StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Bad Example. The ANZAC's will be replaced by a 7,000t ship according to our latest Defense White Paper.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
A ship which has required careful management of top weight, & which has just 8 cells of the short version of Mk 41, for 32 ESSM.
Having operated it for some years, the RAN has decided that its next frigate should be about 7000 tons.
What does that tell you?
At last check we were still pursuing C2 yes? (Official statements only, I really don't care what you think or whether you think it is a good idea - yes 1805 i'm looking at you).
If the answer to the above is "yes" then why are people saying we need a cheaper hull for the lighter duties that a high end ASW frigate isn't really needed for? That is exactly where C2 will slot into our force structure. People seem to have instantly assumed that because it is an MOD program it is a bad idea and will end up costing more (no matter whether it is the same hull as T26 with less gear or something else entirely), which with so little information available on it is absurd. But hey, UK plc never do anything right anymore do we, not like in the good old days.
Looking forward to 1805's reply on Swerve and Stevo's posts, should be interesting to see if he believes he knows better than both the RN and RAN.
If the answer to the above is "yes" then why are people saying we need a cheaper hull for the lighter duties that a high end ASW frigate isn't really needed for? That is exactly where C2 will slot into our force structure. People seem to have instantly assumed that because it is an MOD program it is a bad idea and will end up costing more (no matter whether it is the same hull as T26 with less gear or something else entirely), which with so little information available on it is absurd. But hey, UK plc never do anything right anymore do we, not like in the good old days.
Looking forward to 1805's reply on Swerve and Stevo's posts, should be interesting to see if he believes he knows better than both the RN and RAN.
I'm more than happy to accept the point that by increasing the given displacement of a ship design you can increase the warfighting capability of the vessel . Throughout history warship design has been a constant compromise between capability , numbers and cost .
If you will allow me to go off at a bit of a tangent for a while , I've recently been re reading Dudley Pope's excellent account of the Battle of the Barents Sea ('73 North') and to cut a long story short the Kriegsmarine lost the action (with disastrous consequences) primarily because its leaders were forced to conserve its critically small number of heavy ships and hence they imposed severe restrictions on the operational freedom of the force commander with regard to the risking of his force in combat .
It seems to me that a future RN surface fleet comprised of say only 6 Type 45's and 10 Type 26's is in grave danger of falling into exactly the same trap . Big ships have their advantages for sure (it's notorious difficult to conceive a truly satisfactory small aircraft carrier for instance) but lesser vessels have differing advantages and to ignore the utility of the smaller & hence more numerous (dare I say more expendable) escort could be a cardinal mistake .
The RN has always been at its very best when it has been prepared to take outrageous risks with it ships when necessary (San Carlos Water / Narvik / Crete...etc) but I fear the direction we're now taking in ship design may lead to this 'who dares wins' culture becoming a thing of the past .
I was giving an example of a ship that can carry a standard VLS within the size of a T23. We would only need the short version of the Mk 41 for SAMs for an ASW focused frigate that can do constabulary work.
32 missiles is more than adequate; during the Falkland War all the ships unfortunate enough to be armed with Seacat collectively only fired c80 rounds, this must be by far the most intense engagement we would expect our ships to face (if they had hit targets, there would have been far less to shot at).
In reality the more likely engagement would be dealing with a shore launched missile (or salvo) aka (HMS Glamorgan, HMS Gloucester/GW1, INS Hanit).
The RAN has to make decisions that meet its requirements. The RN has to balance numbers with capability. As Moonstone pointed out in the 30s the RN went for numbers with its cruisers & destroyers and this broadly paid off in combat. We can't afford to fire huge numbers of cruise missiles, if we need some they can be fired from an SSN, T45 (if we can even afford to fitted them with) or the USN. Burdening ASW frigates with land attack capability, will put at risk the numbers required to fulfil their core role.
You're on its a deal!
I am sorry to hear the RAN has had such a bad experience with their German designed ANZACs, prehaps they would have been better buying T23s?
As has been pointed out the T26 is NOT just an ASW vessel that is supposed to do constabulary work in its spare time, it is meant to be more multi-purpose than the vessel it is replacing, hence the need for the larger VLS.
And do the RAN also not have to balance number with capability? Or are the Aussies secretly on an unlimited budget for these things?
And you just argued against yourself too, you mentioned we need numbers (which means they can be a little more expendable perhaps) and then go to say that if we need LAMs we should put our even scarcer and more precious assets (T45's, SSNs) into harms way instead. And in the same post as saying the Falklands is the worst we should prepare for you suggest having the USN fire the cruise missiles on our behalf. Do you have any idea what one TLAM armed frigate could have done in that war, how many lives it could have saved?
And you haven't addressed my point that C2 is alive and well and is EXACTLY what you want, the cheaper vessel to make up numbers, which means the C1 (T26) will be free to do the high end stuff.
I didn't repond as you said you didn't want my opinion. However since you ask, from recollection the RN made no mention of the C2 when the the 12 T26 was announced; this was a larger number than expected? So a concept discussed before the T26 announced, made by the MOD under a different government, before an emergency budget and a cost induced SDR = worthless?
Personally if I had had the choice of replacing Seacat or having access to TLAM, I know which one I would have chosen and I don't think you would find anyone on: Ardent, Antelope Sir Galahad & Sir Tristram agreeing with you. Even if it had only been a navalised version of Rapier (oh like Crotale....French thought of CAMM 20 years ago!)
I was not cutting any core capabity (ie. SAM/ASW). I don't think you're putting a SSN or T45 at risk firing a cruise missile.
Last edited:
Its not that the experience was "bad" its just mainly that is has limited growth potential. They are a fine ship and reasonably capable for their size. Also Australia convinced NZ to buy two (close to getting 3!). Like all ships it was a compromise, for Australia and what she wants to do, the replacements will need to be larger.
Australia can't crew a huge navy with large numbers of ships. So its ships need to be more capable. That said there are 11-12 "7,000t" ships planned.
Australia is reorganising its defence force for a totally different post cold war situtation. Much in the same way Australia had to realise that the UK defensive umbrella wasn't working in WWII once Singapore fell.
The Australian replacement frigates will be pretty capable, they will be tasked with additional capabilities that the ANZAC's never had. Like all replacement ships will have balisitic missile interception capability. Anzacs do have limited land strike with 5" and ground attack harpoons, but the Anzac replacements (should?) will be capable of carrying tomahawks.
Although these have been spelled out in the whitepaper, it will be interesting to see how the RAN evolves over the next few years.
Actually I think the RAN made a good call with the ANZACs. Australia seems to have a far more joined up approach with its services and clear understanding of: what its want to do, what it will not and what it can afford. I think the RAN will be rightly proud of the Camberra's & Hobarts (hope you get a 4th) when in service.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The RAN is currently having massive Weight Management Problems with the ANZAC class Mid Life Upgrade.
For Example:
-There is space for another 8 Cell VLS but it cannot be fitted due to weight.
-The Harpoons had to be fitted forward of the bridge and on a lower deck compared to the original position planned.
-There is no weight margin for Phalanx even though the ships can have it fitted (the NZ ones have it).
-etc, etc, etc.
The Anzacs were designed to be the lower tier of a multi-tier force structure, however the DDG's were then retired without replacement and the number of FFG's reduced. Leaving the RAN with 4 FFG's and 8 FFH's that were originally armed in such a way in that they were effectively oversized corvettes/OPV's.
I think a who dares wins culture is fine in grand heroic theory, but no Navy would choose to accept dead sailors if they had the option of building better survivable ships. You cant always cater for the unexpected but most losses are entirely predictable. It was no secret at the end of the 1970's that much of the RN fleet was becoming obselete but in 1982 under armed old ships with brave crews did their duty and took a hammering. But you could have found numerous sources warning that those ships were not suitable.
Just as there were well publicised criticism of the T42 programme. The Navy recieved technologically advanced ships but it was widely seen that they were too small and under armed through budgetary constaints. The RN got 14 Type 42's , but the question with no answer would have been whether an RN with 8 bigger and more expensive T43's would have fared any better in 1982. We sent, I recall 5 Type 42's in total , losing 2 with one damaged. A smaller navy with better ships might have sent 3 Type 43. Would an 8000 tonne twin ended Sea Dart/ Sea Wolf ship provided better air defence than more numerous single ended 4000 tonne Sea Dart ships? We will never know, but for numbers sake we went cheap (er) and in the end had to pair a Type 42 with a Type 22 just to try and rectify the shortcomings.
The County was a fine looking ship, I think we built 8, and although the overall armament was ancient, the concept of a big tough solid ship with point and area defence missiles was a good one, in fact we will come full circle if T45 gets some CAMM to complement Aster, so personaly I would accept fewer , more potent ships. I think a cheap ship is a dead ship, especially as weapons are getting more and more sophisticated. I dont see any major navy abandoning the bigger ship in favour of smaller ones. None of us are privvy to data from wargames or weapon simulations, but the fact is the US,Spain, holland, germany, uk, italy, france, korea, japan have all invested in vastly expensive air warfare assets, at a time when the "experts" are telling is that afghan type rebuilding is the future.Im no expert but that says to me that all the major navies conclude that you need a high end, mega bucks air umbrella and anything outside that umbrella is stuffed.
I think the RN is going along the right lines. If we get the carriers and F35 we will have a mighty big stick, a vast improvement on A2A, finally able to protect the surface group. If we ever get CEC this will be a true force multiplier. A decent AEW platform will add to the blend. With those assets a smaller fleet in numbers is still more potent. If we can keep around 20 surface units, with CV and F35, we will be streets ahead of what we have now, so I cant see the benefit of building cheaper units, but thats just me. Personally I would rather the SSN fleet was expanded than trying to fund a class of cheaper single role ASW frigates.
Please make an effort to leave commentary like this out of your posts in future. While I realise you probably said it lightly, it is both arrogant and disrespectful for an enthusiast (and I don't use the term in a derogatory sense, I'm not a military man myself either) to pass this sort of comment about a Navy officer.
I would say that more of a problem with RAN planning not comming through (for many reasons) than a serious short fall of the ANZAC's and its design. If we had DDG's and a full compliment of FFG's then the ANZACs wouldn't be as loaded as they are, we wouldn't had the money for one, or the need. They are still a good ship, but they are designed as tier 3 not tier 1, RAN's tried to push them to 2 and found them wanting in that role simply because they aren't big enough.
Then again, that comment could be levelled against many navies, or indeed many defence forces around the world. Even the USN doesn't get everything it wants or even starts to build.
Well recently things have been better than in the past. Certainly the RAN is looking at a first rate navy by 2020. We need that 4th AWD!
With limited T45's, the RN should aim to have the most capable 2nd tier combatant they can get, because eventually they are going to be fully fitted and multi capable.
Ships sizes are going up. With systems, missiles, munitions getting ever larger and ships being tasked with more and more roles thats a fair call. While Australia's whitepaper brags about a 7,000t frigate, its actually a 6,250t design that can be upgraded to 7,000t, and the first F-100 were only 5,800t, and which origionally started off as a 4,500t frigate design.
All of that additional 7,000t capacity comes from it sitting lower in the water. Which is not a big issue if its been designed with that in mind.
I wouldn't get too caught up in size numbers, just focus on capability.
You missed the point that a ship larger than the size you advocate, with the minimum fit of the smallest model of a standard VLS, has serious weight management issues. It's on the absolute edge of what can be fitted to it.
The RN needs ships which can operate over long ranges, for long times. We don't need local or defence warships (lightly armed OPVs are perfectly adequate for patrolling our EEZ), but ships that can operate a very long way from home, & significant distances from local bases. Ships like the Lekiu, or even Formidable (both smaller than the Anzacs), are designed for a different environment than that which the RN expects to have to operate in.
We also have to take into account crew comfort. You just can't recruit sailors to work on ships with 1960s manning levels, without conscription. They demand more space. Long endurance, with a lot of weapons & other equipment aboard, requires sizable crews.
If we need numbers for constabulary duties, we could build and crew some oceanic patrol vessels (the shelved C3) much more cheaply & easily than light frigates, & therefore with less impact on the numbers of high-end warships. The Spanish BAM, for example, cost 85 mn euros with a crew of 35 (we get a few per light frigate), & could cope with all the constabulary duties needed, from ant-smuggler to pirate-chaser - but not warfighting.
Last edited:
Hi 1805
Just a few questions and comments on your recent post’s.
Were you inferring that SSN’s are a waste of time and money when you said “I guess they are the modern equivalent to a battleship; very expensive and virtually defenceless against air attack”?
While the type 23 is a very capable ship a larger vessel with an equivalent outfit would be more versatile and probably more fuel efficient providing greater stability for aircraft operations so I continually fail to understand your desire to make the Type 26 smaller which is so at odds with what is actually happening in most navies. A 4.5” is essential capability and should preferably be replaced by a 155mm on cost and compatibly of ammunition grounds alone, without going into the advantages of extended range and/or guided rounds and If the SDSR cuts the number of AS90 equipped regiments there may be some reuse of the guns/parts/ammo stocks to be had. As has been pointed out by others the larger size allows full size VLS of which ever brand is selected (SYLVER or Mk41 or both) which allows versatility in weapons fit.
ANZAC is a bad “example” not a bad ship and demonstrates the flaws in the arguments you present for small ships. Listen to Hambo he is correct on many occasions I particularly associate with his comments about the counties and recall the arguments he presented being had prior to the Falklands. Glamorgan actually engaged the incoming Exocet with Seacat it was however, inside the arm range of the missile and many of the GWS22 mod2 fitted ships had success against the Argentine aircraft a number of which had to ditch having used afterburner to escape the venerable Seacat.
I do agree that the RN needs to increase numbers of escorts and a way to do so would be to roll the patrol mine warfare survey functions into one hull type around hundred meter size (lets call it C2/3) and the outfit for that would be the source of much debate but largely fitted for not with in my view. It could perhaps be built in the north east on a similar drumbeat basis to that planned for the Type 26 or possibly combined with an order for replacements for the RFA if some joined up thinking is applied to the cost comparisons with foreign yards and account is taken of the costs to the UK of sending the work abroad against the benefits of local employment and taxation.
I do urge that as you appear to have the ear of one of our politicians that they and you need to appreciate that poor decisions on procurement such as that on CVA01 the under arming and shortening of the 42’s and the cutting of the helicopter budget more recently do end up in dead sailors and soldiers.
The Type 26 is in my opinion the right ship (or at least the right general kind of ship) for the RN to pursue at the moment. Being able to hunt submarines with a high level of capability, perform deep strike, shoot missiles at other ships and launch small force raids whilst being able to protect its self from aerial attack is a reasonable capability for a high end warship.
Agree with the sentement on numbers. With only 6 T45 there is a need for 12 T26 to maintain a good high level war fighting force.
I suppose a hypothetical T27 would use some common parts to the T-26, but be vastly stripped down in terms of armament. Perhaps to the T-23 level minus the TAS. Say CAAM, Main Gun, CIWS and a helecopter.
As for SSN being the modern day battleship - they undoubtedly are. They are not far off defenceless when tracked - but try and find them when they don't want to be found!
Agree with the sentement on numbers. With only 6 T45 there is a need for 12 T26 to maintain a good high level war fighting force.
I suppose a hypothetical T27 would use some common parts to the T-26, but be vastly stripped down in terms of armament. Perhaps to the T-23 level minus the TAS. Say CAAM, Main Gun, CIWS and a helecopter.
As for SSN being the modern day battleship - they undoubtedly are. They are not far off defenceless when tracked - but try and find them when they don't want to be found!