Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[NickC]

Australia is developing a supersonic target drone, Evader, for ships crews to test/train against using their AA systems, Evader said to be low cost A$250,000, 1/16 cost of the USN Mach 2.5 Coyote sea skimming (< 5 m height above sea) drone, French bought one Coyote in 2012 to test Aster 30.

“Sailors currently don’t have a representative target they can practice on. All ships are vulnerable to high-speed, sea-skimming missiles, and these are proliferating: they’re getting faster and more agile, and there are more of them.”

The Royal Australian Navy currently uses manned and unmanned aircraft to simulate missile attacks. These suffer from the drawbacks of slow speed, unrealistic trajectories (for safety reasons) and large radar cross-sections, making countering them an unrepresentative training experience.

Air-launched from beyond the target vessel’s horizon, the 4.2m, 90kg EVADER can accurately replicate the flight path and trajectory of a genuine, sea-skimming anti-ship missile, and emulate some terminal manoeuvres. Its training value for naval combat system operators in realistically simulating such threats is incalculable.

EVADER’s unique feature is its stainless steel, solid-state ramjet engine, which enables supersonic flight using standard JP1 jet fuel, without requiring a rocket motor or any exotic, expensive alloys in its construction."

The USN has a dedicated unmanned Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS), an ex 8,000t Spruance destroyer, controlled remotely. SDTS currently fitted out with the Zumwalt /Ford class AAM system with its special variants of the ESSM and SM-2 IIIAZ missiles, CMS and SPY-3 radar, the trials did not go well, USN recently announced Zumwalts new SPY-3 radars will replaced, no doubt at considerable expense as SPY-3 three antenna panels built into deck house,USN did not give hint of which radar will replace the X-band SPY-3.

Trials do not come cheap, aiming off target drone so to give ship a large safety zone so as to miss ship if things go wrong makes test unrealistic as RCS will be much higher than with a head on shot. Testing is expensive, but if you don't a chance that in real life sailors and ships will pay the price.

From <https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... ng-missile>

[NickC]

GPS signals can be easily spoofed or jammed and quantum navigation hit the headlines several years ago as a possible alternative as a purely a passive system not susceptible to spoofing and jamming.

BAE Systems 6th Nov PR said they will collaborating with the University of Birmingham who lead on the UK Quantum Technology Hub Sensors and Timing programme to create a quantum inertial navigation system.

Applicable across the spectrum to ships, aircraft, land vehicles, weapons etc

From <https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/university ... ility.aspx>

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/n ... -in-the-uk

[Halidon]

In case anyone missed in the Defense Elsewhere sub, Italy is going big with a pair of 10,000t Destroyers.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -delivery/
Along with being the biggest surface combatants built in Western Europe in quite a long time, the dimensions given indicate a ship which will rival Type 055 in size. Wonder how closely the RN will watch this program.

[Lord Jim]

I am sure they will be watching, with the Admirals all changing various shades of green with envy.

[shark bait]

Sounds like they're stuck in the past, and this quite from their admiral pretty much confirms that;

We have always had two pairs of destroyers in service, dating back to the 1960s

How often do they leave the Mediterranean?

[Jake1992]

In case anyone missed in the Defense Elsewhere sub, Italy is going big with a pair of 10,000t Destroyers.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -delivery/
Along with being the biggest surface combatants built in Western Europe in quite a long time, the dimensions given indicate a ship which will rival Type 055 in size. Wonder how closely the RN will watch this program.

Unless 10,000t is just the empty weight I’d take a guess it’ll be well over that by the measurements they’re look at 175m by 24m, when you compare it to a T45 sitting at 9,000t odd 155m by 22m were talking and extra 20m in length and 2 in beam only adding 1,000t really.

The armament seems abit low IMO for a next gen vessel of that size with only 48 VLS that shocked me.

[ArmChairCivvy]

extra 20m in length and 2 in beam only adding 1,000t really.

Long and slender, like the shoemaker's last for an 'Italian foot'? They are supposed to be making 30 knots, too.

[Jake1992]

extra 20m in length and 2 in beam only adding 1,000t really.

Long and slender, like the shoemaker's last for an 'Italian foot'? They are supposed to be making 30 knots, too.

I wouldn’t say 24m beam is slender lol but what I’m getting at is with such extra size in dimension surely they’d be more than a 1,000t heavier than a T45.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Have they maxed out what one can get from that hull?
- hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (CAD/CAM'ed ships must come in meters )

[Tempest414]

So moving over here given what know about Canadian T-26 armament how would it look if the RN were to replace the 2 x 30mm and 2 x Phalanx on both T-26 & T-45 with 4 x 40mm and CAMM so

Type 45 = 1 x 4.5" , 4 x 40mm , 48 Aster , 36 CAMM , 8 x NSM

Type 26 = 1 x 5" , 4 x 40mm , 60 CAMM , 8 x NSM , 24 VLS for new toys

[serge750]

I do like the look of the planned Italian ships but will they be much better than the FREMMs? a good statement though !!!

If a little money was there, rather than put more CAMM on the T26's ( I can defo see the benefit of more from the Exls launchers) I would put more on the T31's or even some on the T45's

[Jdam]

Have we ever had any hints of CAMM on the type 45?

[shark bait]

Nope, they need propulsion fixes and anti-ballistic mode before anything else. That's expensive enough for the Navy!

[Roders96]

I disagree - I'd definitely say fending off saturation attacks should be a higher priority than anti ballistic missiles.

Propulsion of course - but we already have trident, and saturation is far more accessible than carrier killing ballistics for potential competitors.

[Tempest414]

No I don't think so however with the US and now Canada moving to a missile based CIWS system how long can we go on pretending that 48 missiles is enough. We know there is room for 16 Mk-41 VLS cells behind the the current VLS cells so maybe we could fit 9 to 12 ExLS cells in there place allowing for 36 to 48 CAMM this in turn could allow a load out of 24 Aster 30- block-2 BMD , 24 Aster 30 and 48 CAMM = 96 missiles and giving the CSG a fair defence

[ArmChairCivvy]

with the US and now Canada moving to a missile based CIWS system

What's the US doing (or rather: with what)?

[Roders96]

No I don't think so however with the US and now Canada moving to a missile based CIWS system how long can we go on pretending that 48 missiles is enough. We know there is room for 16 Mk-41 VLS cells behind the the current VLS cells so maybe we could fit 9 to 12 ExLS cells in there place allowing for 36 to 48 CAMM this in turn could allow a load out of 24 Aster 30- block-2 BMD , 24 Aster 30 and 48 CAMM = 96 missiles and giving the CSG a fair defence

A quick Google has 12 8 cell modules of MK41 at 55m USD.

Seems very cheap to just fit the whole 16 to each T45 tbh.

[shark bait]

Yeah thats how bespoke engineering works

Just the software integration for Land Sabre cost £80 million

[Tempest414]

with the US and now Canada moving to a missile based CIWS system

What's the US doing (or rather: with what)?

the US are using RAM missiles from the 21 cell launcher and SeaRam launcher with the latter fitted to the LCS's in place of Phalanx

[Tempest414]

A quick Google has 12 8 cell modules of MK41 at 55m USD.

Seems very cheap to just fit the whole 16 to each T45 tbh.

Yeah thats how bespoke engineering works

Just the software integration for Land Sabre cost £80 million

I would never say it would be cheap this being said CAMM has been integrated with both the BAE CMS and ExLS this in it self could help go someway to reducing costs

Do we know if the RN went for Aster 30-NT or not as this would give limited BMD of 1500km range BM's

[ArmChairCivvy]

Oh, ok. SeaRAM has considerable anti-surface capability whereas Phalanx has difficulty outranging even make-shift ATGW 'attack' boats
- I think we will see both for a v long time, just depending on the role of each ship class

[NickC]

The CSC T26 will have 24 Sea Ceptors using the ExLS for CIWS, no Phalanx, thou its not to be forgotten CSC will also be fitted with the upgraded ESSM and highly likely SM-2 missiles with active RF seekers. CSC will have 32 Mk 41 VLS cells, loadout maybe 8 cells for 32 ESSM as they are quad-packed per cell and 8 cells for SM-2?, leaving 16 cells for Tomahawk etc. Looks like the new CSC AAW system will be a near carbon copy of the new USN Constellation (FFG(X) AAW system excepting that Constellation will have 21 RAM in a Mk 31 launcher for CIWS instead of Sea Ceptor. Expect Hunter will be similar.

ESSM double the range of a Sea Ceptor and SM-2 approx five times, MBDA in marketing highlighted the metric of the 500 sq km coverage of Sea Ceptor, equivalent figures for ESSM ~2,000 sq km and SM-2 ~12,000+ sq km..

Note
Canada one of the 12 nation ESSM consortium as with Australia and the US approved possible foreign sale of SM-2 Block IIIC missiles for Canadian Navy just a few days ago, 6th November.
Lockheed Martin has developed the IAFCL, International AEGIS Fire Control Loop, to interface with radars and non-Aegis CMS, as the LMC system for CSC and the Spanish CMS for the F-110 to control AAW missiles, eg ESSM and SM-2

All the above frigates have an order of magnitude more capable AAW system than T26, with more powerful new gen radars, CEC and longer range missiles, T26 will be depending on T45 for local area and long range air cover, thou thought if T26 positioned 50+ miles out from carrier to mitigate the underwater noise generated by carriers and support ships while in ASW role, T26 maybe at high risk from air attack especially if the T45 stationed nearer carrier?

[Roders96]

Artisan isn't perfect but it's definitely adequate for the RNs needs.

Australian and Canadian versions are using their own sensors.

[Ron5]

In case anyone missed in the Defense Elsewhere sub, Italy is going big with a pair of 10,000t Destroyers.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -delivery/
Along with being the biggest surface combatants built in Western Europe in quite a long time, the dimensions given indicate a ship which will rival Type 055 in size. Wonder how closely the RN will watch this program.

It does rather show the benefits of ring fencing naval procurement money and conducting a planned series of ships. Something the UK's Treasury is violently opposed to doing even though the National Shipbuilding Strategy (which they sponsored) calls for it as one of its key recommendations.

Regarding the article (thanks for posting I had indeed missed the announcement), by far the most impressive feature was the hat:



The ship design itself looks rather blah. Nowhere near the same standard.

[Ron5]

extra 20m in length and 2 in beam only adding 1,000t really.

Long and slender, like the shoemaker's last for an 'Italian foot'? They are supposed to be making 30 knots, too.

With L/B at 7.3, not particularly long and slender. The tubby Type 26 is 7.2.

Have they maxed out what one can get from that hull?
- hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (CAD/CAM'ed ships must come in meters )

That formula mostly applies to displacement sailing boats where the power from the sails is inadequate to get over the resistance hump at the speed. For powered displacement ships like destroyers and frigates, it is very much less interesting. It's a common mistake to think that it does. Amateur naval architects skim through text books and pick up on the formula and forget to notice the book is about yachts. A case of a little learning being a dangerous thing.

Roughly speaking, for destroyer and frigates, power per ton gives a better idea of max speed e.g. over 10kw per ton will result in well over 30 knots.