Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Aethulwulf]

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.

Harpoon carries a 220 kg HE warhead. The RN has long recognised that for some classes of surface ships, one harpoon will not be enough (there are good reasons why RN decided to carry 8 Harpoon as standard).

Although there are clear differences in fusing, fragmentation effects, etc., in terms of HE along one Harpoon is equivalent to 7.3 Spear. So very crudely a ship would need to carry around 60 Spear to replace 8 Harpoon.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Harpoon carries a 220 kg HE warhead. The RN has long recognised that for some classes of surface ships, one harpoon will not be enough (there are good reasons why RN decided to carry 8 Harpoon as standard).

Although there are clear differences in fusing, fragmentation effects, etc., in terms of HE along one Harpoon is equivalent to 7.3 Spear. So very crudely a ship would need to carry around 60 Spear to replace 8 Harpoon.

Yes, if you want to sink the enemy, I guess?

Rationale for using SPEAR3 for enemy large warship is not clear for me, because I understand there are not yet official documentation in such use (I understand SPEAR3 is mainly for anti-ground precision attack and fast boat killer). But, just imagine T45 getting hit by a 30 km HE on its bridge, radar, CIC or main-generator. Mission kill it is. Also, distinguishing stealthy NSM from small SPEAR3 is easy? Thus, anyway T45 will be forced to neutralize incoming SPEAR3, all of them. Very annoying.

If I were to kill a FREMM, I will fire 16 SPEAR3 to it, to make her ASTER15/30 empty. And then, several SPEAR3 or one NSM will easily mission kill the FREMM. If it is T45, 48 SPEAR3 will be needed as the first wave. A cheap warship like T31 will not need to fight against hi-end AAW destroyer as T45. So, "16+", say, 24 SPEAR3 will be enough.

[Scimitar54]

“Need” only occurs at an instant in time! When you are unable to answer the “”Need”, you are dead!

[donald_of_tokyo]

VL MICA next generation.

Key point (for me) is shrinking the electronics systems to improve the motor, adding the "second pulse" mode, so that the missile can add its kinetic energy "somewhere" on the route.

I think,
- If ignited at the peak of the ballistic trajectory, it can significantly improve the range (because there the air-drag is the smallest). VLMICA-NG now states a range of 40 km.
- If ignited right before the engagement, it can increase its kinetic energy to significantly improve its agility. I guess it can even use its thrust-vector-control system at the end of the trajectory (now CAMM cannot do it, because all propellant has been burnt-out in the first few seconds)

I think this is the way CAMM shall follow. As ALL RN assets can be upgraded with such an improvement, it is much better than CAMM-ER.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/eu ... l-mica-ng/

[Ron5]

it is much better than CAMM-ER.

Really? Based on a brochure and a French manufacturers say so?

[ArmChairCivvy]

anyway T45 will be forced to neutralize incoming SPEAR3, all of them. Very annoying.

7 SPEAR3 and one Harpoon (times x; being any number)
- now carrying numbers that are battle effective is suddenly realistic

[Ron5]

anyway T45 will be forced to neutralize incoming SPEAR3, all of them. Very annoying.

7 SPEAR3 and one Harpoon (times x; being any number)
- now carrying numbers that are battle effective is suddenly realistic

Frickin lasers

[NickC]

A very good win for Chess Dynamics to supply 24 Sea Eagle FCEO for the Belgian and Dutch Navies future twelve MCM 2,800t vessels, contract awarded by the prime contractor/shipbuilder the French Naval Group, competition amongst others would have expected to have included the Thales with the Mirador Mk2 to be fitted to the T31.

Sea Eagle fitted to T23 x2, T26 x3 and carriers x4 plus other RN vessels.

The FCEO provides 24-hour surveillance supplying tracking and target data solution with stabilised integrated electro-optical TV and infra-red and laser range finder for the gun fire control and can be interfaced with the ships’ combat management system .

FCEO systems can have limitations in adverse weather conditions plus smoke. Another Chess Dynamics option is the Sea Eagle FCRO, Fire Control Radar Optical, adds the Weibel low power X-band CW radar to overcome these limitations, would have been my fantasy choice for T31 fire control of the Sea Ceptors and 57mm / 40mm guns. (X-band FCR with its higher frequency will have better discrimination than the S-band NS100 and the additional FCRs would allow the NS100 to continue volume search to monitor for other threats).

From <https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/eu ... cm-vessels>

Seeing through fog and rain with a thermal imaging camera
https://www.flirmedia.com/MMC/CVS/Tech_ ... 001_EN.pdf

[Ron5]

A very good win for Chess Dynamics to supply 24 Sea Eagle FCEO for the Belgian and Dutch Navies future twelve MCM 2,800t vessels, contract awarded by the prime contractor/shipbuilder the French Naval Group, competition amongst others would have expected to have included the Thales with the Mirador Mk2 to be fitted to the T31.

Sea Eagle fitted to T23 x2, T26 x3 and carriers x4 plus other RN vessels.

The FCEO provides 24-hour surveillance supplying tracking and target data solution with stabilised integrated electro-optical TV and infra-red and laser range finder for the gun fire control and can be interfaced with the ships’ combat management system .

FCEO systems can have limitations in adverse weather conditions plus smoke. Another Chess Dynamics option is the Sea Eagle FCRO, Fire Control Radar Optical, adds the Weibel low power X-band CW radar to overcome these limitations, would have been my fantasy choice for T31 fire control of the Sea Ceptors and 57mm / 40mm guns. (X-band FCR with its higher frequency will have better discrimination than the S-band NS100 and the additional FCRs would allow the NS100 to continue volume search to monitor for other threats).

From <https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/eu ... cm-vessels>

Seeing through fog and rain with a thermal imaging camera
https://www.flirmedia.com/MMC/CVS/Tech_ ... 001_EN.pdf

I suspect you are correct that the FCRO would provide a superior solution for the Type 31 guns. Of course, its problem is that it isn't made by Thales

FRCO wouldn't be of any use for Sea Ceptor. That system doesn't work in the way you imagine.

[NickC]

A very good win for Chess Dynamics to supply 24 Sea Eagle FCEO for the Belgian and Dutch Navies future twelve MCM 2,800t vessels, contract awarded by the prime contractor/shipbuilder the French Naval Group, competition amongst others would have expected to have included the Thales with the Mirador Mk2 to be fitted to the T31.

Sea Eagle fitted to T23 x2, T26 x3 and carriers x4 plus other RN vessels.

The FCEO provides 24-hour surveillance supplying tracking and target data solution with stabilised integrated electro-optical TV and infra-red and laser range finder for the gun fire control and can be interfaced with the ships’ combat management system .

FCEO systems can have limitations in adverse weather conditions plus smoke. Another Chess Dynamics option is the Sea Eagle FCRO, Fire Control Radar Optical, adds the Weibel low power X-band CW radar to overcome these limitations, would have been my fantasy choice for T31 fire control of the Sea Ceptors and 57mm / 40mm guns. (X-band FCR with its higher frequency will have better discrimination than the S-band NS100 and the additional FCRs would allow the NS100 to continue volume search to monitor for other threats).

From <https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/eu ... cm-vessels>

Seeing through fog and rain with a thermal imaging camera
https://www.flirmedia.com/MMC/CVS/Tech_ ... 001_EN.pdf

I suspect you are correct that the FCRO would provide a superior solution for the Type 31 guns. Of course, its problem is that it isn't made by Thales

That's the price MoD/RN having to pay for contracting T31 in the way they did, comes with the prime contractor making choice of the kit excepting GFE, looks ~90% will be all new to RN adding complication and cost to supply chain for the next 25 years.

FRCO wouldn't be of any use for Sea Ceptor. That system doesn't work in the way you imagine.

A blanket claim leaving us all in the dark, can you explain your thinking?,

My guess you might be referring to Sea Ceptor two way data link for mid-course guidance only possible with S-band, but as ASRAAM using X-band and the Italian CAMM-ER as well, the PPA light only fitted with X-band radar plus MBDA trying to export Sea Ceptor would assume both X-band and S-band link capability built in?

[tomuk]

A blanket claim leaving us all in the dark, can you explain your thinking?,

My guess you might be referring to Sea Ceptor two way data link for mid-course guidance only possible with S-band, but as ASRAAM using X-band and the Italian CAMM-ER as well, the PPA light only fitted with X-band radar plus MBDA trying to export Sea Ceptor would assume both X-band and S-band link capability built in?

The mid course update is not transmitted by the radar, S band or otherwise. It is broadcast using the thimble looking PDL aerials installed in place of the 911 trackers on T23.

[NickC]

A blanket claim leaving us all in the dark, can you explain your thinking?,

My guess you might be referring to Sea Ceptor two way data link for mid-course guidance only possible with S-band, but as ASRAAM using X-band and the Italian CAMM-ER as well, the PPA light only fitted with X-band radar plus MBDA trying to export Sea Ceptor would assume both X-band and S-band link capability built in?

The mid course update is not transmitted by the radar, S band or otherwise. It is broadcast using the thimble looking PDL aerials installed in place of the 911 trackers on T23.

Thx for your info, so why did Ron5 say the following, a mystery

" FRCO wouldn't be of any use for Sea Ceptor. That system doesn't work in the way you imagine."

PS Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCRO, Fire Control Radar Optical, which adds the Weibel low power X-band CW radar to its EO-IR system

[Ron5]

A blanket claim leaving us all in the dark, can you explain your thinking?,

My guess you might be referring to Sea Ceptor two way data link for mid-course guidance only possible with S-band, but as ASRAAM using X-band and the Italian CAMM-ER as well, the PPA light only fitted with X-band radar plus MBDA trying to export Sea Ceptor would assume both X-band and S-band link capability built in?

The mid course update is not transmitted by the radar, S band or otherwise. It is broadcast using the thimble looking PDL aerials installed in place of the 911 trackers on T23.

Thx for your info, so why did Ron5 say the following, a mystery

" FRCO wouldn't be of any use for Sea Ceptor. That system doesn't work in the way you imagine."

PS Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCRO, Fire Control Radar Optical, which adds the Weibel low power X-band CW radar to its EO-IR system

Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS.

[NickC]

A blanket claim leaving us all in the dark, can you explain your thinking?,

My guess you might be referring to Sea Ceptor two way data link for mid-course guidance only possible with S-band, but as ASRAAM using X-band and the Italian CAMM-ER as well, the PPA light only fitted with X-band radar plus MBDA trying to export Sea Ceptor would assume both X-band and S-band link capability built in?

The mid course update is not transmitted by the radar, S band or otherwise. It is broadcast using the thimble looking PDL aerials installed in place of the 911 trackers on T23.

Thx for your info, so why did Ron5 say the following, a mystery

" FRCO wouldn't be of any use for Sea Ceptor. That system doesn't work in the way you imagine."

PS Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCRO, Fire Control Radar Optical, which adds the Weibel low power X-band CW radar to its EO-IR system

Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS.

My understanding Sea Ceptor is not a fire and forget missile, it uses a FCS so as to be able to best optimise its flight trajectory to target using mid-course guidance via its two way data link, the FCS will update the best possible interception point based on the continuously changing positions of both Sea Ceptor and target, till the Sea Ceptor small dia active RF seeker is in range in its last few seconds to hone in on target.

I'm sure others will correct if wrong.

[tomuk]

My understanding Sea Ceptor is not a fire and forget missile

No Sea Ceptor is a fire and forget missile. The launching platform does not need to keep the target illuminated with a fire control radar.

The fact that mid course updates are sent to the missile after launch doesn't change this. In theory no updates could be sent or updates could come from another ship or aircraft.

[Ron5]

Flatten (or rather make more square) the raised deck area below the bridge
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... -model.jpg
and do something like this (missiles midship):
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fM3Zse0J3ek/ ... Bclass.jpg

Inferior to guns in A and B positions in every conceivable way. Which is why warships have had guns in A and B for a 100 years or more.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Getting awfully serious considering that we started with how to use extra 'bits' coming with a model kit?
- you wanted to put two of the four guns (and they are not MGs, either) to the sides of the helo hangar... has that been done for 100 yrs? In fact, has it ever been done

With the Halifax class, when they ran out of space they didn't use the sides of the hangar, but the sides of the funnel; I'll let you figure out what weapons https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAs are 'hiding' there

[Lord Jim]

2x8 Sea Sparrow if I remember rightly, but I think they are using the Evolved version now form the same launchers.

As for that Italian Destroyer. It is a very capable big bugger but still only has 48 Aster 30/15. Is that enough going forward? Can it control the Aster fired by nearby FREMMs and smaller escorts if needed? Handsome though.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Handsome though.

They don't know their As from Bs... so got both of the guns in wrong positions, though

[Tempest414]

Moving over here from the Type 31 thread

If we wanted to up type 31s CAMM we could even out missile loads between type 26 and type 31 by removing 12 CAMM from each T-26 = 96 if we split these between the 5 T-31's this would give them 19 extra missiles meaning if they started with 12 they would end up with 31. This would leave the T-26's with 36 CAMM plus all there MK-41's in tacked. Same could apply if T-31 started with 24 CAMM and we took 8 CAMM from each T-26 = 64 leaving T-26 with 40 CAMM and giving T-31 36 CAMM .

As I have said a Type 31 with a weapons fit of 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 30+ CAMM and 8 NSM plus a Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 Sea venom or 2 torpedoes would make a very good global patrol frigate. However if we need to rob T-26 to make this happen it should be done with the least impact on T-26 as possible as I have tried to do above

Edit . I also think that if the 200 million is still there for I-SSGW we should look to up this to 300 million and buy 19 sets of 8 NSM one for each escort giving both T-45 and 31 a much needed over the horizon anti-ship / land attack capability

[ArmChairCivvy]

if the 200 million is still there for I-SSGW

Not uptodate on this , but
- haven't they been ordered already?
- and its just the new missiles, reusing everything else, i.e. an Interim(minimum) option... I(m)-SSGW pending trademark

[Tempest414]

As for that Italian Destroyer. It is a very capable big bugger but still only has 48 Aster 30/15. Is that enough going forward? Can it control the Aster fired by nearby FREMMs and smaller escorts if needed? Handsome though.

This is why I think both the UK and Italy need to get behind CAMM-ER quad packed in A-50 cells this could allow a missile load out in both destroyer classes of

1 ) 40 x Aster 30 and 32 CAMM-ER = 72 missiles
2) 32 x Aster 30 and 64 CAMM-ER = 96 missiles

[Jake1992]

As for that Italian Destroyer. It is a very capable big bugger but still only has 48 Aster 30/15. Is that enough going forward? Can it control the Aster fired by nearby FREMMs and smaller escorts if needed? Handsome though.

This is why I think both the UK and Italy need to get behind CAMM-ER quad packed in A-50 cells this could allow a missile load out in both destroyer classes of

1 ) 40 x Aster 30 and 32 CAMM-ER = 72 missiles
2) 32 x Aster 30 and 64 CAMM-ER = 96 missiles

Do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be quad packed in to EXcL like CAMM or not ?

If it can then IMO it’d be a better route to add EXcL to the T45 rather than use up any of the sylver cells, it’d also give another reason get EXcL in to replace the mushrooms.

[Tempest414]

As for that Italian Destroyer. It is a very capable big bugger but still only has 48 Aster 30/15. Is that enough going forward? Can it control the Aster fired by nearby FREMMs and smaller escorts if needed? Handsome though.

This is why I think both the UK and Italy need to get behind CAMM-ER quad packed in A-50 cells this could allow a missile load out in both destroyer classes of

1 ) 40 x Aster 30 and 32 CAMM-ER = 72 missiles
2) 32 x Aster 30 and 64 CAMM-ER = 96 missiles

Do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be quad packed in to EXcL like CAMM or not ?

If it can then IMO it’d be a better route to add EXcL to the T45 rather than use up any of the sylver cells, it’d also give another reason get EXcL in to replace the mushrooms.

While I agree it should be pointed out that MBDA state on their site that " Sea Ceptor will operate from Sylver launcher using quad pack configuration" and that in the case of the T-45 plus the Italian Horizon and FREMM classes they all have Sylver so in the case of the destroyers their could go from 48 missiles to option two above of 32 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM and the Italian FREMM could go from 16 Aster to 8 Aster 30 and 32 CAMM or 64 CAMM

[Roders96]

Moving over here from the Type 31 thread

If we wanted to up type 31s CAMM we could even out missile loads between type 26 and type 31 by removing 12 CAMM from each T-26 = 96 if we split these between the 5 T-31's this would give them 19 extra missiles meaning if they started with 12 they would end up with 31. This would leave the T-26's with 36 CAMM plus all there MK-41's in tacked. Same could apply if T-31 started with 24 CAMM and we took 8 CAMM from each T-26 = 64 leaving T-26 with 40 CAMM and giving T-31 36 CAMM .

As I have said a Type 31 with a weapons fit of 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 30+ CAMM and 8 NSM plus a Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 Sea venom or 2 torpedoes would make a very good global patrol frigate. However if we need to rob T-26 to make this happen it should be done with the least impact on T-26 as possible as I have tried to do above

Edit . I also think that if the 200 million is still there for I-SSGW we should look to up this to 300 million and buy 19 sets of 8 NSM one for each escort giving both T-45 and 31 a much needed over the horizon anti-ship / land attack capability

I do agree - but it has to be said - reducing the amount of MK41 on 5 T26 from 24 to 16 would be well worth adding the option for 16 extra CAMM and 4 strike missiles (and the other options this opens up) on the 5 T31.

Adds much needed redundancy to the fleet when the sonar's on T26 will be much in demand.