A new type of surface ship for the Royal Navy
- Thread starter uk 75
- Start date
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,129
- Reaction score
- 12,216
What are you thinking of? Something on the lines of a mass produced SEV design, like some of the original LCS submissions, perhaps?
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
Grey thanks. Knowing how fierce but also informed contributors are, I wanted to provide a blank paper. Lcs may itself be too conservative. Perhaps a converted Albion or Bay class mother ship?
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,129
- Reaction score
- 12,216
Or perhaps something along the lines of the Absalon Class derived, Ivar Huitfeldt Class Frigates?
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,129
- Reaction score
- 12,216
Nik said:
Ok, so let's go back to a development of the Bay class for use as a General Purpose 'mother ship', for use with manned small craft and drones, air, surface, and, perhaps, sub-surface?. Leaving aside for the moment the actual ship, any ideas on the ideal small craft compliment, to start with?
I don't see that submarine threats have reduced. Type 26 is primarily an ASW vessel, without it the RN will cease to have such once the Type 23 fleet is run down.
Fine if your massively expanding your SSN and SSK fleets.
Fine if your building lots of 'mini-kiev' ASW helicopter carriers. Decked out with lots of ASW helicopters.
Fine if your not going to face SSN and SSK forces.
So no I don't think the Type 26 is the wrong way to go. There are arguments over certain systems it will likely mount.
Motherships.
Fine in theory, in practice you never have the right mix of daughter craft when you need them and the politicians will cut both Mothership numbers to below the minimum to support the dispersed tasks and will cut the daughtercraft to below the minimum.
Fine if your massively expanding your SSN and SSK fleets.
Fine if your building lots of 'mini-kiev' ASW helicopter carriers. Decked out with lots of ASW helicopters.
Fine if your not going to face SSN and SSK forces.
So no I don't think the Type 26 is the wrong way to go. There are arguments over certain systems it will likely mount.
Motherships.
Fine in theory, in practice you never have the right mix of daughter craft when you need them and the politicians will cut both Mothership numbers to below the minimum to support the dispersed tasks and will cut the daughtercraft to below the minimum.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
Zen
Isnt the trouble with focussing on ASW that most of the time the RN does not do
any sub hunting. Even in the Falklands we reputedly sank more whales than submerged Argie subs. Otherwise, Suez- sub hunting anyone? Malaysia/Indonesia-sub hunting anyone?
Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. Nope sorry, still no subs. Cod War with Iceland? Drug hunting in the Caribbean? Sierra Leone? Korea in the early 50s.
Strange, the RN wants all these hot asw assets for wars that never happen. The one time they were in a war where they faced subs they sank it with helicopter launched missiles!
As a taxpayer, could you perhaps elaborate on which Navy and which submarines the Type 26s might get to take on? Oh and please do not say Russia and China, because if we're fighting them we are truly f****ked.
Isnt the trouble with focussing on ASW that most of the time the RN does not do
any sub hunting. Even in the Falklands we reputedly sank more whales than submerged Argie subs. Otherwise, Suez- sub hunting anyone? Malaysia/Indonesia-sub hunting anyone?
Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. Nope sorry, still no subs. Cod War with Iceland? Drug hunting in the Caribbean? Sierra Leone? Korea in the early 50s.
Strange, the RN wants all these hot asw assets for wars that never happen. The one time they were in a war where they faced subs they sank it with helicopter launched missiles!
As a taxpayer, could you perhaps elaborate on which Navy and which submarines the Type 26s might get to take on? Oh and please do not say Russia and China, because if we're fighting them we are truly f****ked.
Profiloration of SSKs in ongoing. More countries not less are gaining this.
In terms of numbers we're now talking of 8 ASW vessels, not exactly staggering numbers.
But the remaining Type 26 vessels will always have the potential to be upgraded to ASW, as will any more produced. Since the hull and propulsion will be designed to the task.
Still a GP frigate thats not that good at ASW will be fine, as long it never faces that sort of threat.
Of course since you've made sure it cannot be upgraded to deal with it, should that sort of threat be the one you need to deal with, your now going to rely on your seperately designed and built ASW frigates, while your GP ships wait it out.
RN did a lot of sub hunting during the Cold War, strange how we forget that, guess its not sexy. Then again in planning for WWIII that might include a soviet attempt to cut off Europe from North America through the use of submarines, did'nt match actual military actions undertaken. Though one might note that its the ability to counter the enemy that deterrs them, so their inaction is not proof of the falsehood of a deterrent.
In terms of numbers we're now talking of 8 ASW vessels, not exactly staggering numbers.
But the remaining Type 26 vessels will always have the potential to be upgraded to ASW, as will any more produced. Since the hull and propulsion will be designed to the task.
Still a GP frigate thats not that good at ASW will be fine, as long it never faces that sort of threat.
Of course since you've made sure it cannot be upgraded to deal with it, should that sort of threat be the one you need to deal with, your now going to rely on your seperately designed and built ASW frigates, while your GP ships wait it out.
RN did a lot of sub hunting during the Cold War, strange how we forget that, guess its not sexy. Then again in planning for WWIII that might include a soviet attempt to cut off Europe from North America through the use of submarines, did'nt match actual military actions undertaken. Though one might note that its the ability to counter the enemy that deterrs them, so their inaction is not proof of the falsehood of a deterrent.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
Zen you are right that the RN made a significant contribution to nato asw against the ussr. That was its primary task. But today? I think we need to go back to a general purpose ship rather than an asw one. Also do we really need to be so wedded to having frigates?
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,129
- Reaction score
- 12,216
Via Ares/ DTI, here's an article on changing requirements for surface combatants. Some info on the Type 28/ Global Combat Ship design. A couple of errors at a glance (Huitfeldt destroyer!).
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416168789&p=34
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416168789&p=34
Eh you mean you did'nmt know this?
Its been quite the topic over on Warships ! RN forum for so long I thought you'd long since grasped that the Type 26 is designed to be flexible in what it mounts.
I don't see whats to critique here about it. The thing has to have the ASW capability, but the choices on defensive SAM system, radars, guns helicopters are all much more open and flexible than before and a good thing too, even for the RN.
The ASW requirements are a quite hull and propulsion. The actualy ASW towed sonar, and sound processing systems are things the ship need to be able to mount, but its the customers choice whether they pay for that installed.
A bow sonar however is unlikely to be an 'option', as its essential for self defense.
After all today the RN might only afford to reuse the 4.5" (114mm) gun, but its long been musing over a move to the 155mm gun. So best to make the mounting capable of coping with anything upto at least that size.
Radars another matter. Chief criticism of CAMM is the reliance on ARTISAN only, it really needs a second set. But alternatives are in development such as Italy's Kronos, which is less long ranged and general purpose, but very much more capable of accurate target tracking.
CAMM itself is open to debate, some advocating SeaRAM is cheaper.
VLS silos are hardly controversial now are they?
Helipad and hanger is there to take anything upto Merlin, the pad to facilitate even a Chinook. A second UAV hanger is an option. So whats the crime here?
So the point of type 26 is, you can choose to have it built for the ASW mission or for the GP missions. The choice is inherent to the concept, cutting the ASW capability out of the hull and propulsion, means if you need that you will need to pay for a second, different ship. Which adds more costs not savings. A commong platform provides for savings.
So 8 will be built to ASW and the rest to GP, thats the RNs plan at the mo'. The hope being Brazil and others might opt for this as well.
OH I forgot, the 'crime' here is that the UK is trying to retain its design and manufacturing skills, and develope a thing for itself rather than buying something supposedly sexy from someone else.
Its been quite the topic over on Warships ! RN forum for so long I thought you'd long since grasped that the Type 26 is designed to be flexible in what it mounts.
I don't see whats to critique here about it. The thing has to have the ASW capability, but the choices on defensive SAM system, radars, guns helicopters are all much more open and flexible than before and a good thing too, even for the RN.
The ASW requirements are a quite hull and propulsion. The actualy ASW towed sonar, and sound processing systems are things the ship need to be able to mount, but its the customers choice whether they pay for that installed.
A bow sonar however is unlikely to be an 'option', as its essential for self defense.
After all today the RN might only afford to reuse the 4.5" (114mm) gun, but its long been musing over a move to the 155mm gun. So best to make the mounting capable of coping with anything upto at least that size.
Radars another matter. Chief criticism of CAMM is the reliance on ARTISAN only, it really needs a second set. But alternatives are in development such as Italy's Kronos, which is less long ranged and general purpose, but very much more capable of accurate target tracking.
CAMM itself is open to debate, some advocating SeaRAM is cheaper.
VLS silos are hardly controversial now are they?
Helipad and hanger is there to take anything upto Merlin, the pad to facilitate even a Chinook. A second UAV hanger is an option. So whats the crime here?
So the point of type 26 is, you can choose to have it built for the ASW mission or for the GP missions. The choice is inherent to the concept, cutting the ASW capability out of the hull and propulsion, means if you need that you will need to pay for a second, different ship. Which adds more costs not savings. A commong platform provides for savings.
So 8 will be built to ASW and the rest to GP, thats the RNs plan at the mo'. The hope being Brazil and others might opt for this as well.
OH I forgot, the 'crime' here is that the UK is trying to retain its design and manufacturing skills, and develope a thing for itself rather than buying something supposedly sexy from someone else.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
Zen I do not use the Warships Discussion board as its thread system is cumbersome and slow. But your comments on 26 underline "traditional" rn views- why should Brazil need to buy a foreign ship as a growing industrial power?Is rescuing the Falkland islanders the key role of the UK defence budget? Should a Tory government in London continue to subsidise overpriced industries in its oppnents' safe seats? Such questions are bitter facts of life in 2011. Unless the rn shows more imagination it will continue to lose out to the raf and army. As a platform 26 is still too conventional for most tasks short of general war.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
Let me put a more positive version of the above. We have a sea based national deterrent. We have a decent force of capital ships- Trafalgar and Warspite ( sorry Astute) subs. The new 45s and the old 23s are a decent contribution to us or nato or other multilateral task forces. A modest number- 8 or so 26 asws should replace the 23s in slow time. What needs more effective and cheaper kit are the various other roles. We cannot sensibly use 45s for roles like Caribbean Guardship.
Why would Brazil? Likely the negotiations are focused on one ship made in the UK and the rest licensed built in Brazil, similar for other interested parties such as Australia. The debate seems around whether to have the components ordered and built together and assembled in the respective nations yards.
There is one of the things about the GCS, licensing, and common procurement where possible.
Conventional? What would you want in its place old bean?
Conventional would be building a highly specialised ship, forcably sticking to artificial tonnage limits, with poor acccomodation, poor range/endurance and no flexibility. A more conventional 'Frigate' in fact, that would'nt sell at all and prove to have no margins for upgrades through its life.
Type 23 did'nt sell, save as second hand RN vessels, same with the earlier Type 22.
What the Type 26 is aimed at is global operations, and hence the sort of range and endurance, accomodation and supportability to do that. Its flexibile in the options for systems you can put on it and has large margins for future growth.
Do remember its the systems inside the ship that really add the cost. But a good design has the backbone of systems to support a wide range of options.
As is only 8 of the Type 23 have recieved the upgraded sonar systems. A notable issue is the desire to upgrade them from SeaWolf to CAMM, in part reducing the 'new' costs to the Type 26 but part of this seems driven by the desire to use the weight margins for the TIRs for new EW units. A sign of the limited margins for topweight on the Type 23 now.
The remaining Type 23s are already being relegated to second rank ASW, and in essence are becoming the defacto GP vessel.
Very likely if the RAN or the RCN opt for this, they will use their own SAM systems, in fact I'd go so far as to say the RAN setup is very attractive a better solution in fact than ARTISAN alone. Then again Kronos or Spectar (single face Sampson) would solve CAMMs needs. But of them CEAFar and CEAScan could provide for CAMM or ESSM.
Perhaps what you really want to talk about is the onetime C.3 concept? The oneday merger of MCMV, and OPV capabilities in one hull form (though not at the same time). A sort of LCS minus the superlative speed. But the risk there is trying to turn it into a Corvette.
There is one of the things about the GCS, licensing, and common procurement where possible.
Conventional? What would you want in its place old bean?
Conventional would be building a highly specialised ship, forcably sticking to artificial tonnage limits, with poor acccomodation, poor range/endurance and no flexibility. A more conventional 'Frigate' in fact, that would'nt sell at all and prove to have no margins for upgrades through its life.
Type 23 did'nt sell, save as second hand RN vessels, same with the earlier Type 22.
What the Type 26 is aimed at is global operations, and hence the sort of range and endurance, accomodation and supportability to do that. Its flexibile in the options for systems you can put on it and has large margins for future growth.
Do remember its the systems inside the ship that really add the cost. But a good design has the backbone of systems to support a wide range of options.
As is only 8 of the Type 23 have recieved the upgraded sonar systems. A notable issue is the desire to upgrade them from SeaWolf to CAMM, in part reducing the 'new' costs to the Type 26 but part of this seems driven by the desire to use the weight margins for the TIRs for new EW units. A sign of the limited margins for topweight on the Type 23 now.
The remaining Type 23s are already being relegated to second rank ASW, and in essence are becoming the defacto GP vessel.
Very likely if the RAN or the RCN opt for this, they will use their own SAM systems, in fact I'd go so far as to say the RAN setup is very attractive a better solution in fact than ARTISAN alone. Then again Kronos or Spectar (single face Sampson) would solve CAMMs needs. But of them CEAFar and CEAScan could provide for CAMM or ESSM.
Perhaps what you really want to talk about is the onetime C.3 concept? The oneday merger of MCMV, and OPV capabilities in one hull form (though not at the same time). A sort of LCS minus the superlative speed. But the risk there is trying to turn it into a Corvette.
Alternatives.
Mini-Kiev. This one would make some sense if we had'nt gone for CVF. In essence a fleet of small CVs toting ASW helicopters or other helicoper types. This provides a greater efficiency for support of those helicopters than on a disparate fleet of single helicopter supporting Frigates. Idealy you'd use the PAAMS-UK air defence suite onboard as well, offsetting the lack of light fighters.
Benefit of this is helicopters can also move personnel inland and provide air support to forces there. Also good for disaster relief, and the hanger can be used for other things, like movement of personnel or equipment.
If its good enough a design some sort of UCAV/UAV types would extend sensor coverage and add to offensive power. It becomes a sort of successor to the Colossus/Majestic carriers. Could work well with the Bays.
Problem is how many of them could you get, hence the way this runs against the grain of CVF.
SSK fleet. This needs submarine tenders, but it provides little in the way of landward power projection. Also deployment speed is so slow, and the nature of submarines is to stay out of sight, not good for sending a visible message.
So we'd need to go to the Mother/Daughter ship options. Therein we have a host of problems.
Simplest way is to establish the mothership with PAAMS-UK providing the cover for its daughters. The more expensive the daughters are the less of them you get. Again because its not the hulls, but the systems onboard and the personnel numbers per ship needed for those systems.
The most espensive would be the SSKs carried.
Big problem is how much endurance do you put on the daughters. Too much and you might as well not bother with the mothership, too little and the mothership has to stay to close to the are where they operate.
Mini-Kiev. This one would make some sense if we had'nt gone for CVF. In essence a fleet of small CVs toting ASW helicopters or other helicoper types. This provides a greater efficiency for support of those helicopters than on a disparate fleet of single helicopter supporting Frigates. Idealy you'd use the PAAMS-UK air defence suite onboard as well, offsetting the lack of light fighters.
Benefit of this is helicopters can also move personnel inland and provide air support to forces there. Also good for disaster relief, and the hanger can be used for other things, like movement of personnel or equipment.
If its good enough a design some sort of UCAV/UAV types would extend sensor coverage and add to offensive power. It becomes a sort of successor to the Colossus/Majestic carriers. Could work well with the Bays.
Problem is how many of them could you get, hence the way this runs against the grain of CVF.
SSK fleet. This needs submarine tenders, but it provides little in the way of landward power projection. Also deployment speed is so slow, and the nature of submarines is to stay out of sight, not good for sending a visible message.
So we'd need to go to the Mother/Daughter ship options. Therein we have a host of problems.
Simplest way is to establish the mothership with PAAMS-UK providing the cover for its daughters. The more expensive the daughters are the less of them you get. Again because its not the hulls, but the systems onboard and the personnel numbers per ship needed for those systems.
The most espensive would be the SSKs carried.
Big problem is how much endurance do you put on the daughters. Too much and you might as well not bother with the mothership, too little and the mothership has to stay to close to the are where they operate.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
Zen thank you for so much helpful input. Looks as if the 23s and 26s will address many of the needs. I think the Albion. Bay and Argus/Ocean amphib ships plus the helicopter equipped rfas could act as motherships to a range of systems. Ocean always seemed a good value asset. Perhaps North Sea oil support ships or other commercial designs could be taken up as assets. I wish we did not have so much tied up in CVF. Smaller cvs ships with Harriers leased from the US Marines seem affordable and useful. Perhaps a modern version of Ocean.
In an ideal world CVF and a fleet of 'mini-kiev' hybrid CV/CG is quite complimentary. The real problem there is the generall lack of funds, defence spending being so low.
What could make them all work well is UCAVs and UAVs. Expanding the abilities of the smaller CV/CG and enhancing the abilities of CVF.
In the context of CVF, the Type 26 makes a lot of sense if its able to keep pace with the carrier and provide ASW screening. 8 such ships is at least a better number than the 6 Type 45 DDGs.
But we'll be lucky to see 4 GP ships by the end of this, though we ought to see 8 or so.
And since CVF is going ahead, and I suspect we'll see both ultimately retained and fitted, then the surface fleet will have to shape itself around protecting them.
I might even say its the Type 45 thats the problem here, too specialised a ship and even more so due to its low numbers. Its sucked monies away from other efforts and by its AAW focus deprives that option for any other vessel. The AAW system it represents however would have been better spent fitted to CVF and other larger 'Cruiser' sized ships of a more multirole nature.
However at the time of the decisions the RN was'nt to know it was going to go down from 12 to 6 DDGs and see just 8 of the Type 23 fleet upgraded for ASW, while several brand new Dukes sold off.
In the context of a fleet of 12 DDG and 16 FFG and 4 specialist Type 22 Frigates, it all made more sense.
It would be easy to blame CVF for this massive cut, but the reality is we should look at Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan first.
Nowadays a lot of tasks are handed out to other ships. A Bay does just as well policing the Caribean for example.
What could make them all work well is UCAVs and UAVs. Expanding the abilities of the smaller CV/CG and enhancing the abilities of CVF.
In the context of CVF, the Type 26 makes a lot of sense if its able to keep pace with the carrier and provide ASW screening. 8 such ships is at least a better number than the 6 Type 45 DDGs.
But we'll be lucky to see 4 GP ships by the end of this, though we ought to see 8 or so.
And since CVF is going ahead, and I suspect we'll see both ultimately retained and fitted, then the surface fleet will have to shape itself around protecting them.
I might even say its the Type 45 thats the problem here, too specialised a ship and even more so due to its low numbers. Its sucked monies away from other efforts and by its AAW focus deprives that option for any other vessel. The AAW system it represents however would have been better spent fitted to CVF and other larger 'Cruiser' sized ships of a more multirole nature.
However at the time of the decisions the RN was'nt to know it was going to go down from 12 to 6 DDGs and see just 8 of the Type 23 fleet upgraded for ASW, while several brand new Dukes sold off.
In the context of a fleet of 12 DDG and 16 FFG and 4 specialist Type 22 Frigates, it all made more sense.
It would be easy to blame CVF for this massive cut, but the reality is we should look at Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan first.
Nowadays a lot of tasks are handed out to other ships. A Bay does just as well policing the Caribean for example.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,052
- Reaction score
- 6,153
I still think the carriers are toast. They are such an obvious Treasury target. France, Brazil and India are all possible customers. It is pretty much cva 01 again for the Treasury-too much money for too few assets. Unlike 1966 the carrier air power has gone already but uavs should offer the rn the lifeline offered by the harrier in the 60s. The rn needs to show the same imagination again. Its surface fleet can then have more units- even if some are boxlike commercial designs.
Ocean was underpriced, and it turns out the plumbing was not up to the numbers of people its expected to carry, plus its so built as to make it very expensive to modernise.
There is an argument for something very simple, rather like the LCS but without the superlatives that so pile on the cost.
A modest gun, SeaRAM, a big helipad and faclities to support one. Could prove quite useful.
But it cannot process data from a TAS, even if its built to tow one.
It cannot hanger a helicopter.
It is utterly reliant on other vessels for protection.
In the end its so limited it actualy raises costs, detracting from more capable solutions. All it does is show the flag, and eat up precious numbers of personnel, supplies and monies better spent elsewhere.
Thing is a more capable design, like the Type 26 can be run off in increased numbers if need be, which will do the job. Scalability of forces is a factor to consider.
AS for CVF, cutting it now will be far more dramatic than CVA-01, because it will be so much more immediate. The decision on '66, was'nt fullfilled until '78, twelve years later. A kill off of CVF will be visable much earlier, and far more profound since theres no 'through-deck Cruiser' to offset some of the loss.
In fact the best asset to support a fleet of UAVs and UCAVs is CVF.
There is an argument for something very simple, rather like the LCS but without the superlatives that so pile on the cost.
A modest gun, SeaRAM, a big helipad and faclities to support one. Could prove quite useful.
But it cannot process data from a TAS, even if its built to tow one.
It cannot hanger a helicopter.
It is utterly reliant on other vessels for protection.
In the end its so limited it actualy raises costs, detracting from more capable solutions. All it does is show the flag, and eat up precious numbers of personnel, supplies and monies better spent elsewhere.
Thing is a more capable design, like the Type 26 can be run off in increased numbers if need be, which will do the job. Scalability of forces is a factor to consider.
AS for CVF, cutting it now will be far more dramatic than CVA-01, because it will be so much more immediate. The decision on '66, was'nt fullfilled until '78, twelve years later. A kill off of CVF will be visable much earlier, and far more profound since theres no 'through-deck Cruiser' to offset some of the loss.
In fact the best asset to support a fleet of UAVs and UCAVs is CVF.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,129
- Reaction score
- 12,216
