The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
spsun100001
New Member
C1, C2 and C3
I get the concept of the C1. A ship capable of high intensity warfare primarily in the ASW and ASuW role running to about 10 hulls. I'd like to see us leverage the effort already made with the Type 45 and build the same hull design but with a towed sonar and carrying Merlin as standard rather than Lynx. It should deploy CEC (though I increasingly wonder whether that is one of the many capabilities the Type 45 will remain fitted for but not with and CEC is more essential in AAW platforms first and foremost).
I'd ideally like to see the weapons outfit as:
1 x general purpose gun
32 SAM for point defence
24 VLS silos for TLACM
8 x SSM (maybe RBS15 mk3?)
ASW torpedo tubes
Smaller calibre guns
I also get the concept of the C3. I would like to see a ship with reasonable displacement and range to allow it to undertake duties such as Carribean guardship or anti-piracy without requiring the constant presence of an RFA and to have reasonable seakeeping qualities.
I'd ideally like to see a medium calibre gun and small calibre guns fitted as standard and it MUST carry a helicopter. That doesn't need to be a fully tooled up Lynx with ASW and ASM capability but it must have a search radar and the ability to sling a GPMG from the door. A helicopter is vital to the roles these vessels would undertake including interdiction, anti-piracy, SAR, inspections etc.
I do not see the point of the C2 at all Surely you are either in a benign environment or you are in a threat environment. In the former the C3 is fine and in the latter the C1 is required. In a conflict either an enemy has land/sea based airpower whose envelope you have to operate inside or he doesn't, he has surface ships with embarked or helicopter carried anti-ship weapons or he doesn't, he has submarines that can operate in the blue water or he doesn't, he has coastal SSM's/artillery or he doesn't.
There is either a threat or their isn't and the C2 to me seems overkill for the C3 mission and suicidal for the C1 mission.
I would far rather see additional C3 and C1's build and scrap the C2 concept altogether. I wonder what others think.
(Edited for where I had put C1 instead of C3)
I get the concept of the C1. A ship capable of high intensity warfare primarily in the ASW and ASuW role running to about 10 hulls. I'd like to see us leverage the effort already made with the Type 45 and build the same hull design but with a towed sonar and carrying Merlin as standard rather than Lynx. It should deploy CEC (though I increasingly wonder whether that is one of the many capabilities the Type 45 will remain fitted for but not with and CEC is more essential in AAW platforms first and foremost).
I'd ideally like to see the weapons outfit as:
1 x general purpose gun
32 SAM for point defence
24 VLS silos for TLACM
8 x SSM (maybe RBS15 mk3?)
ASW torpedo tubes
Smaller calibre guns
I also get the concept of the C3. I would like to see a ship with reasonable displacement and range to allow it to undertake duties such as Carribean guardship or anti-piracy without requiring the constant presence of an RFA and to have reasonable seakeeping qualities.
I'd ideally like to see a medium calibre gun and small calibre guns fitted as standard and it MUST carry a helicopter. That doesn't need to be a fully tooled up Lynx with ASW and ASM capability but it must have a search radar and the ability to sling a GPMG from the door. A helicopter is vital to the roles these vessels would undertake including interdiction, anti-piracy, SAR, inspections etc.
I do not see the point of the C2 at all Surely you are either in a benign environment or you are in a threat environment. In the former the C3 is fine and in the latter the C1 is required. In a conflict either an enemy has land/sea based airpower whose envelope you have to operate inside or he doesn't, he has surface ships with embarked or helicopter carried anti-ship weapons or he doesn't, he has submarines that can operate in the blue water or he doesn't, he has coastal SSM's/artillery or he doesn't.
There is either a threat or their isn't and the C2 to me seems overkill for the C3 mission and suicidal for the C1 mission.
I would far rather see additional C3 and C1's build and scrap the C2 concept altogether. I wonder what others think.
(Edited for where I had put C1 instead of C3)
Last edited:
I completely agree with you and if you take your logic further (if you are in a high threat enviroment you could face both air and submarine threats) so you only need T45 & C3. Which is affordable and sustainable if you build as a steady 4-5 a decade.
Alternatively I don't see why we can't run off another 20 t23s with updated SAMs and maybe a 57mm instead of the 4.5" (don't see why every ship has to have them and them 57mm would be better against missiles)
....Here's a little bit of a history lesson in the 2 links below.
NFR-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizon class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think, short of actually speaking to someone who was on either the NFR or CNGF steering groups (something that I've regretted as at least 4 people I've worked with & have retired in the last 5 years were involved), it's pretty safe to say that the RN pulled out not because of cost (although it's always been mooted that that was 1 of the inreconcilable diffrerences we had with our European partners), but because of the constraints of the partnership. The idea of being 'fenced in' with a set of systems that weren't what the RN were looking for would seem like another good reason to pull out & start 'fresh', so to speak....
As for the Standard vs. Aster arguement that's being thrown about, it's pointless !
The decision was made to go with Aster, when we agreed to continue the development of PAAMS / Thales EMPAR radar. Aster was better suited to the radar & after all the cash we'd plowed into the system, HELPING to develop a European Missile, it would have been a reckless choice to walk away.
So here we are, 5-10 years down the line & Aster for T-45 has had a 'blip' in its entry into service, but that's only to be expected. It's a complex system with complex software & a complex & very finite set of acceptance criteria that MUST be met.
When that happens, we'll be able to do 'exactly what it says on the tin', & no cricket ball flying at Mach 3 will be safe.....
SA
Well aware of the reasons why it is late, my question is this acceptable? There is far to much rejoicing that we have the "most advanced AAD" which we don't yet and looks a little bit to much like PR spin. and far to little enquiry into what when wrong and why it should not be allowed to happen again.....Here's a little bit of a history lesson in the 2 links below.
NFR-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Horizon class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think, short of actually speaking to someone who was on either the NFR or CNGF steering groups (something that I've regretted as at least 4 people I've worked with & have retired in the last 5 years were involved), it's pretty safe to say that the RN pulled out not because of cost (although it's always been mooted that that was 1 of the inreconcilable diffrerences we had with our European partners), but because of the constraints of the partnership. The idea of being 'fenced in' with a set of systems that weren't what the RN were looking for would seem like another good reason to pull out & start 'fresh', so to speak....
As for the Standard vs. Aster arguement that's being thrown about, it's pointless !
The decision was made to go with Aster, when we agreed to continue the development of PAAMS / Thales EMPAR radar. Aster was better suited to the radar & after all the cash we'd plowed into the system, HELPING to develop a European Missile, it would have been a reckless choice to walk away.
So here we are, 5-10 years down the line & Aster for T-45 has had a 'blip' in its entry into service, but that's only to be expected. It's a complex system with complex software & a complex & very finite set of acceptance criteria that MUST be met.
When that happens, we'll be able to do 'exactly what it says on the tin', & no cricket ball flying at Mach 3 will be safe.....
SA
C3 is pretty much a 'dead' idea as far as the UK is concerned(mainly due to lack of funds). I reckon they'll stick with the C1 format & modify it to achieve the other 2 roles.
& a 57mm ?? While I like the 57mm that the US have put onto the LCS (which is also 'similar' to the guns used on the Malaysian Navies Lekiu class Frigates), the UK RN, I don't think, are keen on the idea of a smaller calibre. They've tried a 76mm in the 70's & 80's, but would rather spend money on the development of the holy grail, the Navalised 155mm.
SA
..Let them fix the problem, & get it working before you round up the villagers with their pitchforks !
Once it's working, then it can be 'deconstructed', so we learn from our 'mistakes'.....
SA
I do like the idea of the 155mm at sea and BAe seem to have come up with a low cost approach. potential for the UK to clean up in the market as everyone seems to have moved to the largest calibre available and the 155mm would be that. Also the common ammo, it seems so obvious I can't see why it it has not been done before. But I don't think every ship should have them. The Falklands is often quoted but at the end of the day would it have been better if some ships had 76mm guns instead for AA work. The RN is so anti guns in this respect, the whole attitude to Goalkeeper/Phalanx, which I sort of agree with.
True, I am sure it will be a very fine system.
That precident has already been set, Norway was supposed to build the Nansens in Kristiansund but the Spanish ended up building the lot, the Norwegian yard closed because of this.
By drumbeat do you mean the cycle between ordering of new boats? So we would be ordering a new boat every 26 months?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I thought the BAe Press Release said 31.
kev 99
Member
Might be I was going by what Quinten Davis said, on reflection it looks like the NAO are saying 31 months as well, confusion? What confusion?
RN would receive a sub every 26 months, or 31 months, or whatever, it sounds like it's being made up as someone goes along at the moment.
Last edited:
Not so good, I was reading comment in the RAN room their requirement seem so similar to an SSN but politically seems to be a non starter. I really think they should investigate Indian options, after the poor value for money they seem to be getting with the Russians over that old carrier I'm sure they would be up for talking. Maybe a way to keep the yard in the game. I certainly think it would be very short sighted to let another gap develop as with the Ts & Astute
Indian options? Are you suggesting the RAN purchase submarines from India? Not quite sure I understand the paragraph.
I appreciate thats well off topic so apologies in advance.
Not to put words into his mouth but I believe he is referring to us (Australia) selling into the Indian market rather than acquiring from it. At least that was the inference I took from his words.
The premise being that it is in the national security interest to move the ship building capability to more of a 'steady state' capacity rather than 'boom/bust' cyclical nature that has been historical evidenced. By selling home grown tech in export markets allows you maintain a 'steady state' production (relatively) - ergo the Indian market reference.
From a steady state position you can move towards an organic ship building capability that is geared towards 'continuous improvement'. You reduce the mobility of labour away from the sector and avoid pitfalls such as the inherent drain on intellectual capital that is pervasive in a 'boom/bust' ship building economy.
If anyone should be talking to anyone its the Brits to us regarding Astute.
I have a hunch we may need to look at a transitional force capability as we move from the Collins to our own organic Collins Mark II design (which we will develop with the US). I also dont think the Astute is as tough a sell politically as others may think in Australia. Needless to say we could debate that point endlessly.
If you care so much about your domestic ship building capacity and have willingness to 'bed down' the expertise you have gained in the development of Astute then it would be in your national interest, both financially and strategically (geopolitically and militarily) to cut us a deal on the production of 4 new Astutes circa (2018-2020).
Then as an added bonus we can teach you poms how to properly drive the damn things.
Last edited:
ASTUTE has just left for diving trials off Scotland before joining Daring & Dauntless on a quick fly the flag tour to the South Atlantic :laugh. Oh and RM are practicing for a trip down south as well, bet they haven't told the Dutch that they are coming along as well this time.Not to put words into his mouth but I believe he is referring to us (Australia) selling into the Indian market rather than acquiring from it. At least that was the inference I took from his words.
The premise being that it is in the national security interest to move the ship building capability to more of a 'steady state' capacity rather than 'boom/bust' cyclical nature that has been historical evidenced. By selling home grown tech in export markets allows you maintain a 'steady state' production (relatively) - ergo the Indian market reference.
From a steady state position you can move towards an organic ship building capability that is geared towards 'continuous improvement'. You reduce the mobility of labour away from the sector and avoid pitfalls such as the inherent drain on intellectual capital that is pervasive in a 'boom/bust' ship building economy.
If anyone should be talking to anyone its the Brits to us regarding Astute.
I have a hunch we may need to look at a transitional force capability as we move from the Collins to our own organic Collins Mark II design (which we will develop with the US). I also dont think the Astute is as tough a sell politically as others may think in Australia. Needless to say we could debate that point endlessly.
If you care so much about your domestic ship building capacity and have willingness to 'bed down' the expertise you have gained in the development of Astute then it would be in your national interest, both financially and strategically (geopolitically and militarily) to cut us a deal on the production of 4 new Astutes circa (2018-2020).
Then as an added bonus we can teach you poms how to properly drive the damn things.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...ure/NavysAmphibiousTaskGroupHeadsToNorway.htm
Last edited: