First of all, 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 pen 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’s 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 board rooms 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 hard 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 is it still means those very expensive (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 very careful 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 lauched 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 a very good 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 standoff 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 very simple
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 very carefully 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.
so the 2000t 21kt ulstein sx119 is a go’er? :)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ulsteingroup.com%2Fkunder%2Fulstein%2Fmm.nsf%2FlupGraphics%2FSX119.pdf%2F%24file%2FSX119.pdf&rct=j&q=ulstein%20sx119&ei=Gv9wTqKIJoqw8gOexpmRCg&usg=AFQjCNFnxUgnmsFaWmCm3q-Gw8IgJIwfRQ&cad=rja
TD – I am a big supportor of your SIMMS concept – as a way to fulfill the MHPC requirement with an off the shelf and very flexible ‘sea frame’ (yuck, almost as bad as war fighter).
However, to take up some of your points:
1. Asking for more (please sir…..) is not lazy thinking IF it’s backed up with arguments as to where it would come from, what the nation would go without instead, and how it would be spent (and if its a “realistic” definition of “more”)
2. What is wrong with using an existing RFA for existing “non-combat” tasks such as the Caribbean ? Be it a tanker or a Bay, its “sweating your assets” – I don’t see the problem
3. Warships on MSO tasking IS training. Why do you think a T23 bimbling around of Somalia can’t have the forward damage control party closed up practising their stuff ? Or the ops room manned for an anti-missile serial, or the sonar crew practising “warm water” ASW ops ? With modern electronic the ability to build in sophisticated simulation capabilities is immense – you don’t have to be in the fixed land based CIC / Ops Room simulators outside Portsmouth.
4. War versus Policing – the RN is not a coast guard, why is Somali piracy seen as a threat to national security ? In other words why rob the “fighting fleet” to increase the MSO flotilla ? Again, you want to think outside of the box, then put SIMMS under the blue ensign and have an RFA manned coast guard……
5. Fighting fleet numbers must be seen through a strategic lens – what does HMG want to do ? If it includes a purely national capability to field a carrier strike group, and amphibious group, and provide ships to NATO / coalition task groups, then this drives the ship numbers NOT peace time MSO tasking. If you accept you don’t want to / can’t afford to do it “all” then you accept lower numbers or compromises (i.e. only deploying your carrier as part of coalition ops, protected by French AAW units, and Italian ASW units) etc
I could go on, but I am supposed to be working….
:-)
@JBT “so the 2000t 21kt ulstein sx119 is a go’er?”
Yay ! 20 of them, half in RFA, 4 paid for by DfID, oh and OK then, 1 less T26/27 because I don’t like odd numbers…… :-)
@ jed – “Asking for more is not lazy thinking IF it’s backed up with arguments as to where it would come from, what the nation would go without instead. Fighting fleet numbers must be seen through a strategic lens – what does HMG want to do?”
Agreed; carrier/amphib task groups to fight wars demand and absolute minimum of 18 high-end escorts, it plain doesn’t work otherwise!
We have an MSCP (sp?) budget of £1.5b, spend it wisely.
This is a concept I like also and it has benefits no doubt I agree armament should remain light but would have a 57mm gun on it instead of the 30mm.
Looking realistically what we have is 3 future surface programs the MARS (what is going on with it) MHPC and Type 26 probably totalling close to 7b pound marry that against what we have to do I think its 6 tasks. UK home waters and the GIUK Gap, Carribean and North Atlantic, Med, Falklands and West Africa, Gulf and East Africa and the Far East. Now assuming we go with 1 High Readiness 1 Low Readiness Task group at home we need 2 stores ships and 6 Type 26 ASW vessels to Join the 6 type 45, 2 waves carriers and carriers amphibs.
Assuming the 2 stores and 6 type 26 cost you 2.5b that leaves 4.5b to equip 6 fwd presence squadrons for the 6 areas listed. Thats a cool 750m per squadron. That a lot of SIMMSS vessels. Granted 1 or 2 of those task may still require a type 26 frigate but we could buy 4 simmss vessels and AOR (aegir 18 design) for each task and have plenty left over for modules if the simms vessel cost around the 100m pound mark. I personally like the Austral designs they give plenty of space in reasonably compact vessel and allow adequate speed for a reality low cost.
The way I read the new RN phraseology, carrier-assisted operations is – not like Jed that we will have both – that in the main carrier/ amphib groups will operate as one, even if dispersed. Then the 6AAW +12 or 13 other escorts, even if only 65% available, will look better.
But the big picture will only look better with more presence. So, Jedi’s specimen looks good to me as a mini-SIMMS, which is what we should start with, and prove the concept.
I think there would have to be some thinking about training Jack for this more combative “face-to-face” role. It would cheer up the gunners.
“The way I read the new RN phraseology, carrier-assisted operations is that in the main carrier/ amphib groups will operate as one”
Apologies if my wording appeared to indicate the retention of separate and independent task groups, i did not mean to imply as much.
Just trying to indicate that a taskgroup capable sovereign and strategic power projection, i.e. composed of both and carrier support and amphibious landing, is to be used in hot-wars against ‘near’ peers and that demands a sufficiently scaled escort fleet for it to operate in such a theatre of war.
If we still intended to keep two task groups then we would arguably need a minimum of 24 high-end escorts, as it is presently the absolute floor is 18-19.
Apologies, Jedi, for being too lazy to incorporate a specific reference to Jed’s point 5 (above yours)
– your wording was ambiguous, so I didn’t want to speculate either/ or around it; we are on the same page for hot wars
– for medium intensity I think there is enough for covering two independent task groups (even if not task independent, they might still be hundreds of miles apart for other reasons)
If ff and dd are not used for standing patrol tasks how many would be required to support a combined carrier amphibian group against r likely adversaries on a non enduring operation considering a us carrier sails with 5 escorts and it’s amphibs 3 generally
Hi Mark,
I would take the answer from the lower end of these two scales (the Kongo’s are on par with T45s; don’t know how to rate their ASW assets):
“The JMSDF maintains four Escort Flotilla, with each composed of 2-3 air-defense ships, including Kongo class AEGIS ship, and 5-6 anti-submarine destroyers, and 8 ASW helicopters, or as it is more commonly known, the 88 Formation”
– 88 means that their “luck” – success, rather – under and above the waves would be equally good
– so two thirds availability from a total of 19 minus (these) 7 = not much left, and geographic dispersion in the start situation also needs to be factored in
I do wonder about the “minimum sustainable fleet” claims.
Now, I’m not an admiral, but even so.
If we were to want to replay a falklands escapade, 6 T45’s seem more than sufficient, ok, we may need 7 incase one is in pieces in dry dock and cant be back at sea within the month.
Thats two to protect the carrier, two to protect the assault ships, and a further two to protect the Supply ships.
Stick ASW gear on the T45’s, and a further 6 T46’s without SAMPSON but with towed array sonar, and again, you have two per “group”
I am assuming there that sonar provides a bubble like radar, could be wrong, but if not, 12 and 2 escorts provides ample defence for the war fleet.
If sonar is, “bubbley”, then 10 T45+ ships should be ample. Yet the world will end if we fall bellow 18?
Again, I could be wrong, but the idea that an unsupported T45 or T23 or anything around the Falklands is a threat to Argentine Agression, or a single ship anywhere is a halt to any agression, is laughable.
The T45 could of course wipe out the Argentine airforce, but The T45 has little ASuW capability in a stand up fight an Argentine Corvette could sink it, it has no ASW capability.
The 23 would likely do better, having at least some capability across the spectrum, but against an anti ship missile, or acouple of vessels, or if attacked without warning….
Personaly, I dont believe the SIMSS is the best anti piracy weapon, but its certainly better than a T45 chasing a 20ft powerboat.
The way to deal with pirates is to bombard their ports.
A recon flight over Somalia would quickly identify pirate mansions. An AC130 or a B52 could make short work of them.
Hi DJ,
RE “The way to deal with pirates is to bombard their ports.”
– they only need ports for the hijacked (large) vessels
– but you are not alone; a Chinese Admiral while visiting DC suggested that going ashore is the way to stop this fooling around (for which there is no end)… joint effort, doubtless, considering where the idea was uttered
TD
Some pretty hard hitting comments on what is and isn’t credible regarding the SIMSS spec.
My initial thoughts are that speed is a big issue.
600 miles per day strategic range = 22 knots.
Looking at 16 MW installed power at £500K per MW all in.
That should provide 23 knots plus on 8-9K tons with a L/B of around 6.
My thoughts are that this should be the minimum spec.
Add in another 15m section for another 16MW.
That should get us up to 28/29 knots and T26 speeds.
If we need to save money better to fit a direct drive main set with a motor / generator arrangement to add in more power if required.
8MW – Med Speed – 18 knots
8MW – High Speed generators / cheaper for special occasions.
My other big difference with yourself is the well deck.
I think we should have a fully functioning LCT capable space.
The increased level of flexibility would cover the extra cost.
Finally the most recent talk on the T26 does not look encouraging.
Fat and expensive T21 on the cards.
The patrol spec is shocking.
We can do better.
Seemingly the T26 is the first RN ship to be priced in Euros.
€300mill is seemingly the Ryanair cost of the basic ship.
BWoS should be ashamed of themselves.
Where did that “€300mill is seemingly the Ryanair cost of the basic ship.
BWoS should be ashamed of themselves” come from?
– are they buying the hulls from Navantia?
ACC @ 3.12
Post on a naval forum.
The person talked about a basic ship cost of £260mill.
I for one can’t understand the significance of a £260mill price point.
A figure of £250mill would have been more natural.
To me that suggests that the programme currency is something other than GBPs.
However post suggested that the unit cost had been cut back quite severely since the start of the design process sorry assessment and optioneering process.
Add these figures to the “Engineer” article and we seem to be getting very little for quite a lot.
The warload on the “Patrol” spec seems to be all second hand so this cost if correct seems ridiculously high.
Big issue will be the powertrain.
If GTs are involved we are putting RR before the RN.
Hi FBOT, ahh
“I for one can’t understand the significance of a £260mill price point.
A figure of £250mill would have been more natural.
…
However post suggested that the unit cost had been cut back quite severely since the start”
– original price point was approx. 500m
– 250 is bad, because it would then (have)be(en) halved! 260 much better?
ACC
The barbary pirates were quick to cease harrasing any nation that could bombard their port towns.
Hi DJ,
I was about to put that in my post (that USMC has had practice before) but thought it too “politically incorrect”
– especially when some of those barbary port towns were in Libya (that then wasn’t separate from what today is Algeria – maybe some ports in Tunisia were also involved, but that’s irrelevant)
PS Some nations still continued to pay ransom after the fact!
ACC @ 3.45
The cost of a T26 is all about what BWoS can get away with.
That was the case with the T45 and they have the lead on the new class.
Without saying anything about the current controversy, before we have more facts,
RE:”was the case with the T45″
– I think they were/ are actually good value
– the French benchmark documented, the Australian one folding (the figures, not the project) as we speak and Canadians dreaming that, by learning from everyone else, they can locally do improved Burke, with A-ballistic capability, for $1.3 bn a piece
ACC @ 4.15
I fear we will be going over really old ground but the T45 was a bit of a train wreck.
Original plan = 12 hulls for £8bill.
£2bill – development.
£500mill per hull.
What we got = 6 hulls for £6.6bill
£2.7bill – development
£650mill per hull for a thrifted weapon spec.
If the ship is so good why can’t we flog it to anyone else?
Something is missing in your Panglossian view.
However back to SIMSS – how much and for what?
Hi FBOT,
RE “The warload on the “Patrol” spec seems to be all second hand so this cost if correct seems ridiculously high”
Not sure that’s correct as in the presentation at DSEi (available via BAE) web-site there will be a competition for a new medium calibre gun, so the only likely recycled weapon system will be the 30mm and possibly CAMM (but given the big overlap between T23 and T26 not so sure that’s give), as the there will be a main VLS system and CAMM – no mention far as I can tell of actual ASW and ASuW weapons, but given the VLS system I think we are looking at the VLS to cover land attack and ASW (ASROC?). Not sure about ASuW as the illustration’s show missiles amidship but Harpoon expires in 2020 so who knows what they will use on them (if anything at all).
Hi Tubby,
CAMM, not even being in service (and the third – as far as I know – to join the active seeker generation after the US/Norwegian & Israeli offers), being recycled is a bit of a mistatement?
– ASROC takes whatever it needs as a payload (e.g. the Japanese put their own torpedo on it)
– as CAMM is a given, and quad-packing it into VLS that can take all kinds of other useful stuff is still a bit of a legend – that is the one I would like to know about
Tubby @ 4.54
What warload will the patrol T26 have?
Gun – new – 5″ seemingly.
I would have preferred a naval 155mm but it has all NT a bit quiet.
Not a big issue, gun is already in service, cost?
AAW – FLAADs (M), newish but it will be the same as 2020 T23s.
Bit short legged for my liking – 50 KM – and compared to recent trends.
Second hand?
Radar – Artisan, again the same as the 2020 T23s.
Probably second hand in the majority of vessels?
Re-cycled?
ASW – Limited, hull sonar at least?
CIWS – Any progress on from V-Phalanx?
S-S / VLS – New US system?
Again cost per launcher, cost per missile?
CIC / CMS – No info on this?
Will the 2020 T23s be upgraded when the radar / missiles go in?
Looking a bit long in the tooth already?
FBOT,
The 127 from OTO Melara vs. the most modern 5 inch package; here the cost for the latter (divide by three, as in the number of vessels in Hobart Class)
“BAE Systems has been awarded a contract worth up to US $65.8 million from the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance to provide the Mk 45 Mod 4 Gun for the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD).
“The Mk 45, with its unmatched fire support and mission performance, has been the system of choice for 11 navies around the world,”… “The Mk 45 Mod 4 is a 5-inch (127-mm), 62-caliber gun system that supports both Australian Navy standard munitions and extended range munitions, giving it superior surface and land warfare capability to meet the needs of the new destroyer program.”
Hi FBOT and ACC,
Firstly I think that its quite likely that the T23 if they get substantive life extensions will have their service lives pushed into the 2030’s so I am not convinced that there will be loads of spare kit to transfer as I think its likely T26 will built in lower numbers and we will have to keep some T23’s going for a bit longer – but the Government does show a distressing tendency to gap capabilities.
ASW is rumoured to be transferring towed sonar’s from the ASW T23’s but I thought realistically you need both a bow sonar and towed for operations in littoral’s, is this correct? – I suspect we will get something like the Atlas ASO 94 sonar, presumably not least because when BAE part owned Atlas they would have gotten UK funding, across the whole build. Out of interest does ITT Defence who acquired EDO still do mil spec sonar’s optimised for ASW as all I can find is a system for DSVL which appears to be for navigation not ASW.
http://acousticsystems.itt.com/media/data_sheets/Models%203040%20_%203060%20_%204240%20Doppler%20Sonar%20Velocity%20Log%20Systems.pdf
Not sure how easy it is port a radar and re-install due to the integration issues, I suspect there will be new build Artisan on the T26’s and I would not be surprised if Artisan is incrementally improved so that a Artisan of today is several generations behind the last Artisan installed on the T26 build.
I agree the main areas where we lag behind others is in our CIWS systems and installation of CEC. At some point I suspect we will be told that we need CEC if we want to play with the US, so I expect that it will be added in the latter half of the decade.
Prefer a larger calibre CIWS to Phalanx as part of the layered defences but to be honest both CAMM and the soft kill will be far more effective against ASuM’s than a CIWS and IMO mounting RAM as your CIWS is only a worthwhile investment if do not have any AA missiles.
Tubby @ 7.54
The “Engineer” talks about the concept of “future legacy”.
That is the first T26 will recycle stuff that is not even in the water at the moment.
That asks the question why are we going to update the Patrol 5 in the first place. Surely it would be better to update the best / youngest hulls to the new ASW spec and leave the others as is?
The ASW 8 will provide experience of getting the Artisan / FLAADS into service which will help de-risk the T26 introduction.
However the current plans seem to suggest that the T26 “Emperor” is bollock naked but nobody has had the bottle to start to laugh.
£260mill base cost for a new hull with T23 capabilities?
At some point a light has to go on somewhere.
Add this shambles to the MHPC project –
£1.4bill for 8 hulls?
£1.4bill for 20K tons in the water?
Starting to make the T45 programme look value for money.
Starting to make HMS Clyde at £10mill per annum look cheap.
Hi FBOT,
You seem continuously disappointed by T45 and you seem disappointed by T26 before we have gotten all the details. ACC has demonstrated that for all its flaws T45 was actually less expensive that similar ships being built now, and by that benchmark they are a success.
While I am underwhelmed by the T26, if it really does come in at £260 million a ship then it will be significantly cheaper than the project 17A frigate planned for India which is in the same weight class and could be considered a peer design and is expected to cost $900 million a ship and will have broadly similar performance.
FBOT
In relation to Type 45
If the ship is so good why can’t we flog it to anyone else?
Because like us they all want to design there own ships Norway, Spain, france, holland. korea, japan, all have there own AAW designs or variations built in there own yards and all cost a similar amount or more than a type 45 vessel. AAW designs cost a lot of money and have extremely complex radar systems. Sampson is the most advanced available and the question is also do we want to sell that level of capability. It for example took the US how long to sell aegis to any of its allies and in almost all cases is not the full system much like us trying to sell artisan to people.
The 1.4b for includes development of all the unmanned models and systems as well as they base vessel exact number of hulls is unknown at this time.
If as you appear to know how to do it cheaper and better I suggest you head up to Bristol and tell them how they’ve been doing it wrong all these years there always looking for new recruits.
Hi Tubby,
Heh-he, you are reading old docs for “the project 17A frigate planned for India which is in the same weight class and could be considered a peer design and is expected to cost $900 million a ship and will have broadly similar performance”
– the first one is in water now, and it is within 5-10% (below) the cost of an Arleigh Burke (which are double, ie. $1.8 bn each)
– I did not want to include it as one of the benchmarks as 1. the Indians have been blaming Russian suppliers (ie. weapon systems and sensors, well, what else is there to a top-line warship today?), and 2. let’s see when the class of three will have been completed (France, 2; Oz, 3; UK, 6)
TD
We obviously drink in the same intellectual pub as far as the whole procurement cluster f**K is concerned.
Subject to a bit more speed 18 – 22 Knots (not that far out as some PSV based ‘rescue ships’ in the north sea have that kind of speed.
I still think an as simple as possible 360 degre basic ciws is needed. (I like Phallanx but it is suspect).
Other than that I am not wedded to the X Bow, after all conventionaly pointed ships work very weel and the bow design does allow for easier weapons mounting etc..
FBOT is right.
I flatly refuse to accept the £250 mill figure for t26.
It is so far wide of the mark for published figures for other comparable ships, it has to be wrong, (It reperesents a return tin Inflationary adjusted terms to Leander type costs)
Ixion the £250 million won’t include the systems from the Type 23’s which if true will be almost everything bar the 5″ gun so it’s not that bad as for the CIWS why not look at the CTA 40mm with LMM which will give it a anti surface capability also I’d go for Austals MRV as the MHPC due to its greater versatility just up gun it also increase hanger size to include VTUAS as well as medium helicopter
Ixion
Not really type 23 cost 100m in 2000 so why not 250m for a type 26 adjusted for inflation there about comparable.
As for the speed if 22 is slower than the container ships it maybe chasing or protecting then how is that a gd idea. I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that other capabilities on the ship will compensate
@TD, I agree that we live in the land of finite resources where any “new” money for the RN has to come from within it’s own budget. Of course we can hope for more money from the treasury, but we all know where that has got us.
We also have to recognize that the rule of 3 (one ship active, one training up, one in reserve / refit) still applies in the long term in almost all cases for first rate Destroyers / Frigates. Better maintenance / design can mean you can sweat your assets more in the short term, but to ensure that the crew is trained and practiced in all the required real war scenarios for example is crucial.
Therefore, if the UK plans to keep one carrier / assault group at constant readiness and to have a constant ASW / Patrol (not even thinking about BMD) presence in UK waters, the minimum in my view is 17 first rate ships. This breaks down as 3 groups of 5 carrier group escorts (2 AAW, 2 ASW and 1 GP/land attack), plus 2 ships to rotate the UK bit.
What this means is in my view, that these ships can only cover business as usual duties in Europe or short training exercises further afield. Therefore, no assets to cover long term standing commitments outside of Europe. Adding two frigates to make 19 will not help much.
I still believe that a fully fitted T26 will be £300mn. Therefore, cutting the numbers by 2 should free up £600mn to be spent elsewhere.
The SIMSS design does have its merits, and based on the realities I’ve just mentioned cheaper patrol vessels is the only option available if the RN wants to keep a worldwide surface presence. However, I agree with Jed etc that SIMSS is really a RFA vessel and should be designed to replace the current Diligence, Argus and Bay vessels – I definately don’t have a problem with them being smaller and more numerous.
Where I would like the money to go is on more traditional OPV / light frigate type vessels that can be built cheaply but could be upgraded in a time of crisis.
OPVs supported by more RFA vessels in my view would give us the maximum capability for our limited resources (outside of the high end core).
Hi ACC,
I do not know much about project 17A and was going on the information I found on wikipedia, indeed I was surprised that India had frigates in the 6,000 tonne range, I thought they mostly had smaller frigates of around 4,000 tonnes. More I look the more that a target price of £260 million seems really to good to belive.
As an aside, thanks to whoever recommend Brown’s “The Future British Surface Fleet: Options for the Medium-sized Navy” just got my copy of Amazon and even a quick flick through included some interesting information (like the premise put forward in 91 by Brown that the UK would never be able to afford a carrier in the size range of CVA-01) BTW does anyone know had to restick pages to the spine of book as my copy of Brown has a loose double page.
Mark
The world has moved on from 2000.
Shipbuilding is much more efficient.
On costs you have to look at the alternatives –
Absalon cost £165mill.
All its kit is brand new not second hand “hand me downs”.
It’s AAW capability looks to be half a step ahead of the T26.
It has been in the water for 5 years while the T26 isn’t even in a proper CAD directory.
Consequently I ask again, what exactly are we getting for our Eur 300mill / £260mill?
We look to be getting 2K tons of worked steel, a couple of GTs to keep RR happy and very little else.
As for the T45 stuff –
USN = Aegis radar and battle management stuff / Mk 41 VLS / Standard missiles.
RN = Sampson radar and PAAMS battle management / Sylver launchers / Aster missiles.
BWoS has tried to sell pure Sampson / PAAMS.
BWoS has tried to sell hybrid Sampson / PAAMS.
Results have been mixed / poor.
All the countries you mention seem to have went down the USN route.
You have to ask why?
I fear we are stuck with a good system that will be costly to enhance / upgrade. The twirly stuff looks all a bit 70’s so in marketing terms I fear Sampson / PAAMS is about as dead as disco.
Rep @ 8.08
You cannot build for tomorrow based on a whole series of better yesterday’s.
The rule of 3 has to go.
It is wasteful, self indulgent and plays straight into the hands of the Treasury.
Too many seem to join the navy to live in Hampshire rather than to see the world, any thoughts?
On the subject of SIMSS I fear you are looking at the world through Leander goggles.
SIMSS does not have to be RFA only.
SIMSS – Level 1 – Floating social worker / DfID good works / MH mothership.
SIMSS – Level 2 – HMS Clyde done properly, £60mill for NGS spec.
SIMSS – Level 3 – Patrol frigate with AAW out to 50km / ASW in a box and a hangar.
All would have 23 knot capability with med speed diesels.
All would have 90 day / 24K miles endurance.
All would have a well deck and a mission deck.
What would £120mill buy?
What would £150mill buy?
We will probably never know the answer because the RN has lost the will to ask the question.
The money is there, it just needs to be spent better.
HMS Clyde – £10mill pa rent – joke.
MHPC – £1.4bill programme for 8 hulls – sick joke
Endurance Class – £80mill each – why not?
Fbot the cost of absalon is 270m dollars at 2004 prices when it was launched possibly even sooner which it makes it very much a comparison with type 23 in 2000
Mark @ 10.51
The T23 was in production for over 15 years.
It’s spec was out of date when the last one commissioned in 2002.
The Absalon is a step ahead of the T23.
It is far ahead in most areas save ASW.
The debate centres around the T23 only in as much as we are looking at what we are going to replace it with.
We are looking at the costings of the Type 26 programme.
We are looking at the capabilities of the Type 26 programme.
The Absalon programme Is current, it’s spec and capabilities make it so. Nobody wants to build another T23 no matter what the 16th unit cost. Plenty of people are looking at the Absalon no matter that it has been in the water for 6 years.
However the T23 does offer some indication as to the capabilities of the Govan 2000 when they are not being priced out of work by BWoS.
T23 – 16th unit – Built 99 / 2002- £105mill – All new kit? – Value point.
Absalon – 1st unit – Built 2002 / 04 – £165mill – Loads of all new kit. – Another value point.
T26 – unit cost – Built 2016 / 20? – £260mill hopefully – Loads of hand me down gear – Value?
We seem to be buying a new bottle for our old wine.
In Tesco £5 for a bottle of wine is value, £5 for a wine bottle is not.
Mark
Absalon and costs – most recent figure I can find is that the whole programme cost 2.7bill Danish Kroner.
The programme ran from 2002 till 2007.
That means in GBP terms £300 – 315mill for the pair.
The exchange rate flux over the past 12 months generates the GBP uncertainty.
Hi FBOT,
Over old ground, yes, but important so that we can avoid sweeping generalisations:
– not sure who/ what you were referring to with the USN route chosen for all?
– my list was for those who have aimed for “world class”… then there are also very good “budget” solutions with same core systems
— Dutch, with DZPs (let’s remember Sampson is the British name for a radar that in a cousin form is on many ships)
–Norway and Spain with Aegis
Those differences in cost,in per cent terms, are as big as £50m SIMMS plus mission/ weapon systems vs. a £260 (target price)T26
Tubby, my heh-he was about doubling of the target price (happens even in “better families”-not just with BAE), not about you having used an old version (shows the limits of Wiki as a source, once the original piece has been included -typically accurate at the time and with best intentions)
fbot program costs you quote are correct and that’s 2004-2005 prices If you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that it’s not 2002 when the budget was allocated. You on only get the unit price you quote if you use today’s exchane rate which you simply can’t do. And this delivers a ship with a max speed of 23knts and 28 days endurance. The type 23 figure is for the last 4 at a restarted production so they are comparable and show we can get just a gd a vessel for similar if not less built in this country
@fbot
“If the ship is so good why can’t we flog it to anyone else?”
Because any nation who can afford such a vessel has an Arabian despot at it’s head. Arabian despots don’t buy ugly-looking vessels.
Without knowing what the right answer is to the particular question, Ivar H. costs and T23 last batch/ T26 target would be the ones to put on the same starting/ chalk lines.
RE “don’t buy ugly-looking vessels”
– Independence copies have sold to the Gulf
– actually I think she is a beauty, but the traditionalists would make her the ugly duckling
Mark @ 12.00.
You make my point for me.
The pound is low at the moment.
The GBP cost in 2005/06 would have been a lot lower.
As for the T23, the costs of last 3 hulls relate to a contract signed in 96.
The previous contract also for 3 hulls was signed in 92.
So your point about re-starting the line doesn’t hold water.
First of all that is not how ship building works.
Secondly the gap was consistent with the numbers involved.
They are into batch not continuous production and any yard worth it’s salt can switch between any design in it’s catalogue very quickly.
Regarding your other points –
Range – Similar.
Endurance – No figures to hand but fuel not food would seem to be the key.
Speed – An extra 16MW to get you up to 28/29 knots would be around £8mill so not a show-stopper to me.
I would be more interested in the Absalon’s second tier area AAW ability rather than the T23’s point defence capability.
Finally we can build cheap / value for money ships in the UK.
Just a case that BWoS / MOD / RN can’t do it.
@All
My personal take is: any current frigate is too large i.e. has too much draught to act as a presence vessel. So is SIMSS.
Presence is to provide influence, influence you don’t get by sitting 20m over the horizon and send occasional helos or boats. Distance is almost orthogonal to presence.
The simple truth is, in absence of carrier air striking at the pirates bases and in absence of a real green water capability, our anti piracy efforts are returning effectively no results.
The occasional hyping of the Absalons crew for taking two or even a hundred pirate boats doesn’t change much. Even having 10 Absalons will not change much, apart from changing the cost-effect-equation much more into the pirates favour. Ditto counter-narcotics, ditto any other littoral security task.
All nations are building blue water navies. They are building for a questionable greatness, not the conflicts they actually have.
@TD
First, thanks for once again clarifying your thoughts.
One can get the impression, we are really talking about a naval Jackal here. We can loose a Jackal, sorry’bout the lads, but it doesn’t has any symbolism. Loosing the third largest vessel in the fleet is a whole different matter. For most foreigners, RN = UK.
Apart from this, when I played with some scenarios, SIMSS failed to do the job on any task. Let’s make it easy, it’s peace, and the SIMSS is tasked with disaster relief. How? IMO, we have three choices:
(1) always have the equipment aboard; some sort of 24/7 solution; this means, the individual vessel is not multirole; as it cannot be everywhere on the globe, it has to be stationed somewhere near to possible disaster areas; the Atlantic vessel is clearly outperformed by current practive, Indian Ocean is would need an own vessel, Pacific also, but could more efficiently done by NZ or Oz
(2) bring in stuff from mainland UK; this is our current model, and we require no specialist vessel for this
(3) bring in stuff from a given overseas dependency; this is the french model, and SIMSS is the BATRAL; actually not very compelling
We can agree to disagree here, but IMO this circle cannot be made square.
“One commenter attested that all RN vessels should be able to fend off midget submarine lauched torpedo attacks.”
No, I stated that this is one of the possible threats. At least this should be the lesson from the Cheonan-sinking. Nowhere I said it must be able to do ASW. At least a vessel having a sonar can outmaneuvre the sub, which is the cheapest countermeasure.
“SIMSS has the space to operate multiple UAV’s, multiple Wildcat’s and multiple powerful craft like CB90’s.”
This is a battlestar, not a cheap presence vessel. The equipment costs £60+ and has higher operating cost as a light frigate sitting on it’s arse. The immediate deterrence factor is zero.
McZ x 2
What is the current depth limit for a T23?
What green-water presence do we have at the moment?
What percentage of coastline requires sitting 20 miles off- shore in a frigate at the moment?
I fear you are becoming an uber rationalist and letting your desire for the perfect to blind you to the productive solutions that regularly pass you by.
If you want to get up close and personal then you use a SIMSS – Level 2 – Colonial Sloop and stuff it’s well deck with all the fast floating kit you need.
40m x 15m x 10 m air clearance will carry a lot of stuff.
Green-water is only part of the forward presence equation.
The issues can be solved,
The only issue is what do we do today?
What can we do better, what can we do cheaper?
TD
To get back to SIMSS, any thoughts on the Endurance class?
I have asked before just a case of detail and how it fits with your thoughts?
From memory you mentioned crew but I think that it would be one of the easier issues to solve.
The ship seems to come with quite a troop of other transport assets –
4 x LCVP.
2 x LCU.
2 x Helos.
Big numbers to feed, crew and look after these assets?
@ArmChairCivvy
“Independence … actually I think she is a beauty”
Yes, she is.
The last order is $460m per copy, as I remember correctly. A fact that people constantly refuse to accept, that in current $ any LCS comes in $410m cheaper than a OHP, lower manning cost excluded. And compared to OHP, LCS-2 has according to it’s docs only 100nm fewer range than an OHP. This was before she went to sea. NAVSEA recorded a better economy than advertized.
@fbot
“I fear you are becoming an uber rationalist and letting your desire for the perfect to blind you to the productive solutions that regularly pass you by.”
Ah, yes, productive!
What a term.
I though, we seek a solution for the RN to execute it’s task primarily as effective and secondarily as efficient as possible.
Building vessels for vessels sake or for sake to get tonnage into the water has nothing to do with any of those principles.
“If you want to get up close and personal then you use a SIMSS – Level 2 – Colonial Sloop and stuff it’s well deck with all the fast floating kit you need.”
Oh, we are already at squadron level? How many vessels will we have to add to the concept to make it work?
According to TD, that ‘floating kit’ is presumed to do defence, influence, with one boat playing guard for other boats. SIMSS and actually your colonial sloop as well are in a sense the skiff-motherships of the RN.
How futile is that!? A squadron of SIMSS has 10, 20 or even 40 boats and a few ScanEagles, maybe a helo or two. There are basically around 30,000 skiffs on the coast of Somalia. The south china seas has around 50,000 fishery vessels, smaller boats excluded. The Straits of Malakka are passed by over 90,000 large vessels a year.
TD says, SIMSS is something like a blank sheet of paper. In itself, it is a vessel without value – IXION called it ‘expendable’ – having cargo space nobody needs. As such, we have to be honest: you have to add the cost for the boats, as they are part of the requirement, as much as a gun on a frigate.
“Green-water is only part of the forward presence equation.”
What else? To attract blue water mermaids to matelots?
“The issues can be solved”
A bold statement for yet non-existing vessels out of a not-yet tested concept.
How about this:
Hell, we should take those large 50ts trucks and make overland patrols in Afghanistan. The capability to pack motorcycles and quads in the well deck will make do for our low numbers of helos and armed recon vehicles. We can pack a 76 on the top of the roof. A yes, and a ScanEagle, we need to know where the bad guys are. Well, if we finally sort out, how exactly the bad guys are clothed. If we manage to do this, we mup them up with our high-speed fighting assets (mabye they will survive). The rest of the time we carry on constructing schools and providing mobile internet cafes to Kandahar.
McZ @ 2.48
The questions still stand –
What is our present green water capability?
Do we have enough hulls in the water?
What jobs need doing?
The SIMSS / Colonial Sloop family offers an answer to some of the RN’s current issues, how would you do it?
The MHPC budget appears to be available.
Is the current plan for 8 hulls at 2,500 tons each acceptable, affordable, achievable?
We have hijacked this simss thread enough but I will add this your figures
T23 – 16th unit – Built 99 / 2002- £105mill
Absalon – 1st unit – Built 2002 / 04 – £165mill
T26 – unit cost – Built 2016 / 20? – £260mill
You do get that with the cost of inflation the buying power of money roughly speaking halfs in a decade so to buy your 165m absalon in 2016 would cost 320m roughly so t26 at 260m is value for money in my book
I have to say im with mcz on this the simss is required to replace the hunt class and the patrol vessels draft 2-3m. They are the vessels that currently operate in the shallow as acc has pointed out in the other thread no over the horizon mcmv capabilty has been so far developed. If we cant do that then the vessel will have to get into shallow water.
As I tried to ask at the start we have 7b surface fleet rfa replacement budget and most likely 6 task areas to equip for along with the carrier/amphip group. We need to ask how much is required to buy asw and stores vessels for the carrier group after that we have a pot off money for the 6 presence squadron areas.
For me thats 6-700m per area and as I like the austral mrv-80 or jhsv vessel that gives 3-4 of those + an rfa AOR vessel or possibly a type 26 + an AOR + a fast boat squadron (cb90/ hovercraft). The 6 tasking areas are very different and I think if we can allocate a block of money per area and the requirement off that area we may end up with a better equipment plan that just saying it has to be this ship and everywhere will be the same.
ACC – Independence copies have not yet “sold” into the gulf, I believe Saudi and Israel have openly discussed a more well armed variant.
As for LCS1 range being almost that of an OHP, yes perhaps at 18kts cruising speed, BUT as soon as you wind up those massive RR gas turbines on your beautifully looking but frankly frakkin useless ‘seaframe” with no production “mission modules” in it, to reach this nirvana of 40 kts plus, where apparently the wake becomes its primary weapon de jeur against the small boat swarm, it soon runs out of gas ….. :-)
OK then guys, how about this as a concept for SIMSS
1. Mainly RFA manned with embarked mission crews taken from all corners
2. Combine with MARS for replen/repair
3. Provides a base platform for MCM and Survey
4. Provides a base platform for presence/patrol with suitable extra fighty stuff, either fixed or via boats/UAV’s etc
5. More Type 45 and 26
It still creates a two tier force but we have that already do we not, all this means is that an RFA manned SIMSS provides board and lodging for MCM and counter smuggling/piracy teams in medium threat areas alone (i.e. exactly like now) or under the wings of a big brother if things are a bit sporty
Does that make it a more palatable concept
Haven’t we just talked outselves into the Dutch/Canadian Bay class style Joint Support Ship
On the whole over the horizon MCM thing
The whole point of SIMSS is that it is big enough to embark a range of small craft and workboats, swarms of them if needed. So where the MCM work needs to be close in to the littoral for say an amphib route then not even a Hunt can do that. That is why the world and hi dog are developing a range of surface and sub surface unmanned systems, all of them being small enough to operate tight inshore. In this scenario, SIMSS becomes the truck and it carries 3 or 4 20m workboats which would be able to carry their own unmanned systems and venture inshore.
Its the size of SIMSS that give it this versatility, if stuff needs to go fast or shallow, it’s not SIMSS but the kit it carries that does this
McZ, come on, what are you on about with trucks and Afghanistan. You know its not the point of this. Of course small craft and UAV’s would be part of the cost equation, I never said they wouldn’t.
You might mock those pirate skiff motherships but as yourself this, with several billion in naval hardware in the area who is talking the piss out of who?
The combined naval forces of the world are being made to look like rank amatuers by a bunch of amateurs who understand perfectly their logistics and operating constraints, maybe we should be learning from them a few lessons in sea control.
You can take the piss all you like but whats the alternative
FBOT, those Endurance vessels look great. In fact when you look back at the vast majority of naval operations of recent times the basic amphib has been bar far and away the most useful yet attract the least investment. Its part of the underlying issue that drives my thinking on SIMSS, preparing for the fight that never comes which buggers up everything you do in the meantime
Surely for MARS these are going to have to be much much bigger?
A thought regarding arming them.
The UK purchased 777 “gunned” CVR(T)s, some with high velocity 30mm cannons, some with low velocity 76mm cannons.
To what extent are the turrets wrecked or unsuitable for use at sea?
Not ideal, but half a dozen turrets, or even the vehicles, strategicaly placed, rather makes light of any threat from a pirate and an RPG.
Probably impossible, but who knows.
TD
MARS is MARS, and might be a should in my opinion by Dutch JSS – but because I mentioned RFA don’t accidentally conflate the two.
SIMMS – based on JBT’s slightly smaller faster platform
6 with the RFA for MSO – replacement for River class
6 with RN for global MCM deployment
2 with ? for Survey (could break the mold and put them RFA too)
All with identical base equipment fit for “whole fleet management” approach – shifting bits around as vessels go into refit NOT flying modules out to some god forsaken port in Africa !
Retain 6 Sandown class single role Minehunter.
DomJ – you truly must be drinking in the Pub. The CVR(T) is a unstabilised turret, welding or strapping down a Scimitar on deck would mean your not going to hit anything at any range if the sea is anything other than mirror like, and the ship is stopped. Bless you for thinking outside of the box as the saying goes……
“no over the horizon mcmv capabilty has been so far developed.”
This October ATLAS (maker of Seafox) will have a 1 week campaign of demonstrations to the MOD and other customers (France surely among them) the concept of a system of systems, AKA a family of remotely-operated assets for MCM ops.
Almost certainly, it will involve the FAST, which is planned to be ready to go onto the Hunt class minesweepers in 2 years time and has already been trialed several times.
The Seafox I + COBRA clip will also feature if it is ready in time.
It promises to end the need for Seafox C (The I is the Search drone, re-usable. The C is the disposal drone, which is a one-shot kamikaze). The Cobra kit is a stand-off EOD kit working at depths of up to 300 meters, that can be clipped onto the Seafox I, making it a reusable Hunter-Killer.
Should make the whole process a lot cheaper… and require far less Seafox drones to be carried, as no C will be needed anymore.
Gabby
So will that allow operational at 1-2+ miles ranges for example. Are current mcmvs have a draft of about 7ft and were proposing replacing it with one of nearly 3 times that. Is this not the area were the US is having so much trouble with there lcs mcmv module.
Its not just mcmv its austere port entry for disaster relief work ect also.
TD how much do you intend to spend on the modules boat unmanned bits ect and how many data-links ect will be needed.
I think the rfa should have a much bigger role to play and the current 4 mcmv, bay class model in the gulf is a gd starting point. But in my mind were looking at that number of these vessels in each presence squadron.
I agree with FBOT re “Surely for MARS these are going to have to be much much bigger” even though looking at all those task areas (and replacements) together is a must.
Now, why should our horse trading be about x or y fewer T26’s? I agree with TD that this capability
“The whole point of SIMSS is that it is big enough to embark a range of small craft and workboats, swarms of them if needed. So where the MCM work needs to be close in to the littoral for say an amphib route then not even a Hunt can do that. That is why the world and hi dog are developing a range of surface and sub surface unmanned systems, all of them being small enough to operate tight inshore. In this scenario, SIMSS becomes the truck and it carries 3 or 4 20m workboats which would be able to carry their own unmanned systems and venture inshore” is a MUST if SIMMS, one or two sizes, is to earn its way
– so why are we not substituting with and between the units of the £1.4 bn MSP- programme, rather than numbers of T26s?
Mark, the modules will cost what they cost but if you look at my list the vast majority of them are pretty simple. Lets not over complicate things.
“So will that allow operational at 1-2+ miles ranges for example.”
Much further away than that.
Away from the mine effects (magnetic,pressure, sound or otherwise triggered) is one thing, and remote/ automated/ preprogrammed operation holds great promise
– OTH is (?): can’t be visually targeted, within range of normal ATGWs or conventional medium artillery; here we are talking about launching smaller units to take and deploy ROVs etc (and recover them)
Sorry TD I think I part company with you over Jss style stuff, becuase it beocms little more that a depot ship for exiaiting style MCMV, patrol boats etc does it not? (that is if i have you right).
Then we are keeping a dog and barking ourselves.. paying for simms and other craft as well.
As for extra t45/26 thats fantasy isn’t it?
Hi Jed, something like that
“SIMMS – based on JBT’s slightly smaller faster platform
6 with the RFA for MSO – replacement for River class
6 with RN for global MCM deployment
2 with ? for Survey (could break the mold and put them RFA too)”
And the last two bigger and ice strengthened
Well TD when you consider the US MCMV module is at $70m per unit it may start to get expensive if your packing 2-3 in 1 vessel. And that only includes a hand full of remote vehicles.
Gabby
I ask because the US is using this AN/SLQ-48 Mine Neutralisation Vehicle and has a quoted operational range of a 1000 yards from the ship.
I didnt think Id say this but I agree with Ixion we cant have every thing. I think a couple of type 26s will have to go. I would look for RFA more like the Fort2/Dilgence type vessel as sort of sea based logistic command and resupply vessel then instead of it supporting a frigate on station multiple (insert as your choice) vessels operating over a wide local area.
FBOT @ 10ish: “The rule of 3 has to go. It is wasteful, self indulgent and plays straight into the hands of the Treasury.
Too many seem to join the navy to live in Hampshire rather than to see the world, any thoughts?”
For the high end core which we expect to readily available for high intensity warfare I disagree. We are just kidding ourselves if we think otherwise in my view. This means CVF, destroyers, frigates and probably amphibs / fleet tankers. I know we’ve only got (hopefully) two CVFs coming, but I think we all would like to rewrite history and get three smaller ones. We also need contingency for accidents, losses etc. We can pretend we don’t but be found badly wanting when needed.
However, for the rest of the navy I totally agree. Love it or hate the vessel, but HMS Clyde has proved this; ratios of less than 2:1 are workable.
Don’t know if people join the RN to live in Hampshire, but I don’t think sailors will spend anymore time at home with what I’m saying.
I also like the Endurance class… I think we’ve agreed on this a few times now.
@TD, I like your revision. In the future the RFA having 3-5 fleet tankers / store ships, plus a dozen SIMSS (capable of amphibious lift, hospital, refueling / replenishing OPVs and MHMVs plus carrying flexible modules) gets my vote!
Big, those then
“(capable of amphibious lift, hospital, refueling / replenishing OPVs and MHMVs plus carrying flexible modules) gets my vote!
I still go for “JBT’s slightly smaller faster platform” and available numbers
Still very much doubt its use on the mine hunting – it’d have to counter them at distance :/
Hi Mike,
Yes, the Kockums SAM3 remote & reprogrammable solution “literature” gives an example, where the areas (or also passages of a different form) are 15-20 km long, but of course passes required are many (so are those robo-vessels doing the work).
So that is sweeping, and mine field breaching. No reason why the various Seafoxes already used could not do the hunting, or more or less the demolition, following the sweep and spotted locations.
The thing is that even if the areas are extensive, it is not OTH. I guess only the USN with their helo methods are, as of today?
http://www.kockums.se/en/products-services/naval-surface-ships/mine-countermeasures/sam-3/
@fbot
Those questions have been answered in part 5, I don’t want to repeat again. The point is not the status quo, the point is that I refuse the SIMSS as the solution. I have made other proposals and will keep doing so.
In short: drop T26 ALLTOGETHER, introduce a light frigate as MHPC (we are heading that size anyway), have her equipped with a mission bay. After 8 or 10 vessels out of MHPC, simply keep building.
I will detail this later, but if we keep T26, we overspend our budget by 20%, even if it only costs 300m. if the price tag grows to 500m, we will reach that mark after 8 vessels. There is no way out. We must drop T26. We need a much cheaper design, but certainly not an OXFAM-combatant.
@TD
SIMSS is a truck, as you wrote, so I used the truck-analogy.
I just invented the SIMSV for the lads in green, as yu braught them on the table. Todays armies bread- and butter tasks are peacekeeping, civil assistance, mine sweeping, a.s.o. The ecosystem for trucks is even larger, with a large supplier base for special equipment. It’s the same as in the maritime domain. So it’s an valid argument.
Do you refuse it? Makes it a bad feeling in the stomach?
An answer to the practical example (disaster relief) will be appreciated.
Further, I don’t mock the pirates, I mock the idea to operate warvessels like somalian pirates. To think, that the ‘pirates’ (and by this, I don’t mean the poor soil on the boats) are amateurs at any rank may be one of our problems chasing them down. The idea to kill Mafia by military force is, well, obviously not working.
McZ,
If you really want to be pedantic, the bits where I mentioned leveraging the ecosystem of the civilian supply chain is already happening in the land domain with increasing use of civilian technology and systems. Look at the civilian derived vehicles, look how they can use the design and support infrastuctures already in place. Not sure whats not to like
As for the big truck with quads, I think you need to calm down a bit :)
Its nothing like the same thing is it and I think everyone else would agree
Remind me of the question on disaster relief
The following has probably been shown before, but this would get my vote for a new Clyde 2 OPV:
http://www.shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Alternate%20Universe/GB%20OPV%20C3%20Son%20of%20a%20River%201b%20AU.gif
@ACC: probably asking for the “moon on a stick” with the refueling bit I admit, but a SIMSS type vessel could easily offer the rest. Would mean we would need a few additional “small” fast fleet tankers.
Repulse
It may not be a popular view, or sensible for that matter, but I really think we need to at least consider the possibility that the “war” fleet, so carrier, and destroyers, should have returned to port in 82, gone for a training cruise around the north sea a couple of times a year (a few days once a month?) and done little else till 91.
3:1 is only required if you insist on deploying ships constantly, for little prtactical benefit, thats easy top cut to 2:1 for big stuff, and 3:2 for escorts if ships are not sent on world tours, or even just constantly cruising the Irish Sea.
Hi DJ, I agree with those (revised) ratios at the end of your contribution (as a planning basis)
Hi Repulse, v sensible , if the internal volume permits. The French found space in the Floreal patrol frigate design for another 100 ft long fuel tank (so you can use it for a 10k nm range, or refuelling others).And at 93.5m and 2.950 t it is not a very big ship!
I found a superb source on BAM
http://www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=798
in Spanish, though. There is the mystical K-130 version (already costed) which must correspond to the much bigger arctic/antarctic version shown at the end
This source also has BAMs next to “proper” warships and “mere” patrol vessels for nice&easy comparisons.
Despite being a brilliant design, in my books BAM is for NATO waters and not a presence solution. I am all for the SIMMS with the innovative & voluminous hull form, but on the conventional hulls side of things I would maintain the Hollands as a benchmark. Just to tick more of TD’s boxes:
– there are two containers (spaces) under the flight deck. These can
– with use of the slipway launch MCM gear, and operate the on-board part of the overall system from that mission space
– again, using the slipway, add a towed sonar (and the helo can do the torpedoes bit of the ASW job, should such a threat exist; in normal operation there would be no”overheads” from this capability)
– the specialists/ Marines contingent of 40 is big enough (did not realise before: the helo operators are counted into this number)
– even though the sick bay is only for ten, should the need arise, the mission bay can be converted – with a containerised solution, of course
@TD
Using civilian components or building a completely civilian system which would make up 50% of the surfae fleet are totally different. The former is not part of my criticism, but the latter.
Still, it’s not clear what SIMSS is. Is it a warship? If not, what else? Where is the line to draw? Is the common politician capable to handle this?
Also, why are you keeping the MIW-part at any price? The logic I don’t understand. If we can put MIW-modules on SIMSS, we can pack them on any other vessel, too. From this one can deduce, there is no need for SIMSS in this regards.
The rest makes use of SIMSS as a boat and container carrier aka mothership. Why don’t you say then, it’s a mothership? I guess, because this would add a definitive warfighting role and would cripple the platform, which in itself is simply not war capable.
Re. disaster relief: Where is the vessel stationed? Where are the ISO-containers (bottling plant etc.)? How do they come together and when? Is SIMSS always carriing them? If yes, isn’t the individual unit a one trick pony? If no, when do you know you need disaster relief equipment? What is the advantge using SIMSS instead of another vessel sitting on it’s arse instead? You would also need other types of boats, where are they? What is the real difference to today’s situation? Isn’t the main difference the containers you mention?
Unreasonable assumption/ question “Is the common politician capable to handle this?”
– most Parliaments have Defence Committees; look at the US House & Senate, they may have members/Chairmen sitting over many decades
@FBOT
“Too many seem to join the navy to live in Hampshire rather than to see the world, any thoughts?”
– Like many others, I ended up living in Hampshire because I joined the Royal Navy, not vice-versa.
@DominicJ
“Repulse – It may not be a popular view, or sensible for that matter, but I really think we need to at least consider the possibility that the “war” fleet, so carrier, and destroyers, should have returned to port in 82, gone for a training cruise around the north sea a couple of times a year (a few days once a month?) and done little else till 91.”
– I’ve already mentioned the ‘use them or lose them’ truism and I regret that your statement epitomises the naivety of so many views expressed in this forum. Such a policy as yours would be akin to reducing the England football team to a couple of training sessions each month, playing the odd friendly twice a year and then expecting it to win the World Cup.
The ships’ companies of major warships (and to a certain extent any embarked units) are not like boxes of toy soldiers. They are complex living and breathing organisms in which the individual cells perform specific but overlapping functions. These ‘cells’ are constantly changing as officers and sailors are promoted out of their roles, undergo professional training and promotion courses, broaden their skills in different units or are drafted to apply their knowledge (everything from the safe maintenance and operation of nuclear reactors and gas turbines to detecting and dealing with a supersonic ASM threat) with battlestaffs, training establishments, procurement teams and upkeep authorities. You can not turn such organisms off periodically, introduce untried and untested components and then expect them to leap into life and function correctly immediately after resuscitation even if (repeat) if they are sufficiently motivated to do so.
The same principle applies to ships’ mechanical, electrical and electronic systems. Like diesel engines, they run most efficiently when kept on load. Any sailor will tell you that a new ship/submarine, one just out of refit or one that has been alongside, even for a few days, will accumulate a catalogue of problems that are only detected and resolved once at sea. Moreover, any non-operational ship instantly becomes vulnerable to cannibalisation, not just for its hardware but also for its liveware (personnel).
There is a deluded philosophy these days that not exposing youngsters to risks somehow makes their lives ‘safer’ whereas it actually breeds complacency. I submit that not keeping warships and their personnel up to speed by deploying them in all manner of challenging roles courts danger too. As it is, the Royal Navy’s number of commitments, paucity of warships and submarines to fulfill them, reductions in number of courses and their length, dilution of training staffs, shortcuts in system trials and weapons training and lack of sufficient realism have resulted in several embarrassing incidents of late.
Take, for example, the proposal to curtail HMS Illustrious’s acceptance trials and training by several months so she could relieve HMS Ocean off Libya this Autumn instead of re-entering service next Spring. I’m sure the penalties were considered very seriously but to me it smacked of desperation. The way things are heading, I believe it is only a matter of time before we see the newsworthy occurrence of a truly catastrophic incident instead of one that’s simply embarrassing.
MCz
As I see it (And schip in TD if you have it wrong).
Simms is essentially a coast guard vessel (like US coast guard not our buch of civil servents in blue/black). Only It’s of someone elses coast.
It is more akin to a pointy ended mobile floating Police (with SWAT sqaud)/ emergency medical aid station, with some useful emergancy support capability.
In short rather that a war ship for time of war it is apeace ship for times of ‘Peace’. Peace in the sence of entering touchy areas to get civilians out, or beat up on pirates etc.
In short. (And this is the bit that the ‘Square jawed heirs of Nelson’ hate)..
It is what the vast majority of UK warships have done for the last 25 years.
The only difference is that SMMs starts from th eproposition that a suare hole is best filled by a square peg.
Good post, Dunservin
As we have an experiment in this “You can not turn such organisms off periodically, introduce untried and untested components and then expect them to leap into life and function correctly immediately after resuscitation even if (repeat) if they are sufficiently motivated to do so” on the go (CVF), how do you judge the chances of it working?
– prior to SDSR there was a meticulous plan how to shift ship’s companies around and through refits even keep the hulls in working order, but has the gap now stretched to be too big to manage (even not mentioning the lack of planes for 4 or so years)?
Dunservin
‘Such a policy as yours would be akin to reducing the England football team to a couple of training sessions each month, playing the odd friendly twice a year and then expecting it to win the World Cup’.
As opposed to the bang up job they have done winning every world cup since 82….
The way things stand, I believe it is only a matter of time before we see the newsworthy occurrence of a truly catastrophic incident instead of one that’s simply embarrassing.
Absolutely the point.
I make it all the time, encapsulated by TD’s famous remark about us being an
‘All furcoat and no knickers power’
We actualy need to knock of the idea that we can ‘send the fleet’ to beat up on johny forigner its been a fiction since the 90’s
The crack about the England team was not just a crack.
We are just as delusional about our footballing prowess, as we are about our full spectrum millitary capability.
That ” the idea that we can ‘send the fleet’ to beat up …” is hardly the same as doing our fair share in securing SLOCs (I won’t say in addition to the defence of the realm, because it is part of it)
Hi Ixion,
There is no such thing as “full spectrum” as it is always to be judged proportionate to threats
– in foot ball, ban all the teams from the West of the Atlantic, all the way to the East of Malacca Strait, and we would look full spectrum footballers (no guarantee of winning, still)
Dunservin
Do you believe the current idea of a response task force at a 2 to 1 ratio that works up and deploys in a similar way to the us carrier groups is workable in the long term with the high end ships only used like that. Or do we need to be more fluid and send individual ships on patrol as well.
Ixion where does the us coast guard do mine clearance and do u consider this a front line warfighting role.
Mark
US coast guard has done it and anti submarine in WW2, but I do not believe they do either at the moment. The fact that Simms would, does not elevate it above that sort of vessel.
ACC
If and when I suggest (to refer to the maritime world but keep the football analogy) that there are teams now we cannot beat on their home pitch. And to maintain a squad that looks great on paper but cannot play away effectivly against certain squads; the Square jawed sons of Nelson go ape.
@TD
First, I didn’t want to offend you, please accept my apologies if I did.
To your answer.
Using civilian components is OK, no agument here. Building a completely civilian system which would make up 50% of the surface fleet is totally different, especially if using the single vessel-design most unsuited to military use.
I struggle to get the logic. If we can put MIW-modules on SIMSS, we can pack them onto any other vessel, too. We can pack boats including CB 90 on any other vessel, too. No, not mexeflotes, but we have amphibs for that. From this I deduce, there is no need for SIMSS in this regards.
Anyway, the tasks mentioned requires SIMSS to either carry boats, UAVs or containers. This is widely known as mothership, why then don’t you say it’s a mothership? Instead you define a ‘blank sheet of paper’ against which nobody can be. Is there a problem, anything can be fixed, which is still a strong statement for something absolutely unproven. It may be true, but then it will depend heavily on the effort we put into. The fact that the MoD has not the expertise to manage such an effort is the way into desaster.
One word to the term ‘ecosystem’ here: all over europe, there are around 20 or so yards building war vessels. Worldwide, there are 50+. Any of those yards can design a vessel to requirement. If we want it cheap at any price, we should ask STX (Korea).
Building T26s or T45s is not the way forward, we cannot afford to proceed as we do. But the SIMSS is simply the next Bay-class (which BTW is far better suited as a mothership), to be sacrificed on the altar of hi-end units, if the thing go wrong, which they inevitably will. We need a plan to change the whole process, we need to harden surface ship procurement.
Finally, in short questions regarding disaster relief: Where is the vessel stationed? Where are the ISO-containers (bottling plant etc.)? How do they come together and when? Is SIMSS always carriing them? If yes, isn’t the individual unit a one trick pony? If no, when do you know you need disaster relief equipment? What is the advantge using SIMSS instead of another vessel sitting on it’s arse instead? You would also need other types of boats, where are they? What is the difference to today’s situation? Isn’t the main difference the containers you mention?
@IXION
Like I said, OXFAM-combatant.
It’s all about illusions, isn’t it?
IMO, no amount or type of vessel will stop piracy or drug trafficking. Because the forces behind that make $8-9b profit per annum. Maybe boycot of Dubai and Saudi banks may help, but who will buy our consols then?
To the civilians: I’m tired of bailing out compatriots, making a quick buck abroad and paying no taxes, but expecting full security from the mothercountry.
Same goes for some special FTSE-ranked companies, currently paying triple the bonuses than taxes, but if the sealanes are not held open, they cry like kids.
Ixion
I have to disagree until very long range mcm capability is proven to the same world class capabilty we currently have and we may be able to do that on current vessels it changes the nature and size of the simss and in my view is should be a top design driver of this vessel.
mcz
Yes it is about illusions. In the case of the RN’s view of itself and the world, it’s more about dellusions.
This vessel will no more stop piracy and drug smuggling.
Just as all our warships have never stopped war.
As for the rest I would agree about the international companies I would like to see an RN insurance scheme, – pay the fee we will will protect you and if we fail pay the ransome. Don’t pay the fee and you can F off.
Mark
Fine if we need to keep current vessels then they stay until the capability of the container kit is proved then it stays.
In general there is clealry a view held by some thta the Rn’s job:-
1) Is to fight wars period.
2) To fight peer enemies
3) And to be world class in doing do
4) All the peace and anti piracy and rescue stuff
Is all very nice, but not something the RN should waste its rescources on.
Thats fine but what happens is that we we spend more and more on less and less ships.
When our citizens want rescued from being butchered in some third world toilet.
When the crew of the container ship are lined up on the rail and shot.
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); ready at Portsmouth for the Red Banner Northern Fleet when it sneaks up us; oh and by the world we have a world beating Minewarfare division… ‘
That will be greated by incredulity, and the fast cutting of funding by our political masters.
One analogy that sticks in my mind was British Rail in the 60’s
Faced with the threat from BUS and Truck transport, industry and the expanding motorway network; it defined itself as being in the rail industry not the transport industry. The result was the destruction of rail freight and decades of stagnation.
Define the RN as ‘break glass in the event of fleet to fleet conflict’ that is a way to see the RN’s funding being decemated.
@IXION
The sad thing with illusions is, they are hard to tackle.
For example, I constantly keep saying that the AH-64 in UK service is crap. I’m quite sure, I get 98% of the folks here straight up the wall with that.
The illusion behind having Apache is, that while it’s a fine bird, in UK context it means 4 helos aboard Ocean instead of 10 or 12 AH-1 or Tigers.
All depends on context.
The illusion T26 sells is, that we may get a 300m surface combatant. No reflection whether the hi-end-ASW-frigate has it’s role. The USN says no.
But the worst is the illusion that the MoD has the expertise left to guide a definition process. I think it was Gabriele who stated, that the RN got its requirements right. T26 and T45 as well are signs, they don’t. I bet my mortgage loan that we end up with between 6 and 8 for 500m+ apiece.
Hi McZ,
” I get 98% of the folks here straight up the wall with” re:illusions
“Apache while it’s a fine bird, in UK context it means 4 helos aboard Ocean instead of 10 or 12 AH-1”
– if we could always go back to the decision point, and knew that we would be substituting AH for GR flying off ships, I would take the AH-1s any time
– only that the remanufactured Zulus that finally match Apaches have only just coming off the production line
– “or Tigers” I would take them, too. Just that they didn’t exist at the time (Australia chose it in preference over either of the two).
“All depends context”; and time: you can always choose a paper design, or buy off-the-shelf (in most situations the latter will do fine, and save money – also you can be sure to get it)
” No reflection whether the hi-end-ASW-frigate has it’s role. The USN says no”
– we don’t have any $1.8bn (AB)multi-purpose ships; We do have Astutes for roughly that kind of price per piece ( a must) and then we have Trident and CVF (no comment, so that we don’t go too far off the turf of a ship that is not-quite-a- frigate and whether getting them would be good value or not needed)
@ACC 9:40, thanks for the info on the additional fuel tank in the Floreal design. Very interesting, reminds me of buddy tanker concept on the Bucaneers. Put on all OPVs / light frigates / SIMSS could be very useful with limited tanker availability.
Hi AAC
Indeed, automated systems have revolutionised mine-hunting, but to me – this ship is still one big metal potential target, our current mine-hunters are very expensive but it pays off well. Perhaps certain mine-hunting duties can be taken over, but I’d rather be on a smaller plastic specialist boat that doesnt have all its purpose/quality kit in a couple of containers when clearing a bay/port than the larger TD proposeal.
I’m not Navy minded, but a visit to HMS Banger gave me a whole heap of respect for those guys, I dont think a multi-purpose ship would cut-it (though the space would be welcomed!)…its just like the war-ships the TD ship is to relieve, its too vital/dedicated a role.
Then again, in a cash strapped Navy and MoD, it may be a choice we’ll have to make regardless, would mean learning a different route of going about the mission.
If its delusion of grandeur we want rid off then Id start with the nuclear deterrent that would save a whole lot of cash we even have some left over for a few type 26s.
Ixion
Just because we dont want an off shore oil industry vessel doesnt mean there isnt an option off cheaper ships on the table they arent right for every task and a balance has to be struck its not quite right at the minute. There are other vessels out there already developed with the military in mind we may have to go two classes but theres little point buying vessels that cant do the job just because there cheap.
@Mark: I think that the “delusion of grandeur” is limited to a few people nowdays; probably the upper echelons of the RN and political class, along with a few nationalists. However, as I see it, the real problem is a lack of clear vision or desire to accept that we are still one of the richest countries in the world with one of the largest budgets and world wide commitments and responsibilities.
This does not mean sending the the navy in to give Johnny foreigner a good kicking. What it does mean, is defending our overseas territories in a world of dwindling resources and to help other friendly nations protect theirs and their way of life. To me this requires a three tier navy: a high end core of ‘world beaters’, a medium tier that can act as a deterrent against most (non tier 1 / 2) aggressors and a low end for EEZ policing / disaster relief / anti drugs and piracy etc.
A SIMSS type vessel falls into either (or both) of the last two scenarios. I think this is the root of the disagreement here. I see the RFA as delivering the low end bit (most of it’s vessels can already do this) and the need for a new “warlike” class for the middle bit.
BTW: Off topic, but I would not replace the current nuclear deterrent like for like either. I would go for more SSNs which could fire nuclear tipped missiles. Let’s face it, you need the nuclear badge to get to the top table, but if the balloon went up we are all screwed and having Trident will not change that.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Tubby
In other words the alternative to the expensive t26 would be- a diesel powered t26 with most of the trimmings?
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).
@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…
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.
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)
@ 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?
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.
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.
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
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, makes sense.
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.
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
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
Some interesting discussion about magic robots for MCM.
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?
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?
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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
@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… :)
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”
“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
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?
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
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?
and the rest of the river class?
i suppose i see these things as a shor-in for the MHCP program rather than SIMIS.
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.
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.
@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…
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.
“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
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.
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
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
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 :)
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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)
I am waiting for the thread about the stealth-air-superiority-strategic-transporter.
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
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)
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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 @ 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.
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?)
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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”).
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
MPs are neither leaders nor followers, thyey are REPRESENTATIVES.
We are, after all, a representative democracy.
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
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]
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 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.
Ixion
True, but Irrelevent.
MPs are elected representatives, not elected leaders.
That they are primarily money grabbing scum isnt relly relevent to that point.
DJ
Ok I’ll buy that.
@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.
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”.
@ 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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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?
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.
Mark
Subject to some givens re fitting containerised weapons; and cost above all else. It seems a viable option.
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?
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 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).
ACC @ 10.08
As always I am struggling with the flow and content of your comment.
One thing I seem to have found is the fact that your day job is flogging guns, possibly 5″ naval guns.
Have I got this bit right?
155mm is the future for NGS.
The OM 3″ no matter how fast would just annoy them.
155mm provides S-S capability out to 50km.
Cheap and very effective.
Put 2 on a Colonial Sloop and you have got a real warfighter.
I have no issues with using 2nd hand Army stuff if it is cheap enough.
The days of good chap / ex Navy / middle class welfare are now gone.
Questions have to be asked, budgets set –
What sensor suite would £5mill buy?
What fighting / self defence capability would £10mill buy?
What area AAW capability would £25mill buy?
No more cost plus blank cheques.
If you can’t export it then don’t force it on the locals using emotional blackmail.
Jed @ 10.13
You are the one in the middle trying to keep the debate on the straight and narrow.
IXION
All the more reason to give credence to his work.
Still the best works on the subject IMHO.
Tubby
Re your last post, and not having enough escorts.
Thus begins wisdom on the subject of the damage that will be done by Nellie and Dumbo to ANY other function the RN has, other than looking after the occupants of the elephant house.
We will need other ships to do other stuff.
X
Sorry if I did not make it clear I hold it and him in high regard. Clay Blairs 2 volumne book is simply THE most schollerly and detailed ever likely to be written on the subject. (It is a bit boring in places and in the 2nd volumne starts to become a list of each Uboats actions and it’s destruction).
However every history book ever written tells you something about the author as well as the subject everybody has an agenda….
Hi FBOT,
I applaud you for trying (as the only one) to work the target price for a given functionality bottom-up (using WBS, as we in project management call it).
Your error margin is huge because you only seem to know about the cost of worked steel and installed power.
I try and try to give you examples on the cost of other components (not imaginary, or shall I say ambitious as for the modification/ development needed, but real ones. Real means observable in the real world, ie. documented somewhere, when not kept secret).
As I have said on so many occasions, you need to add 50-100% on top of your estimate (100% is only a 50% error margin!), but this time you got it 100% wrong:
“One thing I seem to have found is the fact that your day job is flogging guns, possibly 5″ naval guns.- Have I got this bit right?”
Anyway, I will try to give you more examples ( I am not a naval engineer, so I can’t easily extrapolate the costs for the other parts, whereas weapon systems are easier as they tend to be countable, and knowing the unit price gives the answer pretty accurately).
P.S. On all mortar sales achieved through this site, Jed and I split the commission 50/50
– an old joke, perhaps you were not reading the blog yet at that time
Interesting one in the mix, the “Future Ships” section of the RN site has been updated to include the T26. It states:
“Due to arrive from 2021 onwards, the Type 26 Frigate will be the workhorse of the future Royal Navy. The ships are intended to replace not just existing Type 23 Frigates but also minehunters and survey ships…”
Wow, either a mistake (possibly), someone desperately try to sell the T26’s flexibility (likely) or a complete policy shift by the RN spelling the end of the MHPC concept. If it’s the latter they better be building more than 13!
Interesting one in the mix, the “Future Ships” section of the RN site has been updated to include the T26. It states:
“Due to arrive from 2021 onwards, the Type 26 Frigate will be the workhorse of the future Royal Navy. The ships are intended to replace not just existing Type 23 Frigates but also minehunters and survey ships…”
Wow, either a mistake (possibly), someone desperately try to sell the T26’s flexibility (likely) or a complete policy shift by the RN spelling the end of the MHPC concept. If it’s the latter they better be building more than 13!
Hi Ixion,
RE: “Thus begins wisdom on the subject of the damage that will be done by Nellie and Dumbo to ANY other function the RN has, other than looking after the occupants of the elephant house.”
Which nicely brings us back to a previous discussion we have had in another thread of how the RN is increasingly building its requirements around CVF and supporting them.
Hi Repulse,
Sounds like they are going mission deck crazy with the T26 as the section you pointed to us also says “The vessels will be among the most versatile ever to sail under the White Ensign, serving as submarine-hunters, general duty warships, survey ships and mother ships for tomorrow’s mine warfare force” – sounds like the will go for containerised mine hunting system, but is really possible to containerise the sonar system for carrying sonar’s and if not, would it not take up a lot of space on the ship to fit the equipment to carry out a survey in addition to its normal equipment to take up the role of GP frigate?
Mark
“DomJ @3.10 are you suggesting using a cb90 in the open ocean 100m from its base ship.”
Yes.
Not necessarily a CB90, I just used that as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaldag_class_fast_patrol_boat
Would be equaly capable no doubt.
Christ, Princess Yachts make an 85ft yacht that can hit 40knts and is designed for transatlantic crossings.
Probably £5mn new.
With marble workstops….
ACC @ 11.49
It just gets worse and worse.
You are into project management.
That is you hold the jackets and then announce the winner.
Defence inflation does not exist.
It is a scam to keep the profits flowing at a time of falling orders.
Wikipedia is our friend.
Look at the GK CIWS gun, look at the current price and compare that with the figures in the notes and references over the past 15 years.
The rate of inflation beggars belief, Russian economics to the fore.
The fewer they sell the more they charge, in no other field would this be accepted.
On the specifics, the technology is mature, the electronics are going COTS so the cost should be coming down.
Anything else is organised theft from the working class.
No wonder the Koreans took out a license agreement.
Repulse / Tubby
If those statements are correct then it would seem to suggest that the MHPC budget of £1.4bill has been handed over to the T26 project.
Just when you think that the RN / MOD procurement management process could not get any worse they come up with another beauty.
The RN in 2050 will consist of a rowing boat with a rifle, a frequent flyer pass for Easy-Air and a picture of a Trident missile.
If this is true then the RN really have upset the Gods.
When I mentioned placing the modular payload on a Catamaran (like Trimarans too!) I was thinking of the Flower class sloops from WW1 ; built in commercial yards to provide the Battle fleet with minesweepers. As the war progressed and the fleet stayed in port, they were transfered to convoy duties. I was thinking of a modern version which could carry MCM equipment and have the speed to keep up with the fleet – Horses for courses.
Another option is a purpose built mothership which carries daughter craft for specific missions, like MSO or ASW. A interesting concept is this one:
http://www.nps.edu/academics/gseas/tsse/subPages/2006Project_2.html
FBOT
It wont be a rowing boat it will be
CVF
2 t45
4 t26
2 minesweepers
All tied up in port but ‘world class’
we will have 200 sailors and 400 admirals.
Repulse
A little bird (whose relaibilty is suspect) tells me 12-14 t26, most likely.
FBOT
Next you’ll be telling us gold inflation doesnt exist….
Tubby / FBOT / Ixion,
I wondering if the RN will phase out the Sandown class first with the arrival of the T26, but keep the Hunts whilst they are proving the technology. There have been recent articles on the MHPC, so I cannot believe it would be killed so quickly (though its possible!).
Hoping for the best, perhaps we are looking at 6 T45s, 12-14 T26s and 10-12 MHPCs. This would replace the T23s, echos, Sandowns, hunts and Rivers: 40 to a max of 32 :(.
Oh,
“Anything else is organised theft from the working class.” How does that hold together with:
“No wonder the Koreans took out a license agreement”
– they were having proper warships built (surprise:in Korea) and wanted a modern, not ancient gun on them. USN was rejecting the modern one on some technical detail. So would the Koreans sit around and watch this choreography…No – they went ahead; then the Danes and other folks who still have their heads properly attached to the rest (so thinking is followed by action) followed suit
End result: 2 naval gun standards in the West going 10-20 years forward; two in the “East” as the Russians and the Chinese have diverged from their earlier, common view/ design
– 1 x 100; 2 x 127; 1 x 130
– which were/ are your thirteen 155’s?
ACC @ 3.50
Your first name must be Tim.
The Koreans took a licence for GK because they could build it cheaper than they could buy from the Dutch.
That is how bad the pricing had got for the gun.
The cost had gone so high that it was worthwhile to buy a licence and start afresh with the local Korean supply base.
Something wrong somewhere in all this.
The contribution / component cost of the GK 30mm CIWS has not gone up significantly in the past 10-15 years.
In normal markets things go down in cost over time as people find cheaper ways to do the same job. Military stuff unfortunately is a law unto itself.
The basic question is why do design / R + D?
Do the same for less money or
Do more with the same amount of money.
That is now the question haunting the T26 programme.
Why are we building new when the upgraded T23 will carry a similar warload?
Regarding the number of 155 mm systems floating about, have a look on the web, everybody is having a go at them.
As a supporter of the Endurance class it will come as no surprise to find I like the ST design.
5″ Naval guns are niche, limited and increasingly dependent on expensive fireworks – part shell, part missile – to do any real damage.
6″ Land stuff is a more mature technology with higher volumes and a larger user base.
The 5″ gun already relies on the industrial infrastructure of the 6″ suppliers so it will always be a follower and not a leader.
As for your business techno-babble I am more interested in zero based estimates, contribution costs and open book pricing.
If the military industrial complex built cars we would still be running around in Morris Oxfords and Cortinas with the numbers falling year on year.
MOD / RN procurement –
Organised theft from the working class?
Make work scheme foe nice chaps with good manners?
Corporate welfare for BWoS?
Take your pick.
The main point is that the needs of the grunt in the firing line are a long way down the list of priorities.
@ IXION
Well that is the “danger” of secondary sources.
Unless you live next door to say IWM accessing primary sources can be difficult. I do have a copy of “What Britain knew and wanted to know about U-boats” edited by Showell which is very illuminating.
Hi FBOT,
This says it all:
“As for …techno-babble I am …interested in zero based estimates, contribution costs and open book pricing.”
You are just recycling phrases, and you have no facts.
As I have given, for you to use, so many component costs, it is not good form to answer a direct question with a “go and have a google”.
What, exactly, is that only concrete thing, the 30mm CIWS, that you hang your argument on?
The component/labour cost of anything has not increased over the past 10-15 years? Compound interest at 3% would indicate that it should have increased by 34-55%, if nothing else occurred.
South Korea has lower manufacturing costs (lower wages) and want to take a leap ahead in gun manufacture by licensing technology that would otherwise have cost a great deal of R&D.
An earlier comment about the Russian model of economics is probably more accurate than it was intended to be. A single customer with unrealistic demands
ACC @ 6.45
The current Wiki page for the GK CIWS gun does not offer much in the way of cost information.
However if you look up the aticle’s history you will see that in the last 4-6 months there was cost info in the article.
One source suggested Eur 16mill, another had the system cost as Eur 25mill. I have no info in the time difference in these two costs but 50% would suggest a large timeframe or military inflation has struck again.
From memory there was a link / reference that suggested an even lower price. However my main point stands, in the real world things go down in cost overtime in real terms as experience generates efficiency.
For a real world example about efficiency look at the cost of carscover thevpast 15 years. Real world costs have come down as technology and ability have improved.
Well by that rate of going FBOT if I buy a house next week it will be cheaper than it was 15years ago. Or maybe not.
In terms of high end engineering almost ever upfront cost has increased a lot over then last 5-10 years your example of the car is false one in this regard as they have the ability to have 10s of thousands of car in a production run. A better example in the car industry would be could I buy an aston martin for less this year than I could 15 years ago.
Also you cant stand still a potential enemy has also improved his capabilities and your replacements are more advanced to maintain your dominance. This is a far more complicated issue than you suggest.
Mark @ 9.54
Where is all this high tech stuff you talk about?
The only global constant in the arms industry is the size and quality of the contractors expense account.
Hi FBOT,
You may want to look at p. 17 of the Defence Industrial Strategy document (a pity I can’t put the graph here):
Recent analysis has shown that there is a
correlation between the quality of military equipment and the investment by governments in Defence R&D.
Indeed, the only strong factor affecting equipment quality is absolute R&D spend (not a fraction of defence budget,overall defence budget nor number of equipments bought). The graph at Figure 1
[PLS LOOK IT UP] was published in the DIS,
showing that we now have the ability to predict the future equipment quality that UK might face in combat, as a function of time and national investment level.
Figure 1 – Relative Years Advantage in Equipment
Quality as a Function of R&D Spend per Year
Figure 1 shows, for example, that UK military
equipment in 2001 taken as a whole, was on average
12 years more advanced than that of China’s in the
same year. The estimated position for the UK in 2020 is
based on assuming R&D levels are broadly maintained,whilst that for China assumes a continuation of its growth in R&D investment.
Fbot
Well most off its in sensor, communication fusion combat management system reliability and engine improvements signature reduction ECM and counter measure capability most of it not discussed in public. That’s all pretty high tech stuff
This argument “In normal markets things go down in cost over time as people find cheaper ways to do the same job. Military stuff unfortunately is a law unto itself” can be valid if you only want to look at narrow categories
– the cost of Strykers per unit halved when the production moved from the early LRIP to thousands
Had an interesting chat with a chap yesterday; he works for a company that operates 32 x-bows and derivatives, 25 helicopters etc. The ecosystem argument (TD put it forth) shows in that when they ordered their first x-bows they were $200m each. Now that they can be made anywhere, the order for the last four was at $50m a piece (the comparison is perhaps not strictly like with like as I didn’t proceed to the 3rd degree, but proves the broad argument).
ACC @ 7.56
Military inflation comes in three forms –
1) US – Beyond reason unless someone is put in jail.
2) Rest of NATO – Profits push to keep the shareholders happy.
3) RoW – Capability inflation as the developing world want their shiny new toys.
Finally another price point for the Korean GK saga –
2003 – Dokdo class LPH – Kor 13bill Won per unit – FBU imported.
$15mill approx at the then current exchange rate.
No idea of the true € cost although from memory the € was high at the time vs the $.
Hi FBOT,
*You may* put it like that
“1) US – Beyond reason unless someone is put in jail.
2) Rest of NATO – Profits push to keep the shareholders happy.
3) RoW – Capability inflation as the developing world want their shiny new toys” but from the DIS graph (that I referred to) you can read that regarding your point 3, “capability inflation” will have pushed the average Chinese capability (this is without quantity being taken into account!)to the UK level by 2020 – a magical year in the UK defence discussions.
I give you some numbers about GNP (USD: not Mega, but Giga as in unit of account)
– USA 14582 G
– Euro area 12175 G; EU27 16251 G
– BRICS 11539 G
When you factor in indebtness levels and the need to restrain/ freeze public expenditure in the USA and EU, you get quite a frightening outlook for the shift in global military balance.
The reason I often reference Russian weapon systems and their capabilities is the fact that they produce them more for exports than for themselves (and thereby, we get informed benchmarks for the VFM of our own).
– just to illustrate my points: The latest compilation of world’s airforces puts the number of top line Suhoi planes in India and Russia at the same level. China (in 2010)had 100 more ‘illegal’ copies of the same over the number that either India or Russia hold.
ACC
‘When you factor in indebtness levels and the need to restrain/ freeze public expenditure in the USA and EU, you get quite a frightening outlook for the shift in global military balance’.
Exactly the situation I have been banging on about for ages. The way things are going economic reality means in about 30- 40 years the east will be sending fleets to slap whitey not the other way round.
Hi Ixion,
I am afraid ( I mean that literally) that they will be busy closer to “home” than ‘the east will be sending fleets to slap whitey not the other way round’.
ACC @ 10.00
I would mug up on the geopolitics angle if I were you, missing a couple of dimensions from my view point.
East Asia will re-arm for East Asian reasons not global dominance.
Ferrets in a sack would be a better description.
Hi FBOT, in that tone:
Now, repeat after me ” that they will be busy closer to “home” than…your global dominance”
And how in that context do we explain china or chinese proxy companies buying company’s all over the world or chinas dominance in Africa or indeed south America if you think china isn’t interested in global power projection think again
@ AAC – “Recent analysis has shown that there is a
correlation between the quality of military equipment and the investment by governments in Defence R&D.”
looking at this doc:
http://www.mod.uk/nr/rdonlyres/f530ed6c-f80c-4f24-8438-0b587cc4bf4d/0/def_industrial_strategy_wp_cm6697.pdf
can’t see any graphs on or around page 17………?
help! :)
ACC @ 12.28
Eight minutes makes a huge difference when it comes to posting on here.
Did you have a change of heart between 10 and 12?
If your friends and not so friends bulk up at the same rate, the global balance does not change between good and bad more a case that the odds on the position of the next flashpoint become that bit more defined.
The world is not divided militarily into East and West.
More a case of the old stager and friends vs the new kids on the block.
Libya 2011 probably saw the end of the uni-polar world.
The US saw a fight affecting it’s interests and walked on by.
This attitude is in their best interest and it will probably pro-long their tenure as the head honcho / primary state but it does make things more interesting for the rest of us.
FBOT
How does Libya affect US interests?
Gadafi was coming around, but he wasnt friends, and the US had nothing to gain.
When China invades Vietnam, its going to be, well, Vietnam all over again, or Yemen/Afghanistan if they suit you better, or even the French go in Vietnam.
A major power bogged down in a vicious guerilla war with the guerillas armed and supported by another power.
The US might have little love for Vietnam, but it will greatly enjoy a chance to help someone kick three shades of china
Hi Jedi,
All graphics in the document (that includes title pages!?) are copy protected, so I’ll retype it below. These folks will surely either send it or provide a URL:
http://www.science.mod.uk
Email:science@mod.uk
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
For the demands of the 21st century
There are also some very illustrative technology trees shown for the components of the weapon systems that we discuss here – except that we always go by the name of the Prime Contractor.
– so an other peep into the ecosystem (argument)
Hi FBOT,
I didn’t understand most of what you said, but if this
“This attitude is in their best interest and it will probably pro-long their tenure as the head honcho / primary state but it does make things more interesting for the rest of us”
is your punch line, then we very much agree.
Hi Mark,
I’ve been over the economics of China as the world’s work house many times, so I’ll just summarize:
Americans concluded that China will rise anyway. So, best to integrate them into the world economy, and that will lessen the chances of an outright WW3 (head-on confrontation of hegemonic empires).
The rest of the world gave America a carte blance to conduct the negotiations on the part of just about everyone else (at least those in the OECD). Only took ten years (that guy Zoellick holds the post that H. Clinton was rumoured to be after, clearly as a “reward” for job well done) to admit them into WTO and China hasn’t been slipping on *all* obligations that were extracted for her to take on as a condition of being let in.
Lots of raw materials in, lots of labour applied with so far relatively low value-add, lots of manufactures exported (at low prices, but only if raw materials prices stay in check as the production is both raw material and energy wasteful).
End result: They need secure SLOCs (and some degree of presence) as much as we do.
Implication: UK should be maritime oriented in its defence policy and posture (to back up the policy)
Danger: India is so paranoid of Chinese encirclement of it that there is a lot of potential for conflict (for no real reason; China’s presence in the *Indian* Ocean is totally legitimate). I won’t even go into the race for S. *China* Sea resources; all the neighbouring states are looking to the US for comfort, even Vietnam. Vietnam is also cosying up to India, militarily, because they think Americans might pull back at a crucial moment and “drop” them into it
I would agree with that acc. However china is coming to the high tech manufacturing game very quick
Hi Mark,
Indeed they are. Hopefully Jedi can get a non-copy protected document where that has been projected (as quality of kit, transforming into capabilities. For these ‘outputs’ the delay from inputs is 5-20 years).
I have made the point myself (with sources) on this blog that one should not look at just the military on-going budgets and procurement as part of it, but include industry R&D and Universities’ such like numbers into the picture
– I think I even pasted in the 20 research and industry segments that are being prioritised for resources over everything else, the criterion being the enabling effect on defence kit
– Just to note: (On this basis Soviet Union was spending well over 20% of GDP and Reagan, a great president, said “step on the gas, boys, and let’s see if they’ve got anything left in the tank).
– the point I was making on this blog was actually about China, and the present day, but historical parallels are always a great help
A recent quote from an analysis in the US (re: whether the system is working, meaning that reasonable inputs would turn out the expected results)
”
Insofar as
government decision makers have thought
about the need
for an overarching
strategy at all,
the predominant
inclination has been
to hope that Adam
Smith’s invisible hand
would somehow
preserve whatever
industrial segments
or capabilities the
[military] Services
might one day need”
On an off Topic point about that..
Anyone seen T gruniad today.
Seems Labours new defence policy is… Wait for it wait for it…..
To buy British at all times! And even if it is foriegn to build it under licence in UK.
Seems that they are sorry for all the other acquisiton F*ckups but this new policy will sort it all out….
Wonder what BAE had to pay for that policy?
Oh it gets worse
Apparantly Labours ex navy stooge’s considered opinion about strategic shrinkage, re adjusting to future economic realities, considering alternative equipment and force structurees etc is…. Drum Role…
‘We’re not bloody Denmark’
Nope They’re politer than that for starters.
But, but… we have a World Champion, why complain (except that others might get the same idea?)
– turnover a bit old; note on the percentage figure at the end
BAe systems UK
$34.086 Bn 95%
Lockheed Martin US
$42.731 Bn 70%
Boeing US
$60.909 Bn 48%
Northrop Grumman US
$33.877 Bn 77%
General Dynamics US
$29,300 Bn 78%
Raytheon US
$23.174 Bn 91%
EADS West Eur.
$63.346 Bn 28%
Finmeccanica Italy
$25.037 Bn 53%
L-3 communications US
$14.901 Bn 82%
Thales France
$18.543 Bn 58%
Notably, you don’t get to play in this league without a high degree of specialization (only the top2 airliner manufacturers have a lower than 50% share of revenues from just defence).
Poland is trying to get to the top20, and what they think they’ll need to do is to merge about 20 (!) companies – and the best ones have already been snatched by outsiders, like BAE, even if not perhaps through a majority ownership share.
If you wonder about the order, it is by the total turnover times military sales share (%), just left the third number out as tables don’t work here
@ Mark and AAC – “Indeed they are. Hopefully Jedi can get a non-copy protected document where that has been projected (as quality of kit, transforming into capabilities. For these ‘outputs’ the delay from inputs is 5-20 years).”
I have lots of documents that dance around the subject, like rates of technology dependent growth, share of IP and creative industries, but nothing specific to that point.
the three projections listed here might help:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/britain-in-the-world-%e2%80%93-a-long-slide-into-oblivion/
Or perhaps some of the links from here:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/britain-in-the-world-just-another-medium-sized-country/
ACC x 3
We do not have a national champion we have a national cuckoo that wants fed.
Home build is not an issue
Home pouring money down a drain with little to show for it is.
Our back catalogue of military tech is shameful all the way back to 1955 when the WW2 legacy started to diminish.
If others won’t buy in then neither should the MOD.
BWoS needs tough love not a feather bed.
Finally do you get paid for your geo-political analysis?
The USSR got lucky with oil and spent the windfall on new areas of arms investment.
Oil price goes down and it has one large hangover on it’s hands.
As for RR, he is one of the troika that have destroyed the power and prestige of the USA.
RR and G”W”B = Deficit financing, left the US with nothing to sell but it’s debt.
Walmart = Led the race to the bottom, sold Chinese tripe to the US and boasted about it.
Big number, 30% I think, of the US trade deficit is down to one company – shocking!
China was always going to overtake the US.
China has been the largest economy on Earth for 4K out of the past 5K years so it was a given.
The managed to outlast the Mongols so a bunch of trigger happy cowboys was going to be easy.
However the troika mentioned above halved the time the US was / is going to be top dog.
Some legacy from the right wing mentalist, dog boiling wing of the GOP.
Hi FBOT,
This is turning into entertainment (I’m not here to argue, but to discuss, anyway:)
“China was always going to overtake the US.
China has been the largest economy on Earth for 4K out of the past 5K years so it was a given.
The managed to outlast the Mongols so a bunch of trigger happy cowboys was going to be easy.”
– I can now see the big “lines” through history
You got one thing spot on again:
“Oil price goes down and it[Russia] has one large hangover on it’s hands”
– it looked like Russia was going bust and there would be no Winter Olympics (as they had no money to build on the virgin site)
– never fear! Oil price is up again, they have ordered the 4 amphibs and 52 attack helos for them, just like that[small change]. More seriously, on this point, I did contribute on a different thread about how their structure (design bureaus and producing companies separated) has made it possible to survive a complete defence spending drought from early ’90s for well over a decade… 1998 was somewhere there, on the way, if that tells you anything about Russia and its fluctuating state
… looks like we are getting quite removed from that ship (the header for this thread)?
Dom J @ 2.12
US interests in Libya –
Oil
Israel
Arab man in the street.
@ACC, Jedi and others
Is this the missing link to graphics on page 17?
Its in the MOD’s Defense Technology Strategy document 2006
http://www.science.mod.uk/modwww/content/dts_complete.pdf
Regards (if it works)
Thanks Ant, that’s the one (for p. 17) and the link works
Cheers Ant, so if I read the graph right we will have a six month technological lead over china by 2020!
Infra Structure Investment – Good for the Economy – Good for Defence?
Given that the economy is stalling, why not push for some construction of ships, to increase steel production and other areas of manufacture. Surely the MARS programme would be an obvious candidate 6 Tankers, no complicated weapons systems. Would boost several local economies.
This could come out of reserves and not the defence budget! Even bring type 26 forward?? or 2 more type 45s, or an additional Astute. Why cant MPs be lobbyed after all it’s party conference season
Hi Jedi,
The six months is quickly eaten up by the delay in fielding anything
– any form of FRES from 2012 by about ten years
– making Eurofighter (and the pilots for them) equipped and trained for multi-role etc etc
It’s a pity the quoted study is from a (2001) cross-section and the only example for using the conclusions is the China one. An update for the UK, anybody?
@Jed
Your 201439 Sep account of shepherding merships during the Iran/Iraq Tanker War certainly struck a chord. I might have overestimated the speed of the heavies but my point about the frustration of having only a five knot speed advantage remains valid.
I was in the Gulf for eight months in 1987/88 as the very junior CO of one of Her Majesty’s finest. It was an exciting period, particularly during Operation PRAYING MANTIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis). Soon afterwards, I had a particularly memorable confrontation with an Iranian SAAM. He approached me from my starboard quarter with his after mounting trained at red 30, i.e. directly at me. When I requested his intentions and told him to desist, he replied that the turret had been jammed on that bearing for the previous two months! It occurred to me at the time that, if he had survived the Ayatollah’s purges, I might well have been at BRNC with him.
I was back in the Gulf in 1991 and was seariding in GLOUCESTER when she splashed the Iraqi Silkworm. Many lessons came in handy some ten years later when I was at MWC involved in preps for TELIC and HERRICK including making cases for UORs and defining mission data capture requirements.
As FBOT doubts my ability to cope with the TV remote (I wonder if he realises that he can see the IR transmission using a CCD-fitted device?), I will leave him and his ilk to pursue their wonderfully unworldly and frequently bizarre theorising based on superficial information from IDR and similar glossies. The issues are obviously way too complicated for my simple mind to fathom and my first-hand experience would only muddy the waters ;-)
ACC
Regarding China, its not quite that simple.
China “en masse” has always been big, so has India, but the people have never been rich.
The nations are simply very big, with a few very very very rich people, and 99.9999% of the population in grinding poverty.
If South America and Africa were to merge, they’d be the worlds second largest economy, but few would consider them “rich” or “powerful”
China is much the same.
Its big, not rich.
It might be different this time, but, things rarely are.
Russia is much the same, it has periodic bouts of great economic strength, but they never last, they’re always squandered, and Russia returns to barely functionalism.
The nation STILL hasnt mechanised its farming and has vast areas untilled, and people claim its a future super power?
It has to be said, over and over and over again, an iPod, sold in the US for $300, says its “made in China”, but of that $300, only $4 are a profit for China. China Buys $136 of companants from Japan/Taiwan/Korea and a license to produce an iPod from Apple for $80, assembles the compants into an iPod and sells it to a US distributer for $220. $220 selling price minus 136+80 ($216) of costs = $4 profit.
For every iPod sold in the UK, apple, and so the US, makes a $80 profit, compared to Chinas $4.
dunservin
Don’t take it all like that…
Of course as a former serving memember of HM Armed foces you are ahead of the game in terms of knowledge and experience to fat knackers like me.
And to a degree I bow to experience in these matters, and always respect those who in the service of our country have been shot at by people what mean it.
However I have spent (wife says misspent), almost a lifetime burried in the study of millitary history and technology, and it’s effect on tactics and the results of combat. (Posh way of saying who won and why).
One of the threads that runs through millitary history is that of experienced serving men (and now women), missing the turn of technology and the tides of fortune.
eg in the navel sphere alone.
1)Use of navelised cannon by english navy
2)Sail and steam.
3)submarine
4)And the well rehearsed Battleship V Carrier.
(There are others)
In each case you would find hardworking patriotic intelligent men who where viehmently opposed to ‘the new thing’ on good grounds.
In each case (with poss exception of the English cannon thing); it took outsiders or unfortunate events to push the new reality onto the proffesionals.
Lewis page (yea ok, I know, I know), does make the point that if you look through the world through frigate shaped lenses, everything you see becomes frigate shaped.
Simms is an example of looking to gain x capabilities for Y money. Certain types(and you can include or exclude yourself from this) immediatly leap in with
‘what sort of frigate is that then?’
Assumptions.
Us fat knackers reserve the right to ask: –
‘It’s our country too, we are paying for it, justify spending Y cash X3 on frigate.
When all we realy have is Y Cash.
when it looks to us like we can buy X capability for Y cash if it does not go on some shiney pointy things we can have more of it.’
Sometime the emperor is impressivly garmented, sometimes he is stark bollock naked.
Dunservin – wierd world eh, possibly facing up against someone you through Dartmouth with !
Don’t forget our civvy pundits have never spent hours reading the erm “classified” materials in the Ops Room “fridge” nor have our experiences – although it sounds like you spent more than my 10 years and at considerably higher rank ! But then I did do 6 years in DPM too…. :-)
So, we may have met, as I was there in 87 / 88 sweeping and hunting, were you tupperware navy or one of our protectors ?
Dunservin @ 2.09
Thanks for confirming the most basic fact of bus design.
Want a better bus?
Then don’t ask the driver to do the work.
Your post is a classic case of not seeing the wood for trees.
@DomJ
“For every iPod sold in the UK, apple, and so the US, makes a $80 profit, compared to Chinas $4.”
At least the US as a nation would make profit from it, if Apple would pay taxes. As it is, the US gets roughly $0.10 and China $0.50 !
@rec
“Infra Structure Investment”
Thats demand-driven growth, and this is considered unsustainable by the monetarist economist, if it creates surplus supply.
We should invest in universities, schools, and indeed our children. And we should cap the economics grades, as all they produce are future investment-banking-morons. Instead, we need engineers and computer scientists, as we need them to establish small companies, which are the medium companies of tomorrow.
And – maybe it’s unpopular – but we should force any of those Tottenham-rioters into a handcraft-apprenticeship, to get them into those jobs which are abundant, yet unsexy.
All this costs a tenth of the current subsidizing of a fifth of the populace. Budget fixed.
If you want to fix the budget, then dramatically cut the number of public sector workers and start heavily taxing luxuries;
– Air travel
– Champagne,
– Cars with engines over 2.0 litres,
– Spirits,
– Cigarettes (even though I smoke),
– Beer,
– Chocolate,
– Chewing Gum,
And so on.
Raise Corporation Tax to 30% (which about the international average).
Stop letting businesses and self employed individuals claim things like depreciation against their taxes.
Start properly taxing expensive properties and land.
Create a single, unified income tax (not seperate income and national insurance).
Remove employers national insurance contributions (effectively a tax on businesses employing people).
That’ll help anyway.
@ TD – Have you seen this? You may have started something…
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1855
Thanks Gareth, interesting stuff, no doubt they will do a better job :)
I always find the ShipBucket designs interesting.
But there are some utter a** holes amongst the membership. I wonder how many potential members they drive off?
X @ 5.38
To use an auto phrase, I would class the people on ShipBucket as “Felt Tip Fairies.
They are stylists not designers.
They are also far too literal in their ideas, not too clever at producing new ideas.
However they do a lot of good work and as outlet for our spotty youth to do something useful it has to be commended.
x is right; there are horrific disciplinerians on the site to ensure that the minutest detail is right.From the perspective of building a “record” of naval history that is, of course, right.
Hence ” far too literal in their ideas, not too clever at producing new ideas”
– the poor guy who put Dutch LCs on TD’s SIMMS Mk2 Improved sure got his wrists slapped
Via the Coast Guard Blog an excellent presentation from STX Canada / STX U.S. on cost profiles for OPV’s:
Summary:
1. Speed has the biggest effect on cost
2. Electronic / combat systems, weapons have the next biggest effect
3. Lengthening (i.e. bigger hull) has little effect on cost
4. Broadening – that is increasing the beam, has an effect on speed, and thus possibly on cost
http://www.offshorepatrolvessels.com/uploadedFiles/EventRedesign/UK/2011/September/11313005/Assets/IGC_11313.005%20-%20OC47%20-%20STX-M%20Presentation%20at%20OPV%20Singapore%20-%20april%202011.pdf
Thanks Jed, I read that as well, very interesting stuff
@ Jed – A very interesting presentation. Thanks for sharing it.
Jed – Good presentation. Cheers for the share.