Parc Technologies delivers revolutionary decision support applications to Airlines, Internet Service Providers and Carriers. Our customers are among the largest and most successful companies in the world.
Ministry of Defence (MOD) Freedom of Information (FOI) responses published during the week commencing 26 September 2016 from Ministry of Defence – Activity on GOV.UK http://ift.tt/2d9bU8W Number of Northern Ireland security guard service staff tribunal cases which have resulted in non-disclosure settlements or agreements Ref: HOCS FOI2016/02468PDF, 52.9KB Information on veterans lapel badge (VLB) Ref: ...
Jim Shannon To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many people have (a) joined and (b) left the (i) armed forces and (ii) the Reserves in each of the last five years. Mike Penning Current information on how many people have joined and left the Armed Forces and the Reserves from 2011 to ...
Sir Nicholas Soames To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the expected maintenance period is for HMS Defender. Harriett Baldwin The maintenance period of HMS Defender is planned to start before the end of 2016 and complete in late 2017. Precise details and its duration are currently the subject of ongoing negotiations with ...
During an informal EU Defence Ministerial in Slovakia Defence Secretary Michael Fallon reassured European partners that the UK would continue to play a proactive role in tackling security threats. In meetings with fellow European defence ministers in Bratislava today, Michael Fallon said the UK would work to address challenges ranging from mass migration to cyber-attacks. ...
75 Conservative MPs have now signed a letter to the Prime Minster urging that a commission is established to look into building a new Royal Yacht. This is the revival of a proposal originally made by Michael Gove in 2012. No design for such a ship exists as yet, but it is intended as a statement of British confidence in a post-Brexit world and as a platform for diplomacy and trade deals. Here we examine if this is a wise idea.
Background
HMY Britannia was built by John Browns of Glasgow, launched in 1953 in very different times when the Clyde was still leading the world in shipbuilding. Britain was gradually emerging from post-war austerity, although average living standards of the time were far below that of today. Most significantly, few people in the 1950s would question the institution of monarchy or the need for the tax payer to fund a lavish yacht. Britain’s monarchs have had a string of private yachts since 1660. Britannia was nominally also supposed to be a hospital ship, a capability that was never utilised and she was also supposedly earmarked the Royal family’s ‘floating bunker’ in the event of nuclear war.
A timeless and classic design that drew admiration wherever she went. HMY Britannia, Toronto, Canada, October 1991. (IWM)
The ship was proudly manned by RN personnel or “yachties” who could volunteer to stay permanently assigned to Britannia, The ship was much-loved by the general public, the Navy and the Royal Family. Beautiful and elegant, she was a fine ambassador for the UK. She not only provided discreet and wonderful holidays for royalty but was a venue for UK diplomatic and trade missions, a role in which she was exceptionally successful. It is claimed that deals worth £3Bn to the UK economy were concluded aboard her in the early 1990s. The Conservative government of John Major planned to replace the ship and the RN had begun design work on the new ship. (Main image pictured above) The £100M design was externally broadly similar to its predecessor but with modernised bridge, flight deck and diesel-electric propulsion. Perhaps trying to enhance his flimsy socialist principles, Tony Blair axed the replacement project soon after his election victory in 1997. The ceremony to mark Britannia’s retirement held in Portsmouth was one of the most emotional RN ship decommissionings in living memory, complete with a queen in tears. Britannia is now preserved as award-winning tourist visitor attraction in Lieth.
The Daily Mail supported a campaign for a new Royal Yacht in 2011. The concept was for “A national flagship” with an emphasis on environment credentials (sail and solar power). There was an intention to provide sail-training and education for young people. This was an ambitious project for a 515ft four-masted ship, far larger than Britannia with construction costed at £80M. At no stage was there formal governmental or royal involvement and it was reliant on wealthy donors. Although an innovative and exciting concept, the project floundered through lack of funds.
A divisive proposal
Unfortunately any proposal for a new Royal Yacht goes to heart of British neurosis about class identity. Those steeped in an unhealthy culture of entitlement and petty jealously, together with the politics of republicanism, appeasement and hatred of your own nation (embodied by Jeremy Corbyn) would be implacably opposed.
In defence of the monarchy…
The queen is head of the armed forces (incidentally a valuable constitutional ‘safety valve’ absent in a republic). The monarchy represents lasting historical continuity and brings a gravitas and respect to the position of head of state that is increasingly missing from our elected politicians. The argument that they are a parasite on the taxpayer and abolishing the monarchy would save a bit of money is mere envy and very short-sighted. The interest and prestige generated by the Royal family generates its own economic benefit, hard to quantify but it almost certainly out-weighs the cost of maintaining them. Loved around the world, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth has worked incredibly hard throughout her life in the interests of the nation and continues this work despite being in her 90s. The Republic of Britain would be a poorer and a much-diminished nation. And after all, there is only one Royal Navy.
Although the new yacht would not be directly funded by the taxpayer, in a time of “austerity” it still looks like a wrong priority for government and gives the impression of Tory MPs more excited about playthings for royalty than addressing poverty or even the poor state of the RN. Inevitably there would be cries that “my local hospital / school / library etc is underfunded but we can find money for a yacht for our rich elites”
It is boom time in the super yacht-building industry as the number of millionaires and billionaires is on the rise. Exclusive marinas across the world are filling up with the status symbols of the uber rich, many of them tax-evading, non doms who have made their fortunes in the UK. Meanwhile the public finances are struggling and the the naval dockyards are increasingly empty of warships. A Royal Yacht would have a certain level of gravitas far above some billionaire’s crass display of obscene wealth but inevitably it would still be perceived as a plaything for the elite. Current dire manpower shortages leave the RN quite unable to provide the crew, further diminishing the special status of a new vessel.
Build a hospital ship instead
A far better use of political capital and financial resources would be to build one, or ideally two hospital ships. As we have advocated previously, cheap merchant ship conversions, manned by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary could provide a great humanitarian resource that would be worthy ’soft power’ ambassadors for Britain and give our armed forces a mobile hospital in time of war. This could be entirely financed by DFID with minimal impact on their already generous budget.
The new aircraft carriers – an eloquent expression of UK confidence
The UK is about benefit from the delivery of the two largest ships ever built for the Royal Navy. Their arrival will have a big impact abroad and are a ready-made statement of UK confidence and self-belief that renders a new yacht for such purposes rather redundant. The priority for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will be operational tasks, they can also serve as spacious platforms for trade and diplomacy. Although HMY Britannia is sadly missed and principle of yachts for royalty or a national flagship seems reasonable, one can only conclude that building a replacement now would be the wrong ship at the wrong time.
A collection of updates to the Long Read projects… Soviet Monsters; Added new media and updated the content about the Chinese/Antonov for the AN-225 second fuselage. Defence Engagement from Above; Updated the content with information on the Nigerian helicopter maintenance facility and move of the Army Air Corps Defenders/Islanders to the RAF. Also, updated information on ...
This is the second of a two-part article by John Dunbar looking at OPV’s in Royal Navy service. Part 1 considered the way they could be deployed, this article focuses on the ship’s specifications and potential capabilities.
Jack of some trades – master of none
The primary complaint about the Navy’s current and future OPV’s is that they are jack of a few trades, incapable of many roles and master of none. Given the lack of aviation hangar facilities and with minimal weaponry, the River class OPV’s in their current form will often be limited to short range surveillance relying on radar or mark one eye ball to identify targets and the two pacific ribs with boarding parties to intervene. This is very much a barebones capability, and the Batch 2 OPV’s are arguably solid platforms capable of contributing much more to UK defence if their fit out is suitably developed and invested in over time.
Whilst Batch 2 OPV’s are large enough to be equipped with a much enhanced weapons fit (the German Branschweig class corvettes are 1,700 tonnes compared to a Batch 2 OPV at 2000 tonnes) they are not warships and their primary role must remain focused on providing a cost-effective presence where the capabilities of a frigate or submarine are unavailable, unnecessary or better deployed elsewhere. Investment should therefore focus on improving intelligence and surveillance gathering ability – enhancing the patrol rather than warfighting role – whilst taking into account opportunities to act in consort with other Royal Navy assets (and all the time without losing the economy of a lean manned ship!).
Make modular UAV capabilities available
The lack of a hangar capable of supporting indigenous helicopter operations has been the subject of much criticism. However, looking at the Fleet Air Arm inventory, it seems unrealistic to expect the existing numbers of Merlin or Wildcat helicopters to be sufficiently available to support operations from OPV’s on a permanent basis. A helicopter would also require an additional air compliment of around 12 crew to be accommodated, placing further demands on limited RN manpower and driving up OPV operating costs.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles could be integrated relatively easily, and deployment of Scan Eagle has already proven capable of significantly enhancing the operation of frigates and destroyers. UAV’s typically have lower capital costs, lower operating costs, lower manning and training demands, and offer levels of availability and mission duration many times that of a helicopter. Taking resources and finances into account, UAV’s probably the right choice for RN OPV’s. The step-change in OPV utility would be impressive. Assuming a 15km radar horizon, a batch 2 OPV has the capability to directly monitor around 700 km2 of ocean surface. In comparison;
Scan Eagle can operate at a range of up to 100km with mission durations of up to 20 hours. In November 2015 the Royal Australian Navy tested a Scan Eagle fitted with an advanced video reconnaissance system which enabled detailed video surveillance of an area of 45,000 km2 over a 12 hour period.
The Scheibel Camcopter 100 has an operating range of up to 180km from its control station and is capable of mission durations up to 6 hours. This could effectively extend an OPV’s ‘reach’ to an area in excess of 100,000 km2,
Given that even in a best-case scenario, four OPV’s might be available for deployment in home waters, it is clear that integrating UAV capabilities would radically improve protection of the UK’s 770,000 km2 EEZ, and make OPV’s genuinely valuable in counter narcotics, terrorism, piracy and people smuggling operations as well as providing improved situational awareness when delivering humanitarian aid.
Improve SIGINT and ELINT capability
Having invested in the OPV platform and its running costs, the ability to gather signals and electronic intelligence should be maximised. Combined with evolving UAV eavesdropping technology, OPV’s could provide persistent, low-cost electronic surveillance capability, particularly in littoral environments e.g. off the coast of Libya or Somalia. In the age of big data, capturing large packets of electronic information for analysis opens up new possibilities – and it is worth noting that the RAF has been particularly successful in sustaining its reconnaissance capabilities in the face of cuts on the basis of intelligence gathering performance in recent and ongoing operations.
Add anti-submarine surveillance capability
OPV’s are not a substitute for the anti-submarine warfare capabilities of a frigate or submarine – and it would be wrong to pretend that they are – but given the difficulty in detecting modern submarines, it is worth considering how OPV’s might contribute to a more effective detection capability, particularly in UK waters where protecting the at sea nuclear deterrent is a priority.
Sonar technology continues to improve, and systems such as Thales CAPTAS-1 towed array sonar are capable of detection at long-range and are designed to operate from noisy medium-sized platforms and as a containerised fit out. Alternatively, the ability to act as mother ships to future unmanned sub-hunting technology would be valuable additional capability and should be explored. There is a need for improved passive underwater surveillance of UK waters. The RN lacks small conventional submarines ideal for the task but additional towed array platforms available to work in conjunction with frigates and future Maritime Patrol Aircraft would be a big help.
Fitting a simple hull mounted sonar – such as Thales Bluewatcher which is based on the same technology utilised by the Merlin FLASH dipping sonar – would enable them to work more effectively in collaboration with and as a platform for Merlin ASW helicopters to interrogate any potential threats identified in UK waters would be another an even cheaper solution.
Sister ship to the RN’s River class, ‘Apa’ of the Brazilian Navy – note the 20mm cannon on the bridge wing
Improve self-defence capability
OPV’s on overseas deployment – particularly in the Mediterranean and East of Suez – can still expect to face a range of low to mid-level threats, particularly if they are undertaking intelligence gathering activities. These threats might include small boat swarm attacks, torpedo and gun boats, land based or surface based anti-shipping missiles and – less likely but still possible – attack by aircraft.
Assuming that Batch 1 OPV’s are retained for UK home waters operations only, improved self-defence capability would need to be focused on batch 2 OPV’s. As set out at the start of this article, this should be predicated on being able to safely undertake intelligence gathering and constabulary missions rather than integrating a warfighting function – if an attack is considered likely, then an OPV is probably not the right vessel to deploy in the first case. The aim should be to protect against an unanticipated direct threat and withdraw.
Batch 2 OPVs are fitted with CMS-1, the common command system intended to be fitted to all Royal Navy warships meaning that the command and control software for the entire range of Royal Navy weapons and technology is already available.
Provision of basic soft kill anti-missile protection consisting of Sea Gnat would be a sensible step for all Batch 2 OPV’s (plenty of which should be available from recently decommissioned Type 22 and 42 frigates). If a hull mounted sonar is fitted this should be capable of passive torpedo detection and could be linked to soft kill launchers for torpedo defence.
Whilst substituting the 30mm DSB main armament for a medium calibre gun such as the Oto Malera 76mm or Bofors 57mm may seem an attractive option, neither are currently in RN service; both would require extensive re-design and re-building to integrate into complete hulls; both would increase crew numbers needed for operation; and both are largely unproven in dealing with the missile threat.
As an alternative, adding 25mm cannon either side of the bridge (as per Amazonas corvettes) and substituting a Phalanx CIWS for the rear crane would provide an effective and much enhanced self-protection capability across the full range of likely threats without the need to structurally alter the existing Batch 2 design.
Whilst phalanx is expensive, it is unlikely that more than 1 or 2 would be required for OPV deployments at any one time, and integration risks are low given its current RN use in service. These could easily be transferred to any additional future Type 31 frigates (which may take on similar tasking as they come into service) and as such should represent a ‘no regrets’ investment given the improved crew protection they would provide.
Interim OPV squadron
Retaining the Batch 1 OPVs and small, affordable upgrades to the Batch 2s would provide the RN with a significant interim capability, at least until the arrival of the new frigates. This is not playing at fantasy fleets but utilises ships the RN already has and is building right now. This is an outline proposal only that could be reshaped, depending on operational requirements. In principle it could allow for a 4-ship home waters and fishery protection squadron as well as permanent forward-basing of vessels in Gibraltar, Bahrain, The Caribbean and Falklands, relieving pressure on the escort fleet.
Conclusions
Part 1 of this article argued the case for retaining Batch 1 OPVs in service. There is a great deal of potential to improve OPV fit out to meet likely demands of the wide range of roles they may be asked to undertake. Integrating UAV’s is a ‘must have’ priority to justify the circa £600m cost of building the new OPV’s given the lack of indigenous helicopter capability. Considering how to maximise other potential surveillance capabilities will be important in justifying what are arguably modest increases in capital investments and running costs associated with an enhanced fleet of nine OPV’s .
Whether by accident or design, the basic specification of the Batch 2 River Class goes a long way to preclude any hint of war fighting role but fears will undoubtedly persist that improving the capability of OPV’s will undermine funding for future surface combatant numbers. This should not, however, prevent the case being made for maximising the capability of River Class OPVs so that they can make a genuinely positive contribution to UK and overseas security, a motley crew of shapes and sizes though they may be. In the absence of that investment, real questions will remain as to decisions which have led to their construction in the first instance.
Estimated capital costs of upgrading the Batch 2s (excluding support): 6 x rotary UAV Systems 30m; 9 x Modular Towed sonar Array £27m; 10 x 25mm Cannon (2 each for 5 x Batch 2 OPV) £8m; 3 x Phallanx CIWS £25m. Misc Integration/modification costs £10 Total £110m.
**Batch 1 running costs are estimated at £16-20m per annum.
