The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[FluffyThoughts]

Apologies for the lazy referencing. By replacing C2s in the Carribbean I meant the Type 22 Batch IIIs and stripped-down Type-23s (without Towed-Arrays as I see it).

As for the expensive propulsion option within the Type-45, is that no a prerequistie for the C1/ASW-option? Add-in expected economies-of-scale then surely the sale-price and maintenance implications should favour a one-size-fits engineering solution.

On the C3, I don't like the River/Clyde compromise. A 3k tonne solution with suitable hangarage - if only for a US Coast-Guard 'copter - adds in flexibility. I'd hate to have a Royal Navy patrol in the WIndies without such support, especially at a time like now. [Is emergency relief refundable from the Development Budget?]

 

[1805]

Apologies for the lazy referencing. By replacing C2s in the Carribbean I meant the Type 22 Batch IIIs and stripped-down Type-23s (without Towed-Arrays as I see it).

As for the expensive propulsion option within the Type-45, is that no a prerequistie for the C1/ASW-option? Add-in expected economies-of-scale then surely the sale-price and maintenance implications should favour a one-size-fits engineering solution.

On the C3, I don't like the River/Clyde compromise. A 3k tonne solution with suitable hangarage - if only for a US Coast-Guard 'copter - adds in flexibility. I'd hate to have a Royal Navy patrol in the WIndies without such support, especially at a time like now. [Is emergency relief refundable from the Development Budget?]

Agree and I don't like this trend to using RFA as patrol ships on there own. On another issue I was reading on another site that the USN are moving away from fitting Harpoon to all new ships and relying on the Standard missile's anti ship capability. Does anyone know if Aster 30 has this capability (I remember Sea Dart had). If not is this another example of the mistake in going with Aster/Sylver.

 

[swerve]

Apologies for the lazy referencing. By replacing C2s in the Carribbean I meant the Type 22 Batch IIIs and stripped-down Type-23s (without Towed-Arrays as I see it).

As for the expensive propulsion option within the Type-45, is that no a prerequistie for the C1/ASW-option? Add-in expected economies-of-scale then surely the sale-price and maintenance implications should favour a one-size-fits engineering solution.

On the C3, I don't like the River/Clyde compromise. A 3k tonne solution with suitable hangarage - if only for a US Coast-Guard 'copter - adds in flexibility. I'd hate to have a Royal Navy patrol in the WIndies without such support, especially at a time like now. [Is emergency relief refundable from the Development Budget?]

Ah, I see.

The IEP on the T45 really is expensive, & apparently isn't the only thing. It can be done cheaper, & supposedly much cheaper, while still retaining an efficient IEP (something I think the RN is now very keen on). I think that the idea is that there's a better chance of economies of scale by designing a common C1/C2 basic ship which is exportable, than from building a T45 based C1. Partly, this is because a T45 based C2 is just plain wrong. C2 is supposed to be cheap. You can't build a cheap ship on a top-notch & & top-dollar large hull with grade A (& priced accordingly) propulsion. Therefore, if C1 & C2 are to share the same basis, it can't be T45.

That said, some people advocate that C1 should use a T45 hull, & C2 should be smaller & cheaper, with a degree of commonality with C3. i.e. a relatively big C3, & C2 being the same basic design, but stretched, up-engined (could be done with the same basic propulsion system, but extra units) & of course more heavily armed & with better sensors. While I consider that a position with some merit, it seems the RN has rejected it. The debate on whether C1 & C2 should be based on the same generic hull Richard Beedall mentioned in early 2007 seems to have ended, & the answer is apparently a firm "Yes", if various articles quoting RN sources are to be believed..

It's worth looking at what Beedall reported then, straight from the horse's (i.e. S2C2 team leader Commodore Dick Brunton's) mouth:

* a Force Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combatant (known as C1)
* a Stabilisation Combatant (C2)
* an Ocean-Capable Patrol Vessel (C3).

"The plan we have developed takes eight existing classes down to just three. The capability currently delivered by the Type 22s and Type 23s would be replaced by C1 and C2, while C3 would replace the capabilities of our existing mine warfare fleet but also offer additional capability for maritime security tasks."

And -

C3 is currently envisaged as a vessel of approximately 2,000 tonnes displacement with a range of 7,000 nm for constabulary and minor war vessel tasks. Cdr Brunton said "We see this vessel being used for maritime security and interdiction operations. It would also have a large mission bay aft, reconfigurable for special forces, MCM or a Lynx helicopter."

AFAIK, this is still the clearest statement on C3 from any official source, & the larger proposals, e.g. Khareef or Venator, are just that: proposals.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

But has not Dicks changed his mind? This document was posted here some months back.

Looking at the pages 59 - 62, both vessels are going to be circa 7500 tonnes, 149m x 19m x 5.5m. Each design will have a similar crew-component. Why not use the Type-45 as the base, and fit weapons accordingly. [As I have mentioned, the flight-deck would not have to be Chinnok-compatable, so space should be found for Towed-Array and Multi-mission requirements.]

As for C3, is 2,000 tonnes feasible? I'd imagine that both Khareef and Venator - both of which I would be happy with - would come in at about 2500 tonnes. [Unfortunately I cannot find anything substantive on google].

 

[1805]

But has not Dicks changed his mind? This document was posted here some months back.

Looking at the pages 59 - 62, both vessels are going to be circa 7500 tonnes, 149m x 19m x 5.5m. Each design will have a similar crew-component. Why not use the Type-45 as the base, and fit weapons accordingly. [As I have mentioned, the flight-deck would not have to be Chinnok-compatable, so space should be found for Towed-Array and Multi-mission requirements.]

As for C3, is 2,000 tonnes feasible? I'd imagine that both Khareef and Venator - both of which I would be happy with - would come in at about 2500 tonnes. [Unfortunately I cannot find anything substantive on google].

I saw something online with a very nice U-Tube video of the Venator which I now can't find! It was saying c2600t - 3000t fully loaded. A cute design but it didn't have a hanger which for 3000t was poor. I prefer the Khareef and rather the C2 & C3 had been merged rather than what it appears the RN have gone with, C1 & C2 together.

 

[1805]

Found it. I know unlikely to be the actual adopted design but it does look like some of the boat launching facilities might make it.

LCS Alternative-BMT Venator « New Wars

Was just thinking when looking at the video again, a lot of effort for 2/3 boats, however it the design could be recast round something like a CB90 a much more useful and not that expensive proposition. I went of RHIBs after the HMS Cornwall incident

 

[swerve]

But has not Dicks changed his mind? This document was posted here some months back.

Looking at the pages 59 - 62, both vessels are going to be circa 7500 tonnes, 149m x 19m x 5.5m. Each design will have a similar crew-component. Why not use the Type-45 as the base, and fit weapons accordingly. [As I have mentioned, the flight-deck would not have to be Chinnok-compatable, so space should be found for Towed-Array and Multi-mission requirements.]

As for C3, is 2,000 tonnes feasible? I'd imagine that both Khareef and Venator - both of which I would be happy with - would come in at about 2500 tonnes. [Unfortunately I cannot find anything substantive on google].

That's Christopher Dicks. AFAIK, he wasn't part of the S2C2 team which Commodore Dick Brunton headed, & was in the USA as UK Exchange Naval Architect from before Brunton gave the talk Richard Beedall reported on, until the date on that presentation. He states that everything in the presentation is from open sources, so if he has an inside line to the C1/C2 team, he didn't use it - or at least, he says not.

I'm pretty sure I've seen quotes from inside the C1/C2 team this year, in published articles, talking about roughly 6000 ton ships. I'll look for the sources, & if I find them, I'll post them here.

 

[riksavage]

What reports are these?

Official US statement about KC-135R -
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf

The following provides a bit more info reference the Rivet purchase, specifically why it is the favoured option over upgraded Nimrods (HELIX). Makes sense considering how close the US/UK int communities are working together in A-Stan and for cost reasons- much cheaper to operate. The airframes are the upgraded versions complete with newer engines and avionics.

“More than a year after U.S. defense officials offered three RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft as a replacement for the same number of Royal Air Force BAE Nimrod R1 signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft, the UK Ministry of Defence has not made a decision… But the Nimrod SIGINT replacement seems to have fallen afoul of the UK’s defense budget squeeze. The MoD told AIN that a decision would be made late this year, and the R1s would be extended in service if necessary.
...But sources on both sides of the Atlantic…. said that even the remanufactured Nimrod would offer only 60 percent of the required capability, because of power and aperture considerations. Moreover it could not be in service until 2015, and would cost three times as much to operate as the Rivet Joint…. the sources said the actual cost to the UK [of RC-135s] would be closer to the $750 million that was originally budgeted for the Helix upgrade…. the three airframes on offer to the UK are… the youngest KC-135s in the U.S. fleet; have already been updated with modern CFM56 turbofans and cockpit avionics; and are good for service until 2045…. AIN understands that U.S. officials have assured the MoD that unique British requirements and sensors–such as QinetiQ’s Tigershark communications intelligence (COMINT) system – could be incorporated in the three Rivet Joints for the RAF. This and other British technology might also find a place on the larger U.S. fleet, sources told AIN. An informed U.S. source also addressed British concerns that the Rivet Joint system concentrates on COMINT at the expense of electronic intelligence (ELINT). He said… “they will get over it. An Rivet Joint configuration is not as ELINT-oriented, but today’s environment doesn’t really need an ELINT-heavy system.”

Death Spiral for HELIX? Britain Wants RC-135 Rivet Joint Planes

This should be in the RAF forum I suspect, but then again they will be considered 'purple' assets!

 

[1805]

But has not Dicks changed his mind? This document was posted here some months back.

Looking at the pages 59 - 62, both vessels are going to be circa 7500 tonnes, 149m x 19m x 5.5m. Each design will have a similar crew-component. Why not use the Type-45 as the base, and fit weapons accordingly. [As I have mentioned, the flight-deck would not have to be Chinnok-compatable, so space should be found for Towed-Array and Multi-mission requirements.]

As for C3, is 2,000 tonnes feasible? I'd imagine that both Khareef and Venator - both of which I would be happy with - would come in at about 2500 tonnes. [Unfortunately I cannot find anything substantive on google].

I would have thought 2000 was quite feasible, when you look at the old French A69 they where only 1250t and yet they carried a very heavy (if fairly basic) armament. They served France long and well. When the French Navy was facing the crippling cost of their SSBN programme at the height of it's development. I know there is no hanger or flight deck, but a flight deck and a lot more should be possible with 750t to play with . And the design is 40 years old.

 

[1805]

That said, some people advocate that C1 should use a T45 hull, & C2 should be smaller & cheaper, with a degree of commonality with C3. i.e. a relatively big C3, & C2 being the same basic design, but stretched, up-engined (could be done with the same basic propulsion system, but extra units) & of course more heavily armed & with better sensors. While I consider that a position with some merit, it seems the RN has rejected it.

Can you expand on why you see merit in this Idea? I agree with it, but would like to understand reasoning.

And what does *"a Stabilisation Combatant " mean, do they have to follow the US practice of idiotic names for every design?.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Regarding C2/C3 I have come to the conclusion that tonnage is nothing more than semantics. What are the tonnage figures meant to represent; displacement or dead-weight?

As C1 and C2 are in the 500' category then I expect them to displace anything from 6,500 - 8,500 tonnes. For C3 one has to look at the Blackwoods through Leanders for comparisons. [Not forgetting the LCS...! ] I can't forsee anything less than a 2,750 tonne displacement.

 

[swerve]

As C1 and C2 are in the 500' category then I expect them to displace anything from 6,500 - 8,500 tonnes. .

Why do you think they are in the 500' category? The Christopher Dicks presentation is entirely unofficial. Dicks is not part of the programme, & specifically states that it is derived from public sources, i.e. not based on inside knowledge. It is speculative. We can't draw any conclusions about the size of C1 & C2 from it.

Other public sources, originating from participants in the programme, specifically refer to ships of about 6000 tons.

 

[swerve]

That said, some people advocate that C1 should use a T45 hull, & C2 should be smaller & cheaper, with a degree of commonality with C3. i.e. a relatively big C3, & C2 being the same basic design, but stretched, up-engined (could be done with the same basic propulsion system, but extra units) & of course more heavily armed & with better sensors. While I consider that a position with some merit, it seems the RN has rejected it.

Can you expand on why you see merit in this Idea? I agree with it, but would like to understand reasoning..

While we end up with more expensive C1s, that should be balanced by cheaper C2s. The marginal cost of additional C2s is less, making it easier to buy more. C2 & variants based on the same hull & machinery should be attractive on the export market.

But I'm not sure that these arguments outweigh those in favour of a common basic design for C1 & C2.

 

[riksavage]

I would like the C3 asset to be around the same size as the corvette proposed by the for the Israeli's, basically a stretched version of the MEKO A-100 corvette, displacement of 2,200 tons. Stick a marinised version of the 40mm case-less weapon system proposed for the FRES Recce and Warrior (firing airburst and HE), plus CAMM launcher or RAM and include a modular MCM unit or equipment container for RM party. Add a small lily pad flight deck capable of landing Wildcat / Merlin, and include hanger space for a rotary UAV (Fire Scout or similar capable of firing Hydra and a light multipurpose guided missile). Also include port / starboard housings capable of holding the new armoured and armed RM RIBS and you have a pretty sweet littoral / patrol / MCM vessel.

Now QE & PW are well under way and beyond cancelling there is plenty of rumors floating around about the possible TOTAL cancellation of F35B due to spiralling costs (even a reduced number now in doubt). Talk on streets is that BAE/SAAB have offered a marinesed Sea Gripen as the cheapest capable alternative in a STOBAR configuration (similar to what is on offer for Brazil / India). Gripen maintenance costs are so much lower than any contemporary airframe and subsequently offers the most cost effective option over the longer term, which can still launch / fire the UK's current and planned range of ordinance. According to SAAB the Sea Gripen would be around 400 kilograms heavier than the land based Gripen NG, with the augmented airframe giving ‘an empty weight of between 7500-8000 kg’. Quote “The Sea Gripen will be a very, interesting alternative for nations with smaller-size carriers. More scare mongering amongst the doom slayers or a plausible alternative considering the brutal cuts that about to come? I'm sure BAE would be happy to see Gripen over Raffy or Super H in a worst case scenario.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

The 500' figure for C1/C2 is indicative but comparisons to the size of Absalon/FREMM and the requiements of the Royal Navy would suggest something larger. As Beedle seems in hiatus there is not much to go on; not least as we have a general-election soon.

Sea Gripen is a joke. It is expected to launch with 1/3 it's maximum armaments in STOBAR configuration. As France are basically funding Brazil's Rafales I can't see any economies-of-scale to be made (assuming that India is gullable enough to buy it). May as well cat-n-trap the QE's and buy the F-35C (which is the current variant that is favoured for the chop).

C3's must have hangarage. Constabulary roles in the Carribean require helicopter support for enforcement and aid. Let's not do a Type-23 (and drop the SeaWolf requirement) only to be found wanting. Add in the 500+ tonnes into the design and you have the benefit of not only aviation but ASuW (Sea Skua) and ASW (Stringray), partial funding for which can be found within Vision2020.

 

[kev 99]

I think the best we're going to get in terms of hanger space for the C3 is something temporary like the telescopic design for BMV Venator.

 

[swerve]

I would like the C3 asset to be around the same size as the corvette proposed by the for the Israeli's, basically a stretched version of the MEKO A-100 corvette, displacement of 2,200 tons. Stick a marinised version of the 40mm case-less weapon system proposed for the FRES Recce and Warrior (firing airburst and HE), plus CAMM launcher or RAM ...

CAMM or RAM? This is suitable for survey & fisheries protection? Please, please, look at what C3 is supposed to replace!

 

[swerve]

The 500' figure for C1/C2 is indicative but comparisons to the size of Absalon/FREMM and the requiements of the Royal Navy would suggest something larger. As Beedle seems in hiatus there is not much to go on; not least as we have a general-election soon.

There's a trickle of news, & it all says 6000 tons. e.g.
DSEi 2009 - Clues to the UK’s frigate of the future
Note that model, although not definitive, has some official status, unlike the 8500 ton proposals.
Pages 12-14
Page 14 -

An FSC programme board convened in January 2009 to undertake a first options review for C1. ... to produce a baseline design concept in the order of 6000 tons displacement.

There we are - the Royal Navy programme board is putting out design concepts around 6000 tons (i.e. FREMM/Absalon size) for C1.

Sea Gripen is a joke. It is expected to launch with 1/3 it's maximum armaments in STOBAR configuration.

That's "STOBAR is a joke". It's projected to launch at the same T/O weight as land-based, from a catapult.

As France are basically funding Brazil's Rafales ....

Since when? I thought that the resistance to Rafale from within Brazil is partly because France is refusing to cut the price, i.e. the exact opposite of "funding" it.

C3's must have hangarage. Constabulary roles in the Carribean require helicopter support for enforcement and aid..

Here I agree. But you can put a hangar into something of 2500 tons (cf. the Spanish BAM), or even a bit less.

 

[KiwiRob]

Here I agree. But you can put a hangar into something of 2500 tons (cf. the Spanish BAM), or even a bit less.

So something like the NZ Protector class OPV with a few more bells and whistles could do the trick.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

As someone on-the-outside-looking-in, here's what I think:

FREMM: short-legs. I thought the requirement for HMRN was a 7,000 n.m. range. That is an increase >16% in bunkerage over the 6,000 tonne design (assuming French turbines are as efficient as Rolls-Royce's). Can't see fuel being FFBNW yet....

Absalon: great-range, but armed like a C3. Take-out command-and-control and whats left? *

BAM: very short-legs. With a range of 3,500 n.m. it will require an RFA vessel to tow it around.

Sea-Gripen: It's not VSTOL so why sink the money into a single-engined fighter? Even I have given up on the fantasy of a Sea-Typhoon (sexily twin-engined though she may be) so how is a navalised Gripen going to be effective? [OK, I am a - :cough: - single-engined F-35C fan-boy.... ]

Swerve:

Thanks for the link. Not sure why C1 needs a dock-well. It's supposed to be the major ASW vessel for the Navy yet the document implies that the Towed-Array is a plug-in.

* Not fair. Absalon is a Logistics vessel.