Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their considered feedback and comments on the Security, Interdiction and Maritime Support System (SIMSS) concept I described recently.
For what is a hair brain scheme by some random chap off the internet for it to have gathered over 400 comments is a sign of just how engaged the Think Defence readers are, I don’t know of any other defence blog that has such a dedicated, diverse and well clever following, hats off chaps.
Since I started Think Defence I have been calling for innovation tinged with a healthy dose of financial reality. I might sometimes go off the reservation with the odd flight of fancy or wistful glance at metal boxes but generally, although I get accused of being too realistic sometimes, feet are firmly on terra firma.
I also try and counter the notion, a notion promulgated by various lobby groups, that it would all be fine if only those bigger boys in the MoD and Treasury would give the defence community just an odd billion or more extra.
This is so far from reality I don’t know they have the brass neck to even suggest it and is simply lazy thinking.
First off, there is no separate MoD and RN/RAF/Army, projects are bought into being by integrated projects team, the clue is in the name. Both service personnel and civil servants are involved. Main Building and Abbey Wood have as many service personnel as they do those famous pens pushing civil servants.
Decisions are made on a joint basis.
It is not the Treasury that determines how the MoD allocates the defence vote, it is clearly the MoD that sets its own priorities so when ex-service chiefs start moaning about a lack of x or y they should look in the mirror first. It is their major projects that suck the life out of the lower echelons of equipment, the enablers, the foundations of a flexible and capable force. So whilst they insist on CVF, Typhoon or FRES but complain about a lack of body armour or training time or spares or almost anything else that actually matters I am never convinced by the protestations of innocence.
I am even less convinced and unlikely to even consider giving them the benefit of the doubt when they join the revolving door club, the easy slide into the weapon manufacturer’s boardrooms and insidious and subtle corruption that goes with it.
Lobbying for more defence spending from within the expense account laden comfort of a directorship is hardly credible.
So whilst I do not excuse politicians or MoD civil servants I absolutely fail to accept that is all their fault either.
Successive limp-wristed Prime Ministers and Secretary’s of State have never found the moral authority to force difficult decisions on the MoD, instead they are dazzled by the gold braid and chest baubles and seduced by the cock stiffening allure of a quick victory over some third rate opponent in far-away places.
Politicians, civil servants and the Service Chiefs need to assume a modicum of backbone and start thinking about the real defence needs of this fine country instead of treating it like some big game of cock measuring or a route to a comfortable retirement.
If the wholly inadequate SDSR did one thing right it was to mark the cards of the defence establishment.
No more wishful thinking, no more voodoo economics, no more punting decisions over the fence to the next post holder.
MoD, you are going to have to live within your means.
Where it all went wrong of course is the hollow promise of an end to salami slicing defence reviews or the matching of strategic objectives to the means of their execution but that is because of moral weakness at all levels, no change there then.
The services have been bought off with a promise of jam tomorrow, what is it called, ah yes, ‘a real term increase post 2015 to enable the vision of Future Force 2020 to be realised’
What a fucking sad joke, still let’s all carry on spending hundreds of millions on Type 26 or billions on CVF whilst cutting back on essential capabilities to save a few million here or there whilst pretending the land of milk and honey, commonly known as Future Force 2020 is.
The same applies for all the services by the way.
If it is possible for anything good to spring forth from the loins of SDSR it is a healthy dose of wake-up guys, time for a spot of reality, but I don’t think many of the service chiefs actually get it.
Anyway, rant over, back to SIMSS.
Eating into the Surface Fleet
I deliberately suggested that we might trade a few Type 26 for a lot of SIMSS vessels to test the water.
Most people thought the design and concept was OK, but no bloody way should we trade proper warships.
In the land of financial fairy tales I would agree, but we do not inhabit such a place and so these hard trade-offs have to be made. It’s not easy for the Navy to accept reality, the global combat ship is a comfort blanket. Those chaps in green can get rid of those famous Cold War relics likes tanks and self-propelled guns, despite them being repeatedly used in all manner of recent conflicts but suggest such an equivalent for the world’s finest naval force and anyone would think I was suggesting clubbing half a million baby seals to death, painting HMS Victory in a nice pastel shade of salmon and calling one of the CVF’s HMS Paris (this will probably happen anyway, but you get the picture)
But the surface fleet is already stretched beyond breaking point, we are at an absolute minimum and beyond the point of no return you hear the cry. We have been hearing that since Suez, it happens every defence review, but I genuinely think we are pretty close to that point of reality, despite the regular trip to the theatre to watch the boy who cried wolf.
One of the reasons the surface fleet is thus stretched is because we insist on using them to cover tasks to which they are wholly unsuited and not available in enough quantities. We have tacitly recognised this by sending RFA vessels to cover some of the less combat oriented standing tasks like APT(N) in the Caribbean.
The notion of keeping a large combat vessel fleet and despatching them, chock to the gunnels with advanced sonars, weapons and their attendant crews is that they can easily step down and carry out these security roles but equally easily, step back up to the major combat roles that they are actually designed for.
In a land of zero financial constraint this is a sensible strategy, but we are not, are we?
It also spreads our jam thinly, whilst a frigates crew is rounding up pirates in £$100 skiffs they are not practising with their hundred million pound anti-submarine sensors, for example. We might not have much notice of the next proper stand up knock down naval conflict, the very last thing I want matelots doing is building schools in Monserat. An extreme example but the point I am trying to make is that combat systems (crew and kit) should be at the top of their combat game, not arsing around being a force for good.
Again, this equally applies to the other services.
This needs continual, high intensity training as a group. When single frigates and destroyers are strung out across the four corners of the globe these training opportunities are reduced.
Of course any sea time is training time, and it’s all good, but the key question for me is this.
With fewer commitments, or where those commitments where a proper warship is not the optimal tool and was therefore replaced with something else, would the decrease in stretch provide for an improvement in warlike training, particularly as task groups rather than singles?
You could argue that not only would the pressure on the training schedule be reduced, providing greater space for more realistic training, but qualitative improvements would also be seen.
It does not mean that the core of combat vessels would spend all their time training off Cornwall, as someone put it, they would still be available for cooperative training exercises with other partner nations, they would still carry out defence diplomacy missions as singles, and they would still be available for any other tasking, but the crucial difference would be, availability to do so properly.
If we want this then something has to give, develop protect a hard core but recognise that one might not need a one for one replacement for Type 23.
This does two things, first, it frees up funding, even in fiscal constraint and second, opens up an opportunity for something else to do those myriad of non-war roles that we press frigates and destroyers onto, the kind of things that characterise the overwhelming vast majority of Royal Navy tasks.
That extra funding might even be pushed onto the combat vessels so they are actually fitted with not for.
People might read interpret this questioning about using some of the funding for conventional surface combatants as somehow being anti-Navy but I get tired of that, it’s not the case at all. In fact, I see it as a means of preserving the combat ability of the Royal Navy and where a situation calls for a conventional warship I am in no way advocating sending SIMSS instead.
Re-read the proposal and look again at the title.
What is Something Else
Most naval forces have reacted to this need for something else by creating slightly modified frigates or corvettes.
The comfort blanket of the anti-ship missile, CIC and 3D radar is difficult to let go and so designs have evolved that still keep these vestiges of being a proper naval ship but throw a bone to the crowd by fitting them with a multi mission deck or other such grandiose bollocks that means a small RHIB hangar and a spot of open deck space with a crane.
The problem with this approach it is still means those costly (in fact, even more expensive now because those small boat handling davits don’t come cheap you know) frigates are still tearing around chasing fifteenth rate opponents waiting for the day when they will actually need their variable depth sonar.
Still, they don’t half look good on the PowerPoint and Navy Days.
Net result, fewer hulls in the water and fitted for but not with.
Cue more complaints from ex 1SL’s now working in the defence industry, sea blindness, Falklands, trade routes, shipping lanes, imports, and we are an island you know.
SIMSS takes a fundamental leap; you don’t need a frigate to carry out the majority of tasks of the Royal Navy. Yes, we need frigates for when we need frigates and I want them to have the full on fighty capabilities, but I see the continual reductions, spreading them too thinly and reduced combat effectiveness as a result of an unwillingness to recognise things have changed.
The second issue with the ‘mission deck’ frigate is they are not that effective at those secondary roles (the ones that generally are primary roles most of the time) because space is limited.
Is SIMSS the right thing for this something else role, should it be slightly more fighty, slightly faster, slightly smaller?
These are all valid discussions to have but something else, whatever it is, has to be from Poundland not Harrods.
Survivability and Fightiness
One of the commenters said that SIMSS should have a major war role, and then we all piled in with suggestions of how we could add this sensor or that weapon system neatly demonstrating how easy it is to be seduced the little hussy named ‘specification creep’
Of course SIMSS would be vulnerable to a high speed anti-ship missile, its massive, but do we not accept the vulnerability of Jackals to Kornet anti-tank missiles or an A400 to an SU-30?
We have to accept differing scales of protection and approach the deployment of SIMSS exactly like we do an A400 or Jackal. The use of Intelligence, intelligent doctrine, appropriate countermeasures and where necessary, a protective big brother, all compensating for a lack of being a fully tooled up combat ship.
Using simple and relatively cheap countermeasures, whilst simultaneously being realistic about deployments is reasonable defence for a SIMSS.
That said, there should be no reason why self-defence capabilities could not be increased with the addition of a modular weapon fit, but we have to resist the urge to specify one from day one, build the space and connectivity yes, but do not allow this to delay or introduce too much additional cost.
With cautious design and deployment, there might even be potential to equip SIMSS with a couple of niche weapons beyond those needed for self-defence.
One commenter attested that all RN vessels should be able to fend of midget submarine launched torpedo attacks.
Sorry, that’s not the case now, that’s never been the case (in a comparative sense) and is just not possible within a fixed cost envelope.
The HMS Cornwall Example
This was bought up as an example of a rapidly escalating situation where a more combat oriented vessel with a shallower draught might and therefore able to be closer to the boarding party. The suggestion was that something like a Khareef would have been far better than either a SIMSS or Type 22.
Arguably this is correct; it’s an excellent point.
However, one could equally argue that the flexibility and space afforded by SIMSS could equally have made a difference. Instead of a poorly armed RHIB, operating with no air cover and unable to notice the arrival of the Iranians, an orbiting UAV like the cheap as chips Scan Eagle would have allowed the boarding party to withdraw in good order. Compliment the inflatables with a CB90 or similar and the Mexican stand-off would have been over very shortly. SIMSS has the space to operate multiple UAV’s, multiple Wildcat’s and multiple powerful craft like CB90’s.
So there are a number of ways to look at this.
Svelte Supermodel or Curvy Fat Lass
Going large has disadvantages and these were highlighted by commenters, operating in shallow littoral environments would be off the menu, and it must be recognised that many of the SIMSS roles require a close to shore capability.
I think this could be compensated by its ability to operate a decent number of small craft. Small craft in the SIMSS world does not be an 8m RHIB either, 20m patrol craft, landing craft, mexeflotes, USV’s and work boats are all within its ability.
The low maximum speed of 15 knots was highlighted by many people with some practical examples of where even a modest increase to 18 or 20 knots would make a big difference.
This is another trade off, installed power costs but perhaps an increase to 18 knots would not create that much of a price increase, it would come down to detailed design calculation but in general, the lack of speed is compensated by the fast craft and helicopters it carries and in some circumstances, increased hull numbers.
A two size class was also raised, the large SIMSS and a smaller type that used most of the subsystems, a mini SIMSS.
I like this idea, where’s that piggy bank?
Ready Made or Off the Peg
If we are proposing a new kind of vessel then surely it should be a custom design?
Yes and no.
The reason for only a modest set of modifications to an existing design is to cut down on cost and leverage the expertise, construction experience and supplier ecosystem that has developed in the offshore market.
A lower cost basic design means more hulls in the water and things to carry on them, simple as that.
The Holy Grail of Modularity
Another commenter made the accusation of SIMSS being in thrall to the notion of modularity, pointing to the LCS and STANFLEX realities.
Fair point, but if you actually look at the issues of STANFLEX and LCS you will see that modularity is not actually the root cause of their problems.
A commenter mentioned the complexity of modular systems, highlighting the need for self testing systems and connectivity issues.
All good stuff but look at the modules in the proposal.
Small Boats and UAV’s, already available from a number of vendors, straight off the shelf and fully mature
Containerised MCM, already available from a number of vendors, straight off the shelf and fully mature
Dive Support Systems, already in service
Storage for dry stores, fuel and ammunition, already available and basic
Data Centres, already available from a number of vendors, straight off the shelf and fully mature
Living accommodation, office space, command space, workshops, kitchens etc, do I really need to go on?
Weapons and Countermeasures, you should note that I deliberately left discussions on weapons quite light. As long as we can fit a selection of automatic weapons and perhaps something like the SIGMA mount with LMM then this should be sufficient. Are we really saying this is a significant engineering challenge?
Countermeasures likewise, there are many systems available off the shelf that provide decent levels of protection. It’s not overly complex
In general, I fail to see the problems with payload modularity on SIMSS because I have cautiously limited the scope, fully aligned with the roles and likely operational context.
Summary
So I hope these words have explained further or addressed some of the doubts.
SIMSS might not be the solution, but neither is the status quo of demanding for more money whilst pissing it up the wall.
If there is one thing I do know, carry on normal jogging should not be the default stance.
mark
the problem with ‘crisis’ modules for airdefence is, we do actualy have to buy them.
Ten sets of aster 15 and artisan cant be considered cheap.
Its a lot of expense for not a lot of capability.
I think the 3 tiers doesnt need to be for this reason. As these vessels will be modular we can also attach an austere asw or aaw (camm) capabilty as a uor type function in a time of crisis to supplement the type 26/45 vessels. The cms1 is modular we already know that, the problem in the past has been the integrating the other sensors to preform these tasks but thales with there I-MAST has made this much more simple. The major assets of this vessel will be its helicopter,mcm, patrol boarding tasks in a higher intensity battle. Add a very simple I-MAST to begin with and should the situation change more in the future were more cash is available a straight fwd upgrade period would allow for a more high level sensor capability.
@ACC
“If we go for your middle tier, then out of these three only the French one is warlike enough?
BAM (AE) Holland(RNLN) Floréal | 2500t | 3750t | 2950t”
One word: SIGMA
According to Globalsecurity, contract to Morocco was €510m for three light frigates, including sonar and complete defence kit. Put ARTISAN on top, and everyone is happy.
DomJ said “That decision was made long ago, The Strike Carriers are for overpowering the enemy airforce over the enemies skies, not defending the ASW fleet in the North Sea from Russian Bombers.”
True. In fact the original primary role of the Invincibles was to be an “escort” (as leader of an escort group) to USN CBG.
The CBG primary role was to hammer the Soviet SSBN bases. And then support operations in Northern Norway.
All good clean fun.
Just a quick thought, but perhaps the Navy should take “hostages” from the treasury on each deployment. That would make them think about defence requirements differently :)
Links:
HMS Daring power failure: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/daring_s_engines_fail_1_2300994
St Albans “mechanical” issues (sure it was reported as engine failure but cannot find the link):
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/mechanical_fault_leads_to_delay_in_frigate_heading_to_the_gulf_1_2726795
Hi Tubby,
RE ” looks like the primary role of T26 appears to be land attack (and supporting SF operations)”
– Germany has 4 F125 “stabilization and Special Forces” frigates in the build phase
– good news: I like them; Bad news: they come at close to half a bn £ each
Tubby
That decision was made long ago, The Strike Carriers are for overpowering the enemy airforce over the enemies skies, not defending the ASW fleet in the North Sea from Russian Bombers.
Liberal intervention, more than just a catchphrase.
“If you want to indulge in “wog slapping” you need to send the fleet.”
That must be why once you peel all the PR guff away it looks like the primary role of T26 appears to be land attack (and supporting SF operations), so we can batter “Johnny Foreigner” in their own back yard – ASW and ASuW hardly featured in the recent BAE presentation at DSEi.
Tubby
You know, I confidently predicted that hours after the seizure, RAF Tornados operating from our bases in the area would be striking targets across Iran.
I was wrong.
Lets say Iran claimed an RN Frigate entered it waters and opened fire on an Iranian Coast Guard Vessel, an Iranian shore battery returned fire with an anti ship missile in response, severely damaging the frigate, which withdrew into international waters, and sank.
We know that the ASuM was an unprovoked attack.
I’d like to think the end result would be unpleasent for Iran, but everything I see leads me to believe they wouldnt get away with it.
Repulse
I’ve not heard the report, but its quite possible.
Daring is also new.
Electric propulsion creates a whole world of new possibilities.
A new world of problems, but they are building comerical ships with electric drives now (a company called bering makes pleasure yachts that use them).
Shit does happen, and this time, we might really be at the “unsustainable” point, but its hard to ague that, when its been the stock defence for a century.
I dont like the situation, but it is the situation.
A mix of both really. The days of Gunboat Diplomacy are dead, long live the days of gun fleet diplomacy.
The days when The Royal Navy could send a frigate to Foreignia, and the ill mannered brutes would instantly behave themselves or get a darn good thrashing are gone.
A T23 that gets nosey and comes close to shore could be dealt with by any third rate power, throw enough RPG-7 rounds at it and it will be hit, crippled and sank.
If you want to indulge in “wog slapping” you need to send the fleet.
Multinational task forces make me nervous, not least because our forces have been nabbed twice by Iran, and the task force they were part of did precisely nothing.
Is a Belgian frigate going to bombard Bushre on the orders of an English Admiral, or is the captain going to phone home for orders, which will no doubt be, “stall”?
“My personal opinion is that if you put our service people in harms way without reasonable protection for the environment, then your son / daughter should also be on that ship…”
Good in theory, but the outcome is the fleet option, not the frigate.
@DominicJ: if you believe the reports HMS Daring had a power failure mid Atlantic recently. Also, a T23 (I forget which one) had to delay it’s deployment due to engine issues also recently. The fact is sh*t happens.
I’m not sure of your point on Iran are you saying that the RN shouldn’t bother having a presence there, or are you saying send a SIMSS as the end result would be the same? The RN contributes to a multinational force there, so it would not be just one frigate. My personal opinion is that if you put our service people in harms way without reasonable protection for the environment, then your son / daughter should also be on that ship…
Hi DominicJ,
A RN RHIB could not fight back, I am not convinced that the Iran can afford to play games with anything that can fight back. I know that US war games concluded that a carrier group would be overwhelmed by a swarm attack, but I bet good money that the Iranian’s lost lots of ships and planes, and I am not convinced that you could persuade a bunch of FAC’s to go on a suicide run outside of an actual threat to Iran (like US declaring war on Iran).
Alternatively if a shore based AShM was fired at a frigate in international water’s that is an act of war and the general public in the UK would never accept the situation, we might not have much in the way of resources but I bet the UK general public would expect retaliatory strikes of some sort or the Government of the day would end up being pilloried in the press.
Jedi
Again the rivers in uk waters are fishing protection and coastal integrity of uk home water. Again if that’s all you want it to do that’s ok but if you want it to take the frigate patrol tasks to allow a reduction there then simple the speed to keep up with modern commercial vessels is a must. That is as I set it your trade increase it’s speed to allow it to undertake frigate tasks or don’t and just replace the current capability and maintain you current ff/dd fleet as is.
and the rest of the river class?
i suppose i see these things as a shor-in for the MHCP program rather than SIMIS.
Tubby
I wouldnt believe they’d attack an RN RHIB in international waters either, but they did.
I dont see a massive jump from them claiming they are arresting a RHIB for hijacking a tanker in Iranian waters, to destroying a frigate that attacked an Iranian ship in Iranian waters.
If the raid didnt provoke a military reaction, and its happened more than once, I dont see why shooting would.
Sure, the EU would send Iran a letter telling it had been a very naughty boy and not to do it again, but would anyone actualy be prepared to die in the war that followed?
Jedi
Clyde is supported by a frigate or destroyer all year round. It doesn’t have a lot of container ships to board either many fishing vessels in it’s area I guess. The vessel outlined is a cheap replacement for front line frigate destroyer for things like piracy protection counter terrorist intercept of most likely container vessels without any other support and that changes things
While its true a single frigate to far away from its RHIB will not stop Iran playing silly buggers do you really believe that Iran would attack a RN frigate in international waters? If so don’t you think that the stunt is just as likely to result in several destroyed Iran FAC’s? – they might have more chances with ASuW from the shore line (and if they can do it from ambush when the frigate is not buttoned) or using a mini-sub while the frigate is not hunting for it, but surely that’s the kind of act that forces NATO to bomb Iran back to the stone age or makes all of NATO look impotent not just the RN?
“21knts can be the trade off if it cant catch the ships its supposed to. You dont just pop up to target vessel and go im boarding you. It may involve shadowing the vessel for 24hrs if its doing 24-25knts and you can only do 21 your 80 miles away from it after 1 day shadowing.”
I understand the point, it makes plenty of sense, but i question it as a priority for a budget vehicle.
Is this really a necessity, especially given its closest analogue in service today is ok with 21 kts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_%28P257%29
Repulse
A single frigate/destroyer/cruiser isnt going to stop Iran playing silly buggers, its likely to encourage them to provioke a conflict they know they can win.
Grab a few prisoners, parade them on TV…..
Nor is a single frigate going to accomplish much by way of evacuation, that was a political stunt in Libya, not a serious military move.
“* one escort suffers engine failure or has an accident.”
The 45’s have four engines, my underastanding is they are entirely operable on a single diesel, if a little slow.
Its a whole new world, electric propulsion and a redundant array of inexpensive diesels, giggle…
But, we should have 8 active and 4 in dock. the 4 in dock are likely to be in varying states of repair, the fleets unlikely to get “into it” for at least a month after hostilities start, we sank the Belgrano 30 days after the initial invasion by Argentina. Thats quite a bit of time to rush the dock ships back into action.
Yes I know, they have long, lengthy periods of work up, but they are useful, not essential, lusty was comissioned en route to the falklands.
“*the Libya type operation goes on for 6 months.”
Well, I dont view that as likely, Libya only lasted so long because we prosecuted the war in such a limp wristed fashion.
Had we gone in with ground forces, and armed and commanded the rebels, Gadafis forces would have cut to ribbons in weeks, not months.
But even if it does take 6 months, true, your escort situation looks a little worse, but you have new capital ships coming online to replace those in theatre, but even so, thats an arguement for 16 escorts, not 19, or 26, or 32, or 50, or any of the other numbers that have heralded “the end of a sustainable fleet.”
Its disctincly “the boy who cried wolf”y, no no no, said the navy men in 1992, we need 50 escorts, we cant possibly drop to 40, its unsustainable.
And yet here we are, in 2011, not even 20 years later, and the “minimum sustainable fleet” is half what they said was simply not possible last time.
You should never tell the same lie twice.
Escpecialy when it might be true one day, when you really need it to be believed.
I must admit this fascination with training confuses me. I get why a pilot needs lots of flight time, but as far as I’m aware, soldiers dont fire thousands of rounds a month.
And I dont see where I’m missing out on training, the war fleet is stood up for 6 months of the year, I’d prefer simulated wars to actualy firing supersonic missiles at each other, for cost reasons, but dont see how its better accomplished alone in the Indian Ocean.
Its not just the Navy who are guilty of it, the RAF is, in theory, going to be bigger than that of Norway, Sweden and Finland combined, with far better aircraft, and yet anyone who plans to bomb us has to fly over them first. But the RAF says much the same, “argh, cut one more fighter and we’ll all die horribly”, oddly struggling to find exactly how many we ran in the 70’s, but we’ve halved the manpower since 1985.
I dont think the armys ever got over going under half a million men, although Inge’s mad little protest of accepting he was a field marshall, but the next bloke wouldnt be was, well, quite mad.
If it was up to me…
The Navy would have 30 Escorts, all built on a T45 hull with basic AAW/ASW/ASuW, 12 would then receive additional AAW focus (SAMSPON), 12 ASW focus(Towed Array), 8 land attack focused (probably nothing, maybe 16 SeaShadows, maybe 128 SeaShadows).
These would Escort 2 Carriers, 12 Troop Landers and 12 Tank Landers, and with 6 enlarged Astutes to do some sneaky stuff, and carry nuclear ICBMs.
Which all splits nicely into two fleets.
I’d also like a further 24 Patrol Ships, something Rivery, and 24 Motherships, something Bay’y, based overseas, at Fleet bases Set up on the Overseas Territories, say, Diego Garcia, Pitcairn and Ascension.
These would also make very handy bases for a couple of Astutes, and suddenly for very little cost, £7.5bn, we have serious presences in three oceans we had abandoned.
20 year life span for ships, easily comes in at under £5bn a year.
Would still have to gut the RAF (120 Typhoons, and the none sexy stuff) and Army (50,000 all in, geared towards “commando” roles, and yes, I think you can have “Commando” challenger 2’s) to pay for it, but by their own arguement, they are already below sustainable size, so no great loss…
But alas, I was not in charge of the “no salami slicing review”
@DominicJ: 12 multi role escorts are just too few.
For example, you’ve sent your carrier group to a Libyia type scenario with an amphibious ship and 4 escorts. Yes, it is part of coalition but the enemies airforce has not been completely destroyed and they still have submarines and shore batteries, so 4 escorts is the bare minimum.
At home, you have 4 vessels in refit. You also have one covering the SSBNs in the ASW role and another undergoing FOST. You also have another in the Gulf as Iran is playing silly buggers and threatening oil supplies (far too dangerous to send a SIMSS..). Then all of sudden things turn nasty in the Lebanon and you need to evacuate your civilians from a warzone where sophisticated weapons are being used. Now the cupboard is bare…
This scenario I know is made up but not completely out of the question. The number of escorts required is directly linked to the country’s ambition and desire to intervene in world affairs. But if you want to have a tier one carrier / assault group then planning on the basis that everything will go without a hitch is fantasy land.
Consider the above scenario with the following complications:
* one escort suffers engine failure or has an accident.
* the Libyia type operation goes on for 6 months.
* one of your ships is sunk…
We haven’t even discussed training or simple things like the time taken to get to and from where the ship needs to be. I stand by my minimum of 17, but even then politicians have to accept limitations to what we can do. Note: I have not mentioned a Falklands type operation… :)
And then possible Type 26 replacements:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never Built Designs/Great Britain/GB DDG CNGF_ Horizon 1.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never Built Designs/Great Britain/GB FFG UCL 2004_ Future Surface Warship 1.gif
Well, I was browsing the old Ship Bucket site and spotted a few things to throw out there, possibly to fill the RFA “Coast Guard/EEZ” type role, as well as a possible design or two to replace Type 26. I might have to do this over two posts to get it all to fit.
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Never Built Designs/Great Britain/GB AK BMT_ Fast Mothership Concept 1.gif
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate Universe/GB CH Enforcer_ Aboukir Bay 1 AU.gif
Hi FBOT,
$65.8m divided by three was the price for the best American (BAE) offer. Here’s the comparable Italian 127mm(divided by 5)offer; also the relative price for close-in RWS to keep the devious types from boarding or ramming your (SIMMS)ship:
“OTO Melara announces [PDF format] a EUR 80 million (currently about $108 million) pair of orders for naval gun systems to be mounted on Germany’s F125 frigates. The first contract worth EUR 70 million is for the supply of 5 of its 127/54 LW (Light Weight) gun systems: 4 for the frigates, and 1 for training. The Germans had originally looked at mounting their MONARC 155mm howitzer on the F125s, but this order appears to mark the definitive end of those plans.
Germany has also selected the remote-controlled Hitrole 12.7mm remote-control turret in the new Naval Tilting (NT) version. OTO Melara will provide a total of 25 12.7mm Hitrole-NT systems under the EUR 10 million contract: 5 on board each of the 4 frigates (Ttl = 20) and 5 on land for training purposes.”
– I don’t have the OTO Melara 76mm price, and I wonder how much of it is in the superior DART ammunition costs (same for Vulcano in the 127mm, reaching out to 100km)
Dunservin
I dont see how a Destroyer on its lonesome in the indian ocean can practice better than one on its lonesome in the Irish Sea
I certainly dont see how it can practice fleet operations on its lonesome better than a destroyer with a fleet.
I fully accept I may be wrong, however, I’m an accoutnant and a (admitadly failing) politician who’s sympathetic towards defence.
If you cant convince me, how are you to convince accountants and politicians who arent sympathetic?
Two Carriers gives you one in dry dock for major overhaul, and one waring or wargaming, rotating every 6 months.
Twelve Multirole Escorts gives you 4 in dry dock and 8 warring or wargaming, rotating every 4 months.
Regarding “Beating up Johny Foreigner”.
I dont believe we can, well, actualy I do, but lets not get into dam busting again, but politicaly we wouldnt.
But we COULD have that capability, easily, IF we were prepared to make the ‘hard choices’ TM required.
Even if go to 2% of GDP defence spending, thats still £30bn per year.
The Build cost of a Carrier, 6 Destroyers, 6 Frigates and 6 SSNs, is £18bn (more or less), over 20 years, thats less than a billion a year, couple of those, with assault elements, 5bn per year procurement gets you an obscene fleet.
Just found this:
“The larger the container ship, the more time is required for loading and unloading and, as the time schedule for a container ship is very tight, the extra time needed for loading/unloading means that, in general, larger container ships may have to sail at a proportionately higher service speed. The increase in ship size has been followed by a corresponding demand for higher design ship speeds. For ships in the size range of up to 1,500 teu, the speed is between 9 and 25 knots, with the majority of the ships (58%) sailing at some 15-19 knots. The most popular speed for the 1,500-2,500 teu ships is 18-21 knots, which applies to 70% of these ships. In the 2,500-4,000 teu range, 90% of the ships have a speed of 20-24 knots. 71% of the 4,000-6,000 teu ships have a speed of 23-25 knots. Finally, 80% of the ships that are larger than 6,000 teu have a speed of 24-26 knots. For the future ultra large container ships, a ship speed of 25-26 knots may be expected, whereas a higher ship speed would involve a disproportionately high fuel consumption.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/container-types.htm
This means that for any design with 21 knots would find the vast majority of modern container ships would be to fast to chase down. On the other hand from what I can see most trawlers and tankers would have a speed between 10 – 20 knots depending on design, so 21 knots would be good enough (and I would have thought trawlers and small container ships were prime candidates for pirate/drug smuggler ships).
Looking at Wikipedia there appears to be a wide range of speeds from 15 knots to 25 knots with speeds around 20 knots not being uncommon for patrol boats/ships, though the higher speeds appear to be more common on newer designs.
Ixion
A speed of 26knts has nothing to do with anti ship missiles. Its purely to allow it to catch container ships ect it may require to board. The extra speed allow it to accelerate away from shore threats if needed look at the reaction of the US vessels that we harried by small vessels in the gulf not to long ago there first response was to increase speed.
If the ship has a smaller profile in the littoral environment its harder to hit. The benefits the multi-hull brings is said to be reduced costs, reduced signature, significantly less drag leading to increasing speed, increased length giving greater stability, and more area for the upper deck.
They allow shallower draft on the vessel too for ships of there size for example triton has a 3m draft and is 98m long.
Im sure disadvantaged are there too but Austral have taken this and commercialised the design (mv 80 does 26knts and operates to ss7 and costs are about $150m) to give cheap ships and then sold it to the US with the LCS who were extremely interested in triton from the beginning. I think we missed a trick again.
Jedi
21knts can be the trade off if it cant catch the ships its supposed to. You dont just pop up to target vessel and go im boarding you. It may involve shadowing the vessel for 24hrs if its doing 24-25knts and you can only do 21 your 80 miles away from it after 1 day shadowing.
“I get the speed point, but this is about costs and tradeof points, speed at that rate bings a big increase in expence, unless you start talkinga bout larger more easily driven hulls”
This is why i asked further up what military standards for speed and endurance such a vessel absolutely have to meet, as opposed to being nice to have.
The answer was 500 nautical miles in day, which equates to 21 kts.
Any other takers, or is that the benchmark that our daewoo of warships should match itself against?
Hi ACC,
Part of me thinks that we should be looking at the something along the lines of this (in terms of propulsion, the actual SIGMA is to small and short legged): http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_sigma-frigates-cmrm.htm
which on the ~2,000 tonne sigma gives sufficient installed power to get to 26 knots (so scaled up for 4,000 tonne frigate). This is based on the assumption that some container ships will be able to do 25 knots, and therefore even on your second rate frigate needs to do 26 knots to keep pace.
Mark
I do not see that the extra speed and smaller size of the triton brings any real benefits in any survability in those circumstances.
It aint going to outrun an anti ship missile.
I get the speed point, but this is about costs and tradeof points, speed at that rate bings a big increase in expence, unless you start talkinga bout larger more easily driven hulls and the Triton is not that.
And could anyone who knows about such thing tell me why when we went to the trouble of building the prototype we then dumped the idea?
rec
while i agree with you logic MPs dont care about defence its not a vote winner that will only get worse when afghan ends.
If you dont have ff/dd doing any standing patrol or possible only 1 standing tasks is 19 to few or could that be reduced further?
Some interesting discussion about magic robots for MCM.
Hi Tubby @12:38,
With my examples I was trying to find a middle-way between the cold-war fightiness (something for every threat, even on a small ship and the more current under-speccing in this respect.
Before I go to that, what made you favour CODAD? See my three:
Configuration: BAM| CODLOD
Holland | CODLOD Floreal(older design)| CODAD
Max. Speed (Sust.) BAM | 20.5 (19.0) Holland | 22.0 (20.0) Floreal | 20.0 (19.0)
Range at 15 kts. | 3500nm| 8000nm | 10000nm
To your questions/ suggestions:
“do we really need ASM and ASuM weaponry on the ship” – NO
“could we get away with a fairly conventionally laid out CODAD frigate which is armed with say one 127 mm main gun in the A position, CAMM (or recycled sea-wolf) midship,”
– put in the 76mm DART- version and you would only need a space privision fro CAMM/ Seawolf
” a weather protected 30 mm gun (or if we can squeeze it in a 40 mk 4) in the B position, I-Mast 400, bog standard bow mounted attack sonar (nothing too fancy), Link 16, hangar for two Wildcats’s or one Merlin”
– sounds about right, need angles covered, so perhaps a few .50 cal RWS to be added?
” 2 RHIB’s and a mission deck, weighing in at say 4,000 tonnes?”
– if it is RHIBs only. then long-range, high-speed ones required. If you put one on davits and the other one on the mission deck, then there is still space to launch other things from the slipway
” The Link 16 would allow data sharing of the sensor picture from the frigate with its on board helicopters which should make full use of the attack sonar and the sensors fit of the frigate”
– and other sources , as they would be likely to have Link 16, too
There’s no doubt 19 escourts is far too few, as are 7 SSNs. We need to lobby MPs for a real terms invrease in defence spending of ot 1 but 3%.I would like to see a minmimal increase to this.
8 up from 7 Astutes
8 up from 6 Type 45s
16 (8 High end and 8 GP) Type 26’s
But lobbying our MPS is key and the forces working together and not against each other
Jedi
I actually think vessels like the one you linked only much larger would be useful as a fwd rfa providing supply, logistics, refuelling and wide area c4 supporting the simss vessels similar to what I mentioned in there tasking.
cheers Mark, makes sense.
Jedi
well container ships travel at up to 25knts as standard which suggests to me basically 25-26knts min speed. As for draft 4-4.5m appears the maximum countries that are design or have vessels operating freely in the littoral environment. Main roles being mcm, disaster support, sf insertion and possibly survey work.
Ino many argue the modules of small vessels ect will make this problem disappear im simple not convinced that is the case or the technology is there to be so sure they will and nor it would appear is the US navy or it wouldnt have set that hull requirement in its LCS design.
I dont thint the 6000t 18knt beast is even a starter for this type of vessel its profile is massive for close to shore work and would require multiple ciws protection. As i say I like the austral vessel designs (Thinking mv80 and JHSV not the LCS) as cheap and already designed option but if the draft and speed requirements can be found in other commercial vessels id happily consider them..
cheers mark, exactly what i was hoping for.
q. draft too deep for which roles?
q. how fast does it need to be to keep up with container ships?
q. if we are looking at cheap OSV derivatives surely the SX119 will be cheaper and easier to upgrade to the required speed than a 6000t 18kt beast?
Jedi
The most basic elements its draft at 6m is too deep and at 21kts its fine for fisheries duties it cant keep up with container ships which it will have to if its patrolling overseas without ff/dd supt.
I actually think the best ship design for this role was probably the rv triton. It was certainly considered as having a role in these type of mission and was scalable up to frigate size and also patrol vessel size whilst affording ample deck space and stability.. But as we give it away to Australia they and the US seem to be benefiting from its design.
Dont personally see the need for a 3 tier fleet. Or the need for missile armament of the lower grade ships it they’re in the littoral environment missiles become much more difficult to operate if you consider some signature reduction in the vessels design. A gun armament of with 57 or 76mm should be adequate. I also dont ever see us in a position to own lots of these small boats uavs and helicopter modules they’ll be too expensive to have lots offs them.
@ AAC – “There is no such thing as “full spectrum” as it is always to be judged proportionate to threats”
I believe General Rupert Smith said something very similar.
Re MHCP (sp?)
The SX119 seems to be getting a lot of favourable responses, but i’d like to see what we believe it could NOT do in its given roles with regards to its tiny price-tag.
http://www.ulsteingroup.com/kunder/ulstein/mm.nsf/lupGraphics/SX119.pdf/$file/SX119.pdf
21kts
helipad behind the bridge
hanger apparent forward of the helipad
cargo deck for modular stuff
well-deck for ROV stuff
davits can probably accommodate something CB90 sized
What is not to like?
Do we need SIMIS, or can this [be] SIMIS?
Hi Ixion,
I personally think that Endurance is the best existing design out there as the starting point of any “second/third” tier ship. I also personally like the 76 mm, but given the RN reluctance to operate lots of different calibres then it would appear to me that the options are either 30 mm or 127 mm (if BAE marketing spin is correct and MK8 is to be replaced by 127 mm). Also think CAMM might be an overkill but I cannot see the RN ever accepting another system after investing in CAMM (and I was never sure why we paid for CAMM when we could have gone for an off the shelf purchase of VL MICA for our land and sea based SHORAD or just gotten a new land based SHORAD and gone with VL Mica for the RN)
Tubby
Those are the modifications I would probably make to Endurance class.
Although the latest 76 mm does seem to bring with it anti CIWS capability.
But range and speed need a fillup.
Both could be accomplashed by a stretch of say 30 metres and more power.
@ACC: I think for a mid tier you need a 76mm, hanger for a wildcat and a couple of 20mms. Additionally, they should be ‘fitted’ for but not with a small VLS system. Perhaps, even fitting half with CAMM. I think a slightly extended Clyde would suffice with 10k nm range, something like:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20OPV%20C3%20Grandson%20of%20a%20River%201b%20AU.gif
Or
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20OPV%20C3%20Grandson%20of%20a%20River%203%20LCS%20AU.gif
@ixion, I think there is the budget as we already have something similar, but the MCMVs and Rivers are too light weight. Smaller and more numerous RFA vessels could fill the low end like an Endurance class…
Hi Ixion,
Basically yes, if we went three tier – top tier T26, mid tier T26 lite, and third tier (with the ships operating with RFA) you have SIMMS then it would make sense for the mid tier to be closer to T26 than SIMMS – this assumes (and it’s an opinion that I agree with) that SIMMS in it’s current format is to large and slow and is only suited to act as a mothership or support ship and that there still exists a need for a second tier ship which is survivable unsupported in potential flash point anywhere West of Suez (which is where I think we should be staying personally, leave East of Suez to the US).
If on the other-hand you are talking about our “third tier” being the Endurance Class, suitably adjusted to have the legs (currently limited to to a range of 5,000 nm at 15 knots, needs 8,000 nm at 15 knots), and tweaked to have a top of speed of at least 18 knots, equipped with a suitable replacement for the 76mm gun and Mistral (I am guessing the options are either 30mm and CAMM or 127mm/Mk8 and CAMM) then I think that I could live without a second tier (as Endurance comes with half decent sensor and counter-measure fit).
Tubby
In other words the alternative to the expensive t26 would be- a diesel powered t26 with most of the trimmings?
Repulse
I do not think we have the budget or manpower for 3 tiers.
IMHO 2 tiers is enough. One high end and it will be a core. we are talking one carrier battle group, one ambhibious group and a couple of spare t26. Becuse that is all the money is for. that fleet will have to be hubanded, used sparingly and trained hard, because we will not be able to disperse itor wear it out in case we need it.
The 2nd tier fleet would only drag rescources away from that.
The third tier fleet is where the action will be most of the time. = Simms.
I am not wedded to the oil rig ship design IMHO the singapor LPD has a lot to recomend it (with revised sensours and armmarment and a bigger gas tank).
However many of the more warlike small corvettes banded about lack range, stabillity in bad weather and general endurance.
Hi ACC,
For a second tier patrol frigate do we really need ASM and ASuM weaponry on the ship – could we get away with a fairly conventionally laid out CODAD frigate which is armed with say one 127 mm main gun in the A position, CAMM (or recycled sea-wolf) midship, a weather protected 30 mm gun (or if we can squeeze it in a 40 mk 4) in the B position, I-Mast 400, bog standard bow mounted attack sonar (nothing too fancy), Link 16, hangar for two Wildcats’s or one Merlin, 2 RHIB’s and a mission deck, weighing in at say 4,000 tonnes? The Link 16 would allow data sharing of the sensor picture from the frigate with its on board helicopters which should make full use of the attack sonar and the sensors fit of the frigate.
EDIT:
BTW Interesting find on the small Italian patrol ships, it shows for even a modestly figthy ship you need a decent top speed of 26 knots and installation of counter-measures and fairly decent sensors. In many ways, and as long as it did not cost us any T26, we likely want something almost identical but with a much higher displacement and longer range as our long range patrol/presence ship.
The Italian Commandante Class that I was missing the data for are far too small, of limited endurance and “highly” crewed to be presence ships
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/commandante/
However, an interesting detail about pushing the boundaries came up (the second paragraph below):
“The ship operates with a crew of 80 with eight officers. The overall length is 88.40m and the full load displacement is 1,520t. The maximum sustained speed is over 25kt and the ship has a range of 3,500nm.
The ship design incorporates low radar and infrared signatures. The first three vessels have an all-steel superstructure, but the fourth, Commandante Foscari, is constructed from glass-reinforced plastic, including most of the mast and the helicopter hangar. This composite material is lighter and therefore reduces fuel consumption.”
No word of the DART version of the 76mm, but I trust that our resident defence correspondent can fill us in on that?
TD
An extra billion a year would not pay for everything, but its got to help.
The decision making of the MoD/Treasury/Cabinet is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. You think you have a decision, industry costs it, starts building it, then the Treasury tinkers with numbers & spec or the Cabinet runs off with the money to keep some tax dodging popstar happy on some corrupt useless foreign aid cock up.
Watching the Kemp prog on pirates, why have any RN ships if they have their hands tied by political correctness & are not allowed to intervene? This is not a right wing rant(for once), but can we not look at the rules/laws other countries have, to see if we can adopt a tougher line while keeping within international norms?
Hi Repulse,
If we go for your middle tier, then out of these three only the French one is warlike enough?
BAM (AE) Holland(RNLN) Floréal | 2500t | 3750t | 2950t
Active Stabilizers
| No | No | Yes
Max. Speed (Sust.)
| 20.5 (19.0) | 22(20.0) | 20 (19.0)
Range at 15 kts.
| 3500nm | 8000nm | 10000nm
Crew
| 35 | 50 | 75
Additional accommodation
| 35 | 40 | 37
Evacuees
| 80 | 100 | N/A
Main gun
| 76mm | 76mm | 100mm
Sec. guns
| 2x 25mm 2x .50 | 4x .50 MG | 2x20mm
ASuW
| ? | – | 2 MM38
Chaff/Decoys
| – | – | 2 launchers
AA
| – | – | 2 Mistral
The main difference between the other two is range and seakeeping.
What I didn’t find the data for is the Italian Navy patrol frigate that will be the first one with DART version of the 76mm. Then that single gun will give a credible ASuw/AA & anti-missile capability and leave a lot of space for ASW & MCM. Even on these older designs where they were not a priority.