Wednesday 29 January 2014

The return of the (original) Frigate?

Evening.

As you've probably guessed I've been pressed for time lately, popping in at Think Defence now and again but otherwise detained from writing. Well today I've got a few minutes to spare so I'm going to touch on something that seems quite a popular idea, but I'm not so sure about, that being the idea of smaller ships for the Navy.

As the cost of modern warships has risen and budgets have shrunk, naturally fleet sizes across the world have fallen. The Royal Navy has been no different in this regard. Lots of solutions have been put forward, one of the more common ones being to create a class of smaller, less "fighty" ships to replace vessels like the Type 23 and Type 45 on low intensity operations such as fighting piracy off Somalia or battling drug runners in the Caribbean (the tanker RFA Wave Knight has just recently seized another £60 million worth of cocaine).

Which got me thinking (a rarity I know) about ships and their sizes. This was prompted once more by a post the other day on Think Defence that included pictures of a Type 23 frigate alongside HMS Belfast on the Thames. The size comparison is quite enlightening given that the two ships were roughly equal in height and length, especially considering one was a "Cruiser" in its era and the other is now considered a "Frigate".

Without dipping into the complete history of naval warfare and terminology, typically a "frigate" of Nelsons era would have been a smaller vessel considered unsuitable to fight in the main battle line against an enemy fleet and instead would have served as a fast ship for communications, reconnaissance and escorting/attacking merchant vessels.

In an era where most ships were fundamentally operated in the same way (sail power, muzzle loading cannons, flag communications) the frigate also offered a cheap way in peacetime to keep important skills fresh for the most valuable officers, without the expense of constantly operating the larger ships of the line (and their crews of several hundred men).

By the time of World War Two the term "Frigate" was barely in use though a number of classes of warship soon popped up bearing the title, mainly small vessels, lightly armed, that were used as convoy escorts and anti-submarine vessels (which was almost one and the same thing), hence why many modern ships that lean towards anti-submarine operations are classified as being frigates.

It's a similar story with the term "destroyer". Originally "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" were constructed from around the turn of the 20th century onwards, predominantly for the task of - surprise, surprise - destroying torpedo boats, or at the very least keeping them away from the main fleet. These ships were fast, armed with multiple small calibre main guns (small relative to cruisers and battleships) and eventually they largely took on the role of the very ships they were designed to hunt, being an ideally suited platform for firing off torpedoes.

During World War Two however it became clear that aircraft were more of a danger to large fleets than torpedo boats. Subsequently the destroyer became a prime close air defence platform, quick enough to reposition itself in response to air attacks and bristling with small calibre anti-aircraft guns. Hence why most modern ships designed for air defence are classified as destroyers.

The question is though, could we rekindle the old days and old ways, as a source of low(er) cost shipping?

Keep in mind that Frigates and Destroyers of yesteryear were often much shorter than their modern counterparts, both in height and length. Helicopters didn't exist back then, so the aft end of these ships were often home to a pair of gun turrets, whereas now they play host to a hangar and flight deck. As a result ships of that era tend to look a little more sparse on top and potentially represent savings in construction. But do they really?

There's a couple of problems I have with this idea.

The first is what these sort of ships will be used for. My understanding now of Royal Navy tasking is that counter piracy operations off places like Somalia is not a primary mission, but something that the RN contributes to as it passes through the area. So far from sending £500 million destroyers to chase knackered old fishing boats, really these destroyers are just helping out with multi-national operations as part of their wider deployment to the middle eastern region.

That would kind of scupper the idea of a vessel specifically designed for counter piracy work as that task doesn't really exist, not as a standing deployment. But - I hear you say - what about the other roles that a kind of oldy worldy destroyer/frigate type ship could handle? Could we not build something to carry the burden of RN deployments world wide like the frigates of old, while keeping some of our Type 23/45 "ships of the line" tied up alongside, with their crews gaining experience on the active vessels that remain?

Erm, well I don't really see it working out like that economically. As I mentioned earlier things were very different in the age of sail. The number of merchant seamen available for recruitment was very high and their skills were easily transferable as all ships of all sizes were operated in a broadly similar manner. Clearly a first rate ship like HMS Victory handled very differently from a much smaller sixth rate, but the basic principles and basic skills required were broadly the same. There was no complex set of computer based or mechanical systems that varied greatly from class to class.

And frankly, I doubt a new take on the old concept of the lightly armed vessel would actually save that much money. The problem is that in the modern era a significant chunk of the cost of a new ship is consumed by things other than the steel the ship is made from. The radars, the combat systems, the high speed propulsion systems, all of these gobble a big chunk of the overall budget.

The only way to get around this is to accept a significantly reduced capability. A slower ship for example, designed to cruise along merrily on diesel power but without the ability to ramp up quickly to a sprint, or even to be able to sprint at all. It's going to mean limited radar capability, which makes the ship almost useless in an area where an air threat exists or air supervision is required. And It means no sonar capability of any note, which means practically no anti-submarine capability either.

Essentially what you're left with then is a piece of floating metal with a few guns, which in the modern world doesn't count for a huge amount. Otherwise the cost is such that - when taking account of crews as well - the exchange ratio of a minor vessel to a "proper" modern frigate wouldn't appear to justify the expense.

16 comments:

  1. Perhaps the modern day frigate is a fast OPV(H) with a medium calibre gun.

    Repulse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, possibly. I thing one of the issues is how hangars have affected the weapons capacity. Without the hangar on the back you lose the helicopter which is a major utility asset for the ship, but you gain space for additional firepower. It might be that we'll never see something like the frigates and destroyers of ww2 unless there's another major war, which means that in an odd way hopefully we wont.

      Delete
    2. Often wondered of the potential value of a 2-3,000t fast "destroyer" with 4 x oto melara 76mm strales guns (2 fore and 2 aft) in close support, anti-swarm, littoral, amphibious assault and ISR roles.

      Delete
    3. It does make you wonder.

      When you consider the entire concept of the Torpedo Boat Destroyer was to keep bigger ships safe by rapidly confronting and engaging smaller vessels that were difficult to hit with the larger main armaments of the cruisers and above, and now we have a situation where one of the main concerns of modern navies is protecting their main warships from smaller vessels, where the Harpoon is not an appropriate weapon for use in congested waters.

      The argument I suspect would be that the helicopter (like Lynx) now fills this role, as it did in GW1, as it has significant speed, radar coverage and the ability to carry four Sea Skua, while being cheaper to purchase and operate than a whole new ship class.

      The question is do we have enough to deal with multiple "swarms", what with the need to refuel and re-arm? If they're inadequate for future threats, we likely wont find out until it's too late.

      Delete
    4. When taken in isolation a new class would seem to be more expensive, but if you think about other roles such NGS (where we could be using £1bn Destroyers), ISR and escorting RFAs then I think the case stacks up. Plus as you say the availability of helicopter support for what is a full time defence role is questionable.

      Repulse

      Delete
    5. But then the counter to that would be how often does the NGS role crop up? Type 23's have shown that they can do the job more than adequately, and can still go off to provide their ASW functions when needed. Until you get into the need for high volumes of almost constant NGS then the need for a four gun platform for it seems limited.

      Delete
    6. The problem I see is that in that particular scenario you are putting a fairly large and relatively expensive vessel at danger where a smaller & lower value vessel can do the job better.

      If the RN could afford a larger number of more sophisticated vessels then fine, but the reality is it cannot, so you take your choice between a small number of expensive vessels or a mixture of different capabilities that means you can get more hulls overall. The RN model works best in my view when you look at isolated vessels, but if you are deploying ships in groups (or need to be in more places at once) then a mixed approach is better. Horses for courses...

      Repulse

      Delete
    7. @ Repulse,

      The only problem then with the smaller vessel is that once it has achieved the NGS mission, it now finds itself hanging around with the task force without being able to contribute much. It's consuming food and fuel, and requires protection, but is now not offering a whole lot in return.

      Delete
    8. @Chris: Don't agree they would be useless outside of NGS. The 76mm is the weapon of choice for CIWS, therefore these ships would add significantly to the layered air defence. Also, in a complex environment where not all ships can be assumed hostile or if you are enforcing a naval blockade then these would be used to operate on the fringes of the group working in hand with helicopter patrols to challenge / monitor suspicious vessels.

      Repulse

      Delete
    9. Not sure if the 76mm would be preferred to something like RAM, which seems to be the standard that everyone is shifting to. I think if you're shooting 76mm then you're getting very desperate.

      Now if you're using your gunship in blockade work, you've spent all that money for two roles; blockades and NGS, both of which we can do anyway with other assets. It does seem a very small remit for something that is going to cost probably 60% or more of the cost of a full on Frigate.

      Delete
    10. The beauty of the gun is the breadth of available ammo where it can switch quickly from firing armoured piercing shells to PFF and DART ammo. The range allows a single gun to counter multiple threats before they get close and are not limited to a handful of cells.

      Repulse

      Delete
    11. Not sure you'd find many people willing to put their faith in a cannon over something like RAM or SeaRAM, especially when you consider the range advantage of the missiles. Keep in mind as well that they have a pretty good capacity (21 missiles) and they can be fired at spaced targets (so shoot and slew) while the gun based systems like those from Oto Melara need to guide each round on.

      Delete
  2. Sometimes wondered if a traditional WW2 style (and size) destroyer with 4 x OTO Melara 76 mm Strales guns (2 fore and 2 aft) would make for a great close support, anti-swarm and Littoral warship. With Vulcano ammo would have a significant, but short ranged, punch.

    Repulse

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chris - your right to think about capabilities and not size. Nomenclature is a side street, one that takes you off the beaten track and into a really shitty neighbourhood, so lets just acknowledge, we are no longer in the days of sail and in RN parlance Destroyer is primarly an AAW ship and Frigate is primarly an ASW ship and that is that.

    If your going back to HMS Victoria and Nelson's days, then the term your really looking for is "cruiser" - this was a term applied to a small to medium vessel that would independently cruise the seas and oceans applying the Crown's foreign policy, be that against the Dutch the Frency, the USA, pirates (non-state actors ?), or who ever.

    I continue to believe that if we want to play in the Maritime Security Operations arena (what used to be "operations other than war") including anti-piracy, anti-people smuggling, anti-proliferation etc etc then the model is that of the supporting Flotilla - RFA manned vessels with RN, RM and other HMG agency personnel carried onboard as required. A Bay class or something smaller, although the Dutch JSS could do the role, as could an civilian off shore workboat design as discussed many many times as TD's SIMMS concept. It doesn't need to be small in size or value, but it needs to be low in sophistication and if it is to have a "war role" it should be in the Amphib fleet, or as a "mother ship" for more fighty capabilities.

    Cheers

    Jed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jed,

      I was led to believe that frigates were selected for cruising duties during Nelsons era, and that the term "cruiser" to define a class of ships didn't turn up till much later, when coal power started to replace sail power?

      I don't mind the concept behind TD's SIMMS - I was all for it at one stage - but I just think that from listening to the various nautical types that there isn't really a pressing requirement for dealing with pirates and drug runners. It's sort of something we seem to do as an aside. For that reason I think if we want to keep up with things like APT(N) then it is probably best to just send a tanker or similar ship.

      Delete
  4. Ahhh so many spelling mistakes - sorry

    HMS Victory ! and "it doesn't need to small in size or VOLUME" ........ Doh.!

    Jed

    ReplyDelete