UK Defence Forum

NickC, It’s a very good challenge; basically with the T26 and T35 order (outside of any MCM replacement) the surface warship budget will be used up till mid 2030s. Technology may not be that mature now, but can we really wait that long?

Must admit, this is part of my rational to keeping the T31 simple and more focused on forward presence / sea security/ diplomacy, so to ensure that maximum cash goes to the real war fighting capabilities.

One (controversial) option would be to go for a 100m B2 River design with Multirole Mission Bay/ Hangar with additional 57mm gun, Artisan, CIWS plus possibly CAMM and cap the budget to £150mn per vessel, plus spend a small amount of cash upgrading the current B2s - this would leave @ £1/2bn to invest in additional unmanned kit.

That would still give the RN the ability to forward base ships with world beating off board systems, whilst retaining the war fighting CSGs with supporting unmanned vessels.

Poiuytrewq wrote: If RN sees this as the future why are we building light frigates that can't deploy a 50t XLUUV?

A good question

Caribbean wrote:Curiously we seem to have also embarked upon building a class of frigates, where it has been explicitly stated that they could be replaced in around 10-15 years. Could be coincidence, or maybe the RN is actually planning for future innovation.

or future proofing its options by going flexible, by going big?

Poiuytrewq wrote:if RN thinks the XLUUV is the future, why the minimal investment?

Perhaps proceeding with caution

S M H wrote:would allow the remote USV to mature.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:or future proofing its options by going flexible, by going big?

If they pick the A140

Caribbean wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:or future proofing its options by going flexible, by going big?

If they pick the A140

The Arrowhead140 is big but how flexible? Compared to Leander we haven't seen a lot of detail but the four boat bay's seem pretty cramped and there is no sign of a deck crane like Leander. The storage area under the flight deck looks like a really useful space but how is the kit contained within transferred to the mission areas or up to the flight deck?

Arrowhead 140 seems like a great starting point but the lack of budget to adapt the design for what RN really needs rather than what can be afforded for £250m is apparent.

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Caribbean wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:or future proofing its options by going flexible, by going big?

If they pick the A140

The Arrowhead140 is big but how flexible? Compared to Leander we haven't seen a lot of detail but the four boat bay's seem pretty cramped and there is no sign of a deck crane like Leander. The storage area under the flight deck looks like a really useful space but how is the kit contained within transferred to the mission areas or up to the flight deck?

Arrowhead 140 seems like a great starting point but the lack of budget to adapt the design for what RN really needs rather than what can be afforded for £250m is apparent.

This is the exact reason I think that an Absalon design would be better in the position were in

You can work the inheritance Absalon - IH - Arrowhead in which ever direction that arising needs ("requirements") dictate
- and also Batch1, 2...
- so as not to fall back into cottage industry -like handicrafting of 1 or 2 two ships at a time

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Arrowhead140 is big but how flexible?

Lets start with "more flexible than Leander". The A140 has four boat bays (don't look particularly cramped to me) for USV/ UUVs/ ships boats and can easily carry a Merlin-sized helicopter/ maybe even land a Chinook. It has room for multiple TEU-sized modules in the mission bay and can handle up to 32 Mk41 VLS cells (which alone gives it significant flexibility). More to the point, it also has a lot of internal volume and deck space to allow the installation of systems we haven't even thought of, without causing major space-based integration issues.

Caribbean wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:or future proofing its options by going flexible, by going big?

If they pick the A140

It is two fold.

To carry USV/UUV in future, there are already T26, Bay, (maybe LSS), and MHC. T31e is only one of those options.

To buy USV/UUV in future, the operation cost of T31e must be the smallest. Making T31e "more flexible" may dry-out the money to "buy" these assets to be used on T26, LSS and T13e.

11-12 m long USV series (e.g. ARCIMS of Atlas) will be there, simply because T26 mission bay design is already fixed. Then, any "mission bay" for T31e must be aligned to this size. In this regard, Arrowhead 140's concept design is not capable of it, and may need modification.

Since there are little rationale to build any USV "slightly larger" than it, any future larger USV/UUV will be 30-60m long and "self deploy" (= replacements for SSK and ASW-corvettes) and therefore, non-related to T31e.

Jake1992 wrote:This is the exact reason I think that an Absalon design would be better in the position were in

But I'm afraid the damage control standard will be important? US Navy escorts attacked by mine, suicide boats and Exocet SSM, survived because they had good damage control standard? Absalon design with large vehicle deck may not be a good solution?

Also, for sure, it will start "killing" Bays, if they cannot find new job.

If we go with the A140 some people dream, my view is that there will not be any funds for the fancy UUV / USuV stuff we are talking about.

Many years ago the RN used depot ships stationed at various places around the world to support small craft, submarines and the like. They say history rhymes rather than repeats. If you are wanting to have a portion of your force used as fwd presence for engagement maritime security and the like then a recreation of this idea is what is needed.

I return to the lsd/lpd as the ideal ship for this task but instead supporting unmanned air, surface and sub surface systems as well as commando teams to board search and destroy. Unmanned systems are available in all domains from scan eagle variants, to seagull/acrims, to future underwater systems not to mention manned patrol craft and helicopters. And if you want fire support himars on the deck the army’s looking at new artillery systems make them compliant.

They are the 21c depot ships supporting unmanned systems to gather ISTAR engage with local forces and provide that information to support the arrival in the region of your primary fighting element the carrier group. Having unmanned systems means you don’t need all your specialist operators fwd deployed all the time they can be controlled from the uk. In future it maybe possible to launch a low cost satellite with limited life to improve communication in an area for higher intensity operations.

The problem being no one will cancel type31 and divert funding to unmanned systems and other craft because no one higher up is willing to restrict tasks to manage the transition or take the risk of things not working out.

SW1 wrote: In future it maybe possible to launch a low cost satellite with limited life to improve communication in an area for higher intensity operations.

Isn't this what our HAPS will initially (until payloads increase) be for - and they are reusable

SW1, you’ve summed up perfectly the current debate - I actually think this Multirole is ultimately what the RN is planning for the LSDs/FLSSs. I think they’ll be a Bay in the Gulf for a while yet, with the other two supporting HADR in the Caribbean and the unmanned vehicle support for the CSG.

Repulse wrote:If we go with the A140 some people dream, my view is that there will not be any funds for the fancy UUV / USuV stuff we are talking about.

Why? Ever thought that the T31 budget of £250m/ ship was set that low, so that money from the shipbuilding budget could be moved elsewhere (by my "back of a fag packet" calculations, around £5-600m is still "unaccounted for" out of the original £11.4b T26 budget, maybe more if the £500m clawed back by the Treasury some years ago has been restored as part of the additional £1.8b for defence. You can do a lot with that sort of money). Since the cut to 8 T26 and the announcement of the T31e program, we have seen trials for UAVs (S100 and Solo), USVs (ARCIMS etc) and now they starting to trial UUVs and there are mutterings about developing ASW capabilities for ARCIMS. This is in parallel with trials and purchase of systems for the other branches of the Armed Forces (30 new Black Hornet for the Strike Brigade experimentation team, for instance) and running "Unmanned Warrior" every year. Unmanned tech is very much at the forefront of current thinking. The change of emphasis has been quite sudden (when you think in terms of HMGs somewhat glacial annual budget process), so it's more likely that money is being diverted into the unmanned systems budgets, rather than out of it.

One option how to spend some of the limited £1250M budget if ASW was the priority.

How to be effective in countering the new generation of ever quieter subs, the passive sonar miles long TAS effectiveness seriously degraded, require ever more powerful active sonars and computers.

Looking at ASW helos and MPA's mode of operation with sonobuoys, P-8A carriers 129, they use multi-static sonobuoys, with one powerful active sonobuoy or with helo dipping sonar and half a dozen passive sonobuoys able triangulate position of target sub.

One possible solution use the T23/26 with their large electric capacity necessary to operate a powerful long range active sonar, eg as used in the USN Ocean Surveillance Ships, T-AGOS, and a complement of say four or five medium USV's now the necessary AI tech available , eg as the 145t USN Sea hunter, with passive towed arrays.

The above a thru back of the WWII hunter killer groups born out of the desperate and bloody experience of fighting the U-boats in the North Atlantic, that as said now needed as the long range the passive sonars have been partially negated.

The XLUUVS to used to sit on the sea bed off the Russian/Chinese ports and ambush them as they tranit, always easier to destroy sub at base than on high seas.

Caribbean wrote:Ever thought that the T31 budget of £250m/ ship was set that low, so that money from the shipbuilding budget could be moved elsewhere (by my "back of a fag packet" calculations, around £5-600m is still "unaccounted for" out of the original £11.4b T26 budget, maybe more if the £500m clawed back by the Treasury some years ago has been restored as part of the additional £1.8b for defence. You can do a lot with that sort of money).

I imagine once upon a time there was a reserve of £5-600mn to have a surprise order of 2 additional T31s, or to add another £50-100mn on the T31 cost to add some more bells and whistles- given the broader finances however it’s probably long gone.

We know the £1.25bn is in the budget, so it’s as “real money” as it gets - an enlarged B2 River with a T26 style mission bay would be affordable and capable of doing the global forward based/flag flying that the T31 seems to be pitched for.

Given that we have gone with CAMM for the Navy, Army and RAF anti air missile have we miss a trick and should we have gone for a M777 based gun for our navel ships , self propelled gun and field gun all using the same standard round and extended round

Tempest414 wrote:have we miss a trick

Not at all, it has been tried (there are photos of the firing on the interwebs):
"CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system."

Many nations have experimented with putting 6" tubes back on to their Warships by utilising the same guns as their land based artillery. The costs in do so have outweighed the expected benefits in every case. Remember the USNs dalliance with re introducing the 8" gun and trialling what looked like a Mk35 on steroids.

Repulse wrote:We know the £1.25bn is in the budget, so it’s as “real money” as it gets - an enlarged B2 River with a T26 style mission bay would be affordable and capable of doing the global forward based/flag flying that the T31 seems to be pitched for.

Haven't you just described Leander ?

Problem for me is I can see a role for lender , arrowhead and a river batch 3

PAUL MARSAY wrote:Problem for me is I can see a role for lender , arrowhead and a river batch 3

How?

Pongoglo wrote:Haven't you just described Leander ?

Possibly, but my two concerns (and the reason why I describe it differently) are:

- The Leander is being pitched as a “light Frigate” which gets interpreted as a Frigate with onboard ability for offensive action. This raises the requirement bar beyond what I envisage which is a “Utility Sloop”, more capable of looking after itself defensively than a OPV, but any offensive capability will come through the off board systems it carries (e.g. Wildcat, fast craft, UUV/USuV/UAVs etc). Sure in time of conflict things like SSMs could be strapped on but not by default.
- The base design should be closer to an extended River B2 than a Al Khareef. This and my previous point should be pushing the unit price towards @£150mn not @£250mn (and beyond).

Poiuytrewq wrote:

PAUL MARSAY wrote:Problem for me is I can see a role for lender , arrowhead and a river batch 3

How?

Arrowhead in C2 role, Leander (105m) as C3, River B3 (95m) - OPV, perhaps?

We should have stuck to the C1/C2/C3 programme, even if the C1 and C2 classification was going to cause issues.