The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

If we get something like BAM, we'll be doing fine - but all this talk of fitting it out with CAMM , Artisan etc is going to kill the class dead.

Ian

Absolutely.

It's the same debate that went on when we had C1, C2 & C3. Many of those discussing C3 wanted to turn it into C2. I fear that attitude hasn't gone away. I recall asking once what we'd use for the C3 roles if we got the frigate called 'C3' that had just been described - C4?

I think the renaming to MHPC, with its built-in reminder of the roles, may have something to do with that attitude. MCM, Hydrography, & Patrol Craft They are not roles for which you need a TAS, CAMM, Artisan, etc., & building the light frigate desired by some here would both cost a lot more, & leave us without a vessel to perform those roles.

It should be able to relieve frigates & destroyers of tasks for which they are overkill, such as pirate-hunting. For that, a BAM is plenty.

 

[Repulse]

Absolutely.

It's the same debate that went on when we had C1, C2 & C3. Many of those discussing C3 wanted to turn it into C2. I fear that attitude hasn't gone away. I recall asking once what we'd use for the C3 roles if we got the frigate called 'C3' that had just been described - C4?

I think the renaming to MHPC, with its built-in reminder of the roles, may have something to do with that attitude. MCM, Hydrography, & Patrol Craft They are not roles for which you need a TAS, CAMM, Artisan, etc., & building the light frigate desired by some here would both cost a lot more, & leave us without a vessel to perform those roles.

It should be able to relieve frigates & destroyers of tasks for which they are overkill, such as pirate-hunting. For that, a BAM is plenty.

Maybe you right, but I think we need more. You seem fixated that MCMV and survey duties are some how tied to a low end platform; I fundamentally disagree with this. What I am looking for in the C3 is a GP vessel which can basically look after itself in terms of self defence. With all the proper escorts tied up in either ARG / CVF or ASW duties why would you not want this?

 

[StobieWan]

Maybe you right, but I think we need more. You seem fixated that MCMV and survey duties are some how tied to a low end platform; I fundamentally disagree with this. What I am looking for in the C3 is a GP vessel which can basically look after itself in terms of self defence. With all the proper escorts tied up in either ARG / CVF or ASW duties why would you not want this?

As far as I can see, the idea is to try and get double duty out of the mine clearance fleet, which I think is perfectly sensible - so build something a bit more generally useful, stick a gun on it, make it capable of launching and recovering fast boats, add a hangar and voila, it can troll up and down the channel stopping suspected terrorist boats, do some anti piracy, stiffen up the occasional marine presence, do some anti drug stuff, that's fab.


If you go build a general purpose vessel with a high end radar, FLAADS, and all that jazz, how much will it cost? You're trying to turn a simple and cheap hull in which we need numbers into something costing a couple of hundred mill - or about 2/3 the cost of a Type 26, but which will be far less survivable due to it's smaller hull.

You're taking the same cost spiral that's screwed up most USN programs in the last twenty years - fit it with some bits, decide it's under armed, add more weapons, realise it's a very expensive and heavily armed patrol boat so add CIWS, make it a few hundred tonnes heavier, realise you can fit a sonar to it and off you go, more expense, less hulls.

This isn't meant to be a competitor to the type 26 and we really need more hulls in the water.

Ian

 

[swerve]

Maybe you right, but I think we need more. You seem fixated that MCMV and survey duties are some how tied to a low end platform; I fundamentally disagree with this. What I am looking for in the C3 is a GP vessel which can basically look after itself in terms of self defence. With all the proper escorts tied up in either ARG / CVF or ASW duties why would you not want this?

Then you turn it into a real (but small) frigate, carrying around a lot of weapons & sensors which cost vast amounts, need more crew to operate, & which are a waste of space & weight when it's performing the roles it is meant for.

There's been talk here of fitting it for CAMM & a TAS. Fitting it for a TAS is pointless unless we have some to mount on it - and that means buying more. Fitting it for CAMM means a suitable radar & CMS, & stocks of missiles & launchers ready to be fitted. Congratulations! You've just doubled the cost of your MCM/patrol vessel. We can now only afford half as many, & will therefore probably have to carry on using frigates for jobs that otherwise we could do with something costing a third as much to buy & run.

There's nothing wrong with making provision for basic self-defence on MHPC (e.g. fitted for but not with Seastreak or the like, some soft kill systems, etc.), but I think anything more & it's turning into the inferior mini-Type 26 Ian describes. He's entirely right about the cost spiral.

If we have enough 4.5", maybe there's a case for fitting it, on cost grounds, but otherwise I see no need for anything more than a 57mm gun plus some HMGs, & weapons storage for the helicopter. For the West Indies station, or Somalia, or whatever else similar pops up in the next few decades, that should be plenty. In a big war, MHPCs will be needed to deal with mines, so we won't have many free to stand in for frigates.

 

[Repulse]

I agree that we should maximise the number of hulls we can get. I also concede that CAMM and TAS etc may push costs up too high thus resulting in fewer hulls. However, with the lack of escort frigates / destroyers it is likely that these vessels will operate mostly out of their protection and need a basic level of self defence. Fitted for but not with would be good for high end capabilities, but if needed would take time. For example, if there is a scenario like the falklands, would you upgrade them? I'm not an expert in this area but what other cheap alternatives are there? Perhaps adding a Otobreda 76 mm gun with specialist ammo could be an option? Not sure how much they cost, but even mounting two (one fore and one aft) would give a good base defence.

The way the RN is going is that we will end up being capable of fielding a single task group and SSNs and not much else. We wouldn't have spare escorts for convoy protection for example.

Therefore, I believe that the days of having a dedicated mine clearance fleet are over. The use of unmanned submersibles etc should mean that they can be containerised and capable of being deployed on any warship. Then, in a large scale war we could use civilian ships for this role.

 

[StobieWan]

Basically this is all similar stuff to the great LCS debate - every time they pop up on the USN forums, folk try and turn 'em into mini AB's



Ian

 

[StobieWan]

For example, if there is a scenario like the falklands, would you upgrade them? I'm not an expert in this area but what other cheap alternatives are there?

No, I'd leave them patrolling home waters, doing the anti piracy missions, enforcing embargos, all the duties other than war that we'd have to commit an escort for. I'd then stick as much high end kit into the stuff I was expecting to get shot at.

We're *flat* broke mate, every penny you spend on these things is a penny less on everything else.

They *might* end up with second hand 4.5's on the front if the 26's end up with the Oto Melario 127mm, if not, I'd go with a quick firer on the 57mm or the OM 76mm with the possibility of Vulcano ammo - that'd give some semblance of a CIWS function and be very useful for the occasional gunboat plinking session. Maybe the equivalent of Typhoon or mini typhoon - a remotely operable rapid fire mount or two - but probably they won't.

A VSHORAD Star streak mount perhaps, but honestly, these are meant to be ships intended to get double duty out of the mine hunters, not defend the fleet

Something like these ships would be great for use in situations like Iraq where we were helping out patrol territorial waters and be a lot cheaper to run than say, a Type 23, and plenty of other duties besides. Every slot they fill is one capital ship freed up for a full on shooting match.

It's not easy to fit for but not with a local area defence system - you could fit for and perhaps with Phalanx 1b and then look to purchase Sea Ram (which is a straight forward plug and play replacement for the gun on Phalanx, and extends reach out to 5km with a useful missile)

CAMM isn't appropriate for this role.

Also, one of the big deals on these ships is low cost of ownership - with a crew of 30 or so, stick two more ratings on board for one missile system like star streak and you've increased your annual costs for the ship by £80-100K.



Ian

 

[1805]

HMS Trafalgar was retired on 4th December 2009. HMS Nelson is used for the Portsmouth naval base.

All the Type 45 names have long traditions. I think one is the 12th RN ship of that name - and Duncan was the victor of the Battle of Camperdown, which was of tremendous importance. Without it, there might have been no Trafalgar. Duncan used the unorthodox tactic later copied by Nelson at Trafalgar, of breaking the enemy line. I reckon he deserves a ship.

I thought it was Rodney at the Saintes that pioneered breaking the line, although I did read somewhere that it may have been by accident.

I don't doubt the names mean something to the RN, but that was not my point. I am not a great fan of the name Ark Royal but I do agree it means something to the public and this is all about raising the RN's profile.

An example of excellent PR was as I watched the Royal Wedding, the entire nation was given a reminder of the RAF pivotal role in our history with the Battle of Britian Flight brilliantly linked to the present with a follow up by Tornado/Typhoons...Saatchi & Saatchi could not have done it better.

The RN needs to be a little less self indulgent and more focused on building a case for its existance.

 

[swerve]

Therefore, I believe that the days of having a dedicated mine clearance fleet are over. The use of unmanned submersibles etc should mean that they can be containerised and capable of being deployed on any warship. Then, in a large scale war we could use civilian ships for this role.

You keep missing the point, & by a mile.

The whole point of C3/MHPC is to end the days of a dedicated mine clearance fleet! As well as MCMV, they are intended to do EEZ enforcement, patrol around the world (e.g. one would be perfectly capable of replacing the frigate we currently keep on the West Indies station, or scuppering pirates off Somalia), & provide a platform for hydrographic survey. Do you really want light frigates performing those roles? Should frigates be chasing trawlers fishing illegally? Because if you get your way, that's what we'll have.

I see that you're now proposing putting totally unarmed civilian ships (crewed by who?) into harms way, to avoid having lightly armed MCMV ships. Don't you see the contradiction in that? What do we do? - commandeer a trawler or whatever whenever we need a minesweeper, install a containerised command module, fit a crane to lower the submersible over the side, conscript the crew or throw 'em off & put aboard an RN crew which has never seen the vessel before . . . how long will that take, & how effective will it be?

MHPC is meant to replace our MCMVs, the Rivers, & the survey ships, all with one type. most of which will be able to double up, & will also be able to relieve the escorts of low-end tasks they're currently performing (see above, &StobieWan's post). That last will achieve your aim of increasing the effective escort fleet, at less cost than your suggestion. It is most emphatically not "a dedicated mine clearance fleet".

 

[Repulse]

Swerve, I don't believe I do miss the point and your tone suggests that you fail to respect another opinion.

The fact is that there is no west Indies frigate anymore, it's purely an RFA role now. Maybe having a MHPC off Somalia would free up a frigate, but are you seriously suggesting that the design you are suggesting will be able to cover the gulf or APT(S) roles? Now that we are down to 19 escorts (maybe fewer in the future) how many will be available after the carrier group escorts, APT(N and S) and gulf commitments are factored in? At the very least this is 5 escorts; the rule of three (one active, one in refit and one training / reserve) means you have 4 left, at most 2 active for any reasonable period of time.

As for using the RN for fishery monitoring, I agree a light frigate would be overkill, but perhaps it is time we followed the Scottish model and have a separate organisation to do this.

I stand to my point that the C3 should be a GP vessel. What is the point of having a warship that as soon as its anything beyond a bloke in a boat with an RPG you have to send in a real warship... Yes it could perform a MCMV role, but equally in the future so could any vessel. Between the RN and RFA fleets there should be sufficient numbers to support mine clearance in peace times. In a serious war, then you only need to look at how merchant vessels were used for war duties in WW2 (manned by the RNVR) to see how it could and did work. There would be also specialist RN mine warfare teams to operate the specialist kit.

I know everyone says we a flat broke as a country, but the truth of the matter is that we are not. It's just that even within the current mod budget restrictions we choose to spend the money elsewhere. For the cost of one JSF or typhoon you could have a very capable C3. You could probably get 12 for the cost of an Astute...

 

[swerve]

I fail to respect opinions which lack logic.

Yes, other vessels (not 'any' vessel - they need certain on-board facilities to do the job effectively) can do mine clearance. But do you want the supply ships which should be supporting the fleet, the amphibious ships which should be transporting troops & equipment, etc., tied up in mine clearance?

The world wars are not a good model for today. If we ever have to mobilise as in WW2, then we'll have to build a new navy, army & air force - but we're far more likely to be engaged in smaller, shorter, wars, which start with relatively little notice. Requisitioning merchant ships, fitting them out for minesweeping, & crewing them, takes time - too much time for all but a long, major, war. We need to have vessels which can do the job straight away, & won't be needed for other essential war-fighting tasks. Having a patrol fleet which can just load up the USVs, etc., take aboard the specialist crews, & go to war, gives us that. Relying on requisitioned merchant vessels doesn't. They'd take too long to be ready.

No, we don't have a frigate in the W. Indies now, but what happens to the Bay-class or whatever happens to be there at any particular time if we get involved in a shooting war somewhere? It's very likely that it would suddenly have more important work to do. And so on for other taskings. Also, we're cutting RFA numbers, along with escorts. Hence the requirement for something smaller & cheaper to buy and operate, to take over such taskings.

For the purchase price of a Typhoon you wouldn't even get a BAM. Your more heavily armed ship would cost a few Typhoons, & getting the numbers you propose would lose us a few squadrons of an already undersized & under-armed air force. Yes, you could get a few for the price of an Astute, but can we cut submarine numbers even more? The only way to get what you want is to cut something else we're already short of, or increase defence spending - and the latter won't happen.

Note that the SFPA operates unarmed vessels, with limited capabilities, & not available for deployment elsewhere.

BTW, in a short war the rule of three is temporarily suspended.

What is the point of having a warship that as soon as its anything beyond a bloke in a boat with an RPG you have to send in a real warship.

Because most of the time, in most of the world, the bloke in the boat with the RPG is the most you have to face, & having something which can deal with him effectively & at modest cost enables you to concentrate the real warships where they're needed, instead of spreading them around all the places where that RPG/boat is the greatest threat.

We currently have two escorts in the Somali anti-piracy operation. One is acting as a command ship, but a BAM or similar could replace the other, & in extremis we could replace both with such vessels.

 

[1805]

Swerve, I don't believe I do miss the point and your tone suggests that you fail to respect another opinion.

The fact is that there is no west Indies frigate anymore, it's purely an RFA role now. Maybe having a MHPC off Somalia would free up a frigate, but are you seriously suggesting that the design you are suggesting will be able to cover the gulf or APT(S) roles? Now that we are down to 19 escorts (maybe fewer in the future) how many will be available after the carrier group escorts, APT(N and S) and gulf commitments are factored in? At the very least this is 5 escorts; the rule of three (one active, one in refit and one training / reserve) means you have 4 left, at most 2 active for any reasonable period of time.

As for using the RN for fishery monitoring, I agree a light frigate would be overkill, but perhaps it is time we followed the Scottish model and have a separate organisation to do this.

I stand to my point that the C3 should be a GP vessel. What is the point of having a warship that as soon as its anything beyond a bloke in a boat with an RPG you have to send in a real warship... Yes it could perform a MCMV role, but equally in the future so could any vessel. Between the RN and RFA fleets there should be sufficient numbers to support mine clearance in peace times. In a serious war, then you only need to look at how merchant vessels were used for war duties in WW2 (manned by the RNVR) to see how it could and did work. There would be also specialist RN mine warfare teams to operate the specialist kit.

I know everyone says we a flat broke as a country, but the truth of the matter is that we are not. It's just that even within the current mod budget restrictions we choose to spend the money elsewhere. For the cost of one JSF or typhoon you could have a very capable C3. You could probably get 12 for the cost of an Astute...

You have not missed the point, the RN is the one having the reality check. Everyone who posts in this room knows deep down they will not get 13 T26, my guess would be top end 10, probably 8, disaster 6.

How could the RN possibly defend a task force and convoy of support ships with 8-10 active escort ships and this is assuming far higher activity of units than one is three.

What you say makes sense. Incidently if the average cost of this ships was c£150m assuming half had a basic fit and half a full fit, this would be worth it. Lets face it the T26 will probably be £300m+

 

[1805]

I fail to respect opinions which lack logic.

Yes, other vessels (not 'any' vessel - they need certain on-board facilities to do the job effectively) can do mine clearance. But do you want the supply ships which should be supporting the fleet, the amphibious ships which should be transporting troops & equipment, etc., tied up in mine clearance?
.

The trouble with this approach it leads to single role ships like the Albion's, they then see little activity and the RN can't put an effective case together to retain, so one get put in reserve. Then when you really do need them they are not availble, because someone has used bits for spares.

If some thought had been put into the concept or we had just copied what everyone else was building, we would have more useful ship....may even have won an export of two?

Why shouldn't a LPD have MCM capability, its not saying in a full scaled operation it would have to undertake the role.

The dock capable vessels are prehaps some of the most useful ships the RN has, why can't they act as mother ships to ROV, patrol craft etc?

 

[t68]

Am i right in suggesting that the RN requires a small multi role vessel that could do a number of thing’s from maritime patrol mine clearance and hydrograph and have the capability anti piracy. What sort of range is the RN looking at that the vessel can complete on its own or is it to be accompanied by a small oiler and what sea state level it is expected to operate in.

http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/naval-vessels

 

[Repulse]

I fail to respect opinions which lack logic.

The fact that you are unable to open your mind to new ways is your problem not mine. I respect your opinion, but doesn't mean I accept it or cannot challenge it, that is the whole point of these discussion forums.

Yes, other vessels (not 'any' vessel - they need certain on-board facilities to do the job effectively) can do mine clearance. But do you want the supply ships which should be supporting the fleet, the amphibious ships which should be transporting troops & equipment, etc., tied up in mine clearance?

What you are doing is maximizing the flexibility of the whole fleet as 1805 states above.

The world wars are not a good model for today. If we ever have to mobilise as in WW2, then we'll have to build a new navy, army & air force - but we're far more likely to be engaged in smaller, shorter, wars, which start with relatively little notice. Requisitioning merchant ships, fitting them out for minesweeping, & crewing them, takes time - too much time for all but a long, major, war. We need to have vessels which can do the job straight away, & won't be needed for other essential war-fighting tasks. Having a patrol fleet which can just load up the USVs, etc., take aboard the specialist crews, & go to war, gives us that. Relying on requisitioned merchant vessels doesn't. They'd take too long to be ready.

Okay, so are you saying it would be quicker to build new escorts in a time of crisis than just upgrading the C3s for these duties? As I say any RN / RFA vessel can do this role quickly if its the priority, however in my view escorting troop transports or convoy protection is going to be the most likely urgent need.

No, we don't have a frigate in the W. Indies now, but what happens to the Bay-class or whatever happens to be there at any particular time if we get involved in a shooting war somewhere? It's very likely that it would suddenly have more important work to do. And so on for other taskings. Also, we're cutting RFA numbers, along with escorts. Hence the requirement for something smaller & cheaper to buy and operate, to take over such taskings.

In an ideal world we would have plenty of escorts, RFAs and cheap MHPVs you describe, but when I look at the current and future RN capability pyramid there is a gapping whole in the middle.

For the purchase price of a Typhoon you wouldn't even get a BAM. Your more heavily armed ship would cost a few Typhoons, & getting the numbers you propose would lose us a few squadrons of an already undersized & under-armed air force. Yes, you could get a few for the price of an Astute, but can we cut submarine numbers even more? The only way to get what you want is to cut something else we're already short of, or increase defence spending - and the latter won't happen.

Quoting comparable equipment costs is always difficult. However I am led to believe the ball park figure for a typhoon is 125M£ (including development + production costs) a MILGEM class corvette (much more than I'm suggesting) is $250 million, about 160M£. The total production costs for say one a year is extremely small compared to the overall budget. It is all about priorities, and for me these are pretty near the top.

Note that the SFPA operates unarmed vessels, with limited capabilities, & not available for deployment elsewhere.

Yes, but they free up RN ships for other duties and should be cheaper to run.

BTW, in a short war the rule of three is temporarily suspended.

Agreed, but apart from the Falklands how many 'short wars' have the RN been involved in? Would you count Iraq or even Libya?

Because most of the time, in most of the world, the bloke in the boat with the RPG is the most you have to face, & having something which can deal with him effectively & at modest cost enables you to concentrate the real warships where they're needed, instead of spreading them around all the places where that RPG/boat is the greatest threat.

Okay, apart from Somalia name another place where the RN operates where the main threat is an RPG? Even then, the smallest of navies are acquiring OPVs so why do we need to configure half the RN in this role?

We currently have two escorts in the Somali anti-piracy operation. One is acting as a command ship, but a BAM or similar could replace the other, & in extremis we could replace both with such vessels.

After the recent cuts have gone through, can we seriously have two fighting pirates? At most a BAM would free up one. Even then, with the limited speed and sensors you are suggesting it would make the role a lot harder.

 

[kev 99]

The trouble with this approach it leads to single role ships like the Albion's, they then see little activity and the RN can't put an effective case together to retain, so one get put in reserve. Then when you really do need them they are not availble, because someone has used bits for spares.

The ships Swerve has been advocating would not be single role though, they would be Mine-counter measures, hydrographic survey or patrol ships, the whole point of the MHCP programme is provided a single class of ships capable of being re-rolled to do a number of tasks, one of those isn't the ability to act as a GP escort because it's pointlessly expensive to do so.

 

[1805]

the whole point of the MHCP programme is provided a single class of ships capable of being re-rolled to do a number of tasks, one of those isn't the ability to act as a GP escort because it's pointlessly expensive to do so.

I your opinon (and in fairness the RN for what thats worth with their track record) based on the assumption that sufficient numbers of T26/T45 are available. However how realistic are these number?

To be clear I don't think we are not talking about fully arming all these vessels, but a Stanflex modular approach, prehaps a 1/3 fully armed, 1/3 partial and 1/3 just a gun.

You may not agree with this approach but it is not completely out of the realms of possibility. I find the hostility to this common sense approach quite strange.

 

[StobieWan]

Am i right in suggesting that the RN requires a small multi role vessel that could do a number of thing’s from maritime patrol mine clearance and hydrograph and have the capability anti piracy. What sort of range is the RN looking at that the vessel can complete on its own or is it to be accompanied by a small oiler and what sea state level it is expected to operate in.

Naval Vessels - Austal

Basically yes, HMPC/C3 is intended to be a much larger ship than some of the vessels it replaces and wraps up a number of other types under one hull, and basically if you look at the competing products like Gowind, BAM, the Holland class etc, they're all around 7-8K range, mid twenties in speed and around 1800-2500 tonnes with a mid cal gun and some automatic weapons making up much of their armament. They're meant to be reasonably capable in poor seas and to be able to operate independently on patrol. HMPC will probably have a hangar and I'm guessing they should come in around the £120 m range in price.

What a number of other board members seem to be advocating is a C2 platform effectively, much more costly, better equipped and effectively a direct competitor to the Type 26, albeit smaller, less survivable and less capable.

I think the HMPC idea is sound - it takes the existing MCM fleet and dual roles it, meaning we get some use out of hulls that otherwise have little utility beyond mine clearance (ie, once in a blue moon, but much needed on that occasion)

If the mine clearance gear is largely modular, it may be the kit can be flown out to a friendly port and fitted locally at any place with access to basic cargo handling capability,

I don't believe there's much scope for export as we'd be in direct competition with other sellers, many of whom have lower labour costs or who receive subsidies from their government, but the class will be a welcome addition to the RN I think.

Ian

 

[swerve]

What you are doing is maximizing the flexibility of the whole fleet as 1805 states above.

You're maximising flexibility of individual ships, when the fleet is not under resource pressure. Once the pressure's on, & ships are needed for their main roles, that flexibility becomes difficult to use. An RFA can't do MCM when it's accompanying a carrier group to provide fuel or other stores, nor can an LPD full of troops.

Okay, so are you saying it would be quicker to build new escorts in a time of crisis than just upgrading the C3s for these duties? As I say any RN / RFA vessel can do this role quickly if its the priority, however in my view escorting troop transports or convoy protection is going to be the most likely urgent need.

Here we go again . . . how can they do this role quickly if they're otherwise occupied? You can't make a ship be in two places at once, doing two different roles, just by making it capable of both. And no, I'm not saying it would be quicker to build new escorts (it would, of course, be quicker to upgrade the MHPCs), but that the WW2 scenario is an inappropriate comparison, since we're not equipped for it & wouldn't be whatever C3/MHPC we build. In that environment, we'd be doing everything at once, up to the limit of our physical & financial resources. That isn't the world we're in now. We have a limited budget, & it is NOT going to increase. We don't have the budget for your ships.

In an ideal world we would have plenty of escorts, RFAs and cheap MHPVs you describe, but when I look at the current and future RN capability pyramid there is a gapping whole in the middle.

Exactly. Which is why we can't multi-task the high-value ships with jobs that can be done by low-value ones. They have other things to do.

Quoting comparable equipment costs is always difficult. However I am led to believe the ball park figure for a typhoon is 125M£ (including development + production costs) a MILGEM class corvette (much more than I'm suggesting) is $250 million, about 160M£. The total production costs for say one a year is extremely small compared to the overall budget. It is all about priorities, and for me these are pretty near the top.

Development and production. Comparing system price, including fixed costs such as development costs for a radar, engine, & much else, with the unit production cost of a ship using OTS equipment is not valid. We can't save any of that development cost by diverting money from the Typhoon programme to ships.

The production cost of a Tranche 2 Typhoon (what's currently building) is 55 mn euros..

Agreed, but apart from the Falklands how many 'short wars' have the RN been involved in? Would you count Iraq or even Libya?.

Short for the RN. There have also been 'peacekeeping' (really peace enforcing) missions, where there was no threat that a BAM couldn't cope with.

Okay, apart from Somalia name another place where the RN operates where the main threat is an RPG? Even then, the smallest of navies are acquiring OPVs so why do we need to configure half the RN in this role?

We're not configuring half the RN in this role. We're configuring maybe a third of the RN as multi-role vessels, which can, among their other capabilities, function as OPVs.

On the one in three rule, Somalia is currently absorbing SIX escorts. That's a third of what we're heading for. If we had some smaller, cheaper warships we could cover that with a fifth of the manpower, & far less cost.

After the recent cuts have gone through, can we seriously have two fighting pirates? At most a BAM would free up one. Even then, with the limited speed and sensors you are suggesting it would make the role a lot harder.

Yes, we have two out there. And the speed that matters in this role is the helicopter speed. We've deployed RFAs for the same role. I've not noticed that they're faster, or have better sensors.

BTW, the MHPCs should be better able to defend themselves than our current MCMVs, which we deploy to the Gulf.

 

[StobieWan]

Okay, apart from Somalia name another place where the RN operates where the main threat is an RPG? Even then, the smallest of navies are acquiring OPVs so why do we need to configure half the RN in this role?

We're not configuring half the RN to do small stuff, we're taking the existing class of MCM vessels (something like 12 in all) and also the River class OPV's plus a pile of other vessels and replacing them with a single, larger, more flexible hull that can do MCM if needed, easily handle extended patrols, sea control duties, and can easily overwhelm any number of blokes with RPG's as needed. They could also take on a large chunk of say, the Iranian Navy and come out on top as they're largely using small boghammers etc - 40 knots won't outrun a burst of 76mm or a Wildcat firing Sea Skua or the latest beam rider from Thales.

What we're not doing is the thing 1805 is always protesting the RN does and gold plating it by fitting it with kit which it won't need for the role and which will compete with resources for the Type 26. By not fitting with or for roles it's not designed to handle we can buy more of them and have a reasonable chance of rounding out an otherwise depleted fleet.


If you start specifying FLAADS/Artisan plus other "GP" fit items, the cost goes up and you're basically going to lose type 26's to this cost spiral.

Nothing wrong with working in space for RAM (twenty tons of topweight and needing little support other than a basic search radar) and by all means leave some hard points and power worked in for Exocet if it can be done easily but let's not make this thing £200m or more by tacking on extra kit.


Ian