RN Type 45 Delayed Again!

[Musashi_kenshin]

I think Admiral Band has a good idea, if executed properly. There is no need to have frigates or destroyers doing anti-piracy/anti-drug patrols. A modest number of "corvettes" with basic systems (nothing fancy) will be cheaper to build and operate. They could also be used to provide back-up for humanitarian operations if necessary.

This should, in theory, free-up the frigates and destroyers for protecting the carriers and other taskforces. Which is, really, where you want them. Of course we would still need a fair number, but we wouldn't need quite so many of them in total as if the "corvettes" weren't available to take on lighter duties.

So, guys, what would you want to see fitted on these "corvettes"?

 

[swerve]

So, guys, what would you want to see fitted on these "corvettes"?

Stanflex. Plus a modest main gun (57mm Bofors or 76mm Oto maximum), & a couple of HMGs permanently.

 

[riksavage]

Covette

76mm gun and Harpoon SSM's at the bow, single Phalanx CIWS or RAM mounted at the stern and a couple of 25/30mms port and starbord. Crew around 90+ excluding space for a royal marine detechment.

 

[contedicavour]

It's becoming a bit confusing here. If the 4 T22 batch 3 and 13 remaining T23 are partially replaced by corvettes around 2017-2020 how many real FFGs will there be in post-2020 Royal Navy ??
Even if the Type23 can be modernized... we've got a problem here. The ships are good at ASW but have a very limited AAW (VLS Sea Wolf has a very short range below 10 km IIRC) and "normal" ASUW of Harpoons. In a 2020 high threat environment such ships would only survive with one of the 6 T45 around.
While the corvette idea seems reasonable, the whole idea of T22 and T23 being partially replaced by corvettes would make me panic if I were British :shudder The French are planning to do the opposite, replacing A69 corvettes with FREMM FFGs... even if probably the money will be lacking to ensure 1:1 replacement rate.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

While the corvette idea seems reasonable, the whole idea of T22 and T23 being partially replaced by corvettes would make me panic if I were British

Come on, man this is very easy to understand.

I don't know about the Italian Navy - maybe it refuses to do anything that isn't "cool", but the Royal Navy spends a lot of time on anti-piracy/anti-drug duties as I said above. So what is the point in sending frigates or destroyers to do that work?

The entire point of the idea is that you have a modest number - not very many at all - of corvettes to do all the low-key but necessary stuff. Then you have your high-end ships available for the difficult stuff. The corvettes are much cheaper, so you get several ships available for the cost of a few big ones. They're not designed to replace the T-22 and T-23s, they're to bolster the fleet's numbers. You would still have new surface combatants. Maybe not as many frigates as we have now, but because they're all available for big missions that's not a problem. In fact it's an improvement. What would be the point in having more big ships overall if fewer of them were available because they were chasing drug runners or pirates?

Just imagine you needed six ships a year for various "mundane operations". You have 16 units of money to build a navy and have two types of ship:

Frigate (fully armed with expensive systems) = 1 unit
Corvette (basic, cheaper systems) = 1/3 unit

So you can have 16 frigates if you want, but that would leave only 12 available for important operations. Or you could have 6 corvettes doing the basic stuff and 14 frigates, all the 14 frigates being available for escort duty and/or other things where they're really needed.

Can you see the benefit in this theory now?

 

[contedicavour]

Come on, man this is very easy to understand.

I don't know about the Italian Navy - maybe it refuses to do anything that isn't "cool", but the Royal Navy spends a lot of time on anti-piracy/anti-drug duties as I said above. So what is the point in sending frigates or destroyers to do that work?

The entire point of the idea is that you have a modest number - not very many at all - of corvettes to do all the low-key but necessary stuff. Then you have your high-end ships available for the difficult stuff. The corvettes are much cheaper, so you get several ships available for the cost of a few big ones. They're not designed to replace the T-22 and T-23s, they're to bolster the fleet's numbers. You would still have new surface combatants. Maybe not as many frigates as we have now, but because they're all available for big missions that's not a problem. In fact it's an improvement. What would be the point in having more big ships overall if fewer of them were available because they were chasing drug runners or pirates?

Just imagine you needed six ships a year for various "mundane operations". You have 16 units of money to build a navy and have two types of ship:

Frigate (fully armed with expensive systems) = 1 unit
Corvette (basic, cheaper systems) = 1/3 unit

So you can have 16 frigates if you want, but that would leave only 12 available for important operations. Or you could have 6 corvettes doing the basic stuff and 14 frigates, all the 14 frigates being available for escort duty and/or other things where they're really needed.

Can you see the benefit in this theory now?

What you say makes perfect logic... except that politicians will only see new ships come into RN service and think that after all the RN can live with less FFGs. Explain to a politician that a FFG isn't the same thing as a FFL... if he's short of budget he'll refuse to understand.
My proposal to handle piracy threats and the like is to build OPVH with light armament and make sure they carry Coast Guard markings or something similar... Or just replace the Castle OPVs with larger ships.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

What you say makes perfect logic... except that politicians will only see new ships come into RN service and think that after all the RN can live with less FFGs. Explain to a politician that a FFG isn't the same thing as a FFL... if he's short of budget he'll refuse to understand.

Well anything can happen in politics - doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides the new head of the MoD seems to have his head screwed on the right way.

 

[alexsa]

That would be counter to the Austal claim their Trimaran design offers "superior seakeeping" and "rough weather capabilities" normally not found in a 3000 ton warship. I'm not sure what that claim means though, in WWII most of the DEs in the North Atlantic were less than 1200 tons, and they got the job done.

Austal build that hull to the HSC code which is based around limiting some of the construction requirements of SOLAS on the basis the ship operates in fair conditions within 4 hours of a port of refuge for passenger vessels and 8 hours for cargo vessels as operational speeds.

The seakeeping claimed by Austal relates to the abiliyt of the vessel to provide a comfortable ride in those conditions. The greatest improvemetn in this design is the mitigation of tunnel slam between the hulls which occurs in larger swells with the cat design.

It must be remembered both LCS are high speed hulls and this imposes limitations of weight and the need to employ alloys in the structure. These hulls will be quicker but lighter than a steel hull of the same size.

 

[riksavage]

HMS Daring delay

Confirmed ISD for the first T45 hull, HMS Daring, will slip from May 2009 to December 2009. Attributed to the impact of the slippage to the Sampson MFR programme and revised timescale/risk analysis of the ship-trals programme leading to ISD (Janes Defence Weekly 13th Dec. 2006).

Consideing it's a brand new platform with associated PAAMS / Samson integration issues, no surprise really, I'm still confident the RN will end up with a 'best in class' AAW platfrom (finally).

Additional cost overuns, again according to Janes Defence Weekly are down to increased costs of PAAMS and growth costs associated with the WR-21 gas turbines.

 

[Big-E]

Consideing it's a brand new platform with associated PAAMS / Samson integration issues, no surprise really, I'm still confident the RN will end up with a 'best in class' AAW platfrom (finally).

Whose to say it will be the best?

 

[contedicavour]

Confirmed ISD for the first T45 hull, HMS Daring, will slip from May 2009 to December 2009. Attributed to the impact of the slippage to the Sampson MFR programme and revised timescale/risk analysis of the ship-trals programme leading to ISD (Janes Defence Weekly 13th Dec. 2006).

Consideing it's a brand new platform with associated PAAMS / Samson integration issues, no surprise really, I'm still confident the RN will end up with a 'best in class' AAW platfrom (finally).

Additional cost overuns, again according to Janes Defence Weekly are down to increased costs of PAAMS and growth costs associated with the WR-21 gas turbines.

Sorry to keep putting the finger where it hurts... but all the specific national systems the UK insisted on at the time of the Horizon programme are big sources of cost overruns and delays... Sampson, WR21 turbines... while the systems that are in common with Horizon work perfectly and on schedule (the Aster 15/30, the artillery, etc).
I do believe that eventually the T45 will be the best AAW platforms in Europe, but they will be way too late ... btw, we're working on active phased array EMPAR as well but in order to avoid delays we put the passive one aboard Cavour, Doria, Duilio and at least the first FREMMs.

cheers

 

[ren0312]

The RN is going for replacement SSBN's for its nuclear deterrent role as outlined in the (UK) governments recent white paper - the surface 'option' may have been considered but was certainly dismissed.

The last I had read was the first T45 (Daring) was due in 2009 with numbers two (Dauntless) and three (Diamond) to be commissioned in 2010, so does the article outline reasons for delay? Interested to hear more if you have it...

As to numbers the RN wanted 12 vessels, which was cut for political reasons to first 8, and now 'up to' 8 (read the current 6 on order) - sadly this is no different to other areas of the RN and UK armed forces generally, not unique to new systems. There are few countries that are updating AND increasing numbers - not likely for the UK in this parliament...

Any details on the reasoning for T45 delay much appreciated - thanks.

What is the reason for the persistent cuts in fleet numbers? Is it because of decreasing military budgets? Or is it because the current level of military spending, at 2.4 per cent of GDP, is just not adequate for the present missions of the UK military plus the procurement projects, rather than the defense budget declining itself?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It's basically due to cost overruns on other projects that have been dragging on for ages and other things requiring spends coming along at the same time. If the Darings were the only major procurements we would be making for some years it wouldn't be a problem. However because there's so much to do there's not enough money.

Personally I don't understand why the Treasury can't just pass a supplementary budget to pay for the purchases - they don't have to bump up the defence budget permanently. But I guess that's too simple for them to think of it.

 

[Big-E]

Personally I don't understand why the Treasury can't just pass a supplementary budget to pay for the purchases - they don't have to bump up the defence budget permanently. But I guess that's too simple for them to think of it.

Has the UK been able to keep GWOT expenses in line without supplemental funding? If our congress had a supplemental for DDG-1000 before it they would freak with the GWOT supplementals.

 

[swerve]

What is the reason for the persistent cuts in fleet numbers? Is it because of decreasing military budgets? Or is it because the current level of military spending, at 2.4 per cent of GDP, is just not adequate for the present missions of the UK military plus the procurement projects, rather than the defense budget declining itself?

Down to about 2.2% now. So yes, it is declining, while the armed forces are being kept busier than in the past, burning up money & equipment in Iraq & Afghanistan.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Type 45

Down to about 2.2% now. So yes, it is declining, while the armed forces are being kept busier than in the past, burning up money & equipment in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I must agree, its seems when the RN needs a real infusion of money, the land campagins are sucking up increasingly limited resources. I fear for the whole program, that The RN will end up with 6 units, certainly no more than 8. The overall delays are not overly concerning, since its more than likely, but not certain, that any major naval deployment will be EU or NATO. Moreover, many of the european navies already are deploying impressive area defence; Spain, Holland and Germany.

I am hopeful for the future of the T-45, its an excellent weapon system with excellent sensors. It worth time and the invesitment for the UK defence industry to build a truly world class Anti air surface warship.

One finaly thought, it seriously needs up-gunning, typical british approch of under arming excellent surface vessels. Land attack gun, SSM, point defence missile system and land attack crusie missiles. Still, this maybe all a pipe dream, even though avaible systems are on the market, or soon will be to fulfill all these requirments. :

 

[Systems Adict]

Sorry to say that T-45 won't be up gunned. Well, not while the ships are in build, if at all.

Agreement on a suitable design of gun wasn't reached in time for the design freeze, prior to construction, hence the 4.5" - MOD.1 being the chosen "Weapon of Choice". The additional weight of incorporating say a 155mm gun,it's support systems & the layout changes to the hull, would mean that the ships would be heavier / slower.

Finally, another delay to the overall programme could/would have been the result, something that the programme didn't need, on top of the political delays that have affected the ISD.

 

[Dr Phobus]

I am sad to say Mr. systems adict is probably totally correct. The MoD, the governemnt and the teasury seem to be happy to bleed resources away, its like the earily 80's all over again. Then bang something will happen.

I can live without a 114mm gun, i could live with 125mm gun with Excalabur/volcano like capabilities. But no SSM, and no land attack and no additional SAM's. Whats the point ? It seems the T-45 as become a intermediate program. Sorry for the doom and gloom chaps.