"Royal Navy: Compare and Contrast... " Topic

HMS Clyde (2005)

2000 tonnes, speed 21 knots, range 7800 nautical miles
1 x 30mm cannon, 2 x miniguns, 5 x GPMGs + helideck

HMS Matabele (1939)

c. 2000 tonnes, speed 36 knots, range 5700 nautical miles
8 x 120mm guns, 1 quad 2-pdr AA, 2 quad .50 AA, 4 torpedo tubes, 20 depth charges

All figures from wiki, and sorry if this is a bit like Top Trumps.

My points is:
Matabele strikes me as a much more potent vessel than Clyde. The lack of a helideck is really the only downside it has, and I assume that Matabele is blessed with some sort of armour (unlike Clyde). Also, Matabele had a much larger crew which would be costly (though a modern rebuild would have automation), and does not have the radar / sensors of Clyde.

So would not the modern-day RN be better served building patrol ships which are something more akin to Matabele – perhaps losing a turret to permit a helideck, and adding decent sensors?

Matabele could go into harms way in the Gulf (for example) in a way which Clyde could not, and it's fire power is an order of magnitude more impressive.

I assume I am missing something.

We've got the same thing going on here.

WWII PT boats and some post-war Fast Attack Craft armed with missiles, light guns, torpedoes, etc., from the Cold War were much better armed, on hulls in some cases 1/10th the size of the newer replacements, like on the new LCS (AKA Little Crappy Ship).

Of course, the much less capable vessels cost far more, too.

Doesn't say much about naval procurement and planning, does it?

Well one is a WW2 destroyer and the other an off shore patrol vessel.

The helicopter option is the ace up the sleeve.

I think you are hung up on weight. The Clyde is not a patrol vessel. It's an apples vs. oranges discussion. Matablee would never have been used as a shore patrol vessel. Don't forget that the helicopter can carry missiles, and see far over the horizon.

Wouldn't this be a more apt comparison?

HMS Clyde vs. link

I'm not sure I am hung up on anything, and if the Clyde is not a patrol vessel, I don't know what it is? The reason I mentioned weight is that (unlike the steam gun boat which was only a tenth the displacement of Clyde, but still managed to mount far more weaponry), the Clyde and the Matabele are of comparable displacement, but the armament of the former is almost non-existent. Matabele clearly shows how much firepower one can deploy on a ship that size.

One can say that a patrol vessel does not need a lot of armament, but I don't see that today's tiny RN can afford to be so picky – vessels should be capable of doing various roles. And any warship, whatever its role, is better if it has more firepower than less. Simplistic? Perhaps – but perfectly logical too.

My point is that I feel the RN would be better off building things LIKE (not exactly the same as) a WW2 destroyer than things like the Clyde to act as guard ships / do patrol work / anti-piracy etc – basically things to free up the Frigates and Destroyers and to show the flag.

Neither Clyde nor Matabele would last long if we were at war with (eg) Russia, but I am pretty sure which would be the more useful vessel in smaller scale conflicts.

I agree that the helicopter is a bit of a game changer (indeed, I mentioned it), but I don't think one is permanently assigned to Clyde – it only appears to have a helideck, not a hanger? (I stand to be corrected). I doubt it carries much in the way of fuel for a chopper, or replacement armament?
And as I said, a modernised Matabele could always have a helideck in place of one of the aft turrets.

I cannot see why that would not be a more worthwhile vessel than the River Class boats.

Not sure if there is any progress on the proposed 'Black Swan – Sloop of War' project, but hopefully someone will consider this, rather than them ending up as a 2000 tonne ship with a single 20mm cannon.

Sorry, I meant the Matabele is not a patrol vessel.

A patrol vessel is not a destroyer and a destroyer is not a patrol vessel. A modernized Matabele is a Type 45 Destroyer.

My point was that despite their comparable size, they are very different vessels built for very different purposes.

Heavily armed destroyers make excellent patrol vessels, since they have the firepower to go into harms way and survive, unlike some "patrol vessels" which may lose an argument to a bunch of scurvy pirates in a rusty fishing boat.

One can say that a patrol vessel does not need a lot of armament, but I don't see that today's tiny RN can afford to be so picky – vessels should be capable of doing various roles. And any warship, whatever its role, is better if it has more firepower than less. Simplistic? Perhaps – but perfectly logical too.

Makes for very expensive ships.

Look at the Arleigh Burke class DDGs: Armed and equipped to do everything from AAW to inland strike, each ship costs almost 2 billion dollars to build. Granted, they're also 500ish feet long and 9200 tons. But they're still $20,000 USD per ton.

You need to compare weapon types. The Matabele has one self-defense AA system, four anti-capital-ship launchers, four general-purpose turrets (which all fire at one target, IIRC), and an ASW system.

The other thing to point out is range. The Clyde has 50% greater range than the Matabele. This means that you need more fuel, more food, and more crew space. All of that takes up space that was used for ammunition in the Matabele.

The modern ship closest to a WW2 destroyer is the Israeli Saar-5 class. It has a small AA battery of 16 SAMs (which may have some secondary anti-ship capability), 8 anti-capital-ship launchers, a self-defense AA system, and an ASW system.

Tribal class DD's in WW2 were optimized for surface warfare. Generally they were poor anti-air vessels as the 4.7" mains were not useful as a DP weapon and the limited endurance and relatively weak ASW load made them not very useful for convoy escort. They were not a very flexible ship except for fighting other vessels. I would also bet on a much bigger crew thus much more expensive to run.

I am assuming for an offshore patrol vessel the ideal is low cost both initial purchase and operating costs, high endurance and just enough weaponry to stop low level threats. Automation allows for smaller crews but so does less gear, offensive and defensive. An OPV is more comparable to a coast Guard cutter than a, in current terms, light to medium weight combat vessel.

I am also assuming that the RN has missions that they do not want an expensive ship with a large crew doing and that floating off the coast of Somalia chasing guys in small speedboats or arguing fish catch in the North Sea is better handled by a habitable, small crewed, long endurance ship that doesn't cost a ton to run and doesn't need to fight a real navy.

I can see both sides of this, but tend to agree with Imperium and Mako11

Of course, cost is a big factor when building any ship, but patrol craft like Clyde could be a lot more heavily armed and armoured without straying anywhere near Arleigh Burke territory in this regard. At the moment, it is difficult to know what the Falkland Islands guard ship can really 'guard' against. But a 2000 tonne ship with a couple of 4.5" turrets and a phalanx system (plus smaller weapons) with armour which can withstand a 0.50 cal would be a much more potent vessel and one which would (I think) be a lot more useful / flexible without breaking the bank.

In terms of range, Imperium did not mention that Matabele's range was actually 6,600Nm at 15 knots – so suddenly Clyde does not have such a big advantage there either. I have no doubt that Clyde is a much more comfortable vessel than Matabele was, and there are all sorts of iPod docking stations etc – maybe that money should be going into armour / weapon systems instead… or maybe that's the old infantryman in me talking.

More generally, the RN does seem to have a long history of under-arming her ships. Obviously cost is a major consideration, but it reminds me of the old saying: 'to spoil a battleship for a tuppeth of tar'. When (eg) a GBP300m ship is sinking, suddenly that phalanx system seems like it might have been quite a good investment.

What you want to compare the Clyde to is the Bougainville class of Avisos in the French Navy:
1969 tons, speed 17 knots, range 7600 nautical miles
3*127mm guns, 4*37mm AA guns, 6*13.2mm MG's, 50 naval mines

Keep in mind that the rate of fire and accuracy of guns has gone up since WW2, part of the reason ships have fewer is that they need fewer to get the job done. The other part is that guns are no longer the primary weapon for just about anything: Helos for ASW, SAM for AAW and SSM for ASuW. Guns are what you use for shore bombardment and when your missile mags are empty.

My personal preference for a patrol combat craft would be for something like the A69 class see link
For range, tonnage and crew
However – lack of a helicopter deck, hangar and modern CIWS is IMO a serious deficiency for a combat patrol vessel.
Not sure about its sea keeping – but the Argentine ones operated out to South Georgia… Bad sea keeping degrades human and material effectiveness.
Good for it role is
Max speed 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph)
Range: at 15 knots (28 km/h): 4500 nautical miles (8000 km),
at 18 knots (33 km/h) : 3000 nautical miles (5500 km)

@David: I prefer the Saar 5 class, but it needs a real gun in addition to the CIWS.

They are nice
link
The Sa'ar 6 also looks interesting

Both the Saar 5 and the A69 seem to be better options than the Clyde, in my opinion.

A cross between all three would be the best: losing the missiles of the Saar 5 would keep cost down, but a CIWS and proper heli facilities seem logical. Also, a decent turret like the A69 mounts would be the way forward – 4.5" or something.

So I would propose a patrol craft of roughly 2000 tonnes (to help endurance / habitability), a 4.5" / 5" gun system, CIWS plus smaller weapons, proper heli-facilities, armoured against .50 cal.

Surely it can't be that unrealistic a proposal?

How about a modernised Leander class such as…
link

But…. The crew is too big… Operating cost would be too high :-(

The River Class are essentially just fishery patrol vessels. Just how recalcitrant do you expect Spanish sea-hoover skippers to be?

True. But the point is that a more capable (yet still relatively cheap and cheerful) Patrol Boat could be a lot more useful – service in the Gulf, for example.

At the moment, it seems to me that the RN has nothing between their virtually unarmed Patrol Boats and their over-stretched Frigate / Destroyer fleet. To my mind, it thus makes sense to have a class of vessels which can take the load off the latter, and can still go into a low-intensity warfare situation and not come unstuck.

Yes – that is sort of what I was driving at (in a very inelegant way).

Why pay (eg) GBP50m for a ship which can do virtually nothing, instead of paying (eg) GBP80m for a ship which is an order of magnitude more useful.

If all that is needed is a coast guard cutter, maybe the Falkland Islands Government can just buy a decent Fishing Trawler and put a 20mm cannon on it.