Concept Study: a European Corvette Recipe

[kato]

Many European nations are currently in the process of planning out their future replacement of MCM ships, FACs, and/or corvettes and light OPVs.

Nations that have such projects under consideration are almost all nations of the WEU for a "future mine countermeasures concept"; other examples would be Germany for K131, the UK with C3, Italy with its Minervas. Envisioned IOC dates for such projects mostly range around 2020, notably none of these nations as of yet have a design in mind for this. Denmark's Flyvefisken, for example, might also be up around the same time.

With regard to mine countermeasures, most nations involved here do envision a somewhat larger, ocean-capable combatant as a better solution, often coupled with extensive use of drone technology; this replacement project actually is considered a priority item by the EDA.

I'd like this thread to be about what kind of ship could bring the above replacement projects under one common successor - a smaller LCS-like concept, or a broadening of C3, if you want to call it that.

Treat it as a C3 discussion if you want, but keep it a bit more general.

Conceptual type replacement:
- usage as C3, and requisite replacement of austere hulls
- replacement of Tripartite, Einheitshülle Minenabwehr and Lerici I/II
- replacement of Gepard FAC and Minerva corvettes

Conceptual numbers replacement:
- minimum equal tonnage for overall project (current for above: about 67,000 tons)
- minimum half the number of hulls (current for above: about 90 hulls)

(an example would be 48 ships of full load displacement of minimum 1,400 tons, or about 75 1,000-ton ships - like that)

Conceptual role requirements:
- limited blue-sea capability; minimum 14 days endurance; capability to receive RAS
- modular or fixed mine countermeasures systems (austere drone control systems, observation drones, destruction drones, requisite deployment equipment)
- modular or fixed combat systems (sensors/effectors) with a primary ASuW and MIO role
- potential usage in a few other roles (such as ASW picket)
- helicopter deck for medium helo; with or without hangar and further support facilities
- reasonable pricing (gross region for overall project: 5-7 billion Euro)
- low operating costs (affecting crew size and propulsion primarily, obviously)

Anyone game? :unknown

 

[Todjaeger]

Anyone game? :unknown

I am game. I will be at work in a few hours, so I will need to postpone putting up anything until then. Need time to collect my thoughts and put something together.

-Cheers

 

[Jon K]

I'd like this thread to be about what kind of ship could bring the above replacement projects under one common successor - a smaller LCS-like concept, or a broadening of C3, if you want to call it that.

Treat it as a C3 discussion if you want, but keep it a bit more general.

What's the idea of having corvettes? For what missions would they be critical?

Personally I'd scrap the idea of a corvette and build ships which would be something akin to Danish Absalom or Singapore's Endurance class. They would offer enough room for various small patrol craft / AUV's, USV's, UAV's / humanitarian missions etc. needed for most missions. They would also offer room for possible upgrading in case of increased budgets. Only thing I would change would be to change the basic layout to San Giorgio style to offer even more deck room. European Local MCM requirements can be mostly handled by operating minesweeping equipment from shore.

As for overall project cost, 7 billion euros for ca. 75x 1000 tonners is far too low. Finnish Navy's recent single-role MCMV purchase cost about 80 millions apiece. (IMHO, one of the worst purchasing decisions ever at time when organic MCM capability development is at full swing and transition time solutions could have been bought fairly cheaply)

As for additional requirements we should take a look at air defense and land attack requirements. I would guess the AD armament would be perhaps MICA naval with some sort of close defense system as backup (RAM, CIWS gun system etc.) As a gun is useful for littoral scenarios perhaps ca. 76mm main gun?

By adding these system we would have a corvette actually capable of defending itself and operating in patrol roles even in threatened environment. The question now is how much tonnage could be used for touted modular roles?

 

[Twister]

The evolution of European Corvette can be consider started when the concept of Swedish Visby Class being publish which promote a stealth technology, multirole and smaller size/weight.

The evolution also can be consider by needs of most european navy to decreased number of troop (with deactivated of consription).

 

[kato]

Personally I'd scrap the idea of a corvette and build ships which would be something akin to Danish Absalom or Singapore's Endurance class.

Gee, the requirement for 8-10 meters of water depth might kinda make them only suitable for standoff operations? And, even with downsizing, the Navies involved will still want numbers.
Okay, let's not call it a corvette. Let's call it a sloop.

European Local MCM requirements can be mostly handled by operating minesweeping equipment from shore.

Have you ever seen pictures from the annual live MCM operations such as Open Spirit? They typically involve 8-10 MCMV plus 3-5 drone minesweepers, and all these ships are fully needed to cover the typical areas. There are still some 5,000 WW1 and WW2 mines waiting just in the Irbsen Street for these operations.
And let's not forget other operations such as "Southern Flank" - clearing 1200 mines with 40 MCMV (30 of them from exactly the countries i'm involving) in the Persian Gulf in a space of only 3 months.

As for overall project cost, 7 billion euros for ca. 75x 1000 tonners is far too low. Finnish Navy's recent single-role MCMV purchase cost about 80 millions apiece.

50-100 million per unit (depending on size) is about the amount i'd aim for, especially with this kind of large production run. Reuse of existing or otherwise funded systems such as Troika can keep the cost a bit lower.
The Finnish got a recycled concept that Germany cancelled exactly for cost reasons btw.

 

[Jon K]

Gee, the requirement for 8-10 meters of water depth might kinda make them only suitable for standoff operations? And, even with downsizing, the Navies involved will still want numbers.
Okay, let's not call it a corvette. Let's call it a sloop.

Numbers are irrelevant if most of the time is spent on transit and RAS. With a mothership more time can be spent at scene. On extreme littoral operations, such as river deltas, smaller patrol craft will be needed anyway. A mothership could haul smaller utility craft, something akin to French L-CAT but perhaps smaller:

http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

for patrol, transportation and MCM gear carrying duties. These vessels could act as long arm of mothership. The concept of operations would have mothership providing long range support with replenishment, medium/heavy helos, perhaps attack helos, and necessary mission module swap. Depending on size of smaller craft these could have additional patrol vessels / unmanned vehicles.

And let's not forget other operations such as "Southern Flank" - clearing 1200 mines with 40 MCMV (30 of them from exactly the countries i'm involving) in the Persian Gulf in a space of only 3 months.

And these MCMV vessels take a long time to deploy and for operations use mostly their remote guided equipment. MCMV's also cannot operate helos for MCM duties by themselves.

50-100 million per unit (depending on size) is about the amount i'd aim for, especially with this kind of large production run. Reuse of existing or otherwise funded systems such as Troika can keep the cost a bit lower. The Finnish got a recycled concept that Germany cancelled exactly for cost reasons btw.

Even Finnish Hamina costs some 80 million, though with larger production run cost would have been smaller. Small price tag means that the craft, let's call it sloop, can't be constructed out of composites and cannot have complicated weapon systems. How about basing it on offshore service vessel, like following:

http://www.hornbeckoffshore.com/pdfs_mpsv/HOS Iron Horse Spec Sheet rev 1.pdf

That would keep the costs down.

 

[kato]

Even Finnish Hamina costs some 80 million, though with larger production run cost would have been smaller. Small price tag means that the craft, let's call it sloop, can't be constructed out of composites and cannot have complicated weapon systems. How about basing it on offshore service vessel, like following:

France recently commissioned a 1700 ton mine disposal tender (A645 Alize) for overseas operations with a pricetag of 20 million.
Armament can be reused, at least as far as guns go. Not really much of a price tag to that. Giving the system the possibility to mount additional modular weapon systems doesn't cost much either.

Composites are not a must, even for a mineclearing vessel - in the current mineclearing environment, as said most "dangerous" operation is handled by drone systems already (UUVs and USVs).
Europe doesn't use helicopters for minesweeping at all, btw, and afaik has no plans to introduce such systems.

 

[Jon K]

France recently commissioned a 1700 ton mine disposal tender (A645 Alize) for overseas operations with a pricetag of 20 million.
Armament can be reused, at least as far as guns go. Not really much of a price tag to that. Giving the system the possibility to mount additional modular weapon systems doesn't cost much either.

Composites are not a must, even for a mineclearing vessel - in the current mineclearing environment, as said most "dangerous" operation is handled by drone systems already (UUVs and USVs).
Europe doesn't use helicopters for minesweeping at all, btw, and afaik has no plans to introduce such systems.

It seems that said ship is exactly based upon an offshore support ship and was built in a shipyard specializing in civilian ships (SOCARENAM). I just wonder to what standards the ship has been built upon. Construction up to warship standards costs much more than normal construction. Reserving places for additional armament modules won't cost much but naturally restricts capabilities. The question is that with less capabilities in which threat environments are operations viable? Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in 2006 showed that even non-state actors may have modern ASM's and ATGM's.

EDA is currently developing an UAV to support minesweeping operations and at least Swedish navy choppers sport a LIDAR to support littoral underwater object recognition.

 

[kato]

Well, COTS and commercial standards are en-vogue.

My guess is that in any next generation mineclearing vehicle, what few actual MCM-related equipment there is will almost entirely be offloaded to standoff drone equipment. The ship itself needs nothing more than a crane or two, perhaps some protected flexible space for UUVs, and space for the necessary modular drone C2 equipment.

One could of course place this equipment and modules on a 500 million Euro frigate (LCS) just as well as on a 20 million Euro oilfield supply vessel (or a 10 million Euro coastal cargo ship) - provided it can support the necessary crew and supply needs.

The question of the ship's capability would mostly come with the other possible applications for the hull. For example if we want it in a patrol role, it obviously needs to be faster than just 15 knots.

 

[Todjaeger]

Okay, here are some of my preliminary thoughts...

IMO one of the first things to be determined are what roles the "Eurovette" is to fufill, and what overall importance they are to be. Like what is the primary role, secondary, tertiary, etc etc. This needs to be determined as this very much effects the required and desired fitout of the vessels, as well as construction methods.

Secondly, the number of vessels and the overall budget need to be determined. So far, the numbers given (50-75 vessels) and a budget of 5-7 billion Euros works out to between 67 - 140 million Euros per vessel. This gives a fair idea of what could possibly be fitted to the various vessels.

As for roles, I do think MCM should be one of them, but not as a primary role. If one looks at the various dedicated MCM vessels, their design and construction characteristics, as well as ship performace, are markedly different from similarly sized FAC, patrol boats, and larger vessels like corvettes and frigates. This is largely due to the operational considerations when clearing sea mines, which required (or made a very good idea) composite or wooden hulls, equipment mounted to bulkheads vs, the hull, and a relatively quiet hull. In particular, the last requirement, AFAIK has also caused MCM vessels to have relatively low cruising and max speeds, which would result in a relatively poor performing patrol vessel since most other vessels could simply "out run" it.

Rather, traditional ASuW/ASW should IMO be primary roles with space and weight available for some of the current and upcoming modular MCM systems to be embarked on an as-needed basis.

As for ship systems, I very much prefer a modular weapons pack that can be switched around depending on what the mission needs are. To this end, I would be in favor of adopting a weapons system like Stanflex, or the one used aboard the LCS. Even better IMV would be for a modular weapons system to be developed to NATO standards, using common connections, databus, mountings, software language, etc. This way, different companies could produce their own modules for torpedoes, missiles, guns, etc which then various EU/NATO nations could purchase depending on need, and if need be, could in a potential conflict be supplied by an ally who uses different by similar equipment. This could also ease things as different class vessels are commissoned and decommissioned, as the mounting sockets would be the same from class to class.

The design I have in mind would be in the range of ~1,400 tons, of steel construction. It would likely be ~85m long, with 10m beam and 3m draught. Max speed would most likely be in the range of 26-30 kts, with a cruising speed around 15-18 kts, with a 3,000 n mile range at cruising speed.

It would have five space for five modules, one fore, one aft, and three amidships. There would be a helicopter landing platform, with an expanding/folding hangar.

Total normal crew would likely be around 70 people, though there would be accomodations for perhaps an additional 20 personnel.

In terms of sensors, there would be hull-mounted sonar, and air/surface search and navigation radars, comms, datalinks, E/O sights, all permanently mounted.

As for modules, I have in mind those developed for the Stanflex 300 of C-Flex, with some possible additions.

A modular torpedoe launcher for ASW ops
A rapid fire gun or guns (in the 20-57mm range) for use as CIWS & vs. FAC
A modular mounting for a towed sonar array (if feasible)
Modular MCM systems for launching and controling ROV and drones

For general operations, I would forsee the 'Eurovette' being equipped as follows (going from bow to stern modules)
1. 76mm/62 cal main gun
2. triple (quad?) lightweight torpedo mounting
3. a 6-cell Mk 56 VLS duo-packed with ESSM
4. a 35mm Millenium gun for CIWS
5. two quad Mk 141 Harpoon AShM launchers

My concerns with the design as laid out is whether or not the vessel would be an 'easy' sailor with the equipment indicated to achieve the desired performance fitting into a 1,400 ton hull of the given dimensions. The other concern is if the project would be feasible with the budget specified. At the high end of the concept and budget, it seems to be similar to what was originally envisioned for LCS, a roughly US$200 mil/vessel littoral combatant that is also capable of some ops in open waters...

As we have seen, that does not appear to have worked out, at least not as originally envisioned.

-Cheers

 

[Jon K]

My concerns with the design as laid out is whether or not the vessel would be an 'easy' sailor with the equipment indicated to achieve the desired performance fitting into a 1,400 ton hull of the given dimensions. The other concern is if the project would be feasible with the budget specified. At the high end of the concept and budget, it seems to be similar to what was originally envisioned for LCS, a roughly US$200 mil/vessel littoral combatant that is also capable of some ops in open waters...

What you've described seems to be somewhat like Danish "Niels Juel" class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Juel_class_corvette

Basic specifications for the hull you've describing indicates something quite similar to Finnish Hämeenmaa class ML/PC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hämeenmaa_class_minelayer

Hämeenmaa-class has had a disastrous seakeeping record which has not even been corrected via installation of additional stabilizer fins. Small draft and high superstructure means bad seakeeping. That's why I wouldn't classify it as an OPV.

Idea on NATO-standard module is excellent, unfortunately with local national pork perhaps unfeasible.

 

[ASFC]

Idea on NATO-standard module is excellent, unfortunately with local national pork perhaps unfeasible.

Why is it? Surely if you have NATO standard connections etc as Todjaeger suggested then those who wish to use their prefered equipment can. Surely it bypasses the arguments that will happen between countries on what weapons to use, as they all know they can fit the ones they prefer using this new NATO standard system, and just concentrate on the ship design.

I have to agree on the seakeeping abilities. I can think of another now rather infamous NZ OPV that has similar dimensions to what is being suggested........

 

[Jon K]

Why is it? Surely if you have NATO standard connections etc as Todjaeger suggested then those who wish to use their prefered equipment can. Surely it bypasses the arguments that will happen between countries on what weapons to use, as they all know they can fit the ones they prefer using this new NATO standard system, and just concentrate on the ship design.

Creation of standardized connections would threaten package deals as customers would be more free to choose whatever weapons they would wish for. It would be also a threat to rather lucrative systems integration business.

I have to agree on the seakeeping abilities. I can think of another now rather infamous NZ OPV that has similar dimensions to what is being suggested......

Without knowing very much about ships it sure seems strange that NZ IPV's and OPV's have roughly same draft. The difference is that IPV's have displacement of some 340 tons and OPV's some 1700 tons. The Irish LE Roisin and STX's 75m OPV concept both seem to have much lower superstructures -> less topweight and "wind surface" (?).

Following page might be of interest in general in context of this discussion:

http://www.akeryardsmarine.com/ship_patrol.html

It shows various OPV designs.

 

[rjmaz1]

The answer to the game...

Austals multi role corvette.

http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9

The weapon systems is what will make this type of ship expensive. So an aluminium trimaran can still be very cheap. Wack a basic gun, radar and sonar on the ship and then have modular packages. The corvette can be left empty as a light armed transport- The huge flight deck for such a small ship allows for an advanced helicopter to be on board giving advanced anti-ship capability.

Weapon modules could range from air to air modules to air to surface and anti ship modules. submarine warfare modules would also be available etc. The key would be to make these modules cheap using off the shelf and proven technology. E.g the a2a package could simply be a launcher with six amraams, being active missiles they dont requre high levels of integration with the ships radar. The ships radar then doesn't require tracking abilities with the active missiles. so a longer ranged cheaper radar could be used.

anti ship modules could simply be hellfire missiles again using laser guidance requires little integration with the ships radar.

Just a few ideas, with the low end modules. If all modules were fitted you'd nhave firepower of a frigate, not a high end destroyer.

 

[Todjaeger]

The answer to the game...

Austals multi role corvette.

http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9

The weapon systems is what will make this type of ship expensive. So an aluminium trimaran can still be very cheap. Wack a basic gun, radar and sonar on the ship and then have modular packages. The corvette can be left empty as a light armed transport- The huge flight deck for such a small ship allows for an advanced helicopter to be on board giving advanced anti-ship capability.

Weapon modules could range from air to air modules to air to surface and anti ship modules. submarine warfare modules would also be available etc. The key would be to make these modules cheap using off the shelf and proven technology. E.g the a2a package could simply be a launcher with six amraams, being active missiles they dont requre high levels of integration with the ships radar. The ships radar then doesn't require tracking abilities with the active missiles. so a longer ranged cheaper radar could be used.

anti ship modules could simply be hellfire missiles again using laser guidance requires little integration with the ships radar.

Just a few ideas, with the low end modules. If all modules were fitted you'd nhave firepower of a frigate, not a high end destroyer.

As has been pointed out in the RAN thread, there are a few issues with the Austal MRC, which any user navy would need to take into account.

The vessel itself is not properly a corvette. The armament Austal has it with is a Typhoon mount with a 25mm cannon. It also has a multi-role mission/vehicle deck with a rear Ro/Ro ramp.

Being a trimaran design to be constructed from aluminum, it was designed to HSC standards. This in turn means that it should not operate more than 8 hours from port... Also, while the confined waters of the Baltic and Med might be less of a problem, I would imagine the ship would not fair well in the North Sea, or other blue water areas where some navies might have them operate.

Also, the design itself has a relatively low dwt, which means that not much (in terms of weight) additional equipment could either be fitted or added on using modules. In addition, the overall shape of the vessel can be an issue, as modular weapon and/or sensor systems would likely need to be placed relatively high on the hull, causing possible stability issues. This would likely cause problems with the vessel's suitability for ASuW and possibly ASW ops.

Lastly, in order to be effective, the corvette needs to be able to carry sufficient equipment to complete the required taskings, and the sensors and data systems to make use of the equipment. The weapons, sensors and electronic fitout of a ship is AFAIK where things get really costly, comprising half (or more in some cases) of the total cost of a given warship. As such, trying to use low end system would result in the vessel just being that much poorer a combatant.

As for using ship launched Hellfires... That is a good idea for small vessels (like the Dabur, Dvora & Super Dvora) which are in the 50 ton range FACs, and gives them sufficient firepower to destroy similarly sized vessels and damage vessels larger than them. For a corvette sized vessel, I would rather have it equipped with a 57mm or 76mm cannon, as it allows more flexibility, more options, and similar anti-ship performance.

IMO a properly fitted out and operated corvette would at the least have to be considered as a threat by a potentially hostile ship. By those criteria, I do not believe that the Austal MRC would succeed without a very significant redesign.

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

As has been pointed out in the RAN thread, there are a few issues with the Austal MRC, which any user navy would need to take into account........
IMO a properly fitted out and operated corvette would at the least have to be considered as a threat by a potentially hostile ship. By those criteria, I do not believe that the Austal MRC would succeed without a very significant redesign.

-Cheers

Beat me to it. I would add the MRV is also going to be relatively expensive for the capability it offers.

Cheers
Alex

 

[Todjaeger]

Beat me to it. I would add the MRV is also going to be relatively expensive for the capability it offers.

Cheers
Alex

True. I did not really get into the relative cost issues between marine aluminum and mild steel... Never mind that in order to be effective, it would need a reasonably comprehensive sensor and electronics suite, which is, along with armament, something approaching half the cost of a combatant.

-Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

IMO a properly fitted out and operated corvette would at the least have to be considered as a threat by a potentially hostile ship. By those criteria, I do not believe that the Austal MRC would succeed without a very significant redesign.

A race car fitted out might be consdered a threat at winning a race...

So by your logic you'd rather have something with such low performance you cannot win or even be considered a threat?

Why even try if you have already accepted defeat?

Having a ship that threatens hostile ships is exactly what a warship is designed for.

The Multi role corvette design is great, as most of the ships cost is in the weapons systems then it will not cost drastically more being an exotic design. Probably the best modular upgrade to a ship like this would be a armed helicopter. A helicopter can deploy to the ship quickly, increasing the firepower of the ship 10 fold. So if you focus on this helicopter centric design for increasing capabiliy then the MRC wins as it has more room for helicopters for its size. To get the same level of deck space on a single hullship you'll be looking at double the displaement and the bigger engines and fuel consummption that goes with it.

The only downside is its sea keepingg. Thats important for the open oceans around Australia but not so much around Europe. Apparently the MRC is quite stable for its size when in rough seas.

 

[ASFC]

The Austal design is not a warship, its expensive, not built to military standards and does not carry the weapons load or sensors I would expect of a Corvette sized warship.

For a Corvette it is going to need space for 57 or 76 mm Gun, a Flightdeck, possibly a retractable Hanger, Light AA and ASW weapons with space to upgrade the armament. Room for 'another' capability that can be changed depending on circumstances (MCM or Survey work or Diving etc). Plus Sensors, command and control stations............etc

In many ways calling it a corvette is misleading-it could just be a small frigate with a smaller crew, lighter weapons and a 'flexible space' for other purposes.

 

[alexsa]

A race car fitted out might be consdered a threat at winning a race...

So by your logic you'd rather have something with such low performance you cannot win or even be considered a threat?

Why even try if you have already accepted defeat?

Having a ship that threatens hostile ships is exactly what a warship is designed for.

The Multi role corvette design is great, as most of the ships cost is in the weapons systems then it will not cost drastically more being an exotic design. Probably the best modular upgrade to a ship like this would be a armed helicopter. A helicopter can deploy to the ship quickly, increasing the firepower of the ship 10 fold. So if you focus on this helicopter centric design for increasing capabiliy then the MRC wins as it has more room for helicopters for its size. To get the same level of deck space on a single hullship you'll be looking at double the displaement and the bigger engines and fuel consummption that goes with it.

The only downside is its sea keepingg. Thats important for the open oceans around Australia but not so much around Europe. Apparently the MRC is quite stable for its size when in rough seas.

There is no logic to this. If the helcopter is the main weapons system then you do not need an expensive, weight and weather retricted hull to carry it. You would be better off going for a conventional design with long range, a reasonably high sustained cruise speed and the ability of operate in more difficult conditions.

Don't confuse maximum speed with sustained speed as even a lightweight like the MRV is range restricted at speed, more so because the weight issue limits bunker capacity if other systems are carried ..... like a heavy helicopters and their stores.

The MRV would be very useful for brown water, multi role, low intensity operations, but is still expensive for what it offers in this regard for most small naval forces. Many would simply opt to take commerical RO-RO designs. This may be why Indoneisa use reasonably large (and now commerically designed) LPD as they offer range, persistnce and uplift.