Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

size is only useful if you do something with it

In forward basing, access to maintenance makes it less of a "dock" job.

In regard to mcm [and survey] work being done in most peace times that is true

+

99% of MCM work is in a low threat environment, and the mission bays can cover the other 1%.

Sorry to say guys, you have no idea of the number of mines that could be deployed in a war, or pre-war situation... The gulf is not the only place in the world where they know the word.

[Jake1992]

size is only useful if you do something with it

In forward basing, access to maintenance makes it less of a "dock" job.

In regard to mcm [and survey] work being done in most peace times that is true

+

99% of MCM work is in a low threat environment, and the mission bays can cover the other 1%.

Sorry to say guys, you have no idea of the number of mines that could be deployed in a war, or pre-war situation... The gulf is not the only place in the world where they know the word.

I think you’ve miss quoted me here yes I agree that most of the time mcm is conducted under peace time conditions but Iv gone on to mention in that post and others since that the set up needs to be able to operate under a higher threat environment, this is why I don’t believe an unarmed commercial vessel as mother ship is the way to go.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ok Jake,Sharkbait will have to take 100% of the blame for the 99% claim...

[Jake1992]

Ok Jake,Sharkbait will have to take 100% of the blame for the 99% claim...

What are you waffling ? I agree that most of the time mcm is undertaken in a peaceful environment, is this wrong when we look over the past 20 years ?
I stated that and unmanned systems for mcm should have an armed mother ship to defend its self and systems when the threat rises.

Did I ever stare that mcm work doesn’t happens in higher threat environments than the current peaceful ones we operate in ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

I agree that most of the time mcm is undertaken in a peaceful environment, is this wrong when we look over the past 20 years ?

Plan according to that?
Or discard it as not a relevant assumption (read: waffle)?
You decide
" is this wrong when..." is not the best way to test assumptions for defence capability
... we could go all the way from 21 December 1991 to 2008 as far as Europe is concerned; how many years
would that make
- oops! you win

[Jake1992]

I agree that most of the time mcm is undertaken in a peaceful environment, is this wrong when we look over the past 20 years ?

Plan according to that?
Or discard it as not a relevant assumption (read: waffle)?
You decide
" is this wrong when..." is not the best way to test assumptions for defence capability
... we could go all the way from 21 December 1991 to 2008 as far as Europe is concerned; how many years
would that make
- oops! you win

But I never said that the mcm replacements should be planed around the peaceful environment, I acknowledged that this is the environment we’ve operated in the last 20 odd years.

If your re-read what Iv posted Iv said that I believe the mcm replacements should be able to defend themselves and their off board systems.

You seem to be think Iv said that it should be planned around a peaceful environment while Iv said the exact opposite but accepting that it has been a peaceful environment for that 20 odd years.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the mcm replacements should be able to defend themselves and their off board systems.

OK, I would say that they should be able to operate under such a 'Bubble' but that is not much different
- except for what kind of ships to build, to operate as 'motherships'
- no one says there should only be one kind (e.g. frigates being able to release the first wave?)

[Jake1992]

the mcm replacements should be able to defend themselves and their off board systems.

OK, I would say that they should be able to operate under such a 'Bubble' but that is not much different
- except for what kind of ships to build, to operate as 'motherships'
- no one says there should only be one kind (e.g. frigates being able to release the first wave?)

What Iv been putting forward for what I’d like to see is not a frigate but more a multi mission sloop back to the Black Swan MHCP idea if you would.

I keep the P ( patrol ) in there because I believe more patrol vessels will be needed down the line. As I mentioned up thread we are currently planning on using 3 of the RB2s in this role, this is all well and good but with in 10 years odd the RB1s we leave service meaning we do 1 of 2 things either say 2 OPVs if enough for UK EEZ ( not where near IMO ) or pull the current patrol RB2s back to fill the hole.

If the RB2s are pulled back then what fills the roles they’ll be doing up till then ?
This is where I believe an MHCP would fit nicely, I see the benefits of a single class that can cove all low end roles out weighs the multiple different types of vessels to be off board system mother ships.

[Repulse]

And I hope, T31 be re-designed

And if this happened I would stop arguing. Fact is the RN needs in its forward presence more MCM and Survey capabilities than anything else. If said ship were also able to defend itself and to a limited degree escort in an environment like the recent Gulf incident (Medium Gun, rapid firing short ranged weapons, a few CAMM, RMs and a Wildcat), then there would be not need to have “frigates” forward based.

We need a MCH platform that can defend itself more than more frigates above those needed for CEPP and CASD/UK defence.

[Lord Jim]

Could this be an alternate role for any LSS that appear at some point in the future, being a mothership for mine clearance?

[Tempest414]

As I have said before going forward into the 2040's what the RN needs is a Escort / Multi mission fleet of

8 x AAW escorts
8 x ASW escorts
8 x GP escorts
12 x Muli-mission sloops
= 36 ships

I have to say that just because a PSV could do the job for MHC it should and for me I think what the RN needs is a scalable multi mission ship which can be tailored to task with both off board systems and armament. at this time the RN has a fleet of

19 escorts
8 OPVs
12 MCM
3 Survey ships
= 42 ships

[donald_of_tokyo]

As I have said before going forward into the 2040's what the RN needs is a Escort / Multi mission fleet of

8 x AAW escorts
8 x ASW escorts
8 x GP escorts
12 x Muli-mission sloops
= 36 ships

I have to say that just because a PSV could do the job for MHC it should and for me I think what the RN needs is a scalable multi mission ship which can be tailored to task with both off board systems and armament. at this time the RN has a fleet of

19 escorts
8 OPVs
12 MCM
3 Survey ships
= 42 ships

Sorry, I cannot be happy with your proposal.

1: I'm afraid, your "8+8+8 escorts" already needs more resource/money than the "this time RN" of 42 ships.

2: The "12 MCM" currently RN has, includes both MCM kits and MCM hulls.

UUV/USV-based MCM kit will surely be much more expensive than current MCM kit. Sensor, analysis system will be at least the same level. In addition, you need USV control system, USV hull itself (much larger than PAP104 or SeaFox), and its launch/recovery system. Making the MCM hull cheap is the key there. See how Belgium/Dutch navies are going on. Very merchant-vessel like MCM-hull with a single 40 mm gun. If you up-arm the hull, its number will dramatically decrease.

Of course, it will all depend on what a Sloop we think of. If it is just a merchant vessel hull with a 57mm gun, it will be very vulnerable to attack = sink easily. If enemy comes in, the asset must run away than stand up (I understand current Bays with 2x 20mm CIWS is operated so). If thinking of any CAMM/ReaRAM, its cost (including CMS) is very large, further reduction in hull number.

If it is a "C3" like sloop, I'm afraid the "8 OPV, 12 MCM, and 3 Survey ships" can be replaced only with "8 Sloops + 6-set (*1) of MCM kit" , or even less. (As this number, 1-set must be as capable as two MCM kits as of now).
--> 6 AAW, 8 ASW, 5 GP (lightly armed) and 8 Sloops = 27 ship RN (+2 CV and SSN/BNs), supported by several boats (Archer-class replacement) and RFA.

[shark bait]

Why make things so complicated? The navy has never expected mine hunters to put up a fight. Now we're taking the humans away, making surviving even less of an issue.

Keep It Simple Stupid. If you don't the Navy gets even smaller.

[Tempest414]

Firstly the RN should not be this small in the first place and even a fleet of 24 escorts and 15 multi mission sloop's is for me below par for a global state like the UK. And the habit of cutting back and cutting again has become ingrained and it has to be broken I am all for simple stupid but when the fleet has such low numbers that option goes out the window. It is all well saying that off board kit can be operated from the mission bay of a type 26 but the cold fact is they will be busy protecting the carriers due to there low numbers and if they are not then someone needs there cock put in a vice. Plus for me if MCM can be done from a unarmed PSV with the man removed from danger ( which it can in peace time ) lets have the like of Serco pick up 60 per cent of the workload and let the navy get on

[Caribbean]

There is a simple logic to putting a self-defence weapon system on a vessel. It forces an attacking aircraft to fly a sub-optimal approach, reducing the chance of the missile making a hit (I used to have the percentage chances to hand, but can't find it now - from memory it reduces the chances of a successful attack significantly, even if the weapon is not actually used). Beyond that, there is no real advantage to additional weapons unless you invest in a full AAW capability - decoys would be a better investment at this level, if you have the money to spend (on the same tack - having a low freeboard is actually quite effective as well, as the missile finds it harder to get a target lock and when it does, it often flies over the target - unfortunately, for most vessels to have a low-enough freeboard, you are probably already sinking!).

Now, as the improvements in capabilities and ranges of air-launched missiles have undoubtedly, since that study was done, negated some (if not all) of that that effect, the reason for using gun based AAW systems has diminished. However, in the same period, the threat of swarm attacks has developed, so I would say that the same logic could be applied to small-boat attacks. The only way to restore the anti-air effect would be to invest in a more capable (by which I mean missile-based) system.

For small boat attacks, the ideal would be to force them back over their visual/ small boat radar horizon (making targetting more difficult for them, without exposing themselves to direct fire). I would put that horizon at between 5 and 8 km for a small boat (the latter with a 5m observation/ radar platform).

The DS30M system has a maximum range of around 5000m (allegedly), so just about reaches the visual horizon for someone standing in a small boat. Add LMM and you reach out to (from memory - corrections happily accepted) around 8km. Add in shorter-ranged systems for direct attacks and you have a decent self-defense capability that can handle both surface targets and slow-moving air targets (i.e. helicopters). Larger caliber guns push the range out (desirable, but not neccessarily essential for self defence)

That's fine, but what about when the manned platform becomes the escort for unmanned platforms? That's the area that we don't seem to cover at the moment. Potentially you will need to be able to deter/ target an opponent that is lurking 5-8km beyond your assets, which may themselves be 10km away. Even a 57mm gun will struggle at that range (without specialist ammunition) and we would need to move to CAMM as the missile system.

OK - enough waffling - where does that leave us? I would suggest that the answer is armed off-board systems, which can accompany the remote assets and push further out beyond them. The "escort" would need to be able to deploy both surface and airborne remote systems. Remotely operated RHIBs with 50 cal systems and helicopters/UAVs with LMM become a neccessity. Apart from that, it only needs existing-level self defence systems (i.e. DS30M plus LMM, or whatever is decided in future, plus secondary weapon systems).

My take is that our future MCM vessel would need to be capable of lauching both surface and air manned/unmanned remote systems, but only really needs the same self-defense systems as the current minehunters (or whatever is decided in future as the baseline self-defence system)

[Jake1992]

There is a simple logic to putting a self-defence weapon system on a vessel. It forces an attacking aircraft to fly a sub-optimal approach, reducing the chance of the missile making a hit (I used to have the percentage chances to hand, but can't find it now - from memory it reduces the chances of a successful attack significantly, even if the weapon is not actually used). Beyond that, there is no real advantage to additional weapons unless you invest in a full AAW capability - decoys would be a better investment at this level, if you have the money to spend (on the same tack - having a low freeboard is actually quite effective as well, as the missile finds it harder to get a target lock and when it does, it often flies over the target - unfortunately, for most vessels to have a low-enough freeboard, you are probably already sinking!).

Now, as the improvements in capabilities and ranges of air-launched missiles have undoubtedly, since that study was done, negated some (if not all) of that that effect, the reason for using gun based AAW systems has diminished. However, in the same period, the threat of swarm attacks has developed, so I would say that the same logic could be applied to small-boat attacks. The only way to restore the anti-air effect would be to invest in a more capable (by which I mean missile-based) system.

For small boat attacks, the ideal would be to force them back over their visual/ small boat radar horizon (making targetting more difficult for them, without exposing themselves to direct fire). I would put that horizon at between 5 and 8 km for a small boat (the latter with a 5m observation/ radar platform).

The DS30M system has a maximum range of around 5000m (allegedly), so just about reaches the visual horizon for someone standing in a small boat. Add LMM and you reach out to (from memory - corrections happily accepted) around 8km. Add in shorter-ranged systems for direct attacks and you have a decent self-defense capability that can handle both surface targets and slow-moving air targets (i.e. helicopters). Larger caliber guns push the range out (desirable, but not neccessarily essential for self defence)

That's fine, but what about when the manned platform becomes the escort for unmanned platforms? That's the area that we don't seem to cover at the moment. Potentially you will need to be able to deter/ target an opponent that is lurking 5-8km beyond your assets, which may themselves be 10km away. Even a 57mm gun will struggle at that range (without specialist ammunition) and we would need to move to CAMM as the missile system.

OK - enough waffling - where does that leave us? I would suggest that the answer is armed off-board systems, which can accompany the remote assets and push further out beyond them. The "escort" would need to be able to deploy both surface and airborne remote systems. Remotely operated RHIBs with 50 cal systems and helicopters/UAVs with LMM become a neccessity. Apart from that, it only needs existing-level self defence systems (i.e. DS30M plus LMM, or whatever is decided in future, plus secondary weapon systems).

My take is that our future MCM vessel would need to be capable of lauching both surface and air manned/unmanned remote systems, but only really needs the same self-defense systems as the current minehunters (or whatever is decided in future as the baseline self-defence system)

I never thought of an armed off board system to escorts the other systems, would it be cost effective ?

The reason Iv been pushing the “mother ship” to have the likes of a 57mm and a SeaRam mount was not only for its self but to help protect its off board systems but if this could be done by another off board system then happy days. This would require the mother ship to be larger though as it’d now need to space for these extra systems.

IMO going down the off board system route for the likes of mcm makes an attack more likely. At the moment unless things got really hot no one is going to attack a manned vessel potentially killing in numbers it’d cause to much outrage, but if it’s just an USV / UUV your shooting down the outrage would be far less so increasing that threshold in which an attack is deemed acceptable.

[Tempest414]

as seen by Iran shooting down a US navy MQ-4C last year

[shark bait]

57mm and a SeaRam

These are real fringe use cases.

There is no demand for well armed mine hunters today, and that's not going to change with the switch to drones. On the rare occasion things get hot, work from a frigate. The other 99% of the time, keep it cheap and simple. This is the same reason the RAF fly round in the same aircraft as Ryanair, and why the RFA, Hunt & Echo class only have basic self defence fits; it's just not necessary.

Keep it simple, and focus on fixing the shitty frigates instead.

[Clive F]

Agree with you Shark, but I do sometimes wonder how long these "non fighting" assest would last in a hot war with someone like China.

[Jake1992]

57mm and a SeaRam

These are real fringe use cases.

There is no demand for well armed mine hunters today, and that's not going to change with the switch to drones. On the rare occasion things get hot, work from a frigate. The other 99% of the time, keep it cheap and simple. This is the same reason the RAF fly round in the same aircraft as Ryanair, and why the RFA, Hunt & Echo class only have basic self defence fits; it's just not necessary.

Keep it simple, and focus on fixing the shitty frigates instead.

This is all well and good but like we discussed yesterday saying there’s no need for them now ( while in peaceful times ) is not how a navy should be planned around.

As I mentioned above I believe that going down the unmanned route for mcm and survey work would make the equipment ( not so much the vessel ) become more vulnerable.
Look at it this way, if we were on land and you saw an opposing UGV / UAV poking around where you don’t want it to you’d be much more likely to destroy that than you would if it was a man with hand held equipment.
With this in mind I believe the “mother ship” needs a way of protecting not just its self but the unmanned systems that could be a few miles away.

If you are doing mcm / survey work and you have no way of protecting the equipment doing that job then what’s to stop then opposition just getting rid of that capability ?

The RFA vessels do have Phalanx mounts that if ever desired down the line can just slit on a SeaRam unit in place.
It’s all well and good saying if things get hit just use a frigate but with such low numbers that we have those frigate would be tied to HVUs, so what then does your mcm / survey work ?


The idea I’d go for a not a direct replacement for mcm but a vessel that can be used in a multitude of roles. Going back to our discussion yesterday I pointed out that the current patrol roles being undertaken by the RB2s will need to be filled by another vessel once the RB1s go out of service, either that or be dropped which brings in to question the whole point of doing them in the first place.

[SW1]

I always find this odd when such things are discussed. If there’s a hot war these ships would not be operating alone, they’d be part of and under the protection of the deployed task force that’s the whole point. As systems move offboard the ships that transport such systems will also change they may not even be deployed from a ship and ships that used to be built for the task will disappear.

[shark bait]

1. I don't think mine clearance has ever been done in the middle of a battle.
2. Mine Hunter's have only ever has basic self defence weapons fitted.

The change to drones does not change either of those points, so don't fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Furthermore the point defence systems mentioned above do bugger all to protect another asset a couple of miles along the threat axis. This is area defence, like CAMM, which is waaay over the top for a mine clearance hull. This is what frigates are for.

[Jake1992]

I always find this odd when such things are discussed. If there’s a hot war these ships would not be operating alone, they’d be part of and under the protection of the deployed task force that’s the whole point. As systems move offboard the ships that transport such systems will also change they may not even be deployed from a ship and ships that used to be built for the task will disappear.

1. I don't think mine clearance has ever been done in the middle of a battle.
2. Mine Hunter's have only ever has basic self defence weapons fitted.

The change to drones does not change either of those points, so don't fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Furthermore the point defence systems mentioned above do bugger all to protect another asset a couple of miles along the threat axis. This is area defence, like CAMM, which is waaay over the top for a mine clearance hull. This is what frigates are for.

The premise always use to be that if things heated up above acceptable peace times conditions they would work under the umbrella of an escort but with so few escorts now this isn’t possible as they would all be protecting HVU which will most likely be far away.


The change to unmanned does change things, it increases the chance of them be attacked out side of a hot war.
At the moment no nation would risk sinking another’s mcm vessel and killing many people in the doing, but when the risk of taking those lives is gone and it’s only a piece of hard ware it makes such an attack more enticing.

In part I agree CAMM is overkill for such a vessel but this was in deep consideration when the like of the Venitor 90 was being bounded around.

You also keep over looking that I state such a vessel shouldn’t be designed solely for mcm but also take the wider patrol role in to account as the RB2 will by then be needed in UK EEZ.

[donald_of_tokyo]

... I am all for simple stupid but when the fleet has such low numbers that option goes out the window.

I am on the opposite. If the budget is very tight, making assets expensive means much less number, making it very inefficient.

It is all well saying that off board kit can be operated from the mission bay of a type 26 but the cold fact is they will be busy protecting the carriers due to there low numbers and if they are not then someone needs there cock put in a vice.

There will be a moment MCM activity is needed front-line. There will be a moment not needed. The T26 mission bay option can utilize it.

For example, temporally retreat the CVTF by 200-300 km, utilize F35 mainly for AAW defense, and operate Merlin HM2 in its highest tempo for a week. Then the TF can send a T26 (and a T31 or River B2) for MCM tasks, even if the threat is so-so high.

After a corridor has been established, CVTF can come back to normal tempo. "Using T26" option enables this.

If this is "well-armed Sloop as MHC-hulls", from the beginning there will be very small number of them. The "well-armed MCM sloop" can proceed near shore only if the threat is not so high.

Which is more flexible and useful? Considering the peacetime jobs, I am for "low-and MHC hull" option.

[abc123]

You want to send a 1 bln. worth ship (one of just 8) in harms way?