rickusn

From Janes copied from another discussion forum site:

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."

PubFather

Ah - you beat me to it Rick - a very interesting (and indeed promising and realistic) report.

IMO, C1 and C2 (in the report) make sense as basically the same hull but tailored to different needs - i.e high and low(er) versions of the same hull.
Building the same hull obviously offers some productivity/production gains and give some future flexibility wrt to upgrades.

Replacing the MCM and OPVs with a single class makes sense, although does raise the "expertise" question. Will crews be as well equiped/trained/experienced to carry out their roles as single mission vessels would be?

However, formalising the role of MCM vessels as OPVs makes a great deal of sense, as they often operate in this role anyway. Reducing the number of classes should realise cost savings as well. I particularly like the idea of the C1 having organic MCM capabilities.

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

rickusn

Here are my initial thoughts. They may or may not hold water.:

Its a start. Im not sure C1/C2 should be separate. Of course the article states this is under 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.

rickusn

Heres another post i made on the aforementioned site about the C3 proposal:

"Indeed. I have always said it - there is no point in having big ships do "routine 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.

Dectilion

i say just join the FREMM project, and design a new mine sweeper, it would be cheaper and more immediate

stuuu28

But what about keeping design capability in the UK. With Type 45 prodution well under way and CVF design about to be finalised???? i would imagine that the teams in Portsmouth and Scotsoun ( is that where the design centres are?) will need some work soon?
I would say a BIG no to any more joint european projects, and limit it to bying off the shelf systems PAAMS etc.

PubFather

I'm not sure I 100% agree.

Essentially, the idea of FREMM and possibly C1 + C2 is that the same basic hull/engines are used for both ships. C1 gets the high-end, expensive gear. C2 doesnt. This would result in some "dead space" on the C2, which would be referred to as "reserved weight and space".

In essence, I suspect the idea is a modular platform introduced by stealth. The C2 would have the ability to refitted to C1 standard, should the need arise.

While a "bulk buy" of C1 equipment would lower the overall cost if they were all built to that standard, the RN could simply never afford in the present climate to fit so many ships out to the top-level standard.

Doing it this way at least allows the posibility of future upgrades, without having to design a whole new class of ships.

The lack of room for expansion has dogged the RN for a long time - the T42s have essentially been utterly useless for the last decade (in terms of a real, shooting war) because of it. The T22 B1 and B2 suffered from the same problems, and the T23's (although nominally multi-mission) as well.

Ideally, there would be no C2 class. But, if built on the same hull as the C1, they do offer a degree of "future proofing".

PubFather

I agree but we need to remember timescale considerations.

T23 should last for another 10 years - so the C1 category is more or less covered for a considerable time. 13 T23, of which 8 will be fitted with Sonar 2087 and by default become the C1 class. The remaining 5 (possibly plus the B3 T22) become the C2.

Therefore, C3 the class mostly likely to be built in the near future. On a another forum, an interesting idea was mooted. Funding for the T45's was allocated in EP05, to bring the number up to 8, IIRC. If the order remains at 6, then that funding is theoretically still available. (It may well have been spent).

If it is - then approx £1 billion should be available for a C3 purchase, which could (and should) mean 6-8 C3s. If built on an enlarged River class (such as HMS Clyde) then these ships could be built reasonably quickly by VT/Shipco and make up for the shortfall in overall hull numbers, taking over the low-intensity roles currently being done by frigates/destroyers...

Interesting times... keep your eyes on March for CVF to (hopefully) finally pass MainGate and concrete orders be placed... The rhetoric from the government is still positive and reasonably unequiocable.

JMH

As long as Socialist governments keep getting re-elected in the UK, very few or perhaps none of these new ships will actually be ordered and built. The UK socialist government favours a European Union Navy controlled by France, which would mean a substantial Royal Navy is unnecessary.

The Royal Navy might be saved if Wales and Scotland vote for independence, because than the Labour Party would lose the millions of alcoholic welfare dependant Scottish and Welsh voters, who have consistently ensured Labour victories in England over the last decade.

stuuu28

Please try keep this sensible. Can you remember just before the falklands the Conservatives where about to slash the fleet, also with the tax cuts they are promising i cant see the MOD budget getting any bigger.
And stop moaning cause you have a goverment you didn''t vote for thats the way it works like with the last conservative one where only one conserative got elected in scotland, yet they had to put up with conservative rule. Swings and roundabouts.