UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Feb 2020, 11:07

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

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 10 Feb 2020, 11:11

Moving over here from the Type 31 thread

Right now for me all Type 31 needs is a HMS and a 8 cell MK-41 VLS allowing the class to carry up to 32 CAMM or a Mix of CAMM and Spear-3 something like 20 x CAMM and 12 Spear-3 would be a good fit for its task

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 10 Feb 2020, 13:35

Tempest414 wrote:Moving over here from the Type 31 thread

Right now for me all Type 31 needs is a HMS and a 8 cell MK-41 VLS allowing the class to carry up to 32 CAMM or a Mix of CAMM and Spear-3 something like 20 x CAMM and 12 Spear-3 would be a good fit for its task


Ok, but not going to happen. Realistically the best we can hope for is ensuring 24 CAMM, a HMS, ASM (in due course, the 5 interim sets ported over from the retiring T23s) and a 5 inch gun

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 10 Feb 2020, 14:08

In the context of the type 26 city class would this proposal for the Hunter class make sense for the type 26 city class
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... inadequate

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Feb 2020, 14:25

Tempest414 wrote:Moving over here from the Type 31 thread
Right now for me all Type 31 needs is a HMS and a 8 cell MK-41 VLS allowing the class to carry up to 32 CAMM or a Mix of CAMM and Spear-3 something like 20 x CAMM and 12 Spear-3 would be a good fit for its task
dmereifield wrote:Ok, but not going to happen. Realistically the best we can hope for is ensuring 24 CAMM, a HMS, ASM (in due course, the 5 interim sets ported over from the retiring T23s) and a 5 inch gun
I really hope NOT to add any more money to T31.

At the beginning, they say they will cut 1.25B GBP from T26 and use it for T31. I still didn't like it, but 1.25B is well-designed value. It barely meets 2 T26 hull. I though, "Even if canceling T31, RN can get only 1 more T26. Maybe not bad to have 5 (Floreal-like) Patrol Frigate with this price".

Now it is 2B GBP. It turned out to be "more than two" and "nearly three" T26s now. From where this additional 750M GBP came? Surely from RN equipment budget, the budget which should have been used for T26, T45 and other assets.

1: Why add Mk.41 on T31 while accepting only 48 mushrooms onboard T26?
2: Why add HMS on T31, while leaving the HMS of T45 very basic?
3: Why add ASM on T31, while only 5 of the 14 Tier-1 escorts (8 T23ASW and 6 T45) carrying ASM?

# Hmm, actually items 2 and 3 might be reasonable. :think:

But, the reality is worse. All the money come from the same wallet, the equipment budget (which already have 5-10% shortfall, actually). If you add 8-cell Mk.41 VLS on T31, it will eat the money which should have gone to T26 = T26 will lose (at least 8, but probably) 16-cells of VLS. (because of its mechanical integration and wiring, front-end electronics unit cost and CMS integration all costs a lot).

I am for cutting T31 to up-arm T31. Say, down-arm hull-1 and 2, to up-arm hull-3,4,5, for example.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 10 Feb 2020, 16:31

seaspear wrote:In the context of the type 26 city class would this proposal for the Hunter class make sense for the type 26 city class
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... inadequate

Sounds like that article didn't do its research, the "doghouse" design it claims is in the T26 disappeared years ago.

Unless the Hunter has some change back there, I fail to see the problem. The T26's Hangar+Mission Bay space is the largest on any escort in the world.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Feb 2020, 19:46

Part of me would be happier for the escort fleet to drop to 14 than for the T-31 to be built and join the fleet. In my eye it sets a very bad precedence for future warship design for the Royal Navy. It is such a drop in capability over its predecessor that to call them a replacement is so far from the truth is could be classed as a lie.

What the Navy should have done was accept a strength of 14 but build up personnel so that there are crews for 21 allowing crews to be rotated without ships always having to return to port.

There will be a drop in escorts over the T-26 delivery timeframe as T-23 are retired faster than the arrival of the T-26s, but a modest increase in the delivery speed of the second batch of 5 would go someway to reduce this. A further 2 T-26 should be ordered around 2025. In the mean time design work on the T-4X should be already ongoing and this needs to be a more multi role vessel though mainly aimed at AAW. The first of class should dovetail into the end of the T-26 programme and at least 8, but ideally 10.

This would eventually give the RN an escort force that is set a 20 platforms. The mid term modernisation of the T-26 should remove the "Mushrooms and maximise the number of Mk41 available as well as installing CEC which should already be on the T-4X.

Once the last T-4X is delivered the follow on to the T-26 should be dovetailed in that programme, as by then the first of that class would be over 25 years old. At this point there would be a option to further increase the fleet by retaining the T-26 and further upgrading their weapons and systems.

This is not a scientific timeframe but the goal should be continuous construction with minimal gaps.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 10 Feb 2020, 21:02

Lord Jim wrote:continuous construction with minimal gaps


You mean a stable pipeline of business that companies can plan to and the government doesn’t incur costs for short term delays and destroying and then rebuilding capabilities - it’ll never catch on...

In my view the RN could have got three more T26s for the price of the T31, one that BAE had offered for free if the RN had ordered 8 outright plus two more for £1bn each.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Feb 2020, 03:57

Lord Jim wrote:a more multi role vessel though mainly aimed at AAW. The first of class should dovetail into the end of the T-26 programme[/quote A great idea ;)
Repulse wrote:one that BAE had offered for free if the RN had ordered 8 outright
Well, we did the exact opposite?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2419
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 11 Feb 2020, 09:34

Lord Jim wrote:Part of me would be happier for the escort fleet to drop to 14 than for the T-31 to be built and join the fleet. In my eye it sets a very bad precedence for future warship design for the Royal Navy. It is such a drop in capability over its predecessor that to call them a replacement is so far from the truth is could be classed as a lie.

What the Navy should have done was accept a strength of 14


On the other hand, it's a case of that Churchill's joke about being drunk and ugly. One day, with proper armament, T31 can be a real frigate, while Rivers will allways be just an OPV.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2419
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 11 Feb 2020, 09:38

IMHO, the real question is how armed will T26 be? If without ASMs, ASROC and land strike missiles, and at the moment it seems so, then I really don't see any reason why spend precious pounds on more of them, while reducing the numbers of rest of fleet. Rather the opposite. 11 T26 (and zero T31) is good if fully armed. If not, then even 6 of them is too much.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 11 Feb 2020, 11:09

All this talk of scrapping type 31 and building more type 26 is just dreaming what we need now is to make T-31 a good ship for its task and its task will be GP so what is needed over and above what we it have now for me it needs a sonar more CAMM and a anti-ship weapon so what are the options

Sonar) we can fit a HMS or we have time to see how the Towed sonar being fitted to the IH class works out and fit that

CAMM) The class will come in to service with 12 to 24 for me it should have 32 to 36 ( in line with the T-23's going out of service which have 32 )

Anti-ship weapon) We can buy more I-SSGW weapons out of the 13 Billion pound missile budget or fast track a Spear-3 VL system which could be fitted to all 3 classes of escorts

All this is doable and in my mind should be done Type 31 with its low crew numbers and long range is what the Navy needs as Global patrol ship right now

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Feb 2020, 11:35

I totally agree, canceling T31 might be "too late".

But, for your hull-sonar, more CAMM, and ASM; (1) How much will it cost, (2) How many crew will be added, and (3) from where these money and crew will come?

I guess it will be (in total for 5 units)
1- HMS = >100M GBP (not only HMS, but also ASW software integration to CMS, more console), CAMM = >150M GBP, and ASM = >100M. Sum --> 350M-500M GBP.
2- 20 more crews per hull --> in total 100 more
3- Of course, 350M-500M GBP and 100 crew does not worth "one T26". But, we all know "another 750M GBP has been already stolen (I think, from T26)". This 350M-500M GBP may kill one unit. At least, it may easily kill one Bay-replacement (making it only 2 hulls).

Does it worth it?

I will rather
- degrade T31-hull1 and 2 with no CAMM with single 20mm CIWS replacing aft 40mm gun. Also degrade the CMS significantly to save cost.
- and make hull3 to 5 to carry 24 CAMM each. Not sure about HMS. I do not think it worth it. But, SeaSentor torpedo defense system is must (*1)
- no ASM needed. Wildcat carries SeaVenom and/or LMM. That's enough.

*1 Capability to avoid torpedo, and save time to call for help, will be much much important than try pinging in vain. We all know hull-sonar in noisy hull will never beat SSK. It is just an easy target for subs. But, if T31 can avoid the first torpedo, everything changes. Enemy SSK already revealed her location = losing there only defensive mean "stealth". Enemy SSK never knows if a P-8A is flying near or not. It needs only 10 minutes to fly over from 170 km away (only if it is already in flight), so "see no P-8 in the periscope" means nothing.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 11 Feb 2020, 11:55

donald_of_tokyo wrote:3- Of course, 350M-500M GBP and 100 crew does not worth "one T26". But, we all know "another 750M GBP has been already stolen (I think, from T26)". This +350M GBP may kill one unit. At least, it may easily kill one Bay-replacement (making it only 2 hulls).


Firstly we do not know where the extra 750 million is coming from and what it is for yet however the cost of building 5 good GP frigates will be the cost and that cost should come from a mix of HMG departments

As for extra CAMM and I-SSGW these should come from the 13 Billion pound stand alone missile budget and not the T-26 or 31 budgets

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Feb 2020, 12:11

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:3- Of course, 350M-500M GBP and 100 crew does not worth "one T26". But, we all know "another 750M GBP has been already stolen (I think, from T26)". This +350M GBP may kill one unit. At least, it may easily kill one Bay-replacement (making it only 2 hulls).


Firstly we do not know where the extra 750 million is coming from and what it is for yet however the cost of building 5 good GP frigates will be the cost and that cost should come from a mix of HMG departments
Not sure. All HMG departments are now forced to cut 5%, and list 10 candidate-programs to be cut. And, it looks like MOD is not in exception. (I might be wrong here). I think MOD can push-back to 0%, but with equipment budget black hole, pushing back to 0% cut is not enough.
As for extra CAMM and I-SSGW these should come from the 13 Billion pound stand alone missile budget and not the T-26 or 31 budgets
So you propose to degrade the number of CAMM and ASM to be carried on T26? I know you don't, but this is what your proposal will result on.

Why hesitate to make 2 T31 just a Floreal to make 3 T31 a minimum GP frigate?

IH-class is made of only 3 hulls. With 2 (very close) sister hulls within the fleet, it will see not big problem to support? (I might be wrong here, again).

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Feb 2020, 14:03

Query - A lot of people repeatedly suggest Spear as a vertical launch anti-ship weapon.

In the air, it has about a 130-140km range. From vertical launch that is likely to be MUCH lower. MICA drops from 50km (although I'd seen ridiculous wikipedia claims of 80km lately, likely in the same "CAMM can do 60km" style) to 20km when it changes from fast jet launch to vertical launch, and it's a slightly larger missile.

It is highly likely Spear would have a sub 75km range from a vessel, making it effectively useless on an escort. Too small for ship to ship, and too overcosted and with mass overlap for anti-FIC (which is more the job of Sea Venom and Martlet).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Feb 2020, 14:58

RetroSicotte wrote:Query - A lot of people repeatedly suggest Spear as a vertical launch anti-ship weapon.

In the air, it has about a 130-140km range. From vertical launch that is likely to be MUCH lower. MICA drops from 50km (although I'd seen ridiculous wikipedia claims of 80km lately, likely in the same "CAMM can do 60km" style) to 20km when it changes from fast jet launch to vertical launch, and it's a slightly larger missile.

It is highly likely Spear would have a sub 75km range from a vessel, making it effectively useless on an escort. Too small for ship to ship, and too overcosted and with mass overlap for anti-FIC (which is more the job of Sea Venom and Martlet).
Interesting point. Referring to Harpoon, a turbo-jet missile (much better than rocket propelled super-sonic SeaMICA),

ref: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html
- AGM-84D (air launched) = 220 km (120 nm)
- RGM/UGM-84D = 140 km (75 nm)
Note that Harpoon ASM has a booster when surface launched. So, if SPEAR3 can have a booster, then its range in surface launch will be 130-140 km x (140/220) = 83-89 km? (I'm not sure if SPEAR3 may have a booster when in VLS).

It does overlap with SeaVenom (but not with Martlet/LMM). Developing a surface-launched SeaVenom vs add a booster to SPEAR3 and load it in ExLS. I like the latter.

On the other hand, I'm afraid LMM will have a big over lap with 57 mm gun, especially with ALaMO anti-surface guided rounds in ant-boat, and MAD-FIRES with anti-drone (although MAD-FIRES are aiming at ASM defense = more high-spec.)

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 11 Feb 2020, 15:07

As I understand, the potential interest in a ship launched version of Spear is primarily for precision land attack, against mobile targets. This would be an adjunct to NGFS, potentially supporting RM. To be useful, it would need a range of ~100-150 km. As such the air launched version would need some form of additional booster stage.

Any anti-ship role (e.g. FIAC), would be a secondary issue.

However, without investment, a ship launched version of Spear is still nothing more than an aspiration.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Feb 2020, 15:09

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It does overlap with SeaVenom (but not with Martlet/LMM). Developing a surface-launched SeaVenom vs add a booster to SPEAR3 and load it in ExLS. I like the latter.

My main curiosity is...what is the intended purpose of a surface launched Spear on a ship? What is its target?

Is this a solution looking for a problem?

You won't ever use something like that against an opposing escort in this day and age, even lighter ones.

What requirement is worth the expense and space for such a specific niche missile?

Aethulwulf wrote:As I understand, the potential interest in a ship launched version of Spear is primarily for precision land attack, against mobile targets. This would be an adjunct to NGFS, potentially supporting RM. To be useful, it would need a range of ~100-150 km. As such the air launched version would need some form of additional booster stage..


So a land attack missile, for specifically only moving targets within 100km, that the NGFS can't handle.

That sounds incredibly overly specific to me, when money is already tight for primary roles, such as OTH AShM, ASW weapons, Land Attack Cruise Missiles, guided NGFS rounds...

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 11 Feb 2020, 15:20

RetroSicotte wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It does overlap with SeaVenom (but not with Martlet/LMM). Developing a surface-launched SeaVenom vs add a booster to SPEAR3 and load it in ExLS. I like the latter.

My main curiosity is...what is the intended purpose of a surface launched Spear on a ship? What is its target?

Is this a solution looking for a problem?

You won't ever use something like that against an opposing escort in this day and age, even lighter ones.

What requirement is worth the expense and space for such a specific niche missile?

Aethulwulf wrote:As I understand, the potential interest in a ship launched version of Spear is primarily for precision land attack, against mobile targets. This would be an adjunct to NGFS, potentially supporting RM. To be useful, it would need a range of ~100-150 km. As such the air launched version would need some form of additional booster stage..


So a land attack missile, for specifically only moving targets within 100km, that the NGFS can't handle.

That sounds incredibly overly specific to me, when money is already tight for primary roles, such as OTH AShM, ASW weapons, Land Attack Cruise Missiles, guided NGFS rounds...
It is linked to the Littoral Strike concept, for very small scale interventions when a carrier with Apache / F35 is not present.

Also, lessons from Libya show that such a capability would have been very useful.

But, still quite far from the top of the funding priority list.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Feb 2020, 15:31

Aethulwulf wrote:It is linked to the Littoral Strike concept, for very small scale interventions when a carrier with Apache / F35 is not present.

Also, lessons from Libya show that such a capability would have been very useful.

But, still quite far from the top of the funding priority list.

I realise your last statement there that its deep down, although I still question the worth. If it's only useful when:

1. The ship is within 100km of a coastline.

2. The enemy is not capable of putting the ship in such a location in undue danger.

3. The NGFS is not capable of striking the target with or without a guided projectile. (ie - Target must be mobile.)

4. There is no available F-35 or Apache.

5. The target is not worth a normal guided cruise missile.

It's extremely difficult for me to find it a useful monetary output vs making even an existing ability more robust (simply purchasing more Spears for aircraft for example to have a deeper inventory I would consider higher than this.)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Feb 2020, 15:35

RetroSicotte wrote:My main curiosity is...what is the intended purpose of a surface launched Spear on a ship? What is its target?
Is this a solution looking for a problem?
You won't ever use something like that against an opposing escort in this day and age, even lighter ones.
What requirement is worth the expense and space for such a specific niche missile?
1: My major motivation (although just a guy in far east) comes from the fact that, SPEAR3 is primarily a land-attack missile. Thus, it will be produced in number, even 1000+. If the air-launched SPEAR3 and VL-SPEAR3 can share the majority of the airframe, it will be cheap. Mass production will never happen to SSM.

I like the CAMM being common in many part with ASRAAM. Short-range AAM is a missile to be mass produced. Sharing the components with frigate-launched SAM has a big merit, I guess. Can the same happen to SPEAR3? This is my sole point.

Specialized anti-ship 120 kg missile SeaVenom, vs common anti-surface/land 100 kg SPEAR3.

2: By the way, against modern escorts, swarm of SPEAR3 will be critical. Its warhead is small but still cannot be overlooked. So, any ASTER-equipped escort will rapidly consume their 16 ASTER15/30 try to shoot them down (here I suppose SPEAR3 is resilient against soft kill). As an intelligent modern missile, I understand SPEAR3 can easily arrange to do simultaneous swarm attack. I think it will be a nightmare?

[EDIT] But, I agree this argument does not fully support having "VL"-SPEAR3 on escorts, while supporting SPEAR3 itself. Resultant range of VL-SPEAR3 will define its usefulness, I agree. If its range get as long as 200 km, it will be very great. And, if VL-SPEAR3 Blk1 can do 100 km, I'm sure its Blk2 will do 200 km.

#But, may be I am just NOT supportive of SeaVenom.

Not sure. It could be just a fantasy. But, I'm sure, anyway SeaVenom cannot penetrate escort AAW system. It is only 4 at once at most (from 1 Wildcat).

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 11 Feb 2020, 15:46

RetroSicotte wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:It is linked to the Littoral Strike concept, for very small scale interventions when a carrier with Apache / F35 is not present.

Also, lessons from Libya show that such a capability would have been very useful.

But, still quite far from the top of the funding priority list.

I realise your last statement there that its deep down, although I still question the worth. If it's only useful when:

1. The ship is within 100km of a coastline.

2. The enemy is not capable of putting the ship in such a location in undue danger.

3. The NGFS is not capable of striking the target with or without a guided projectile. (ie - Target must be mobile.)

4. There is no available F-35 or Apache.

5. The target is not worth a normal guided cruise missile.

It's extremely difficult for me to find it a useful monetary output vs making even an existing ability more robust (simply purchasing more Spears for aircraft for example to have a deeper inventory I would consider higher than this.)
The real questions are:

A. How likely is it in the next ~20 years that a small scale UK force will be faced with an opposition force mostly armed with Toyota pick-up Technicals or other light armour, and these operations will be within a coastal area.

B. How much priority should be given to equipping UK forces for such a scenario, versus all of the other potential threats.

I would say the answer to A is greater than 50%. I don't know the answer to B.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Feb 2020, 17:04

RetroSicotte wrote:existing ability more robust (simply purchasing more Spears for aircraft for example to have a deeper inventory


That robustness goes back to yr #4
RetroSicotte wrote:4. There is no available F-35 or Apache.

and that is not a question of how many in inventory, but simply availability, which often boils down to reaction time: minutes vs. half an hour

That's the NFGS angle.

On the ship-to-ship 'front' I have made my views known:
- it won't kill 'anything' (of equivalence)
- but you can ripple launch, saturate the defences and 'blind' the opposing vessel(s) by taking most of their sensors out... as good as a mission kill that would be

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Feb 2020, 17:14

Aethulwulf wrote:A. How likely is it in the next ~20 years that a small scale UK force will be faced with an opposition force mostly armed with Toyota pick-up Technicals or other light armour, and these operations will be within a coastal area.


You only need to read the front page of The Times today, their reporter dodging guided artillery rounds for which the cueing is fro live-streaming COTS drones
- imagine Boris had already had us send an "observation force" there
- you can't shoot down the drones )the next one will just step up)... so
- you'll have to go for the command centre, directing them and then passing on the coordination to whatever fires can reach

Err, that ' command centre' could be on the back of a lorry
- would I call this a Business Case? ... Someone might; what are the alternative means, we could again work thru Retro's numbered list


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests