Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

By the way, how about
8 T26: 1x 127mm, 24x strike-length VLS (mk41), 48x CAMM, 2x 40mm 3P (banning 2x 30mm and 2x CIWS)
5 T31: 1x 57mm, 12x CAMM, 2x 30mm, 2x CIWS (banning 2x 40mm 3P)

In T26, 48 CAMM and two 40mm 3P will cover high-end and very-low end (drones?) AAW, respectively.
In T31, 12 CAMM for high-end AAW (SeaRAM equivalent) and two 20mm CIWS for very-low-end (drones) and low-end (Exocets/Harpoon equivalent) AAW.

You are right and I am only putting forward if's. My thinking is that if T-31 was to remove the 40mm guns and replace them with 3 x 30mm and 1 Phalanx at a later date the 30mm gun could be upgrade with LMM this could see a T-31 with

1 x 57mm , 3 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 12 to 24 CAMM , 15 LMM + softkill

This could allow a T-31 to engage a incoming threat of small boats with the 57mm , 2 x 30mm +10 x LMM and cover the blind side with 1 x Phalanx , 1 x 30mm + 5 LMM. Also as I have said before if the 40mm guns have already been signed up to they could be fitted to the River B2's there by making better use of what we have

As for I-SSWG I know it has been said it is for up to 5 sets for T-23 ASW but the money out lined should get us 10 sets of NSM and in my mind these should go to T-45 and T-31 as it would give both classes a limited land attack capability and T-23 will be replaced by T-26 with its Mk-41's

[Poiuytrewq]

24x strike-length VLS (mk41)

This is the biggest trick that is being missed with the T31 IMO.

Adding 16x Mk41 cells to the T31 (8x Strike) would keep potential adversaries guessing with absolutely no way to tell what munitions were actually onboard. Meanwhile the Treasury bean counters would be happy that the majority of the cells were empty on routine deployments.

Of course if a crisis was to arise the spare capacity could come in very useful.

Fitting a 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12 CAMM cells, the T31 is fooling no-one.

[donald_of_tokyo]

24x strike-length VLS (mk41)

This is the biggest trick that is being missed with the T31 IMO.

Adding 16x Mk41 cells to the T31 (8x Strike) would keep potential adversaries guessing with absolutely no way to tell what munitions were actually onboard. Meanwhile the Treasury bean counters would be happy that the majority of the cells were empty on routine deployments.

Only if there are money. And because of money, enemy do know there are nothing within the silo. (It is the weapon system and missiles, which are expensive. Not the VLS cells themselves). But, even the small cost to add a 16-cell Mk41 VLS (cell-only) will enable adding 12 more CAMM, and may be even 8 more NSM. I prefer the latter.

Fitting a 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12 CAMM cells, the T31 is fooling no-one.

Why? It makes T31 armed as much as a typical heavy corvettes: Gowind-2500, Damen 10514, Al Khareef, and possibly European common Patrol Corvettes (other than ASW kits). I agree T31 with current armaments will not look like a full fat frigate. But, T31 has NEVER been a full fat frigate. It is an enlarged heavy corvette. From its start, it was £250M average cost ship. A very clear message it is NOT a frigate. Even with current £400M average (including support and training), its "hull cost" is not so high. (*1)

So, T31 is NOT required to fight against frigates/destroyers. T31's opponent is heavy corvette or missile boats.

*1: We shall not compare the cost with FREMM. This is the first time ever Babcock builds an escort, and Rosyth is building a new hall, steelwork, and many other infrastructures to build T31, TRAINING their work-force and engineers and managers from scratch. Big big sunk cost exists, which are NOT included in Damen, Naval, or Fincantierri cases. This is what "establishing second escort builder" means.

[Roders96]

24x strike-length VLS (mk41)

This is the biggest trick that is being missed with the T31 IMO.

Adding 16x Mk41 cells to the T31 (8x Strike) would keep potential adversaries guessing with absolutely no way to tell what munitions were actually onboard. Meanwhile the Treasury bean counters would be happy that the majority of the cells were empty on routine deployments.

Only if there are money. And because of money, enemy do know there are nothing within the silo. (It is the weapon system and missiles, which are expensive. Not the VLS cells themselves). But, even the small cost to add a 16-cell Mk41 VLS (cell-only) will enable adding 12 more CAMM, and may be even 8 more NSM. I prefer the latter.

Fitting a 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12 CAMM cells, the T31 is fooling no-one.

Why? It makes T31 armed as much as a typical heavy corvettes: Gowind-2500, Damen 10514, Al Khareef, and possibly European common Patrol Corvettes (other than ASW kits). I agree T31 with current armaments will not look like a full fat frigate. But, T31 has NEVER been a full fat frigate. It is an enlarged heavy corvette. From its start, it was £250M average cost ship. Even with current £400M average (including support and training), its "hull cost" is not so high. (*1)

So, T31 is NOT required to fight against frigates/destroyers. T31's opponent is heavy corvette or missile boats.

*1: We shall not compare the cost with FREMM. This is the first time ever Babcock builds an escort, and Rosyth is building a new hall, steelwork, and many other infrastructures to build T31, TRAINING their work-force and engineers and managers from scratch. Big big sunk cost exists, which are NOT included in Damen, Naval, or Fincantierri cases. This is what "establishing second escort builder" means.

I entirely disagree on the money issue, in any situation like 2003 or otherwise, if things are getting hot there will be more than enough time (whilst the ships are steaming to theatre) for arrangements to be made and American stockpiles to be opened up coalition wide. All it takes is a quick stop off at Oman or Ascension Island or Singapore or elsewhere to load up.

As with covid, when things go south contingency funds open up. In the middle of it it would be very much spend now, pay later. These options are not available if the MK41s aren't in place.

I do agree w/ the fremm comparative analysis however, apples and oranges.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I entirely disagree on the money issue, in any situation like 2003 or otherwise, if things are getting hot there will be more than enough time (whilst the ships are steaming to theatre) for arrangements to be made and American stockpiles to be opened up coalition wide. All it takes is a quick stop off at Oman or Ascension Island or Singapore or elsewhere to load up.

Thanks. Yes, if it is only for missiles themselves, "urgent purchase" will enable it.

But, for example if it is TLAM or LRASM (or alike), Mk41 VLS alone cannot handle them. We need the dedicated front-end electronics and associated software. It is not cheap and needs to be pre-installed and integrated into CMS. In addition, we need well trained crew to handle it. So, it means "full investment apart from missiles itself".

As T26 will be carrying "something", the logistics and training basics will be there. Adding the same capability on T31 by introducing Mk41 VLS and needed front-end electronics boxes, softwares, and crew training will enable T31 to quickly carry these missiles. No objection. But, just having a relatively cheap Mk41 VLS only, does not enable this. This is what I wanted to say.

[Roders96]

Yes supporting systems are needed of course, these should be understood as included in my earlier comments.

They are also far less expensive than 16 TLAM and replenishments.

[Ron5]

Firstly right now it is making what we have work better and then adding where and when needed next FFGX is in another league to type 31 and more on a par with type-26 in its weapon fit. If Type 31 was to be fitted as I put forward i.e

1 x 57mm , 3 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 30 x CAMM , 8 x NSM + soft kill

It would have a good multi layer defence system with the CAMM starting to engage at 25+ km the 57mm starting to engage at 18 km right down to the Phalanx starting at 2.5 km

That Phalanx range 1km - 2.5km is maybe why the RN is keen (?) on DS30 + LMM with range out to 9km?

I believe I am correct in saying the LMM trial fit came out of a study into the Navy's defenses against boat swarm attacks that identified some deficiencies. The DS30's were upgraded to Bushmaster guns as another result.

[Poiuytrewq]

Only if there are money. And because of money, enemy do know there are nothing within the silo.

Thanks Donald.

I understand money is very tight and I am not advocating that all T31's become TLAM capable but simply that we should be making the most of the T31 platform within reasonable limits.

By adding the Mk41 cells the enemy would think they know what is contained within, that's very different from really knowing. Not knowing for sure will result in different planning assumptions and a redistribution of assets to counter the threat of any T31(s).

If CAMM could be quad packed, 16x Mk41 silos could hold a maximum of 64 CAMM. Sitting in the middle of the CSG to guard against a saturation attack gives the T31 a real role within the CSG, LiTM or LSG if required. Three T31's fully loaded, together with two T45's and two T26's would give any Task Force a massive defensive arsenal to the point where very few if any adversaries could hope to reliably penetrate it. This would be a game changer for a really modest cost.

This would also avoid the necessity of another series of costly refits for the T45's to counter saturation attacks by increasing silo capacity to counter what is now becoming a real threat.

If HMG really wants to do more with less, adding Mk41 cells to the T31's from the outset would seem like a good place to start.

[Ron5]

If CAMM could be quad packed, 16x Mk41 silos could hold a maximum of 64 CAMM. Sitting in the middle of the CSG to guard against a saturation attack gives the T31 a real role within the CSG, LiTM or LSG if required. Three T31's fully loaded, together with two T45's and two T26's would give any Task Force a massive defensive arsenal to the point where very few if any adversaries could hope to reliably penetrate it. This would be a game changer for a really modest cost.

Regardless of VLS selected, I've always been 100% behind this idea of using the Type 31's as CAMM goalkeepers for HVU's like the carriers. It can't possible be that expensive in the scheme of things, yet could be a vital layer of defense.

[serge750]

I like the idea of the T31 as a CAMM picket ship in the CSG in time of need,

If it was down to me I would gladly take 8 x mk 41 cells of the first 3 or 5 T26 ( 16 x mk41 + 48 camm is still not bad ) then put them on the T31 or even T45, then it's the software cost etc that would be extra exspense, but added flexability for the T31

You could always add the "stolen" mk 41 cells back on the T26 reasanably easily at a later date if money is found.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Regardless of VLS selected, I've always been 100% behind this idea of using the Type 31's as CAMM goalkeepers for HVU's like the carriers. It can't possible be that expensive in the scheme of things, yet could be a vital layer of defense.

Agreed. And, thus,

I like the idea of the T31 as a CAMM picket ship in the CSG in time of need,
... If it was down to me I would gladly take mk 41 cells ... on the T31 or even T45, then it's the software cost etc that would be extra exspense, but added flexability for the T31

I'm just thinking much of the "extra exspense".
- Integrating CAMM in Mk.41 VLS -- yet to be done. It is the stand-alone ExLS, on which LM had privately done. It will have some commonality with Mk.41 VLS internal version ExLS (which itself I see no real example, other than powertpoint), but someone need to pay for it.
- Integrating TWS (Tomahawk weapon system into the fleet) on T31's Mk.41 VLS

Both are not super expensive, but there are cheaper = realistic option, as;
- simply increasing the CAMM number from 12 to 36 onboard in T31. It's 24 more tubes, wires, and 2-more sets of Launch Management System (LMS) of CAMM. Small modification to SeaCeptor software, and maybe a bit more calculation power on the (scalable) TACTICOS CMS (or it is already enough).

My "fear" is, even RN and Babcock knows this, T31 only had 12 CAMM. Maybe the cost is so tight than even adding "24 more tubes, wires, and 2-more sets of LMS" was impossible? Not sure. ...

[dmereifield]

Regardless of VLS selected, I've always been 100% behind this idea of using the Type 31's as CAMM goalkeepers for HVU's like the carriers. It can't possible be that expensive in the scheme of things, yet could be a vital layer of defense.

Agreed. And, thus,

I like the idea of the T31 as a CAMM picket ship in the CSG in time of need,
... If it was down to me I would gladly take mk 41 cells ... on the T31 or even T45, then it's the software cost etc that would be extra exspense, but added flexability for the T31

I'm just thinking much of the "extra exspense".
- Integrating CAMM in Mk.41 VLS -- yet to be done. It is the stand-alone ExLS, on which LM had privately done. It will have some commonality with Mk.41 VLS internal version ExLS (which itself I see no real example, other than powertpoint), but someone need to pay for it.
- Integrating TWS (Tomahawk weapon system into the fleet) on T31's Mk.41 VLS

Both are not super expensive, but there are cheaper = realistic option, as;
- simply increasing the CAMM number from 12 to 36 onboard in T31. It's 24 more tubes, wires, and 2-more sets of Launch Management System (LMS) of CAMM. Small modification to SeaCeptor software, and maybe a bit more calculation power on the (scalable) TACTICOS CMS (or it is already enough).

My "fear" is, even RN and Babcock knows this, T31 only had 12 CAMM. Maybe the cost is so tight than even adding "24 more tubes, wires, and 2-more sets of LMS" was impossible? Not sure. ...

Maybe it's impossible with the budget that Babcock were given, but I'm still convinced that the RN will stump up the extra cash (if necessary) to increase the CAMM numbers to at least 18-24.

[Old RN]

I believe I am correct in saying the LMM trial fit came out of a study into the Navy's defenses against boat swarm attacks that identified some deficiencies. The DS30's were upgraded to Bushmaster guns as another result.

I have no reason to doubt that, but once you have proved the integration of a 9km missile with the ships direction system and CMS with a engagement envelope that covers virtually all current incoming anti-ship missiles it does raise the issue?

[Tempest414]

I don't think LMM has that level of capability

[jedibeeftrix]

...still lots of talk of expanding the use of 57mm and 30mm+martlet - ignoring the fact we're shortly going to have 10x 40mm units in service on Frigates.

if there is any serious suggestion that 40mm is open to question, then fine.
in the absence of that suggestion i'd suggest that talk of expanding 57mm and 30mm+martlet is... unproductive.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I don't think LMM has that level of capability

Whereas bot the 57 and 40 can somewhat claim that with 3P (leaves arches of fire as a design problem, a stickier one in refits). Therefore

i'd suggest that talk of expanding 57mm and 30mm+martlet is... unproductive

Quite agree

[Tempest414]

...still lots of talk of expanding the use of 57mm and 30mm+martlet - ignoring the fact we're shortly going to have 10x 40mm units in service on Frigates.

if there is any serious suggestion that 40mm is open to question, then fine.
in the absence of that suggestion i'd suggest that talk of expanding 57mm and 30mm+martlet is... unproductive.

If there is new money great pack away the 30mm guns on the escorts and replace with 40mm but at this time there seems to be no money and we need to think about up arming the River B2's giving the type 31's a good armament with this in mind moving the 40mm to the River B2's and carriers and by giving the T-31 3 x 30mm and a Phalanx it should not effect it but allows a step change for the B2's

[Ron5]

"Unproductive talk"

Doesn't that kind of define this forum?

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Unproductive talk"

Doesn't that kind of define this forum?

"Unproductive talk"

Doesn't that kind of define this forum?

Ship-shape is the talk of the town
... and other 'bits' get -in relative terms - neglected

[Old RN]

I don't think LMM has that level of capability

I do not see why not. The issues for a successful engagement by a laser beam rider of an approaching missile (point defence - no crossing targets) are:-
Early detection of target (ships radar)
Tracking of target with director with beam laser (EO system - should be fully capable)
Gathering of missile by the beam (demonstrated by test?)
Missile remains gathered in the beam while travelling out towards target (LMM performance)
Warhead actuation at the correct time (proxiity fuse should be capable)

The calculations on the correct launch time (to have impact at 9km) are a function of the ships CMS, should not be challenge?

The speed of the LMM is not really an issue, you are just moving the warhead to close enough to the incoming target to destroy it at a suitable distance from the ship. The LMM never knows where the target is (or is going to be) only that it must stay in the laser beam. In theory the subsonic Seacat would still be relevant for pure point defense against non-manoevering incoming targets given a good enough target tracking and direction!

[Caribbean]

It would seem to me that, from the above description, that one of the critical links is the EO system - can it track the incoming target automatically and with sufficient accuracy to bring the target within range of the proximity fuse?

I've also not seen anything yet to confirm that LMM been integrated into any ship's CMS (though that may be a current work in progress, for all I know).

Also, as I understand it, as currently envisaged for the RN (as a bolt-on fr the ASCG mount), only one missile can be in flight at a time, which must be a concern. Perhaps that could be improved on for a dedicated launcher (two EO systems, perhaps).

Currently, the target set is supposed to include soft-skin/light armoured vehicles, small boats/corvettes and low-speed aerial targets, such as drones and helicopters, with Starstreak being used against high-speed, manouevering targets. The trade-off is that less training is needed to use LMM, making it more suitable for general usage. Would there be more mileage in using Starstreak?

However, if the above points can be satisfied, then maybe it' worth looking at, perhaps with an improved seeker/ warhead optimised for the task. It is modular, after all. Does anyone know if there is a published development time-line available?

[Tempest414]

pure point defense against non-manoevering incoming targets

This is the thing for me I am happy that LMM has a shot at a non manoevering target however what you said was almost all incoming anti ship missiles and more modern missiles like RBS-15 , NSM and the like can and do manoevre at high subsonic speed and this is why i am a little doubtful

[Tempest414]

So in the next week or so we will see 7 of the 14 or so active escorts out at sea with 4 x T-23 and 3 x T-45 given the times we are in I think we need to tip out hat to the RN

[donald_of_tokyo]

pure point defense against non-manoevering incoming targets

This is the thing for me I am happy that LMM has a shot at a non manoevering target however what you said was almost all incoming anti ship missiles and more modern missiles like RBS-15 , NSM and the like can and do manoevre at high subsonic speed and this is why i am a little doubtful

LMM is a Mach 1.5 max (~510 m/s max) missile with laser beam riding. Looking at some video help a bit to grasp how it is guided.

- In the middle of the first video, LMM is flying for ~20 seconds before impacting a 20kt boat. I think it is about 8 km maximum range.
- In the last few seconds of the last video, it look like haze effect is a problem when it is strong.

In both video, though, you can see how the missile reacts to the miss-alignment to get near the center of the laser line. Not slow but not fast. I'm afraid it may be NOT EASY to hit Harpoon/Excoset ASM, and impossible for modern agile NSM/RBS15 IV/LRASM. Anyway, what we know is, the only ASM-beating capable CLOS-like guided missile was SeaWolf, and others such as Crotal and Crotal-VT1 was claimed to be "no hope" and Sea StarStreak was never adopted. Thus, I personally think LMM can do what Thales claims it are designed for, but not against incoming ASM.

[ArmChairCivvy]

as a bolt-on fr the ASCG mount), only one missile can be in flight at a time, which must be a concern.

Yes, the real benefit would be that the engagement envelope is extended.

The other thing with the bolt-on is that it removes the optionally-manned operator seat, meaning that a hit somewhere else on the ship can render even the close defences inoperable.