Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

Something like an adapted Platform Supply Vessel

Built for stability; how do you beach it?

[Poiuytrewq]

Built for stability; how do you beach it?

Beaching it is easy....

Something along these lines, https://news.usni.org/2020/02/20/navy-r ... tics-ships

[Clive F]

Off topic, but the whole concept seems silly to me. Small, slow, underarmed vessels in a war zone in China's back yard. They will survive a few days on their on if they are lucky.

[Max Jones]

Being able to unify the European navies into multiple permanent task forces would be great but it comes with some issues.

Firstly I would like to point out that ships aren't available all the time. If you have 3 Mistrals, 2 Albions and a few Dutch ships, that doesn't give you 8 amphibious warfare vessels available at any time that you can form into 4 full time groups. Presumably only around 3-5 could reliably be active at any time. That isn't a fault in the concept as a whole but just a limitation in how it would be arranged.

The other issue is that doesn't leave any space for ships to operate on their own. I'm not an expert on the structure/doctrine of other navies in Europe but the UK alone wants to have a CSG and LRG available at all times along with other ships on smaller deployments such as a squadron in the Persian Gulf (several minesweepers, an LSD, 1-2 escorts and possibly a tanker) and defensive vessels to protect the nation against any threat of invasion (surface ships are a small part of that but kept anyway).

These capabilities could not be maintained with a mixed force. Assuming you diversified the groups completely then the UK would have no experience controlling a solely UK task force of any kind. This would prevent it from achieving its current goals and cause a major problem if we were to become involved in any major naval operation that did not heavily involve the majority of our of key allies. As I said the other nations have different needs but I know Italy, France and Spain all have permanent vessels based in the meditteranean and all deploy carrier strike groups or smaller task forces on a semi-regular basis.

As a result of this, without causing a massive upset to the existing system that would effectively require a major reform tot he fleet structure, consequently cancelling all current projects and taking 30 years to realise, we would need to compromise.

Currently that compromise consists of larger task forces being made up of independent nations while each group regularly trains in multi-national operations as we see in major military exercises such as the upcoming JW202 along with smaller collaborations such as the joint Dutch-British amphibious vessels recently.

Currently this allows for a similar level of existing warships/groups to be available, such as one QE carrier strike group at a time, one British amphibious group, 1 French group and a CSG or 2 French groups, likely a smaller Italian carrier group and possibly an Italian amphibious group, just going through the main three.

That leaves some individual escorts but the issue with grouping them into squadrons is that it simply limits versatility, having maybe 3 smaller flotillas of 3-6 general purpose frigates instead of a dozen warships deployed in smaller number over various locations.

If there is one area that could be prioritised, amphibious capabilities seems like the ideal one. The Netherlands has enough ships available to maintain one or two large LPDs but that alone won't build an amphibious ready group. France has 1-2 LHDs available but they lack additional surface-based amphibious ships to support them so perhaps pairing those two would allow a more coordinated strike group of an LHD, LPD and possibly another of either alongside maybe a tanker from France or Britain if they can't manage since we generally have a larger auxiliary force than other European states. Add in a De Zeven and a Fayette and you have a competent multinational amphibious force with basic protection.

You could do something similar with Italy and Spain - get an LPD from Spain, a smaller San Georgio-class from Italy and alternate between Trieste and Juan Carlos alongside a couple frigates from each country and a tanker from somewhere for another large group.

The issue with directing a navies' entire focus towards these kind of joint operations, however, is that it both limits autonomy and does not fit the way the navies are currently structured. In order to achieve this all the major nations would need to coordinate ship building so they have a certain proportion of tankers, carriers, general purposes and specialised surface combatants, and amphibious vessels for a more uniform and effective structure. Spain has built up its individual areas in proportion to the rest of the fleet, not as part of a cog in a broader naval force. Same applies to everyone else to varying degrees.

[jedibeeftrix]

Right, that ends that line of pointless speculation - we're getting the 40mm bofors.

Now, where else might it be useful to fit out vessels with 40mm (and 3P), as a baseline capability?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not sure if it was final but the French were putting some on their supply ships so that they could ply back and forth unescorted.

[Tempest414]

Being able to unify the European navies into multiple permanent task forces would be great but it comes with some issues.

Firstly I would like to point out that ships aren't available all the time. If you have 3 Mistrals, 2 Albions and a few Dutch ships, that doesn't give you 8 amphibious warfare vessels available at any time that you can form into 4 full time groups. Presumably only around 3-5 could reliably be active at any time. That isn't a fault in the concept as a whole but just a limitation in how it would be arranged.

The other issue is that doesn't leave any space for ships to operate on their own. I'm not an expert on the structure/doctrine of other navies in Europe but the UK alone wants to have a CSG and LRG available at all times along with other ships on smaller deployments such as a squadron in the Persian Gulf (several minesweepers, an LSD, 1-2 escorts and possibly a tanker) and defensive vessels to protect the nation against any threat of invasion (surface ships are a small part of that but kept anyway).

The point of putting the amphib's into 8 or 9 groups and having two groups deployed at a time for 6 months at a time would mean in the case of the UK one of its 4 amphib ships would be deployed on NATO duties as and when in rotation and in the case of Albion she would take her turn in the rotation and then would be free for the next 18 months 2 years before being deployed again in the NATO rotation.

from a NATO point of view if we could get our act together in this way and have 3 CSG's and 8 LRG's along with 1 US CSG and 2 MEU's take there turn in the rotations this would mean NATO would have 1 x CSG and 2 LRG's at sea all year round if these were to come together for one week in their rotation to form and exercise as a battle group it is a big big show of force. And would look like this

1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
4 x Amphib's
11 x Escorts
1 x tanker
1 x SSS

Edit ; this would also allow the US to deploy more carriers and LHD's / LHA's to the Pacific knowing the Atlantic had a equal number of assets

[Ron5]

Right, that ends that line of pointless speculation - we're getting the 40mm bofors.

Now, where else might it be useful to fit out vessels with 40mm (and 3P), as a baseline capability?

Very curious how much the contract is worth. I doubt if we will ever know.

[Max Jones]

The point of putting the amphib's into 8 or 9 groups and having two groups deployed at a time for 6 months at a time would mean in the case of the UK one of its 4 amphib ships would be deployed on NATO duties as and when in rotation and in the case of Albion she would take her turn in the rotation and then would be free for the next 18 months 2 years before being deployed again in the NATO rotation.

from a NATO point of view if we could get our act together in this way and have 3 CSG's and 8 LRG's along with 1 US CSG and 2 MEU's take there turn in the rotations this would mean NATO would have 1 x CSG and 2 LRG's at sea all year round if these were to come together for one week in their rotation to form and exercise as a battle group it is a big big show of force. And would look like this

I must have missed the part about rotating between groups. That makes a lot of sense now.

[NickC]

FWIW a one minute Youtube video showing the Chinese advanced computer controlled tooling used in shipyard able to produce variable shaped hull plates for the Type 055 cruiser, plate looks approx 20mm thick? so substantial press pressure/power required to shape the steel, giving ability to designers to optimise the hull hydrodynamics.

Don't know what thickness steel plate is used in build of T26 and T31 but do not think its as thick, maybe 10-12mm, anyone have the info or specs?, understand two thirds of T26 plate bought in from Sweden.

[Repulse]

Given the potential noise that the Royal Navy could be a relative winner out of the SDSR (I.e. the fleet stays the same size), I thought I’d update my table to reflect a post SDSR fleet optimised around 2 CSGs (one always available), 3 LRGs and forward based minor vessels (but keeping the Kipion escort).

An LRG would either be a LPD+LSD+Escort (like the current deployment to the Eastern Med), or another more HADR focused where the LPD is replaced by RFA Argus.

I’ve made an assumption that a few MCMs have been dropped, but a little Fantasy, I’ve floated the idea of recommissioning RFA Diligence (or similar) for the Gulf to act as the MCM mothership (releasing a LSD) and deploy the new MCM USVs. I’ve also floated the idea using something similar (like SD Victoria) in a similar role in the Far East.



Edit: correct a mistake on the number of LSDs

[Poiuytrewq]

An LRG would either be a LPD+LSD+Escort (like the current deployment to the Eastern Med)

An entire LRG based around an embarked helicopter capacity of 3 Merlin? Fine in the Med but not elsewhere.

Given the scale of the ambition regarding the LSG concept what does the LPD add to the wide ranging capabilities of the Bay apart from the command and control facilities?

HADR focused where the LPD is replaced by RFA Argus.

Argus and a Bay seems like a much better basis for a Littoral Response Group but perhaps a bit overkill for the Caribbean etc.

A Littoral Response Group based around a Bay with an enlarged hanger, improved medical facilities and a suitable command and control setup augmented by a Wave and a T31 would seem an efficient use of resources. Is there any need to build anything else?

[Repulse]

An entire LRG based around an embarked helicopter capacity of 3 Merlin? Fine in the Med but not elsewhere.

It’s a fair point, but it’s obviously something the RN is trialling.

Is there any need to build anything else?

I’d argue that a lot can be achieved with what the RN has, rather than focus always on new kit. We need to get what is already available back in service, and build a solid and sustainable pipeline of replacement ships.

[Poiuytrewq]

....it’s obviously something the RN is trialling.

Absolutely but a LPD and a LSD is massively more capable than the original LSG concept prescribed minus the aviation requirement. An adapted Bay would seem much more sustainable in the role unless the concept is changing and becoming more ambitious.

It's worth considering, if the LPD's are scrapped, sold or mothballed in the upcoming integrated review, what will the be Bays primary role going forward?

I’d argue that a lot can be achieved with what the RN has, rather than focus always on new kit. We need to get what is already available back in service, and build a solid and sustainable pipeline of replacement ships.

Couldn't agree more

[NickC]

India yesterday successfully tested its long range Supersonic Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo (SMART) with its LWT payload, the test objectives included missile flight up to the range and altitude, separation of the nose cone, release of torpedo and deployment of Velocity Reduction Mechanism, VRM, said to be met perfectly. China has developed Yu-8 anti-submarine missile which works on the same hybrid principle of SMART weapons system but has a range of only 40 km whereas SMART ~ 350 nm

It might be a future option for the T26 VLS cells, the USN ASROC is an old short range 10-12 mile system, have seen mention USN has requirement for a new system but have seen no mention of funding, unknown if Indian missile would fit the Mk41, but impressive that the VRM worked perfectly.

From <https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... ncher.html

[ArmChairCivvy]

At least at sea, looks like 'sensors over weapons' as the range does no good w/o detection & targeting

[Ron5]

At least at sea, looks like 'sensors over weapons' as the range does no good w/o detection & targeting

AKA the Indians don't have Merlin.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Indians don't have Merlin.

They were going to... for VIP transport

[NickC]

At least at sea, looks like 'sensors over weapons' as the range does no good w/o detection & targeting

AKA the Indians don't have Merlin.

But the Indian Navy in May placed contract with Sikorsky for 21 new MH-60Rs, plus 3 ex USN MU-60R for delivery this year, Sikorsky state “India’s selection of the MH-60R ‘Romeo’ multi-mission helicopter provides the Indian Navy with the most advanced anti-surface/anti-submarine warfare helicopter in operation today" they would say that but realistic with its AShM capabilities, but its also a very capable ASW system with ALFS and Mk 54 LWT's that will fitted to the RAF P-8A's.

Sensor package includes an MTS-FLIR, the AN/APS-147 multi-mode radar/IFF interrogator, an advanced airborne fleet data link, and a more advanced airborne active low frequency sonar (ALFS). Offensive capabilities are improved by the addition of new Mk-54 air-launched torpedoes and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, plus upgrade enabling firing the NSM, US Marines / Kongsberg have funded.

It could be Indian Navy funding their own SOSUS network to use the long range of the SMART? , anyone know the effective range of T26 CAPTAS 4, seen claims that's longer than 350 nm.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... dian-navy/>

[ArmChairCivvy]

to use the long range of the SMART?

That remains the question (as I, for one, don't know).

[NickC]

Radar/lasers performance and the physics constraints.

Looking at Danish Weibel who are in small minority of companies who specialize in CW radars, another is Blighter Surveillance Systems of Cambridge, the Weibel MFSR-2100/36 is a low power 240/60W, X-band FMCW-CW/ FCW-CW radar, of interest was they give the actual range figures and how the range decreased depending on RCS with X-band (not the same for lower band radars) instrumented range 75 km for a RCS 2m² target, 30 km for RCS 1m², 20 km RCS 0.1m², 10 km RCS 0.01m², so when looking at instrumented range for a radar you need to know the RCS m² size spec'd for an apples to apples comparison (would note Weibel supply the CW radars for USN used to track Trident testing, max range of their radars 4,000 km).

MFSR-2100/36 range a reflection of physics involved, electromotive force, emf, the strength of the signal is inversely proportional to the distance squared, a signal at 2 km is ¼ of the strength at 1 km, 1/16 at 4 km and so on.

The same emf law of physics apply to lasers, don't know the numbers involved but would expect need minimum of 1 MW power and up for decent range operational effective laser weapon plus solving many other problems, recent comment was after $12 billion spend and three decades of research by Pentagon it has yet to deploy an operational laser weapon system.

Expect may be decades before effective range weapon lasers become operational especially for ships at sea level where subject to the atmosphereic effects of rain, clouds, fog, dust, snow, sea spray, humidity, temperature inversions/mirage, atmospheric turbulence, smoke etc, also you wouldn't be able to use your laser if firing your guns or missiles due to the smoke generated.

[Poiuytrewq]

Great news but is it to be Appledore or Cammell Laird

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/a ... ssion=true

[donald_of_tokyo]

Great news but is it to be Appledore or Cammell Laird

Or, BAES Clyde ?

Barzan-class is of VT design, and VT is officially now included in BAES. Although not good thing, building in Clyde will also "allow" HMG to "step aside T26 build by 1 year", because some of the engineers/labors will be working on the 2 new missile crafts. Here I assume two newly built modified Barzan-class will cost £200M in total, and divided it by "£220M per year needed to secure Clyde" as noted in TOBA. Note that, as this is for Ukraine, it is "for free" for MOD (Just like Naval shipyard building Gowind-2500 corvette for Egypt right in the middle of FREMM frigate production).

Note £100M average for a modern missile craft is not extreme, especially if it is well equipped and includes the "1st of class" detailed works (defining all the details, not just for hulls or engines, but down to all pipes and wires, integration test procedures, and establishing verification /certification process, which are all expensive. These process become just a routine work, after the 2nd-hull and later on).

[tomuk]

Great news but is it to be Appledore or Cammell Laird

Or, BAES Clyde ?

Barzan-class is of VT design, and VT is officially now included in BAES. Although not good thing, building in Clyde will also "allow" HMG to "step aside T26 build by 1 year", because some of the engineers/labors will be working on the 2 new missile crafts. Here I assume two newly built modified Barzan-class will cost £200M in total, and divided it by "£220M per year needed to secure Clyde" as noted in TOBA. Note that, as this is for Ukraine, it is "for free" for MOD (Just like Naval shipyard building Gowind-2500 corvette for Egypt right in the middle of FREMM frigate production).

Note £100M average for a modern missile craft is not extreme, especially if it is well equipped and includes the "1st of class" detailed works (defining all the details, not just for hulls or engines, but down to all pipes and wires, integration test procedures, and establishing verification /certification process, which are all expensive. These process become just a routine work, after the 2nd-hull and later on).

Very interesting. Would depend on when delivery to Ukraine is expected. If soon I would expect BAE to subcontract to H&W and/or Camell Laird. Or if later they could slot in after HMS Belfast. There is definitely no room at Govan with Glasgow and Cardiff underway. The two halves of Glasgow are yet to be brought outside for welding together.

[ArmChairCivvy]

HMS Belfast. There is definitely no room at Govan with Glasgow and Cardiff underway.

TOBA runs until July 2024, so if the pipeline (of work/ capacity) is full until then, TOBA would be history already today.