A look at the Equipment Programme and an ear for the Secretary of State's speech

Equipment Programme 2017: Category A and B projects

The MOD has published a FOI answer in which it details the names of the projects of category A (value exceeding 400 million pounds) and B (from 100 million to 400). The list does not provide any additional detail, but even so it is simply invaluable to better understand the 10 Years Equipment Programme.

The fact that the MOD is fine with revealing this list if specifically asked to do so, but does not include anything comparable in the EP document itself, is extremely irritating, and it proves once again that there is no security reason whatsoever for publishing such a vague EP document. As I’ve fully embraced the cause of greater accountability and transparence by the MOD in the handling of the defence budget, I will remark that in the future it should no longer be necessary to use FOIs to get this level of information. It would be very helpful to include it in the EP document itself.

Getting to the document, in addition to the really big programmes that are well known and expected to figure, the list does contain a number of voices worth touching upon. 

Complex Weapons

There are several voices here that are of enormous interest. One is the Category A project unimaginatively named “Battlefield Weapon”. It is hard to guess what this is, exactly. With the JAVELIN anti-tank missile having a notional OSD of 2025, the development of a new, more multi-role missile for the infantry might well be what’s hiding under this name. The British Army also has (or had?) a requirement for a “Reusable Multi-Role Medium Range Shoulder Launcher (MRSLs)” to introduce into the platoon to increase anti-structure and anti-infantry firepower and, effectively, replace the outgoing 60mm mortar. The expected date for contract award has however passed months ago without a selection being announced. The contenders were (are?) the Carl Gustav, which is enjoying a major renaissance being selected by both US Army and USMC as new Squad weapon; and the C90 Reusable.

MRSL might be hiding behind “Battlefield Weapon” as well, in theory, but it is not likely, also because even an Army-wide purchase of Carl Gustav would still not get anywhere near the 400 million mark.

There is also a “Tactical Guided Munition – Indirect”, which appears as a voice both under Procurement and under Support. This could hide the decade-old requirement for a guided 155mm shell solution for the Royal Artillery’s AS90 howitzers.

We also have, however, “Land Precision Strike”, which, if I had to guess, would be related to the GMLRS rockets. Again, there is no way to tell for sure. These are both Category A procurement programmes, so we are talking about sizeable projects for new capability. It would be hugely beneficial for the Army to procure the new GMLRS “Alternative Warhead” which restores area-effects lost with the demise of traditional sub-munitions, but I’m not sure an area-effect weapon would fit very well within the project name.

Finally, we have the “Deep Fire Rocket System”, again a Category A project. To comment on this one we have to note that for well over a decade the Royal Artillery has wanted a long range weapon, namely the ATACMS large rocket for the M270B1 launchers. 
We must also go back to the end of last year, when 16 RA Bty went into suspended animation, but with a most unusual promise of a relatively swift return to active service to operate a new Deep Fires capability. In the occasion it was said:

 “There is a plan in the middle of the 2020s around 2024 when we develop a new capability for the British Army and enhance some of our deep fire capabilities as part of a divisional fires regiment.”

While there is no way to confirm it, it seems very likely that the British Army intends to procure the new missile that the US Army is developing to replace ATACMS, the Long Range Precision Strike munition for GMLRS launchers. The standing up of a new battery for it, however, suggests that the launcher vehicle might also be new, and it is relatively easy to imagine that the army might be thinking of the wheeled HIMARS launcher, which would complement the tracked, heavier (but with more rockets ready for launch) M270. This solution would deliver wheeled GMLRS capability for the Strike Brigades and introduce a 500 km precision strike capability (or maybe even more than that if the INF treaty collapses for good. The LRPF is a prime candidate for quick range extension in that case).

HIMARS and LRPF for the Royal Artillery in the early 2020s? 

Curiously, the integration of Meteor on the F-35 also appears in the “Complex Weapons” budget rather than in the “Combat Air” one, as happens instead for weapons integration on the Typhoon. This might be due to the fact that the missile is to receive a new set of “clipped” wings as part of the integration. It might also have to do with its further development (GaN AESA radar seeker) under the name “Joint New Air to Air Missile”, a bi-national programme with Japan. JNAAM does not appear in the FOI: it is either part of “LII (Lightning II) Meteor integration” or is too small a budget to enter in category A and B.

There is a “Next Generation SPEAR” voice as well, which is not readily identified. Brimstone 2 Capability Sustainment Progamme (also known as Brimstone 3), SPEAR Cap 3 and Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon are all listed separately, so this might revolve around the Paveway IV spiral development, or represent a whole new system.

In the Category B list it is worth noting two large purchases of Paveway IV bombs for arsenal replenishment: 1200 and 3500 bombs respectively.

There are also a “Javelin follow-on buy” voice, which might or might not include the purchase of the latest, multi-role Javelin F with improved blast-fragmentation effect for roles other than anti-tank.

The 4^th Tranche of High Velocity Missiles (Starstreak) is also listed as Category B.

There is a Category A “Future Systems” which is as vague as it could be but no doubt covers all sort of studies.

The Storm Shadow Mid Life Refit is a Category A equipment support project. There is a “Future Ground Based Air Defence contingency” voice which is probably connected to FLAADS Land Ceptor (now Sky Sabre).

Complex Weapons budget includes also a “Medium Range Radar” voice which is probably ARTISAN. The inclusion of this and most of the Sea Ceptor costs in the Weapons budget explain why the Type 23 CSP appears so cheap.

Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon is quoted as two programmes: FLRDFC is (probably) the replacement for Storm Shadow, but the exact meaning of the horrible acronym is uncertain. FC/ASW FOSUW should be the Future Offensive anti-Surface Weapon, the replacement for Harpoon on ships.

Brimstone 2 CSP is worth a mention as this programme should deliver a "Brimstone 3" round which is expected to replace Hellfire on the British Army's Apache Block III helicopters in the 2020s. By then the US Army will be transitioning to JAGM, and while Hellfire will remain a plenty big player for many more years, it will become progressively harder to support as the main customer moves on to the new system. Brimstone, on the british side, is the obvious solution. Brimstone 3 is also offered to France for the TIGER attack helicopter modernisation, but it is pretty easy to imagine that Paris will go with a MMP development or some other non-british solution, especially since a british purchase of VBCI has well and truly gone with the wind. 

It would be very interesting if Brimstone 3 added a launch mode that sees the missile dropped before the rocket ignites: this modification would enable integration of the 3 inside the F-35's bays. Currently, Brimstone is rail launched so is not compatible with confined spaces... 

LAND

In the Land Sector the big disappointment is the disappearance of the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle which brings the issue of replacing FV432 in armoured formations back to square one. It had been present up to the 2016 edition. Not for the first time I’m left wondering how the “Armoured Infantry 2026” overarching programme is supposed to ever deliver full operational capability if the Warrior CSP is not supported by a replacement for FV432. If they are looking at having MIV covering the role, I can only repeat my suggestion: bin WCSP and put the new turret on MIV. It would be absurd to have, say, the mortar team in support to a battalion of Warriors traveling on a wheeled AFV larger and heavier than the IFV itself… 

MITER and NAV-P are both present, however. MITER is a large Category A programme which aims to unify, in the 2020s, the provisions of the current C Fleet, Protected Plant fleet and Mechanical Handling Fleet.

The C Fleet comprises of engineering, construction and plant equipment to enable manoeuvre, construction, logistics, force protection engineering and life support. It is currently provided under a Private Finance Initiative contract which will end in 2021. The current small protected construction plant fleet is owned by the MOD and is mainly the result of UORs. It is now supported by industry under a contract also ending in 2021. The Defence Mechanical Handling Equipment is currently almost entirely provided under the DMHE contract, ending in 2020. The equipment fleet, composed of pure Commercial Off The Shelf kit, is owned by the contractor and provided to MOD on a period lease basis. Under MITER, the future contractor will manage and sustain the combined construction and mechanical handling equipment fleet in the United Kingdom, on deployed operations and overseas environments.

The Non Articulated Vehicle Programme is the replacement of DROPS. In July 2018 the MOD ordered the conversion of 382 of its MAN SV HX-77 trucks to be converted into Enhanced Pallized Load Systems EPLS, including 33 winterised/waterproofed for Royal Marines operations. 40 deliveries are planned early this year with final deliveries by the end of march 2021. Around 180 had been procured earlier on. NAVP will build on this interim solution to hopefully finally complete the DROPS replacement.

One notable absence, not easily explained, is the Multi Role Vehicle - Protected voice. The Foreign Military Sale authorization for up to 2,747 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles is dated 10 July 2017, so the programme was definitely ongoing already. But, up to that point it might, for internal accounting reasons, have been reported as a smaller-budget project? After all, no MRV-P candidate, not even the JLTV, is still fully and definitively selected. 
JLTV should cover the Group 1 requirement, while Bushmaster and Eagle 6x6 are still battling it out for the Group 2 requirement for a larger vehicle (selection might take place this year). Group 3 should cover the Light Recovery Vehicle. 
The absence of MRVP from the list is curious, but not necessarily concerning. However, MRVP does seem a remarkably vulnerable programme which might well be delayed once again in the near future as far too many priorities battle over a far too tight budget. 

Worth a mention is the Category B project TYRO for the upgrade or replacement of BR90 equipment, both Close Support (Titan-launched scissor bridges) and General Support (the ABLE system.

The latest variant of contract notice published for TYRO – Close Support adds a new vehicle requirement: a Wheeled Close Support Launch Vehicle that must be able to launch the same bridges as operated by Titan.

As of today, the Close Support bridge does not have anything like this: the supporting vehicle is a Unipower trucks that carries spare bridges but is not meant to launch them.

Up to 36 Wheeled Close Support Launch Vehicles are requested, and the inclusion of “Close Support” is significant because, keeping pace with army doctrine and definitions, it requires a vehicle that can operate in the Direct Fire zone. In other words, something offering a decent level of protection, because it is expected that there will be a fight going on while launching the bridge.

Not just Tank Bridge Transporters anymore. Under TYRO, a wheeled close support launch vehicle is now requested. The number of ABLE General Support bridges, on the other hand, shrinks to compensate. 

It is pretty evident that such a vehicle would deliver greatly enhanced bridging support to the Strike Brigades when compared to the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System (REBS) which spans a smaller gap, is launched by a lightly protected MAN SV EPLS and has a Military Load Class limited to 50.

TYRO requests that all bridge elements are certified at least for MLC 100 (Tracked), which means that pretty much everything has to be able to cross.

There is no Project TRITON in sight yet, but it might just be because of timelines. The TRITON project for the procurement by 2027 of a replacement for the M3 rigs for Wide Wet Gap Crossing has been unveiled in late 2018 in the new Army’s newsletter. It probably hadn’t been firmed up yet in the 2017 plan.

ISTAR

ISTAR big projects are dominated by communications, and in particular Future Beyond Line of Sight, or SKYNET 6, the successor to the current constellation of comms satellites. As is know, a first “transitional” satellite, SKYNET 6A, has been ordered in summer 2017.

Many of the other voices are part of the Land Environment Tactical Communication Information Systems mega-programme for the renewal of comms at pretty much all levels. FALCON 2 EXPLOIT and EVOLVE both figure in the Category A programmes, and it is meant to expand on the capabilities of the current FALCON, which is the deployable High Bandwidth Backbone Network for the joint force, and primarily for the army.

Importantly, Dismounted Situational Awareness appears as a Cat A programme. It is part of the MORPHEUS communication system (data and voice radios and display for situational awareness) meant to progressively replace BOWMAN.

PICASSO also figures, and in this case we are talking of the national capability for strategic Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) and GEOInt, which provides commanders with information obtained from the analysis of date coming from national and multi-national collectors.

The Increment 1 and 2 of the Aliied Systems for GEOINT (AGS) are also included.

Combat Air

The elephant in the room, due to the current uncertainty surrounding it, is the UK-France Future Combat Air System, aka the UCAV for the 2030s. If we believe the press reports, France was ready to progress into a funded Demonstration phase and proceed with the building of prototypes, but the UK has refused to commit funding to that. Whether the programme survives, and in which form, is currently hard to say.

Then we have, of course, the national FCAS, better known in public as Project TEMPEST. Connected to it is also project PYRAMID, which is meant to develop the solutions for the MOD’s Mission System Reference Architecture for future Air Systems.

Worth of mention is Typhoon RADAR 1, a category A project meant to deliver a workable AESA radar for Typhoon Tranche 3 (and hopefully Tranche 2 too). The radar 1, or R1, is the baseline AESA in development for the consortium, but the UK’s intention is to eventually use a more ambitious R2 standard, with Electronic Warfare capability. R2 does not appear in the list, but this might simply be because the additional investment so far authorized over and above R1 funding does not yet qualify into Cat B. Some 60 millions were given to BAE Systems. A more recent version of the list might or might not display R2 since the Secretary of State for defence, speaking at RUSI on February 11, mentioned that the Transformation Fund includes another 60 million for the Typhoon radar. The 100 million mark, in other words, might now have been passed.

One notable Cat A project is the Watchkeeper Mid Life Update. Given the pricetag, it should include some serious improvements and additions. The Army has finally declared Full Operational Capability for Watchkeeper, but it is actually still struggling to secure the certifications needed to operate it from Boscombe Down as intended. Training on Salisbury Plain, in non-segregated air space, was the big promise of Watchkeeper and on this one point there isn't yet a happy ending. 

Air Support 

One surprising absence is ASDOT, which should more than qualify as Category A. It might, however, have been included into the rather incomprehensible “DCS+S - DOTC-A- Core System + Services”, which stands for Defence Operational Training Capability – Air. Its core component is the development of a Common Synthetic Environment that enables the connectivity between different simulators, in different locations, to enable articulate, large-scale simulations.

Another byzantine acronym is MSHATF PFI, but this is the well known 40-years Private Financing Initiative with CAE for the delivery of the Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility in RAF Benson.

The Sentry CSP makes an appearance, but as we know the MOD’s preferred approach is not so much a Capability Sustainment Programme anymore, but rather replacement with new build E-7 Wedgetail.

Sentinel R1 capability and its “project team” are both Cat A programmes. Its mid-life update, with the addition of maritime radar mode and other upgrades, might be the explanation.

The Secretary of State for defence’s speech at RUSI

While it is clear that the uncertainty around the budget has not gone away, the Secretary’s speech should be welcomed as it signals that the armed forces have finally found a champion who truly has a vision for the UK’s role in the world.

For one, I was particularly pleased with it because it attempts to change a narrative of decline into a rather happier one in which the armed forces return to the center of the UK’s visibility in the world. I was of course particularly happy also because, in the last few months, defence policy has been heading in a direction which I had identified years ago and for which I’ve been campaigning as relentlessly as I could, while admittedly having a lot less time for blogging than in the past.

I was incredibly pleased to see the removal from service of the River Batch 1s being pushed to the right. My readers will known that ever since the River Batch 2s were ordered earlier than necessary, I’ve been saying that the only way to make them into a genuinely good story was to also keep in service the earlier ships. While at the moment it is a short-term promise only (a couple of years), the Royal Navy has confirmed that it will try to man them with the help of the Reserve, and if the scheme can be made to work successfully it will prove to be a massive force-multiplier. I believe that there are good chances that the three vessels will stay into service well beyond the next two years if the experiment is successful. In turn, this will allow some of the newer Batch 2 to be employed in constabulary tasks far away from home. You might have noticed that, following the experimental deployments of two River Batch 1s in the Caribbean in the last couple of years, the North Atlantic Patrol tasking is regularly quoted as part of the Batch 2’s missions. This is all the more likely to become routine if the Secretary’s “ambition” of restoring a more permanent and sizeable presence (or a “base”, even) in the Caribbean is realized.

The other massively welcome development, which I’ve also auspicated for a very long time, is the announcement of two “Littoral Strike Ships”. The image released on Twitter by the 1^st Sea Lord is virtually identical to the American MV Ocean Trader, and so very, very similar to my proposal for aconverted Point-class RoRo vessel. However, at this stage the programme is still in concept phase and the exact look of the ship, as well as the decision for whether it will be newly built or perhaps converted from an existing vessel, is still up in the air.

While the announcement came a little “out of the blue” after months of gloomy reports of cuts, it was actually in the air from a while. Back in 2017, Jane’s reported that a concept study for a Multi Role Support Ship had been launched, to firm up options for a vessel with utility for amphibious, forward repair, and medical capability work.

More recently, during a hearing in front of the Defence Committee, the MOD’s deputy chief of staff for Military Capability, Lieutenant General Sir Mark William Poffley, said that a new programme for “support ships” was being considered for launch ahead of the Solid Support Ships, something i discussed in depth here.

Finally, reports emerged of two “hospital ships” to be jointly funded with DFID.

The Secretary’s speech, most evidently, is just the culmination of a quiet but determined campaign which has been progressing within the MOD for at least a couple of years.

It is pretty likely that these new vessels will cost the Navy the “optional” third Fleet Solid Support ship, but this is not a bad trade-off. Two supply vessels are enough to support the single large task group that the Royal Navy is able to generate, while these two new vessels will greatly help in a number of areas which would otherwise be very problematic. The loss of RFA Diligence without replacement, the lack of a realistic plan for replacing RFA Argus in 2024 and the fact that up to two thirds of the Landing Ship Dock hulls are actually unavailable for amphibious operations at any one time are 3 major concerns which I’ve been highlighting constantly over the years.

The Littoral Strike Ship's first concept art as posted by the 1st Sea Lord on Twitter. The MV Ocean Trader vibes are evident. 

 

All the way back in 2016 i made my very own "mad" suggestion for something similar to the MV Ocean Trader, but a bit more ambitious and even more flexible. If the Littoral Strike Ship was newly built rather than a conversion of an existing ship, it would not be impossible to incorporate all of these changes. 

The name “Littoral Strike Ships” is kind of misleading, as we are most likely looking at something which will be done on the cheap and will thus not be quite adequate for the more “fighty” operations that “strike” suggests. Multi Role Support Ship, while far less pyrotechnic, is probably still the best definition for these units.

The “new” Littoral Strike Groups announced by the Secretary, in fact, might not be based on the new ships, but rather on the existing Bay-class LSDs that these new hulls might end up releasing from the Caribbean and the Gulf respectively.

The Littoral Strike Groups will, realistically, be the continuation of the semi-experimental “Special Purpose Task Groups” that the Royal Marines have been sending out at sea in the last couple of years. These formations, normally of Company-group size and embarked on a single amphibious vessel, have been sent all the way to Pacific (HMS Albion’s tour of last year) and have repeatedly traveled in and out of Mediterranean and Indian Ocean (RFA Lyme Bay, most recently). The Littoral Strike Group should be a more capable evolution of the SPTG, hopefully enabled by the availability of extra supports, including escort vessels.

The new Littoral Strike Group will probably embark significant amounts of Marines and is likely to beat the Bay-class in aviation facilities (the MV Ocean Trader used as example has a two-bays hangar for medium helicopters and a two-spot flight deck that can take anything up to the gigantic CH-53), but is unlikely to have a dock in the stern. It will still be plenty useful, however, and if a RoRo / container ship hull is used, it will have enormous utility as additional strategic sealift.

With the right people and modular facilities on board it could also do decently as a Forward Repair and Support vessel, and it could be able to replace Argus in the medical role if able to embark a modular Role 3 hospital, for which the Navy could work alongside the Army for maximum efficiency.

The MV Ocean Trader, ex MV Cragside, after being modified for use by the US forces 

MV Cragside undergoing her transformation in Mobile, Alabama

The announcement of a RAF Squadron equipped with Swarming Drones is also a welcome development. The mention of this by the Secretary fueled a lot of comments, especially since he made it sound like the whole system would be ready by the end of the year. The MOD has subsequently clarified that it Is more a three years effort, and at the moment we can only speculate on the final form that this capability will take. The “end of 2019” mentioned by the Secretary might actually be for the formation of the squadron, which I figure could well start out as an experimental unit, much like the Fleet Air Arm’s own 700X NAS.

At the moment it is impossible to say if the LANCA (Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft) low-cost UCAV, which was sought last year in a call for proposals to industry, is part of this effort or a parallel development.

The UK, however, was already experimenting with unmanned loyal wingmen back in 2008, when a modified Tornado took control, in flight, of a BAC 1-11 modified to serve as UAV; plus 3 other simulated unmanned aircraft. There clearly has been an interest in the capability for many years, and this fits into the wider campaign of experimentation ran by UK industry, which includes of course TARANIS, but also the very interesting BAE MAGMA which replaces flaps, ailerons and other moving surfaces with blown air taken from the engine. In other words, there are the capabilities to put together some good capability.

The result might be something like the Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie intended to be used as part of the Low-Cost, Attritable Strike Unmanned Air System Demonstration for the USAF.

It will also be a step forwards on the way to unmanned companions for FCAS / TEMPEST. Replying to a House of Lords written question by Lord West on 14 february, Earl Howe wrote that “the combat air acquisition programme is looking at the replacement of Typhoon's capabilities and any new combat air system will need to be interoperable with the Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) programme. The concept phase of the acquisition programme will consider QEC basing for any unmanned force multipliers which may form part of the future combat air system.”

This reads as if the TEMPEST will not be carrier-capable (sadly, not a surprise and one of the reasons why the lack of catapults on the QE class remains regrettable) but the unmanned part of the future combat air system might be. This is very interesting, but it’s very early days and I’m somewhat skeptical still.

Williamson also mentioned a non-specified “VENOM kinetic strike capability” which is meant to give an attack capability to “ISTAR platforms”. UK Defence Journal says that, according to MOD sources, the platforms in question are the C-130J and the SHADOW R1 (soon to be R2 after the ongoing mid-life update programme).

The C-130J is not properly an ISTAR platform, but like the SHADOW R1 is commonly used in support to the Special Forces and there are several good options readily available for its armament.

It has now been confirmed that at least one C5 short-fuselage C-130 is being retained as part of the 14 that the RAF is going to keep in the long term. This is important because the tanking kit has only ever been installed on short-fuselage C-130s and might not be adaptable to the stretched ones. The HARVEST HAWK kit has been developed to equip short C-130s in tanker configuration (KC-130J). 

HARVEST HAWK originally swapped out one Air Refueling pod and replaced it with a quadruple launcher for Hellfire missiles. In addition, a palletized console is embarked into the cargo bay and a 10-cell launcher for GRIFFIN lightweight missiles was installed on the ramp. A TSS EO/IR turret is provided thanks to a modified external fuel tank. 

HARVEST HAWK evolution is continuing, however, and the USMC is replacing the TSS with a MX-20 EO/IR turret mounted under the nose, to restore the full fuel load. Moreover, with the Outer Wing Station 430 modification (OWS430), by 2020 they will have added two additional underwing pylons, doubling the capacity for externally-carried missiles while allowing the return of the Air Refueling pod. The new and improved HARVEST HAWK will restore 100% of its tanking potential while doubling its fire power at the same time. 

The missile launcher on the cargo ramp has been replaced by an enclosed launcher in a modified side door ("Derringer Door") which enables the launch of the missiles without requiring decompression and ramp opening. That also ensures that cargo capability is retained and requires less preparations before a mission. 

The USMC is also integrating the INTREPID TIGER II Electronic Warfare pod, while Hellfire will be replaced by JAGM. 

The RAF has only activated two pylons on its C-130J-30s so far, adding external fuel tanks to them in the last few years. 

In an ideal world, at least a second C5 should be retained and HARVEST HAWK kits, including AAR capability, should be procured for the pair. That would deliver a great firepower boost while also introducing in service a couple of tankers able to refuel helicopters. The Merlin HC4 is AAR capable and the Commando Helicopter Force wants to tap into that latent capability since extra range would obviously help a lot in all missions, including Joint Personnel Recovery.

Harvest Hawk in its original configuration. The 30mm gun pallet is on hold. 

The Special Forces are also known to want the capability, ideally on CHINOOK, and the SDSR 2015, in theory, promised them “longer range helicopters”.

Putting a couple of pylons and lightweight munitions such as MBDA’s VIPER-E on SHADOW R1 wouldn’t be difficult, either. But if I was in a position to make the choice, my priority would definitely be converting two C5 into KC-130Js and getting a pair of HARVEST HAWK kits for them at the same time.

PROTECTOR deserves a mention too, because we have recently been given the first official indication that maritime patrol capability could feature in the intended second batch (16 are on order, but there are 10 options as well and the stated intention remains to get to “at least 20”). Leonardo has showcased its SEASPRAY radar, which is ready for adoption on the centerline pylon (PROTECTOR will have 9 pylons overall, up from 5 on REAPER, or 7 counting the low-payload external ones, which in practice have never been used so far but would be good for, say, Sidewinder / ASRAAM). ULTRA is continuing work on its ASW sonobuoy-dispensing pods.

It is now contractually confirmed that PROTECTOR will be armed with Brimstone and Paveway IV and fitted with the Due Regard Radar, which was initially only going to be Fitted For But Not With. On the other hand, deliveries will happen later, and entry in service will arrive in 2023 rather than 2021, while the RAF is in the process of “decommissioning” one of its 10 Reapers. A curious development, might be because the UAV has suffered damage that is deemed not worthy to try and repair.

In his speech, Williamson briefly touched on the issue of Warrior upgrades, indirectly confirming that WCSP is going ahead. 2017 and 2018 have been tough and unpleasant years for the programme, which was called into serious question over the big delays accumulated (entry in service now to start in 2023 when it had once been 2018, then 2020…), but the ongoing trials at Bovington seem to have been positive enough that cancellation is no longer a possibility.  

A remotely operated, unmanned TERRIER was used to breach anti-tank obstacles during a demonstration ran by the US Army which also included unmanned M113s laying smoke to cover the action. The US Army is already seeking an Optionally Manned IFV for replacing Bradley. 

Also for the army, the Secretary remarked that he supports the fielding not just of unmanned logistic support vehicles, which have so far gotten most of the attention, but unmanned combat vehicles too.

At the latest AWE event, a WarriorIFV was converted into a remotely operated combat vehicle and I thinkt the demonstration opens up interesting possibilities. If I had to put my money on something in this area, it would be on surplus CRV(T) Scimitar to be converted in unmanned combat vehicles. Their insufficient protection would no longer be quite as concerning, while their awesome strategic and all-terrain mobility, as well as air mobility, would make them incredibly flexible in support of manned AFVs and infantry alike. The RARDEN is not a good weapon for an unmanned vehicle due to manual reloading and lack of stabilization, but there a few good options out there for replacing the turret and introduce an autocannon+missile combination that would be enormously capable.

Jordan's KADDB's proposal for upgunning CRV(T). Add remote control. The first British Army unmanned companion for much larger and less deployable manned AFVs? 

The Secretary also announced that funding will go towards equipping all infantry (including Royal Marines and RAF Regiment) with advanced night vision equipment which so far was reserved to Special Forces. This follows on similar decisions in the US and will go a long way in ensuring the Army can truly own the night. It could be argued that night vision is a major asymmetrical advantage over non-peer enemies, but that so far it hasn’t been exploited as much as it should have been. 

Some growth

In the coming months, 23 Amphibious Engineer Troop, in Germany, will be growing into a Squadron. Mothballed M3 rigs are being reactivated and the new ORBAT is being defined. With its M3 rigs, it will remain forward based in Germany, alongside its german counterpart and well positioned to continue training on the river Weser.

M3 rigs, british and german, in action during NATO exercises

This is also the year of the return of 28 Royal Engineer Regiment as a joint C-CBRN regiment is reformed after the idiotic SDSR 2010 cut. 28 RE Regt will take under command 77 Field Squadron, ex armoured squadron, which was part of 35 RE Regt until this converted into an EOD unit.

FALCON Sqn Royal Tank Regiment, with its FUCHS reconnaissance vehicles, will join the regiment in July.

27 Squadron RAF Regiment, the current CBRN specialist, will also join the new unit; 64 Headquarters & Support Squadron will form up this year and 42 Field Squadron will be re-established in 2020. There are also tentative plans for a reserve squadron to follow in 2022.

The Brigade of Gurkhas in particular is growing quickly to fill some gaps and help with the manpower deficit. This too is a U-turn on disastrous 2010 and 2011 choices. The Gurkhas now man Gurkha Company (Tavoleto) in its role of Training Support Company, part of the Specialist Weapons School at the Land Warfare Centre in Warminster.

Moreover, the Queen’s Own Gurkha Logistic Regiment is growing and two additional Gurkha sqns are appearing, one within 9 RLC Regt and one within 4 RLC Regt.

The Queen’s Gurkha Signals are growing by two squadrons as well, with 247 Sqn within 16 Signal Regt and 249 Sqn within 3 Divisional Signal Regiment.

The Queen’s Gurkha Engineers could also see growth in the near future. They have taken up significant roles within the ARRC support battalion, beginning in 2014 with the Close Support Troop and Engineer element.

What's a Type 31?

PART 1:  Are escort ships still up to their tasks?

The Seat of Purpose is on the Land. For British maritime power, the real focus of maritime strategy is on what you do once you have control of the sea; ‘the essence of maritime power is the ability to influence events on land’.

 This means that while sea control is essential, only the minimum level of effort, commensurate with the acceptable level of risk, should be employed in it. The rest of our resources should be used to influence events on land, both at, and from, the sea. This also requires sea control, of course, which enables the holder to use maritime power and, if required, denies an opponent that same ability. At sea, the military, diplomatic and economic impact will depend upon the opponent’s dependence upon the maritime

environment for its security and resilience; for many states sea dependency is growing. On land, the military, diplomatic and economic impact will depend upon the holder’s ability to influence its opponent from the sea; this influence could take a variety of forms from a low-level focused maritime blockade

(such as one focused on components for weapons of mass destruction), to an invasion of the opponent’s territory.

MOD Joint Concept Note 1-12 (JCN 1-12), dated May 2012

The promised second part of my reasoning on the future "Lighter Frigate" for the Royal Navy, apparently to be known as Type 31. My question, detailed in Part 1, is whether traditional escort designs can still do their intended job. Several developments suggest that they can't, or that at least they will not be able to do it in the near future. 

So the question becomes: what should Type 31 be? 

The answer, as we saw in Part 1, is "a ship meant to deploy a number of air, surface and sub-surface systems meant to expand its capabilities and allow her to survive, to protect other ships and to contribute to the widest possible range of missions.

Part 2 looks at some ship designs from around the world and details my proposal.

The two extremes

A growing number of designs, either built, planned or simply offered, are meant to embark and employ modular mission payloads. The list would includes vessels such as the American LCS, the Italian PPA, the Damen Crossover, the Black Swan concept, up to the Danish Absalon class.

The first observation to be made is that the importance of the modular payload varies from design to design: the capability of some ships depends almost entirely from the embarked payloads, while other vessels have a wide range of equipment which is only complemented and expanded by embarking payloads.

At the two extremes, we find Black Swan (entirely shaped by payloads) and the Absalom (a fully fledged and well armed warship which also offers a large cargo space). 

The Black Swan concept, which caused lengthy debates online when it was revealed a few years ago, was a deliberately provocative proposal which brought reliance on external payloads to the extreme. The briefing paper argues for the construction of “sloops-of-war” costing no more than 65 million pounds apiece; 2000 to 4000 tons in terms of size; built to commercial standards albeit capable of operations in marginal ice; armed extremely lightly, basically like a current River OPVs perhaps with the addition of a CIWS based on laser (once mature); crew as small as 8, with room for up to 60 more; low, extremely modest speed requirements to reduce costs and complexity; diesel-electric propulsion.

The Black Swan sloop is described as a mothership vessel which operates at stand off distances by sending unmanned systems in the contested, denied area. Its capabilities are entirely driven by the payload embarked and the ship is not meant to operate in isolation but in small groups (assumption is that 4 Black Swan plus mission payloads would be built for the cost of a traditional large escort vessel).

The Black Swan Concept

The Black Swan has a very basic sensors fit, and it is even described as having a rather basic communications fit, which feels contradictory and dubious since, depending on the force of the group and having to stay in constant two-way contact with multiple unmanned vehicles, the ship can be expected to have serious ICS and bandwidth needs.     

The notional design provided at the end of the briefing paper shows a 95 meters ship, a bit over the 3000 tons, with a core crew of 8 and space for 32 mission specialists, which would all live in SSN standard accommodations (HMS Astute being the benchmark). The payload would reach 400 tons and the requirement is for a volume equal to at least 20 containers. A large hangar (Merlin + rotary wing UAV) and a Chinook-capable flight deck complete the design. 

Black Swan Sloop

The design comes with a 600 square meters mission bay and a 370 square meters hangar bay. Each of the 20 containers on the mission deck is individually accessible and can be connected to ship services. A stern ramp for boats is provided aft, flanked by two container positions for modules that require direct access to the water, such as towed array modules.

The Black Swan is an extreme concept, which tries to ensure a large number of ships can be built, and that, however cheap, each is flexible and precious even in a high end warfighting scenario. However, the reliance on external systems is pushed to the extreme, and is arguably excessive. It will be very challenging (both technically and financially) to ensure that the Black Swan can constantly keep UAVs in the air to have sensors coverage and firepower at the ready. Costs will merely shift from the mothership to the vast array of UAVs and USVs and UUVs needed, especially since the authors seem to envisage particularly capable unmanned systems, able to strike enemy targets deep into contested space in a high end warfighting scenario.

Other evident bottlenecks are:

-          Power generation and supply. It is one thing to trade speed off to lower costs, but the mothership will have to provide power to its modular payloads, and this might require substantial amounts of electricity. It might be impossible to cut down the power generation.

-          Space. The tyranny of space imposes the choice of submarine-like accommodations for the crew, and reduces the space available for the specialist teams accompanying the unmanned systems. While they have no men in the cockpit, unmanned systems to this day remain far from “unmanned”, requiring a substantial crew back at the base for maintenance and mission control. We can assume that the systems will become more and more autonomous, but betting that 32 men will be enough for everything and specifying an 8 men core crew is very likely to lead to trouble. It will also put greater pressure on the unmanned systems, which will need to be much more autonomous and much more reliable, making their development riskier, more demanding and, inexorably, more expensive.

Of course, part of the Mission Deck could be used to add accommodation modules for extra personnel, but then the space for the systems is reduced, and finding the good balance might rapidly become challenging.

The Black Swan, in my opinion, chooses the wrong hull. I’d rather have fewer but larger motherships, individually more capable, than groups of small sloops. This because the availability of great space and weight margins greatly eases integration of new systems and evolution through life.

The LCS is just one step above the Black Swan, since it has relatively little capability unless it is carrying a specific mission package.

Much has been said of the LCS, a program which has repeatedly encountered serious difficulties and has thus gained a vast armada of haters which have by now poisoned the whole debate about their merits and shortcomings.

The critique I move to the LCS is that they are trying to be two things that do not mix too well: nimble, ultra-fast littoral “street fighters” and, at the same time, motherships.

The LCS ended up absorbing features of the “Street Fighter” ship envisaged in the 90s by Vice Adm. Art Cebrowski, head of the Naval War College. The “Street Fighter” was going to a cheap, small (less than 1000 tons), extremely fast and nimble, disposable ship meant to go in the littoral and fight off FACs and other anti-access threats in the challenging brown waters were, it was felt, the big Burkes would struggle badly.

In the early 2000s, under the tenure of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, small ships and “transformational” approaches to warfare gained traction. The LCS was born, and the navy began to work on a mission and on a design for them. The LCS grew quickly as a result, to over 3000 tons, and the requirements piled on it included replacing minesweepers and Perry frigates as well as fighting back FACs in the littoral by means of speed and maneuver. It is not what the original Street Fighter was meant to be, yet it insists on extremely high speed (even if a lot lower than what was wanted from Street Fighter). The compromises that have had to be built into the design as a consequence are the root cause of most of the trouble and of the skepticism that surrounds the ships.

They have large mission bays, but the mission package must weight no more than 105 tons, which is proving difficult. Growth margins are almost inexistent. Accommodations have had to be expanded as more men are required to accomplish the missions. Autonomy is not very good, as the ships are thirsty race horses. And their armament, EW and sensors fit limits their warfighting capability. 

The LCS ASW module. Ship-mounted torpedo tubes are not included. Even the Type 26 might not have ship-mounted torpedo tubes, but there is no definitive confirmation.

Somewhat predictably, the US Navy is now working to make some of the modular payloads permanent components of the ships, particularly in the “Fast Frigate” evolution of the LCS which will represent the last batch of ships to be built. Anti-ship missiles will be added, as will a proper EW outfit. The Fast Frigate will also permanently sport light guns and a towed array, instead of having to add them as modules.

The US Navy so far is refusing to accept the evidence that, if the LCS is to become more fighting capable, it needs a capable lightweight anti-air missile fit. They are putting considerable effort into adapting a vertically-launched Hellfire missile variant as an anti-FAC weapon instead, but if the Pentagon was a bit more open to adopting foreign products they could just buy into Sea Ceptor and use it to give the LCS both decent local area air defence and anti-surface strike capability. The impossibility to mount bulky MK41 launchers would not be a problem with Sea Ceptor… 

From LCS to "Fast Frigate", several bits cease to be add-ons and become permanent features.

The rest of the problems with LCS are due to the immaturity of the modular payloads. The development of the payloads started after that of the ship, and in a period in which unmanned vehicles were still somewhat primitive. But developments in the unmanned world are becoming faster and I’m convinced that the mission bay will allow the LCS to stay relevant in all missions.

The lack of weight margin, though, is a problem. It goes to reinforce my belief that if you are going to build a carrier, you must make sure it is actually built to carry stuff.

The Italian PPA (Pattugliatore Polivalente d’Altura, which could be translated as Multimission Oceanic Patrol) is a completely new design produced by the Italian Navy’s own projects office in collaboration with Fincantieri, that will build them. The PPA is an innovative ship, introducing new systems and new concepts and it is meant to replace several classes within the Italian navy, from the 2 Durand de la Penne destroyers (due to be de-classed to frigates due to the removal from service of their old air area defence weaponry, still using the Standard SM-1) to the Minerva class corvettes, the Soldati-class “patrol frigates”, the Minerva-class corvettes and the OPVs of the classes Costellazioni and Comandanti.

The ship is required to carry out a wide range of tasks which go from disaster relief to warfighting, and will be procured in multiple configurations. Curiously the expectation is that there will be 3 levels of fitting-out: Light, Light+ and Full. The Full will, obviously, be fitted at build with all sensors and weapons, while the Light+ will have an intermediate fit and predispositions to accept the missing systems as required. The Light will have no missiles and will come fitted-for-but-not-with only in some areas. 

The PPA will be a large vessel with an empty weight just short of 5000 tons, 143 meters in length, but slender due to a beam of “just” 16.5. They are also required to be pretty fast: a maximum sustained speed of 35 knots was originally envisaged, although it seems the requirement has been relaxed to 32.

The PPA is equipped with a complex propulsion system, in an “evolved” CODLAG arrangement: at slow speed, two electric motors will give a silent, fully electric propulsion up to 10 knots; the use of one Diesel will allow cruising up to 18 knots, while adding the second Diesel is meant to give a speed of 25 knots. Engaging the gas turbine allows to keep speeds higher than 31 knots. General Electric MV300 drives will be installed on the ships, allowing them to generate and send ashore 2 MW of power when stationary in port, converting the frequency from 50 to 60 hertz to allow smooth shore connections whatever the location. The capability to generate electricity and potable water are part of the requirements for Disaster Relief: it is intended that one PPA will be able to cater for the immediate needs of a disaster-struck town of 6000 people.

The autonomy figure seen so far merely says that 5000 nm is the minimum required, but the information available is still incomplete and sometimes uncertain as the design is still being finalized. 

PPA Full, profile. Copyright team Forum Difesa (http://difesa.forumfree.it)

In terms of sensors, the PPA is intended to carry a newly-developed Dual Band AESA radar by Selex, employing two sets of 4 fixed faces: one set, in C band, works as the long range volume search radar while the other set, X-band, tracks surface and air targets for engagement. At the moment it is expected that only the Full variant will have both installed.

A new IFF with a fixed, circular array for 360° coverage is part of the design as well as a 360° IRST.

The ships will be armed with a new variant of the 76/62 mm gun, the “Sovraponte”, a non-deck penetrating CIWS turret containing its own ammunition. It will fire the DAVIDE / Strales guided shells for anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-surface self defence. The main gun will instead be a 127/64 with a fully automated magazine and Vulcano guided, long-range ammunition.

Two 25mm light guns are provided for close range engagements.

The ship comes with two Sylver A50 modules giving 16 cells for Aster 15 and 30 missiles. The Full variant should come with space reservation for 16 more cells and the possibility of installing the A70 launchers in place of the A50, enabling the use of cruise missiles.

The missiles will be carried by the Full and Light+, while the Light will be fitted for but not with.

All ships will be able to accept 8 Teseo anti-ship missiles, although they are not expected to be installed at build, not even on the Full. 

The schemes as shown on television by the italian navy. The scheme suggests that 16 A50 cells and 16 A70 cells could be installed at the same time.

The PPA will have two mission spaces: one is located in the stern, under the flight deck, and includes one launch ramp for a boat, flanked by two spaces for container-sized payloads. On the Full, these two spaces will be used for a towed array sonar and for two 533mm Heavy Torpedo Tubes facing aft.

There is space for 5 containers or mission modules and two side openings are also part of the design: these doors will add flexibility to the procedure to deploy unmanned vehicles and will also serve as Rescue Zones for taking aboard shipwrecked migrants, a task which unfortunately is a daily occurrence for the Italian navy these days.

Another modular space is located amidship, on the weather deck, and can take another 8 containers and/or RHIBs and boats up to 15 meters. A powerful crane is provided to handle the boats and containers.

The crew varies from 90 in Light configuration to 171 for a Full with complete crew and embarked force element.

The PPA will have an innovative cockpit, similar to that found on aircraft. Sitting two men side by side, and using augmented reality in the glass windows, it is meant to ensure unparallel control over the platform, enabling the ship to be fought by as few as 4 men on bridge.

The large hangar can take one AW-101 or two NH-90 helicopters. 

Towed array module and Heavyweight torpedo tubes plus RHIBs and potentially unmanned ASW vehicles give the PPA Full a powerful array of anti-submarine capability. Heavyweight 533mm torpedoes are increasingly common in industry offers (see also the DAMEN CrossOver): looks like an admission of the fact that ship-launched 324mm light torpedoes are not a credible ASW weapon anymore.

The Italian navy has signed a contract for the construction of 7 PPA, with another 3 options to be exercised within 2021. The 8 ships on order are expected to be Light, Light, Light+, Full, Light+, Light+, Full. The options are for a Full, a Light, a Light+.

The Italian Navy has expressed a requirement for 16 PPA in total, which in addition to the 10 FREMM frigates would make for an impressive fleet. Whether so many will ever be effectively procured is far from certain. The PPA is not exactly cheap, although the first 7 vessels are expected to cost no more than 4 billion euro, including a 10-year logistic support contract. They come as part of a massive 5.4 billion “Navy Law” which the current chief of Navy staff, admiral De Giorgi, has been able to obtain by campaigning tirelessly for new ships to replace the aging equipment of the navy. Intended as merely the first step in the renewal programme, the Navy Law funds 7 PPA, 1 LHD (costing over one billion) and 1 Logistic Support Ship (around 400 million), plus two small, fast special forces support boats. 

The Augmented Reality cockpit with HUD functions

The PPA clearly leans more towards a traditional frigate, putting a lot of focus on the ship’s own sensors and weapons rather than on modular payloads. This is to be expected, since the Italian navy still hasn’t put much work into those. Cost is contained by realizing variants with a simplified combat system.

The approach of multiple sub-variants is not what the Royal Navy needs, but the ship remains a very interesting product in its own way.

The Absalon is the hybrid of a frigate and an LPD, so much so that the danes gave her a L rather than F or D pennant. It was not really thought out for operating with modular ASW systems, but rather to transport troops and vehicles, or modular hospitals or headquarters. The vast space available could be exploited with future systems of unmanned vehicles if a suitable launch and recovery system can be installed in the stern. The current gauntry crane for boats is just a beginning. It has an excellent fit of sensors and weapons but commercial standards and CODAD propulsion have allowed the danes to keep the costs down.

The large door has a ramp which can take even the weight of MBTs like Leopard 2. The smaller door allows a gauntry crane to launch and recover large boats.

The Damen Crossover is a proposed design that mates frigate and LPD, offering more flexibility than the Absalon in terms of embarking and deploying offboard equipment, thanks to a stern ramp and side doors. 

It could be an excellent starting point for the Royal Navy’s requirement, although the flexibility of the stern area does not appear to be quite matched by the flexibility of weapon options up front. The number of missile cells seems to stay low in all configurations and the largest gun offered is the 76mm.

Moreover, the fear is that, since it is really impossible politically to build the “Type 31” anywhere else other than on the Clyde, going with a Damen design would not enable cost control. Probably its cost would end up swelling a lot when construction is done in Govan and Scotstoun. 

DAMEN CrossOver brochure

CrossOver configurations

I also want to mention the proposed BMD ship based on the LPD-17 hull. This monster is definitely not cheap and not something the Royal Navy could or should pursue. But it is an impressive example of how missions traditionally associated with destroyers and cruisers can be transferred, with serious capability gains, on top of the most flexible of all naval assets: the amphibious ship. The Ballistic Missile Defence ship is armed with a rail gun on the bow, meant to engage even ballistic targets. An enormous 4-face radar, far larger than the one that can be installed on DDGs or even current cruisers, offers increased search, detect and track at longer ranges. The ship carries an amazing 288 missile cells in a multitude of MK41 modules arranged along the sides, in peripheral way. The well dock is enclosed and has been turned into a below-deck hangar, with aircraft lift sized for MV-22 Osprey. 

The impressive BMD ship is a derivative of the LPD-17 design. Of course, it is not cheap.

Adapting an LPD to a more generic, loosely defined escort mission against surface, air and sub-surface threats would actually be a very good solution. The problem, of course, is cost, as LPDs are not cheap. 

Or are they? 

Algeria has procured from Italy a "command vessel" which is "just" an evolution of the "Santi" (Saints) class of mini-LPDs the Italian Navy has been using for many years. 
This derivative built for Algeria keeps all of the amphibious capabilities of the LPD, but adds a FREMM-like mast with EMPAR radar; a 76mm gun and a battery of Aster 15 missiles for local area air defence. 2 light guns and a comprehensive fit of decoys and sensors complete the vessel, creating a sort of hybrid between a frigate and a LPD.
While not quite as cheap as we'd need Type 31 to be, it was still delivered for around 450 million euro, initial crew training included. That is an LPD costing less than a frigate. 

Being so small, the ship is somewhat limited. There is no separate hangar deck: the helicopters and the vehicles end up parked on the same deck, which ends with the well dock at the stern.

This profile by Ennr shows an italian San Giorgio LPD. The algerian ship is a derivative.

At 143 meters long and some 8000 tons, this ship is directly comparable to a Type 26 (actually, it is even shorter!) dimensions-wise. The crew is pretty large, suggesting a low reliance on automation (150 men are the given figure) and Algeria will be embarking up to 440 soldiers on them.
Two helicopter spots, a sizeable cargo deck and a well dock make it a very flexible asset, and an interesting solution worth being mentioned.

How much modularity?

Systems Not Platforms. Much as torpedoes, submarines and aircraft changed the face of maritime warfare in the last century, unmanned systems will do the same in the 21st Century. In the future, unmanned systems could help to provide a solution to maintaining a balanced fleet by matching the required capability to future threats, available resources and mandated tasks.

This future concept would concentrate investment in systems, rather than the ship, and a change in emphasis to one that does not see the ship as the fighting platform.

MOD Joint Concept Note 1-12 (JCN 1-12), dated May 2012

The Danish STANFLEX approach sought to make even weapons modular and rapidly swappable. However, its success has been somewhat limited: there is no real reason, nor any real gain to be obtained, by swapping weaponry modules on a mission by mission basis, especially since each weapon requires personnel trained and current on its employment. The STANFLEX modules continue to be employed, but their benefit has reduced to ease of installation. The ships are normally fitted with their gun and missile modules, and only lose them at the end of their service life or when a new, improved system can be added. The change can be expected to typically happen during a refit and then last for a long time. The benefit is thus mostly felt in building the warship and in recovering precious sub-systems from it at the end of its life, to move them rapidly across to another hull.

The truth is that any warship has a minimum set of capabilities that are basic requirements and never really go away. There is no real point in seeking modularity at all costs.

It seems wise to give the mothership, at a minimum:

-          Its own air defence missile battery, with the appropriate suite of sensors and EW that goes hand in hand with it and that ensures the ship can protect itself and other units in the area. For the moment there does not seem to be any advantage to be gained by trying to offload the anti-air missiles upon the “parasite” platforms deployed by the mothership.

-          A main gun, for naval gunfire support. A mission that has never gone away and that seems set for an actual rebirth in a few years time if the rail gun will keep its promises.

-          Light guns for close range self defence

The mothership ideally would also carry land-attack missiles (a fundamental part of “influencing events ashore”) and at least an hull mounted sonar for obstacle and mine avoidance at a minimum. Adding anti-ship missiles, while not strictly indispensable, would complete it.

These are the mission bits that are pretty much always needed and that are most difficult to transfer onto offboard solutions.

The Black Swan and, to a degree, the LCS chose to simply ignore these requirements, leading to units that have serious survivability and capability gaps.

The Absalom and the PPA, and the CrossOver to a degree, come with the necessary “fixed” bits of capability installed on the mothership. Their approach is to be preferred: there is nothing in sight that suggests that unmanned vehicles will be able to provide distributed air defence in the near future, nor is it clear if it would be actually advantageous to try and do so. Years ago, the Skunk Works created the stealth ship, a Small Water Area Twin Hull vessel with a low RCS, great stability and good speed. The idea they put forwards was to lead it with 64 Patriot missiles and use it as an alternative or at least a complement to Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Exploiting stealth, the ship would sail hundreds of miles up threat, ahead of a carrier air group, and shoot down incoming air targets.

The prototype, the Sea Shadow, was a 560 tons vessel, 70 feet wide, and had no weapons aboard. The idea was fascinating, but it eventually did not materialize. The Sea Shadow was used for trials and tests and for RCS studies at sea, and ended up scrapped in 2012.  

The Sea Shadow at sea. In his memories, Ben R. Rich, then director of the Skunk Works, explains that the concept for an operational Sea Shadow derivative was to carry 64 Patriot SAMs and sail up-threat to form a stealthy SAM screen ahead of a carrier battlegroup. The stealthness of the vessel was meant to allow it to target the launching aircraft (especially the russian bombers, given that we were in the late 70s and early 80s), rather than the anti-ship missiles, like Aegis. According to Rich, during tests the problem was that the Sea Shadow ended up being too stealthy, and looked like a suspicious black hole in the background radar noise caused by the waves. The problem was eventually solved, but the Sea Shadow never progressed into the air defence ship that the Skunk Works office had imagined.

Much as aircraft allow an aircraft carrier to remain at range from an engagement, so will unmanned systems for the future warship. This means that the investment needs to be in the weapon systems, manned or unmanned, rather than the ship. While crew survivability is important, money should not be wasted on the ship. Instead it should be designed along cheaper commercial lines.

MOD Joint Concept Note 1-12 (JCN 1-12), dated May 2012

Distributing air defence on “small” stealthy offboard “systems” (boats / mini-ships) would have merits and seems to be what the authors of the Black Swan study bet on for the future. However, missiles are large and require a big platform. One big enough that it would have to deploy directly from the port, rather than be carried by a mothership (unless it is a big, dedicate Float On, Float Off transport!). Is it doable? Is it financially feasible? Isn’t it a needless complication? Won’t it end up requiring many small crews, which summed up will amount to even more manpower than needed for large “traditional” warships? What impact would it have on naval base infrastructures? The placement of adequate sensors on such a launching platform would also be challenging. So, for the “visible” future at least, I think evolution, rather than revolution, is to be preferred. While unmanned, distributed MCM and ASW are rapidly becoming a reality, air defence and anti-surface don’t yet show signs of major change, and pressing on with revolutions at all costs will immediately kill any hope of keeping the costs of the programme down.

The mothership should as a consequence come with the basic bits installed; yet with vast space available for “offboard systems”, intended in the widest possible sense, to include manned helicopters and boats and embarked troops.

At the same time, cost must be kept low. Impossible?

Maybe. But what about working with container ships?

Return of the escort carrier?

The future sloop-of-war will be more akin to an aircraft carrier, or an amphibious ship (albeit on a much smaller and less sophisticated scale), providing command, hotel services, maintenance facilities and a taxi service for a range of unmanned and manned systems. These systems would be deployed in the form of a range of capability packages that can be added to the ship to meet its required tasks.

MOD Joint Concept Note 1-12 (JCN 1-12), dated May 2012

A US Navy project gives us the latest visualization of the kind of capability that can be squeezed out of a containership if it is modified in the right way. The ship in question happens to be almost a twin sister of the Point class RoRo ships the MOD already uses, making it a particularly interesting example. The MV Cragside is being transformed in a “maritime support vessel” able to support an embarked force of 207 in addition to the crew, with an endurance of at least 45 days, a range of at least 8000 miles and the capability to keep a 20 knots transit speed for at least 5 days and transit at least 3000 nm in Sea State 5. The ship is being given the equipment to simultaneously launch and recovery 4 large boats (12.5 meters); a flight deck with 2 MH-60 spots and clearance to handle single spot CH-53, MV-22 and Chinook operations. A two-bay hangar is being added, sized to take MH-60 helicopters of the special forces (folding rotor, but no folding tail boom and refueling probe adding some to the length). Aircraft maintenance spaces, storage spaces, a workout area and mission planning rooms thought for the need of special forces (including secrecy requirements) are being added to the ship. Receiving stations for fuel and stores delivered via RAS and VERTREP are being provided, and the ship will be used to refuel the boats it deploys.

8 large boats plus 4 jet skis, 4 Zodiacs and one 10 meter craft are required to be carried, next to the launch and recovery davits.

The ship is required to have 4 separate fueling stations for aviation and another four for embarked crafts and vehicles, to be provided eventually employing containerized systems and filtering tanks protected by steel armor. The requirement includes carrying 150.000 gallons of JP-5.

Obviously, ample space for stores and spare parts is specified.

A medical space with 10 beds and 2 surgical tables and supports is also part of the project.

So is a full facility for the need of divers.

Built in 2011, the MV Cragside is owned by Maersk, and the US Sealift Command is buying her services on an annual basis. A first contract, worth 73 million USD, was placed to acquire her and have her modified for the new role. 

Maritime Support Vessel Requirements

The only photo I’ve found showing MV Cragside being re-built for the new role shows the massive enlargement of the original superstructure, the addition of the flight deck above what was the original top cargo deck and the construction of the large two-bay hangar. Large openings have been cut in the side walls of the top cargo deck, suggesting that the boats will be carried and deployed mostly from there.

The extent of the modifications is impressive, and so is the array of capabilities that the MSV will offer.

Photos by The ferry site. The MV Cragside is extremely similar to the Point ships. The base design is exactly the same.

The MV Cragside being rebuilt for her new role. Note the huge block of extra superstructure aft; the two-bay hangar forward, the flight deck added on top and the large openings in the now otherwise fully enclosed upper deck.

What if the “lighter frigate” was replaced by modern day escort carriers, built upon the Point class RoRo basic design?

There is a lot of space available, which would enable installation of a rail gun on the bow even if several containers of below-deck power storage equipment were required. A Flight deck would be added like on the Cragside, but instead of the two-bay hangar I would recommend a lift leading down to the Main Deck, which would become the main mission space of the ship. Its aft half would be mainly devoted to unmanned surface and sub-surface vehicles, while the first half could serve as the hangar. This deck is 6.8 meters high, the tallest on the ship, and would enable comfortable storage of any helicopter.

The lift should be large (say, 22 meters long, for full compatibility even with folded MV-22 Ospreys), but if installed perpendicularly, it would still leave a 60 meters flight deck, only marginally shorter than that of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which means that simultaneous operations of even two Chinooks should be possible.

Like on the Cragside, the enclosed deck obtained beneath the flight deck could take the RAS rigs, the davits and the ship’s manned boats plus the spaces for their maintenance.

MK41 launcher modules could be fitted along the sides, in a peripheral arrangement, like on the proposed BMD ship or DDG-1000 destroyers. This should help maximize survivability. The depth is not a problem, as even the strike-length modules would have plenty of room. Sea Ceptor canisters would be even easier to integrate, if, as it is very likely, that turned out being the most the MOD would fund. Ideally, as we saw in the first part of this discourse, a longer range and heavier surface to air missile would be required to make the ship a true escort. Sea Ceptor is good mostly for self-defence and even in that role the short range missiles like it are probably going to become less and less effective as faster and faster sea-skimming anti-ship missiles appear.

An integrated sensor mast would be added to provide the necessary sensors, and an EW and decoy fit would also have to be factored in.

Point class Ro-Ro ships

The Point class has a service speed of around 22 knots, which is not bad, and can travel 10.000 miles. It has also some capability in marginal ice and comes with enhanced stability and VERTREP clearances. Having been built with the MOD service in mind, they were given some extras right at build.

More power might be required, not for additional speed but for feeding all the new systems and the embarked modules.

Finally, a large and flexible launch and recovery system would have to be built in the stern. Using a wet dock is out of the question: it would require a costly redesign and would be a constant source of maintenance requirements. What is needed is a ramp leading to a “dry dock” system able to push-out and pull-in boats and unmanned vehicles also of important dimensions, as might be the future ASW drones that will give this novel “escort carrier” its wide-area anti-submarine capability. 

The Point class can carry a lot of stuff. It has vast, empty, strong decks which can take a lot of weight. There is much that can be done with a Point as the starting base.

The possibilities of such a vessel would be great and would cover requirements going from disaster relief to convoy escort, passing even by strategic sealift. It should be possible to keep the costs within acceptable values, and survivability would not necessarily be bad, even with the built happening at commercial standards: size has a survivability value in itself, and once adapted for her new role the ship would be separated in areas and compartments, rather than being made of completely open decks from bow to stern.

The MOD intends to soon award the contracts for the first prototype unmanned MCM system, jointly with France. What everyone is hoping is that the modular, unmanned systems for hunting, sweeping and clearing minefields will make it possible to migrate the MCM role to larger, steel-hulled ships. The US Navy is already going that way with LCS, while the Royal Navy has been forced to push the OSD of current minesweepers well to the right, and no new ship is expected before 2028.

If the MCM system of systems will keep its promises, the family of unmanned systems could well find its seabase on the “escort carrier”, removing the need for a separate, smaller class of motherships.

The “merchant escort carrier” could also be fitted out as a perfect replacement for RFA Argus, in both the auxiliary aviation and joint casualty receiving roles. This would reduce the number of separate programmes to be launched, and would release more funding for building a few more “escort carriers”, helicopters, unmanned systems and for resurrecting the Force Protection Craft effort of the Royal Marines. Imagine an Escort Carrier stationing just outside the brown waters, with its long-range missiles and its embarked helicopters, deploying and covering from behind a squadron of Royal Marines with their Force Protection Craft. It is a better way to control the Littorals then sending a “light frigate” or an LCS and engage in evolutions with smaller, faster FIACs which could still prove to be a problem. It influences a much greater area, too. 

I'm clearly not a naval engineer, but images are the best way to quickly explain an idea. This little graphic shows the general idea behind the Point Escort Carrier.

MHPC was initially going to deliver “OPV-like” motherships with some utility in constabulary tasks in addition to their main role of seabase for MCM and hydrographic unmanned vehicles.

Clearing a minefield in a contested area from a platform of that kind would be little better than doing it from a current minesweeper: intimate protection should be provided by well armed warships.

The Escort Carrier could have what it takes to protect itself while its drones accomplish the mission at stand-off distance.

The flexibility of the “Escort Carrier” is, in my mind, the real manifestation of the escort, and of the “general purpose” warship. You can find a good use for it in pretty much any scenario, from disaster relief to ASW hunting (provided, of course, that ASW unmanned boats and underwater vehicles receive investment over time) all the way to amphibious operations.