Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Moved from T31 NEWS thread.
Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:That's a small patch of water: a circle about 12 miles in radius for CAMM.
12 miles??
I don't think anyone seriously believes Sea Ceptor is only good for 12 miles...Janes have previously said it was good for 60km (37.5 miles). Personally, I think that's a maximum range against a simple target, but realistically a mid point of at least effective range of 24 miles is far more credible, oddly enough that's pretty much the distance to the horizon...Even the MoD is saying a range 'in excess' of 15.5 miles, and we know how realistic their performance figures usually are.
Ron5 wrote:I'm afraid you're arguing angels on top of pin heads.
Janes has said no such thing as "good for 60km". Its said during trials a missile traveled about 60 km. That's far from saying it was in any kind of state to perform an intercept at the end of the trip.
Manufacturer says 25km which I guess is your 15.5 miles.
Still is a tiny patch of water. Only worth defending if there's a Type 31 in it.
Lord Jim wrote:Isn't the effective range dependant on the type, speed, altitude and direction of travel of the target.
I understand manufacturers states 25+ km for AAW task against incoming anti-ship missile.

In general, SAM has a longer range for slowly moving targets. So, in principle, for a target sitting near the sea-level moving very slowly, CAMM can engaged with ballistic trajectory to as far as 60 km, kinematically. However, there will be a limit based on
- data-link range
- battery lifetime
For example, reaching 60 km in ballistic trajectory with ~Mach 2 speed will need > 2 minutes or so long (battery) (With rocket burn out, Mach 2 may be difficult to maintain at this distance, so it will take more longer time). Radio intensity scales with square of a distance, so it is 1/5.7 at 60 km compared to that in 25 km.

On this regards, none of us knows about. So, anything can happen.

I personally think the range (against slow moving targets) will be a bit longer than 25 km, but not as far as 60 km. But, there is no evidence for it.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

I think the broad meaning is that regardless of whether it's 25km or 60km, it's a tiny patch of nothing when most major escorts in navies these days are rolling around with 120km (and commonly much higher) range SAMs at the minimum to protect themselves.

Yes, T45 exists, but in too few numbers to allow the T26/T31 to not have to also have some responsibility for itself. When escorts need escorting, you got a problem.

As I see it, T26 being ASW doesn't mean T45 shouldn't have some form of ASW, just as T45 being AAW doesn't mean T26 shouldn't have some form of AWW. Look at the French mounting Aster-30 capability to 9 out of the 15 major escorts in their future fleet.

Just because a specialist ship with a focus does it better doesn't remove the importance of others being capable of it. A certain baseline average is important, and T26/T31 are falling below that global baseline.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:I think the broad meaning is that regardless of whether it's 25km or 60km, it's a tiny patch of nothing when most major escorts in navies these days are rolling around with 120km (and commonly much higher) range SAMs at the minimum to protect themselves.

Yes, T45 exists, but in too few numbers to allow the T26/T31 to not have to also have some responsibility for itself. When escorts need escorting, you got a problem.

As I see it, T26 being ASW doesn't mean T45 shouldn't have some form of ASW, just as T45 being AAW doesn't mean T26 shouldn't have some form of AWW. Look at the French mounting Aster-30 capability to 9 out of the 15 major escorts in their future fleet.

Just because a specialist ship with a focus does it better doesn't remove the importance of others being capable of it. A certain baseline average is important, and T26/T31 are falling below that global baseline.
Should we be looking at introducing CAMM-ER on all 3 T class as the minimum to complement CAMM then ? ( replacing aster 15 on T45s )

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RetroSicotte wrote:I think the broad meaning is that regardless of whether it's 25km or 60km, it's a tiny patch of nothing when most major escorts in navies these days are rolling around with 120km (and commonly much higher) range SAMs at the minimum to protect themselves.

Yes, T45 exists, but in too few numbers to allow the T26/T31 to not have to also have some responsibility for itself. When escorts need escorting, you got a problem.

As I see it, T26 being ASW doesn't mean T45 shouldn't have some form of ASW, just as T45 being AAW doesn't mean T26 shouldn't have some form of AWW. Look at the French mounting Aster-30 capability to 9 out of the 15 major escorts in their future fleet.

Just because a specialist ship with a focus does it better doesn't remove the importance of others being capable of it. A certain baseline average is important, and T26/T31 are falling below that global baseline.
Hmmm. I understand your point, but have a few objections.

1: French "9 escorts" with long-range SAM carries only 16 missiles. If you have 16 SPEAR3 and 1 NSM (a pair of Typhoon can carry it), it's dead. RN is taking different approach, and I think it is reasonable.

2: "Escorts need escorting" is not problem, I think. Even if you add AS torpedo to T45, still a single SSK can easily sink her. Existence of torpedo will make little difference.

3: "A certain baseline average is important", means you need a cruiser. Adding a few Aster30 to T26 will help to some extent, but still I can imagine not large impact it can take (don't take me wrong, adding ~8 ASTER30 to T26 is not bad idea). But, you need a lot of ASTER30 to make a big difference. Then, you need to add 10-15m of hull to T26, to accommodate T45's AAW capability. Natural result of this is, escort number will significantly decline.

6 AAW escort + 8 ASW escort + 5 GP escort
vs
10 cruisers + 5 GP frigates
or
11 cruisers

I think your idea is one solution, and RN's is another. Cannot say which is better, I'm afraid.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Jake1992 wrote: Should we be looking at introducing CAMM-ER on all 3 T class as the minimum to complement CAMM then ? ( replacing aster 15 on T45s )
Even CAMM-ER would be too small. The ideal situation is replacing the CAMM on the fore of T26 with additional Mk41 for SM-6.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: French "9 escorts" with long-range SAM carries only 16 missiles. If you have 16 SPEAR3 and 1 NSM (a pair of Typhoon can carry it), it's dead. RN is taking different approach, and I think it is reasonable.
I don't feel their error in design invalidates the concept of requirement. Also, FREDA has 32, not 16.
2: "Escorts need escorting" is not problem, I think. Even if you add AS torpedo to T45, still a single SSK can easily sink her. Existence of torpedo will make little difference.
A fair point, the real crux of what I meant is to avoid the "Oi mate, come here quickly, I can see it but I have nothing to do anything about it!" effect. It's like not giving a guy who has the Javelin a rifle.
3: "A certain baseline average is important", means you need a cruiser. Adding a few Aster30 to T26 will help to some extent, but still I can imagine not large impact it can take (don't take me wrong, adding ~8 ASTER30 to T26 is not bad idea). But, you need a lot of ASTER30 to make a big difference. Then, you need to add 10-15m of hull to T26, to accommodate T45's AAW capability. Natural result of this is, escort number will significantly decline.
It absolutely doesn't mean a cruiser. For one thing there is no such thing as clear definitions for frigate, destroyer, cruiser...it's just "escorts", which these days range from 6,000 to 15,000 tonnes with varying capabilities. There's 15k destroyers, almost 9k frigates, 7k destroyers, 4k frigates, 10k cruisers, 10k destroyers...there is no standard. It's much easier to just think of them as all being escorts of varying capabilities and specialisations.

Replacing the fore CAMM with Mk41 would give it 8-16 extra cells, since you don't need them to be strike length, just enough for SM-6 and the like. T45s AAW capability is in its PAAMs, duel radar, crew dedicated training, but that doesn't mean T26 should be incapable of knocking off a missile if required, like most nations can for their major large escorts.
I think your idea is one solution, and RN's is another. Cannot say which is better, I'm afraid.
Think of it less as an idea, and more me persistently reminding the thread's perception of what the bar for modern credible navies is, when contrasted with common trends for now and future to cast context upon the MoD's choices with the Gov's budget. I always feel it is critically important that we don't lower expectations and fall into their intended narrative of being "happy" with inadequate capabilities because it's "better than nothing".

It's fine and indeed important to be happy with T26 as is and laud what it brings, given its primary role, but it is equally fine and equally important to criticise what it doesn't have, that almost every other major navy in the world seems to be able to do. Same for the T31, T45 etc.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: Should we be looking at introducing CAMM-ER on all 3 T class as the minimum to complement CAMM then ? ( replacing aster 15 on T45s )
Even CAMM-ER would be too small. The ideal situation is replacing the CAMM on the fore of T26 with additional Mk41 for SM-6.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: French "9 escorts" with long-range SAM carries only 16 missiles. If you have 16 SPEAR3 and 1 NSM (a pair of Typhoon can carry it), it's dead. RN is taking different approach, and I think it is reasonable.
I don't feel their error in design invalidates the concept of requirement. Also, FREDA has 32, not 16.
2: "Escorts need escorting" is not problem, I think. Even if you add AS torpedo to T45, still a single SSK can easily sink her. Existence of torpedo will make little difference.
A fair point, the real crux of what I meant is to avoid the "Oi mate, come here quickly, I can see it but I have nothing to do anything about it!" effect. It's like not giving a guy who has the Javelin a rifle.
3: "A certain baseline average is important", means you need a cruiser. Adding a few Aster30 to T26 will help to some extent, but still I can imagine not large impact it can take (don't take me wrong, adding ~8 ASTER30 to T26 is not bad idea). But, you need a lot of ASTER30 to make a big difference. Then, you need to add 10-15m of hull to T26, to accommodate T45's AAW capability. Natural result of this is, escort number will significantly decline.
It absolutely doesn't mean a cruiser. For one thing there is no such thing as clear definitions for frigate, destroyer, cruiser...it's just "escorts", which these days range from 6,000 to 15,000 tonnes with varying capabilities. There's 15k destroyers, almost 9k frigates, 7k destroyers, 4k frigates, 10k cruisers, 10k destroyers...there is no standard. It's much easier to just think of them as all being escorts of varying capabilities and specialisations.

Replacing the fore CAMM with Mk41 would give it 8-16 extra cells, since you don't need them to be strike length, just enough for SM-6 and the like. T45s AAW capability is in its PAAMs, duel radar, crew dedicated training, but that doesn't mean T26 should be incapable of knocking off a missile if required, like most nations can for their major large escorts.
I think your idea is one solution, and RN's is another. Cannot say which is better, I'm afraid.
Think of it less as an idea, and more me persistently reminding the thread's perception of what the bar for modern credible navies is, when contrasted with common trends for now and future to cast context upon the MoD's choices with the Gov's budget. I always feel it is critically important that we don't lower expectations and fall into their intended narrative of being "happy" with inadequate capabilities because it's "better than nothing".

It's fine and indeed important to be happy with T26 as is and laud what it brings, given its primary role, but it is equally fine and equally important to criticise what it doesn't have, that almost every other major navy in the world seems to be able to do. Same for the T31, T45 etc.
SM-6 has double the operational range than Aster 30 240km vs 120km. Why would we put that on a vessel that isn’t designed for AAW ?

I can get onboard with replacing the front mushrooms with extra Mk41s but not for sm-6, IMO replacing the mid ship mushrooms with 15 ExcL and fit them with 30 CAMM plus 30 CAMM-ER would be enough for a vessel in her role.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Jake1992 wrote:SM-6 has double the operational range than Aster 30 240km vs 120km. Why would we put that on a vessel that isn’t designed for AAW ?
Well for one thing, SM-6 would be a good option for the follow on to the T-45, and if the T-26 also carried it and we have installed CEC on both classes it would increase the effectiveness of the whole.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:SM-6 has double the operational range than Aster 30 240km vs 120km. Why would we put that on a vessel that isn’t designed for AAW ?
Well for one thing, SM-6 would be a good option for the follow on to the T-45, and if the T-26 also carried it and we have installed CEC on both classes it would increase the effectiveness of the whole.
I agree it would suit the T4X but I really can’t see the funding being best used for them on the T26.

Don’t get me wrong I’d love to see our T26 fleet being fitted with CEFRA radar along with SM-6 in 40 x MK41s and 12 ExcL, but there’s higher priorities IMO such as making sure the T45s / T4Xs have BMD capabilities along with AShW Missiles long with making the T31s more capable

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Jake1992 wrote:SM-6 has double the operational range than Aster 30 240km vs 120km. Why would we put that on a vessel that isn’t designed for AAW ?

I can get onboard with replacing the front mushrooms with extra Mk41s but not for sm-6, IMO replacing the mid ship mushrooms with 15 ExcL and fit them with 30 CAMM plus 30 CAMM-ER would be enough for a vessel in her role.
The Type 26 can only use active sensor SAMs. That restricts it to CAMM, CAMM-ER, ESSM Block 2, and SM-6. Unless there's some Korean or Japanese I don't know about, but eve nthen would they really be cheaper than SM-6?

SM-6 is the only one of those to go further than 50km+.

Thus it is the only solution in that regard.

(Yes you could fit Aster 30 via Sylver, but screw that, Sylver is a dead end. T45 being locked into that is that class' problem, not T26's.)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand manufacturers states 25+ km for AAW task against incoming anti-ship missile.
Not really. The manufacturer, like the Royal navy just says anti-air i.e. doesn't limit targets to missiles.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:In general, SAM has a longer range for slowly moving targets. So, in principle, for a target sitting near the sea-level moving very slowly, CAMM can engaged with ballistic trajectory to as far as 60 km, kinematically. However, there will be a limit based on
- data-link range
- battery lifetime
For example, reaching 60 km in ballistic trajectory with ~Mach 2 speed will need > 2 minutes or so long (battery) (With rocket burn out, Mach 2 may be difficult to maintain at this distance, so it will take more longer time). Radio intensity scales with square of a distance, so it is 1/5.7 at 60 km compared to that in 25 km.
The speed of the target isn't really material. What matter is how predictable is the targets flight path. If it is flying a steady, predictable path, CAMM will not have to perform many (any?) energy depleting maneuvers and so can fly further and intercept later. On the other hand, a violently maneuvering target whether it be at high speed or low speed will rapidly deplete the missile of energy as it has to keep changing its trajectory to maintain an intercept course.

The 60 km missile was going at a very low forward speed when it terminated. Like a firework rocket, it went up, burned out, coasted and then fell as gravity won.

The CAMM data link is line of sight as is its systems prime radar so any engagement of a sea skimming 60km distant target is impossible.

If a flying object with no incoming velocity broke the radar horizon (say a balloon), the maximum a CAMM would have to fly to intercept would be around 35-40 km, for a Mach 1 incoming sea skimming, around 20 to 25, for mach 3 around 10 to 15 km.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Are people seriously suggesting here that T26 with its 48 CAMM and Artisan is not able to provide AAW coverage for itself and close consorts? Even if the range is somewhat limited, 48 munitions vs as few as 16-24 for many other first tier escorts (outside of the US, China and Russia, at least)...

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:SM-6 has double the operational range than Aster 30 240km vs 120km. Why would we put that on a vessel that isn’t designed for AAW ?

I can get onboard with replacing the front mushrooms with extra Mk41s but not for sm-6, IMO replacing the mid ship mushrooms with 15 ExcL and fit them with 30 CAMM plus 30 CAMM-ER would be enough for a vessel in her role.
The Type 26 can only use active sensor SAMs. That restricts it to CAMM, CAMM-ER, ESSM Block 2, and SM-6. Unless there's some Korean or Japanese I don't know about, but eve nthen would they really be cheaper than SM-6?

SM-6 is the only one of those to go further than 50km+.

Thus it is the only solution in that regard.

(Yes you could fit Aster 30 via Sylver, but screw that, Sylver is a dead end. T45 being locked into that is that class' problem, not T26's.)
I am not suggesting putting Aster 30 on the T26 the comparison was to show that even the RNs dedicated AAW platform doesn’t have a AAW missile with that range so it’d be rediculuse to put it on any other vessel in the fleet.

You say up to 50km range isn’t enough and other navies escorts have fare greater range but to my knowledge these are AAW vessels with the exception of the french escorts ( linger range reduced numbers ) and the RANs T26s ( making up for only 3 AAW vessels )

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

The other advantage currently of the sm-6 is it can also be used for durface targets but admittedly its warhead size is smaller than current surface missiles at 64 kilos compared to 221 for the Harpoon and 450 for the Tomahawk ,but may address a capability shortfall in surface shipborne weapons until something more capable is ready for deployment

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RetroSicotte wrote:Also, FREDA has 32, not 16.
FREDA is DDG replacement, a counter part of T45. As it retain all the ASW capabilities of FREMM, it is in some sense truly of multi-purpose frigate now. But, it lacks large radar, CMS's AAW capability limited, and, yes, only carries "up to" 32 Aster 30, only if no SCALP Naval is carried. At least in missile carriage, T26 can do the same using her existing 24-cell Mk.41 VLS, while what missile to carry is another story.
Replacing the fore CAMM with Mk41 would give it 8-16 extra cells, since you don't need them to be strike length, just enough for SM-6 and the like. T45s AAW capability is in its PAAMs, duel radar, crew dedicated training, but that doesn't mean T26 should be incapable of knocking off a missile if required, like most nations can for their major large escorts.
I'm afraid
- UK paying integration cost of ASTER 30 into Mk.41 VLS
- re-rolling 8-cell of the existing 24-cell Mk41 VLS of T26 for ASTER 30
will be a better way.
Think of it less as an idea, and more me persistently reminding the thread's perception of what the bar for modern credible navies is, when contrasted with common trends for now and future to cast context upon the MoD's choices with the Gov's budget. I always feel it is critically important that we don't lower expectations and fall into their intended narrative of being "happy" with inadequate capabilities because it's "better than nothing".
My vote is for
- currently 48 CAMM,
- and in (near) future, with ExLS go for 196 CAMM+SPEAR3
ASM is becoming more and more long-range, so even with 120 km range ASTER30, killing the "mother" (fighter, bomber, or patrol) will be impossible. CAMM is not intended to kill the mother, but to kill the ASM itself. A task that will never disappear. Being shorter in range, it can be small and accommodated in number. Being "common" with Air Force AAM, it can be built in number and hence cheaper (ASRAAM mk.2 share many components with CAMM). It has its own beauty.
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand manufacturers states 25+ km for AAW task against incoming anti-ship missile.
Not really. The manufacturer, like the Royal navy just says anti-air i.e. doesn't limit targets to missiles.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:In general, SAM has a longer range for slowly moving targets. So, in principle, for a target sitting near the sea-level moving very slowly, CAMM can engaged with ballistic trajectory to as far as 60 km, kinematically. ...
The speed of the target isn't really material. What matter is how predictable is the targets flight path.
No objection. Of course, slow moving patrol aircraft, or helicopter-type drones, or propeller-based slow drone, are a (relatively) easy target. This is what I meant.
seaspear wrote:The other advantage currently of the sm-6 is it can also be used for durface targets but admittedly its warhead size is smaller than current surface missiles at 64 kilos compared to 221 for the Harpoon and 450 for the Tomahawk ,but may address a capability shortfall in surface shipborne weapons until something more capable is ready for deployment
Interesting. Sea Venom has 30 kg warhead, and NSM 120 kg. SM-6 65 kg looks "not bad", as anti-ship missile. It can reach 400-500 km, already among the longest range as ASM, although it will never be a "sea-skimmer" :D

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

It might be that deployment of anti surface missiles on ships will be set around the complimentry ability to adopt different flight boths that opposing radars cant focus on at the same time ,perhaps doing so will require many ships presently to be expensively remodified if possible

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I didn 't realise you could use the Aster 30 with the Mk41 system.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote:I didn 't realise you could use the Aster 30 with the Mk41 system.
They do.
LM official brochure. Future missile integration could include Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM), Common Anti Air Modular Missile (CAMM), ASTER, Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) and Barak

But this does NOT mean you can do it for free. Any integration testing, designing, manufacturing, wiring and CMS integration, someone MUST pay. May not be cheap.

Similarly, CAMM is not yet integrated into Sylver. No one had payed for it yet. May not be cheap.
ExLS in Mk.41 VLS is cleared, but not sure CAMM in ExLS in Mk.41 VLS is cleared or not. Anyway it will be cheap, because stand-alone ExLS = very similar technology, is cleared for CAMM.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... 042419.pdf

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:My vote is for
- currently 48 CAMM,
- and in (near) future, with ExLS go for 196 CAMM+SPEAR3
ASM is becoming more and more long-range, so even with 120 km range ASTER30, killing the "mother" (fighter, bomber, or patrol) will be impossible. CAMM is not intended to kill the mother, but to kill the ASM itself. A task that will never disappear. Being shorter in range, it can be small and accommodated in number. Being "common" with Air Force AAM, it can be built in number and hence cheaper (ASRAAM mk.2 share many components with CAMM). It has its own beauty.
For me I am with donald on this one given the chose of 16 Aster 30 or 64 CAMM I would go with 64 CAMM this being said a mix of 8 Aster 30 and 32 CAMM allowing a given ship to go from a 16 missile load out to 40 or 64 missile load out would for me be better.

As I have said before for me Type 45 should quad pack 16 cells with CAMM allowing the class to carry 32 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:My vote is for
- currently 48 CAMM,
- and in (near) future, with ExLS go for 196 CAMM+SPEAR3
ASM is becoming more and more long-range, so even with 120 km range ASTER30, killing the "mother" (fighter, bomber, or patrol) will be impossible. CAMM is not intended to kill the mother, but to kill the ASM itself. A task that will never disappear. Being shorter in range, it can be small and accommodated in number. Being "common" with Air Force AAM, it can be built in number and hence cheaper (ASRAAM mk.2 share many components with CAMM). It has its own beauty.
For me I am with donald on this one given the chose of 16 Aster 30 or 64 CAMM I would go with 64 CAMM this being said a mix of 8 Aster 30 and 32 CAMM allowing a given ship to go from a 16 missile load out to 40 or 64 missile load out for would be better.

As I have said before for me Type 45 should quad pack 16 cells with CAMM allowing the class to carry 32 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM
If the money was there to upgrade the T26s they could have a very nice fit out for me of something like this

40 x Mk41s forward ( extra 16 in place of mushrooms ) and 12+ ExcL mid ( in place of mushrooms )
These could hold as follows -
24 x CAMM
24 x CAMM-ER
10 x SM-6
10 x ASCOR or replacement
16 x Spear 3
16 x Future AShM / Land strike missile

This would make them one hell of a vessel and can be copied on to a T26 based T4X with a larger AAW load out.
But like Iv said previously the money isn’t there and there are higher priorities that should come first.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

FWIW rumours circulating of sale of the last two Italian Navy Fincantieri FREMM's to Egypt, mention of Euro 1.2 billion, ~ £500 million each (approx half price of a T26?), France and Germany out of picture due to Macron & Merkel criticism of killing the Saudi journalist, presuming Saudi financing deal, talk of earlier Egyptian order of six Meko 200 reduced from six to two?

https://www.meta-defense.fr/en/2020/02/ ... -to-egypt/
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fi ... 38726.html

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

dmereifield wrote:Are people seriously suggesting here that T26 with its 48 CAMM and Artisan is not able to provide AAW coverage for itself and close consorts? Even if the range is somewhat limited, 48 munitions vs as few as 16-24 for many other first tier escorts (outside of the US, China and Russia, at least)...
Yes, people are. Because right now the City class has one of the shortest range AAW missile fits of its type in the world (even ESSM, which virtually everyone uses, has double the minimum estimated range) as its ONLY air defence. The vast majority of major escorts roll with things like SM-2 at least. Yes, it has a lot of said missiles...but it's still a big capability gap.
Jake1992 wrote:I can get onboard with replacing the front mushrooms with extra Mk41s but not for sm-6, IMO replacing the mid ship mushrooms with 15 ExcL and fit them with 30 CAMM plus 30 CAMM-ER would be enough for a vessel in her role.
Is there space allowance back there for longer missiles? That's the big question. Even then, CAMM-ER is still very short range compared to the world at large.
I am not suggesting putting Aster 30 on the T26 the comparison was to show that even the RNs dedicated AAW platform doesn’t have a AAW missile with that range so it’d be rediculuse to put it on any other vessel in the fleet.
It patently isn't. There's no rule that states that you're not allowed to put a whatever missile on an escort. If it fits and works, it can go on. It's T45's fault it went with a dead end silo design, that shouldn't hold back ones that use an objectively better one. Type 45 really should be looking into Mk41s anyway.
You say up to 50km range isn’t enough and other navies escorts have fare greater range but to my knowledge these are AAW vessels with the exception of the french escorts ( linger range reduced numbers ) and the RANs T26s ( making up for only 3 AAW vessels )
Just because an escort says "AAW" before it is misleading. The vast majority of major escorts today are multipurpose. Saying "That country says AAW thus we don't need to worry about the RN's large backbone of the fleet having poor AAW" is looking to argue technicalities rather than actual real life warfare capability.

It is an undeniable trend that the majority of escorts in the world have much longer ranged missiles than the City class, and the gulf is only getting bigger. These ships don't come into service until 2027, with some of them not even arriving until near 2040. To fit a bunch of 25km missiles and say "Yeah thats fine" when almost all (or just flat all?) major navies are looking at the majority of the escorts having 120-180km type missiles in that same timeframe is the scandal of the hopeless SeaCat all over again.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: - UK paying integration cost of ASTER 30 into Mk.41 VLS
- re-rolling 8-cell of the existing 24-cell Mk41 VLS of T26 for ASTER 30
will be a better way.
ASM is becoming more and more long-range, so even with 120 km range ASTER30, killing the "mother" (fighter, bomber, or patrol) will be impossible. CAMM is not intended to kill the mother, but to kill the ASM itself.
The purpose of range is not about shooting down planes. That era disappeared at least a decade ago. It's about engaging incoming long before you're in the "last chance" phase. Everyone seems to think of these ships as just sitting out alone with their bubble and thats fine to justify short range only because of the horizon. But in reality, you've got F-35s, Crowsnest, Wedgetail, allied ships, allied planes, allied networks all throwing in information about that incoming. That is what enables range to matter and is why it is so critical. And why everyone else is going for it.

As I've said many many times, if the entire world is doing something and commonly agreeing on it as a route, then there's generally a reason.

As far as I see it, a City class designed for its era would have 32x Mk41 at the front (For ASW, LCAM, AShM, SAM), the CAMM amidships (whether bespoke or Excl), and a more powerful fixed facing AESA radar. Whether it also needs canisters depends on missile selection, and is optional. That would put it "on par" with global first rate escorts.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Are people seriously suggesting here that T26 with its 48 CAMM and Artisan is not able to provide AAW coverage for itself and close consorts? Even if the range is somewhat limited, 48 munitions vs as few as 16-24 for many other first tier escorts (outside of the US, China and Russia, at least)...
Yes, people are. Because right now the City class has one of the shortest range AAW missile fits of its type in the world (even ESSM, which virtually everyone uses, has double the minimum estimated range) as its ONLY air defence. The vast majority of major escorts roll with things like SM-2 at least. Yes, it has a lot of said missiles...but it's still a big capability gap.
Jake1992 wrote:I can get onboard with replacing the front mushrooms with extra Mk41s but not for sm-6, IMO replacing the mid ship mushrooms with 15 ExcL and fit them with 30 CAMM plus 30 CAMM-ER would be enough for a vessel in her role.
Is there space allowance back there for longer missiles? That's the big question. Even then, CAMM-ER is still very short range compared to the world at large.
I am not suggesting putting Aster 30 on the T26 the comparison was to show that even the RNs dedicated AAW platform doesn’t have a AAW missile with that range so it’d be rediculuse to put it on any other vessel in the fleet.
It patently isn't. There's no rule that states that you're not allowed to put a whatever missile on an escort. If it fits and works, it can go on. It's T45's fault it went with a dead end silo design, that shouldn't hold back ones that use an objectively better one. Type 45 really should be looking into Mk41s anyway.
You say up to 50km range isn’t enough and other navies escorts have fare greater range but to my knowledge these are AAW vessels with the exception of the french escorts ( linger range reduced numbers ) and the RANs T26s ( making up for only 3 AAW vessels )
Just because an escort says "AAW" before it is misleading. The vast majority of major escorts today are multipurpose. Saying "That country says AAW thus we don't need to worry about the RN's large backbone of the fleet having poor AAW" is looking to argue technicalities rather than actual real life warfare capability.

It is an undeniable trend that the majority of escorts in the world have much longer ranged missiles than the City class, and the gulf is only getting bigger. These ships don't come into service until 2027, with some of them not even arriving until near 2040. To fit a bunch of 25km missiles and say "Yeah thats fine" when almost all (or just flat all?) major navies are looking at the majority of the escorts having 120-180km type missiles in that same timeframe is the scandal of the hopeless SeaCat all over again.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: - UK paying integration cost of ASTER 30 into Mk.41 VLS
- re-rolling 8-cell of the existing 24-cell Mk41 VLS of T26 for ASTER 30
will be a better way.
ASM is becoming more and more long-range, so even with 120 km range ASTER30, killing the "mother" (fighter, bomber, or patrol) will be impossible. CAMM is not intended to kill the mother, but to kill the ASM itself.
The purpose of range is not about shooting down planes. That era disappeared at least a decade ago. It's about engaging incoming long before you're in the "last chance" phase. Everyone seems to think of these ships as just sitting out alone with their bubble and thats fine to justify short range only because of the horizon. But in reality, you've got F-35s, Crowsnest, Wedgetail, allied ships, allied planes, allied networks all throwing in information about that incoming. That is what enables range to matter and is why it is so critical. And why everyone else is going for it.

As I've said many many times, if the entire world is doing something and commonly agreeing on it as a route, then there's generally a reason.

As far as I see it, a City class designed for its era would have 32x Mk41 at the front (For ASW, LCAM, AShM, SAM), the CAMM amidships (whether bespoke or Excl), and a more powerful fixed facing AESA radar. Whether it also needs canisters depends on missile selection, and is optional. That would put it "on par" with global first rate escorts.
Yes you can put any missiles on any ship as long as it fits and works but the point is no one in the RN is going to logically look at it and go you know what let’s put a longer range AAW missile on the T26 than is on the T45.
Now down the line when the T4X is coming in sight and Aster 30 needs replacing if funding is there it could be a good should for both vessel is varying numbers.

Your dreaming about what we should have in that both vessels should be able to do both roles but with one having a slightly better AAW fit and the other ASW fit, this is what we’d all want but we are where we are due to funding.
There is a small pot and there a much higher priorities and putting something like SM-6 on the T26s.

The baseline around the western world seems to be 50km via ESSM or the like and yes this has double the range of CAMM and is much closer to CAMM-ER, that’s why I often saying here that we should be looking at bringing in CAMM-ER aswell.

CAMM-ER is meant to be quad packable in ExcL and Iv read that ExcL can be fitted mid ship in place of the mushrooms so it’s doable.


As Iv said before I’d love to see the T26 fitted with CEFRA and 40 x Mk41s along with 12+ ExcL mid ship but there are higher priorities first.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RetroSicotte wrote:....As I've said many many times, if the entire world is doing something and commonly agreeing on it as a route, then there's generally a reason.

As far as I see it, a City class designed for its era would have 32x Mk41 at the front (For ASW, LCAM, AShM, SAM), the CAMM amidships (whether bespoke or Excl), and a more powerful fixed facing AESA radar. Whether it also needs canisters depends on missile selection, and is optional. That would put it "on par" with global first rate escorts.
But it costs. Simply it costs.
First of all, I am a fan of canceling T31 to re-roll the 2B GBP to be spent on it. If this can happen, your proposal may work, and may be we can add 1 more T26 (but politically, very dangerous).

If not, the only way to go looks like, losing 2 T26 in place. This is my top concern now. *1

Of course, by further slowing down the build, the cost saved will be not so large, much less than "2B GBP" (2 times the "average" cost). But, anyway you need the (at least ~1B GBP I guess) money to
- either integrate "ASTER30 into Mk.41 VLS" or "SM-6 to CMS1"
- add a good radar set to all (remaining 6) T26 to make it multi-purpose, and add these long-range SAMs
- and may be do something to the remaining 5 T31.
- Also, order 2 more T31 from Clyde (not Rosyth) or 5-10 more "River Batch 3" OPV, just to fill the gap.

My proposal will rather,
- invest on Artisan to make it GaN (3-times the power) and fully AESA (rather cheap, I guess) on T26
- adopt Aster 30 NT or Blk2 (or alike) for T45 to make it BMD capable
- invest on CAMM (not CAMM-ER), to make "CAMM Mk.2" with air-breathing jet (for example) to look for as far as 100+ km, while keep it common with RAF.

*1 Another way will be to abandon LPDs. No money.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Jake1992 wrote:Yes you can put any missiles on any ship as long as it fits and works but the point is no one in the RN is going to logically look at it and go you know what let’s put a longer range AAW missile on the T26 than is on the T45.
You're missing what I'm saying. Unless you're going to add Sylver silos, or pay for integration, there is no other long range missile more practical to acquire than it.
Your dreaming about what we should have in that both vessels should be able to do both roles but with one having a slightly better AAW fit and the other ASW fit, this is what we’d all want but we are where we are due to funding.
There is a small pot and there a much higher priorities and putting something like SM-6 on the T26s.
This is strawmaning. I am not "dreaming" of anything. I am stating what the global standard requirement is. Because you must always bear in mind reality outside the allowances of the treasury. Stating what it needs to have to be on that level, and actually saying we "should" do it are two very different things. Complacency over self-comparison only is the route back to the horror days.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Yes you can put any missiles on any ship as long as it fits and works but the point is no one in the RN is going to logically look at it and go you know what let’s put a longer range AAW missile on the T26 than is on the T45.
You're missing what I'm saying. Unless you're going to add Sylver silos, or pay for integration, there is no other long range missile more practical to acquire than it.
Your dreaming about what we should have in that both vessels should be able to do both roles but with one having a slightly better AAW fit and the other ASW fit, this is what we’d all want but we are where we are due to funding.
There is a small pot and there a much higher priorities and putting something like SM-6 on the T26s.
This is strawmaning. I am not "dreaming" of anything. I am stating what the global standard requirement is. Because you must always bear in mind reality outside the allowances of the treasury. Stating what it needs to have to be on that level, and actually saying we "should" do it are two very different things. Complacency over self-comparison only is the route back to the horror days.
You’d still have to pay for the CMS integration so there is still a cost outside of the missile it’s self.

It is not straw manning it is point to the reality of having a smaller budget than is really required. There are simply higher priorities, IMO such as -
T45 BMD
All T45 AShM
T31 AShM
Bringing both LPDs in to service
Bringing all escorts in to service
CAMM + 4th phalanx on the QEs
Enough helo across the fleet
Enough F35s for the carriers and RAF

I am not so much arguing against it as Iv said up thread I’d add SM-6 to the T26s if the money was there but since it’s not the introduction of CAMM-ER to both the RN and army is a cheaper and more reasonable solution.

Simply put we all know that equipment across the board in a lot of cases is not up to what we’d all want or what is really needed but you have to work with in the budget we’ve got. I’d love to see HMG turn around tomorrow and as we’re upping the budget to 3%+ plus that’s not realistic.

Post Reply