UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 08 Oct 2019, 18:32

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Image
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Repulse wrote:Looks like 12 SeaCeptor VLS tubes to me... the let down begins.
Agree, looks like 12 CAMM. Interesting.
Not sure it is "critical" or not, but it does show how limited the resource is (with no surprise).
A corvette armament on a Frigate hull. Pretty consistent with its cost.

But,

I will again propose to make first 2 of the 5 T31 to be without CAMM, while making the other 3 to be 24 CAMM equipped. As omitting the CAMM system as a whole in the first 2, this "2 with 0 and 3 with 24" split buy will be even cheaper than "12 each on all the 5 T31".

Actually, this idea follows the original BMT document of "efficient" escort building.

Basic idea is to
- forward deploy 2 of the 3 "24 CAMM" T31.
- keep active for training and FRE 2 of the 3 remaining T31 (2 "no CAMM" and 1 "24 CAMM"), around British water.
- One always at long maintenance.

The rotating crew training in British water will use the "no CAMM" T31, but train with CAMM simulator, so no problem. The 2 forward deployed T31 with 24 CAMM (enough CAMM) can join the task-force when needed.

Good point of this plan is to clarify, "T31 armament is not fully funded" to the audience. Lack of primary self-defense SAM will be catchy evidence for it. "No CAMM T31" can do Russian fleet escorting, all HADR tasks, and even visit South Atlantic nations. It is not good for NATO escort fleet, but may go join MCM fleet.

[ADD] So, it is virtually making "2 super Floreal-class surveillance Frigates" and "3 super LaFayette-class light frigates". The two "no CAMM version" will carry 2x 20mm CIWS in place as a requirement (ref T31e RFI), so it is well armed than Floreal. French Floreal-class has proven to be efficient and powerful asset in low threat area, a class of asset RN completely lacks. If the money saved by them is large enough, I can even imagine the latter three "24 CAMM version" be added with a hull sonar. It will be much more powerful than modified French LaFayette class.


I do really like this idea, but I could hear the headlines - NEW RN FRIGATES WITH NO MISSILES !!!

Would it work better the other way round, or the first 2 with 24 x CAMM then 1 x no CAMM, with then without?

I agree 12 x CAMM does seem low for a ship they want to potentially escort the carriers as well, maybe they are ear marking the saved space for some MK 41 VLS at a future date like on the T45....

tomuk
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 08 Oct 2019, 19:52

serge750 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Image
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Repulse wrote:Looks like 12 SeaCeptor VLS tubes to me... the let down begins.
Agree, looks like 12 CAMM. Interesting.
Not sure it is "critical" or not, but it does show how limited the resource is (with no surprise).
A corvette armament on a Frigate hull. Pretty consistent with its cost.

But,

I will again propose to make first 2 of the 5 T31 to be without CAMM, while making the other 3 to be 24 CAMM equipped. As omitting the CAMM system as a whole in the first 2, this "2 with 0 and 3 with 24" split buy will be even cheaper than "12 each on all the 5 T31".

Actually, this idea follows the original BMT document of "efficient" escort building.

Basic idea is to
- forward deploy 2 of the 3 "24 CAMM" T31.
- keep active for training and FRE 2 of the 3 remaining T31 (2 "no CAMM" and 1 "24 CAMM"), around British water.
- One always at long maintenance.

The rotating crew training in British water will use the "no CAMM" T31, but train with CAMM simulator, so no problem. The 2 forward deployed T31 with 24 CAMM (enough CAMM) can join the task-force when needed.

Good point of this plan is to clarify, "T31 armament is not fully funded" to the audience. Lack of primary self-defense SAM will be catchy evidence for it. "No CAMM T31" can do Russian fleet escorting, all HADR tasks, and even visit South Atlantic nations. It is not good for NATO escort fleet, but may go join MCM fleet.

[ADD] So, it is virtually making "2 super Floreal-class surveillance Frigates" and "3 super LaFayette-class light frigates". The two "no CAMM version" will carry 2x 20mm CIWS in place as a requirement (ref T31e RFI), so it is well armed than Floreal. French Floreal-class has proven to be efficient and powerful asset in low threat area, a class of asset RN completely lacks. If the money saved by them is large enough, I can even imagine the latter three "24 CAMM version" be added with a hull sonar. It will be much more powerful than modified French LaFayette class.


I do really like this idea, but I could hear the headlines - NEW RN FRIGATES WITH NO MISSILES !!!

Would it work better the other way round, or the first 2 with 24 x CAMM then 1 x no CAMM, with then without?

I agree 12 x CAMM does seem low for a ship they want to potentially escort the carriers as well, maybe they are ear marking the saved space for some MK 41 VLS at a future date like on the T45....


If that was the plan wouldn't it make sense to have the missile silo (and even the gun) in a stanflex module. Buy three silo modules and fit to whichever hulls are deployed.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 08 Oct 2019, 20:48

tomuk wrote:If that was the plan wouldn't it make sense to have the missile silo (and even the gun) in a stanflex module.


Not worth it, the CAMM VLS is just a bit of metal bashing to hold CAMM container/launchers. Cheap.

Also the idea of having sub-classes of Type 31's with some with air defense and some not, is daft. There's only 5 ships total. With tiny fleet numbers, all have to be multi-purpose.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 08 Oct 2019, 21:13

I know people will wish for more cash to kit out the T31, but personally cannot see this being a top priority given other demands on the budget. We need to make sure that our “conventional CSG big stick” is kitted out.

That’s the real shame for me for the T31, it will be a short run class promising “jam tomorrow”.

Even now it’s not too late to revisit another T26 and a 10+ class of MHPCs - remember the Venator 80, that had a 12 cell CAMM silo also :D
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 466
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 08 Oct 2019, 21:53

Ron5 wrote[quote]Also the idea of having sub-classes of Type 31's with some with air defense and some not, is daft. There's only 5 ships total. With tiny fleet numbers, all have to be multi-purpose.

Unless there is an intention for a second/ & possibly third batch of 5 further down the line. Shades of ASW/ASuW/AAW Type 12 Leanders. It would keep the cost per hull lower and would keep up Escort numbers sooner and potentially provide more "Escort Vessels" in the longer term.

Not ideal but ............ !

cky7
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cky7 » 08 Oct 2019, 22:53

I don’t understand why everyone is so optimistic about type 31. Yes, were the ideas people here have talked about (off board systems, USVs, UUVs, compact towed sonars and a decent hull sonar etc) to come to fruition they could be useful vessels. The thing is I don’t see any evidence to support any of this actually happening though. They’ve pulled the jam tomorrow ruse on us before and I fear they’re doing the same again. I really hope I’m wrong but the most likely scenario I see is a way for the govt to claim they’ve still provided 13 frigates when really 5 of them will end up being distinctly second rate - ie nothing more than what has actually been officially confirmed. Hoping for anything more has been a painful exercise in total disappointment every occasion I can remember in U.K. defence procurement. Why apart from wishful thinking should this be any different. IMO we need 13 full fat type 26 with improved radar, ARTISAN is not good enough when not under the umbrella of the tiny number of 6 type 45s. Having 5 type 31s with all the great ideas being muted would then give us the building blocks of a decent fleet (though other areas still need urgent attention).

Our defences are in a dire state and I don’t see any evidence to suggest this is going to change any time in the near future. I’d love to be excited and optimistic but don’t see any thing that supports this, just more govt and MOD spin. :( :(

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 09 Oct 2019, 00:28

Ron5 wrote:.. Also the idea of having sub-classes of Type 31's with some with air defense and some not, is daft. There's only 5 ships total. With tiny fleet numbers, all have to be multi-purpose.
Not sure.

Full-fat frigate (FREMM/T26), light-frigate (M-class/ANZAC/LaFayette), and surveillance-frigate (Floreal-like).

T31 with 12 CAMM and gun is still very short of a light frigate. It is a corvette's armament, the same to that of Khareef-class. On the other hand, T31 with no CAMM but with CIWS is far below a light-frigate, but is much better than Floreal-class as a surveillance-frigate. And, surveillance-frigate has its own place. Floreal has proven it by showing up in many (low threat) operations representing France.

In addition, only two “no CAMM T31”, combined with crew rotation plan with forward deployed ships mean, one of their major task will be training, and they will be busy.

The 24 CAMM T31 will be somewhere "near" the light frigate. It is not AAW oriented, just a light frigate with no ASW capability.

By the way, I am not proposing a sub-class, which will cost to design. My point is just making the main armament FFBNW in the first two, and all the other systems to be the same.

So, 2 surveillance-frigates and 3 light-frigates, coming out of the same design, with one big FFBNW or "24 CAMM". This is my proposal.
cky7 wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is so optimistic about type 31. Yes, were the ideas people here have talked about (off board systems, USVs, UUVs, compact towed sonars and a decent hull sonar etc) to come to fruition they could be useful vessels. The thing is I don’t see any evidence to support any of this actually happening though. They’ve pulled the jam tomorrow ruse on us before and I fear they’re doing the same again. I really hope I’m wrong but the most likely scenario I see is a way for the govt to claim they’ve still provided 13 frigates when really 5 of them will end up being distinctly second rate - ie nothing more than what has actually been officially confirmed. Hoping for anything more has been a painful exercise in total disappointment every occasion I can remember in U.K. defence procurement. Why apart from wishful thinking should this be any different. IMO we need 13 full fat type 26 with improved radar, ARTISAN is not good enough when not under the umbrella of the tiny number of 6 type 45s. Having 5 type 31s with all the great ideas being muted would then give us the building blocks of a decent fleet (though other areas still need urgent attention)....
Agree. T31 does not diserve the name of a frigate. It is a frigate for bean counters. And, future growth will not be committed. As you said, there are so many fields waiting for investments, in RN and in all UK military.

This is one of the reason I propose to bias the armaments within the 5. "Frigates without missile", important claim. No, it is not a frigate. It is a surveillance-frigate as Floreal-class. Much better called as sloop (regardless of its large hull and "goodish" outlook.)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Oct 2019, 01:50

Scimitar54 wrote: Shades of ASW/ASuW/AAW Type 12 Leanders.
Should we build Dutch Leanders straight from the outset?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Oct 2019, 04:40

cky7 wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is so optimistic about type 31. Yes, were the ideas people here have talked about (off board systems, USVs, UUVs, compact towed sonars and a decent hull sonar etc) to come to fruition they could be useful vessels. The thing is I don’t see any evidence to support any of this actually happening though. They’ve pulled the jam tomorrow ruse on us before and I fear they’re doing the same again. I really hope I’m wrong but the most likely scenario I see is a way for the govt to claim they’ve still provided 13 frigates when really 5 of them will end up being distinctly second rate - ie nothing more than what has actually been officially confirmed. Hoping for anything more has been a painful exercise in total disappointment every occasion I can remember in U.K. defence procurement. Why apart from wishful thinking should this be any different. IMO we need 13 full fat type 26 with improved radar, ARTISAN is not good enough when not under the umbrella of the tiny number of 6 type 45s. Having 5 type 31s with all the great ideas being muted would then give us the building blocks of a decent fleet (though other areas still need urgent attention).

Our defences are in a dire state and I don’t see any evidence to suggest this is going to change any time in the near future. I’d love to be excited and optimistic but don’t see any thing that supports this, just more govt and MOD spin. :( :(


Except for the Artisan comment, I'm very much in agreement. It's what you get when the Treasury runs Defense. BS.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Oct 2019, 04:47

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:.. Also the idea of having sub-classes of Type 31's with some with air defense and some not, is daft. There's only 5 ships total. With tiny fleet numbers, all have to be multi-purpose.
Not sure.

Full-fat frigate (FREMM/T26), light-frigate (M-class/ANZAC/LaFayette), and surveillance-frigate (Floreal-like).

T31 with 12 CAMM and gun is still very short of a light frigate. It is a corvette's armament, the same to that of Khareef-class. On the other hand, T31 with no CAMM but with CIWS is far below a light-frigate, but is much better than Floreal-class as a surveillance-frigate. And, surveillance-frigate has its own place. Floreal has proven it by showing up in many (low threat) operations representing France.

In addition, only two “no CAMM T31”, combined with crew rotation plan with forward deployed ships mean, one of their major task will be training, and they will be busy.

The 24 CAMM T31 will be somewhere "near" the light frigate. It is not AAW oriented, just a light frigate with no ASW capability.

By the way, I am not proposing a sub-class, which will cost to design. My point is just making the main armament FFBNW in the first two, and all the other systems to be the same.

So, 2 surveillance-frigates and 3 light-frigates, coming out of the same design, with one big FFBNW or "24 CAMM". This is my proposal.
cky7 wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is so optimistic about type 31. Yes, were the ideas people here have talked about (off board systems, USVs, UUVs, compact towed sonars and a decent hull sonar etc) to come to fruition they could be useful vessels. The thing is I don’t see any evidence to support any of this actually happening though. They’ve pulled the jam tomorrow ruse on us before and I fear they’re doing the same again. I really hope I’m wrong but the most likely scenario I see is a way for the govt to claim they’ve still provided 13 frigates when really 5 of them will end up being distinctly second rate - ie nothing more than what has actually been officially confirmed. Hoping for anything more has been a painful exercise in total disappointment every occasion I can remember in U.K. defence procurement. Why apart from wishful thinking should this be any different. IMO we need 13 full fat type 26 with improved radar, ARTISAN is not good enough when not under the umbrella of the tiny number of 6 type 45s. Having 5 type 31s with all the great ideas being muted would then give us the building blocks of a decent fleet (though other areas still need urgent attention)....
Agree. T31 does not diserve the name of a frigate. It is a frigate for bean counters. And, future growth will not be committed. As you said, there are so many fields waiting for investments, in RN and in all UK military.

This is one of the reason I propose to bias the armaments within the 5. "Frigates without missile", important claim. No, it is not a frigate. It is a surveillance-frigate as Floreal-class. Much better called as sloop (regardless of its large hull and "goodish" outlook.)


If one hits a rock, your finely wrought plan of one doing this and two doing that and so many doing something else again will just go down the crapper. With only 5 they have to be interchangeable to enable tasking to be doable.

And for what? saving a few pennies on cheap as chips CAMM launchers. Gimme a break.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 09 Oct 2019, 06:01

Ron5 wrote:If one hits a rock, your finely wrought plan of one doing this and two doing that and so many doing something else again will just go down the crapper. With only 5 they have to be interchangeable to enable tasking to be doable.

And for what? saving a few pennies on cheap as chips CAMM launchers. Gimme a break.
I understand your aim for commonality.

My points are,
1: a ship with 12 CAMM, and with little hope for increase in future (I think, *1), is a big problem.
2: ships with and without CAMM, both can happily do any task French Floreal-Class is doing. And ships with 24 CAMM can do good job in CVTF, while that with 12 CAMM, I am not so clear.
3: SeaSeptor system will not be cheap, not because it is expensive, but because the total cost of T31 is very limited. I am not proposing to omit few launcher, which is very cheap. I am proposing to omit the whole system, including the software and datalink.

As you said, 2 without CAMM and 3 with 24 CAMM will make it not interchangeable in all cases. But,
- now in T45, we have 4 with Harpoon and 2 without (will lose all in a few years)
- in place, in T23, we will have 5 with interim ASM and 3 without.

My proposal is the same. Within the five T13s, 2 without CAMM and 3 with CAMM.

Where is the difference?

# Actually, I do agree there is a difference, as ASM is one of the least used armaments these days. But, I guess many of the T31's tasks will be on a theater even a Floreal-class can go. And there, CAMM will not be used frequently.

At last, T31 is a project with corvette cost, with frigate sized hull. A ship with 12 CAMM deserves what MOD pays = a long range corvette, so all 5 with 12 CAMM is not catastrophically bad, I agree.

*1: Because there are many many many many fields, RN needs investments for CVF, F35B, T45, T26, P7, P8 and many.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3399
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Oct 2019, 07:27

Besides the obvious cost of the missiles themselves, I cannot see any cost increase/saving by only having 12 instead of 24. For either the ship has to be wired to use the weapon systems, the main cost driver, so why not have them set up to carry up to 24 Sea Ceptor in the location chosen, have them routinely only carry 12 but if attached to the CVTF for example have them carry a full load of 24. The same goes for any AShM that may possibly be fitted in the future. Once the Ship is wired you have covered the main cost. The open architecture of these ships is supposed to make doing such things far core cost effective and simple than say installing Sea Ceptor on the T-23. I really do believe that the configuration of these ships when they leave service is going to be totally different from that when they entered service. Going back to AShM, we are buying 5 interim sets until the Anglo/French wonder weapon arrives. Well when it does enter service and equips our 14 first rate escorts we will have 5 sets of hardly used missiles available for other uses, Oh wait we have 5 T-31s bumbling around. :D

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 09 Oct 2019, 07:44

Sounds a little like the excitable comments when HMS Westminster went to Libya with “only” 4 missiles.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 09 Oct 2019, 08:05

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:If one hits a rock, your finely wrought plan of one doing this and two doing that and so many doing something else again will just go down the crapper. With only 5 they have to be interchangeable to enable tasking to be doable.

And for what? saving a few pennies on cheap as chips CAMM launchers. Gimme a break.
I understand your aim for commonality.

My points are,
1: a ship with 12 CAMM, and with little hope for increase in future (I think, *1), is a big problem.
2: ships with and without CAMM, both can happily do any task French Floreal-Class is doing. And ships with 24 CAMM can do good job in CVTF, while that with 12 CAMM, I am not so clear.
3: SeaSeptor system will not be cheap, not because it is expensive, but because the total cost of T31 is very limited. I am not proposing to omit few launcher, which is very cheap. I am proposing to omit the whole system, including the software and datalink.

As you said, 2 without CAMM and 3 with 24 CAMM will make it not interchangeable in all cases. But,
- now in T45, we have 4 with Harpoon and 2 without (will lose all in a few years)
- in place, in T23, we will have 5 with interim ASM and 3 without.

My proposal is the same. Within the five T13s, 2 without CAMM and 3 with CAMM.

Where is the difference?

# Actually, I do agree there is a difference, as ASM is one of the least used armaments these days. But, I guess many of the T31's tasks will be on a theater even a Floreal-class can go. And there, CAMM will not be used frequently.

At last, T31 is a project with corvette cost, with frigate sized hull. A ship with 12 CAMM deserves what MOD pays = a long range corvette, so all 5 with 12 CAMM is not catastrophically bad, I agree.

*1: Because there are many many many many fields, RN needs investments for CVF, F35B, T45, T26, P7, P8 and many.
So on the basis of nothing more than one fuzzy cgi image, you have decided it would be best to remove the primary defence from 40% of the T31 fleet.

Pathetic.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5835
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 09 Oct 2019, 08:35

cky7 wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is so optimistic about type 31.

On entry into service the T31 will very much be a patrol frigate that is less capable than its predecessor.

Whilst that is nothing to cheer about, the saving grace is the large hull with latent capability won, so at least there is the option for upgrades after its commissioned. This may not be a bad thing, a RAND study suggested leaving complex weapons until after the vehicle is commissioned is a great way to control risk and cost. Interestingly the author cited the Danish experience building the Iver Huitfeldt.

Right now its under armed and under powered. Lets hope the Navy take up some of those options sooner rather than later!
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 09 Oct 2019, 10:33

Aethulwulf wrote:So on the basis of nothing more than one fuzzy cgi image, you have decided it would be best to remove the primary defence from 40% of the T31 fleet.


This is the point this fuzzy image could be showing 12 EXLS silo's for we know. On Babcock's site it shows A-140 fitted 16 cell vls plus 21 cell RAM unit so really who knows the image above may not of come from Babcock at all as it is not on there site

To my mind T-31 is replacing 5 T-23 which have 1 x main gun , 2 x 30mm , 32 x CAMM the RN will want something close to this so it is likely they will end up with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm and 24 CAMM

Also we need to remember the missiles will come from the 13 billion pound missile budget

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 09 Oct 2019, 11:11

SW1 wrote:Sounds a little like the excitable comments when HMS Westminster went to Libya with “only” 4 missiles.


Is that verifiably true?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 09 Oct 2019, 11:13

Tempest414 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:So on the basis of nothing more than one fuzzy cgi image, you have decided it would be best to remove the primary defence from 40% of the T31 fleet.


This is the point this fuzzy image could be showing 12 EXLS silo's for we know. On Babcock's site it shows A-140 fitted 16 cell vls plus 21 cell RAM unit so really who knows the image above may not of come from Babcock at all as it is not on there site

To my mind T-31 is replacing 5 T-23 which have 1 x main gun , 2 x 30mm , 32 x CAMM the RN will want something close to this so it is likely they will end up with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm and 24 CAMM

Also we need to remember the missiles will come from the 13 billion pound missile budget


The T23 also have acoustically quiet hulls and the ability to take a TAS, hull mounted sonar, light weight torpedoes and ASMs, that the T31 will not have. It's a clear step down

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 09 Oct 2019, 11:40

dmereifield wrote:The T23 also have acoustically quiet hulls and the ability to take a TAS, hull mounted sonar, light weight torpedoes and ASMs, that the T31 will not have. It's a clear step down


I am not saying it is not a step down in ASW capability However part from the quite hull if the money was there T-31 could carry and deploy every thing you note above

of course the the top end of A-140 is the IH class

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 09 Oct 2019, 13:49

Aethulwulf wrote:So on the basis of nothing more than one fuzzy cgi image, you have decided it would be best to remove the primary defence from 40% of the T31 fleet.

Pathetic.
?? I am proposing to increase the total number of CAMM missile carried on the 5 T31 fleet (from 12x5 =60 to 24x3 = 72). As my proposal is cost neutral, yes it does include 2 of the hull will be limited in AAW to the guns and 2 CIWS. But,
- even the latter meets the RFI requirement = T31 is designed to do tasks NOT needing SAM from its beginning.
- which means many of the T31's tasks do not require any CAMM (as we see T23 goes with no SeaWolf carried frequently in their deployments).
- and the crew rotation scheme proposed for T31 anyway must have a ship or two, almost tied up doing training around British water
shark bait wrote:...Right now its under armed and under powered. Lets hope the Navy take up some of those options sooner rather than later!
But, I want an option to add ASROC and better radar to T26, ASM to all T45 and 5 T23 (yes eventually to T31), add 2-3 more P-8, and 2-3 more P-7. I also think good fleet to USV/UUS for both MCM and shallow water ASW (or long-range surveillance ASW) is very important. If all 5 T31 comes with 12 CAMM, adding "12 more CAMM" is at least lower than these "hope" as I listed. Are there good hope that all of these are to be funded "sooner rather than later"?

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 09 Oct 2019, 17:21

dmereifield wrote:Is that verifiably true?


In so much as there was pictures at the time.

dmereifield wrote:The T23 also have acoustically quiet hulls and the ability to take a TAS, hull mounted sonar, light weight torpedoes and ASMs, that the T31 will not have. It's a clear step down


Worth noting that in its current form it meets or exceeds the nato requirements for active asw capability.

shark bait wrote:Right now its under armed and under powered


Never heard it mentioned that it’s under powered, in fact the Danes have stated there is significant power reserves available in their present configuration so I doubt type 31 would be any different.


In general I doubt exactly get the issue with the suggested weapons fit. The requirement specifically called for a vessel to operate in a low to medium threat environment. It seems more than adequate for dealing with that. It is certainly more than capable of defending itself, it does not have to deal with regimental strength air raids. There’s plenty of capacity to add more systems as we go. The one disappointing element is the apparent lack of budget clarity which already appears to be changing from what was publicly championed. Mod seems to have real problems stating exactly how much buying a capability costs all the more troubling after decades of abject failures.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Oct 2019, 17:25

shark bait wrote:Right now its under armed and under powered


Under powered?

I don't like the propulsion system design (I had a good chuckle when you described it as container ship power), but in raw power surely it has enough?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Oct 2019, 17:28

I don't think the Type 31's biggest issue is that it is under armed. I think it's under sensor-ed and probably under communicated and under ECM-ed.

Though I would love to see a 5" gun, sigh.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3399
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Oct 2019, 18:05

Tempest414 wrote:showing 12 EXLS silo's

Is that 4x 3 Cell stand alone ExLS launchers each capable of firing 4 Sea Ceptor for a total of 48, or one 3 cell stand alone ExLS launcher with 12 Sea Ceptor

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 09 Oct 2019, 18:12

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:So on the basis of nothing more than one fuzzy cgi image, you have decided it would be best to remove the primary defence from 40% of the T31 fleet.

Pathetic.
?? I am proposing to increase the total number of CAMM missile carried on the 5 T31 fleet (from 12x5 =60 to 24x3 = 72). As my proposal is cost neutral, yes it does include 2 of the hull will be limited in AAW to the guns and 2 CIWS. But,
- even the latter meets the RFI requirement = T31 is designed to do tasks NOT needing SAM from its beginning.
- which means many of the T31's tasks do not require any CAMM (as we see T23 goes with no SeaWolf carried frequently in their deployments).
- and the crew rotation scheme proposed for T31 anyway must have a ship or two, almost tied up doing training around British water
shark bait wrote:...Right now its under armed and under powered. Lets hope the Navy take up some of those options sooner rather than later!
But, I want an option to add ASROC and better radar to T26, ASM to all T45 and 5 T23 (yes eventually to T31), add 2-3 more P-8, and 2-3 more P-7. I also think good fleet to USV/UUS for both MCM and shallow water ASW (or long-range surveillance ASW) is very important. If all 5 T31 comes with 12 CAMM, adding "12 more CAMM" is at least lower than these "hope" as I listed. Are there good hope that all of these are to be funded "sooner rather than later"?
There are three reasons I used the word pathetic:

A. Who do you think is listening to your proposals, apart from the other 5 or 6 people who regularly fill this forum with their own fantasy drivel? No one in the RN is paying the slightest attention. No one with decision making powers is reading this. Why do you bother?

B. You claim your proposals are cost neutral, but you have no facts or no data to input into your calculations. Rubbish in, rubbish out. Why do you bother?

C. All three bids were meticulously assessed against various survivability scenarios. Even if we assume (wrongly) the RN would then be happy to accept a reduction in the baseline survivability of some of the T31s, would not the other two bidders cry foul and insist that their proposals be reassessed against the now less capable preferred design?

More than happy to speculate about what we think the eventual T31 configuration will be, but keep it real. Keep it to what you think what the RN might choose, not what you (or I) would like to propose.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo and 17 guests