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 »

J. Tattersall wrote: bean counters etc. etc
That argument ;) never fails here
Ron5 wrote: Here's a reminder of the T45 space left for a Mk 41 array, now used as a gym.
Gee-wizz, quite a hike in the degree of difficulty, from the monkey bars I used to take my kids to on the playground :D
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: 5602
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

You are right 3P rounds are not guided however they are aimed by either radar or EO and as always it comes down to money

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4701
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Moving over from the River OPV thread...

Image

I think a 3 x 6” turret on the back of a B2 River Class should fit nicely. :mrgreen:
”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
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Coming back briefly to the discussion on the River thread about whether the Mk110 57mm gun has a larger footprint than the Mk45 127mm.

I'm still finding it hard to believe, but am happy to be corrected if someone can point towards evidence.

The Mk3, on which the Mk110 is closely based, is carried on Finnish patrol vessels that displace 250 tons and are just over 50m in length.

Image

What have BAE done to make the gun balloon to the extent where it takes up more room than a system over three times its weight?

Online
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

RichardIC wrote:Coming back briefly to the discussion on the River thread about whether the Mk110 57mm gun has a larger footprint than the Mk45 127mm.

I'm still finding it hard to believe, but am happy to be corrected if someone can point towards evidence.
Mk110 57mm Dimensions - Save The Royal Navy:

Length: 4460mm; Width: 3500mm

Image

BAE MK45 Dimensions - BAE Systems inc.

Length: c.4022mm ; Width: 3124mm

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/m ... gun-system
(The PDF Gun System datasheet at the bottom gives 2372.36mm and 1649.73mm for the lengths aft and fore of the training axis).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RichardIC wrote:What have BAE done to make the gun balloon to the extent where it takes up more room than a system over three times its weight?
I understand 57mm gun is basically "non deck-penetrating" in its origin. It still is capable of this option. It carries 120 rounds on its housing. 127 mm (and 76 mm as well), requires "deck penetration".

Anyway, I see no problem mounting a 57mm Mk.110 onboard River B2's A position. Mk110 (4460 mm long) is only 22% longer than the 76mm turret (3657 mm long) onboard HTMS Prachuap Khiri Khan, River B2 class OPV of Thailand navy.
Image

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:76 mm as well), requires "deck penetration"
Not strictly true. Oto have a new variant of their very successful 76mm gun that sits on top of the deck. It's first outing is sitting on the hanger roof of the Italian PPA

Image
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Exactly. That is the 76mm turret once appeared on the CG rendering image of T31 of Babcock (As it was with 32 CAMM, now we know it is for export, not for UK RN). Apparently, non-deck-penetrating turret has their own market/merit.

If with guided rounds in near future, small ammo carriage is not a big issue. Just imagine a 57mm gun with 80 rounds of "AAW MADFIRES" rounds and 40 rounds of "ASuW ALaMO (or Orca, if still alive)" can do. Can do similar (or even better) than 1200-rounds 3P ammo in AAW and ASuW warfare.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Turning to the T-31, I still think it would be better to install a Phalanx in the "B" position instead of the Bofors. We have a pool of these and given the ship is not likely to have the top of the range 57mm and 40mm set up would give them a known CIWS capability whilst still making them "Gunboats" as seems to be the general idea behind the design.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Back in the day (STRN July 19 A-140 ) the babcock model did have Phalanx's each side of the rear 40mm mount 2 x phalanx on escorts would be in line with RN thinking ( but not there budget ) i.e two on type 45 and two on type 26 however if two phalanx were to be fitted on type 31 it would make it a spikey little sod

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe a good mix could be 57mm point A , 30mm with LMM point B , Phalanx on the hangar roof and a 30mm with LMM each side giving it

1 x 57mm
3 x 30mm with LMM
1 x Phalanx
24 x CAMM
And the cherry on the top could be 8 x NSM from the I_SSGW budget if it goes ahead

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7306
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:Back in the day (STRN July 19 A-140 ) the babcock model did have Phalanx's each side of the rear 40mm mount 2 x phalanx on escorts would be in line with RN thinking ( but not there budget ) i.e two on type 45 and two on type 26 however if two phalanx were to be fitted on type 31 it would make it a spikey little sod
Bit hard to see but there they are ..

Image

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1450
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote:And the cherry on the top could be 8 x NSM from the I_SSGW budget if it goes ahead
As always the problem with anti-ship missiles is how do you obtain the targeting info in time to launch, travel ~100 nm at Mach 0.8-9 before the enemy ship has steamed out of the missiles limited sensor search basket range. Thought the envisaged T31 mission was independent operations so puzzled how it would be able to positively identify and target enemy ship amongst all the other possible shipping beyond the horizon to make full use of the ~100 nm range NSM. Ship helo with its large rotor blades will make it easy for enemy radar detection and attack with missile with equivalent range to a SM-2 AAM, so likely a low probability obtaining target info against a peer enemy ship? intel from satellites and pseudo satellites like the Zephyr will take too long so enemy ship would have likely steamed way out of NSM sensor basket range.

Think that leaves the possible option for low RCS F-35 to provide the near instantaneous target intel suitable for a ship launched NSM to have reasonable chance of hit, would it not be better to spend limited budget on arming the F-35 with the equivalent JSM and spend any additional T31 funding on any other of its shortcomings, additional CAMM as you say or sonar etc.

1) Don't know of ships launching anti-ship missiles at long range with success, the only ones think of are all aircraft launched eg Falklands with Arg Exocets.
2) Chinese claim their low frequency radars negate RCS of F-35 size a/c

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

NickC wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:And the cherry on the top could be 8 x NSM from the I_SSGW budget if it goes ahead
As always the problem with anti-ship missiles is how do you obtain the targeting info in time to launch, travel ~100 nm at Mach 0.8-9 before the enemy ship has steamed out of the missiles limited sensor search basket range. Thought the envisaged T31 mission was independent operations so puzzled how it would be able to positively identify and target enemy ship amongst all the other possible shipping beyond the horizon to make full use of the ~100 nm range NSM. Ship helo with its large rotor blades will make it easy for enemy radar detection and attack with missile with equivalent range to a SM-2 AAM, so likely a low probability obtaining target info against a peer enemy ship? intel from satellites and pseudo satellites like the Zephyr will take too long so enemy ship would have likely steamed way out of NSM sensor basket range.

Think that leaves the possible option for low RCS F-35 to provide the near instantaneous target intel suitable for a ship launched NSM to have reasonable chance of hit, would it not be better to spend limited budget on arming the F-35 with the equivalent JSM and spend any additional T31 funding on any other of its shortcomings, additional CAMM as you say or sonar etc.

1) Don't know of ships launching anti-ship missiles at long range with success, the only ones think of are all aircraft launched eg Falklands with Arg Exocets.
2) Chinese claim their low frequency radars negate RCS of F-35 size a/c
just because NSM has a 100 nm range means it can be used up to that range and ranges in between lets not for get NSM has a limited land attack capability as well. Also just because type 31 is seen as a singleton dose not mean it can't and wont work as part of group. yes it needs a sonar but I was talking weapons fit and at this time I-SSGW has a budget of 200 million which could buy 10 to 12 sets of NSM enough for type 45/ 31 to be fitted with 8 missiles each

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7306
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

There are other ways to spot enemy warships at a distance. Sigh.

And putting F-35B's on Type 31s, that's new. Sigh #2.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Aircraft, Drones, Submarines, Satellites etc. can all provide targeting data for AShMs. Even ELINT systems on ships and other platforms can roughly locate a ship tracking electromagnetic transmissions. Finally AShMs are on the whole lock on after launch. You send where you think the enemy is by using the data available, modern missiles will also search either actively or passively and only switching on any active sensors in the terminal phase. The Exocets used in the Falklands are generations behind what is available now.

As for long range AShM strikes form surface vessels, the Israeli Navy had considerable success with its Gabriel AShMs fired from Reshef FACs in the 1973 war and before that the Egyptian Navy Osa and Komar FACs sank the Israeli naval vessel Eilat with SSN-2B Stryx missiles, the first such

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4076
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting article in the Telegraph today.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... dominance/

Royal Navy leads four-nation Arctic mission to block Russian dominance
HMS Sutherland joined by American, Danish and Norwegian forces to demonstrate freedom of navigation above the Arctic Circle

By
Dominic Nicholls,
DEFENCE AND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT
10 September 2020 • 5:00am
View from HMS Sutherland of USS Ross (middle) and RFA Tidespring (far) in the High North.
The Royal Navy has shown Russia it does not have freedom of the Arctic by leading a multi-national task group of warships and aircraft into the icy corridor of the High North.

In the first such operation for 20 years, Type-23 Frigate HMS Sutherland has been joined by American, Danish and Norwegian forces to demonstrate freedom of navigation above the Arctic Circle.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said Britain intends to “re-engage more” in the Barents Sea in future years.

He said the thawing of the passageways in the High North could cut the transit time of commercial shipping from China to Europe by half.

This could be very lucrative for some, but becomes an opportunity to challenge the norms of freedom of navigation for a country such as Russia that might feel “strategically vulnerable”.

HMS Sutherland, supported by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary logistics ship Tidespring, commanded a task group comprising the United States Navy’s Arleigh-Burke class destroyer USS Ross and the Norwegian Frigate Thor Heyerdahl on the deployment to the Barents Sea.

Over 1,200 military personnel from all four nations took part, supported by US P-8 Poseidon and Danish Challenger Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

RAF Typhoon fighters, supported by a Voyager refuelling tanker, also took part. British Typhoons have previously been based in Iceland, but have never before operated in the Arctic Circle.

HMS Sutherland led the ships through a demanding series of exercises, testing their abilities to conduct surface and anti-submarine warfare in one of the world’s most challenging environments.

Conducting routine tasks, such as replenishment at sea, in conditions close to freezing and in unfamiliar waters is a vital training exercise to ensure effective integration between allies.

Commander Tom Weaver, the Task Group Commander and Commanding Officer of HMS Sutherland, said: “It has been thoroughly rewarding to operate in the High North. This operation has been an amazing opportunity to hone the skills of my Ship’s Company not only in this challenging and demanding environment but also to work more closely with key allies in an incredibly important region.”

The Defence Secretary’s commitment to “re-engage more” in the Barents Sea highlights how the area is of great strategic interest to Nato.

The Russian Navy, which is mostly based around Murmansk in north west Russia, seeks to dominate the area as it controls the northern approaches to the Atlantic Ocean.

Access to the open seas is vitally important for Russia as it seeks to locate the British, French and American nuclear-missile carrying submarines widely thought to patrol the waters.

The seas linking Greenland, Iceland and the UK have long been recognised as a critical maritime region for Nato. If the Russian Navy can be contained above this line, Nato will have a much greater degree of freedom in the Atlantic.

A series of hydrophones, known as the Sound Surveillance System, is thought to lie on the sea bed, across what is known as the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. Although old technology, with much of the equipment understood to be in need of investment, the system is a potent weapon in Nato’s armoury.

The hydrophones are able to pick up the distinctive sounds of Russian ships and submarines, usually from the noise of the propellers.

These sounds are then analysed against other data such as photographs of naval exercises and port visits and can give Western intelligence analysts a clearer idea of which Russian Navy assets are attempting to get into the North Atlantic.

The Defence Secretary said Russia is also using the High North to experiment with new weapon systems, including submarines, and there is “lots for us to learn” in the area.

“It’s in our interest to protect the northern approaches. Being forward of your homeland is one way to ensure you protect that,” the Defence Secretary said.

In recent years the Russian military has fired long range missiles thousands of miles from ranges in the Arctic Ocean.

The current operation and future Royal Navy deployments will see ships operating less than 100 nautical miles of the Rusian coast.

As in the Black Sea, where Russia has unilaterally imposed military firing danger areas in an effort to intimidate Ukraine, so trying to control access and transit routes through the Arctic was “not an appropriate use” of exercise boxes and safety clearance areas, the Minister said.

He also warned Russia has asked countries to clear their route 48-hours before transit, an act that is not in line with international maritime law. Britain has not yet been asked to comply with such requests.

“The principle of upholding international maritime law, wherever that may be, is very important for a country like Britain that seeks to represent free trade,” Mr Wallace said.

The Defence Secretary said the Arctic will become part of the “normal area of operations” for the Royal Navy.

“It’s not designed to be provocative. It’s enlarging what we do, being more present and more forward”.

He said the possibility of forward-basing British military forces would be one of the themes of the ongoing Integrated Review into foreign, defence and security policy.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I can almost understand the thinking that type 45 and 23 don't need Anti-ship missiles as they are with the carrier which would deal with OTH strike. However for me any singleton should have a SSGW capability.

The whole Type 31 program has been poor in its thinking from the start it should have been to build 5 ships for half the price of type 26 with half the capability i.e

Type 26) world class ASW with 1 x 5" , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 VLS

Type 31) tear 2 ASW 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm, 2 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Can't judge a chicken before it's hatched.

Going to be a few years yet.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Tempest414 wrote:For me I can almost understand the thinking that type 45 and 23 don't need Anti-ship missiles as they are with the carrier which would deal with OTH strike. However for me any singleton should have a SSGW capability.
But that thinking, like the level of protection each of our carriers has on board goes against what every other navy believes to be the case. Most nations, including the USN are looking to increase the number of SSGW each warship carries where as we are going the other way. Why is it that our naval planner see NGFS a an essential capability but see the ability of our escorts to engage enemy warships at range as optional. Are they intending to close to gunnery range in any future naval actions?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Maybe proceeding with an air of caution w/ complex weaponry getting hacked or having more difficult supply lines etc. etc?

Dumber the better? Either way, not a good position.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1450
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote:Aircraft, Drones, Submarines, Satellites etc. can all provide targeting data for AShMs. Even ELINT systems on ships and other platforms can roughly locate a ship tracking electromagnetic transmissions. Finally AShMs are on the whole lock on after launch. You send where you think the enemy is by using the data available, modern missiles will also search either actively or passively and only switching on any active sensors in the terminal phase. The Exocets used in the Falklands are generations behind what is available now.

As for long range AShM strikes form surface vessels, the Israeli Navy had considerable success with its Gabriel AShMs fired from Reshef FACs in the 1973 war and before that the Egyptian Navy Osa and Komar FACs sank the Israeli naval vessel Eilat with SSN-2B Stryx missiles, the first such
Thanks for input with your examples of ship fired AShM, Eilat and battle of Latakia, in both instances missiles fired within ship radar range, so come back to question is how do you obtain the targeting info for AShM beyond ship radar horizon up to ~100 nm range. I do take your point AShM tech has moved on from Eilat 1967 and Falklands 1982. NSM uses an IIR seeker head, basket search area very limited at low level, if flying at height to give improved chance of locking onto target a modern radar would find it, Artisan claimed to be able to track targets size of golf ball, and if enemy ships operating in EMCON mode as often NATO ships practised in Cold War using ELINT would not work.

NSM max range ~100nm it would take ~40min to arrives at target and assuming target ship steaming at 20 knots it could be any where within area of 500 +sq nm, that's in a best case scenario based on obtaining instantaneous targeting info, secondly before you fire one or two of your £1 million plus limited number of missiles you must be sure not wasting it on a commercial/fishing ship etc., require high quality intel in the fog of war and assuming no comms jamming.

Understand max ~100 nm range the worst case scenario and not saying AShM should not be fitted to RN warships, but its all about probabilities of success in targeting enemy ships and think operationally much more effective if fired from a/c, which why think with the very limited MoD available funding available the much better option to spend on the JSM for the F-35 as Australia (with a new BAE Australia passive radio frequency, RF, added to IIR sensor, shades of the LRASM).

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1450
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Apologies calc totally incorrect, think flight time would be more like ~ 10 min so target area of ship be any where in 20+ sq miles.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7306
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Here we go again, put F-35 on the Type 31s. Jeesh.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting article in the Telegraph today.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... dominance/
With this statement HMG is setting out its stall that it wants to operate in the High North and the Indo-Pacific if this is their intention they will need more Type 31's to allow a more active flow

Post Reply