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.
Hi Ixion,
re: “Surely the point is we don’t have enough fast escorts to do either job properly. Simms frees up the escorts to escort Nellie and dumbo or what ever the high end stuff we want them to do.”
I rather worried that even with 19 escorts we might not have enough to screen both the Amphib’s and the active carriers and that cutting the escorts to design a class that is not even remotely fighty (and is to slow to transit with the carrier group) might be a poor use of resources.
Mark suggested we could go with 15 escorts, and I lack the knowledge to know if 15 is a sensible number or not. My worry is that if went for a plan of 15, after cut backs we end up with 12, and the French have found that with 12 top end escorts they are forced to use patrol frigates to screen their carrier (picked up from a post by Jonesy on another forum, who posts here from time to time) – the problem is we do not have any patrol frigates, IMO SIMMS is not in the same class a La Fayette and is not even in the Floreal class category and politicians being politicians will likely find it easy to buy cheap patrol frigates but hard to buy the more expensive top tier escorts (though all things being equal if we did buy a lower tier ship in place of a few T26 I would take a La Fayette, or even a modern Floreal over SIMMS).
FBOT said:
“I only get steamed up about stuff when the response comes straight out of central casting – Tim-Nice but Dim. Add in the BWoS apologists who make the odd appearance and sometimes the red mist comes down.”
So which one am I then ? :-)
Hi FBOT,
“The figures you provided on 5″ naval guns – £13-14mill each ”
Even if they, as the high-end models, replace the similar older ones, you will still be talking a couple of hundred over the next 10-20 years (the answer to your question, whether I sell them).
– on land, you are still in thousands : the biggest W. Europe arsenal is 1.500 and Russia (much diminished) still has 26.000 – even though many of them smaller and as they they go to 152/ 155, numbers will fall dramatically)
– not that the market would be in Europe, East or West
So, if you averaged my two retrieved quotes, put the 6-7m in USD for a rapid 76 mm against it ( the smaller one does everything the type of ship we are talking needs to do, save land effects) and the choice is clear? Some left over of your £10m for the rest ( I assume you aim that for the base, rather than mission modules)… and commercial navigation only – or a provision for iMast or the like? Hollands can detect and classify everything within 60 nm; shall we aim for that?
Mark
Subject to some givens re fitting containerised weapons; and cost above all else. It seems a viable option.
Ixion
What makes you think they don’t work. Yep true mv80 has a range of 4500nm and 30 days endurance and operation ss7 that’s decent in my book for theatre operations especially as a RFA will be in the area. This vessel has been developed in conjunction with the RAN for a capability very similar to the one were discussing. A deal where by we buy into this vessel in exchange for aus involvement in type 26 would therefore be a possibility.
ACC @ 8.09
The figures you provided on 5″ naval guns – £13-14mill each – suggest that all navies are very good at spending other people’s money.
Where is the cost in the system?
Barrel?
Breech mechanism?
Mounting?
Ammunition handling?
Armoured casing?
Electronics?
How much does the whole mounting weigh excluding ammunition?
How much does it cost per kilogramme?
As for WW2, the big threat wasn’t the Nazis, it was the 5.25″ dual mounting, the Dido class must have brought the country close to bankruptcy.
What is the going rate for a land based 155mm system?
How many are going spare as a result of the global defence cuts
Did a course once where the person with the best travel perks and expenses worked for a second string radar company.
One naval customer meant 4 x 20K mile round trips per annum.
The rest of us just worked for global corporations with multiple-billion turnovers and had to get by on EasyJet.
Also sales volume vs hospitality.
DSEI leads the way, big steaks paid for with small contracts.
Defence and it’s bloated cost structures are an international phenomena.
Consequently what would £25mill get you in area AAW terms?
What is the spec Mark figures for a CMS / CIC?
Any thoughts on the unit cost of an Endurance class ship?
Any thoughts on it’s sensor suite vs HMS Clyde?
Any thoughts on HMS Clyde’s rental cost – £10mill pa?
Mark
My concern is the speed vs range and seakeeping argument.
Assuming They work (and I am ameanable to the evidence they do). Part of the function of this vessel is long range deplyment, after all if its got to shadow a container ship accross the Indian Ocean; short range is as big a failing, as not being able to keep up.
@Tubby 19:55, I think the answer in my view is that we could at a stretch free up £5-600mn by reducing the high end core fleet by a couple of vessels. This could allow for a new class of ship to be introduced that could do some of the roles that are currently done by frigates / destroyers, hence maximizing the usefulness of the core.
My comments are:
* There is no point building new vessels which would basically do things currently done by RFA vessels.
* The limited budget that could be freed up would not buy enough ships rated above grade 3 (as FBOT puts it) to make it worthwhile.
* Grade 3 / 4 vessels could have some value, especially if linked to a future MHPC programme and a common hull.
Therefore, SIMSS is interesting but not (in my view) what is needed.
Ixion
I dont want LCS either I think there mistake was looking too high end in the vessel 40knts and full asw was ridiculous. Im after LCS’s cut down brother the mv80 which does 26knts which costs about 100m a ship. It sacrifices speed and range over LCS but fwd deploying these vessels makes range less of an issue IMO.
X
Blair was / is a bit of an Anglophobe.
His writing: (whilst very authoritative, and I believe he has writtten the book on the battle of the atlantic) speaks of a sympathy admiral King.
(When asked by Roosevelt what the one thing he(R) could do to shorten the war by a year Eisenhower replied ‘Shoot Admiral King’.
He clealry has little sympathy with a Britian that’s jugular was threatened.
ACC
The argument that the Destroyer mafia in the Navy are leading it up a garden path, is not one held totaly by class warriors it can be heard in the service as well.
Tubby
Surely the point is we don’t have enough fast escorts to do either job properly. Simms frees up the escorts to escort Nellie and dumbo or what ever the high end stuff we want them to do.
Mark
I aint no Luddite. But remember what LCS is costing this is not about providing a $400 million superships.
I do take the speed point I realy do. But we are talking about circa £70 mill ships emphatically not £300 mill escrts and if you want 28 knots it’s going to cost.
Hi FBOT,
We are on the same page:
“a long term interest in {naval/military] history and tactics [strategy & how it links to geopolitics, too]”
“My main point is that the RN / MOD can and must do better.”
– I agree; not trying to sell you a naval gun; just that after worked steel and installed power figures, your total cost estimates are totally out [except for tier 4&5, as you put it, where the other elements really do not come to play]
Thanks dunservin
Anti piracy patrols and instead of having a FF/mine hunter in Libya we could have a simss ship is two of the roles TD envisaged for the Presence vessel. So to me that implies some sort of convoy protection or at least the ability to board commercial vessels. This defines the speed at above 21knts and at the 26kt level as a min IMO.
DomJ @3.10 are you suggesting using a cb90 in the open ocean 100m from its base ship. As for the Iran thing the RN currently has 4 MCMVs and a bay vessel operating in a very similar role to the one currently envisaged in the gulf.
Well said andyw I like the Austral design, I would say everything is untried at some point. Ixion I agree container ships attacking UK is a real possibility and indeed marine interdiction cct is a task envisaged for simss which is why the vessel needs the speed to catch said vessels. Trimirans are proven to sea state 7 indeed the US LCS to sea state 8 and have been in commercial operation since 2005 we have to be inventive to get the next performance change and I think a change of hull form is a gd way to look.
Why was triton not used i’ll be divisive and say that VT built the triton and then lost out to BAE in the ship building game. There is a difference to civil operations involving non sailor civi’s and professionals the general concern is sea sickness of passengers and personal injury cases.
This vessels shouldn’t be cheap as chips but I do think we need to get away from using type45 and indeed type 26 from the more routine tasking. I would use the austral mv80 as base ship, around £110m each 57mm main gun, fitted for but not with a phalanx B mount, Speed 26knts, helo with hanger up to NH-90/merlin no Chinook requirement, simple I Mast, hull draft 3m and a basic crew 35 with room for 87 would be my choice.
Tubby
I would reduce the surface FF/DD fleet to 15 vessels allowing it to support a high and low readiness response task force concept as per current RN practise, from these 15 vessels would also be drawn the fleet ready escort and a single sustained tasking of a single vessel anywhere in the world. I would purchase 22 simss vessels to support 6 tasking areas with 2-3 vessels permanently assigned as per current clyde, echo class tasking crew cycle or 2 crew that change over, the rest would be training/maintenance ships. I would set aside £600m for the modules 8 mcmv, 8 patrol (could include enhanced I Mast function for ex) and 3 or 4 hydrographic. Total cost around 6b pounds or the current cost of the Type 26 and MPHC replace programs.
ACC @ 7.35
No chip but a long term interest in naval history and tactics.
I only get steamed up about stuff when the response comes straight out of central casting – Tim-Nice but Dim.
Add in the BWoS apologists who make the odd appearance and sometimes the red mist comes down.
My main point is that the RN / MOD can and must do better.
Politicians don’t help but they are not to blame.
Dave the Rave is the exception – cats and traps – I ask you, he must have been reading his Commando Comics that week.
Regarding SIMMS – has the fundamental question been answered regarding fighty escorts – do we have enough. The reason I ask is there an assumption at the heart of the SIMMS proposal – that if we have SIMMS for the tasks like counter-piracy/counter-narcotics we can reduce the number of high end escorts. If we still need 18 or 19 escorts for when we need to contribute to NATO or Anglo-French operations then surely debate about SIMMS is mute as the status quo makes sense?
Hi FBOT,
RE “Having expensive escorts charge about at high speed suggests that the cavalry faction in naval warfare is currently in charge of the RN.”
– what is the other faction, are there any more?
“File under good chaps with nice pedigrees trying out their new toys. If they were working class youths with fast cars I fear we would be calling them boy racers.”
– Is there some “chip-on-the-shoulder” here driving the contributions?
– I am afraid that a lot of high quality experts are driven away from this discussion by making it “tabloid”-level… This discussion meaning the whole blog; not just this thread
@ All Pol’ re Liberators and Jeep Carriers
Sorry no. 9 out of 10 North Atlantic convoys never saw a U-boat. And of the 10% that did see one, well they were hardly massacred. That only a small percentage of shipping losses had such a great impact on the ongoing prosecution of the war shows how all encompassing and terrible is total industrial war. Convoys denuding the seas of ships did more than any escort. It could even be argued that the North Atlantic campaign was won in the Allied shipyards. Code breaking was important yes but it wasn’t the deciding factor. The thrust of Blair’s arguments in his books on the U-boat campaign is that the Germany couldn’t have won. Of course with hindsight this is an easy conclusion to come to if you play with the available figures for losses v new builds v U-boats (and other platforms) deployed v the latter’s losses. Historian have to factor in that this overall picture wasn’t available to either navy or more importantly the British people living on rations with a fearsome enemy just across the Channel.
ALPATS @ 5.37
You make it just too easy.
The story of the escort carrier is not one that puts the RN in a good light.
Pre-war ASW tactics came within one dodgy torpedo of halving the fast carrier force in the first six weeks of the war.
All that pre-war training and tactics, useless before the clocks went back.
Add in the shambles that was generated by the RN trying to get US escort carriers into the war.
US busted a gut to build them in 6 months just to see the RN take 6 months to put them into service. From memory things got so bad that a batch originally built for the RN was transferred to the USN to get them into the war quicker.
Add in the MAC fiasco and the RN didn’t cover themselves in glory when it came to ASW tactics and I fear our current playbook will last just as long if a real shooting war started tomorrow.
Thecstuff about the GW2 convoys is interesting but the question has to be asked, would more but cheaper hulls made the job easier.
Having expensive escorts charge about at high speed suggests that the cavalry faction in naval warfare is currently in charge of the RN.
File under good chaps with nice pedigrees trying out their new toys. If they were working class youths with fast cars I fear we would be calling them boy racers.
As for the strategic necessity of such actions I think it was all a make work scheme to raise the RN’s profile.
Who was supposed to be the threat?
SH?
A-Q?
Iran?
File under “Fools errand”.
@FBOT
Whilst the Corvettes and Frigates from cheap merchant designs played a crucial role in supplementing our woefully inadequate exsisting escort fleet during the battle of the Atlantic.
Perhaps the bigger role was played by the Long range Liberator closing the air gap, small escort carriers and cracking of German codes.
As for escort duties during the lead up to the 2003 Gulf conflict all material both British and US was escorted throughout the Med and Suez with the STROG escorts being shared for the large part between Westminster and the Donald Cook Both Ship reguarly having to sprint to put themselves between N Africa and what were actually cigarette smugglers but in the dark 40 kt rhibs heading straight for the convoy caused concerns especially when they obviously had boxes onboard. The ability to sprint utilise sensors and operate 4 helos between them as well as often sprint back to get next convoy was definitely a job worthy of a proper combatant.
Whilst i do see a lot of uses for the proposed ship type I believe that there best use would be as part of a proper CG protecting UK waters and offshore installations.
DJ
Ok I’ll buy that.
Ixion
True, but Irrelevent.
MPs are elected representatives, not elected leaders.
That they are primarily money grabbing scum isnt relly relevent to that point.
Hi again, Jed
Sorry, but this is why we (and everyone else ) is in a mess, in dealing with the problem:
“However anti-piracty IMHO is NOT a military issue, it is a law and order issue. Pirates (at the moment)are criminals, not an organised military force, nor an irregular or terrorist force.”
Starting from the wrong premise always produces the wrong result.
Dominic J
Mp’s are many things but all the ones I have met have left me thinking that if either of my daughters came home and said dad the carriers advisor says
I should be a politician or a whore.
I will be pointing out the honourable traditions and essential honesty of the latter proffesion not the former
Hi Jed,
“convoy escort” is a job for a “real warship” (TM) not the SIMMS as envisaged – but then I don’t remember TD actually suggesting this role”
– correct on both accounts
“Nelson might indeed not get a job in today’s RN”
– the RN of his day was quirky, too.
– He died as a Vice-Admiral. To become Admiral of the Fleet, he would have had to wait another thirty nine years after Trafalgar (would have made him eighty six).[Source: Michael Lewis]
regarding armed security on commercial vessels, it seems that Egypt has outlawed this on any vessel transiting the Suez…
The meeting concluded the (NON-ACCEPTANCE) of the presence of arms/Security groups on board of the ships which is contradicting the The International Maritime law in the following points:
1) Gulf of Suez is considered totally Egyptain water.
2) Accepting and following the Egyptian position related to the Security teams on board of ships in compliance to the laws and regulations adopted by the International maritime organization.
3) A declaration has to be passed from the master to the pilot on his boarding at inner or outer anchorage and port authority confirming that the vessel does not include any arms or ammunition for the purpose of security.
4) In case the vessel found carrying any of the above PROHIBITIONS inside the Egyptian waters and the Suez Canal, the vessel And the master and the people/team holding such items (arms – Equipment- ammunition) will be arrested and charged according To the law number 394 for the year 1954 and its amendments which is concerned with holding arms and ammunitions.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/09/egypt-cracks-down-on-private-security.html
MPs are neither leaders nor followers, thyey are REPRESENTATIVES.
We are, after all, a representative democracy.
Jed
Thats one hell of a can of worms though.
Lets say you sign up, and are placed on the Supertanker “bugger me”, Pirates come Over The Horizon, open fire on your vessel, you shoot back, kill one, the others flee.
You arrive in port in Spain, where you are arrested, and extradited to Somalia on charges of murder.
Sound good? So no extradition for security guards?
Ok
So you’re on the “Bugger me” and your bored, so to relieve the boredom, you use somali fishermen as long range marksmenship practice.
Kill Three unarmed fishermen, arrive in Spain, and sit in a beachfront cafe with a nice cool San Miguel.
Sound Good? So extradition for security guards?
The Armed Forces are at least a recognised quantity.
Jed
I would not actually disagree with most of your points. Our political masters are elected to lead not to follow (in this case slavishly public opinion).
If you have ever met any of our political master that is a truly frightening prospect. (My daughter met one household name recently who’s flunky had to operate his click top ballpoint pen for him- seriously she was dumbstruck).
I do not beleive the RN should become in it’s entirety anti piracy.
BUT
The type of work involved in anti Piracy is the same kind of thing needed to deal with people smugling and Terrorist smuggling.
A Mumbai type attack is regarded now as almost the most likely next attack on the UK from a container ship of southhampton or london.
Whilst I accept Simms is not a combat ship, too argue it could not provide real security against current threats to the uk in it’s own right is to draw far to narrow a definition of the threats there are. (Not that I suggest you are).
BTW we are scrapping the 4 tugs that guard our shores against major oil spills, sureley an AHT based simms could do that job as well?
A sea guard (Like a coast guard only further away) to my mind makes sence. BUT I remain worried a seperate organisation would be used to further eat into the RN’s budget.
Andy W
They are untried in the millitary sence but also in the open ocean sence. I have no idea why having built triton the navy decided to go no further with it.
The LCs is far from proven yet.
OK it’s Steel – My bad, But can anyone tell me what one of those is going to be like of the coast of Kenya in a force 6? sea state 7.
Cos all the current ones are operated in restricted waters – Irish sea for example. (I know it can be rough but compared to southern ocean its a goldfish bowl).
You can cancel a ferry sailing you cant do that in the Indian ocean. JHSV is untried as yet, and again it can be a ‘weather permitting’ vessel.
Ixion
I’m more than happy for the RN to deal with Pirates, as long as we do it properly. That means going after the big boys who put up the capital, not a few starving somalians on $5 day rates.
Mansions have been built from the proceeds of piracy, levelling them sounds like a damned good start.
What I’m not inclined to support the RN doing, is putting on the appearance of dealing with pirates, at great cost, with little result.
“BTW Someone actually used the term ‘Wog Slapping’ on this website may I enquire who or what wogs are, what’s in the UK interrest in slapping them?”
I’ve obviously spent too long on ARRSE.
As for Ship speed
Containers do 25knts
Bulk Cargo does 15knts.
Catching a Bulk Cargo ship thats 100miles away doing 15knts takes 20 hours at 20knts, but its still 10 hours at 25knts
A CB90 can catch it about three hours.
Jed @ 2.39
We turned up in 1939 with various birds / Coastal towns.
We rushed through the Hunts to bulk up number.
They couldn’t do the job that was asked of them.
So we went all commercial and ended up with flowers / rivers / castles and lochs.
These ships won the Battle of the Atlantic not the professional pre war ships.
Consequently thanks for making my point for me.
Just one more thought on anti-piracy – cheapest and probably most effective deterent of all – suiteably armed and trained private security contractors on ships transiting “danger” areas, and yes I realize the implications of that (my Uncle was a Super Tanker skipper for Canadian Pacific and was held at gunpoint by pirates in the Phillipines about 20 years ago).
Ixion
I mentioned the bloody untried aluminium trimarans because they are not untried (there are also designs in high tensile steel) – they’ve been operating as commercial vessels for several years, which is why the yanks based the LCS on it. They’ve also been operating chartered catamaran ferries (such as the Westpac Express), and were impressed enough to build the JHSV which Gareth Jones linked to.
If you mean untried in a naval sense, then how is this any different to TD’s proposal that you’re endorsing.
Ixion
I mostly agree with everything you say, and of course can be equally cynical BUT disagree on:
“I made my point that you and others have argued that this anti piracy stuff is no concern of our world class navy. I made my point how ridiculous that sounds to the generral public (you know the poor saps paying for it), when they can see Somalis killing UK citizens at sea and and the RN Square jaws and all doing precisely sod all effective about it. ”
The general public are not experts on everything, which is why the government largely ignores them on many matters – although public opinion rears its ugly head all the time where politicos’ are involved. However anti-piracty IMHO is NOT a military issue, it is a law and order issue. Pirates (at the moment)are criminals, not an organised military force, nor an irregular or terrorist force. Therefore in my opinion the RN is used for anti-piracy, just as it is used for anti-narcotic and anti-people smuggling ops because we don’t have a proper coast guard or other para-military maritime organisation that can do the non-military / constabulary roles. Do we send the Army into every neighbourhood where the there is a murder ? Do we invade every forgien country where a UK National is murdered ? Even if they are dumb-arse back packers in “ungoverned” countries or regions – no we dont. So why do we get so upset about piracy ? It is not (currently) a threat to this countries national security.
BUT the RN is the only tool we have to use, fair enough, but does that mean we have to rebuild the entire RN capability set to focus on MSO and “anti-piracy”, not in my opinion it doesn’t !
Have we deployed a River Class to the Horn of Africa ? Are they not purpose built patrol assets ? Is using a T23 overkill – maybe, but it’s what we have, and as we have no coast guard to send we do it anyway. Why not just give extra “aid” from the DfID budget to the Sultan of Oman, and he can buy some more Khareef’s and get involved on our behalf…..
And I am not being patronising, but I simply question our collective perceived wisdom on the roles of the RN (and all the “armed services”).
ACC @ 1.46
Do you any news on the MHPC £1.4bill?
When will it start being spent?
When will there be a hull in the water?
SIMSS / Colonial Sloop (GPV) @ 23 knots would for me be a good place to start.
£50mill development budget.
£30mill to cover the FoC premium.
Start with 4 hulls with a sensor fit at HMS Clyde levels or better.
Looking at a budget over and above the commercial systems to keep the ship legal.
2 x SIMSS @ £50mill each – MH + survey prototypes.
2 x Colonial Sloop / GPV spec @ £60mill each – Forward Presence vessels.
My previous question related to how bang could we get for this extra £10mill?
That would get the whole project off the ground with a view to getting us up to a new hull every 6 months.
Next stage would be the new “Patrol Frigate” spec.
177m / not 147m wl x 25m x 5-6m @ 28 knots.
Hull and engine improvements would add £20mill to the original £60mill cost.
The target would be £15 mill but we may need extra to make it the base of the new T21.
Next up would be the warload –
£25mill for CIC / radars / VLS / 2nd VPh for second tier area AAW out to 50km?
ESSM vs FLAADS (M) – discuss.
Extra £15mill for CIC / Hull sonar / torpedoes / re-packaged TAS for second tier ASW?
Looking at an average of £125mill for these ships?
If we build patrol frigates from scratch then the 5 T23s could be retired early with no upgrade.
That would save money that could be added to this programme.
The SIMSS design bureau could be run by 100 people at a cost of £10mill pa.
The SIMSS support bureau could be run on similar lines.
4 x MH = £200 mill
4 x GPV = £240mill
5 x New T21 = £625mill
Consequently looking at £1.2bill to get these hulls in the water.
Next up would be Phase 2 using the savings from the early hulls of the T26 programme that would be no longer needed.
That would be a true Global Cruiser.
Dunservin – laughed my frakkin arse of on the train this morning reading your last post, to the point that other commuters looked worried ! Hearts of Oak was playing in my head the entire time…… from another ex-Matelot, welcome to the vagaries of ThinkDefence :-)
FBOT – actually old chap, been there done that ! During the Iran – Iraq war phase known as the “tanker war” when Op Armilla included “unofficial” convoy escort of British and Allied flagged tankers through the approaches to, and the Straits of Hormuz. Now back in the day, I don’t think any of them were doing 25kts, but in the often glass like conditions of the gulf even the IRGC “yahoos in speed boats” (do you remember BogHammer ?) could catch up to them, but on the occasion I particularly remember, it was hands to action stations and racing from back to front of convoy to get between it and an Iranian frigate, and we went as far as illuminating him with the 910. By the way that was in a steam powered Leander……..
Fast forward to the future, and although I am no expert on merchant shipping, I think you will find that there are modern container ships that can do 25kts. Apart from that Dunservin’s point I think was “convoy escort” is a job for a “real warship” (TM) not the SIMMS as envisaged – but then I don’t remember TD actually suggesting this role. I personally did question the low top speed with respect to an MSO requirement, but TD I think is more suggesting the “presence” role.
Nelson might indeed not get a job in today’s RN, perhaps I would not either – but would you ?
Dunservin
I suppose my hatred of the RN must take 2nd place to my apparant hatred of the RAF, and Army; all of which I have been accused of hating.
Tired sarcasm –
Guilty as charged!
Tired of listening to dinasaurs whatever the uniform.
Squared jawed heirs of Nelson, or
The Bomber Harris and biggles fan club in light blue and
The ‘All this Coin stuff is ok but proper armys sit in foxholes eat packet cupasoup, crap in plastic bags, and above all else watch the German plains for the ruskies who haven’t gone away you know’
..Types
If I use riducule it is becuse in some ways (whilst being brave, technically brilliant, patriotic and rightly concerned about our nations safety in a very unsafe world). They are sometimes ridiculous.
This thread is to a degree QED
TD starts of by pointing out the obvious utillity of the last real type of civilian ship we not only opperate in uk warters but can actually still build: – the PSV.
He points out the already available/ easily convertable to containerised Naval systems.
He then points out,what it is the RN spends most of it’s time actually doing.
Lightbulb goes on and he says hang on A + B + C = a cheap, reality check capability, to further UK interrests and the reach and reputation of RN
Where are we now on this thread?
Bloody untried Aluminium Trimarans!
Cut down T26,
German f125 (or whatever number they are upto).
155mm fire support.
OH yea, and nellie and dumbo have reared the tusks and big ears up AGAIN!
My tired sarcasm comes for years of dealing with corrupt stupid politicians and civil servants. Who would not know a proper strategic decision if it reared up and said ‘Hi I’m a 400 ft tall strategic reality in bright flourescent pink with big flashing lights sirens and I’m a strategic reality’ written on it’, which then proceeded to bite them in the arse.
Your own comments about what is needed to kep the skills for CVf are exactly the reasons I think the RN’s ability to actually run one in reality is scotch mist.
I laugh about it Dunservin becuse if i stopped to take it seriously I would sit down and sob about it.
Money Dunservin or the lack of it is going to put paid to nearly all the big ticket projects of the next 5-10 years in one way or another.
WE MUST start to cut our coats according to our cloth. I made my point that you and others have argued that this anti piracy stuff is no concern of our world class navy. I made my point how ridiculous that sounds to the generral public (you know the poor saps paying for it), when they can see Somalis killing UK citizens at sea and and the RN Square jaws and all doing precisely sod all effective about it.
It’s a bit like the woman screaming help help Im being raped, and the Superintendant telling her thats all very well madam, but have you seen our new economic crime unit HQ it’s brilliant we can go after all the big drug trafficers in our area now’!
BTW Someone actually used the term ‘Wog Slapping’ on this website may I enquire who or what wogs are, what’s in the UK interrest in slapping them?
Sorry for the rant. Bad day to try and patronise me.
ACC @ 10.19
In Civvy Street, do you flog guns to the world’s navies?
After reading your stuff on modern 5″ naval guns my first thought was what is the number for the OFT?
Does their remit cover NGS?
The costs were both far too high and far too similar to be a coincidence.
We buy less so they charge more, we can afford less so they charge more …
As for the 155mm issue, there are at least 17 different turret systems supporting this calibre.
All we know is that one instance of one design when fitted to one ship for one set of trials in one Navy failed due to a secondary issue.
5″ = over priced and over rated.
6″ = commodity product with growth.
It can be done.
There are no laws of physics to stop it.
Just a case of a customer with no bottle and a supplier community who are too fat and happy to think.
Hi Jedi,
RE “have been keen to look at the SX119 as a MHCP contender”
– I think that is exactly where we can produce a nice cross-over of requirements
– we don’t need a huge number of BAM derivatives as we can cover the NATO waters, as long as we don’t, head-long, rush to decommission all of our current (more modern) MCM fleet
– what we don’t have is an asset that in numbers can be present/ self-deploy to somewhere else that happens to be important to us (as in mine free & also otherwise free passage for normal shipping)
Hence you get my vote (and we dip into that £ 1.4 bn earmarked budget?)
Dunservin @ 11.55
I despair if you are a recent active member of the RN.
The question has to be how do you cope with the TV remote?
The stuff about the convoy protection is tripe from start to finish.
Are you talking about an exercise or real life?
It starts with the fact that bulkers and tankers cannot do 25 knots.
And finishes with the fact that even if they could you sit at the front and the mentalist yahoos in boats cannot do a stern chase at 25 knots in the open ocean.
We need a critique of modern RN practice not a cry for help.
Apologies in advance for being so sharp but Nelson wouldn’t get a job in today’s RN.
He would be dropped because he was trying too hard.
I understand the requirement, i just question whether that is something that the MHCP (sp?) budget is supposed to cover?
I also realise that this discussion principally about SIMIS, but i have been keen to look at the SX119 as a MHCP contender.
Dunservin
I’m not sure I said I seriously believe anything, that of course is the problem.
What I believe least of all, is that our “allies” would go to war with Iran if Iran sank a British Frigate and claimed it was engaged in hostile actions in Iranian waters.
Frankly, I doubt we’d get their military support if they executed the TV on live television.
The idea that Iran couldnt destroy a T23 is, in my view, dangerously naieve.
They could, easily.
We can of course threaten them with dire consequences if they do so, but relying on Belgium, to inflict those consequences strikes me as insanity.
Ok, I’m looking at a monitor right now, the data on that monitor is the live data sent to me screen from the Think Defence website.
If I were a navy officer, I might be getting data sent to me by my radar, or sonar, or who knows what.
That can be faked, simulated even, for training purposes.
The same goes for damage control, I dont see how damage control exercises need to be done at sea, on the ship, or at least on a mock up ship yes…
I can only say again, I may be wrong, in fact, I probably am, but I fear wolf has been cried falsely much too often for it to be listened to now.
“but, if prospective boarders are equipped with RPGs and AKs, only a big grey ship is likely to have the necessary ‘presence’ to deter or, if necessary, apprehend them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB_90
Bar Armour to deal with RPG’s, armour them against small arms, upgun some of them with a nice assortment of heavy machine gunds, grenade launchers, maybe some light cannon, in place of the troop transport compartment For all I can stick a Chally2 turret on it…. Operate in pairs, they chase down suspect vessels, the gunship ensures everyone plays nice, its partner boards and seizes the suspect vessel.
@ACC
The restitution of a fixed wing carrier capability after a ten year lull will indeed be difficult. The RN is ‘growing’ a few bods to populate its future operational and training regimes by loaning aviators to the USN and Marine Nationale and their input already forms a vital part of the CVF project. However, the corporate knowledge required to perform the myriad ship and air roles in a fully integrated manner at other levels (e.g. ship handlers, fighter controllers, deck safety officers, aircraft handlers, ordnance loaders/unloaders, armourers, fuel handlers, air engineers, ordnance electrical & mechanical engineers responsible for the cats and traps, hangar crews, firefighters, aviation storekeepers, etc) in a safe and competent manner is dwindling fast and will have to be learned all over again. Although a carrier can be described as a floating airfield, there is far less room for manoeuvre and everything has to happen at speed in extremely close quarters while you, your team and everything around you are bouncing around. Makey-learnies are liabilities in such a hazardous environment at the best of times. Imagine the situation where nearly everyone on board is a ‘makey-learney’. Acquiring the necessary skills is one thing but I suspect it will take several years before ship and equipment niggles are ironed out and personnel build up the necessary experience and expertise to cope with all eventualities and operate to the optimum standard.
@IXION
I have no delusions about the Fleet’s contribution towards full spectrum military operations, especially without organic air power. However, I don’t subscribe to throwing the baby’s siblings out as well as the baby and bath water. Despite paucity of numbers, ROE restrictions and constraints imposed by the rule of law, the Royal Navy retains the capability to perform maritime constabulary duties and promote and defend UK interests and those of its allies around the globe while maintaining minimum standards of high-end OE (Operational Effectiveness) in a challenging variety of OOA (Out of Area) environments. As the other navies involved will tell you, it does this as well, if not better, than anyone else. It is definitely not a case of “All fur and no knickers”. Besides, aren’t thongs in vogue these days?
Incidentally, why do you bear such a grudge against the Royal Navy? You appear keen to relegate it to a relatively toothless ‘coastguard’ but this doesn’t explain your tedious sarcasm and repeated use of pejorative terms (e.g. CVF = “Nellie & Dumbo”, carrier proponents = “carrier junkies” and RN commentators = “Square jawed heirs of Nelson”, etc.). Nor does it justify endowing the RN with fatuous attributes, again for the purposes of ridicule (e.g. “Cries from the RN of ‘Oh don’t worry about that, we have a handfull of ‘THE MOST POWERFUL SHIS IN THE WORLD’. (Followed by maniacle laughter)…” [sic], “In the case of the RN’s view of itself and the world, it’s more about dellusions” [sic] and allusions to sending the fleet “to beat up on johny forigner” [sic]). I have no intention of engaging any further at such a banal level.
@Mark
Theoretically, two hulls could enable ‘full-time’ coverage by one (accepting short periods at reduced notice to accommodate routine breaks for leave, planned maintenance and storing) although this leaves no scope for the inevitable breakdown or other interruption to a ship’s operational cycle. Alone among the services, Naval Service’s Harmony Guidelines allow personnel (including FAA air groups) to spend a greater proportion of their time deployed than not (40% of the Naval Service is away from base at any time) so this shouldn’t be a show-stopper.
@Dominic J
Do you seriously believe the IRGN would take on a frigate instead of a vulnerable rubber boat? And what manner of open conflict against the West would Iran risk because it “knows it can win”?
A frigate wasn’t used to conduct the NEO (Non-combatant Evacuation Operation) in Libya as “a political stunt”. It was on the spot, it had teeth (ship and personnel – pretty useful in a deteriorating situation involving armed elements) and it took a single signal from the UK to make it happen instead of protracted commercial negotiations and a plethora of paperwork. Between them, HMS Cumberland and HMS York carried almost 500 evacuees to safety and delivered medical and food supplies to aid agencies in Benghazi.
Your ignorance of the requirement for the ever-changing command teams and operators of complex weapons systems such as FF/DD to conduct work-up and continuous training in a variety of challenging multi-threat environments and different weather, climatic, geographic and oceanographic conditions to maintain their OC (Operational Capability) is understandable but misplaced. Even in the absence of other warships, submarines or aircraft, drills and procedures are conducted by single ships every day, e.g. FLYEXs, operating weapons and sensors, damage control & fire fighting exercises, first aid, seamanship, communications exercises, recognition quizzes, ‘thimblehunt’ for a missing person, man overboard recoveries, etc. It never stops (See my previous post). If you watched last night’s programme about HMS Turbulent, you will know what I mean.
The RN’s commitments have shrunk considerably in recent years, especially with the withdrawal from East of Suez. However, your platform cycles still don’t match the needs of NATO and national directed tasks, contingency tasks, harbour and sea acceptance trials, tactical development trials, magnetic and acoustic ranging periods, natural attrition, etc. For example, BOST (Basic Operational Sea Training), submarine Perisher courses and combined sea training periods such as the bi-annual JOINT WARRIOR off the north coast of Scotland don’t just involve single ships or submarines but tie up a host of assets from all three services for several weeks at a time. Such is the reputation of our sea training that we ‘sell’ slots to other nations so their ships, submarines, amphibious forces and aircraft can benefit. Your comparison with the Army’s training requirements are spurious. A warship, like a combat aircraft, is not only a ‘platform’ but is also a ‘weapons system’ in its own right. Everything else enabling it to float, move (or fly in the case of aircraft) and fight is a subordinate system. In the Army, the weapons system tends to ‘man’ the man; in the RN and RAF, the man tends to ‘man’ the weapons system. This difference in focus evokes a significant difference in training demands.
@jedibeeftrix
Having had to overhaul columns of merchant ships (each doing 25 knots and, of necessity, separated from each other by a mile) in order to reach the lead ship being harrassed, speed is a significant issue for me. A column of five VLCC/ULCCs can be five miles long including ships’ lengths. Even with a speed advantage of five knots, it will take an hour to reach the foremost ship from the sternmost. Any talk of sacrificing speed for a patrol ship liable to ride shotgun on modern merchantmen is silly. Talk of helos and RIBS doing the job instead is all very well but, if prospective boarders are equipped with RPGs and AKs, only a big grey ship is likely to have the necessary ‘presence’ to deter or, if necessary, apprehend them.
That’s probably enough from me for now but I hope to return in due course.
Gareth Jones
the comments on your link mention the poor ride you get with catamarans. Wouldn’t the Austal trimaran be more suitable, this is only 1 metre shorter than the JHSV, and the older version formed the basis for the LCS2.
There appears to be a lot of focus on the vessels stats/capabilities but what about the concept of separating payload from transport? The vessels capabilities are still important but you can now pick the horse for the course – continued presence for Global Fleet Station? SIMSS. Fast MCMV for the Battle Fleet? Catamaran ferry (?) HA/Medical diplomacy cruise? Container ship.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/09/here-comes-spearhead.html
Good list FBOT, just a few notes to the margin:
1.”Speed – Some say 18, some say 23 knots others possibly 28″
– for hull form/ size options there seems to be a cut off at around 22 knots, so all the rest of your attributes should get a tick, or not, under two different columns (supply ship lookalike and traditional hull form; Only Mark and I seemed to get enthused by other alternatives?)
2. “SIMSS – Level 2 – Colonial Sloop – 155mm gun based to make the peace.
RM support section carry on AAW / AT.
What will £10mill buy?”
– as 155 is not available and I have given an indication for the two 127s that RN would consider (both expensive), I would go for a 76 mm
– fully working turret at about $ 7m (magazine extra )… if this thing is out there alone and for a long time, a big one (does away with the need for a separate armoury?)
– DART version might be more (?), let’s start modest and the RM section carry-ons don’t need to be costed into the ship, so you can cover the remaining angles with Seahawk 30 mm’s (again, if the helicopter becomes part of the menu, you can arm it and an upgraded Seahawk mount with the same LMM missile (adds an armoury, though, which cannot be an afterthought in the design?)
Fit with the RN? You pointed out the Grade3 gap (let’s keep the current four in Grade4 to scare the fish, for the renewed contract length).
One point of disagreement: “Shape and size are not important”
– and you have not mentioned MCM; if we decide to forget about it, we can also forget about digging into the indicative £1.4bn budget?
– you have not mentioned ASW either, but if there is a) a resident helo and b) a slipway for a towed sonar deployment (as the helo is likely not to be big enough for taking both lots of sonoboyos *and* some torpedoes, then no problem – added as and when needed. No overheads from this capability if we assume a mission deck+ slipway as well as an armoury to be part of the design.
TD
Don’t envy your job.
Trying to generate a consensus on here is tough.
Herding cats would be easier.
On the subject of SIMSSi would like to breakdown the mission –
What attributes are needed?
Speed – Some say 18, some say 23 knots others possibly 28.
Endurance – 40 days minimum, 60 days on the agenda.
Range – 8K miles looks like the magic number.
Boat handling – Yes please, mix of sizes and shapes envisaged.
Helicopter – Big landing pad a must, enclosed hangar a nice to have.
Sensors – HMS Clyde standards at the very least.
Seakeeping – keep working till 5 / 6?
Accommodation – 100 in style, another 100 in austere conditions?
That then leaves armament –
Everybody points to low level stuff that can be upgraded in times of crisis.
SIMSS – Level 1 – 30mm + odds and ends to keep the peace.
SIMSS – Level 2 – Colonial Sloop – 155mm gun based to make the peace.
RM support section carry on AAW / AT.
What will £10mill buy?
These seem to be the attributes we are looking for.
The next step is the budget per ship?
£50mill / £100mill / £150mill?
We all want it to be cheap, just a case do we make it small or do we want to make it simple?
Costs also include running costs –
Fuel – 20-30 tons per day at 18 knots?
Crew – 50 plus mission specialists?
Finally where does this ship fit into the RN?
Currently we have the following –
Grade 1 – 6 x AAW / 8 x ASW
Grade 2 – 5 x Patrol Frigate spec in a Grade 1 hull.
ASW heavy, AAW lite but full fighting units. Just not world class at any one thing.
Grade 3 – Nothing since the T21 went away. AAW was very poor.
Grade 4 – 4 x Patrol ship spec including Fisheries vessels.
Grade 5 – Specialist MH ships / Bay Class / Survey ships.
My thoughts are that –
Colonial Sloop = Grade 3, that is more fighty than HMS Clyde.
It can defend itself but has limited ability to defend others.
SIMSS = Grade 4, just enough to frighten the fish.
However it will have the abilities to carry out the MH missions when properly crewed.
Consequently these are my current thoughts.
Shape and size are not important.
Just a case of are these the right attributes?
If not then what are the right attributes?
Finally how do these vessels fit in with the rest of the RN?
Whilst I like the SIGMA and Florèal classes, in my mind I think they are too close to a T26 lite to warrant a new class and will probably mean they will be limited in numbers. I’m thinking along the lines of a pimped OPV (light frigate): bigger gun, option for standard AAW missiles, hanger, faster speed and 10k nm range. Aim to build 8 for approx £75mn each.
The Germans decided to do the T26 and SIMMS in one design
“: “The F125 is a very special kind of vessel, since it has been carefully configured to meet both the new conditions found at an international level and the needs of the German Navy.” Current anticipated scenarios include national and allied defence operations, peace-keeping initiatives and humanitarian rescue missions, as well as combating terrorism and the repulsion of asymmetric threats.
Further, being designed in a way that they can be deployed for up to two years without having to return to port”
And no fooling around with armament levels:
“ships’ self-defence capabilities [1700 rpm autocannons]allow it to engage light, agile surface targets in all types of scenarios, such as counter-terrorism and in combating piracy. The system, which is equipped with day/night target tracking sensors, is installed without penetrating the deck and can be operated automatically or remotely from a command unit.
Also, in support of the ships’ self-defence capabilities, the German Navy ordered Rheinmetall Defence’s Multi Ammunition Softkill System (MASS) for each of its four new frigates, protecting them from surface-to-surface missiles, as well as from asymmetric threats in coastal areas.[2]
The vessels’ weapon systems will also include AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) systems, as well as an Oto Melara 127/64 light naval gun with a current range of 30 kilometres and an anticipated range of more than 100 kilometres with future enhanced ammunition. In addition, the ship will deploy up to two Eurocopter MH-90 NATO Frigate Helicopters (NFHs)”
Looks very much like T26 to me
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/811/
– except for the increased boat handling capacity
– and 7 kt size (to be able to stay “away” for 2 years uninterrupted)
Domj
Camm is all that’s required not even sure we even need that a sea ram module maybe all you need. This would be a limited capability but more importantly these vessels would be able offer another node in the sensor intelligent net to increase the coverage of the larger more powerful armed ff/dds
I am waiting for the thread about the stealth-air-superiority-strategic-transporter.
Hi DJ,
As Mark said, we’ll buy CAMM (minus the truck) as opposed to “Ten sets of aster 15 and artisan cant be considered cheap.
Its a lot of expense for not a lot of capability.”
– the beauty of it is that you only need to see the bad guys coming, not track them after you have decided to launch (being sure, before you launch, is another matter… but has gone wrong with even an Aegis, so never mind the cost saving here)
– i.e. save the Artisan bit in it (for T26s and T23 refits)