing a common hull for all the minor war vessels tasks is going to generate an oceanic capable hull that can give the RN much wider capability sets out of the minor war fleet than its seen in decades. It also provides a platform ripe for development.
Added to this also would be a need for more ‘fighty’ hulls than just the Darings and 8 ’26′s. In an all up battle the proposed modified amphibs will need escorting as opposed to being escorts. This is where we need C2 instead of more amphibs and, if we want to avoid the absurdity of a third combatant type, it has to share a hull with the patrol ship.
I think, as detailed on the other thread, this is best done with a semi-SWATH with twin spot flight deck and full-size mission bay, but, to keep it conventional you are looking at a diesels only displacement monohull 115-120m on 3000+tons, top out 24-25knts cruising at 19-20. Think hybrid of Thetis and Venator. MCG forward, 997 MRR, flight deck/hangar for Wildcat and mission deck/garage plus reconfigurable office space for etch-a-sketching/MCM coordination etc.
Second batch as a C2 armed variant adds two VLS modules for quadpack FLAADS, a bow sonar, MTLS and CESM and gives over spaces for the fighty operators. If cheap enough, ie there is margin in the hull, it sacrifices mission deck space for larger hangar/flight deck.
Two variants, one hull, one machinery fit, common radar/EO fit, common guns fit. Common training and logistics for non mission-specialist crew and systems across the whole patrol (inc C2) fleet. Common weapons/sensor training and logistics with the T26′s. Scale economies from single patrol and C2 hull run plus whole-life support economies. Cheap as you are going to get it.
Basic patrol hull good for standard minor war taskings (plus anti-piracy and joint training with the Seychelles grand fleet on the odd run ashore). C2 warfighting capable as convoy/amphib escort or littoral patrol combatant taskings.
So you have:
- a Bay tasked for APT(N) or anti-piracy depending.
- an MHPC doing whichever one the Bay isnt.
- a C2 permanently on APT(S)
- an MHPC tasked to FI
- Another C2 and an MHPC forward deployed to the Gulf
- an MHPC on SNMCMG1 or 2
- 2 MHPCs on droggy detail
- a 26 on FRE/TAS
- a 26 or 45 ad hoc on SNMG
- remainder of the readiness 26, 45 and C2 groups available for exercise or RFTG.
If we get MHPC right…in line with what industry was proposing for C3 back in the mid 2000′s…we get a lot of flexibility in the system.
A multitude of issues I see with this approach.
RE: Helicopters
“Capacity for air wing. Whether it carries it ordinarily or not, it should be able to handle, park, and support up to 4 EH101 and couple of small choppers and RPVs.”
It strikes me that the RN is going to have far more deck parks than it has helicopters to deploy already. With the expected F-35B buy being around 48 to start with you are going to have portions of a carrier deck to fill. You will have 19 escorts that need helicopters. Depending on the status of the carriers (if one is laid up or not) and what you do with HMS Ocean, Albion and Bulwark (one nearly new ship is already in extended readiness due to lack of funds to operate it).
I just don’t see the point of building a 12-20,000 ton ship with space for 4-8 helicopters. Buying more has to be factored into the cost of these ships.
I also think the proposed backup role for the ship is a move in the wrong direction. The RN now seems long on Amphibious capability and short in other areas. The RN saw fit to inactivate at least one amphib (and sell another) it already has because it does not need it. The last thing it needs is to put in operation more ships in that field. With the two carriers being owned I would venture that the RN can probably move as many troops as the UK can scrounge together and attempt to land anyway.
I agree with Jonesy, if you really think you need to do this it makes the most sense to just re-task the Bay’s.
If you insist on moving ahead with the concept it needs to be tightened down from a spec standpoint. You really can’t specify a flight deck and support systems to support 6-8 helicopters and RPV’s and then say you may only deploy with one or two most of the time. I am still a bit iffy on the weapons outfit as well. Like others said if you only put goalkeeper on the thing then you end up with something that in a real conflict needs to be escorted after cutting the escort fleet to put them in service. If you want it to be able to really defend itself then you add a ton of expense to the thing.
It makes a change to see that someone recognizes that bigger ships cost more money, and that it’s not just a case of chucking a few extra tonnes of steel into a design; but then suddenly we’ve got eight LPDs, rather than two, in the Navy’s fleet – and that’s not considering any RFA docks either.
Well decks cost money up front and through maintenance. If you’re looking at that many ‘patrol’ ships (my first thought was that he wants eight Albions with hangars), I think you seriously need to consider different launch and recovery systems -ramps, gantries, etc, or Canterbury’s cranes- and just accept the limitations that come with an alternative solution.
@X
He meant 12 Kilotons, not knots.
And don’t knock cow carriers, they can unload a crapload of manure on your doorstep. With the cows to boot.
@PE
PVs tend to the ~500 ton range, corvettes ~550-2700 tons and frigates ~3,000 to 7,000 tons and destroyers after that.
So yes, tonnage does play a small part in classification. So when people say patrol craft, he can either mean role or tonnage range.
And yes, I agree, if you already have an LPD/LHP, by all means use it. Waste not, want not. That ST plug was more tongue in cheek than anything. I’d wait till they actually build one first before going any further.
Ixion,
Dock – how many daughter craft of what type do you require to carry in it? That will set the size.
Four-spot flight deck puts you into ‘through-deck’ territory.
Leaf class liquid cargo capacity is about 30,000t. Perhaps you are thinking of the smaller Rovers?
“Air weapons magazine” is for munitions carried by embarked aircraft.
I had feared that you specified azipods simply because they are fashionable. At least two categories of user that you mention use them specifically for Dynamic Positioning, which is the reason amphibious warfare ships have them, and why they would be a sensible fit for your patrol ship.
To repeat a few questions:
How many EMF do you require to carry?
How many beds in your Role 3 medical facility?
What quantity of food and dry stores do you require to carry for issue to other ships?
You are combining the roles of at least three existing ships, I’d really like to get a handle on just how big this thing is going to be.
“the question keeps coming back if a Bay-like hull could do this job, and we have Bays in the Fleet that are not tasked to Exercises etc, why not simply use them….as we have been doing for APT(N).”
We sold the ‘spare’ LSD capacity to Australia, along with the TAS. I don’t think we will see a Bay on APT(N) again for a while.
@Ixion, Good article – have always seen the need for a a vessel of this type. Would say we are not talking about specifically a patrol / presence vessel, but a MRV which is being used for these roles. I would also like to ask if the MRV could also cover the Solid Fleet Replenishment (stores ships) role also?
If you assume that the RN could replace the current Bays, Forts and Albions on one to one basis – that would be 8 vessels. To me this is the best way of getting another flat deck class (outside of the CVF) – and could even be used as a platform for advance F35B flights?
I like the Endurance 160 – but remember read somewhere questions on whether the seakeeping was good enough for global operations (anyone know?). Perhaps if they are as cheap as suggest (~150mn) more money could be spend on the sensor fit and defence systems (CAMM?).
Interesting questions raised on the hanger capacity at the bottom of the following article: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/singapore/rss-endurance-160.htm
Anixtu
“We sold the ‘spare’ LSD capacity to Australia, along with the TAS. I don’t think we will see a Bay on APT(N) again for a while.”
Hence the statement ‘if we have Bays in the Fleet that are not tasked to Exercises etc’. I’m not familiar enough with the deployment patterns of the Bays to make definitive comment, but, with three hulls available is it really stretching things to put one in the Caribbean during the rainy season every year?.
OK
I will go over this again…
There is more than one way of skinning this particular patrol ships cat!
You could do some patrols with say SA’AR 4 fast attack craft. You could do it with River class- you could do it with Holland class, you could do it with a T 26 or Nimitz!
I set out to look something that would fit with what the RN actualy has been largely doing for the last 10 years. Not what it thinks it’s doing or what it thinks it should be doing, what it actualy has been doing.
I came to the conclusion that a large ship with a well deck and say 2 spots for helicopters and plenty of space for looking after them. Together with at least an Endurance size well dock, and the armamant and air defence of a LIGHT frigate, seemed to fit the bill.
I then argued that it could be re roled in a shooting role to real jobs:-
Like sea control/Antisub work.
MCM Work.
Also do not forget whlst it is doing it’s work, the fast sexy stuff can go and fight the war.
And given its well dock it couldin effect replace the Bays. Given its helicopter capacity when grouped in to two or 3 even replace ocean, it could do the job Argus does standing on it’s head.
I do not think the bays themselves are up to it- I understand their bad weather sea keeing is not brilliant, they are too slow, do not carry enough weapons and electronics, and their internal configuration does not allow for the Rover class fuel load etc. ( Yes Anixtu I meant rover class- sorry about that, and yes please air weapons for it’s helicopters including a decent anti ship missile).
I was tempted to call this article From Canterbury to Argus. That is the size range of the potential design- so yes it is vague:-depending on how many helicopters or landing craft, weapons/Hospital size or stores you want.
I will put down my wish list
1) Rover class capacity to off load fuel and stores to a real warship.
2) 2 helicopter spots In that it could only have 2 rotors turning at one time. (sorry if I misunderstood earlier when I said 4)
3) Room to comfortably opperate 4 EH101 and a couple of something lighter)
4) Well deck able to take the same landing craft as the Bay
5) Flex deck and weaponry and radar etc at least in the same class as the Absalon/ full nato interoperabillity – (but RN speck). And no MCG and Weaponry concentrating on the air threat.
6) Realy long 12,000 + mile endurance not counting it’s deliverable fuel load.
7) Commercial machinery so it can get the bits on any continent, MAN BW etc.
8) Good sea keeping to allow it to opperate in the deep oceans of the world and 22 knt plus to speed.
with one class of vessels we could:-
Replace: -
Rover
Bay
Albion
Ocean
Most of our MCM
Scott
Argus
We could also have it as a Sea Control ship’ If we had one T 26 with all the expensive anti sub expertise- could it not really use, say an extra 4 EH101′s on hand, and frankly better repare facillities that a
t26 has. Likewise if the ‘swarm atack happens a few extra armed helicopters would come in kind of useful…
Oh and please:- I said it would be kind of specced up LSD/LPD/LPH/LHD: (I dont care what its called, you have the right to bear arms or the right to arm bears for all I care), So please no more:-
“well all your suggesting is a kind of specced up amphib’
Comments
OK you caught me out! You are all too cleaver for me, where did I slip up was it the
‘What we are talking about is in reality not far from a modified LSD. With more thought given to Seakeeping, Air wing, armament and sensors, and less on actual ship to shore heavy transport capability. So point one, they will have the emergency carrying capacity similar to a Bay for amphibious operations. With better air wing 2 or 3 could they do some of the job of An Ocean?’
Part of the article- damn I must be more clever next time…..
Maybe on somethink like this, it’s time to bite the bullet and make them out of Titanium. rather than steel.
Dave
Azipods
Commercial shipping is increasingly moving that way.
Ferries, and Liners use them for in port manouverability, and People who REALY care about fuel consumption are turning to them. They are provimg reliable and economical in service, and as I said bring with them an almost ‘put the engines where you want’ capabillity.
I am not wedded to them, out of any love, they just seem to make sence if a ‘conventional’ plant does the job then heigh ho.
Ix, a great stab at the problem, thanks. Will formulate a longer reply in due course (and I will, there are some really good ideas here), but I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the ‘A’ word yet. After all, what you’re after is essentially an Absalon, is it not?
One minor point to consider – the importance of ‘presence’. The ability of a small hull to pull into places not normally seen by the public and deliver a gentle reminder of the RN existence.
For that reason alone, URNUs are worth every penny.
Somewhatinvolved
Yea but bigger with a well deck.
Humph said “URNUs are worth every penny”
They really, really, aren’t……….
Brian BLACK
MY main problems with cranes etc, is in where to you put the things you are craining into the water when they are on the ship?
In Canterbury they frankly get in the way of the helicopters and raise CoG. However TD posted som interresting pictures of stuff being crained out of an Absalon’s rear end so If a capable laternative exisited- could be made to exist, then we could lose the well deck.
However the big cost driver on theses hsips would be the weapons fit. Infact I see 50% on hull and machinery and aircraft facilities say £125 mill. And 50% on radar coms and weapons for shooting wars.
Repulse
I think the Dutch tried the Joint support ship idea but that realy was trying to get ‘everything into one hull’ a sort of cross between ocean and a fort class,and it fell down.
“For that reason alone, URNUs are worth every penny.”
I must be honest, we get the old Archer’s popping around my part of the world. Most people have absolutely no idea they are RN ships, they have no visible weaponry. Even a jimpy mounted on the front would make it look the part. It just looks like an odd grey pleasure boat.
I have pointed these things out to joe blogs many times and reaction one is “no way” and reaction two is “they look really shit”.
I agree the URNU’s are a good investment, but the boats don’t do anything like what you say they do.
They need to look the part. Even a bloody replica or drill turret would do.
interesting article IXION, and i agree with the need for hangers helipads and a dock, but i lean in the other direction on size:
Ulstein SX119: http://bit.ly/h1b55y
2000 tonnes should make it suitable for the south atlantic.
21 knots should allow it to deploy with fleet.
215m sq cargo deck should allow a fair amount of modular payloads
It appears to have a hanger.
It appears to have a well-deck/rear-ramp.
It can be ice strengthened.
It can probably be bought off-the-shelf for less than £80m.
Would adding a 57mm, ram/searam, and creating a few containerised payloads really push the cost up much beyond £100m?
@Ixion, my understanding is that the Dutch JSS is meant to fufill the AOR role, the RN seems to have gone cold on this and will have dedicated tankers (Waves and the 4 new ones). My idea would be just to support dry stores.
I’m over simplifying it I’m sure, what additional equipment is required for the dry stores role, beyond large cargo capacity, cranes, helicopter lift and cranes?
Looking at the spec it looks like a fort Victoria with a well deck to fit everything in. Dont see this being particularly cheap either. Having read about the us issues with mission packages ect and the hundreds of millions they’ve spent to get the mcm package to work (which by all accounts still does not) I suspect the modular approach is more theoretical than practical. Think some underestimate the benefit of small shallow draft vessels for closer to shore vessels couldn’t see this doing hms bangors job off Libya. Don’t understand the helicopter requirement why 4 merlins? If this is to hunt subs then I guess you’ll need asw protection and low noise on the ship or the sub will hear it a mile off. If its for littoral control and small team insertion then why not wildcat. Which if you take a type 26 with 2 wildcats and the increased small boat compliment and a smaller oiler you get a better effect at prob the same cost.
Having said that you could always try this concept bring Albion back to full readiness and deploy it on such a tasking it’s roughly fitted as out lined.
Jdbtx
THE 2000 TONS refers (I think),to Dwd not displacement.
Not an expert but at nearly 89 metres long (that is pushing 300 ft), I suspect it weighs a lot more than 2000 tons.
I take the argument that we shouldn’t be investing in more Bays while we have an Albion laid up.
First action should be bring the spare Albion back into service, with a skeleton RFA style crew and a ‘temperory’ aircraft shelter fitted. That could be used for ‘proof of concept’ to see how effective it is for all the various tasks with the ‘drop in’ mission crews.
That way you can refine the required design, crewing levels and make the ‘business case’ for another 3 or 4 ships.
Upthread someone mentioned SWATH.
The problem I have with SWATH is that it has no deep bunkers or magazines, becuase there is so little of it in the water. As a result I would think it needs to followed about by a supply ship if used on a long term presence tasking.
As such you may as well design the supply ship to be able do the support the mission tasks directly itself.
Hi, IXION.
I’m not over enamoured by Canterbury either; it has its problems, like you say.
I saw a design for a nifty floating cradle system somewhere, from the off-shore energy sector, another option for getting stuff in and out the water. Can’t find it, but it was two cradles between twin hulls – the key thing being that they shift up and down with the waves to give an ability to launch and recover to a boat deck close to that of a welll deck, but without the cost of one, and far safer than a crane and flailing cables too. Don’t know how well something like that scales, but combat boat and LCP size looks fine – all depends on how large a ship you want and what you want to put in the water though.
I think the French were musing a twin hull for an MHPC vessel – or at least the MCM and Patrol bits of that.
If SWATH isn’t your bag, how about something like this for small vessels.
http://www.mshipco.com/military_m80.html
Jonesy,
“I’m not familiar enough with the deployment patterns of the Bays to make definitive comment, but, with three hulls available is it really stretching things to put one in the Caribbean during the rainy season every year?.”
That is exactly the period a Bay *hasn’t* been sent to the Caribbean. Hurricane season is more usually FF/DD + AO.
At present, one Bay is always in the Persian Gulf on MCM support. At least one other is kept close to home for RFTG. I don’t know whether the third is committed to RFTG availability or can be sent far from home, when a third is available. If it wasn’t for the Gulf MCM tasking we’d probably be down to 2 Bays now.
jedibeeftrix,
“Ulstein SX119:
2000 tonnes should make it suitable for the south atlantic.
It appears to have a hanger.
It appears to have a well-deck/rear-ramp”
Has been posted before.
2000t deadweight, not 2000t displacement.
I’ll bet it doesn’t. A hangar one deck high?
I’ll bet it doesn’t. There is an opening in the stern, but it isn’t a dock or vehicle ramp.
Matt S,
“I’m over simplifying it I’m sure, what additional equipment is required for the dry stores role, beyond large cargo capacity, cranes, helicopter lift and cranes?”
Capacity for palletised cargo, including refrigerated holds and magazines for ammunition. Cranes. RAS rigs. Flight deck for VERTREP. Just think about how big AFSH is for dry stores alone.
Ixion,
“4) Well deck able to take the same landing craft as the Bay”
I think you’ll want it a big bigger. You could only fit 1 x CB90 in a Bay.
@Peter
“Upthread someone mentioned SWATH. The problem I have with SWATH is that it has no deep bunkers or magazines, becuase there is so little of it in the water. As a result I would think it needs to followed about by a supply ship if used on a long term presence tasking.
As such you may as well design the supply ship to be able do the support the mission tasks directly itself.”
Thats true but only to an extent. The semi-SWATH FSF-1 carries bunkers of 100,000 gallons (450000 litres) and is designed on a mission profile of 800nm transit at 20knts, 21 days at patrol speed, 4 hours at 50knts and 800nm back to base at 20knts. Thats on a sub-80m hull. I’m not sure that qualifies as a vessel dependent on a RAS every few seconds?.
For the joint MHPC/C2 hull (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/littoralswathcombattant.png) that would be stretched to, perhaps, 110m and, by my calculation in the beam to 25m, semi-SWATH suffers less from the typical wave resistance than a true SWATH does (as borne out by FSF-1). That gives you a 60m two spot flight deck and a decent hull area for superstructure forward. After all if you cant build down you can always build up or out!. Its been mentioned about the limitations on VLS installation with SWATH as an example. If you install strike length modules, as an example, on 02 Deck though you get an extra few metres before you need to deck penetrate. Self-defence length modules being possible pretty much anywhere.
The advantages you get in seakeeping, weather deck area and mission bay volume though are manifest.
I have to agree with Jeremy MH here yes steel is cheap enough but when we have a need for OPV’s why would we want a somewhat less capable amphib than say the Bulwarks of which we already have two? I also can’t see the RN wanting it. The RN want to replace the existing off shore patrol boats and Mine hunters with a combined fleet that will be more capable in effect what was the old C3 requirement. I very much suspect what the RN want is something that sits between the modified River class and the Dutch Thetis class.
I also think whats being ignored here is a) the cost of the sensor fit and other electronics and the complexity and work required to integrate those systems and then b) maintain and train on them. One thing that the RN has is world class sensor technology that is designed and made in the UK. The RN always has its own specific requirements about what it expects it kit to do.
For example just bunging on Aster requires all the control s/w, radar and so on. The existing s/w and kit which the navy has trained on and knows how to utilise is cost prohibitive imho for an LPD. So you end up reinventing the wheel, thus you’ll end up specifying new requirements, a new design etc etc to ‘do it cheaper’, which is why defense procurement always gets expensive and late.
As soon as you start adding the war fighting stuff in then I don’t see the point of trying to make a ‘cheaper’ LPD especially at the 12000 to 22000 ton range, whats the point of such a massive vessel that can only be used in permissive or low threat environments and then loading in ‘warfighting’ requirements that it just won’t cope with?
Seems like a bad use of limited resources to me given what we already have and will be getting and not what the RN want at all. I mean the C3 requirement has been around for what four five years at least and there is a clear need for it. The bonus is that vessels of that size based around some variant of say the existing River class would mean the RN get a ship that a has commonality with vessels they already operate and train on and has an already existing logistics and supply chain. Could be built in Portsmouth thus keeping the yard alive and more importantly the facility that would potentially be maintaining the vessels. Seems like a possibly good candidate for the use of spiral development techniques to me also, in our normal fitted for not with ways.
I’m all for some combination of functions but using such large vessels for say Falklands Islands protection, MCM! really does not seem sensible.
That and replacing five almost brand new vessels in Albion, Bulwark and the Bays, more money wastage.
We’ve spend a whole bunch of money on Argus to keep her going until 2020 at the earliest.
MARS tankers and a planned in replenishment vessel are already in the works so we replace them as they arrive do we, yet more money wastage? I’m not trying to be confrontational but any new vessel class and design has to take into account capabilities we already have and are short of.
Yes the eight Hunts and eight odd Sandowns need replacing because they are reaching end of life and we need more OPVs. The other vessels you mention replacing bar Ocean do not need or merit being replaced.
For me, its way too big to have a 12,000 tonnes ship tasked primarily for patrol/anti-piracy missions. Like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
As the LCS programme has shown, trying to achieve too much with a single hull is not always a cheap option.
However I do think a LCS variant – with their large hangers, 2+ SH60 type helicopters, capable of being re-rolled but with enough basic armament to provide a presence and most importantly high dash speed might be a better option.
Take the USS Independence – 127m long, basic crew of 40, a stern bay and hangers for helicopters, medium calibre gun to look imposing, a hanger mounted CIWS, space between the main gun and bridge for a VL system (Sea Ceptor?), 4,000nm+ @ 18knots but a dash speed over over 40knts, space for 35man mission crew including MCM.
For me this might be a better use of a tight defence budget.