Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:There's video on YouTube that shows it in action.
Yeah, I linked to it on TD abt 10 yrs back
Ron5 wrote:western 30mm market sown up.
How many ships, besides ours as a substitution for a British made (early) gun on the same mounts, have it? Undoubtedly rounds (based on land use) are readily available.

Ron, I always thought you are a BAE man - how can you now let them down? http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tions.html
- btw, that mk4 is the new gun I was referring to - which did not exist ten years back when that video was 'hot'
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

The DS30B uses an Oerlikon 30mm. It's the DS30M (ASCG) that uses the Bushmaster
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:The DS30B uses an Oerlikon 30mm. It's the DS30M (ASCG) that uses the Bushmaster
Thanks. I've got it stuck in my thick head that the "B" stands for Bushmaster. Can't shake it loose.

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:that mk4 is the new gun I was referring to
New box, old contents.

By my count, 6 navies have the Mk 44 in service. Including the top two.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With five pairs of DS-30M Mk2 available with the retirement of the T=23GP, not sure which models, they surely would have been a cheaper and better choice. The 57mm I totally agree with but 40mm Bofors, unless we have a buy on 57mm get two free 4omm from BAe/Bofors seem san un necessary expense. having two stabilised RWS each mounting a 30mm dual feed Bushmaster and five LMM could do the job just as well as the Mk4 with its 3P ammunition. It would have also given the T-31 a layered anti surface capability, LMM, 57mm and final 30mm, with the outer ring far greater than what the Mk4 could provide. And all at a negligible cost as nearly everything would be GFE, with the contractor only having to carry out integration with the ships CMS which given its open nature would not be too difficult or costly.

Now Babcock has won the contract it would be nice to see the costings behind their bid etc.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Would be nice to see the details behind the bid for certain, however it may be more insightful to see the price of T26 batch 2.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given the financial constraints I see no reason to add two additional gun platforms. I see the sense in the 57mm as it is more appropriate as a main gun on a patrol Frigate/Sloop/MHPC. I see little sense in a 40mm given the existing 30mm kit and infrastructure in place, unless it replaces the Phalanx as well which seems unlikely.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We might be able to swap the ten 40mm for five or six 57mm giving us five for type 31 and five for the B2 Rivers. And going back to having 2 x 30mm and a Phalanx on type 31 however as I said up thread if we are all ready signed up to the 40mm then fit them to the B2 Rivers this would still be a upgrade to them

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Roders96 wrote: it may be more insightful to see the price of T26 batch 2.
Quite. As that will have a major bearing on T31b2... like: any of them? Or how many, and specialised in what?
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ize-ships/

Interesting that France, Spain, Greece and Italy all joining forces on a new replacement core platform 3,000t design to replace existing corvettes and OPVs - will be a 50+ Vessels.

Whilst requirements may differ, it’s something IMO that the UK is lacking. This sized ship was what the MHPC was supposed to be.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ize-ships/

Interesting that France, Spain, Greece and Italy all joining forces on a new replacement core platform 3,000t design to replace existing corvettes and OPVs - will be a 50+ Vessels.

Whilst requirements may differ, it’s something IMO that the UK is lacking. This sized ship was what the MHPC was supposed to be.
Iv been saying for a while that we should look to evolve the RB2 design in to a 3,000-3,500t 105m by 15m vessel for the MHPC role like the Venari 95 idea or Black Swan concept.

IMO it would of been better to double down on the T26 and go for 10 ASW with a lengthened version to replace the T45s with a aim of 8. Then a long term aim of 20 odd of the above to replace the mcm, survey and 2 of the B1s.

2040 odd aiming for -
18 tier one escorts ( 10 ASW, 8 AAW ) based on T26
20 MHPC based on evolved RB2
5-6 RB2 for EEZ.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

There we go, but obviously this is for European waters
"A limited warship optimized for surface warfare" while the x-domain fit-out would be (?) for self-defence only.

17 as a minimum order already 'guaranteed' and the usual suspects (bordering the Med, that is) building "the prototype will be the first project undertaken by Naviris, the joint venture launched by France’s Naval Group and Italy’s Fincantieri" as per the article.

However, this derivative (from " a modular 3,300-ton" hull)
"A limited warship for lengthy missions (10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots) that can conduct surface warfare missions"
might be a 'tough-ie' but then again it might be more of a surveyor rather than a surveillance ship, and the way the world is going - either type may need to be able to defend itself, unlike our current Echo-class survey vessels that displace 3,740 t, but in the benevolent environment that has reigned so far are only armed to resist any boarding attempts.
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:Iv been saying for a while that we should look to evolve the RB2 design in to a 3,000-3,500t 105m by 15m vessel for the MHPC role
I would say move on from the River class hull to the 107 x 14.6 meter Leander hull as the Khareef class is already in the water and BAE has done work to rework the hull to the RN I think this hull with reworked upper structure would be a better place to start. if the 8 meters are added after the funnel allowing a complete rework to rear to include a covered working deck with flight deck on top

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

For what?

The navy has just bought 10 new patrol vessels, and mine hunters are drones now, so making more Leander/Khareef is totally pointless.
@LandSharkUK

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote:The choice of the 40mm for the T-31 has been a strange choice from my point of view. Introducing two new calibres of weapon when the existing DS30 would do as good as job and we will have a number of these available as the T-23s retire. Then of course there would also have been the choice of fitting the LMM launchers to the DS30.
I've not understood the armament strategy for T31. Given that pennies are tight and it's the GP T23 that is being replaced I'd have thought simply transfer over everything from the five T23 GPs to the first five T31s. 32 cell Seawolf / CAMM, DS30, Triple torps. Maybe substitute 57mm for the 4.5 up front. But even there only if 4.5 is being phased out on the T45s as well. Am I missing something?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:For what?

The navy has just bought 10 new patrol vessels, and mine hunters are drones now, so making more Leander/Khareef is totally pointless.
5 are meant to be “frigates” and long term won’t be used in place of mcm, survey or Falkland and Caribbean work.

The other 5 will be needed in UK EEZ when the 3 RB1s go out of service.

With the above in mind this means there will be a gap in low end that will need to be filled and this is where a vessel design for the MHCP role fits in, remember I mentioned a long term out look of around 2040 not let’s build these tomorrow.
I suggested an evolved RB2 design for this and Temepest414 was suggesting and evolved Khareef design by the looks of it.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:I suggested an evolved RB2 design for this and Temepest414 was suggesting and evolved Khareef design by the looks of it.
Correct you were putting forward a enlarged River class of 105 x 15 meters and I just think we already have a hull design that comes in three sizes 99 , 107, 117 by 14.6

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I suggested an evolved RB2 design for this and Temepest414 was suggesting and evolved Khareef design by the looks of it.
Correct you were putting forward a enlarged River class of 105 x 15 meters and I just think we already have a hull design that comes in three sizes 99 , 107, 117 by 14.6
I can understand that but the Khareef is designed as a covert so would need significant redesign to function well in the MHCP role as it’s core would be off board systems.

I’m not opposed to the idea just think it wouldn’t make much difference in reducing the need for redesign.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

A few year's ago there was a good case for an MHPC type, but that ship has sailed now. The River class and T31 has satisfied parts of the requirement, the large UUWV satisfies more parts., and the other part just needs some simple auxiliary vessels to tend to some drones.

Furthermore (this is a massive if) IF the T31 comes in near the advertised price tag, the effort needs to be on a second batch, not MHPC.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:A few year's ago there was a good case for an MHPC type, but that ship has sailed now. The River class and T31 has satisfied parts of the requirement, the large UUWV satisfies more parts., and the other part just needs some simple auxiliary vessels to tend to some drones.

Furthermore (this is a massive if) IF the T31 comes in near the advertised price tag, the effort needs to be on a second batch, not MHPC.
How when then RB2s will need to be used in UK EEZ once the RB1s go out of service, unless you plan not to have any OPVs in UK EEZ ?

How are the T31s good for this role when they’d be needed to do GP frigate roles around the world and when they’re boat bays are only capable of small ribs ?

Are you surgesting that the 5 T31s and the 5 RB2s are going to be able to undertake the UK EEZ role, GP frigate role along with replace the mcm vessels and survey vessel currently in operation ?

If you are not suggesting the above the these vessels will need replacing so it opens up the role for an MHCP vessel.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:A few year's ago there was a good case for an MHPC type, but that ship has sailed now. The River class and T31 has satisfied parts of the requirement, the large UUWV satisfies more parts., and the other part just needs some simple auxiliary vessels to tend to some drones.

Furthermore (this is a massive if) IF the T31 comes in near the advertised price tag, the effort needs to be on a second batch, not MHPC.
Unless I'm mistaken, you've been very negative about the T31 for some time. I think you're view (correct me if I'm wrong) has been that they aren't proper Frigates, and that they're essentially big OPV type vessels. If so, why would you be in favour of more of them if they come in on budget? You can get big OPVs considerably cheaper then the T31 price tag

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

I don't really understand the post Jake.

MHPC came about in 2006 (then called C3). Since 2006 the T31 and OPV's have satisfied the 'P' part, and the 'MH' part is being satisfied by drones. That doesn't leave enough to justify a new class of warship. There's still possibly scope for an auxiliary to look after the drones.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

dmereifield wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, you've been very negative about the T31 for some time. I think you're view (correct me if I'm wrong) has been that they aren't proper Frigates, and that they're essentially big OPV type vessels.
Yes, it's been a total shit show from the beginning, and yes in its current form its a big patrol vessel.

That being said, the Navy has some big combatants under contract that could be capable and could be affordable, so there are some positives depending how those variables turn out. In other words, the Navy should not be putting effort into new combatants until they've nailed the T31.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote: just think it wouldn’t make much difference in reducing the need for redesign.
I don't see how keep every thing forward of the funnel as is aft of the funnel remove the hangar and flight deck and replace with a full width covered work deck leading on to a open working deck and put the flight deck on top of the covered working deck

as for type 31 I would say we need at least 1 more if not the 3 that has been talked about to allow 3 or 4 to be stationed East of Suez

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:That being said, the Navy has some big combatants under contract that could be capable and could be affordable, so there are some positives depending how those variables turn out. In other words, the Navy should not be putting effort into new combatants until they've nailed the T31.
I agree type 31 for me is really close to striking a good balance for the GP role and we need to finish the job and fit a HMS and make sure it has 24 CAMM and maybe later 8 SSGW's

Post Reply