Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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: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.
I'm not talking about whats likely. I'm talking about "Here's what the global standard for large first rate escorts is or is becoming, her eis how T-26 does not meet that, and what it has to add to match that."

We always have to keep the 'bar' in mind. Because often this island deludes itself under pretense to try and justify or defend genuine lacking qualities. (Just look at anyone talking about the Challenger 2 until very recently.)

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: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.
I'm not talking about whats likely. I'm talking about "Here's what the global standard for large first rate escorts is or is becoming, her eis how T-26 does not meet that, and what it has to add to match that."

We always have to keep the 'bar' in mind. Because often this island deludes itself under pretense to try and justify or defend genuine lacking qualities. (Just look at anyone talking about the Challenger 2 until very recently.)
SM-6 doesn’t seem like the global standard for most escorts though especially in the west it seem to be closer to ESSM with SM-6 being closer to AAW dedicated or leaning vessels like the T45s / ABs / Hobarts. This is why I personal think CAMM-ER would be good enough for now.

Yes you must keep an eye on the global bar but you also have to live with the budget you have. If you look back over the thread Iv often said we’ll have the least numbers and least well equipped T26s and often said they along with the T45s need a greater number of VLS and verity of Missiles to use, but at some point to have to look at what budget you have a decide what is the priority for that budget and for me SM-6 of T26 is way down that list.

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 »

http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... P-8807.pdf

Good summary of the situation. Nothing new, but very good compilation.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I was just skimming over the last few pages, might of missed something so I will apologise before hand,

Is not the T26 mission ASW, so goes before the fleet solo to test the water, so would a combination of its own CAMM & a few quad packed CAMM-ER be enough?

How much more would adding 16 CAMM-ER in mk 41 cost compared to upgrading them to fulfil a more AAW role?

Does any body know if the second batch of T26 is going be 5 or 3 then maybe a 3rd batch of 2 or maybe if we are lucky 3? fingers crossed, or would that lead to more uncertainty to the build process...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

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)...
CAMM on any ship is very capable of providing self defense against incoming missile and aircraft. Probably one of the very best systems available today. Probably one of the very best price performers.

My point has been, some ships are not worth being self defending as they are no threat to any potential enemy. The Type 31 for example. Why defend something at the cost of lives & money that doesn't need defending? The Type 31 can just sail away for all the use it has. It would be like kitting me out with a suit of armor at the battle of agincourt, why would anyone bother attacking me as I can't use a sword or bow.

Not true for the Type 26 because it has superb value performing ASW. Very, very, worth defending.

As to CAMM defending close consorts. That's a more contentious question. Traditionally, the RN hasn't required its close in missile systems like Sea Wolf to meet that requirement because the requirement is so much harder to meet, the cost of the system & missile increases dramatically. Realistically CAMM couldn't 100% protect a consort but just attacks from one general direction. Two CAMM systems on two ships would stand a better chance.

This can be seen with the carriers, their air defense is handled by the Type 45's with PAAMS. A much more capable system than CAMM.

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:
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
Integration would also require the French owners of Aster to be amenable to its integration in the Mk41 VLS. This is not a given.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Jake1992 wrote: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.
I soooo wish I knew if that were correct or not. I've not managed to find any written or video source that conforms either way whether CAMM-ER will fit into ExLs or not.

The closest was an interview (by Xav I think) where the interviewee said something like the ExLs could handle up to 4m class missiles. Ah so close. MBDA says CAMM-ER is 4.2m long and its launch container probably adds another 0.3 to 0.5m. So is 4.5m within limits?

I've carefully measure photographs but as those who have tried such things would expect, results point both ways.

On balance I would say no but an Italian document did say CAMM-ER was trialed from an ExLs but that might have been a misunderstanding and he mistook CAMM for CAMM-ER. Which was trialed.

So frustrating. I might need to actually write to Lockheed. Do you think they would reply?

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:http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... P-8807.pdf

Good summary of the situation. Nothing new, but very good compilation.
Thank you for posting this Donald-san. Depressing reading. They are so effed up.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

serge750 wrote:Does any body know if the second batch of T26 is going be 5 or 3 then maybe a 3rd batch of 2 or maybe if we are lucky 3? fingers crossed, or would that lead to more uncertainty to the build process...
The MoD have said before that all remaining 5 will be ordered in the next contract which will be signed (according to this new document) sometime in the early 2020's, so sometime in the next 5 years so don't hold your breath.

But they say so many things .....

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Ron5 regarding the Lockheed question, if you don't try you won't know, Carpe diem, i'm sure we would all be interested in knowing the answer :clap:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I read a report yesterday that the U.K had ordered 5 semi submersible uav, from a California based companys sorry for not providing the link but they seemed to be of a size that may be able to be deployed from a ship like the city class

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
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. ...
Integration would also require the French owners of Aster to be amenable to its integration in the Mk41 VLS. This is not a given.
Money can solve it. It is also "good" for ASTER30 to be being capable of Mk.41 VLS, because US-based SAM is showing "not good" score against incoming missiles historically (although it does NOT mean ASTER30 can do better). :D
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... P-8807.pdf
Good summary of the situation. Nothing new, but very good compilation.
Thank you for posting this Donald-san. Depressing reading. They are so effed up.
Actually, not that much for me.

"T31-hull1 in service on 2027" is easily predictable from the start of T31 program (remember I always doubted the in service dates of T31). Babcock has ZERO experience on escort building, ZERO. They need time to learn it, do it, and make it work. Must not hurry, and margin must be there. I am more "relaxed" to hear the 2027 number, actually.

Actually, I am more uncomfortable with the "all 5 hulls in hands of RN by 2028" claim. I think RN MUST abandon that target. As T26s are coming along with T31, there is not much need to hurry here = RN cannot man them, anyway.

# Of course, RN can disband T23 earlier, but this means "modify using significant cost, use it shortly, and then garbage" bad practice of RN.

Also, making the T31 build-line alive longer will be a good way to enable future export. Just imagine your are a sales man and forced to get a customer within 6 months, because the factory will close this July. If you have a freedom for another 6 month (say, next January), your sales activity is much more relaxed. Many other customers with different "due date" comes into the table.

I am even happy to sale some of the RN's T31 for export. France didi it, sold their FREMM Normandy to Egypt, right before handing over. Italy is planning to sale hull-9 and hull-10 of their FREMM to Egypt now (right before the handing over).
With "not enough" RN frigate crew, gapping 1 year of T31 in favor of rapid delivery for export, is surely a good option to consider.

Later in 2030s, as more T26 comes in (with ~150 crew) releasing T23 (with ~190 crew), RN will be able to man all of them. Of course, here I assume T23 LIFEX are all ended, and T45 engine modification and by ~2025 = all SIX T45 are active.

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 still have a nagging feeling that the next batch for the T-26 will be for only three and that will be the last, with an order for a further improved, ASW T-31s coming soon after. This way the Government can show that it is increasing the escort fleet and the public won't recognise that the quality will have dropped. Babcock is kept in the "Escort" business and BAe also as both programmes will exist for the same timescale. After that BAe will probably be forced to share the T-4X programme with Babcock, with the appearance of a competition between the two.. Glass half full again I'm afraid.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

serge750 wrote: if the second batch of T26 is going be 5 or 3 then maybe a 3rd batch of 2 or maybe if we are lucky 3? fingers crossed, or would that lead to more uncertainty to the build process...
We need to get the 'stocking fillers' into the water and into RN hands - not necessarily the same thing as commissioned - first.
Ron5 wrote:against incoming missile and aircraft. Probably one of the very best systems available today. Probably one of the very best price performers.
That is the deal, and hence (combined with the launch method which affords flexibility in finding places for them, even on smaller hulls) they can become part of the 'std basic fit' on all RN surface combatants... which gives you the next benefit:
Ron5 wrote: Realistically CAMM couldn't 100% protect a consort but just attacks from one general direction. Two CAMM systems on two ships would stand a better chance.
When SeaCeptor was still a concept, this used to be called 'limited area defence' as opposed to what is understood with AAW... though that nicely descriptive term seems to have fallen out of favour. Perhaps the salesmen objected to the use of 'limited' in it :lol:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:As T26s are coming along with T31
Putting the marker at 2028 on the timeline would make "after" a more befitting description, no?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote:CAMM on any ship is very capable of providing self defense against incoming missile and aircraft. Probably one of the very best systems available today. Probably one of the very best price performers.
Interested why such confidence in CAMM, may well be correct, and hope that your right.

I'm yet to be 100% convinced by Sea Ceptor purely due to limited testing, the only tests have seen reported were against low speed target drones, none against equivalent supersonic anti-ship missiles which are not that uncommon. The Dec 2017 trials with HMS Argyll/Sea Ceptor - "During the firings the system was first tested against single aerial targets. This was followed by more demanding tests, including a single target engaged by two missiles and a twin firing, two targets, each engaged by a single missile at the same time". My understanding the target drones used were the low speed Mirach mach 0.6 and Firejet mach 0.7.

Whereas the French Navy successfully tested the Aster 30, April 2012, with FS Forbin against a USN GQM-163A Coyote SSST solid booster plus ramjet target drone, speeds of up to Mach 2.8 at sea level, in the terminal approach phase the Coyote will fly at Mach 2.5 at 5 m (16 ft) altitude, the Coyote also purchased by Australians and Japanese, but not the RN.

It's to be remembered that missile defence, even using two missiles per target success rate not 100%, the Israeli claim of 90% with Iron Dome treated with a high degree of scepticism amongst some experts (Army Sky Sabre CAMM will use the Israeli Rafael Iron Dome C4I). AAW defence relies not just on missiles but soft kill, decoys and jammers, which are as important, relatively little discussion on them as limited info and not as sexy as missiles.

If above missing test info on CAMM appreciate pointer.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:speeds of up to Mach 2.8 at sea leve
Love that one... as similar real threats are in service
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:speeds of up to Mach 2.8 at sea leve
Love that one... as similar real threats are in service
23 Jan 2020

"The Indian Air Force (IAF) has commissioned its first squadron of Sukhoi Su-30MKIs equipped with the Mach 2.8 BrahMos-A (Air) supersonic anti-ship/cruise missile (PJ-10). No. 222 Squadron “Tigersharks // Outstanding issues associated with the missile’s structure, carriage, and ignition system have now been resolved // BrahMos is better than the competition because of its sea-skimming and terrain-hugging capabilities at high precision and speed, making it difficult to detect. The BrahMos missile provides the IAF with the capability of striking from standoff ranges at any target at sea or on land with pinpoint accuracy, by day or night and in all weather conditions. // The air-launched version of the missile, the BrahMos-A, is 8.3 meters (27.2 feet) long and weighs 2.5 tonnes, of which 300 kg (660 pounds) is the warhead. It has a solid-propellant booster rocket for launch and a liquid-fueled ramjet for sustained flight and can reach around Mach 2.8. Range is close to 300 km (162 nm). The Sukhois have a combat radius of 1,500 km without mid-air refueling. The missile is carried on the belly pylon and takes 25 minutes to load./a “game-changer that will extensively enhance the security of the maritime domain.” Thanjavur was chosen as the base for the establishment of the BrahMos-equipped Su-30MKI squadron because of its strategic location, commented Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria, chief of the air staff."

From <https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... mmissioned>

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: No. 222 Squadron “Tigersharks
Sounds like a brake-the-mold fighter design from the past
... anyway Moskva + Brahmaputhra, if you reverse those, seems to have delivered, as a joint venture in development. Of course we paid into that: the Indian space program... getting the solid fuel propellants right and all that. Which of the top UK universities might have done that under research grants?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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: Ron5 wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

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. ...

Integration would also require the French owners of Aster to be amenable to its integration in the Mk41 VLS. This is not a given.

Money can solve it. It is also "good" for ASTER30 to be being capable of Mk.41 VLS, because US-based SAM is showing "not good" score against incoming missiles historically (although it does NOT mean ASTER30 can do better). :D
I don't think so. No French missiles are available to be launched from US launchers as far as I am aware and the French are OK with that. They have zero interest in decreasing the value of their Sylver launchers and decreasing the value of their 100% French equipment fits. I don't see how money can influence French government policy.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

As soon as many students studying at UK Universities discovered that any defence related work was being carried out they would start picketing the labs and demanding a halt to all such work as the though of such work may emotionally scar them for life, bless the little darlings.

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: Ron5 wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... P-8807.pdf
Good summary of the situation. Nothing new, but very good compilation.

Thank you for posting this Donald-san. Depressing reading. They are so effed up.

Actually, not that much for me.
Probably because you have less of an interest (nothing wrong with that) in seeing that the Brits cannot even keep to their pathetically low target of maintaining a 19 ship escort fleet and the major reason being their appalling incompetence at every level throughout their entire government structure from politicians on down.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Ron5 wrote:
Realistically CAMM couldn't 100% protect a consort but just attacks from one general direction. Two CAMM systems on two ships would stand a better chance.

When SeaCeptor was still a concept, this used to be called 'limited area defence' as opposed to what is understood with AAW... though that nicely descriptive term seems to have fallen out of favour. Perhaps the salesmen objected to the use of 'limited' in it :lol:
I'm not sure the RN actually believed that much in area air defense after the Falklands war.

The only tests of such defenses since have been overland and have conspicuously failed every time. I'm not sure why they are the buggaboo that everyone claims.

I'm with you, put point defense systems on anything of value, at least then you stand something of a chance. Start with the carriers. The reasons for not installing Sea Ceptor/CAMM are just pathetic.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:...Actually, not that much for me.
Probably because you have less of an interest (nothing wrong with that) in seeing that the Brits cannot even keep to their pathetically low target of maintaining a 19 ship escort fleet and the major reason being their appalling incompetence at every level throughout their entire government structure from politicians on down.
Sorry, I think you miss my point. I mean, I have been feeling depressing from 2018 onward, and this report has almost no effect.

1: the current schedule looks technically reasonable. I guess the schedule is
- build the building by late 2020 (challenging, I think)
- start steel cutting 6 months later (mid-2001):
- hit the water in 2.5 years (late-2023): not easy, but doable.
- fitting out and contractor sea trial 1.5-2 years (mid-2025): this is 1st of class ship of the 1st ever escort built by Babcock.
- hand over to RN in mid-late 2025, raising white ensign.
- training, establishing all manual/procedures by RN 1.5 years
- to be in service on mid-2027.
Actually, I am glad to hear this. They finally became honest and technical right.

2: So, when I felt depressing? For me,
- Babcock claiming "can deliver by 2025" even in 2019 was depressing. Very depressing. It clearly states, they do NOT know how to do it.
- selecting large and fighty hull (albeit with limited armaments, see T31 thread), built to full NATO Frigate standard, but still requiring "first ship by 2023" done by MOD/RN in 2018 was also very depressing. It clearly states, MOD also do NOT know how to do it.
- If they do knew it, that means they were all just lying. (another very depressing issue).

The reason I was sticking to "increase T26" and "level down T31 into Floreal-level" were all based on this fairly simple and logical (hmm, for me) assessment.

In 2016, what if, 5 River B2 was 3 Floreal-like Al-Khareef, and RN ordered 10 T26.
In 2018, what if, T31 was 4 Floreal-like Al-Khareef or Vard7-100, and 9 T26 was to be ordered.
In both cases, RN should have had a clear view to see no gap in escorts. (although "Floreal-like Al-Khareef or Vard7-100" might NOT be called escorts :D )

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The only real hope for the RN to increase the numbers of true escorts it operates is if the T-4X programme produces more than just 6 platforms and that they are more multirole than pure AAW platforms. Say stretch the T-26 a little bit and install four Strike length and two standard length MK41s forward together with w 57mm, and then have a further two standard length Mk41s amidships, where the "Mushrooms" are at present. That would give the ship 64 silos for any combination of missiles. Wishful thinking but an evolution of the T-26 may keep costs down as opposed to a brand new design. The US has had the right idea, sticking to and evolving the ABs to their maximum potential,

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The only real hope for the RN to increase the numbers of true escorts it operates is if the T-4X programme produces more than just 6 platforms and that they are more multirole than pure AAW platforms. Say stretch the T-26 a little bit and install four Strike length and two standard length MK41s forward together with w 57mm, and then have a further two standard length Mk41s amidships, where the "Mushrooms" are at present. That would give the ship 64 silos for any combination of missiles. Wishful thinking but an evolution of the T-26 may keep costs down as opposed to a brand new design. The US has had the right idea, sticking to and evolving the ABs to their maximum potential,
This is the only way to go in real terms and what is really needed now is away a head on weapon's fit so something like all escorts from Type-26 forward should have a standard fit like

Mk-41 VLS ( Base line 16 cells working up wards )
5" main gun
40mm with 3P
Phalanx
Stabilized mount with GAU-19 + 4 LMM fitted ( I will call it a Lite arms Mount or LAM )
CAMM
I-SSGW / F-SSGW
Future long range Anti air missile ( I will call it FLRAAM )

This could allow different class to be fitted for task like so

Type 26 ) 1 x 5" gun , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 2 x LAM's , 8 x I-SSGW , 48 cell Mk-41 with 32 CAMM , 16 FLRAAM , plus 24 cells fitted for task

Type- 31) 1 x 5" gun , 2 x 40mm , 2 x LAM's , 4 x I-SSGW , 16 cell Mk-41 with 32 CAMM and 8 cells as tasked

Type 4X ) 1 x 5" gun , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 2 x LAM's , 8 x I-SSGW , 64 cell Mk-41 with 64 CAMM , 40 FLRAAM , plus 8 cells as tasked

B2 River ) 1 x 40mm , 2x LAM's

Post Reply