The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

The more I hear about the FSC C1/C2, the more I think it all sounds very muddled. I would rather the C1 was a beefed up ship like HMDS Absalon, we drop the C2 and the C3 was changed into a true global corvette like a modern version of the French A69 class. Maybe c12 of one and 30 of the other.

The fact that you suggest buying a dozen Absalon-like ships in place of C1, & dropping C2, suggests to me that you are muddled. Look at the spec. of C2, & you see that it could be done by Absalon - but the C1 role most definitely couldn't. What you're really proposing is dropping C1, & building a dozen C2, leaving 6 Type 45s as our only high-end escorts, & no ASW escorts.

BTW, why does the RN need a dozen warships with modest transport capability? We have 2 LPDs, 4 LSDs & 6 ro-ros for that.

 

[Palnatoke]

@AndrewMI

I will remain convinced that with a proper "business plan" you can have those ships at a very reasonable price.

F.ex. these 3 AAW frigates

Nye fregatter
(Warning: in danish, tough one can probably understand the key words, with a bit of good will)

Comes at procurement costs of 4.7b DKr (about 630M euros) and that's for 3 ships.
Though these ships are not part of a goverment work force employment plan or failed industrial dreams, they are just part of a plan to defend the realm, and that probably explain a lot of the cost discrepancy between them and other comparable ships.

 

[1805]

Im not sure you can say the RN takes air defence so lightly, on the Beedall pages there is a lot of detail on what the RN wanted the Type 45 to be able to do in terms of air defence, the Key User Requirements for Type 45 seem more stringent than Horizon.

But its this sort of gold plating which is counter productive and leads to RN ships being so: late (contributing to inadequate gaps in air defence) and in reduced numbers. In the RAN thread the the Spanish regularly goad the Ozzies by crowing on about how amazing the F100s are, I am sure they are not the best in the world as they almost claimed, but they have been in service for some years and on a much smaller budget to will have 6. I know there are loads of excuses but to me they are not acceptable for the RN, excuses are for the losing side.

The RN website also suggest the Navy has been juggling its cricket balls again, this time for the HMS Sutherland upgrade, where it can track a cricket ball target at mach 2 at 20 miles and engage with a salvo of two missiles, whereas the Type 45 can handle better bowlers who can toss a ball at mach 3. Artisan and Camm should enhance that further.

There were many factors surrounding NGS in the Falklands and one ship (Glamorgan) being hit out of all those that were engaged in it, perhaps wasnt unexpected, that said HMS Glamorgan cut a corner trying to get away to sea, and the deficencies of Radar systems near land and lack of effective close in weapons has been rectified. Not every opponent is going to be able to lash an exocet to a truck bed.

They don't need to lash a Exocet on a truck now, they sell them that way. The most likely serious threat we face is Iran which has such weapons (well not Exocet) and probably supplied the smaller C701 used against that Israeli Navy FAC

If you add a class of corvette just for NGS, you add another vessel to support, more manpower to recruit and pay and small fast corvettes will lack the range and possibly the seakeeping to get to conflicts across the globe. Corvettes, bit like SSK's they do the job for certain navies who dont want to stray too far from home. Corvettes would also be vulnerable to land based missiles and guns, so where would the advantage be?, couldnt we just fire a GMLRS from the deck of an RFA? If we get 155mm on warships then I assume we could get Excalibur rounds and other future goodies to make NGS longer ranged.

I was thinking more like a very modular C3 role corvette of 1500t (small enough to be expendable) that can land a helicopter but no hanger, about 28-35knots. Armanent: 1 x 57mm & a Kashtan like system (RAM or CAMM around an up and over twin GAU-8) and then either a 2nd 57mm or a AMOS or other modular options. Very similar to the VT Mk9 but longer range 8,000m. An extreme Stealth profile like the Visby's. But mainly doing patrol work in peacetime in the company of T45/C1/RFA which would all carry the same helicopter fit of 2 x Merlins I guess not far off the original concept of a Destroyer, you could call it and Anti Ship Sea Skimming Missile Platform Destroyer (ASSSMPD ;-) )

 

[swerve]

For me, C2 should be a moden T23. Can do some patrol work on its own and specialises in submarine catching, with the potential to add, say TLAM if required.

C1 should be more of a general purpose T45, focused on Land Attack, but also able to provide local air defence, and a degree of sub-hunting.

I fear you have them the wrong way round. In the published RN material, C1 is the specialist ASW ship.

 

[Palnatoke]

Agrees with swerve

While the absalons seems to be a superb ship for a small navy like the danish, they are not true surface combattants (and probably needs protection against subs more than they deliver protection against subs). The cababilities that the abs gives the danish navy could likely be (or, rather IS) achived more efficiently by a much larger navy like the RN with other types of ships.

What the Abs and danish millitary ship building (which probably soon is a relic of the past) perhaps could give to our larger allies is how you get value for money in millitary shipbuilding.

 

[1805]

The fact that you suggest buying a dozen Absalon-like ships in place of C1, & dropping C2, suggests to me that you are muddled. Look at the spec. of C2, & you see that it could be done by Absalon - but the C1 role most definitely couldn't. What you're really proposing is dropping C1, & building a dozen C2, leaving 6 Type 45s as our only high-end escorts, & no ASW escorts.

BTW, why does the RN need a dozen warships with modest transport capability? We have 2 LPDs, 4 LSDs & 6 ro-ros for that.

Yes you have found me out, but slightly different. I would probably build an Absalon type ship, ie with a logistics deck and a full up T45 Aster/Samson & ASW outfit. The Logistics deck would probably add 1000-1500t but it is only steel so fairly cheap and would mean the Samson would be mounted even higher than on the T45s. The actual T45s will stay with high profile assets keep away from the shore so could land its 4.5 when a 155mm comes into service and in exchange have 2 x 57mm? Maybe economise on cheaper engines and build still c500-600m but a very useful ship in peace and war

 

[1805]

Agrees with swerve

While the absalons seems to be a superb ship for a small navy like the danish, they are not true surface combattants (and probably needs protection against subs more than they deliver protection against subs). The cababilities that the abs gives the danish navy could likely be (or, rather IS) achived more efficiently by a much larger navy like the RN with other types of ships.

What the Abs and danish millitary ship building (which probably soon is a relic of the past) perhaps could give to our larger allies is how you get value for money in millitary shipbuilding.

Not sure I fully agree, the Abs are have a massive flight deck with 2 Merlins and I don't think it would be difficult to fit a decent sonar to such a ship, remember the original concept behind the T23 was to rely on the Fort II to provide helicopter support and SAMs. They do have Harpoon/ESSM and 127mm gun plus 2 x 35mm guns apart from SAMs a heavier fit than T45 and T26 is not carrying an area system? They are cheap because they are not built to a full naval spec, but do we.....where the Rivers/Lochs??

 

[Palnatoke]

Yes you have found me out, but slightly different. I would probably build an Absalon type ship, ie with a logistics deck and a full up T45 Aster/Samson & ASW outfit. The Logistics deck would probably add 1000-1500t but it is only steel so fairly cheap and would mean the Samson would be mounted even higher than on the T45s. The actual T45s will stay with high profile assets keep away from the shore so could land its 4.5 when a 155mm comes into service and in exchange have 2 x 57mm? Maybe economise on cheaper engines and build still c500-600m but a very useful ship in peace and war

That's all ready been done:

http://forsvaret.dk/FMT/Materiel/Faktablade/Fregat%20factsheet%20net.pdf

It's basically the hull of an absalon, though it has the Thales APAR, Smart-L radar config instead of Sampson and ESSM+SMII instead of ASTER. It's MK41 (?) launcher makes it cababble of being fitted with a wide range of missiles if needed, and it is prepared for but without a 5" cannon. I am not sure how effective it is in the ASW role.
It doesn't have the flex deck of the abs.

 

[Hambo]

I was thinking more like a very modular C3 role corvette of 1500t (small enough to be expendable) that can land a helicopter but no hanger, about 28-35knots. Armanent: 1 x 57mm & a Kashtan like system (RAM or CAMM around an up and over twin GAU-8) and then either a 2nd 57mm or a AMOS or other modular options. Very similar to the VT Mk9 but longer range 8,000m. An extreme Stealth profile like the Visby's. But mainly doing patrol work in peacetime in the company of T45/C1/RFA which would all carry the same helicopter fit of 2 x Merlins I guess not far off the original concept of a Destroyer, you could call it and Anti Ship Sea Skimming Missile Platform Destroyer (ASSSMPD ;-) )

"small enough to be expendable"!!!! very reassuring if you happen to be one of the crew.

 

[Palnatoke]

Not sure I fully agree, the Abs are have a massive flight deck with 2 Merlins and I don't think it would be difficult to fit a decent sonar to such a ship, remember the original concept behind the T23 was to rely on the Fort II to provide helicopter support and SAMs. They do have Harpoon/ESSM and 127mm gun plus 2 x 35mm guns apart from SAMs a heavier fit than T45 and T26 is not carrying an area system? They are cheap because they are not built to a full naval spec, but do we.....where the Rivers/Lochs??

I think that they have a decent sonar. The "because they are not built to a full naval spec," wouldn't worry me. The safety is in order and the systems and ship is certainly up to date and modern.

Though according to the navy, this ship is not intended as a surface combattan, it can likely hold it's ground against many foes, but it's not intended to "pick a fight".

 

[1805]

"small enough to be expendable"!!!! very reassuring if you happen to be one of the crew.

As I typed that i knew it would get a reaction and horrible as it sounds I think we have to accept ships have a pecking order, with CV last. Trouble with the Falklands is the ships we were losing were far to big. 10-15 descubierta class with maybe 2 76mm instead of the bofors 40mms & the ASW rocket launcher would have much more use than some of the T21 with there 4.5" and Sea Cat

 

[1805]

The fact that you suggest buying a dozen Absalon-like ships in place of C1, & dropping C2, suggests to me that you are muddled. Look at the spec. of C2, & you see that it could be done by Absalon - but the C1 role most definitely couldn't. What you're really proposing is dropping C1, & building a dozen C2, leaving 6 Type 45s as our only high-end escorts, & no ASW escorts.

BTW, why does the RN need a dozen warships with modest transport capability? We have 2 LPDs, 4 LSDs & 6 ro-ros for that.

I would go for a larger ship using the flex deck as adding size to the ship making an even better helicopter/Radar platform and a vast space for VLS (probably not all fitted) of say c9,000t with 500 crew (150-200 sailors 300 marines) . Yes the logistics is not up to a LSD/LPD but would be much greater than needed for most relief work as unlike the LSD can be in 12 places without an escort bacause the escort themselves.

I would sell some LSD to friendly navies Canada, RAN, or NZ. Then you have say 2 LSD and 2 LPD for serious operations which are rare.

I really think there is a Dreadnought moment and it is only a matter of time before a Navy merges a AWD with an Absalon type. I know it would require the RN being a bit brave and doing a first but surely it is time?

 

[Hambo]

As I typed that i knew it would get a reaction and horrible as it sounds I think we have to accept ships have a pecking order, with CV last. Trouble with the Falklands is the ships we were losing were far to big. 10-15 descubierta class with maybe 2 76mm instead of the bofors 40mms & the ASW rocket launcher would have much more use than some of the T21 with there 4.5" and Sea Cat

The ships we were losing were far too big???? What on earth does that mean?

 

[1805]

The ships we were losing were far too big???? What on earth does that mean?

Sorry was typing fast I meant the ships we were losing in the Falklands (T42 & T21) ie they were expensive and far from expendable.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

People, a few things:

As swerve has intimated:

# C1 is a high-end ASW vessel. It's focus will be sub-hunting with a local air-defence and an ASuV capability. It will retain NGS for operations in which it is the only major combatant.

# C2 is a general-purpose vessel. It will have limited ASW capabilities, but will be the choke-point combatant. TacTom will be on this ship as there are not enough SSNs to support these required tasks.

# C3 is in-the-long-grass. Any hopes of a light-frigate are nil this side of 2030 (let alone a modularised hydrogrphic-cum-MCMV patrol-boat).

Add to which:

Forget Merlins on these vessels. The navy has too few, and the Junglies will be retired in the next decade. Merlins are for the big boats. Expect a pair of Wildcats on the C1/C2 class.

Finally it's called SAMPSON! £2billion of radar and most people can't spell it. :unknown

Rant over.

 

[1805]

People, a few things:

As swerve has intimated:

# C1 is a high-end ASW vessel. It's focus will be sub-hunting with a local air-defence and an ASuV capability. It will retain NGS for operations in which it is the only major combatant.

# C2 is a general-purpose vessel. It will have limited ASW capabilities, but will be the choke-point combatant. TacTom will be on this ship as there are not enough SSNs to support these required tasks.

# C3 is in-the-long-grass. Any hopes of a light-frigate are nil this side of 2030 (let alone a modularised hydrogrphic-cum-MCMV patrol-boat).

Add to which:

Forget Merlins on these vessels. The navy has too few, and the Junglies will be retired in the next decade. Merlins are for the big boats. Expect a pair of Wildcats on the C1/C2 class.

Finally it's called SAMPSON! £2billion of radar and most people can't spell it. :unknown

Rant over.

Hehehe very good comment on Sampson! I think the points people have been raising are based around what they feel would be better value or better suited to our requirments. Sadly we probably all know that that RN is now so unimaginative that after all this waffle and RV Triton, we will end up with a ship remarkable like the USN LCS1 but probably less capable. I fear the Select committee is right: late, over budget and under equipped!

 

[Systems Adict]

The DS 30M mountings being adopted by the Royal Navy on the Type 23 frigates are automated mounts for use against fast attack craft. I don't know how far this capability can be used with aircraft.

...In the mid to late 1990's Marconi purchased a few of these mounts from MSI, and with their help, fitted them onto the Malaysian Navies Lekiu Class Frigates.

Lekiu Class Frigates - Naval Technology

They Integrated them with the Command system & were ableto use them with the TV/IR system fitted onboard.

Having been lucky enough to be onboard during one of the gun shoots, I can STATE, that they can be used in the AA mode, having watched them shoot down a towed target.

I'm pretty sure that because the same systems are fitted to the 3 ships that BAE built for Brunei, that they can do the same...

Nakhoda Ragam Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology

On that basis, added to the fact it's been over 10 years since the Malaysian ships were delivered & technology has taken steps forward, I think it's fair to guess that BAE / the RN can do the same thing on T-45.


SA

 

[1805]

...In the mid to late 1990's Marconi purchased a few of these mounts from MSI, and with their help, fitted them onto the Malaysian Navies Lekiu Class Frigates.

Lekiu Class Frigates - Naval Technology

They Integrated them with the Command system & were ableto use them with the TV/IR system fitted onboard.

Having been lucky enough to be onboard during one of the gun shoots, I can STATE, that they can be used in the AA mode, having watched them shoot down a towed target.

I'm pretty sure that because the same systems are fitted to the 3 ships that BAE built for Brunei, that they can do the same...

Nakhoda Ragam Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology

On that basis, added to the fact it's been over 10 years since the Malaysian ships were delivered & technology has taken steps forward, I think it's fair to guess that BAE / the RN can do the same thing on T-45.


SA

30mm is just not likely to have the hitting power to bring down a missile at that rate of fire. This is why the USN moved to heavier 76mm with VT fuses in the late 40s. Just because it's a 70 old lesson does not make it any less valid, in fact with fast missiles it is more relevant and why the Italian and US Navies have using 76mm & 57mm for anti missile defence

 

[Hambo]

Sorry was typing fast I meant the ships we were losing in the Falklands (T42 & T21) ie they were expensive and far from expendable.

I still dont get you. Type 42 is/was a high end air defence vessel. When HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were hit they were carrying out their designed function, providing high end (with budgetary compromise) air defence. in the case of Sheffield, as one of 3 ships in the outer screen, in the case of Coventry as part of the "Type 64"making a royal nuisance , giving early warning, drawing attacking aircraft away and trying to attrit the enemy.

You cant guard your carriers and amphibs with anything other than your top assets, and your top assets have to be put in harms way at the risk of loses. If you had surrounded the task force with "expendable" less capable smaller ships they would have either been bypassed by the argentinian airforce or sunk in greater numbers.

Type 21 was a private venture, bought to beef up numbers during the intense cold war, as a ship it served a role but was compromised by budget and the current crop pf sensors and weapons available at that time.The Type 21s and Leanders again did a job, taking immense punishment, splitting air attacks and taking bombs that othewise would have hit far more valuable assets, but to a 450knot skyhawk pilot at ultra low level, through cloud, spray, gunfire and smoke they would have appeared as something worth bombing. Its only with an immense application of hindsight that you could suggest that in the 1970's and 1980;s the Navy should have purchased some cheap "flak" ships that we could have used in the advent of an amphibious landing, to some way stop us having to sacrifice more expensive ships. We didnt have the luxury of affording specialised canon fodder in the cold war.

 

[Hambo]

30mm is just not likely to have the hitting power to bring down a missile at that rate of fire. This is why the USN moved to heavier 76mm with VT fuses in the late 40s. Just because it's a 70 old lesson does not make it any less valid, in fact with fast missiles it is more relevant and why the Italian and US Navies have using 76mm & 57mm for anti missile defence

1805, there is a great deal of difference between radar and sensors in the 1940's and modern day radar and sensors. A 30mm weapon mated with a radar that can track the subject as well as the out going rounds, and make multiple aiming adjustments per second is more than capable of putting rounds on a missile, the round fired from Goalkeeper is a sabot round with a tungsten penetrator, i would suggest it would stop both a missile and a Japanese zero?

I was under the impression that the USN uses ESSM/RAM and PHALANX as close in defence against aircraft and missiles, a 76mm was put on the OHP's to give it a GP gun (it still had phalanx to shoot down missiles)