Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Perhaps the comment was made by someone in denial of the events of 1776! :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:You missed the "UK" in my "24 UK F-35's"
We'll re-badge them - the budget might just run to some stick-on RAF roundels :(
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
NickC wrote: Agree Babcock T31/IH best choice though as it uses unsilenced diesels

What does that even mean ?....can you give me a single example of a silenced large propulsion diesel engine ? ......In any case , as compared to purely commercial propulsion installations, T31/IHs can not in anyway be said to be "unsilenced"......the MTU 8000 series was designed from the ground up as a military spec engine with special care taken to minimize structure borne noise and vibration and engines and gearboxes are mounted on naval standard type double resillient mountings..
As you say there are no large naval silenced diesel propulsion engines, the IH on one MTU 8000 said to achieve max of 18 knots, normal low speed ~12-14 knots. A dedicated ASW frigate usually involve long periods of cruising at slower speeds, the large diesel would be subject to coking and wetstacking at that low power level for long periods and that's why the T26 uses smaller less powerful silenced 3MW MTU 4000 diesel gensets, with four of them to bring online from 1 to 4 depending on speed/power needed and and so operate at max efficiency in their sweet zone.
MikeKiloPapa wrote: Direct drive diesel propulsion is hardly the optimal solution for an ASW capable frigate, yet considering the growing number of modern frigate designs utilizing CODAD and that both UK and Indonesia have chosen to retain CODAD despite OMT offering the platform with both CODLAD or CODLAG .....i cant help but wonder if people arent exaggerating exactly how much of a handicap this "container ship propulsion system" ;) actually is. .
I would have thought for a dedicated ASW frigate that they would need every advantage they can gain to combat the new gen very quiet subs, not the case with the general purpose T31 which as you say uses the very efficient/cost effective "container ship propulsion system".
MikeKiloPapa wrote:The IH wont be fitted with VDS/TAS after all, as they will concentrate on the area air defence and BMD mission. Instead the new sonar suite will be fitted to the Absalon class, which has recently been redesignated as frigates.....ASW frigates no less :lol: :roll:

Thanks for update on RDN
MikeKiloPapa wrote: As to the choice of sonar, CAPTAS-4 is unlikely both due to size and cost,. Instead a probable candidate might be the new CAPTAS-1 in its modular containerized version which would fit perfectly on the flexdeck and could be installed as and when needed.
Agree, as said many options for T31 sonar, the low cost CAPTAS-1 VDS currentlly undergoing trials is one and others.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:In lieu of all the whinging about the T31s light weapons fit, and accepting that more money for missiles will not be forthcoming , allow me to make a few suggestions to remidiate the situation and which might even save a few bucks .

1: Take 8-12 CAMM/sea ceptors from each of the T26s. and fit them to T31 ......the difference between 36 and 48 being largely academic anyway. As the T31 is also more likely to operate on its own it has a greater need for the extra missiles, while T26 will likely be under the AAW protection of T45s or other AAW assets in the task group.

2. Move the MK45s to the T31s and fit the 57mm guns on T26 instead.......the 5" gun is wasted on the worlds best ASW "frigate" as you are never going to risk one of NATOs most important ASW assets by parking it a few miles off a hostile shore just to conduct (inefficient)NGFS. In contrast, the T31 is the vessel you can "afford" to lose and also the one most likely to not have another more important tasking.

3. Ditch the ridiculously expensive ammunition handling system and save $35M per ship. It is a needlessly extravagant luxury item that you can ill afford. Spending $25M on a standard mk45 installation is bad enough, but spending $60M!!! on what is at best a tertiary weapon system isnt just bonkers, its downright irresponsible.

Then use whatever money is saved to improve T26s ASW capability ....be it with defensive systems , unmanned /autonomous ASW systems or adding something like ASROC to the MK41s.

Yes this course of action would strip the T26 of some of its GP capability but give you a much more balanced fleet overall.
Good proposals. :thumbup:
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

To that I would suggest adding 57mm weapon systems to the T-45s whilst we are at it, as well as fitting one of our pool of Phalanx to the T-31e, replacing either the bow or stern 40mm currently planned. We should also abandon the Ship launched FCASW and look to an off the shelf AShM to re equip all the RN's escorts, preferably the NSM, with its greater littoral and land attack capabilities, with the same weapon being adopted by the RAFs Poseidons in common with the Norwegians.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:3. Ditch the ridiculously expensive ammunition handling system and save $35M per ship. It is a needlessly extravagant luxury item that you can ill afford.
It saves on crew which is the thing the RN is most short of. Don't know the exact number but over the accrued lifetime of the vessels it should offset the upfront capital expenditure.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

NickC wrote: A dedicated ASW frigate usually involve long periods of cruising at slower speeds, the large diesel would be subject to coking and wetstacking at that low power level for long periods
No....no it wouldn't. In very large slow speed 2 stroke prime movers, then yes , prolonged operation at low loads can cause some of the issues you mention(and others). As an example many VLCC/ULCCs with their huge high powered single engines (up to 80MW) developed significant issues when the global ship traffic converted to slow-steaming at 12-13kts instead of the +25kts that had been the norm previously. Because those engines had been designed specifically to operate at those high speeds and high loads ( 80-90 % MCR) they performed poorly at lower loads (in this case under 50%).Because of this, all VLCC/ULCCs built since approx 2010 have mounted 2 much smaller main engines. Its also important to note , that those problems only started manifesting after several thousands of running hours....Much longer than any frigate would ever operate in ASW mode.
Older 4-stroke diesels , especially those with indirect injection could also suffer from coking after long periods at low loads.
Modern common-rail diesels , like the MTU 20V8000, however doesnt really have this problem as they are able to optimize combustion (almost)regardless of load and RPM.
And in any case, conducting ASW at say 12-15 kts on one engine would, see that engine operating at +60% load , more than enough to avoid coking/wetstacking even if it hadnt been a modern CR.
and that's why the T26 uses smaller less powerful silenced 3MW MTU 4000 diesel gensets, with four of them to bring online from 1 to 4 depending on speed/power needed and and so operate at max efficiency in their sweet zone.
Again, no it is not.....first off....you are not seriously comparing a 347L propulsion unit with a high speed genset less than 1/5th the size and capacity, right ? Because that would not just be an apples to Mars bars comparison but also pointless due to the completely differing operating profiles and conditions.
Secondly....im almost entirely certain that risk of coking played absolutely no part in determining the number, size and capacity of the T26s gensets, as opposed to propulsion requirements, redundancy, growth margin and even fuel consumption etc which almost certainly did.

I would have thought for a dedicated ASW frigate that they would need every advantage they can gain to combat the new gen very quiet subs
I cant remember anyone, and certainly not me, claiming that IH/T31 is, or will ever be, a dedicated ASW frigate.....Its has always first and formost been an AAW platform, with excellent GP capabilities. However what i am saying ( and the RDN apparently agrees with me ;) ) , is that , with the right equipment added, they could and would make a valuable contribution to the ASW mission......despite their "agricultural" propulsion setup.
Our Absalons in their new ASW role will never be first tier open water sub hunters, that is true. What they will bring, is an advanced HMS, a capable VDS/TAS and room for 2 very capable ASW helicopters with dipping sonars and torpedoes.....and plenty of room for future offboard unmanned systems. That will give us a credible and effective capability in shallow waters and coastal areas(like the Baltic) while also being useful as part of larger ASW task force at sea.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

RichardIC wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:3. Ditch the ridiculously expensive ammunition handling system and save $35M per ship. It is a needlessly extravagant luxury item that you can ill afford.
It saves on crew which is the thing the RN is most short of. Don't know the exact number but over the accrued lifetime of the vessels it should offset the upfront capital expenditure.
Yeah i know the argument, and i still dont buy it. Primarily because being a gun bunny isnt a primary tasking....so you still need those people doing their normal jobs on board. AND you still need to assign someone for emergency loading and operation anyway even with the AHS present.
Even if we pretend that the AHS reduces crew needs, its only saves 3-5 persons. Just with a bit of rough math i can tell you that their combined salary and cost of training over 30 years are no where near the $280M being spent on the ammo handling systems.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yeah i know the argument, and i still dont buy it. Primarily because being a gun bunny isnt a primary tasking....so you still need those people doing their normal jobs on board. AND you still need to assign someone for emergency loading and operation anyway even with the AHS present.
Even if we pretend that the AHS reduces crew needs, its only saves 3-5 persons. Just with a bit of rough math i can tell you that their combined salary and cost of training over 30 years are no where near the $280M being spent on the ammo handling systems.
I accept what you're saying and I haven't crunched the numbers. But two things:

The cost of employing military personnel is a lot, lot more than salary and training. Military pensions now come from the MoD budget and Jeez, people can live a long time. Then there's all hotel costs while onboard, uniform and all other individual equipment, all other ancillary support - medical etc, etc, etc.

And everywhere I look manual handling is being replaced by robotics. I don't see any movement in the opposite direction.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

However for me there is no getting away from the idea that the 5" gun is on the wrong ship the Type 26 by its numbers will be stuck with the Carriers and CASD. And the idea that we will send a single type 26 or two to do NGFS is madness

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:However for me there is no getting away from the idea that the 5" gun is on the wrong ship the Type 26 by its numbers will be stuck with the Carriers and CASD. And the idea that we will send a single type 26 or two to do NGFS is madness
Depends.
- We are not talking about fully kitted T31 and T26, just talking about robbing Peter (T26) to pay Paul (T31).
- Mounting NGFS gun on less armed T31 means it cannot do their job in high-risk shoreside. Ah, in a "medium-level threat" region, at which T26 is OK but T31 is not, T26 can do it.
- In a low risk region, and I think it shall also mean "low risk" in SSK and fast-boat swarm attack, then a T26 can happily sent from the CVTF, because CVTF is already "safe" = by definition "low risk".

Then, mounting 5inch gun on T26 and keeping T31 "as simple as possible" makes sense.

Please note that 57mm 3P gun is much more capable in close-in defense, both in Anti-Air (a few ASM in sudden attack or drones) and Anti-surface (fast boats), so losing it will make T31 weaker against such threat. 5 inch gun has no big merit other than land attack (NGFS) and long-rage anti-surface attack. Considering the T31's tasks, I think putting "a few ASM in sudden attack or drones" and "fast boats" in priority is reasonable.

Also please note that, I am just saying it "Depends". Adding NGFS capability to T31 has its own rationale. At the same time, NOT mounting a 5inch gun on T31 ALSO has its own rationale. It simply depends on how to use T31.

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:the 5" gun is on the wrong ship
The big gun is on the correct platform. If you're going to sit withing visual range of a hostile coast popping off shells you need to be hard as nails!
@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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Our Absalons in their new ASW role will never be first tier open water sub hunters, that is true. What they will bring, is an advanced HMS, a capable VDS/TAS and room for 2 very capable ASW helicopters with dipping sonars and torpedoes.....and plenty of room for future offboard unmanned systems. That will give us a credible and effective capability in shallow waters and coastal areas(like the Baltic) while also being useful as part of larger ASW task force at sea.
This is good, and this would be a good growth area for the T31. They're never going to be a cheap T26 doing open water passive sub hunting, their engines don't really permit that, however they could become more specialised around the coastal environments.

Sounds like we may have a good case study in the works...
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

If the T31s were 5 Absalons I’d feel much more positive. Not because of the dream of 16 SSMs, but for their Multirole capability and with some minor tinkering (additional boat bays) would be a perfect RM platform.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yeah i know the argument, and i still dont buy it. Primarily because being a gun bunny isnt a primary tasking....so you still need those people doing their normal jobs on board. AND you still need to assign someone for emergency loading and operation anyway even with the AHS present.
Even if we pretend that the AHS reduces crew needs, its only saves 3-5 persons. Just with a bit of rough math i can tell you that their combined salary and cost of training over 30 years are no where near the $280M being spent on the ammo handling systems.
I accept what you're saying and I haven't crunched the numbers. But two things:

The cost of employing military personnel is a lot, lot more than salary and training. Military pensions now come from the MoD budget and Jeez, people can live a long time. Then there's all hotel costs while onboard, uniform and all other individual equipment, all other ancillary support - medical etc, etc, etc.

And everywhere I look manual handling is being replaced by robotics. I don't see any movement in the opposite direction.
I suspect that the cost of the MoD of a sailor with benefits, medical & pension is of the order of $500k a year. So saving 5 sailors for 14 years gives the $35m needed to cover the cost of the automated system. And that's ignoring inflation.

I'm not saying that the system will necessarily save 5 bodies. As I know from long experience in non-military organizations, people savings never ever turn out to be what they were first claimed. Sometimes more and sometimes less. But I am saying this is the kind of math that convinced the Treasury to pay for the system. And they would have put the Navy through the wringer.

Usually investments into productivity savings are ultimately taken on faith and there's no denying "everywhere I look manual handling is being replaced by robotics". So there's a lot of faith going around these days.

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:5 inch gun has no big merit other than land attack (NGFS) and long-range anti-surface attack.
Short to very long range anti-surface please :D

And that's a lot of merit, no?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Shame that is not the 155mm Gun that was originally envisaged for both the T26 and retrofit to T45! :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Stuff it fit 57mm to type 26 take the 5" guns buy 4 more and build a class of 3 new 5" Cruisers 190 x 22 meters with 3 x 5" guns 4 x 57mm 110 VLS ABM capable full width hangar and mission bay job AAW and NGFS to the battle group and Amphib group

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

With the mk-45 mod 4 isn't there some use as an anti-aircraft weapon I would admit that the elevation of 65 degrees is not as high as previous 85 in some models wouldnt the larger fuses add to an anti-missile capability in addition to the ciws ?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ls-rimpac/

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Old RN »

Just a thought in the discussion of the DS30. When it was first introduced it was to replace 20mm as the "anti-skiff" manual aimed system. Then it gained the EO director whch made the fire control infinitly better and now (in very quick move) the LMM giving a range of 5nm against any incoming target (SeaRam claims a realistic range of 6nm, Phalanx about 1nm!). So maybe there has been reassessment of the value of the current DS30/LMM combination system?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Iran has production license to mfg the Russian anti-tank 9M133 Kornet-M 31kg 8-10km/5.4 nm range a fire and forget missile and presumably would fit on any of its 100+ boghammars, Don't know if its the longest range missile they could fit to a boghammar but think any defence system would need to outrange them?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Our Absalons in their new ASW role will never be first tier open water sub hunters, that is true. What they will bring, is an advanced HMS, a capable VDS/TAS and room for 2 very capable ASW helicopters with dipping sonars and torpedoes.....and plenty of room for future offboard unmanned systems. That will give us a credible and effective capability in shallow waters and coastal areas(like the Baltic) while also being useful as part of larger ASW task force at sea.
This for me sums up perfectly, why the T31 design needs to be reviewed before build starts. Secondly, the ability to have 2 HC4 Merlins plus a mixture of LCVPs/Ribs makes it a good RM platform.

The IH design is optimised towards AAW, the T31 is following the same route. Whilst basic AAW defence is a requirement it has to fulfil more of the requirements (especially the MCM/ASW off board systems) that the RN has but has limited money to buy different platforms.

Submarines and mines (like in the past century) will remain the biggest threat in wartime to the UK in the maritime environment.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:This for me sums up perfectly, why the T31 design needs to be reviewed before build starts. Secondly, the ability to have 2 HC4 Merlins plus a mixture of LCVPs/Ribs makes it a good RM platform.
Six or eight Absalons would seem like a good starting point for the future commando force rather than any of the point based alternatives and bringing 2 or 3 together with a Wave could make a pretty potent LSG.

However,

The versatility of the Absalon class will not have gone unnoticed by RN along with the similar and equally versatile Damen crossover designs but I think the reason why the IH design was chosen is simple......

RN don't want Absalon.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:RN don't want Absalon
Possibly, but things change - I’m sure when the decision was made they didn’t think cuts were coming post COVID, and the additional stretch on funds with Cyber and Space. They were probably hoping to get 5-10 IH equivalents and argue getting additional kit for them later, and get additional littoral platforms.

My thoughts are that the RN will likely end up in 2035 with something like the following, with a focus on forward deployed global frigates and occasional CSG operations.

- 2 CVFs (1 in reserve)
- 2 LPDs (1 in reserve)
- 6 T45s
- 6-8 T26s
- 5-8 IH T31s (with SSMs and TAS)
- 5 OPVs

Personally, I’d say the following would be more optimal for a much more active CSG capability (deployed from the UK) and a forward deployed lower level global presence capability.

- 2 CVFs
- 2 LPDs
- 6 T45s
- 8-9 T26s
- 5 T31 (Absalon style)
- 5 OPVs
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Very important to remember that it wasn't the RN that made the call on Babcock's tender to the competition (w/ Absalon Vs IH).

That was very much a Babcock call, they undoubtedly chose it because it has a more substantial warship pedigree (wasn't re-classified), had AAW in mind from the get go, and delivers a trained skilled base (with all the learning curve of a similar design) which could efficiently build an evolved A180(?) for the T4X programme.

Wouldn't surprise me if Babcock are merely trying to break even on A140, using it to build contacts and the yard, before going for the realistic target of juicy profit margins on high end combatants.

RN could be in for most cost effective fleet renewal in post cold-war memory, in a decade or so.

Post Reply