The Royal Navy's future? S2C2 project news from Janes'

[swerve]

Allow me to roll that into the same mission profile covered under "etc."

"An ocean capable patrol vessel (C3)"

To add to the previous post, I also understand seakeeping is an issue with the two types of hulls for the LCS. Again because they're optimised for fast deployment and work in the littorals. The C3 would have to be a reasonably conventional hull IMHV.

Agreed.

Dammit, what's happening round here? I turn my back for a minute & the RN starts defining a requirement for a ship quite similar to what I say it should have. I mean C3, of course.

 

[Tasman]

Agreed.

Dammit, what's happening round here? I turn my back for a minute & the RN starts defining a requirement for a ship quite similar to what I say it should have. I mean C3, of course.

Maybe some RN top brass are members of this forum! nfloorl:

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Why do I have the feeling the UK is again planning for a national programme without any international collaboration ?
At least for the 2 lower intensity types it would be so much better to leverage scale ... in the same time frame (2020 ?) several navies will have to replace FFGs and corvettes (Germany's F123, NL's 2 remaining Doorman, Italy's Minerva and Artigliere, France's Lafayette, etc) in order to perform broadly similar missions.
Although I remember the painful NFR90 experience, in today's world of permanently decreasing defence expenditure it would make sense to develop a product that could compete against the US' LCS for instance.

cheers

 

[swerve]

Why do I have the feeling the UK is again planning for a national programme without any international collaboration ?
At least for the 2 lower intensity types it would be so much better to leverage scale ... in the same time frame (2020 ?) several navies will have to replace FFGs and corvettes (Germany's F123, NL's 2 remaining Doorman, Italy's Minerva and Artigliere, France's Lafayette, etc) in order to perform broadly similar missions.
Although I remember the painful NFR90 experience, in today's world of permanently decreasing defence expenditure it would make sense to develop a product that could compete against the US' LCS for instance.

cheers

The requirement for C3 is for a fundamentally different ship from the LCS, something with far greater range & better seakeeping. An oceanic, not littoral, ship.

 

[Dave H]

Why do you suggest that the UK should collaborate with other nations in Europe? If we can design and build our own with control over the workshare then that is in the national interest. Collaborating so that other countries get a cheaper product and we lose soveriegnty and get less workshare is not in the UK's interest. I think the problems of getting other european governments to agree on projects far out weigh the benefits.

 

[contedicavour]

The requirement for C3 is for a fundamentally different ship from the LCS, something with far greater range & better seakeeping. An oceanic, not littoral, ship.

Ok fine - there are enough countries who can merge their specifications and create a joint tender, all the while allowing for several shipyards to build a series of almost identical ships.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Why do you suggest that the UK should collaborate with other nations in Europe?

Because he wants us to make his ship-building projects cheaper.

 

[swerve]

Because he wants us to make his ship-building projects cheaper.

If it's done right, it might make ours cheaper, but it's never been done right in warships. Even using the Enforcer as the basis for a landing ship was cocked up, though we seem to have got adequate ships in the end, even if we had to move one from Swan Hunter to Govan to get it finished properly.

 

[Lawman]

The problem is that most European frigate programs end up horribly over budget, and with massive compromises, since everyone has different needs. The French, Germans, Dutch, Italians and Brits all use different weapons systems on their ships, so you actually don't get very much cooperation on the expensive, complex parts.

 

[swerve]

The problem is that most European frigate programs end up horribly over budget, and with massive compromises, since everyone has different needs. The French, Germans, Dutch, Italians and Brits all use different weapons systems on their ships, so you actually don't get very much cooperation on the expensive, complex parts.

Actually, everyones needs differ far less than their desires, & there's a limited set of options for weapons systems. There are quite a few examples of more than one country getting particular systems, & not only US kit - e.g. we, the French & Italians have all managed to agree on Aster. But yes, there is a lot of variation, enough to make co-operation difficult. Any true co-operative programme would have to have a reasonable degree of commonality (doesn't mean everything identical) to be worthwhile, more than just hulls & engines. That's usually where agreements fall over, & more often for political reasons than real operational requirements.

 

[Grand Danois]

Actually, it would be better to codevelop mission equipment, sensors, battlemanagement, missiles, etc., rather than the hull itself. It seems to be the hull that make up for a lot of the differences in how navies employ their ships.

 

[Tasman]

Actually, it would be better to codevelop mission equipment, sensors, battlemanagement, missiles, etc., rather than the hull itself. It seems to be the hull that make up for a lot of the differences in how navies employ their ships.

I would have thought that the hull would be one area where agreement between partners ought to be possible and where modular construction would allow sections to be built in different yards if required for political reasons. The German Meko 200 is an example of a common hull that has been successfully adapted by navies in two hemispheres. The Australian and New Zealand ships, constructed by the same builder have evolved with different weapons systems to meet the differing needs of the two navies. Likewise the units built for countries like Greece, Turkey and Portugal have different weapons and sensor packages. Perhaps though, the success of the Meko 200 resulted from the fact that the hull was developed by one builder (Blohm + Voss) rather than by a committee from a number of divergent countries.

The co-development of mission equipment makes sense and because of the modular nature of some weapon and sensor packages it seems to me that it should be possible for members of a consortium to opt in or out of such arrangements depending on whether their needs are unique or common with other consortium members. Some may prove to be common requirements by all the navies concerned. Others may just be desired by just one. For example if five countries want a 127mm main gun and a sixth wants a 76mm this shouldn't be a problem. If two want American missiles and fire control systems and others want a European system I still don't see this as an unsurmountable issue.

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

I would have thought that the hull would be one area where agreement between partners ought to be possible and where modular construction would allow sections to be built in different yards if required for political reasons. The German Meko 200 is an example of a common hull that has been successfully adapted by navies in two hemispheres. The Australian and New Zealand ships, constructed by the same builder have evolved with different weapons systems to meet the differing needs of the two navies. Likewise the units built for countries like Greece, Turkey and Portugal have different weapons and sensor packages. Perhaps though, the success of the Meko 200 resulted from the fact that the hull was developed by one builder (Blohm + Voss) rather than by a committee from a number of divergent countries.

As you say, exactly because the was developed by one builder and then exported it is not an example of design by commitee.

I had the Anglo-French-Italian Horizon project in mind, where varying philosophies on industrial policy, power management, accomodation, etc. seemed to be at odds.

The hull design reflects quite a lot on the doctrine of a navy.

My perception is that it is easier to agree on the core mission modules as, say, an AAW mission package is reasonably well defined in terms of concepts and technology. With the exception of SAMPSON, it is generally the same system these classes employ.

Another example could be the systems used on the "APAR" frigates, which are/will be fitted to three (or more) types of hulls.

The co-development of mission equipment makes sense and because of the modular nature of some weapon and sensor packages it seems to me that it should be possible for members of a consortium to opt in or out of such arrangements depending on whether their needs are unique or common with other consortium members. Some may prove to be common requirements by all the navies concerned. Others may just be desired by just one. For example if five countries want a 127mm main gun and a sixth wants a 76mm this shouldn't be a problem. If two want American missiles and fire control systems and others want a European system I still don't see this as an unsurmountable issue.

Cheers

Mission systems are making up for more than half of the cost of a modern high end warship. Could it be the possible saving from co-developing missions systems are greater than any savings on hull design work? The hulls cost what they cost to build so...

To me it seems that requirements for the mission systems are easier to accomodate for, and it takes out any bickering over, say, RR or GT turbines.

0.02€

 

[contedicavour]

Actually, everyones needs differ far less than their desires, & there's a limited set of options for weapons systems. There are quite a few examples of more than one country getting particular systems, & not only US kit - e.g. we, the French & Italians have all managed to agree on Aster. But yes, there is a lot of variation, enough to make co-operation difficult. Any true co-operative programme would have to have a reasonable degree of commonality (doesn't mean everything identical) to be worthwhile, more than just hulls & engines. That's usually where agreements fall over, & more often for political reasons than real operational requirements.

I fully agree with your assessment. My point is that given the dramatic level of budget cuts affecting most countries, politicians, top navy brass and shipyards may now make more efforts to standardize their requirements in order to lower unitary costs and order classes of , say, 30+ ships as the US does, instead of each country ordering 4-5 ships. Economies of scale do matter a lot. Besides, from a political point of view, politicians won't be at ease to scrap pan European military programmes, or at least not as much as with national programmes. The good old EU meetings may turn out to be a nightmare for politicians who are hurting the other countries' interests by pulling out of a joint procurement.

cheers

 

[Dave H]

I think the only way collaborations would work is if a separate budget was put towards european defence. The UK will never want to weaken Nato, hence wont support anything that France in particular might do EU wise to weaken it.

But there is a general acknowlegement that EU countries spend far too little on defence, whilst wasting Billions on the CAP for instance. If the EU nations could agree a GDP percentage to be paid into a "pot" designed to boost EU muscle (whilst not weakening the National defence) then a way forward could be found. If all states paid 0.5% more GDP (I know, I know...it wont happen) then pan european systems could be made built.

An assessment could be made of what forces the EU needs to project power. For instance Airlift, Sea Lift, bombers, carriers and escorts. Just as the AWACS programme created a pool of assets then European designs could be chosen for frigates etc. The crewing could be by attachment or secondment from the national strength or by direct entry to a euro navy/airforce. If an agreement was made that these would compliment nato then the political arguing might be less.

Politically I dont see it happening at least until the EU's interests are threatened by emerging power blocks in the next decade or a hostil Russia.

The problem now is that the RN for instance has the T45 coming in so doesnt need an EU collaboration in airdefence and has plenty of ASW ships that will last another 20 years, other countres needs are either more urgent or longer term. No one really knows how effective the new technologies or the new US generation of designs will be and so you risk buying an obselete platform. National ship yards are also close to the national psyche, we dont want to lose jobs to our EU cousins!

Federalists want uniform taxes and regulations across the continent, perhaps a minimum defence spend per member state is needed? Moree spend even on an an individual countries basis would help to lower prices and add choice in the long term. However there are many left wing/ green parties across europe that would resist.

 

[mark22w]

Contedicavour I hear you, and in a perfect world agree... you know there is a 'but' coming...

However, there is still the major issue of agreement on work share which ought to reflect the numbers of vessels required for each partner country. Not an easy task when the UK wants say 12 destroyers, that becomes 8 and ultimately 6… wasn’t a key reason to withdraw from the Horizon project due to insufficient control by what would have been the biggest customer?

In reality commonality in sensors and weapons, with modular design, is more important IMO than a common hull. Future RN vessels might use for example a T45 platform derivative but odds are it will utilise a combination of international weapons and sensors. Huge savings in R&D... oh, and keeps the national ship building concerns happy until such time as reduction in build rates requires no other option... not quite there yet.

 

[contedicavour]

Well well a minimum level of defence spending... actually the EU helped a bit by proposing guidelines excluding defence spending from the deficit limit of 3% of GDP. For countries with sizeable peacenik parties and a globally pro-EU attitude such as Italy such an idea might be a good solution. Problem is the same situation does not apply to other EU countries.

Another aspect is the merging of the European defence industry... with some luck this will help merge procurement efforts where each country will build a component of future joint weapons.

cheers

 

[swerve]

...Another aspect is the merging of the European defence industry... with some luck this will help merge procurement efforts where each country will build a component of future joint weapons.

cheers

Or where "country" becomes less significant in purchasing, because the suppliers are less identified with countries.

 

[riksavage]

According to S2C2 team leader, Commodore Steve Brunton quoted in Janes, the programme is looking at achieving the following capabilities:

C1 – Multi-mission 6, 000 tons, offering high-end ASW, land-attack, coastal suppression and organic MCM capability as part of a maritime strike force / amphib task force
C2 – Operate in support of small-scale stabilisation ops, sea-lane protection and chokepoint escort
C3- Maritime security and interdiction operations, 2,000 tons, 7, 000 n miles range. Would come with a large mission aft-bay for SF, MCM or Lynx

Overall plan to reduce the current eight classes of vessel to three, serving through to 2035

C1 & C2 may utilize the same hull replacing current 22 & 23’s.

Initial roadmap suggestions by end of March 2007.

Lets hope the momentum continues and we start seeing some concrete timelines and decisions thus avoiding the endless slippage as seen with the carrier strike programme!

 

[Tasman]

Lets hope the momentum continues and we start seeing some concrete timelines and decisions thus avoiding the endless slippage as seen with the carrier strike programme!

This seems to be a real step in the right direction for the future of the RN. To maintain a reasonable sized surface fleet to work with the carriers and the amphibious force, the RN needs to develop cost effective designs that will be capable of carrying out the tasks required and that will be affordable in sufficient numbers.

Cheers