Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RetroSicotte]

Thanks. So, I think you are proposing "FC/ASW" and "a long range land attack cruise missile" combined.

My proposal is more "a NSM (200 km range)" and "a long range land attack cruise missile added with anti-ship capability (1000+ km range)". This is because "500km as the minimum standard for relevancy" --> I take it more seriously.

For me, your option is "expensive+expensive" pair. Mines is "cheap and expensive" pair. The reason I favor the latter is, anyway RN is to get interim SSM (FC/ASW is too far away, even with no delay, which is 100% unlikely), and I think NSM is best fit. NSM can be a handy anti-ship capability, with limited land-attack capability, say, counter-attack Hoithi rebels. In this case, of course stationing a few tens of km ashore is not a suicide.

Not all enemy is China. Actually, China is only a fraction of the spectrum of enemy candidates.

On the other hand, long-range cruise missile will replace TLAM.

# It may deeply depend on how FC/ASW will be formulated, I guess.

Thank you for the clarification. For clarity, my take is:

Assuming FC/ASW will not be a 1,000km+ reach AShM, assuming maybe 300-600km. (Range is above/below LRASM by a quarter or so)

End of Harpoon until Beginning of FC/ASW:
T23/26/31/45 all receive NSM. (Limited backstock, interim only)
T26 receives LCAM (Most likely Tomahawk).

From Beginning of FC/ASW:
T26 lose NSM, are re-quipped with FC/ASW.
T31 and T45 lose NSM, and re-quipped with FC/ASW and LCAM. (Mk41 upgrade when required.)
T23 retains remaining NSM until exit from service (can be withdrawn earlier if T23 ceases use in such roles in its EOL), does not receive FC/ASW.

Ongoing Development Queries:
Retain Tomahawk/Tomahawk US replacement, or seek Boostered FC/ASW in manner of SCALP Naval? Capability/Price will determine whether we want FC/ASW to be used for land attack bombardment too, or whether to go with cheaper US option.

Either way, the AShM having a few hundred KM range, and the LCAM having at least a four figure range is crucial to operations. China isn't the only one. Russia has always used very long range, and continues to improve this. Iran is also going this way. North Korean may do so in future (they sure want to). Won't be long before anyone can buy Russian long range missiles of this sort (look at how S-400 has suddenly populated.)

No. I mean 40 mm 3P fleet wide, to replace ALL 30 mm guns.

Fair point. If in full then I can see that change for commonality. (Although I don't think the Bofors can fit Martlet?)

[Roders96]

UK is building 5 T31 in a yard different from that building T26. Very inefficient way UK has selected. So, the results we see. I simply think it was a stupid decision, sorry. (I am anti- "anti-BAE" saga. If BAE is not good, MOD must correct it, not punish it).

The work has gone to a yard an easy commute down the motorway from the Clyde, an economist would say they're the same 'agglomeration'.

It doesn't really matter if they're built in a different yard if it's the same talent pool doing the work, the talent base is still sustained.

[donald_of_tokyo]

UK is building 5 T31 in a yard different from that building T26. Very inefficient way UK has selected. So, the results we see. I simply think it was a stupid decision, sorry. (I am anti- "anti-BAE" saga. If BAE is not good, MOD must correct it, not punish it).

The work has gone to a yard an easy commute down the motorway from the Clyde, an economist would say they're the same 'agglomeration'.
It doesn't really matter if they're built in a different yard if it's the same talent pool doing the work, the talent base is still sustained.

Yes and no, as you know.

1: Core technology is inherent to yards/companies. They will not release the precious human resource.

2: Apart from it, the biggest problem here is, the timing the T26 build is the most busy (in the process to gain the learning curve) and that for T31 is overlapping. So, once the T31 build ends in ~2028, there are no capacity to absorb their man-power in Clyde, because T26 build is already on track and even in the phase of reducing the work-force size. This means, without export or further order, Babcock must fire their work-force.

As this is easily foreseeable, I'm afraid Babcock is hiring "part-time labors" from the globe, e.g. East Europe. Once the "team31" dissolves, these workers will go back to home, not remaining in UK.

Is this "growing the ship building industry"? I think not. Just postponing the "crisis" into late 2020s.

At least technically, adding one or two more T26 on the build line at BAES is better. Enabling slight speed up of building drumbeat of escorts in the later phase, where the learning curve evolves and the same amount of workforce and handle 10-20% more works.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks.

Either way, the AShM having a few hundred KM range, and the LCAM having at least a four figure range is crucial to operations. China isn't the only one. Russia has always used very long range, and continues to improve this. Iran is also going this way. North Korean may do so in future (they sure want to). Won't be long before anyone can buy Russian long range missiles of this sort (look at how S-400 has suddenly populated.)

Around here, I always have a question.

Long rage, super/hyper-sonic, stealthy, and intelligent (counter decoy) missile will be very very expensive. See LRASM. Even with modest range, sub-sonic speed, it is very expensive. Not surprised to see the cost triples if we make it "also super-sonic".

China is a super power so they may prepare hundreds of them. Russia, ... not sure, but they have a large military. But, how about other countries?

Let's think about UK. Can UK buy several hundreds of LRASM (or equivalent), and several hundreds of LCAM (or equivalent) at the same time? I think it is very difficult. FC/ASW will be much more expensive than SCALP/Storm-shadow, and LCAM even more. RN will be forced to disband a few escorts, it they want to buy them in number.

Other nations, of course, may buy such high-end missiles, but it cannot be in number.

Confronting less than 10 such missiles, ASTER SAM can easily handle it. (I think this is why French naval asset is aiming at small number of ASTER30/15 on many of their escorts). And "10 such missiles" may even mean 30% of the total stock the enemy nation will have. In case of RN, I think they are firing a few CAMMs in place of an ASTER, against such high-end ASMs.

When it comes to low-end swarm, enemy missile are simple, shortrange, low-subsonic, and coming in number even 100 of them (because it is cheap and small = easy to buy and carry). In this case, "16 ASTER" will be easily saturated, and 48 (or more) CAMM can do much better.

So yes RN need to think about how to counter such high-end missiles, but low-end missiles (or even drone swarm) must be also considered. Thinking only about "something like China" will make RN's armament too much biased. Anyway, we must accept the fact that China is a super power. UK will never be able to beat it in war in single. UK do not need to confront China in single.

[Lord Jim]

FC/ASW if we and the French can actually agree a joint set of requirements and move forward will probably be the UK's long range strike missile for both air and sea platforms. TLAM is now an old system and modern air defence systems have been built to counter such weapons, so to be effective it needs to be fired in large numbers, something we have never been able to do. The Capabilities FC/ASW could bring to he table when it arrives may mean it can be launched by aircraft, for deck launchers or Sylver silos from ships and even launched form submarines as being an Exocet replacement it will need to replace the Sm39 version used by the French Navy.

If FC/ASW ends up being unaffordable then we need to look a the pairing of the LRASM and JASSM-ER. Both these weapons have good range, are stealthy, and have very good guidance packages. Whilst not cheap by any standards both are likely to be cheaper than FC/ASW. As for the NSM, this would be a good choice for the interim AShM but we need to equip all active T-13 and T-45 with it, not just five sets for the ASW T-23s, and once the actual Harpoon replacement enters service the NSM should be allocated to the T-31.

Range and Stealth are going to probably be the two key requirements for future missile systems in future, with high speed less so though still desirable. The number of missiles able to be launched in any given strike is also going to be important and this will mean that the traditional load of eight may not be enough in future. the USN is already looking at installing double that on ships in the future.

[abc123]

UK do not need to confront China in single.

Or at all?

[RetroSicotte]

Long rage, super/hyper-sonic, stealthy, and intelligent (counter decoy) missile will be very very expensive. See LRASM. Even with modest range, sub-sonic speed, it is very expensive. Not surprised to see the cost triples if we make it "also super-sonic".

China is a super power so they may prepare hundreds of them. Russia, ... not sure, but they have a large military. But, how about other countries?

Let's think about UK. Can UK buy several hundreds of LRASM (or equivalent), and several hundreds of LCAM (or equivalent) at the same time? I think it is very difficult. FC/ASW will be much more expensive than SCALP/Storm-shadow, and LCAM even more. RN will be forced to disband a few escorts, it they want to buy them in number.

Harpoon once upon a time was also the fancy new thing. They managed to outfit with it. I don't see other countries having trouble fitting AShM. The Royal Navy should not either.

There's also another reason to prioritise LCAM on ships. The US has gone vertical silo on subs. There is a very real chance that the Tomahawk replacement from the US thus will not be fireable by Astute as they will focus on only that

Other nations, of course, may buy such high-end missiles, but it cannot be in number.

I disagree with this. Russia has always had a good number since the 1960s and the Pyatyorka missile (450km). But also the Bazalt missile (550km), Granit (625km), Kayak (250km), Kalibr (2,000km+) and heading into Oniks (600km) and Zircon (400km).

Iran already has three 300km+ anti-ship missiles. That invalidates NSM as a land attack missile even against a mid-ability foe.

North Korea is toying around with 300km-450km anti-ship missiles.

Both new or old, they do exist, and will only grow in numbers and be exported or mysteriously "turn up" like what Iran is doing with the Houthis[/i]. Range was always high, difference is now that range is backed up by more modern systems. Even partially, that is very dangerous. Outranging them is the key now. If you can't even fire till you sail up to sub-200km when you're getting shot at constantly from above that, it's just no good. Relying on SAMs to stop everything from such barrages just to pop off a couple yourself when there are so few escorts now is an excessively dangerous tactic.

That's why missiles like Tomahawk, and AShM of the class of LRASM are not just desirable on primary ships, but absolutely mandatory for a modern serious navy to be seen as credible in peer warfare.

Ensuring that every one of the 8x T26, 6x T45 and 5x T31 has at least 8x credible AShM (pas the interim), and that at least a couple of those classes can throw out some cruise missiles to the four digit range (or a boostered version of the AShM, depending on how it turns out) is the bare minimum and would be affordable. The US goes far higher than that, Russia goes far higher than that, China goes far higher than that, France goes higher than that (8x AShM/16x LCAM). Ensuring "8 and 8" on at least the T26s, and then at least 8 (of either, rather than necessarily both) on T31 and T45 would not break the bank.

So yes RN need to think about how to counter such high-end missiles, but low-end missiles (or even drone swarm) must be also considered. Thinking only about "something like China" will make RN's armament too much biased.

They already are. That's Spear from F-35.

Anyway, we must accept the fact that China is a super power. UK will never be able to beat it in war in single. UK do not need to confront China in single.

[/quote][/quote]
That's a little strawmanning (although I know that wasn't your intention!). My point is that the RN risks becoming below credible, through an inability to actually engage with its ships. If all it's to have is NSM and Spear, with no LCAM...then why even have them at all? It's like giving the infantry just pistols and expecting them to win firefights.

[ArmChairCivvy]

There is a very real chance that the Tomahawk replacement from the US thus will not be fireable by Astute

Pause for thought. So it will be down to our stealth fighters to do any stealthy strikes in the future... the platform they arrive on is less stealthy though. But perhaps advertising intent, before committing, is a good thing.

not just desirable on primary ships, but absolutely mandatory for a modern serious navy to be seen as credible in peer warfare.

Yes, we did forget for a good while (how long again was the carrier holiday? Remembering the Harriers did not carry any serious AShMs) that navy might have to sink ships of other navies.

[Tempest414]

Maybe a good base line fit for type 31 should be

1 x 57mm
2 x 40mm
36 x CAMM ( in 3 x 3 cell EXLS )
8 x NSM
4 x Aselsan / Thales stable mounts fitted with 4 x LMM + GAU-19 12.7mm gatling gun

[NickC]

Maybe a good base line fit for type 31 should be

1 x 57mm
2 x 40mm
36 x CAMM ( in 3 x 3 cell EXLS )
8 x NSM
4 x Aselsan / Thales stable mounts fitted with 4 x LMM + GAU-19 12.7mm gatling gun

Zero ASW defense or attack capability?

[dmereifield]

Any word one when we will actually see the T31 specs, officially?

[RetroSicotte]

Maybe a good base line fit for type 31 should be

1 x 57mm
2 x 40mm
36 x CAMM ( in 3 x 3 cell EXLS )
8 x NSM
4 x Aselsan / Thales stable mounts fitted with 4 x LMM + GAU-19 12.7mm gatling gun

Why the addition of another bespoke .50 cal gun system that exists no-where else in the Navy to add to the logistics?

Any word one when we will actually see the T31 specs, officially?

SDSR2020 if we're lucky, if not, it'll be some time.

[Ron5]

Type 31 is in detailed design phase. Nothing set until that is complete.

[abc123]

. My point is that the RN risks becoming below credible, through an inability to actually engage with its ships. .

Or to have such small number of ships ( because they cost so much that just a few are bought and operated, not to mention under-equipped because of need to pay for some gold-plated equipment on just a few ships that the rest are half-armed "T31" ) to be irrelevant.

[Scimitar54]

ArmChairCivvy Wrote

Yes, we did forget for a good while (how long again was the carrier holiday? Remembering the Harriers did not carry any serious AShMs) that navy might have to sink ships of other navies.

What about Sea Eagle!

[ArmChairCivvy]

I said ships; not boats

[Tempest414]

Zero ASW defense or attack capability?

I was talking weapons fit and not systems however we can let the Danish navy fit and test the TAS to their IH class this year and if it works fit it to type 31 with torpedos delivered by Helo

Why the addition of another bespoke .50 cal gun system that exists no-where else in the Navy to add to the logistics?

In my mind fitting 40mm and GAU-19 cross the fleet and remove every thing else 30mm down

[Scimitar54]

ACC, Please Note
The BAe Sea Eagle is a medium weight sea-skimming anti-ship missile designed and built by BAe Dynamics (now MBDA). It is designed to sink or disable ships up to the size of aircraft carriers in the face of jamming and other countermeasures including decoys. Its users include the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, the Royal Saudi Air Force, and the Indian Navy.

[ArmChairCivvy]

In 1984 we moved on with Harpoon for the ships, and for what planes it was used... they all seem to be retired. And now we are trying to move on from the Harpoon (as even the newest sets have been dubbed 'interim'

"United Kingdom

Blackburn Buccaneer - 2 or 4 missiles (retired)
Tornado GR.1B - 2 or 4 missiles (retired)
Sea Harrier FRS.1/FA.2 - 2 missiles (retired)

India

Sea Harrier FRS Mk.51 - 2 missiles
Sea King Mk.42B - 2 missiles
Jaguar IM - 1 or 2 missiles
Ilyushin Il-38 - 2 missiles
Tupolev Tu-142 - 4? missiles

Saudi Arabia

Tornado IDS - 2 or 4 missiles (retired?)"



Variants

A variant of the missile, called Sea Eagle SL (also P5T), designed to be launched from boxes mounted on ships was tested. It used the same rocket boosters as applied to the helicopter launched version, but lost out to the American Harpoon missile in a 1984 competition"

[Lord Jim]

Our Politicians have to realise that to maintain a certain mass of capability you have to pay more year on year. They also have to realise that additional capability is no substitute for mass. Either they do the above or we end up with a military only good for parades and fleet reviews to show of the half dozen warships we have etc..

[donald_of_tokyo]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 08726.html

If it is 5% of defense spending, it is 2B GBP per year, 20B GBP for 10 years. As about 45% is equipment budget (purchase and maintenance), it means 10B GBP in equipment (or ~5B GBP in purchase) and 5% in man-power reduction (real-term, not the "required" number).

I'm afraid best hope is to push this back to 0% = no budget cuts.

This means, the "~10B GBP blackhole" in equipment budget (or ~5B GBP in purchase) shall see "shortfall" (or "cut" if you like to call it, which is of course not a cut from Treasury point of view). I'm not optimistic here, and I do not think I am pessimistic, either. Just being realistic.

Do we really need T31, or stop it and buy ASM, arm T26 and T45 better, add air-to-air refuel capability to CV air-wing.

[Repulse]

Can’t see the defence budget going sub 2% of GDP whilst Brexit is still fresh in our minds and we are trying to get a US trade deal with Donald T. Nor can I see large scale projects like the SSBN replacement being scrapped.

I can see some short term savings, early retirement of T23s, sell of a RFA tanker and the loss of a few MCMs, with promised of (delayed) ham tomorrow.

However, as the RAF is not on board anyway, any purchase of F35Bs beyond 48 will be either scrapped or capped to another squadron. We’ve seen already recently the Navy pushing the CVFs as UAV carriers.

[clinch]

Can’t see the defence budget going sub 2% of GDP whilst Brexit is still fresh in our minds and we are trying to get a US trade deal with Donald T. Nor can I see large scale projects like the SSBN replacement being scrapped.

I can see some short term savings, early retirement of T23s, sell of a RFA tanker and the loss of a few MCMs, with promised of (delayed) ham tomorrow.

However, as the RAF is not on board anyway, any purchase of F35Bs beyond 48 will be either scrapped or capped to another squadron. We’ve seen already recently the Navy pushing the CVFs as UAV carriers.

It is already below 2 per cent in reality. Cameron and Osborne included all sorts of stuff never previously in the defence budget to get it to 2. I suspect the current lot will do the same. Is security and intelligence in there yet?

[Scimitar54]

Well it is obviously not in the minds of many MPs.

[jedibeeftrix]

As to counter fast-boat swarm/UAV/add CAMM for this/that, 40 mm 3P looks better than 30 mm gun. Why are you trying to take on (likely AShM armed) boat swarms and (munitions laden) drone-swarms with a River? That's not its job. They are fishery protection, border watch, and general piracy/drugs work at most.

No. I mean 40 mm 3P fleet wide, to replace ALL 30 mm guns. Only in this case, "keeping a 30 mm gun ONLY FOR OPVs" will be a logistic nightmare, and then River B2 OPVs will carry 40 mm 3P. This is my point.

To build on this point:

When we have events like the seizure by the iranian's, and we all looked at what assets we had in the gulf to protect shipping, it quickly became apparent the limits of what a single T23GP frigate could do to protect even its own convoy tailing back over 15miles.

Looking to the future it is hard to imagine that the answer is to permanently deploy two T31GP frigates, but perhaps a combination of a T31GP and RB2+(with 40mm 3P) could usefully top-n-tail a fifteen mile convoy, and react to a contingency elsewhere en-route without abandoning the primary task entirely.

So no need to CAMM on River, but could 40mm 3P add useful capability?