marktigger wrote:
I think that is what people mean by 2nd tier fleet anyway, a large cheap OPV with a hangar and good endurance.
Once you start putting weapons on it, then you run the risk of them being deployed where they really shouldn't.
Maybe the simplest solution would be one of the oil industry platform support vessels which come in various sizes, but all have a long flat aft deck suitable for mounting a flight deck and hangar, with space for boats and more accommodation underneath? No-one could mistake that for a warship, but it could do the routine peacetime patrolling job... (an example of a small one shown below)
Tony Williams wrote:
Maybe the simplest solution would be one of the oil industry platform support vessels which come in various sizes, but all have a long flat aft deck suitable for mounting a flight deck and hangar, with space for boats and more accommodation underneath? No-one could mistake that for a warship, but it could do the routine peacetime patrolling job... (an example of a small one shown below)
Totally agree. Simple cheap commercial steel.
My particular fancy is for something we already operate, the SD Victoria .
Very cheap and adequate for policing. A few of these could free us a few other real vessels such as frigate
GibMariner wrote:
How about these that the French are getting to replace their BATRALs?
looks almost perfect, slow fat ugly and cheap which is what the RN could use in roles where a frigate is overqualified, but this could do just fine.
completely disagree, the RN or rather the bean counters in the MOD ,have a history of financing under performing under armed vessels to sea. I have served on one or two of these ships and it does not inspire confidence. To cut a long story short, take a look at what the Russians are now putting to sea, even as minor warships. Makes something like this look pathetic, and remember they will be needed in an hostile invireonment. Nothing is as you say overaualified the way things are going.
shark bait wrote:yeahh but paint it gray and fly the white ensign and your good.
I also think because serco chose that type it must be cheap.
Nah, I think it was ordered when Denholm was still part of the consortium so technically Serco Marine Services inherited it from them when they bought out Denholm's share (but before the vessel entered service).
jonas wrote:
completely disagree, the RN or rather the bean counters in the MOD ,have a history of financing under performing under armed vessels to sea. I have served on one or two of these ships and it does not inspire confidence. To cut a long story short, take a look at what the Russians are now putting to sea, even as minor warships. Makes something like this look pathetic, and remember they will be needed in an hostile invireonment. Nothing is as you say overaualified the way things are going.
Its supposed to look pathetic , it's not suppose to be fighty and its not suppose to go anywhere hostile. That's what the frigates and destroyers are for, and thats what needs to be properly funded, not messing about with minor warship's which are frankly a waste of time.
My issue is that alot of commentators seem to think the royal navy should have a few BMT venators, which I think is a horrendous ideas. I think instead get some dirt cheap steel and use the money on proper frigates that can do a real job.
Pymes75 wrote:
Nah, I think it was ordered when Denholm was still part of the consortium so technically Serco Marine Services inherited it from them when they bought out Denholm's share (but before the vessel entered service).
Yeah I think you are correct, vessels ordered in 2007, bought out in 2009.
marktigger wrote:we've been down the oil rig support vessel route before HMS Guardian , Senteniel & Protector.
Yes the royal navy have no problem using them for Antarctic patrol, I don't see why the concept couldn't be adapted for elsewhere
GibMariner wrote:
How about these that the French are getting to replace their BATRALs?
looks almost perfect, slow fat ugly and cheap which is what the RN could use in roles where a frigate is overqualified, but this could do just fine.
I think that any vessel used for world-wide patrolling needs its own helicopter. Not a Lynx/Wildcat but a smaller, simpler and cheaper type (I like the 'Little Bird" shown below, although it wouldn't need such heavy armament). Without a helo, such a slow ship would be of no use in the contest with drug-runners and the like - they'd just vanish into the distance at high speed.
shark bait wrote:
Its supposed to look pathetic , it's not suppose to be fighty and its not suppose to go anywhere hostile. That's what the frigates and destroyers are for, and thats what needs to be properly funded, not messing about with minor warship's which are frankly a waste of time.
My issue is that alot of commentators seem to think the royal navy should have a few BMT venators, which I think is a horrendous ideas. I think instead get some dirt cheap steel and use the money on proper frigates that can do a real job.
Actually shark bait a few posters think we should have 16 type 26 frigates AND an enhanced opv/sloop better than what Bae are offering. Babcoks can at least produce ships on time and on budget! there are plenty of good designs out there the Spannish BAM class being one or the Dutch Holland class the BMT venators would still be a better option than a north sea supply boat with a couple of ds30 lashed onto them! The Falkland Islands Patrol Vessels were in service for less than 2 years hardly a success. One of the Castles was then down there. these sloops would be more useful in releasing Frigates from patrol work in West indies, Falklands, southern med and east african coast where an embarked wildcat would be useful. As well as being able to patrol our EEZ. so for this type of op an off the shelf purchase would make far more economic sense than bespoke designs or lash ups of second hand vessels.
jonas wrote:
completely disagree, the RN or rather the bean counters in the MOD ,have a history of financing under performing under armed vessels to sea. I have served on one or two of these ships and it does not inspire confidence. To cut a long story short, take a look at what the Russians are now putting to sea, even as minor warships. Makes something like this look pathetic, and remember they will be needed in an hostile invireonment. Nothing is as you say overaualified the way things are going.
Its supposed to look pathetic , it's not suppose to be fighty and its not suppose to go anywhere hostile. That's what the frigates and destroyers are for, and thats what needs to be properly funded, not messing about with minor warship's which are frankly a waste of time.
My issue is that alot of commentators seem to think the royal navy should have a few BMT venators, which I think is a horrendous ideas. I think instead get some dirt cheap steel and use the money on proper frigates that can do a real job.
In which case why were you promoting the SD Victoria as something worthwhile, we can't be wasting money on useless vessels such as this. We have been down that road before, and it doesn't work. Proper frigates cost proper money which we are told we also can't afford,so we have to compromise somewhere along the line.
Other countries such as France and the Netherlands seem to be able to come up with decent designs, and relatively affordable to boot,so why can't we.
jonas wrote:
completely disagree, the RN or rather the bean counters in the MOD ,have a history of financing under performing under armed vessels to sea. I have served on one or two of these ships and it does not inspire confidence. To cut a long story short, take a look at what the Russians are now putting to sea, even as minor warships. Makes something like this look pathetic, and remember they will be needed in an hostile invireonment. Nothing is as you say overaualified the way things are going.
Its supposed to look pathetic , it's not suppose to be fighty and its not suppose to go anywhere hostile. That's what the frigates and destroyers are for, and thats what needs to be properly funded, not messing about with minor warship's which are frankly a waste of time.
My issue is that alot of commentators seem to think the royal navy should have a few BMT venators, which I think is a horrendous ideas. I think instead get some dirt cheap steel and use the money on proper frigates that can do a real job.
In which case why were you promoting the SD Victoria as something worthwhile, we can't be wasting money on useless vessels such as this. We have been down that road before, and it doesn't work. Proper frigates cost proper money which we are told we also can't afford,so we have to compromise somewhere along the line.
Other countries such as France and the Netherlands seem to be able to come up with decent designs, and relatively affordable to boot,so why can't we.
because British Aerospace has near a monopoly on defence contracts!
So very true, so go to Babcock at Appledore and ask them to come up with a design. They seem pretty efficient, and would no doubt jump at the chance, and strive to make it affordable.
Maybe so but apart from Visual search what use is it on ship? Wildcat is better option for small vessels. Its got Radar, ELOP, ESM for searches as well as Mk1 eyeball, more comprehensive weapons fit, can do hoist SAR has space to carry small parties like boarding teams internally not stuck out on Skids.
But if we're going for a 60's throwback dust of the plans of the scout/wasp add in new modern engines and electronics like Hughes.
The Irish are making moves towards deploying one of their OPVs off the Horn of Africa to conduct anti-piracy. Armed only with a 76mm cannon, a few HMGs and no hangar or flight deck.
So do we really need to send top tier destroyers and frigates to do much the same job?
The new Irish OPVs are costing them about 50 or 60 million pounds, and built by Babcock.
My suggestion has always been to lengthen the River class design with a flight deck and hangar, 25kn max speed and good endurance. Arm it with the standard 30mm cannon, miniguns and HMGs. Perfect for constabulary tasking (piracy, counter narcotics, humanitarian etc) and would free up much of our 1st tier for the real jobs.
A global coastguard ship
If we really wanted to, we can then use the same design (but tweak it) for the future MHC vessels to replace the Hunts, Sandowns and Echos.
The River design is cheap, and cheaper still if we build a good run of them to fulfill all these tasks.
A small pool of Phalanx could be purchased and bolted on to any vessel operating in the Gulf.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)
WhitestElephant wrote:The Irish are making moves towards deploying one of their OPVs off the Horn of Africa to conduct anti-piracy. Armed only with a 76mm cannon, a few HMGs and no hangar or flight deck.
So do we really need to send top tier destroyers and frigates to do much the same job?
no we dont, thats why I feel we need so cheap little ships. In fact HM's government are deploying our little border force cutters to do the job (something I think the navy should be operating).
WhitestElephant wrote:
The new Irish OPVs are costing them about 50 or 60 million pounds, and built by Babcock.
I beleive its less that that. A quick look on wiki shows 50 or 60 million euros, even better value.
WhitestElephant wrote:
A global coastguard ship
I have a very similar idea to that too. I also really like that term, it quite accurately describes the need.
Tony Williams wrote:
I think that any vessel used for world-wide patrolling needs its own helicopter. Not a Lynx/Wildcat but a smaller, simpler and cheaper type (I like the 'Little Bird" shown below, although it wouldn't need such heavy armament). Without a helo, such a slow ship would be of no use in the contest with drug-runners and the like - they'd just vanish into the distance at high speed.
Again this is something I have though about too, and agree with you. I quite like some of the small optionally manned products starting to emerge. They could be useful for the job.
Operating a helo from a small boat will be hard to do effectively because stores and fuel capacity are low, so perhaps the helo needs to be small so the vessel can also accommodate it. (plus they would be cheaper)
However I also think that everything @marktigger says is very true and the wildcat is far superior, a best in class helo, however it will cost more to procure and operate off a small vessel. Price/capability trade offs again.....
marktigger wrote:Maybe so but apart from Visual search what use is it on ship? Wildcat is better option for small vessels. Its got Radar, ELOP, ESM for searches as well as Mk1 eyeball, more comprehensive weapons fit, can do hoist SAR has space to carry small parties like boarding teams internally not stuck out on Skids.
But if we're going for a 60's throwback dust of the plans of the scout/wasp add in new modern engines and electronics like Hughes.
I wanted to write a separate post about why I dislike corvettes / minor frigates / fighty OPV's so much. To keep thing simple I'll be refering to the type as a corvette in this post.
I will start with the only advantage I can see to operating the type, they are cheap, so you can have larger numbers and make the navy's spreadsheet and wikipedia page look a little better. With the larger numbers you have have more ships in more places at any one time, which is suppose to extend the reach of the royal navy. However I would argue that that is simply not right. There would be more boats, however each boat would be less capable, and able to spend less time on station unstained because they are too small to be effective. Because of that you would need 3 corvettes in an area to maintain the level of presence a frigate does making the extra numbers argument moot.
The next part is about status. A lot of the work the royal navy does it about status. Visiting an allied port flying the flag for Britain has a large diplomatic effect, strengthen ties between governments and the militaries that serve both counties. Like wise a visit to an allied nation who is experiencing tension from an unfriendly neighbour can offer a strong reassurance to your allies. Now what will send of the biggest signal, one of the most advanced frigates in the world that only the top few navy's are able to operate, or a little corvette that most of the world militates have in some form? The royal navy needs to look strong, especially at times when it is beginning to look week, so money much not be wasted on small little corvettes.
In a similar matter multi-national coalitions are becoming the norm, weather that be an intervention or a war game. Being able to make strong contribution to these matters. What looks the best, us turning up in our world class ships, or us turning up in little corvettes. What matters in these coalitions is the power you have to influence the decisions of the coalitions. Clearly the Americans will have the most influence and we need to maintain our second place. What will give us the most influence? Contributing a frigate and a load of corvettes like most European nations, that can only operate as part of a task group? Or we could contribute more frigates that can operate their own task group which can in turn be supported by the other nations corvettes? I strongly suspect it will be the latter, in order to maintain its credibility it needs to be able to contribute meaningfully to operations, not with corvettes but with real frigates. It is very important the navy is able to project its value to the coalition, so the UK can strongly influence the decision making and make sure that the UK's best interests are protected, which is after all what we are paying the armed forces to do. It is worth remembering you can throw a frigate into any situation, but the same cannot be said for a corvette so don't wast the money on them.
Another of my major issues is that corvette type ships are just not survivable. Physics dictates that a smaller ship will be less stable and have less excess buoyancy making less survivable if it where to sustain damage. Likewise smaller vessels will be more easily put out of action by a fire, where as a large frigate stands more chance of being able to survive. A corvette also lack survivability because of its weapons it carries. Because they are small they cannot carry big enough weapons, or enough of them to be effective in the face of danger. The same go for sensors, they are not large enough to carry a large radar and detect the enemy early, which in the world of stand off precision guided weapons is very important. The same goes for defensive aids, there isn't the space or stores to have an effective suite of defensive aids. All of this means your are putting weapons on boars, but not enough to be useful wasting all that money. You had may as well not bother with the weapons at all.
A small vessel such as a corvette will also be much more susceptible to obsolescence. They type 23 has been well supported throughout its like as is as potent now as it ever was. This is because there is the space and with that the flexibility to adapt and add new systems. I would argue that any small corvettes would struggle to accommodate new equipment, or cost a fortune to do so, meaning the class would likely become redundant a lot quicker than a real frigate.
To try and sum up, the corvette type is a type of vessel for a small navy who cant afford to operate a real frigate. They are not survivable, and the weapons fit is not enough to make they at all usefull, so you had may as well not bother. Although they are cheaper, their capability is seriously reduced making it counter effective.
I understand there is a need to relieve some of the frigates from policing jobs, but a corvette is not the right way to go. Instead we need a dirt cheap vessel that inst trying to be fighty, and we can accept that it isn't suppose to be survivable, and we would never take to war. Instead it can operate cheaply, giving some presence, but not costing a small fortune because it isn't packed with weapons and sensors. Because we aren't wasting money on expensive steel or weapons systems that money can be used for ensuring we have a proper number of real, large frigates, that are survivable, that are the best in the world, and can handle anything we need them to which is the best way to protect our interests globally.
I would like to finish with a name that @WhitestElephant proposed 'A global coastguard ship', which I feel quite accurately reflects what I think is needed. Not a corvette, a coastguard ship. Cheap and with minimal weapons and systems. However it should also have global reach to operate where we need it, but emphasising this is not a blue water ship, it is a ship that will regularly make port , and only operate coastal environments.
I hope this better explains my argument, I understand I am not the best writer so I hope my argument makes some sense. I will continue to discuss my points if it is unclear and I will edit this post if I feel my views need clarifying further.
