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.
I mean I agree between the mine hunters, mine sweepers and existing OPVs we have 21 odd vessels that could and should be combined into a single fleet type. IMHO it’d get rid of two supply chains, simplify training and allow the use of economies of scale in the buy. We’d get more availiability out of the mine hunters and mine sweepers and at the same time have more vessels available for patrol duties to free up T45/T23/T26 (when they start arriving) to do their main jobs.
MMOOMIN
I am advocating the BASIC frigate level defence. After all the t26 will not be sent to high air threat environments without a t45.
The C3 type proposed would be just as vulnerable as anything I am proposing: – in fact more so.
I have factored in a ‘guestimate’ for the expensive electronics and some propper air self defence weapons.
Far more than ANY of our existng amhibs, or support ships.
In fact for a somewhat less or similar price the c3 appears to offer less capability.. Of course c3 will be fast and pointy with a gun on the front…..
Of course it
Dave
The reports from then US comander of the somali anti piracy set up published a year or so ago said that an anti piracy vesel must have a helicopter and preferably 2.
RN have boasted of the ‘Huge footprint’ of the Bay class in the West Indies when deployed in the anti smuggling role.
Then there is the USS PONCE referred to above.
Big amphibs are being used for this role.
The LCS is a classic US Clusterfuck asking for the moon on a stick, (or more properly, a small fibreglass yaught hull). It’s like saying that,
‘The SA 80 was crap so all assault rifles are crap’.
Modularity works, when it is done realisticaly.
Its at the large end of the suggested specs but…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/meshd-200-image01.jpg|||
@Dave
Surely what the LCS has shown us is that 3,000 T displacement isn’t big enough for a swing role platform? They simply can’t fit everything in.
It has also been suggested that the LCS has neither the endurance nor armament to be useful in a shooting war. (It will be interesting to see how long before the USN throws in the towel and either orders some Frigates or modifies the Burkes to renovate an ASW capability.)
The argument for a 12,000 T ship is that it can carry its own stores, so saving you a logistic support ship, and also fill in as an LSD (within a protected ARG) in a shooting war.
Last time we discussed the strategic utility of the amphib fleet we formed the view that we need to get back to 6 Amphib hulls (Albion, Bulwark + 4 Bays) in order to allow us to deploy all of 3 Commando Brigade over the beach and not just the single battle group that we can currently lift on (Albion + 2 or 3 Bays). This plan is one way of doing that.
So the argument goes that a 12,000 Tonne LSD is actually more use than a 3,000 Tonne LCS in both peacetime and wartime conditions.
RE: Well Decks. If I remember correctly the well deck of a Bay can only handle one LCU? If you want to make your vessel a mothership for patrol boats, etc then one as large as the LSD-41 would be useful:
http://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/mk-vi-well-deck1.jpg
I personally like well docks but they do impose penalties/constraints on a ships design. While reading other blogs (sorry TD!) I have come across some comments from a “Leesea” who actually thinks well decks are an anachronism from the 2nd World War, favoring davits and cranes as being a better idea. Some davit/crane using ships below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vulcan_%281889%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_transport
With an emphasis on range, sea keeping and relatively good speed I am reminded of the Jeanne d’Arc. Replace the 100mm guns with CWIS, instal a hangar over half the flight deck and turn the original hangar in to a “Flex Deck”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cruiser_Jeanne_d%27Arc_%28R97%29
If you really want to have a well deck then you might end up with something like below?:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/992/Force-Protection-Group-gets-cruisers-#.UB6FXaMmHa4
RE: Helicopters. For patrol/presence missions I think some Utility helicopters would be a good idea. The Dutch LPD is deploying with two Airforce Pumas (Cougars?) They would be very useful for DR.HA, and engagement missions. The Japanese are also planning to use their EH-101′s for MCM. That is a capability we don’t currently have but worth considering?
The Endurance 160 schematic I linked to above shows 7 helicopters stowed below the flight deck. However, it does say aviation/heavy and light vehicle deck so it looks like you have to choose what mission you want it for beforehand.
Edit: The documentary “Pirate Patrol” about a Aussie frigate was very interesting. The helicopter went up usually twice a day but it broke down and they didn’t have the spare parts on the ship; they also didn’t have a spare helicopter which severely limited their capabilities. So a second helo (or at the very least a UAV or two) would seem essential.
I’d size the well deck for 1 LCAC or 2 LCU.
Love the post. Spot on IXION.
@GJ
Re: Welldecks, they do provide a safe place for you to embark rather than trying to board a swinging boat in slightly rough weather, and it’s much easier and faster to board/unload through the front than rope the boat close to the LPD hull and get on one by one.
This does not even take into consideration vehicles. Do you really want to divot a LCU down, then crane a Warrior on it? Or would you rather reverse it onto the LCU and slip out the welldeck?
So, no, I don’t think it’s a holdover from WWII.
@ Peter Elliot
RE: USN ASW capability
This view that the Burke’s have no real ASW capability is just kind of silly. The class is either equipped with a towed sonar array (which is being upgraded with new tails in the past few years as ships go in for refits) or two ASW helicopters. That gives you 28 destroyers with full up ASW suites as well as all the Tico’s (22 of those still around). In addition the US has 5 SURTASS ships which pull huge towed arrays and 55 submarines all of which have towed arrays.
GARETH JONES
That last ship you linked to is defo the sort of thing I had in mind- including the flex 300 style craft!
I was not so egotisticle as to believe I was the first to reach this conclusion.
@ Observer – I agree, I like Well Decks but I realise they do come at a cost and thought I’d explore alternatives for argument sake.
I think the main question is well-deck or not. Do we want these ships to replace Bay/Albion or are they completely different, in which case LCVP or RHIB on davits may be enough (zero or few vehicles)?
@ IXION and Anxitu – re: Ulstein SX119: http://bit.ly/h1b55y
“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.”
In that case, i am reduced to the point that it looks cool! :p
cheers.
Happy to take my medicine about the Burkes, but that issue was an aside to this argument anyway. My main thrust was that LCS looks too small, under-equipped and under stored for a useful wartime role.
Any ship we build needs to be able to make itself useful in peace and war.
“This view that the Burke’s have no real ASW capability is just kind of silly. “
Hi BB, with the reference to the dual-hull French MCM vessel, you may have meant this drone-carrying drone (to be used from motherships, those still undefined):
“The French Espadon unmanned surface vehicle demonstrator, put to sea on Dec. 8, is a “drone-carrying drone” developed for future mine warfare missions. (DGA photo)
The demonstrator of a naval surface drone was launched at Hennebont (Morbihan on December 8, 2010. It was developed under a basic research contract awarded in July 2009 by DGA to an industry group comprising DCNS, Thales and ECA, and financed by the French government’s economic recovery plan.
The Espadon (swordfish) is an unmanned surface vessel that is 17 meters long and displaces 25 tonnes, and christened Sterenn Du (black star in the local Breton language). In 2011, it will be fitted with a towed array sonar and small submarine drones developed by Thales and ECA respectively.
This “drone-carrying drone” was fabricated by the firm Pech’Alu International, also based in the Morbihan district, under the prime contractorship of DCNS. Detailed blueprints were designed by the Nantes-based HT2 design office.
The goal of this type of unmanned surface vehicle is to conduct minehunting operations over large stretches of the sea, both in the littorals and offshore, without endangering the lives of human crewmen.
Sea trials will be carried out in 2011 and 2012 off the western tip of Brittany on behalf of DGA and the French navy.”
Here http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112379
is a bit more about the mothership (ideas) that relate to Espadon
- may be you have a newer source? I don’t think any other details will be fixed until the 2011-2012 trials have been analysed
On the subject of well docks and obsolescence its not davaits that are the currently fashionable solution.
The fashion is for a ship to shore ‘connector’ that allows big Ro-Ros (like out Point Class) to offload into LCU or LCAC a couple of miles offshore.
That way you multiply the ability of non specialist shipping to unload follow-on waves and supplies across an undefended beach (ie without the first wave ashore being constrained to immediatley go and capture a port)
You still need some way to get the LCU/LCAC into theatre. You either: could do this on a giant Flo-flo which doubles us as the transfer pontoon between the Ro-Ros and the LCs; or the coneventional way in the back of the amphibs that have landed the first wave over a lightly defended beach.
Confused yet?
My favourite idea is that if we build our new utility LSD with an internal ramp from the hanger deck down into the vehicle deck then this vessel could also play the role of connector. The Point Class would simply drop its ramp onto the flight deck of the LSD, the vehicles drive into the hanger, down to the ramp to the vehicle deck, and onto the waiting LCs cycling through the well dock.
Done right it would give us the ability to deliver and supply our whole deployable Division+ across the beach with no more ships than we currently own.
I agree with many of Ixion’s points.
The Bay’s already have plenty to do and aren’t as optimised for this type of work as a new variant could be.
If it was up-to me id order 3 large (at least 10,000 T) Bay type ships at first, with the obvious possibility for more if their effectiveness was proven and the money/will for more was found.
That gives you 1 each for APTN and counter piracy off Somalia, with another for an extra tasking you might require and to rotate with it’s 2 sisters when they are in need of maintenance and refits. Rotate the crews and these vessels could stay on task for a couple of years at a time.
I agree that they should have a 2 helicopter spots and room for around 4 airframes if needed, a well deck with light/fast patrol boats and some half decent defensive armament which would probably be a couple of CIWS, light calibre guns and countermeasures (just in case).
Use all of the spare interior space for humanitarian aid, or anything else it might be handy to carry so that they can switch roles quickly.
I think the important point, however the ships looked or operated, is that they could be a cost effective way of accomplishing tasks whilst freeing up escorts for their primary roles.
If people reckon you could get them for around 250 million a piece that sounds acceptable.
” Three MLPs have been funded for construction at the General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO) shipyard in San Diego. The ships are large, 765-foot-long vessels able to float off small landing craft, tugs or barges.For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role.”
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120127/DEFREG02/301270010/New-Floating-Base-Ships-Coming-U-S-Navy
#Peter
“The Point Class would simply drop its ramp onto the flight deck of the LSD, the vehicles drive into the hanger, down to the ramp to the vehicle deck, and onto the waiting LCs cycling through the well dock.”
You do realise that you are using the word ‘simple’ to describe connecting two ships within a dozen feet or so, in open water, such that a vehicle could roll between them?. Simple not being the first word that would cross my mind there!.
Fair cop guv! The last paragraph probably counts as a flight of fancy.
“Simple not being the first word that would cross my mind there!.”
The strategic aim of being able to depoloy and sustain our entire striking force of a Division+ (one armoured brigade + 3 Cdo + elements of 16AAB) without needing access to either a port or a runway is well worth trying to adapt our thinking to.
An MLP like the Americans are building would probably be a better bet to acheive this.
jdbtx
Yes it does look cool- can we get one in 20,000 tons – would have room for everything.
Would look awsome!
(although I accept looking awsome not exactly a tactical requirement)!
I see the consensus now is for this vessel to roughly equate the San Antonio’s.
Some patrol ship.
Good post Ixion. Immediately thought of TKMS MHD 200, GJ got there first. Product page here:
http://www.blohmvoss-naval.com/en/multi-role-helicopter-dockship.html
IMO these are just what USN CNO means when referring to ‘trucks, not limos’: ability to carry combinations of different systems at different times.
Oh, and without wishing to derail, have I missed comment on here about Lockheed Martin offering the UK the ‘SC-130J Sea Hercules’? (Google it if you haven’t seen it; the YouTube clip from Farnborough mentions us.) Interesting concept and could be useful complement to patrol ships…?
X
Yea I did say keep it real!
I think it can be done for about 17-1800 tons. people are concentrting too much on the amphibious side of things.
I am saying that there should be less concentration on heavy equipepment ship to shore we have ships for that. Or if we scrap them, then i think 2 of these doing the job of one Bay/Albion.
Mind you the San Antonios are a realy stupid price compared to other ships like Juan Carlos.
We start off talking about a patrol Ship and inevitably end up agreeing on the “utility” of an LPD.
Thats what you call capability creep apas.
How about the patrol requirement met by a pair, 1 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257) with a bigger main gun supported by 1 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS_tanker which gives you helicopters, radars, supply logistics addition embarked forces capability and presence with some ribs.
Total cost of both ships £180m, crew requirement about 100 not even all purely RN even better we already have them in service.
@ IXION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_071_amphibious_transport_dock
There is value in thought experiments and playing fantasy fleets.
Is there any money for any of these little boats? If not, it seems like an argument to not buy the T45 or T26 boats, because in the absence of any money, something else has to give. These seem less useful than either, so I’m not sure of the point.
RT, I think we are back on that favourite topic of spending the T26 budget differently or possibly the MHPC pot.
@ Ixion
I don’t buy the price for the Juan Carlos. They turned around and sold two to Australia at a price of around $1.25 billion a pop (US Dollars). That involved taking the ships up to military standards. Either the thing is very cheaply built (and unlikely to stand up to hard duty of being out on patrol all the time because what Spain really built was a show pony that looks impressive) or the accounting on it is funky. All I know is Australia is getting the same ships built to military standards and they are not much cheaper than a US LSD.
I can’t imagine the RN will go for a patrol ship built to Juan Carlos standards.
@ APATS re T26 spending
I thought, or it could be ‘flu’ delirium, that somebody here had decided we scrap one T26 so all the remaining 12 could have 2087 and other toys?
@ RT
It is just a discussion. Stop being tiresome.
Interesting to here for us ousiders but As some here prob already know this is maybe why we send aaw destroyers east for presence http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/hms-daring-s-afghanistan-mission-revealed-as-ship-returns-home-to-portsmouth-1-4118560
That’s why CVF needs Sampson.
EDIT: I was surprised by how far it could see, and I have only seen the “show and tell” mode.
As opposed to having one next to it?
@X
Don’t want to drag discussion back to Type 26, but it was me who said they would prefer to scrap one ship in order to bring the rest up-to a common standard.
No idea how much money it would save or what that could be spent on, but at the very least it could surely provide four more type 2087 sonar’s?
Id rather have a slightly smaller amount of properly kitted out warships than the limitation of a mixed fleet.
Challenger, One of the ways we have used 2087 is to allow other ships to remain silent and have info fed in from the 2087 unit. For instance a passive T23 running ultra quite but taking a link feed from an active 2087 unit further out is capable of closing and launching a weapon carrier against the target.
X Sampson would play havoc with flight ops and become an expensive rarely utilised luxury.
X,
it’s not being tiresome, it is being realistic.
Frankly, the one thing that would have stopped my earlier comment would have been some sensible discussion about what these things are meant to do within the context of current UK defence policy (and that cannot be done by the existing and planned floaty little boats). But no, it instantly descends into some naval architect porn and keyboard designs.
The whole flavour of TD in the last 3 months seems to have descended into “I want to reinvent the entire Royal Navy according to my own little pet likes, and I don’t give a sod about reality, so I want a 9,200 ton corvette with an XYZ missile and and 123 sonar”, and someone else instantly replying “well I want a 124 sonar, and an XXY missile”. It’s like reading an online argument between children who are not responsible for paying the mortgage or the gas bill.
The reality is that the entire Royal Navy is going to get reinvented by Mr Cameron – who is responsible for paying the mortgage and the national gas bill – into something small, spastic and inadequate, with a couple of white elephants and a few rather more expensive aircraft than it first budgeted for (and for that, it has to “thank” some now retired Admirals who forced those through). No amount of brave keyboarding about new types of patrol ships fulfilling undefined roles from internet commenters will change that. And the new Royal Navy won’t include any of the floaty little boats aspired to above.
How tiresome.
@R
RT, I hope you have noticed that those of us responsible for actually delivering the capability required have been quite diligent in sicking to what we are actually going to procure.
As for your white elephant spastic comment, well we have been here before.
@IXION your post was about Patrol ships but you’ve initially described an LPD/LPH. Then from that we seem to have gone to something that covers the functions of an LPH, LPD, Tanker, Replenishment ship, MCM, OPV and may or not have Aster, CAAM, SeaRAM ladled onto it also.
Thats not a general patrol asset in the slightest it’s loaded with very mission specific kit from loads of different vessels it’ll be bloody expensive to maintain and train on though. Given that they are also big and built to commercial standards I don’t see how you can combine such military specific functions into a ‘General purpose, patrol vessel’ for a blue water navy and not end up with something thats either sub optimal at lots of things. I mean theres a reason the RN keeps ship functions broadly seperate.
Neither is it a survivable warship in the same vein as a Type 26 or Type 23 but it appears to be loaded with the electronics/mechanical fit of most ships in the fleet. Theres a lot of expensive duplication and what appears to be requirement creep.
You don’t need a DDG/FFG, for, dare I say it.. Colonial duties, for either the West Indies or off the coast of Somalia. We need a vessel that is a maid of all work, it doesn’t matter if it is master of none. You only have to look at JSF to see what happens when you try that idea.
If you take the Danish Absolom or RNZN Canterbury, they can both carry heavy kit, but they need at the very least a harbour mole or pier to get that kit ashore. That’s all well and good, but what happens if they get to an area that has been hit by a natural disaster and that Port simply doesn’t exist anymore. It’s no good being able to carry a couple of D9′s if you can’t get them ashore!
The only thing we should not expect it to do is screen a CSG or a ANG.
Call it what you will, Long Range Patrol Ship, Colonial Cruiser, Auxiliary Cruiser. We need basically a 21st Century Cruiser, and if we base it on a Beefed up LPD, so be it.
Then if you use your 12000 to 20000 ton multi mission vessel, I hesitate to call it a patrol vessel at this point for one specific role then I have to ask, why are you carting the functions of five other vessels about?
Sure an Abalson type class vessel would be lovely and that would appear to be a genuinely capable multi mission/re rolable asset but it wouldn’t be cheap.
I always thought corvettes (the original multi purpose cheap patrol/escort vessel) were supposed to be small, light, fast, general purpose and not man power intensive. Which to me is the spirit of the C3 and latterly the Black Swan requirement.
Just been reading about the MBDA Perseus, cool stuff!
Although a question immediately presented itself to me, why are the French bothering with SCALP when they know this isn’t far down the line?
Ha-ha, just answered my own foolish question when I read further and realised Perseus has a planned in service date of around 2030!
@ APATS, not aimed at you. Just an observation that there tend to be 3 “camps” on TD – service-centric – who will seize any excuse to go off and verbally spend all sorts of non-existent money on all sorts of toys, and that rather than settle back and to make a justification for a broad capability instead immediately want to jump into some comfort-zone in terms of detailed design.
I’m as guilty as anyone else, although in my defence I’d say that my interventions are always on a replace like-for-like basis, and always cheaper.
As for the white elephants, if they look like elephants, walk like elephants, follow elephant doctrine and were supported into service by elephant-admiring Admirals who want to buy elephants, then they are probably elephants. If they are coloured white, then they are probably white elephants. If they are built by BAE Systems, then they are probably grossly overweight, late and over budget white elephants. I can’t but help observe this reality.
This is an interesting document as it gives a good steer as to future needs. With a potential solution.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A2237DD9-5C58-4F65-B838-01958C20BB83/0/20120503JCN112_Black_SwanU.pdf
Personally based on the issues with the LCS Freedom that I’ve read about and the results of USN readiness tests of the vessel I can see the potential for much the same issues in the Black Swan concept. The dependence on unmanned platforms is possibly a little too high also given where they are right now. I don’t think UAV’s in the naval environment are mature enough yet. Which is highlighted by the current issues with navalised FireScout.
RT
“Events dear boy, events”. The Pols may not want to spend anything on defence, but the global slump will lead to trouble, forcing defence spending regardless of their wishes.