Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

The type 23 is in RN service rated at 28 Knots but HMS Sutherland topped out at 34 knots on trials in 2008

Not sure, but there were some saying it was just screw rotation speed? If it is GPS speed, corrected for tides, then the number becomes meaningful.

BUT, anyway, it all depends on the conditions, and surely faster than the official number.

[Tempest414]

I think there is some game playing going on by the RN/ MOD here. In the Babcock video it shows the Type 31 lay out and on the lay out it shows the max speed as 26 knots and the range as 7000+ nm yet the Danes say the IH class is capable of 30 knots and 9000+ range so for me the RN or MOD is looking to down play the type 31's speed and range to bring it in line with Type 26 or Babcock have some how lost 4 knots and 2000 nm range two of its big pluses

i just find it interesting that all of a sudden Type 31 has the same speed and range figures as Type 26 when for as long as type 31 has been on the table it has had the same figures as IH

[Roders96]

I think there is some game playing going on by the RN/ MOD here. In the Babcock video it shows the Type 31 lay out and on the lay out it shows the max speed as 26 knots and the range as 7000+ nm yet the Danes say the IH class is capable of 30 knots and 9000+ range so for me the RN or MOD is looking to down play the type 31's speed and range to bring it in line with Type 26 or Babcock have some how lost 4 knots and 2000 nm range two of its big pluses

i just find it interesting that all of a sudden Type 31 has the same speed and range figures as Type 26 when for as long as type 31 has been on the table it has had the same figures as IH

Could be - but we also know the T26 won the Canadian competition that mandated 30kn, and we also know their courts threw out a legal challenge from a jilted competitor on the grounds that it couldn't meet this requirement. Maybe, it can.

Information management is a large part of manoeuvre, naval or otherwise. Could also be some of the newer equipment making them slightly slower.

[Tempest414]

Putting the speed aside they have some how lost 2000nm range

[donald_of_tokyo]

Again, not sure. But, Babcock announcement clearly stated the modification is minimal. So I think also the range is not changed, but only it’s definition. For example, temperature and sea state affects it. In addition, margin shall be there. Range of River B2 has also shortened after RN contract. Looks like RN is presenting requirement value surely with margin, while shipbuilders in the best practice value. Just a guess.

[Poiuytrewq]

think there is some game playing going on by the RN/ MOD here.

Maybe but here are a couple of other plausible possibilities.

Firstly, RN and RFA vessels are quoted with maximum SUSTAINED speed figures. This is very different to the maximum speed figures quoted by other navies.

Second, the endurance figures aren't just based on the size of the diesel tanks. The crew also need something to eat so if you increase the size of the crew and do not increase the number of refrigerators/freezers etc then it will affect the endurance figure. The Danish always quote the CORE crew number and that does not include the aviation engineers etc so this may explain the discrepancy.

[Ron5]

The type 23 is in RN service rated at 28 Knots but HMS Sutherland topped out at 34 knots on trials in 2008

Not sure, but there were some saying it was just screw rotation speed? If it is GPS speed, corrected for tides, then the number becomes meaningful.

BUT, anyway, it all depends on the conditions, and surely faster than the official number.

The 34 knots has been debunked on many, many, occasions. The seas was rough and the propellers became airborne and raced. Speed was calculated from shaft speed. No GPS back then. End of story.

[Ron5]

think there is some game playing going on by the RN/ MOD here.

Maybe but here are a couple of other plausible possibilities.

Firstly, RN and RFA vessels are quoted with maximum SUSTAINED speed figures. This is very different to the maximum speed figures quoted by other navies.

Second, the endurance figures aren't just based on the size of the diesel tanks. The crew also need something to eat so if you increase the size of the crew and do not increase the number of refrigerators/freezers etc then it will affect the endurance figure. The Danish always quote the CORE crew number and that does not include the aviation engineers etc so this may explain the discrepancy.

One other explanation is that the Danes exaggerated their figures. Seeing that they greatly exaggerated the low cost of building the IH's, that's extremely plausible.

BTW range has nothing to do with how much the crew eats. It's 100% the size of the tanks and the thirstiness of the engines. Which, of course, varies with speed. I suspect the 10k miles were at the most economical speed while the 7k is at the RN's fleet speed.

[Tempest414]

BTW range has nothing to do with how much the crew eats. It's 100% the size of the tanks and the thirstiness of the engines. Which, of course, varies with speed. I suspect the 10k miles were at the most economical speed while the 7k is at the RN's fleet speed.

the figure of 9300 nm for the IH is said to be at 18 knots which is fleet speed

[Ron5]

BTW range has nothing to do with how much the crew eats. It's 100% the size of the tanks and the thirstiness of the engines. Which, of course, varies with speed. I suspect the 10k miles were at the most economical speed while the 7k is at the RN's fleet speed.

the figure of 9300 nm for the IH is said to be at 18 knots which is fleet speed

Then I'm wrong

[Poiuytrewq]

....range has nothing to do with how much the crew eats. It's 100% the size of the tanks....

Range and Endurance are intertwined but technically they are separate entities. Adding the extra crew will have an impact regardless but without the full facts I don't think it's worth arguing over.

Personally I think there are a few things about the Arrowhead 140 design that are much more interesting. It's clear that by selecting the A140, the T31 will now be a much larger vessel than originally envisaged at the outset of the T31 programme. The internal space of the A140 is going to be substantially larger than the Iver Huitfeildt class it is derived from.

1. Removing the Stanflex modules amidships and replacing with 12 CAMM, a lot of internal space has been created, What is to be contained in these areas?

2. The weapons deck is to be enclosed within the superstructure effectively adding an extra deck amidships. What is going to be contained within this area?

3. The requirement for 4 RHIBs appears to have been reduced to 3. Why? How could this decision have impacted Leander had the requirement have been changed earlier in the competition.

4. All these aforementioned empty spaces plus the large mission space under the flight deck add up to a massive amount of unused or underused space. Having a potential growth margin within a vessel is advantageous but in the case of the T31 it seems extreme.

Although Babcock is not overplaying the potential it's clear that a lot more potential is contained within the A140 hull.

For example,

What could Range and Endurance be rated up to if fully optimised?

What size of EMF could the vessel embark comfortably if fully optimised?

The required 12 CAMM in a quad packed configuration could be added to multiple areas within the vessel completely freeing up the amidship area for a large mission space similar to the T26 or Leander designs.

Of course with a larger budget many weapons systems could be added but thats not really my point.

Lots of questions but tons of potential. If Babcock actually turn the T31's out at an average of £250m a pop they really will be a bargain.

[ArmChairCivvy]

tons of potential

Say no more

a lot of internal space has been created, What is to be contained in these areas?

+

extra deck amidships. What is going to be contained within this area?

The future is unmanned,

space under the flight deck

but adding a tail could also be quickly done (if the RN surface fleet keeps shrinking - when counted in units; a ship can only be in one place etc etc)

[serge750]

Well all the extra space would be good for the export version to easily add the extras if required - if customers could be found....

They just seem a little underwhelming for RN service straight out the box

[shark bait]

Can add cruise missile under the flight deck like the Russians do!

[AndyC]

Can't see any reason (other than cost) to not fit 12 ExLS launchers each quad packed with CAMM to give a total of 48 missiles.

That provides a pretty reasonable defence.

Then, forward of this position, 8 Harpoon launchers taken from Type 23 when they retire and modernised with Harpoon II.

[Roders96]

Completely agree, and though I know it has its unfeasibilities, I'd love to see some quad packed vl spear cap 3 / ew filling some extra silos at some point.

Perfect for Iranian Speedboats.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Perfect for Iranian Speedboats

: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... Q&usqp=CAU

[Roders96]

Perfect for Iranian Speedboats

: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... Q&usqp=CAU

Very true, but what about when the choppers get shot down?

[ArmChairCivvy]

You base more in Oman and call in the A-10s that were practising exactly that against 50 skippers hired to do the swarming (some fishing trips got cancelled for customers, for that day) in the Gulf (of Mexico)

[Roders96]

Yeah, I just like vl quad packed spear cap 3.

[Tempest414]

Can't see any reason (other than cost) to not fit 12 ExLS launchers each quad packed with CAMM to give a total of 48 missiles.

That provides a pretty reasonable defence.

Then, forward of this position, 8 Harpoon launchers taken from Type 23 when they retire and modernised with Harpoon II.

If I was to hit the fantasy button I would go with 15 ExLS cells split for 36 CAMM and 24 Spear 3/EW plus if the 200 million that was out lined still still stands for I-SSGW I would go with 8 x NSM giving type 31 a armament of

1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 36 CAMM , 24 Spear 3 , 8 x NSM. Plus a Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or 2 Stingray torpedo's

[Roders96]

Would be interesting to see the damage 3 spear cap 3 and 1 ew could do to an enemy frigate.

Would the jamming be significant enough to overwhelm a ships radar? Or is this why it hasn't happened.

[Old RN]

Would be interesting to see the damage 3 spear cap 3 and 1 ew could do to an enemy frigate.

Would the jamming be significant enough to overwhelm a ships radar? Or is this why it hasn't happened.

I believe people underestimate the operational impact of a number of small warheads (30kg) accurately placed hitting even a large warship.

[Roders96]

Oh that I don't

Would be interesting to see the damage 3 spear cap 3 and 1 ew could do to an enemy frigate.

Would the jamming be significant enough to overwhelm a ships radar? Or is this why it hasn't happened.

I believe people underestimate the operational impact of a number of small warheads (30kg) accurately placed hitting even a large warship.

That I certainly don't doubt. Very curious about the impact spear ew could have though, would it be enough to take out the radar on something like a phalanx CIWS or even the main radar?

[ArmChairCivvy]

underestimate the operational impact of a number of small warheads (30kg) accurately placed hitting even a large warship.

One can did down from the basic survivability: continue to fight/ stay afloat/ afford time to save the crew,
to what is critical for the functioning of modern warships, and this (from the USN)
"A system whose operational effectiveness and operational suitability are essential to successful mission completion or to aggregate residual combat capability. If this system fails, i.e., the system is damaged and cannot be restored within a required time, the mission likely will not be completed. Such a system can be an auxiliary or supporting system, as well as a primary mission system. "
v much points to sensors (and impact of their non-availability)
- to borrow landlubbers' terminology: a mission kill