Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Another question on operational viability of long range AShM that rely partially or totally on GPS for guidance eg Harpoon & NSM
US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, MARAD, issued a renewed advisory 2020-016 dd.22/09/2020 to the maritime industry of multiple instances of GPS interference that have been reported worldwide over the last year and not from unexcepted areas, including eastern and central Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and multiple Chinese ports.
Self evident on how this will effect the navigation of ships and aircraft but mainly weapons relying on GPS for targeting, so do not understand as to why governments still procuring missiles guided by GPS. Prime example the recent award of the 24 September $2.2 billion contract to Boeing lot 15 SDB 1's for US, Australia, Belgium, Israel, Japan, Korea, Netherlands and Norway.
Wikipedia "The SDB I has a circular error probable (CEP) of 5–8 m (16–26 ft). CEP is reduced by updating differential GPS offsets prior to weapon release. These offsets are calculated using an SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure, consisting of three or more GPS receivers at fixed locations transmitting calculated location to a correlation station at the theatre Air Operations Center. The corrections are then transmitted by Link 16 to SDB-equipped aircraft.
From <https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2020- ... terference>
US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, MARAD, issued a renewed advisory 2020-016 dd.22/09/2020 to the maritime industry of multiple instances of GPS interference that have been reported worldwide over the last year and not from unexcepted areas, including eastern and central Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and multiple Chinese ports.
Self evident on how this will effect the navigation of ships and aircraft but mainly weapons relying on GPS for targeting, so do not understand as to why governments still procuring missiles guided by GPS. Prime example the recent award of the 24 September $2.2 billion contract to Boeing lot 15 SDB 1's for US, Australia, Belgium, Israel, Japan, Korea, Netherlands and Norway.
Wikipedia "The SDB I has a circular error probable (CEP) of 5–8 m (16–26 ft). CEP is reduced by updating differential GPS offsets prior to weapon release. These offsets are calculated using an SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure, consisting of three or more GPS receivers at fixed locations transmitting calculated location to a correlation station at the theatre Air Operations Center. The corrections are then transmitted by Link 16 to SDB-equipped aircraft.
From <https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2020- ... terference>
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Military GPS has anti-jam capabilities that civilian GPS does not have. But even then reliance on GPS is seen as a US achiles heel at present, which the DoD is taking seriously. There are studies and attempts at using other satellite signals along with GPS to increase resolution and resilience.NickC wrote:Self evident on how this will effect the navigation of ships and aircraft but mainly weapons relying on GPS for targeting, so do not understand as to why governments still procuring missiles guided by GPS.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The NickC bit I read as triangulation results being fed in from afar, so as to annul GPS faking (which can only be done for a limited area... like moving Kremlin by 60 km, in case a cruise missile tried to sneak in, through the "study window")Timmymagic wrote: There are studies and attempts at using other satellite signals along with [ the militarily hardened] GPS to increase resolution and resilience.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Might be why Elon musk's starlink is happening so quickly..
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Is there a difference? Only thing is the Brits split AAW and ASW between frigates and destroyers whereas the Americans put it all on the destroyers.Roders96 wrote: trade-off between American and British asw tactics?
Helicopters are the best way to kill a submarine, no ship can hover directly above a sub blasting active sonar ready to launch a torpedo. However they're not the best way to find a submarine, because there's no easy way to cover 1,000+ square miles of ocean with helicopters. That's what the towed elements are for.Roders96 wrote:helicopters are the best way to hunt a submarine
@LandSharkUK
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Timmymagic wrote:There are studies and attempts at using other satellite signals along with GPS to increase resolution and resilience.
Also why the UK government have bough a satellite constellation.Roders96 wrote:Might be why Elon musk's starlink is happening so quickly..
@LandSharkUK
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The power available to GPS satellite from its solar arrays limited and why signal so weak, the new gen GPS satellites currently launched said to eight times more powerful and with improved hardening, but did see a USAF comment they needed a 8,000 times more powerful signal to stop jamming and spoofing so presuming that's the reason behind USAF with their premier two week Red Flag exercises said to offer realistic air-combat training, all GPS is jammed. Also would expect in hot war GPS satellites would be a prime targetsfor anti-satellite weapons, ASAT's, China, Russia and US have been operationally testing ASAT's for many years.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The NickC bit I read as triangulation results being fed in from afar, so as to annul GPS faking (which can only be done for a limited area... like moving Kremlin by 60 km, in case a cruise missile tried to sneak in, through the "study window")Timmymagic wrote: There are studies and attempts at using other satellite signals along with [ the militarily hardened] GPS to increase resolution and resilience.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
@ ArnChairCiviy - Forgot to mention North Korea in the past has jammed GPS from large swathes of South Korea, so GPS faking can be much more than 60km.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
NATO exercises had to cope with it all the way to the Alta Fjord; where the emitting Russian assets where located was never disclosed; hence no range estimate derived ( in public domain) from thereNickC wrote:faking can be much more than 60km.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Increasingly gaining the impression that its doubtful GPS will not be an operationally viable system going forward for platforms or weapons. As have mentioned may result in a big spoke in the wheel of the viability of long range AShM's if they have to rely only on IN with degraded accuracy as not be able to be updated with GPS eg Harpoon and NSM. There are several alternatives to GPS being researched eg quantum positioning system.ArmChairCivvy wrote:NATO exercises had to cope with it all the way to the Alta Fjord; where the emitting Russian assets where located was never disclosed; hence no range estimate derived ( in public domain) from thereNickC wrote:faking can be much more than 60km.
C4ISRNET 14th Sep, [US] Army to award contract for GPS alternative by end of September. The U.S. Army plans to select a contractor for its Mounted Assured Position Navigation and Timing program by the end of September, to ensure soldiers know where they are if GPS isn’t working.
“We are nearing an award to a single vendor who will go forward with that program of record,” said Col. Nickolas Kioutas, program manager for position, navigation and timing within the Army’s Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. “Right now we have fielded our MAPS Gen 1 and we’re continuing to field MAPS Gen 1 over the next two years, and then we’re transitioning to our MAPS program of record.”
"Mounted Assured Position Navigation and Timing, or MAPS, is the Army’s solution to ensuring soldiers know where they are even if the GPS signal is denied, degraded or spoofed. MAPS will be able to fuse PNT data, ingesting information from a variety of sensors providing timing, barometer measurements and inertial navigation to provide an independent alternative that can validate or replace GPS."
“Sensor fusion also lays the foundation to operate without GPS or without (radio frequency), because if you can take in velocity or barometer or an (inertial navigation unit), those are not jammable or spoofable. You can know where you’re at and still report where you’re at,” said Lt. Col. Alexander Rasmussen, product manager for Mounted Positioning Navigation and Timing.
MAPS will also be able to deliver M-Code — a more secure military GPS signal — to soldiers. Additionally, the anti-jam antenna being developed with MAPS can be used as a sensor to locate interference, enabling the Army to counter jamming or spoofing." Presume reffering to MAPS Gen 1
From <https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-te ... september/>
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5597
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Sorry to interrupt.
Azerbaijan Air Force drone destroying Armenian air defences, and convoys.
Interesting the Armenia do not have efficient drone-killing AAW weponaries. What is killed is the AAW missile system with radar rotating. In UK/RN case, it will be Stinger SAM? LMM? or StarStreak SAM? Or, 57 mm 3P and/or 40 mm 3P? CAMM might be over-kill (a bit too expensive)?.
Azerbaijan Air Force drone destroying Armenian air defences, and convoys.
Interesting the Armenia do not have efficient drone-killing AAW weponaries. What is killed is the AAW missile system with radar rotating. In UK/RN case, it will be Stinger SAM? LMM? or StarStreak SAM? Or, 57 mm 3P and/or 40 mm 3P? CAMM might be over-kill (a bit too expensive)?.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
So , where does that leave everybody else?NickC wrote:From <https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-te ... september/>
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Up the khyberArmChairCivvy wrote:So , where does that leave everybody else?NickC wrote:From <https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-te ... september/>
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Looking at NATO Europe from the naval side there needs to be a rethink at this time. There is SNMG-1 & 2 and the MCM groups 1&2 outside of this there is some agreements for me it needs to get its act together. At this time it has
3 x Fleet Carriers
1 x Light carriers
5 x LHD's
6 x LPDs
3 x LSD's
111 x Escorts
With this force NATO Europe should be maintaining
1 x Carrier group at sea and one at 14 days readiness ( the remaining carrier in Maintenance )
2 x littoral response groups at sea plus one at 14 days readiness
2 x MCM groups
This dose not include any carrier groups , ESG's or Escorts from America or Canada
3 x Fleet Carriers
1 x Light carriers
5 x LHD's
6 x LPDs
3 x LSD's
111 x Escorts
With this force NATO Europe should be maintaining
1 x Carrier group at sea and one at 14 days readiness ( the remaining carrier in Maintenance )
2 x littoral response groups at sea plus one at 14 days readiness
2 x MCM groups
This dose not include any carrier groups , ESG's or Escorts from America or Canada
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I agree, with the UK's own carriers coming on line, how NATOS's European members organise their naval contribution needs to refreshed, and not just in the North Atlantic, but in the Baltic and the Black Sea.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Is that 3x fleet carriers and 1x light carrier including UK or just European countries ? Ie x 3 fleet = c de Gaulle ,Cavour ,Juan Carlos and Trieste as light carrier?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It's NATO not including North America so I assume the three fleet carriers would include the UK. Cavour and Juan Carlos aren't really fleet carriers anyway.inch wrote:Is that 3x fleet carriers and 1x light carrier including UK or just European countries ? Ie x 3 fleet = c de Gaulle ,Cavour ,Juan Carlos and Trieste as light carrier?
Cavour is only a bit bigger than the invincible-class compared to the larger CATOBAR CdG and STOVL QE-class that are twice the size. Juan Carlos is a multirole LHD/Light Carrier and even smaller than Trieste overall.
I expect 3 CVF + 1 CVL meant CdG, 2 QE + Cavour. Then Juan Carlos and Trieste/Giuseppe Garibaldi are LHDs along with the mistral-class.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
2 x QE class plus CdG = 3 x fleet carriersinch wrote:Is that 3x fleet carriers and 1x light carrier including UK or just European countries ? Ie x 3 fleet = c de Gaulle ,Cavour ,Juan Carlos and Trieste as light carrier?
Cavour = 1 light carrier
3 x Mistral , Trieste , Juan Carlos 1 = 5 x LHDs
2 x Glaicia Class , Albion , 2 x Rotterdam and Karl Doorman = 6 LPDs
3 x Bays = 3 x LSD's
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
In terms of amphibious warfare vessels there are a couple I think you might have missed:Tempest414 wrote:2 x QE class plus CdG = 3 x fleet carriersinch wrote:Is that 3x fleet carriers and 1x light carrier including UK or just European countries ? Ie x 3 fleet = c de Gaulle ,Cavour ,Juan Carlos and Trieste as light carrier?
Cavour = 1 light carrier
3 x Mistral , Trieste , Juan Carlos 1 = 5 x LHDs
2 x Glaicia Class , Albion , 2 x Rotterdam and Karl Doorman = 6 LPDs
3 x Bays = 3 x LSD's
- Karel Doorman jointly operated by Germany and Netherlands. It is classed as a joint support ship and is closer to RFA Argus in some ways but has LCVPs on board and a large helicopter hangar for transporting marine forces.
- The San Giorgio class. They are a bit small at 8,000t but still classified as LPDs. Their replacements will be a lot bigger, a round 20,000t and they should enter service in a few years.
- Not in service yet of course but Turkey is also developing an LHD. Since some of the ships listed such as Trieste and the QE-class are still in the process of entering service, it's worth noting for long term comparisons.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
On the surface not important, but Belgium has also joined inMax Jones wrote:Karel Doorman jointly operated by Germany and Netherlands
- on the other hand, KD will surely turn up for the joint UK-NL amph. force
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
There will always be some left out my point is more that NATO Europe should replaces the escort only SNMG-1/2 with a LRG 1/2 i.e split the LHD's , LPD's and LSD's into say 8 LRG's with 2 amphibs and 3 escorts in each group something likeMax Jones wrote:In terms of amphibious warfare vessels there are a couple I think you might have missed:
- Karel Doorman jointly operated by Germany and Netherlands. It is classed as a joint support ship and is closer to RFA Argus in some ways but has LCVPs on board and a large helicopter hangar for transporting marine forces.
- The San Giorgio class. They are a bit small at 8,000t but still classified as LPDs. Their replacements will be a lot bigger, a round 20,000t and they should enter service in a few years.
- Not in service yet of course but Turkey is also developing an LHD. Since some of the ships listed such as Trieste and the QE-class are still in the process of entering service, it's worth noting for long term comparisons.
LRG's
1) JC-1 and a Bay class + 3 escorts
2) Albion and Karl Doorman + 3 escorts
3) Cavour and a Glaicia class + 3 escorts
4) A Mistral and a Bay class + 3 escorts
5) Rotterdam and the Turkish LHD + 3 escorts
6) Trieste and a Glaicia class + 3 escorts
7) A Mistral and a Rotterdam class + 3 escorts
8 ) A Mistral and a Bay class + 3 escorts
these would be backed up by the 3 carrier groups plus maybe a US carrier and ESG could back the whole thing or fit any gaps if needed
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Amphibious operations, in the main, include accessing hostile or potentially hostile shores ..., with more or less persistence to enhance the joint commander's freedom of actionTempest414 wrote:my point is more that NATO Europe should replaces the escort only SNMG-1/2 with a LRG 1/2
- I can see the case for such on the difficult to access northern flank, if parts of Norway have suddenly turned 'hostile'
, but where else in Europe and its near-abroad would such a standing force (cost, including the need for frequent rotation) concept apply? ... the shores of Tripoli?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thoughts raised by US Marines on what will be the intended use for RN marines and amphibious ships.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Amphibious operations, in the main, include accessing hostile or potentially hostile shores ..., with more or less persistence to enhance the joint commander's freedom of actionTempest414 wrote:my point is more that NATO Europe should replaces the escort only SNMG-1/2 with a LRG 1/2
- I can see the case for such on the difficult to access northern flank, if parts of Norway have suddenly turned 'hostile'
, but where else in Europe and its near-abroad would such a standing force (cost, including the need for frequent rotation) concept apply? ... the shores of Tripoli?
The US Marines, more than twice the size of the British Army, under its new Commandant Gen David H. Berger appears to have abandoned large scale amphibious landings as too dangerous and abandoning all its heavy weapons including tanks after nearly a century of use and making US Marines purely a light infantry force, a few of his quotes
"First, a focus on a pacing threat that is both a maritime power and a nuclear power eliminates entirely the salience of large-scale forcible entry operations followed by sustained operations ashore // given the geopolitical realities of today and the nature of China’s society and strategic culture, it is highly likely that even if we did have an answer for the challenges of amphibious power projection in a mature precision strike regime, this capability would not be sufficient to deter or prevent our pacing threat from accomplishing its objectives in regions we judge important to our national security"
Marines also looking at 30 new Light Amphibious Warship, 200 to 400 feet, displacement 1,000 to 8,000 tons, beachable platform with a maximum draft of 12 feet, for coastal waters, 40 sailors and embark at least 75 Marines and with 8,000 square feet of cargo space for weapons and supplies, 14 knots - 3,500 nm range with a 25mm or 30mm plus .50 caliber machine guns for self-defense, targeting LAW cost of under $100 million each.
US Marines new thinking looks nonsense, if it "eliminates entirely the salience of large-scale forcible entry operations followed by sustained operations ashore" don't understand why not also appling to smal scale operations?
http://docplayer.net/185134524-The-unit ... corps.html
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/08/marine ... operations>
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Not all but unwieldy (tanks) or having too short a range (heavy mortars)NickC wrote:abandoning all its heavy weapons including tanks after nearly a century of use and making US Marines purely a light infantry force
... long-range fires instead, to support quick island-hopping ops (rather than massive assaults). Three of the bdes to be transformed to littoral ops (or did they call them regiments? A bde 5-7 k, a regiment 3+k... a demi-bde that would be then). Btw, starting to look much like what the Norway-Sweden-Finland modus operandi for their marines has been for decades: never move (expose) more than a bn at a time, engage OpFor shipping from ashore, with highly mobile weapons and act as a (hiding) targeting force for fires from up to 100+ km away
- for this last function the kind of number that can be housed in and launched fro RN escorts would do nicely
- a new function, to be added to non-compliant boarding and beach recce parties?
$100 mln to get 75 marines ashore? And they've been thinking the hovercraft force is too expensive...
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It all looks very doable but the price point is very optimistic.NickC wrote: Marines also looking at 30 new Light Amphibious Warship, 200 to 400 feet, displacement 1,000 to 8,000 tons, beachable platform with a maximum draft of 12 feet, for coastal waters, 40 sailors and embark at least 75 Marines and with 8,000 square feet of cargo space for weapons and supplies, 14 knots - 3,500 nm range with a 25mm or 30mm plus .50 caliber machine guns for self-defense, targeting LAW cost of under $100 million each.
Something like an adapted Platform Supply Vessel may be as good as it gets at that price.