The Royal Navy's future? S2C2 project news from Janes'

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
New blueprint for RN surface fleet

Work conducted under the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) Sustained Surface Combatant Capability (S2C2) programme has formulated a bold three-tier plan to recapitalise the bulk of the Royal Navy's (RN's) surface fleet through to 2035.

The new strategy envisages a Future Surface Combatant (FSC) capability being delivered by three distinct ship types variously optimised for high-end warfighting, stabilisation operations and a miscellany of constabulary and minor war vessel tasks. In addition to fleet rationalisation, maximising commonality of equipment/systems, and providing industry with a steady production 'drumbeat', it also attempts to balance the need for high-end warfighting capabilities with the requirement to have sufficient hulls for emerging maritime security tasks.

Although not yet fully endorsed by the MoD, the draft blueprint is already understood to have received a favourable reception from the Navy Board.

S2C2, one of two ' Pathfinder' initiatives established last year, has brought together a joint MoD/industry team to produce a long-term roadmap for the delivery of an affordable and sustainable Joint Maritime Surface Combatant Capability and inform the FSC programme. 'Pathfinder' work is also intended to establish a new model for MoD and industry to deliver through-life capability management as part of a wider programme of equipment acquisition reform resulting from the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS).

S2C2 will report at the end of March 2007, with study outputs informing the MoD's Directorate Equipment Capability (Above Water Effects) next planning round (PR08). Current planning assumptions foresee FSC starting to enter service in the latter half of the next decade.

Presenting an overview of early outcomes to a Defence Manufacturers Association conference on 30 January, S2C2 team leader Commodore Steve Brunton told delegates that current thinking had shaped plans for the replacement of the RN's current Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23 frigates, plus a range of minor war vessels, with three new classes of surface combatants. He identified these as:

• a Force Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combatant (known as C1);
• a Stabilisation Combatant (C2);
• an Ocean-Capable Patrol Vessel (C3).

"S2C2 largely focuses on the relationship between the current Type 22 and Type 23 frigates and FSC," Cdre Brunton said, "but it has also developed linkages to other capabilities. Mine countermeasures [MCM], patrol vessels and surveys vessels all offer us opportunities.

"The plan we have developed takes eight existing classes down to just three. The capability currently delivered by the Type 22s and Type 23s would be replaced by C1 and C2, while C3 would replace the capabilities of our existing mine warfare fleet but also offer additional capability for maritime security tasks."

Jane's understands that C1 is envisaged as a multimission combatant of about 6,000 tons displacement. "It would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group," said Cdre Brunton, "offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force".

He continued: "C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort." One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two.
C3 is currently envisaged as a vessel of approximately 2,000 tonnes displacement with a range of 7,000 n miles. "We see this vessel being used for maritime security and interdiction operations," said Cdre Brunton. "It would also have a large mission bay aft, reconfigurable for special forces, MCM or a Lynx helicopter."

Analysis on the force mix continues. Early planning estimates suggest a requirement for 10 C1-type vessels and eight C2 ships. The initial requirement for C3 is thought to number eight ships, these being primarily roled for MCM as replacements for the current Hunt-class and Sandown-class vessels. However, this number could rise significantly if potential long-term replacements for the three River-class offshore patrol vessels, the Falkland Islands patrol vessel HMS Clyde, and the survey ships HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise later enter the equation.

Cdre Brunton acknowledged that the roadmap developed under S2C2 "is not yet endorsed MoD policy", but added: "We are hoping for endorsement [in PR08] to make this option set a reality."
I think this could make sense if the numbers and ships' capabilities are right. I'm seeing the following:

C-1 as a large escort with Harpoon, Aster-15s/ESSM, ASW, Cruise missiles, Helos, etc.

C-2 as a medium escort with Harpoon, Aster-15s/ESSM, maybe reduced ASW through a Helo only.

C-3 as a corvette/small frigate with Harpoon, RAM, Helo (the American littoral ships are also about 2,000 tonnes with these capabilities plus ship-launched torpedoes). C-3 is reserved for patrol missions and waving the flag.

Your thoughts? We're a long way aways from firm decisions, but it's interesting news all the same.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Its a start. Im not sure C1/C2 should be separate. Of course the article states this unsder debate to some extent:

"One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two."

IMHO they should be one class.

Just as the split in capabiliities of the FREMM class for Italy and France concerns me.

I dont see any real savings potential and conversely a real possibility of increased costs.

And concerns about flexibility and manpower/training/maintenance issues.

But politically it may be the only route to procure sufficient ships. But I see it as really adversely affecting efficiency and effectivness of the navies in operating/tactical matters.

As for C3: It could prove to be the most effective replacement program of the three.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Its a start. Im not sure C1/C2 should be separate. Of course the article states this unsder debate to some extent:

"One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two."

IMHO they should be one class.
I think it would be sensible to keep the same hulls, even if the systems are a bit different. With the Daring-class, the hulls don't cost that much. There would be great savings to keep as much the same as possible.

If the RN drums up the potential cost-savings by using one baseline design, the beancounters will swallow it hook-line-and-sinker. They just need to be repeatedly told that a smaller, separate design will cost more money in the long-run.

Also if the cost-savings through repeat orders could be made just as with the Darings, it could mean that the two variants could be mostly the same, bar perhaps removing the cruise missiles, reducing ASW capability, etc.

As for C3: It could prove to be the most effective replacement program of the three.
Indeed. I have always said it - there is no point in having big ships do "rountine work". It's just a waste of resources - the C-3 could help ensure there are more large escorts available for important work.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"Indeed. I have always said it - there is no point in having big ships do "rountine work". It's just a waste of resources - the C-3 could help ensure there are more large escorts available for important work."

That is important but I also think the time is past for dedicated Mine Warfare ships. Maybe even dedicated ships for any of the more mundane yet very important collateral tasks of a navy.

Some say eight is not enough and sixteen are really required

But Im not convinced that a 2000 to ship is big enough for proper seakeeping and all-weather sustained helo ops in the patrol role.

Although Im not sure the USNs LCS is the way to go either.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
"One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two."

IMHO they should be one class.
Hulls cost comparatively little compared with the sensors, weapons, etc, and modern systems mean that manpower requirements are not affected to any great extent by hull size, so developing two tiers from the same hull seems to me to be likely to be cost effective. It would also leave room to upgrade the C2 design if requirements change in future (the Australian Anzacs would be an example of this).

As for C3: It could prove to be the most effective replacement program of the three
My only concern is whether 2000 tonnes is excessive for the MCM role, but I guess that flies in the face of what I just said about the benefit of a common hull for the C1/C2 design. Maybe the C3 would fill the role of command ships in MCM groups, supported by smaller units and/or converted trawlers, etc.


IMO the blueprint is certainly a good start for future planning.

Cheers
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
But Im not convinced that a 2000 to ship is big enough for proper seakeeping and all-weather sustained helo ops in the patrol role.
Rick, you do realise that HMS Clyde is less than 2000 tonnes and assigned to patrol the South Atlantic around the Falklands, etc (hardly calm waters) without need for refit for something like 5 years, right?

My only concern is whether 2000 tonnes is excessive for the MCM role, but I guess that flies in the face of what I just said about the benefit of a common hull for the C1/C2 design. Maybe the C3 would fill the role of command ships in MCM groups, supported by smaller units and/or converted trawlers, etc.
I don't see why these would be MCM ships primarily. They may have that as one function, but I think their main purpose would be to fill that "general patrol requirement" that does suck in our more powerful ships at the moment.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I don't see why these would be MCM ships primarily. They may have that as one function, but I think their main purpose would be to fill that "general patrol requirement" that does suck in our more powerful ships at the moment.
Agreed. MCM would most likely be a secondary role but if they are to replace Hunts and Sandowns it will still be important. It makes sense IMO to combine patrol, escort and MCM capabilities in one vessel. WW2 minesweepers often spent most of their active lives on escort duties. I believe that some of the Australian Bathurst class, for example, never steamed a sweep on active service. In fact they were popularly referred to as corvettes by the RAN, which reflected their GP role (patrol, escort, ASW and troop transport as well as M/S). Later, in the 1960s, RN and RAN Ton class minesweepers carried out patrol duties in Malaysian waters during the 'confrontation' days.

Cheers
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"Rick, you do realise that HMS Clyde is less than 2000 tonnes and assigned to patrol the South Atlantic around the Falklands, etc (hardly calm waters) without need for refit for something like 5 years, right?"

Yes. But while the helo deck can accept a Merlin Sized helo there is no hanger.

She is a fine ship whos seakeeping attributes are excellent.

She is more the exception than the norm for a shjip of this size.

However for a ship performing warfare/patrol functions in which sustained All-weather helo ops are required Im not sure how effective a ship this size would be.

These types of operations are what mainly drove the size increase for the USNs LCS if I understand correctly.

Maybe its not a big issue for the C3 but should be considered IMHO.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
From the news of JDW I see that the FREMM is a likely candidate for the role.
That is actually now unlikely, because the article implies the project will not start for some time yet. Although FREMM is a new frigate design, it is hardly revolutionary - by the time construction would probably begin (mid/late next decade) the Royal Navy would want something newer that suited its own objectives.

Also there's no way the ships will be built even partially in foreign yards.
 

Lawman

New Member
The best bet may be to go for a Daring-derived hull for C1 and C2, hopefully bringing numbers up to 8 T-45, 8 C1 and 8 C2. As for C3, there is a lot of merit in going for the LCS type to perform both MCM and patrol, ideally a total of around 16. That would yield a reasonable total number of hulls, with a good level of capability. One thing I would aim for would be to stick to common weapons systems, i.e. Harpoon, RAM and hopefully either 35mm or 57mm as a CIWS and as the main gun for the C-3s.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
As I understand it, the LCS are intended to be used quite differently than a patrol ship and this can be seen in the design.

High speeds are required for fast deployment, tactical flexibility and survivability in the littorals.

For this the trimaran and semi planning hulls are optimised for fuel efficiency at high speeds (compared to conventional hulls) and is thus not very fuel efficient in the speed regimes typical of patrol vessels.

This would impact economy, logistics and endurance.

As I perceive it, the LCS does not have the profile of a constabulary work, fisheries protection etc., C3 vessel.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
As I perceive it, the LCS does not have the profile of a constabulary work, fisheries protection etc., C3 vessel.
I don't think this ship would be used for fisheries protection et al - it would be too big for that. It would be more about anti-drugs/piracy work.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I don't think this ship would be used for fisheries protection et al - it would be too big for that. It would be more about anti-drugs/piracy work.
Allow me to roll that into the same mission profile covered under "etc." ;)

"An ocean capable patrol vessel (C3)"

To add to the previous post, I also understand seakeeping is an issue with the two types of hulls for the LCS. Again because they're optimised for fast deployment and work in the littorals. The C3 would have to be a reasonably conventional hull IMHV.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
To add to the previous post, I also understand seakeeping is an issue with the two types of hulls for the LCS. Again because they're optimised The C3 would have to be a reasonably conventional hull IMHV.
No problem - just modify the HMS Clyde design.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
I was more thinking of the Omani corvettes, enlarged a bit for improved seakeeping, endurance and to make room for a full helo capability.
Yes, that's also a possibility. VT has come up with some good designs for "small ships" in recent years.
 

adsH

New Member
Speaking about future planning,

We've reached a critical point in public spending, yet again! We’re at 42.5% (2006-2007) of GDP, compared to the 37.1% during (1999-2000). I guess bracing our selves would be prudent, if we know anything about Mr Brown is that he's a fan of a ‘Stop freeze save and Spend and accelerate strategy', when it comes to public spending. Military spending is at the lower end of his agenda, first is Education (for good reasons, national competitiveness is threatened) second would be Health care (for electorate reasons) then comes Military. From 2008 there will probably be a public sector spending freeze similar to the one Mr-Brown exercised from 96/97 to 99/00 the 'saving mode'.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Im not a big fan of LCS by any means.

And the High Speed requirement is part of the reason as it has a serious impact on the ships design.

I hope I didnt imply that I was.

I do know the UK has closely followed the LCS program.

And in my estimation are learning its pro and cons, flaws and strengths quite well.

I would expect the RN to build a ship that more suited their needs and most likely it would have little if anything in common with the LCS.

My point was that Helo Ops have become extraordinaarilly important for so many functions, tasks, roles and missions that a Navy undertakes. And for good reason.

Historically ships under 3000 tons have struggled with being efficient and effective operating Helos.

Case in point:

The Italians moved quickly from the Lupo design to the larger Maestrale class for just this reason and they operate in the relatively calm MED.

Like I stated earlier maybe its not an issue for the C3.
 
Top