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

[Grand Danois]

They can't fire Tomohawks with the Mk-41 they are likely to use. Furthermore they are inferior in rather key areas such as radar, fire control, fleet/area-defence, range and growth for future technology to name a few.

If the UK had wanted a patrol frigate it could have made one for around £150 million, but it wanted a fleet-defence AAW destroyer - which is why the Type 45 costs a lot more.

They will feature the same radars as the the Sachsen class and LCF class AAW. I'm unsure of the CMS, but the illuminators are the same qua the APAR. The Smart-L is virtually the same as the S1850 on the Type 45.

That's AAW radars used in a fleet defence role. They are better in the AAW role than the SPY-1s used in conjunction with AEGIS. The unknown is the CMS.

They have more missiles than a Type 45. 24 ESSM and 32 SM-2A for a total of 56.

I acknowledge the Type 45 as the superior ships - but they are 1 bn £ a pop - as opposed to a Danish frigate which is 150 mn £. Programme cost both.

The Type 45 does seems to have more growth and a lot of high tech features like electric drive etc.

AFAIK the MK41 will be strike length (though I am not certain about strike length, they can take SM-3).

 

[AndrewMI]

harryriedl

I think the T23 hull idea is a decent one, but taking into consideration such things as hull faigue, and/or manning levels may make it a less attractive option for C2.

Some form of T45 hullform seems to make sence for C1, be interesting, considering the media portrayal of budgetry cuts, to see its capability. Personally i think a ship that can project power, independent of support of CV or T45 would be a good platform.

 

[KIJ]

They can't fire Tomohawks with the Mk-41 they are likely to use. Furthermore they are inferior in rather key areas such as radar, fire control, fleet/area-defence, range and growth for future technology to name a few.

If the UK had wanted a patrol frigate it could have made one for around £150 million, but it wanted a fleet-defence AAW destroyer - which is why the Type 45 costs a lot more.

Well, they come with the full-length Mk41 VLS-launcher - and is prepared to use Tomahawks, should the need arise.

What makes them inferior, could you be a little more specific ?

 

[swerve]

The quoted cost of the Danish patrol ships is significantly less than the Dutch De Zeven Provincien, which are the same size & have much the same sensors & armament. Does all-diesel propulsion make that much difference? Or does the headline price not include everything? I keep wondering about this. If the price is true, how is it achieved? These appear to be the cheapest full-on warships of their size in the world.

I note that the cost of 4.7 billion DKR for three was published before the radars had been selected.

 

[kato]

The quoted cost of the Danish patrol ships is significantly less than the Dutch De Zeven Provincien, which are the same size & have much the same sensors & armament.

a) not all electronics included
b) only weapon included was the main gun
c) mostly commercial standard hull
d) locally produced mechanical components (instead of imported gas turbine...)

 

[Grand Danois]

The quoted cost of the Danish patrol ships is significantly less than the Dutch De Zeven Provincien, which are the same size & have much the same sensors & armament. Does all-diesel propulsion make that much difference? Or does the headline price not include everything? I keep wondering about this. If the price is true, how is it achieved? These appear to be the cheapest full-on warships of their size in the world.

I note that the cost of 4.7 billion DKR for three was published before the radars had been selected.

The 4.7 bn kr is programme cost. Design, radars, vls launchers, hull, propulsion, sonar, etc., but not the missiles and guns themselves.

Small savings has been achieved by reusing some of the design from the Absalons, and the tooling up of the yard was also paid for through the Absalon project. The latter is small potatoes.

Savings has also been achieved by using a less complex design. Less compartmentelization and redundancy - like the French Mistrals or the HMS Ocean.

The frigates themselves will be built in blocks in the Baltic states (and Poland?) and assembled in Denmark. Lindø is an extremely modern and cost-efficient yard.

A 5" mk45 mod 4 was 15 mn usd each for the Absalons. They are refurbed second hands. One could add this cost to a get a slightly adjusted picture.

The APAR and the Smart-L is really a MOTS item, so there isn't a huge development cost attached. Profits plus fees.

The propulsion is simpler using four diesels providing a top speed of 28kts - one type of engine is used, and a cheap one - as opposed to diesels plus gas turbine (though this should have some slight advantages - less fuel consumption at flank speed than gas).

All the stuff on a Type 45 is developed from nothing - including that exceptional electric drive. This explains a lot. keeping the Uk tech base alive. Industrial policy.

Nonetheless, sans the RD&T, a Type 45 still comes in at 600 mn £.

Perhaps the UK armed forces could get more, if the budget was only about deliverables to the armed forces (?).

 

[KIJ]

I believe that the price for the Patrol Frigates does not include all the weapons and equipment, but I agree, they are cheap compared to the Type 45. However, there are other factors, e.g. operating costs. Crew, maintenance, fuel . . . . Between them, these cost more than the ship, over its lifetime. You can't just take the purchase price & say "we can have twice as many because they cost half as much to buy".

BTW, having Mk 41 launchers does not necessarily mean you can fire Tomahawks. Mk 41 comes in self-defense length, equivalent to Sylver A43, capable of firing ESSM but not SM-2, tactical length, capable of firing SM-2 but not Tomahawk equivalent to Sylver A50, & strike-length, capable of firing Tomahawk, equivalent to Sylver A70. The price & weight goes up with each version. Are you sure the Patrol Frigates will have strike length?

The danish Patrol Frigates are designed to be cheap regarding the operating costs. The crew will be 100 men or less, the fuel and maintenance shouldn't differ much from other ships of the type.

 

[harryriedl]

harryriedl

I think the T23 hull idea is a decent one, but taking into consideration such things as hull faigue, and/or manning levels may make it a less attractive option for C2.

Some form of T45 hullform seems to make sence for C1, be interesting, considering the media portrayal of budgetry cuts, to see its capability. Personally i think a ship that can project power, independent of support of CV or T45 would be a good platform.

im talking new build T23 the hull needn't change but almost every thing else could IEP drive instead of the present system PAAMS or MK41 VLS diffrent radar just an update on the successful T23 design like the Lender did on Witbey class

 

[Grand Danois]

The danish Patrol Frigates are designed to be cheap regarding the operating costs. The crew will be 100 men or less, the fuel and maintenance shouldn't differ much from other ships of the type.

Actually CODAD should be cheaper to run than CODAG. Less complex, only one type of engine to maintain (and in wide commercial use), more fuel efficient at flank speed. Less requirement for RAS. 9000 nm at 15kts in this case.

However, CODAD takes up more space and top speed is 1-2 kts less...

Of further note:

Danyard Aalborg Shipyard declined to bid on this program. Tenders were returned in late June 2001, however, both were above the set price ceiling of US$110M (hull, mechanical, and electrical systems only). Of note, the US$110M does not include the weapon and equipment outfit.

and

Machinery Combined Diesel and Diesel (CODAD): Four MTU 20V 8000 diesel engines (44,000 hp); two shafts; two propellers (Est)
Speed (Knots) 28 (Est)
Range 9,000nm at 15 knots (Est)

and

CMS/Fire Control Combat Management System (CMS): Terma elektronik C-Flex. Fire Control System (FCS): SaabTech Ceros 2000.

the mechanical FC illuminators are for the guns, of course,

and

Combat Management System (CMS): All three of the frigates will have the Terma C-Flex Combat Management System. C-Flex is the first CMS designed specifically for rapid reconfiguration. StanFlex 300 consists of three standard two-position multipurpose consoles on a data bus that also connects the consoles to modular weapons and sensors. The latter can be replaced in a 24 hour period, and the system reconfigured by software substitution. Up to three additional consoles can be added to control additional weapons or other systems. The system can support up to 30 workstations on a duplicated 1 GByte Ethernet.

Modular application software is written in Java using a Windows 2000 operating system. A new common operating environment supports an intranet, to which containerized weapons are connected via subsystem interface units. Sensors and C3 servers are connected directly to the intranet.

Source:
http://www.amiinter.com/samples/denmark/DA1501.html

I have posted this prev, wrt building to commercial naval standards:

Some notes on the Patrol Ships from an article in Søværnsorientering.

• First ship should be ready to sail at the Royal Danish Navys 500 year jubilee in 2010. First unit ISD 2011.
  
  
• Emphasis on commonality with Absalon class.
  
  
• Operational experience with Absalon class has led to minor improvements.
  
  
• Negotiations with Thales NL has been entered wrt APAR and Smart L.
  
  
• Six vertical damage control compartments [havarizoner?].
  
  
• NBC divided into three separate citadelles each with its own NBC filters and air condition. Electronic Damage Management System as per Absalon class.
  
  
• Redundancy of some sensors and weapons systems in order to retain
  fighting ability after being hit.
  
  
• High standard of crew comfort.

 

[AndrewMI]

im talking new build T23 the hull needn't change but almost every thing else could IEP drive instead of the present system PAAMS or MK41 VLS diffrent radar just an update on the successful T23 design like the Lender did on Witbey class

A new design based on the best aspects of the older T23 hull, with new modifications based on and improved from the T45 lessons. New 6" gun, Aster 15, Harpoon, Tomahawk, Towed array and helecopter as armament. Be a capable ship. However i think the new ship should have more of a multi-role capacity over and above the T23 which was concieved with Soviet subs in mind.

As for the C1, the idea of some kind of through deck cruiser seems to be the wrong kind of ship for me, although i do feel that it should be capable of operating 2 helecopters. I do think there is a requirement for a ship with top level capabilities, capable of global power projection. I think a ship with cruiser type capability if affordable should be the route to go.

 

[Sea Toby]

I think the United Kingdom needs hulls in the water. I would build the F2000 class in numbers, 12-16 of them for the C3s with Seawolf or Mk 21 RAMs and 76-mm guns and not necessarily with a helicopter hangar although with a helicopter deck, and build more Type 23 hulls, 8-12 ships with Aster 15 instead of Seawolf, possibly with the 76-mm guns of the C3s, of course with a helicopter hangar and deck. I would plan but not build a Type 45 hull with either improved Aster 30 missiles, or SM-2s or 3s, again of course with a helicopter hangar and deck. I would install 8 Exocets or Harpoons on the C1 and C2, but only 4 on the C-3. All of the ships would have ASW torpedo tubes, possibly fewer tubes on the C-3.

Priority would be the C-3, then the C-2, and if there is cash to spend, the C-1. I would if necessarily wait until the Type 45 decommissioned before building any C-1, 8 should be enough.

 

[Sea Toby]

Sorry, double post.

 

[AndrewMI]

I think the United Kingdom needs hulls in the water. I would build the F2000 class in numbers, 12-16 of them for the C3s with Seawolf or Mk 21 RAMs and 76-mm guns and not necessarily with a helicopter hangar although with a helicopter deck, and build more Type 23 hulls, 8-12 ships with Aster 15 instead of Seawolf, possibly with the 76-mm guns of the C3s, of course with a helicopter hangar and deck. I would plan but not build a Type 45 hull with either improved Aster 30 missiles, or SM-2s or 3s, again of course with a helicopter hangar and deck. I would install 8 Exocets or Harpoons on the C1 and C2, but only 4 on the C-3. All of the ships would have ASW torpedo tubes, possibly fewer tubes on the C-3.

Priority would be the C-3, then the C-2, and if there is cash to spend, the C-1. I would if necessarily wait until the Type 45 decommissioned before building any C-1, 8 should be enough.

I think they would rule out certain off the shelf items on political grounds. If they are built following on to any third batch of T45 i guess that hull in modified form will be used for C1 and C2.


C2 i guess will have a similar fit to T23, but a similar hull to T45. Retain the gun, Harpoon and the ASW hardware (inc. helecopter). Change the Seawolf for Aster 15 and (limited) Tomahawk - say 4-8 ish. This keeps a relativly dedecated ASW asset, as the T23 was, whilst adding flexibility through the tomahawk addition.

C1 i think is from a requirement for a high level warship as part of a carrier or amphib group. The RN may in the not too distant future be involved in conflict or tension with a capable military power. The three most obvious tension points foreseable now are China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan and potential Russian expansion. If the RN and MoD are serious about power projection a cruiser type ship is required. Consider a stretch T45 hull, with additional sections on the flight deck, amidships and by the VLS. It should be at least be "fitted fr but not with" Aster 15+30 Tomahawk in VLS. Harpoon aft, at least 2 CIWS, 2 helecopters and the new gun under development. It is expensive, but protecting a CV always is...

It is important to remember that the T45 is configered for quick addition of Harpoon as well as Tomahawk in the VLS - which has room for 72 cells.

 

[Systems Adict]

It is important to remember that the T45 is configered for quick addition of Harpoon as well as Tomahawk in the VLS - which has room for 72 cells.

Hate to nit-pick, but T45 has the ability / is configured to quickly add Harpoon & PHALANX, not Tomahawk.

There is space provision for "additional VLS Missiles" (read into this TOMAHAWK), but to fit the missiles would require a serious amount of rework to the ship, never mind the acquisition costs of procuring the Missiles from the US.

Nice thought, interchangeable silo. Sorry T45 is no STAN-FLEX !!!



Systems Adict

:nutkick

 

[kato]

Hate to nit-pick, but T45 has the ability / is configured to quickly add Harpoon & PHALANX, not Tomahawk.

*cough* Tomahawk ABL *cough* ... well, and Scalp Naval should fit in the VLS, if they ever finish that.


Different question:
Since the Type 45 was bumped down to 6 destroyers, anyone got any idea if there are similar things in store for S2C2/FSC?
Or rather, hull numbers? Still up with the 10 C1, 8 C2, 8++ C3 iirc once named in Jane's?

Also - C2.
From what i've read, it's not so much a multi-mission land-attack destroyer as thrown around here, but rather a MIO system similar to the F125 as to be built by Germany?
Disregarding concrete armament, they have quite similar requirements in fact, and to be available in the same timeframe (2016+). Would definitely be interesting if TKMS would bid for C2 with the same basic design, though they'll need to buy up some British shipyard first.

 

[harryriedl]

*cough* Tomahawk ABL *cough* ... well, and Scalp Naval should fit in the VLS, if they ever finish that.


Different question:
Since the Type 45 was bumped down to 6 destroyers, anyone got any idea if there are similar things in store for S2C2/FSC?
Or rather, hull numbers? Still up with the 10 C1, 8 C2, 8++ C3 iirc once named in Jane's?

Also - C2.
From what i've read, it's not so much a multi-mission land-attack destroyer as thrown around here, but rather a MIO system similar to the F125 as to be built by Germany?
Disregarding concrete armament, they have quite similar requirements in fact, and to be available in the same timeframe (2016+). Would definitely be interesting if TKMS would bid for C2 with the same basic design, though they'll need to buy up some British shipyard first.

in regards to the the T45 there is still the plan for the last ships to be ordered its still technically part of a plan.

also with the C1/C2/C3 plan scinse as far as i know there is no firm numbers or even a clear idea what they going to look like i think hull numbers are going to be up in the air.

I like the idea of the a F125 derived design it would need some changes to be suitable. also banded is the suitability of the Deapwarter large cutter I think its the Berthov class

 

[AndrewMI]

Hate to nit-pick, but T45 has the ability / is configured to quickly add Harpoon & PHALANX, not Tomahawk.

There is space provision for "additional VLS Missiles" (read into this TOMAHAWK), but to fit the missiles would require a serious amount of rework to the ship, never mind the acquisition costs of procuring the Missiles from the US.

Nice thought, interchangeable silo. Sorry T45 is no STAN-FLEX !!!



Systems Adict

:nutkick

Sorry SA - I should have made that clear. The "quick" addition is the space for adding VLS for Tomahawk. Of course this will somehow need to be configured for the SAMPSON system et al.

re lack of compatability for the Sylver/TLAM it seems to me to have been a mistake not to include strike length Mk41 tubes on the T45 - allowing great flexibility given it can launch anything from TLAM to ESSM and even torpedos. Get the configuration out of the way ASAP.

I believe phalynx is to be fitted as part of "baseline 1" with the system unbolted from the T42.

 

[AndrewMI]

in regards to the the T45 there is still the plan for the last ships to be ordered its still technically part of a plan.

also with the C1/C2/C3 plan scinse as far as i know there is no firm numbers or even a clear idea what they going to look like i think hull numbers are going to be up in the air.

I like the idea of the a F125 derived design it would need some changes to be suitable. also banded is the suitability of the Deapwarter large cutter I think its the Berthov class

Yeah if the T45 is anything like Astute it will be ages untill T45 unit 7 and 8 is confirmed. I think waiting untill after sea trials of Daring is smart, as if the hull underperforms modifivations can be made to the later units to compensate, eliminating this expence in a SLEP. (my reference to the Astute programme is that "long lead" items for units 5-8 have been contracted for yet the pessimism around the UK MoD seems to think this ££ will be thrown away. This is part of the SMART procurement - why fully commit to something when you dont have to? See Eurofighter and Nimrod as additional examples! It keeps industry on its toes and more efficient than if say £8bn was commited to it keeping it at full production for a decade.

If C1 is anything like the boat i have predicted there won't be 9, although i think 8 would be a good number.

C2 will be similar to T23 - but geared for littorel rather than blue water.


re Tomahawk - i think the RN will stick to it as opposed to SCAP. Simply because the SSN's have it. The best weapon of the SSN is you do not know where in the world it is. If there is a RN group about and an enemy is attacked with Tomahawk when the surface fleet is armed with SCALP the enemy knows there is sn SSN.

 

[swerve]

...
re lack of compatability for the Sylver/TLAM it seems to me to have been a mistake not to include strike length Mk41 tubes on the T45 - allowing great flexibility given it can launch anything from TLAM to ESSM and even torpedos. Get the configuration out of the way ASAP.....

It can't launch ESSM, SM-2 etc. unless the ship is equipped with the right systems, & Type 45 doesn't have 'em & isn't going to get them. If strike-length Mk 41 was fitted to T45, it would not have that great flexibility. It would be usable only for surface to surface weapons.

Because T45 has PAAMS, Sylver A70 would be more flexible than Mk 41 strike length, because it can launch both Scalp Naval and Aster, allowing it to be carry either SSM or SAM, depending on mission.

Mk 41 would have made sense if SM-2 & ESSM had been adopted instead of Aster, but that's water under the bridge now.

 

[AegisFC]

*cough* Tomahawk ABL *cough* ... well, and Scalp Naval should fit in the VLS, if they ever finish that.

ABL's don't exist anymore, all the old ABL missiles have been either fired or removed from service and the current missiles can't be put into an ABL, meaning that you would have to pay for a limited production run and pay for new launchers and pay for testing and certification of that limited production missile.