Totally agree, only hope is if the C1 FSC is both capable and more numerous.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
We can dream, but unless the major political parties have a defence ephipany the outlook isn't good for appropriate funding or numbers.
kev 99
Member
Come on you can't really compare the UKIP to the BNP, just look at their stated aims:
UKIP:
BNP:
And yes we should of built more T45:unknown
Does that mean that I as a reasonably white Dane, are welcome in the UK and can be friends with the BNP, maybe even add to the whitish segment or am I disqualified because I am not "british" - according to BNP?
Anyway, on a more serious note, the term "non-white" makes it racistic, no doubt. Had they left it out, or instead written something like Non-european, Non-atlantic, Non-Swedish one could make an argument that it was not racistic, though with "non-white" there is no way out.
What about joining up with equal minded and build a ship platform, that doesn't cost half a billion pounds? F.ex one could dream of a ship platform that could be, easely, fitted ( and within it's role re-fitted, with a view to incrementally updating) with different systems so that the platform could accomplish different roles?
And while we are at it, why not standardize the equipment and weapon systems (f.ex. their machine interfaces and how they are fitted) so that the operator (the navy) instead of having armed warships had a pool of weaponsystems that on a mission to mission basis could be deployed on ships/platforms, to produce just the mix needed for a given role?
In that way you need less number of weapon systems and you have a clear and effective upgrade/update path outlined, which will result in a lower total of different systems in use.
Hell, we could define 3 different sized standard platforms (say 500, 4000, 6500 tons) adhering to a standard weapon-equipment concept so that the navy could maintain everything from survelience, polution control, minesweeping, fishing, drug to combat missions just with those 3 platforms, pooling from a common pool of weapon-equipment systems. There is no need to bring the heavy artillery when you are looking after that faeroe fishermen remember what's "mine" and what's "yours". But there are other things that could come in handy on that mission. But if the russians come, we would like that ship to be armed with PAAMs or something relevant plugged into that expensive sensor that we incidentially fitted our platform with, because it is a warship, it's just not always equiped to war..
And if we do it together with other nations maybe they will contribute to the size and scale of it all, so that we all can get good value for the money?
I know... it's unrealistic. But not because it can't be done.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
What happens when the "Russians" come and you only only have enough modular weapons systems to fit 1/4 of your ships out as front line combatants?
Stevo
The following:
You equip as many as you need or can as Role 1
You equip as many as you need or can as Role 2
You equip as many as you need or can as Role N
Ofcourse the number of one role is limited by number of platforms or number of such role-systems (which ever is smallest). That's how it always is. But you obviously have more flexibility than a fixed installation , if you have one more needed "equipment" suite than platforms sailing.
The quick Role changing scenario;
F.ex. Assuming a small platform; you might need to lay mines; So you equip some platforms as mine layers and some platforms as escorts. The Next day you might need more AD units and surface combattans to watchover the mine fields (we don't want the commies to sweep our mines) so you equip as such maybe that's Surface to surface roles.
The next day you move to the offensive and need mine sweepers and escorts etc .
The above is like the danish standard flex concept used with the Sfx300 class (300 tons). So it's possible with a small unit. The Sfx300 can be equiped with harpoons, ESSM, mines, mine sweeping etc within 24h. (though the glorious 4000 mines (or something) the danish navy inteded to meet the polish communists with are regrettable been "phazed out", not that they have any use, I just thought it's artistic to have 4k ship mines laying around - "you watch that or we mine our own waters!")
Though for the bigger units, I don't intend that they have to be able to perform "Role changing", here the standard concept of f.ex. weapons allow updating the weapon systems across the fleet as well as pooling weapon systems. F.ex. at anytime some of your ships will be in maintenace, so they don't need weapons and releases those to the pool.
One problem is that big units f.ex. can have large sensor systems which are not practical to exchange and very expensive. While you can better defend having a smaller unit equiped wth a less costly sensors to be more numerious and do all sorts of stuff (like sea rescue, or polution control).
But the larger platform (f.ex. ship minus weapons and sensors) should be be able to fill many different roles with minor design alterations (that's kinda like the FREEM idea, though they don't have the communality of systems with rest of (fr. It.) fleet, to my knowledge).
The following:
You equip as many as you need or can as Role 1
You equip as many as you need or can as Role 2
You equip as many as you need or can as Role N
Ofcourse the number of one role is limited by number of platforms or number of such role-systems (which ever is smallest). That's how it always is. But you obviously have more flexibility than a fixed installation , if you have one more needed "equipment" suite than platforms sailing.
The quick Role changing scenario;
F.ex. Assuming a small platform; you might need to lay mines; So you equip some platforms as mine layers and some platforms as escorts. The Next day you might need more AD units and surface combattans to watchover the mine fields (we don't want the commies to sweep our mines) so you equip as such maybe that's Surface to surface roles.
The next day you move to the offensive and need mine sweepers and escorts etc .
The above is like the danish standard flex concept used with the Sfx300 class (300 tons). So it's possible with a small unit. The Sfx300 can be equiped with harpoons, ESSM, mines, mine sweeping etc within 24h. (though the glorious 4000 mines (or something) the danish navy inteded to meet the polish communists with are regrettable been "phazed out", not that they have any use, I just thought it's artistic to have 4k ship mines laying around - "you watch that or we mine our own waters!")
Though for the bigger units, I don't intend that they have to be able to perform "Role changing", here the standard concept of f.ex. weapons allow updating the weapon systems across the fleet as well as pooling weapon systems. F.ex. at anytime some of your ships will be in maintenace, so they don't need weapons and releases those to the pool.
One problem is that big units f.ex. can have large sensor systems which are not practical to exchange and very expensive. While you can better defend having a smaller unit equiped wth a less costly sensors to be more numerious and do all sorts of stuff (like sea rescue, or polution control).
But the larger platform (f.ex. ship minus weapons and sensors) should be be able to fill many different roles with minor design alterations (that's kinda like the FREEM idea, though they don't have the communality of systems with rest of (fr. It.) fleet, to my knowledge).
kev 99
Member
Equal minded? Join up? That sounds suspiciously like a multi national programme, arguably the reason the Type 45s are so late and over cost is because of RN's participation in 2 failed multi-national programmes.
Cost: Fleet escorts cost a lot, there are other ships that do other jobs that's why the RN is championing the FSC programme as a replacement for the Type 22 and 23 Frigates.
As for your comment on the FREMM, the C1 component of the FSC programme will have a much more austere sensor suite than T45 being designed primarily for ASW, my guess is that it will be based on the T45 hull.
I do like the Stanflex concept but I think it works better for a smaller Navy that doesn't have many ships.
The Stanflext concept is that similar to the US LCS idea of adding modular systems?
I like the idea but I think that it wouldn't work for Britain, simply because of the way the MoD tend to do things. At least if we have everything we need integrated in the ship from the start, the MoD can't cut it or plac it in storage or something stuipd that reduces the usefullness of the idea to save money.
Having said that, some felxibility could be very useful in the C2 and C3 concepts. I can see potential rationalization between the MCM, fishery protection, coastal patrol roles if a vessel could have modular systems added as necessary, since MCM vessels aren't used that often at the moment.
As for C2, it seems like a simple quick way to beef up their capabilites if needed. So a modular anti-air system could be added to boost the air defense of a task force if there aren't enough T45's available.
I think C1 will also end up being based on the Type 45, the Trimaran idea was too radical for such and important program. I had heard rumours that C2 might be based on FREMM. Any credence to those rumours?
Finally, on a seperate issue, how likely is it that the Prince of Wales will be eliminated in this year's planning round? Or has that already finished?
I like the idea but I think that it wouldn't work for Britain, simply because of the way the MoD tend to do things. At least if we have everything we need integrated in the ship from the start, the MoD can't cut it or plac it in storage or something stuipd that reduces the usefullness of the idea to save money.
Having said that, some felxibility could be very useful in the C2 and C3 concepts. I can see potential rationalization between the MCM, fishery protection, coastal patrol roles if a vessel could have modular systems added as necessary, since MCM vessels aren't used that often at the moment.
As for C2, it seems like a simple quick way to beef up their capabilites if needed. So a modular anti-air system could be added to boost the air defense of a task force if there aren't enough T45's available.
I think C1 will also end up being based on the Type 45, the Trimaran idea was too radical for such and important program. I had heard rumours that C2 might be based on FREMM. Any credence to those rumours?
Finally, on a seperate issue, how likely is it that the Prince of Wales will be eliminated in this year's planning round? Or has that already finished?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
1) The LCS is just under half the price of a Burke with about 1/50th of the firepower.
2) Nah, they'll just go FFBNW.
3) Thats a C3 role not a C2 role, the MCM's spend most of their time in the patrol role anyway.
4) C2 will have CAMM anyway, only way to improve on that would require Sampson which they will not have.
5) I wouldn't be surprised if C1 was based on T45 and C2 was cancelled. Apparrently there were some sort of issues regarding Triton in certain sea states, someone like GF might know more.
6) PoW wont be cancelled, the contract has been placed, the steel and half the other stuff needed for constructing the ships has been ordered, everything was ordered in two's, not ones.
Read the national Audits revision of the Type45 project, I have posted above. I don't think they blame the frenchies.
Why? Exactly for a large navy there will be huge rewards. While a small navy has the extra advantage of the Flex concept that it can maintain many small tasks with one hull, a bigger navy could very well dedicate one hull to take care of a specific task. Though the flex concept is a lot more than the "sexy" war fighting rolles. the standardisation and containerisation makes maintenance, training, upgrades etc more cost effective (irrespectable of size and number of units). You get benefits of scale when you procure a system fleet wide, than class wide or even to a unit. You reduce complexity of the navy, and that means you get a more lean organisation and save money.
Grim
Together with that comes a lot of standards that f.ex. ensures that a given container can "plug and play" with a given ship's computer systems, power outlets, sensor suite etc.
So a ship is builded with a number of container positions, and by adding containers you give the ship different cababilities. In the "Combat flex" units of the Sfx300 this idea is used to make the units "role changing" where you can add f.ex. a number of ESSM containers or Harpoon containers or a mix, or torpedoes, Mines or mine sweeping etc. All this can be done in less than 24h at a primtive port using an ordinary crane.
For larger ships like the absalon class it's armament (except the 5" gun) is the same containers as the Combat flex'es use. Though Absalon is not intended to be role changing in that respect, it's primary "flex" contribution is it's Ro-Ro "flex deck", which can be used for transporting vehicles, laying mines or be filled up with other flex containers, carring marines, making it into a hospital, or a logistic ship etc.
The flexibility of the weapon containers on absalon would be used to pool with the rest of the fleet and making upgrades or introduction of new systems more easy.
While I don't know the LCS idea. The StanFlex has something to do with containerizing stuff such as weapon systems (like ESSM or a Harpoon launcher or an OTO SR gun etc). But could also be equipment for mine laying or sweeping, polution control, a field hospital etc etc.
Together with that comes a lot of standards that f.ex. ensures that a given container can "plug and play" with a given ship's computer systems, power outlets, sensor suite etc.
So a ship is builded with a number of container positions, and by adding containers you give the ship different cababilities. In the "Combat flex" units of the Sfx300 this idea is used to make the units "role changing" where you can add f.ex. a number of ESSM containers or Harpoon containers or a mix, or torpedoes, Mines or mine sweeping etc. All this can be done in less than 24h at a primtive port using an ordinary crane.
For larger ships like the absalon class it's armament (except the 5" gun) is the same containers as the Combat flex'es use. Though Absalon is not intended to be role changing in that respect, it's primary "flex" contribution is it's Ro-Ro "flex deck", which can be used for transporting vehicles, laying mines or be filled up with other flex containers, carring marines, making it into a hospital, or a logistic ship etc.
The flexibility of the weapon containers on absalon would be used to pool with the rest of the fleet and making upgrades or introduction of new systems more easy.
They always seemed a little timid by USN standards.1) The LCS is just under half the price of a Burke with about 1/50th of the firepower.
Don't know that abbreviation, enlighten me.
Yeh I know, rereading it I realise the way I phrased it was odd, I meant that the MCM role is C3 but I mixed it with a generalised opening statement.
I know, I just wish there was a way of modularising a slightly longer range air defence system to make up for the Type45 shortfall. (wishful thinking)
They aren't necessarily basing C2 on Triton are they? I thought that was a another option for C1 that got ruled out for the seastate issues. Last I heard C2 was more likely to be an off the shelf type hull buy eg. FREMM
I know, that's what I thought, but someone mentioned it was a possibility to save money, and I couldn't rule it out what with the mindset of the current government.
That is exactly the idea behind LCS; plug and play containerised weapons systems basically. I think it might actually have been based on the Absalon originally.
Like I said earlier, when mixed with the British C2 and C3 concepts it could be incredibly useful if done well. As for C1, they're designed to be top of line ships, so taking systems off shouldn't be necessary, which I think is for the best, that way there is always a certain number of high end capability ships ready at short notice. I know it takes less than 24 hours to refit, but British ships have a tendency to hang around in the far corners of the oceans (Falklands, Caribbean, Indian Ocean etc) where it isn't easy to return to port quickly.
Grim
I made my self unclear; I am not so interested in the role changing aspect. That is something which is usefull in a special enviroment and a special doctrine etc.
I am interested in the cost saving implications for the entire fleet, from tug boats to carriers, that such standards can bring, if the entire fleet is designed to comply to a standard and in a sense simply be a standard of it's own.
I made my self unclear; I am not so interested in the role changing aspect. That is something which is usefull in a special enviroment and a special doctrine etc.
I am interested in the cost saving implications for the entire fleet, from tug boats to carriers, that such standards can bring, if the entire fleet is designed to comply to a standard and in a sense simply be a standard of it's own.
kev 99
Member
I'm not saying it is, but the fact remains that the T45s were built after 3 programmes! That definitely did have an effect on the date that the ships will become operationaly, the next generation of AAW ships wee expected to replace the T42s much earlier than they are. If you read the whole section Navy Matters you will see that the UK MOD had been over optimistic in absorbing costs from those programmes which has shackled it from the start, there has also been a criticism regarding the whole procurement process, its not just that the ships are expensive the whole process has been subject to delays, shifting requirements, squabbles amongst partners and decisions being changed on builders. There is also a bit of history with the MOD being a bit rubbish at managing programmes and UK suppliers getting costings wrong.
Because in building this sort of modular flexibility into ships you will need to make ships larger and more complex than specialist vessels, making the weapons containerised means these will cost more as they will need to be more durable and have easy to swap fixings, and have to purchase a higher number of sets of equipment to make sure you have enough to go round, all this means that savings based on economies of scale will be lost because of higher initial unit costs. A ship that is trying to do all things well will always cost more than one that has been built to be good at 1 or 2 things, it will probably be less good at doing those tasks as well, as the saying goes "Jack of all trades, master of none". Then there's the cost of keeping the ship's crew trained on all the required missions, that would push up costs again. You've also already made the point that it's not really possible to plug and play large radar systems so you can't really make an AAW escort this way anyway, a radar the size of Samson is just to large for it to work.
The RN is exploring the idea of modular systems at least for the C3 aspect of the FSC programme, which I would agree with as this will essentially provide a fleet of OPV's that can be reconfigured in port to mine counter measures duty and possibly have some UAVs to operate from them as well.
The Absolons are great for Denmark as they don't have a particularly large navy so need to get as much flexibility as they can, the RN doesn't need escorts with Ro Ro capability though as it has plenty of amphibs for carrying cargo.
Last edited:
Additions to your post:
1) You also have to factor in the initial development of the containerised systems. You can't simply lift pre-existing systems out and put them in containers.
2) I like your use of the jack of all trades saying, it seems fitting. I know from the US LCS concept that things like MCM, short range air defence and addition of UAVs can be fairly easy to achieve, but there are many capabilities, like you said that can't be added or are no cheaper to containerise (bolt on systems like CIWS). Certain systems also need unique positions in the ship.
3) The crew training isn't really an issue, the Americans are building the ships to accommodate a core crew for the ship, then room for specialists who'll come on board with the containers as required. Not entirely sure but this may add slightly more/less personnel than are actually necessary for certain situations, especially for maintenance/damage control purposes etc.
4) We also have a fairly sizeable Fleet Auxiliary and specialist Ro-Ro capability if we need it. And if that wasn't enough, we can always fall back on largest air transport fleet in Europe.
I had forgotten to mention that in a Navy with specialist capabilities like the Royal Navy there is always going to be a fairly sizeable proportion of the fleet that containerisation can't apply to, such as Carriers, Amphibs, Subs, AAW. It really only applies to the escort (- AAW) ships and OPVs/MCMs. That means that overall very little is gained in the way of further standardisation since out of the applicable ship types, only a couple of classes are in use anyway. It is more useful to pursue projects like CAMM and a Navalized 155mm cannon that offers real standardisation benefits between vessels and the rest of the forces.
kev 99
Member
Agree with pretty much all of that.
Re: training I was referring specifically with the differing ways in which a vessal tasked with AAW and ASW duties goes about them, stuff that would have a ship wide impact and not just concerning the way in which the sensors and weapons are handled.
Re: training I was referring specifically with the differing ways in which a vessal tasked with AAW and ASW duties goes about them, stuff that would have a ship wide impact and not just concerning the way in which the sensors and weapons are handled.
The cost overruns etc of the type45 are measurred after the "horizon split", it's simply irrelevant to keep blaming the frencies and italiens.
No. You don't need to make them larger. And the platforms becomes less complex, because the platform is without the complex weapon systems or other containerized "flex" equipment . That's not only simple logic, it has been demonstrated for about 20 years.
insignificant.
Why don't you wake up H. Ford and tell him that he was wrong or apply for a top management job at Toyota or VW, they have apparently also got their platform and standardisation theories all wrong.
Wrong of logical reasons.
With respect to the rest, let's keep the "role chaning" aspects out of the discussion, for large ships it's not so interesting because of several impracticalities. Let's focuss on a standardisation and platform discussion instead, though with a view to the possibilities for role chaning for littorial combat units, and other not true combat "work horses".
Grim
Yes, you have to introduce the standard. which will likely only be relevant for new units. Though the cost does not have to be significant (from a point on and onwards, but not retrofitting the standard, which is probably an impossibility).
There is no such thing as a "bolt on CIWS", in so far that you wish to integrate the weapon with the ships combat and surport systems (that's probably a good idea). So you will f.ex. need to have a standard that allow the gun system to communicate with the ship (computers). or that the power surply has the right voltage etc etc, That's part of the standardisation concept and it doesn't happen by it self.
I disagree. You have to think containerisation/standardisation into a larger context. (well, subs are special
). The airdefense missile of the carrier could be a container. many of the weapon systems on the AAW can be containers. The standards can just as well apply to the Carrier as well as the patrol boat. There is f.ex. no reason why the man-machine interface needs to look different on the carrier than on the fishing inspection unit.Remember, nobody is saying you should containerize the carrier aircrafts or put the smapson radar into a container, or have the engines installed in 12 foot containers.
kev 99
Member
Palnatoke I see you've focused on my comment on the 2 previous programmes and decided to conveniently ignore the rest of the comments re cost overuns and delays, there is a quote from RN personnel that state had they the time over again there are things that would have been done differently with T45 but the fact remains the ships they were replacing needed to be done so quickly and they were working to a tight schedule. This is not to say the Rn aren't pleased with T45 because by all accounts they are.
Building a ship with an open architecture will always be more complex because it has to have integrated more systems than a specialised one, it will require an open cargo space for containerised mission/weapon systems as well as space for the consoles of those systems so that they can be 'plug and play'. The overall ship may appear to be less complex because it's just a shell without lots of systems, but just because a system isn't being carried doesn't mean it hasn't been integrated, systems need to work together and must by their nature be quick to install, this can only mean the combat management systems must be more complicated because they will have to be reconfigurable to accept different roles. A ship that is built to do three or four jobs will always be more complex than one that is built for 2.
The ships will definitely be larger, they have to be to accomodate the cargo space for the containers and space for the system consoles for their swing role. Containerising weapons system means they are larger than normal it wouldn't be safe to swap them out otherwise so a containerised VLS will be larger than an conventionally fitted one and therefore have a larger deck footprint. You also need to have empty space for the consoles of the weapsons operators.
Your statements comparing car production with warships are very wrong, go into a car showroom and inside you will see a number of different models of car built for different purposes, same with warships, different ship classes built for different purposes, how often do you see a sports car that can be transformed into a rugid all terain vehicle.
All this means higher unit costs, economies of scale would still be achieved but when you are making the initial product more complex in the first place its going to have a higher unit cost, so you gain with one and lose with another.
I like the idea of containerisation I think it works pretty well for smaller vessels particularly those suited to the literol and perfect for the C3 role as identified under the FSC programme, but not for high value escorts. Besides which you have already stated that its not really practicable for AAW escorts to be built this way so it's hardly relevant.
As for standarising equipment across the whole fleet you need significant investment for that to work, commitment to long production runs and long order runs for equipment, the RN doesn't have the money for that because the MOD budget is too small to make those commitments. Regardless of that the RN only operates 3 different classes of escorts at the moment, soon to be 4 while the T45 takes over from the T42, and most of their weapons are of the same type (1 main gun, 1 medium range sam, 1 short range sam, 1 torpedo, 1 anti ship missle etc) that's not very many when you compare them to other similar size navies.
Building a ship with an open architecture will always be more complex because it has to have integrated more systems than a specialised one, it will require an open cargo space for containerised mission/weapon systems as well as space for the consoles of those systems so that they can be 'plug and play'. The overall ship may appear to be less complex because it's just a shell without lots of systems, but just because a system isn't being carried doesn't mean it hasn't been integrated, systems need to work together and must by their nature be quick to install, this can only mean the combat management systems must be more complicated because they will have to be reconfigurable to accept different roles. A ship that is built to do three or four jobs will always be more complex than one that is built for 2.
The ships will definitely be larger, they have to be to accomodate the cargo space for the containers and space for the system consoles for their swing role. Containerising weapons system means they are larger than normal it wouldn't be safe to swap them out otherwise so a containerised VLS will be larger than an conventionally fitted one and therefore have a larger deck footprint. You also need to have empty space for the consoles of the weapsons operators.
Your statements comparing car production with warships are very wrong, go into a car showroom and inside you will see a number of different models of car built for different purposes, same with warships, different ship classes built for different purposes, how often do you see a sports car that can be transformed into a rugid all terain vehicle.
All this means higher unit costs, economies of scale would still be achieved but when you are making the initial product more complex in the first place its going to have a higher unit cost, so you gain with one and lose with another.
I like the idea of containerisation I think it works pretty well for smaller vessels particularly those suited to the literol and perfect for the C3 role as identified under the FSC programme, but not for high value escorts. Besides which you have already stated that its not really practicable for AAW escorts to be built this way so it's hardly relevant.
As for standarising equipment across the whole fleet you need significant investment for that to work, commitment to long production runs and long order runs for equipment, the RN doesn't have the money for that because the MOD budget is too small to make those commitments. Regardless of that the RN only operates 3 different classes of escorts at the moment, soon to be 4 while the T45 takes over from the T42, and most of their weapons are of the same type (1 main gun, 1 medium range sam, 1 short range sam, 1 torpedo, 1 anti ship missle etc) that's not very many when you compare them to other similar size navies.
Last edited: