The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

The following article has some interesting viewpoints on sub-sonic cruise missiles, including TLAM, JASSM, Storm-Shadow et al. All applicable to this debate. JASSM comes under close scrutiny becuase of its poor test performance.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/upi-the-jassm-debate-04139/#more

 

[harryriedl]

Over time I see the PAAMS developing nicely in the same way the US MK41 evolved with an increasing array of munitions capable of being fired from the same launcher. I would be happy to see Sylver A70 launchers fitted forward of the current ASTER fit to provide a land attack capability. Installing a system, which fires a missile variant already in service (Storm-shadow) brings cost savings and logistics advantages to the table in an environment, which looks for increased commonality between the three services. I would also fit ASTER to the forthcoming C2 & C2 platforms, again bringing increased critical mass to the program resulting in cost savings overtime.

Looking at current and future threats PAAMS brings a lot to the table, accepted it’s not as versatile as the MK41, but never the less it still achieves the primary goal of mitigating all current identified threats.

As the T42's retire the Phalanx will be fitted and I have no doubt the T45's will also get Harpoon. Apparently the time required to fit both systems is minimal due to the 'fitted for, not with approach'.

PAAMS would be good for the C2-C1 classes espeicaly if they are fitted with V70 so that they could be a more Land attack capabilities orientated. also is possible to fit pallitises ASTER on a C3

i like the look of FREMM for the C2 class

 

[spsun100001]

I'm sure I read (in JDW) that the DCN Sylver system is actually more expensive that tne US Mk41 and that the predominant procurement motive was around supporting European rather than US equipment. That might at least have made sense if the DCN system was more rather than less flexible.

I'm also sure I saw it reported that we had signed a contract to refurbish Phalanx CIWS systems taken off the Type 42's with the intention of fitting them to the Type 45. The platforms for them are midships and the MoD official images still show the ships with them.

 

[TimmyC]

i like the look of FREMM for the C2 class

If your talking a mix of modified Storm Shadow or TLAM that's similar to the French AVT version PLUS the towed array sonar of their ASW version than I agree that would be an ideal compliment to the T45 and CVF's however, at 5,800t do you not think they may be a bit too 'top-end' for the C2 class?

Although the likely quantity and expected future date of the FSC will surely mean a British design.

 

[swerve]

I'm sure I read (in JDW) that the DCN Sylver system is actually more expensive that tne US Mk41 and that the predominant procurement motive was around supporting European rather than US equipment. That might at least have made sense if the DCN system was more rather than less flexible.
....

I think you missed a crucial point: once the decision was taken to buy PAAMS, & therefore Aster, buying Sylver was virtually inevitable. Aster is not integrated into Mk41. The decision to buy Aster, rather than Standard, may have been related to buying European, but the launcher just followed on from that. The UK would have had to pay for integration & take all the risks. I don't think that was ever considered. The thinking was very simple: you buy whatever launcher goes with the missiles you've decided to buy.

BTW, the price of Sylver in dollars has gone up greatly with the decline of the dollar in the last few years. If Sylver is more expensive now, that does not mean it was more expensive when the decision was made to buy it.

Also, flexibility is valuable only if you want to use it. AFAIK, Type 45 is expected to do air defence, first & foremost. And the flexibility of Mk 41 is often overstated, because people forget that (like Sylver) it comes in different sizes, and only the biggest fires everything. If the choice is 48 Aster 30, or 32 VLS to hold a mix of TLAM, Harpoon, & SM-2, which is best?

 

[harryriedl]

If your talking a mix of modified Storm Shadow or TLAM that's similar to the French AVT version PLUS the towed array sonar of their ASW version than I agree that would be an ideal compliment to the T45 and CVF's however, at 5,800t do you not think they may be a bit too 'top-end' for the C2 class?

Although the likely quantity and expected future date of the FSC will surely mean a British design.

what do you think for C2 because im still unsure about whats required

 

[TimmyC]

I'd be happy with a beefed up Triton, the VT design.
Which is largely similar to the US' much troubled LCS. The General Dynamics led team uses a trimaran hull. I like too the Lockheed Martin's semi-planning mono-hull, both are very interesting.
My take on VT's "lines of communication" idea of the C2 would indeed be a ship that is designed for littoral combat with good land attack capabilities, although I'm not too sure how fast a ship such as those aforementioned would be out on the deep blue sea. As I understand it it may have trouble keeping up with the task force if it gets choppy - And I certainly wouldn't want to be on it if that was the case, no way!
As for armament spec the whole program is so far away I guess everything may have changed to speculate what AAW fit and such like it may or may not have. Our current frigates are both very modern and capable so will be happily around for perhaps a couple of decades yet.
Still, can't help wondering what the RN fleet of tomorrow will be like. Will certainly be taking a trip to Portsmouth for the Queen's annual review when the new ships start to arrive.

 

[harryriedl]

I'd be happy with a beefed up Triton, the VT design.
Which is largely similar to the US' much troubled LCS. The General Dynamics led team uses a trimaran hull. I like too the Lockheed Martin's semi-planning mono-hull, both are very interesting.
My take on VT's "lines of communication" idea of the C2 would indeed be a ship that is designed for littoral combat with good land attack capabilities, although I'm not too sure how fast a ship such as those aforementioned would be out on the deep blue sea. As I understand it it may have trouble keeping up with the task force if it gets choppy - And I certainly wouldn't want to be on it if that was the case, no way!
As for armament spec the whole program is so far away I guess everything may have changed to speculate what AAW fit and such like it may or may not have. Our current frigates are both very modern and capable so will be happily around for perhaps a couple of decades yet.
Still, can't help wondering what the RN fleet of tomorrow will be like. Will certainly be taking a trip to Portsmouth for the Queen's annual review when the new ships start to arrive.

Are i see im seeing a a modenised Duke for the C2 role while your thinking of an LCS style desgine. okay both those degines seem optemisted for speed and and not a whole lot else and they have lots of Aluminum [bad especially as the RN expeirance with aluminum T21 Ardent ect]. lastly i would expect at least an equivalent armaments to the present frigates short range missiles VLS, Sonar, Hanger [i don't want to bet the farm on littorals]. also a couple of pages ago it was mentioned the importance of ships being able to take the role of the one above.

the oldest frigates are 20yrs old so they won't last for ever

 

[spsun100001]

I think you missed a crucial point: once the decision was taken to buy PAAMS, & therefore Aster, buying Sylver was virtually inevitable. Aster is not integrated into Mk41. The decision to buy Aster, rather than Standard, may have been related to buying European, but the launcher just followed on from that. The UK would have had to pay for integration & take all the risks. I don't think that was ever considered. The thinking was very simple: you buy whatever launcher goes with the missiles you've decided to buy.

BTW, the price of Sylver in dollars has gone up greatly with the decline of the dollar in the last few years. If Sylver is more expensive now, that does not mean it was more expensive when the decision was made to buy it.

Also, flexibility is valuable only if you want to use it. AFAIK, Type 45 is expected to do air defence, first & foremost. And the flexibility of Mk 41 is often overstated, because people forget that (like Sylver) it comes in different sizes, and only the biggest fires everything. If the choice is 48 Aster 30, or 32 VLS to hold a mix of TLAM, Harpoon, & SM-2, which is best?

Thanks Swerve. Take your point about the choice of the missile dictating the choice of the launcher. I understand that the US manufacturer was still offering the Mk41 post our decision to go with ASTER but no doubt as you say that was on the basis that we would have taken the costs and risks of integration.

The article I read was about three years ago so it was a comparison at the time we made the selection not today with the dollar price movement shifting the relative values.

I can't think why you wouldn't want flexibility and I'm really not sure the weapons omissions of the Type 45 are due to an assessment of fit for role or just to reduce costs. Commodore Greenish, one of the senior naval staff on the programme, acknowledged that the Type 45 was the "best ship we can afford not the best ship we could build".

I think the lack of embarked anti-ship or anti submarine capability (other than through the helicopter) are a handicap in terms of the sea control the ship can excercise around itself if, for example, a Type 45 was undertaking the Armilla patrol and things turned hot in the Gulf. Nearly every other nation is fitting it's AAW vessels with these capabilities and they were orginally listed for the Type 45 until bugets became constrained and we suddenly found we didn't need them. I tend to think the Germans, Spanish, French, Italians, Dutch, Japanese, South Koreans and Americans* didn't give their AAW vessels these capabilities for no reason.

You don't necessarily need a Mk41 for all those capabilities and as you say your choice of SAM is critical but I do think a flexible system is an advantage particularly in a shrinking fleet where dedication of ships to a very role specific mission with no crossover or all round capability is likely to become increasingly difficult to maintain as a principle.

(*Arleigh Burke flight IIa's don't have a dedicated SSM but the Standard can be used against surface vessels whereas I understand Aster can't).

 

[swerve]

spsun,

point taken about the possibility of a T45 being on patrol. It shouldn't - there are other classes for that sort of job - but unfortunately the RN is getting worryingly short of ships.

The Type 45 has plenty of room for more weapons. Let's hope it gets 'em. And we get enough cheaper ships that T45s don't have to do the wrong sort of tasks.

About the flexibility of other nations AAW ships - well, part of that may be that we're still building ships for a big navy, where specialisation is OK - even though the numbers may no longer be enough.

 

[TimmyC]

im seeing a modenised Duke for the C2 role

The T22 is 5,400t & the T23 4,900t so out of interest what size do you see the C2 being? Similar to the Dukes as you said before, but in what way do you mean modernised, just a modern ASW / multi-role frigate design or really based on the Duke?
What of the other classes providing a contract is issued and VT's offer accepted such as C1 & C3, over 7,000t & over 2,000t respectively?

 

[harryriedl]

The T22 is 5,400t & the T23 4,900t so out of interest what size do you see the C2 being? Similar to the Dukes as you said before, but in what way do you mean modernised, just a modern ASW / multi-role frigate design or really based on the Duke?
What of the other classes providing a contract is issued and VT's offer accepted such as C1 & C3, over 7,000t & over 2,000t respectively?

yes about 5,800t would be the size i imagine the C2 im just replaceing the present frigate with a new design thats why something along the line of a FREMM a clean sheet design[no i don't mean joining the design just something similar] seems to me well suited RN needs. by modenised i mean full electric proplution [with the ulitmaite aim of converting the whole of the RN to full electric propultion] ASTER 15 AAW with the possibility of upgrading to ASTER 30 the sonar and Towed array would be passed on from the dukes so would the Harpoon.

the other sizes for the C1 and the C3 seem right to me. I would have the C1 as the land attack orientated class apart from the SSN

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

yes about 5,800t would be the size i imagine the C2........ the other sizes for the C1 and the C3 seem right to me. I would have the C1 as the land attack orientated class apart from the SSN

It depends what you take the estimated displacements to be. Jane's reported that current plans would be:

C1 - 6,000 tonnes
C2 - 4,000 tonnes
C3 - 2,000 tonnes

Now it wasn't said whether that was fully loaded or not, but it would make a huge amount of difference. A fully-loaded C2 according to the Jane's article would make it a light frigate rather than a more capable Type 22/23.

As to armament, I doubt the C2 would carry Aster 30 missiles. That's area/fleet defence and would require the heavier SYLVER A-50s rather than the lighter SYLVER A-43s. It would make more sense to have C1 provide back-up in that area to the Type 45 destroyers. Indeed, C2 might not even carry Asters at all. MBDA's CAAM is being considered for the FSC and the potential for quad-packing would make more sense - it would also come into service in the late 2010s when we are expecting the first new escorts to be commissioned.

 

[harryriedl]

It depends what you take the estimated displacements to be. Jane's reported that current plans would be:

C1 - 6,000 tonnes
C2 - 4,000 tonnes
C3 - 2,000 tonnes

Now it wasn't said whether that was fully loaded or not, but it would make a huge amount of difference. A fully-loaded C2 according to the Jane's article would make it a light frigate rather than a more capable Type 22/23.

As to armament, I doubt the C2 would carry Aster 30 missiles. That's area/fleet defence and would require the heavier SYLVER A-50s rather than the lighter SYLVER A-43s. It would make more sense to have C1 provide back-up in that area to the Type 45 destroyers. Indeed, C2 might not even carry Asters at all. MBDA's CAAM is being considered for the FSC and the potential for quad-packing would make more sense - it would also come into service in the late 2010s when we are expecting the first new escorts to be commissioned.

the thing i see with the C2 is that they should really be a T23 replacement so i would nudge the displacement up 5,500+. i would have thought anything less than ASTER15 would be underarming the C2. could you link the CAAM missile as this is the first i heard of it.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

the thing i see with the C2 is that they should really be a T23 replacement so i would nudge the displacement up 5,500+.

But you don't get to decide to do that, do you? Please don't turn this into a "dream fleet" scenario. We need to consider the information we have in front of us. It was referred to in the report this way:

"C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort."

Now you could say that the current frigates can't really do more than that now anyway and would melt without support from bigger ships in a high-pressure conflict area. If, however, it means they wouldn't be suitable for deployment in a full-blown war then clearly they may be a light frigate and not that heavily armed.

i would have thought anything less than ASTER15 would be underarming the C2.

Why? It could have a VLS MICA or US VLS with ESSM. Plus CAAM.

could you link the CAAM missile as this is the first i heard of it.

I can't post the article because that would be a breach of copyright (subscription access only).

It's full name is the "Common Anti-Air Modular Missile" - there's some info on it here:

http://www.defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/dsei07_missiles.htm#camm

 

[harryriedl]

But you don't get to decide to do that, do you? Please don't turn this into a "dream fleet" scenario. We need to consider the information we have in front of us. It was referred to in the report this way:

"C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort."

Now you could say that the current frigates can't really do more than that now anyway and would melt without support from bigger ships in a high-pressure conflict area. If, however, it means they wouldn't be suitable for deployment in a full-blown war then clearly they may be a light frigate and not that heavily armed.



Why? It could have a VLS MICA or US VLS with ESSM. Plus CAAM.



I can't post the article because that would be a breach of copyright (subscription access only).

It's full name is the "Common Anti-Air Modular Missile" - there's some info on it here:

http://www.defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/dsei07_missiles.htm#camm

thanks for the link on the CAAM it seems to be a useful system i would agree that it would be very useful. I not talking about a dream fleet its just i think the displacement will grow as the Navy puts more and more kit on board. I think the Euro kit is much more likely on ship rather than ESSM [although it would be a very good choice]due to politics i also thorght that VLS Mica is shorter range compared with ASTER 15

[/I]chokepoint escort."[/I] i read that as picket ship duty's so I assumed that this is not much different from the present ships duty's just worded for the new expeditionary role which is now in vogue.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

i think the displacement will grow as the Navy puts more and more kit on board.

Indeed, there's always the hope that if necessary the Navy will sell 4,000 tonnes and then neglect to say that's not under full load.

I think the Euro kit is much more likely....due to politics

UK companies do also own a big stake in those systems.

[/i]chokepoint escort."[/i] i read that as picket ship duty's so I assumed that this is not much different from the present ships duty's just worded for the new expeditionary role which is now in vogue.

Hopefully it essentially means "frigate work" so essentially self-defence AAW, ASuW, decent sensors and some sort of ASW. But don't expect high-end ASW capabilities - that'll be up to the C1.

 

[TimmyC]

"C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and choke point escort."

Choke point escort is a fairly ambiguous statement that could certainly have varying degrees of intensity.
A single ship in a reasonably low expected threat environment right through to being part of a UK/EU/UN/NATO or other package, whether the expected threat was likely submarine, airborne or surface would certainly make a large difference to what a British frigate could be expected to contribute.
In terms of operation cost and availability you obviously won't have a Tico CG & L.A class SSN patrolling straits 24/7 but this more ( hopefully ) numerous C2 class may be about right for the job.
The future always looks a dangerous place because of the potential for hostility. I'm not sure on force protection policy, whether valuable units even like the possible future C2 class would operate alone or likely only part of a task force. I guess if there was ever a chance of it being attacked by assets such as FAC armed with half a dozen Russian equivalent Penguins, land based Silkworms or even maritime strike aircraft they would indeed be properly protected.
If my memory serves me correctly the class numbers are hoped to be in the region of 8xC1, 8xC2 & 10xC3, is this correct? Or even likely?
How multi-role can a 4,000t vessel be? I'd certainly expect the T23 to make good account for itself in a high intensity conflict, but only at its designed task - such as ASW while being protected by area air defence.
Can others enlighten me as to their take on what "Small scale stabilization ops, sea lane protection & choke point escort" means.

Thanks

 

[swerve]

...could you link the CAAM missile as this is the first i heard of it.

There seems to be some uncertainty as to the correct acronym. Look for both CAAM & CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can others enlighten me as to their take on what "Small scale stabilization ops, sea lane protection & choke point escort" means.

Thanks

I would have assumed that its looking at a minimum capability thats typically delivered by a Frigate - and at a stretch (depending on design) an OPV.