Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

a better idea of max speed e.g. over 10kw per ton will result in well over 30 knots.

I guess you couldn't do the math and were just reading off the mechanical drive cubic load curve, which meant that you had to have 'well over' in the formulation. 8.6 kw for the 30 knots that we were talking about
... just a little exercise for you: the above is for a 3500 t ship. What is the answer for a 10 000t destroyer that we were talking about? I might add 'wise ass' but I am far too polite to do that. And this won't take you as long as a 1000 word essay, either

[Ron5]

a better idea of max speed e.g. over 10kw per ton will result in well over 30 knots.

I guess you couldn't do the math and were just reading off the mechanical drive cubic load curve, which meant that you had to have 'well over' in the formulation. 8.6 kw for the 30 knots that we were talking about
... just a little exercise for you: the above is for a 3500 t ship. What is the answer for a 10 000t destroyer that we were talking about? I might add 'wise ass' but I am far too polite to do that. And this won't take you as long as a 1000 word essay, either

I have no idea what question you are asking me to answer. Perhaps you should try to express it in English.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

You are so keen to comment that you forget what the context was. Keywords: length relative to width vs. raw power; max speed

[Lord Jim]

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

The latest version of the RAM system can deal with multiple targets such as in swarm attacks and has both active and passive seekers on board. The USN is also sticking 30mm Bushmasters on anything that floats I believe to deal with the low tech surface threat.

So against advanced AShM attacks they still have a multi layered defence with Standard, ESSM and RAM with the ranges pushed out increasing reaction time. The RN has Phalanx though I am sure it will use its inventory of Sea Ceptor and ASTER effectively the Carrier group could run out rather quickly of both if it came under concerted attack and cannot replenish at sea. You can bet countries that see the UK as a competitor are doing such calculations. If you cannot deploy more ships, then each ship needs to carry the biggest bang possible and there is room a plenty on the T-26 and even the T-45.

[Tempest414]

So against advanced AShM attacks they still have a multi layered defence with Standard, ESSM and RAM with the ranges pushed out increasing reaction time. The RN has Phalanx though I am sure it will use its inventory of Sea Ceptor and ASTER effectively the Carrier group could run out rather quickly of both if it came under concerted attack and cannot replenish at sea. You can bet countries that see the UK as a competitor are doing such calculations. If you cannot deploy more ships, then each ship needs to carry the biggest bang possible and there is room a plenty on the T-26 and even the T-45.

So if we say the FFGX with its 32 Mk-41's and 21 round RAM launcher had 8 x SM-2 , 32 ESSM and 21 RAM = 61 missiles ready to fire plus it will have a 57mm with 120 ready rounds.

So what could we do with say T-26 to bring it somewhere close to this well CAMM sits between ESSM and RAM so is OK and by replacing the rear 24 mushrooms with 5 ExLS we could have 60 CAMM without the need for the front mushrooms. If we were to replace the 2 x 30mm and 2 x phalanx with 4 x 40mm this would give T-26 60 ready missiles and 400 ready rounds of effective anit air / swam out to 25+ km with a effective kill box extending from 5 to 10 km. And as T-26 has 24 MK-41 cells if all else fails we could integrate ESSM to extend the anit air range out to 40+ km

[NickC]

The latest version of the RAM system can deal with multiple targets such as in swarm attacks and has both active and passive seekers on board. The USN is also sticking 30mm Bushmasters on anything that floats I believe to deal with the low tech surface threat.

As far as know no CIWS AA missile, including RAM, has been trialled against simultaneously launched multiple targets drones emulating a swarm attack. Multiple high explosive detonations would play havoc with RF and IR sensors limiting chance of successful defence. Pleased to be proven wrong.

PS Why like Spear 3 fired from two triple rack launchers at single ship "Quantity has a quality all its own".

[Jake1992]

So against advanced AShM attacks they still have a multi layered defence with Standard, ESSM and RAM with the ranges pushed out increasing reaction time. The RN has Phalanx though I am sure it will use its inventory of Sea Ceptor and ASTER effectively the Carrier group could run out rather quickly of both if it came under concerted attack and cannot replenish at sea. You can bet countries that see the UK as a competitor are doing such calculations. If you cannot deploy more ships, then each ship needs to carry the biggest bang possible and there is room a plenty on the T-26 and even the T-45.

So if we say the FFGX with its 32 Mk-41's and 21 round RAM launcher had 8 x SM-2 , 32 ESSM and 21 RAM = 61 missiles ready to fire plus it will have a 57mm with 120 ready rounds.

So what could we do with say T-26 to bring it somewhere close to this well CAMM sits between ESSM and RAM so is OK and by replacing the rear 24 mushrooms with 5 ExLS we could have 60 CAMM without the need for the front mushrooms. If we were to replace the 2 x 30mm and 2 x phalanx with 4 x 40mm this would give T-26 60 ready missiles and 400 ready rounds of effective anit air / swam out to 25+ km with a effective kill box extending from 5 to 10 km. And as T-26 has 24 MK-41 cells if all else fails we could integrate ESSM to extend the anit air range out to 40+ km

There’s a lot of room to improve the T26 when you take a look at the lay of the Mk41s on both the RCN and RAN variants to clear that up to 48 cells could be fitted forward if desired.

Couple of question I have - 1 hasn’t the dragon fire system been shown to be able to be fitted to a phalanx unit ? If so wouldn’t keeping the phalanx system be better.
2 do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be fitted in ExLS in any form ( quad pack or double pack ) Iv asked a few times and tried to find info on it but its hard to come by. If can be then IMO it’d make much more sence than ESSM

[Roders96]

I'm not entirely convinced on the quality of ESSM, the only engagement I have memory of had 3-4 of them being fired without success.

Eventually caught by seawolf in 2003 of something if memory serves.

Range isn't everything!

No point in having an interceptor if it blasts straight past.

[Tempest414]

Couple of question I have - 1 hasn’t the dragon fire system been shown to be able to be fitted to a phalanx unit ? If so wouldn’t keeping the phalanx system be better.

If so due to cost fit one mount on the hangar roof we could then have a type 26 that looked like

1 x 127mm
4 x 40mm ( in place of the 30mm and Phalanx )
5 x 3 cell ExLS with 60 CAMM amidships
4 x Mk-41 = 32 cells ahead of the bridge
1 x dragon fire on the hangar roof
8 x NSM amidships

Would make it a well armed ship able to deal with most things

Edit ; this could also be done to type 45 fit 4 x 3 cell ExLS with 48 CAMM in place of 16 cell Mk-41 , fit 4 x 40mm amidships and dragon fire on the hangar roof plus 8 x NSM and push for Aster 30 block 2 BMD

[Lord Jim]

As far as know no CIWS AA missile, including RAM, has been trialled against simultaneously launched multiple targets drones emulating a swarm attack. Multiple high explosive detonations would play havoc with RF and IR sensors limiting chance of successful defence. Pleased to be proven wrong.

Some of the key reasons for the latest Block 2 upgrade for the RAM missile was to increase its range, improve its seeker and its manoeuvrability.
https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense. ... am-missile

[serge750]

Would be so good to see more missiles on the T45 & a dragon fire type system initialy as a supplement to CIWS

I could see the T26 getting dragon fire aswell ( & maybe ExLS ) at a refit when the tech gets better, getting them in the water is probably a higher priority atm,

Still think they will be well armed compared to the T23, would love to see an ASROC type system in the Mk 41, just incase the helo is not around or bad weather

[Pseudo]

I know that there's been some recent discussion of possible T45 upgrades and I've got a few ideas, they may have been mentioned already but if not I don't know how feasible they are so feel free to tell me why they wouldn't work.

Currently some of the T45's have Harpoon launchers mounted behind the VLS, how feasible would it be to move those Harpoons to the gap between the forward funnel and the communications mast. I imagine that it would probably mean moving the Phalanx's forward of the DS-30's but it looks like there would be enough space there. Then you'd be able to fit 2 x 8 cell Mark-41's behind the VLS farm and twelve EXLS cells between the VLS farm and the gun.

Assuming that Aster is compatible with the Mark-41 then that'd give you 40 x Aster 30, 24 x Aster 15 and 48 x CAMM in a full air-defence set up, which would have be considered a pretty formidable load out.

[Timmymagic]

Currently some of the T45's have Harpoon launchers mounted behind the VLS, how feasible would it be to move those Harpoons to the gap between the forward funnel and the communications mast. I imagine that it would probably mean moving the Phalanx's forward of the DS-30's but it looks like there would be enough space there.

Space wise that is feasible, but it could affect the ships topweight there, moving the Phalanx could also interfere with their firing arcs.

Then you'd be able to fit 2 x 8 cell Mark-41's behind the VLS farm and twelve EXLS cells between the VLS farm and the gun.

This isn't feasible. The space underneath is being used for other compartments, it isn't free. The space free for the Strike Length Mk.41 VLS is between the gun and Sylver missile farm. If you're going to install more VL racks put them in the dedicated space.

If I was going to increase T45 firepower I'd do the following, its listed in order of likelihood, cost and effect, I'd only do each step if the preceding steps were also happening..

1) - Add Martlet to the DS30
2) - Add Starstreak to the DS30
3) - Replace Harpoon with 8 NSM
4) - When the inevitable re-life is undertaken change all Aster 15 boosters to 30, instant doubling (or thereabouts) of RN long range missile stocks (which aren't that massive...). Aim for 32 of the 48 Sylver cells to be Aster 30. Fill the remaining 16 Sylver with as many CAMM/CAMM-ER as you can (quad pack if poss, which is unlikely, or double packed). The CAMM variants would fill the medium to short range role in place of Aster 15.
5) - Install 16 x Sylver A70 or Mk.41 Strike Length (in that order of priority) in the dedicated space between the gun and current Sylver farm. This is only worth it if you're going to get BMD missiles and cruise missiles. My choice would be Sylver A70 with Aster 1NT and MdCN with Mk.41 with SM.3 and Tomahawk a distant second.
6) - Add some ExLS elsewhere on the ship, possibly abreast of the funnel for more CAMM.
7) - Change the main gun..But only if the cost to support Mk.8 to the T45's end of life is more expensive than replacing them with 57mm Bofors.
8) - Replace Phalanx with Millenium Gun or a laser
9) - Add torpedo tubes...

[SW1]

Alternatively you wouldn’t bother with any upgrade to type 45 and use the upcoming defence review to bring fwd type 26 and put the program on a more efficient drumbeat while at the same time aligning configuration with either Canada or Australia for ship 4 onward and replace type 45 with type 26 having a single high end escort vessel..

[Timmymagic]

I'm not entirely convinced on the quality of ESSM, the only engagement I have memory of had 3-4 of them being fired without success.

ESSM has only been used in combat once (that we know of), when the USS Mason was engaged off Yemen. No-one knows if the attacking missiles crashed into the sea, were decoyed or were destroyed by SM2 or ESSM.

But it is worth noting that there have been an enormous number of ESSM expended in realistic tests over the years, certainly compared to Aster, the countries who operate it don't seem to have an issue with it. The new Block 2 will also have an active RF seeker.

Suspect the incident you're thinking of was HMS Gloucester's Sea Dart shootdown of a Silkworm in 1991. The ESSM didn't enter service until 1998.

[Pseudo]

Currently some of the T45's have Harpoon launchers mounted behind the VLS, how feasible would it be to move those Harpoons to the gap between the forward funnel and the communications mast. I imagine that it would probably mean moving the Phalanx's forward of the DS-30's but it looks like there would be enough space there.

Space wise that is feasible, but it could affect the ships topweight there, moving the Phalanx could also interfere with their firing arcs.

Then you'd be able to fit 2 x 8 cell Mark-41's behind the VLS farm and twelve EXLS cells between the VLS farm and the gun.

This isn't feasible. The space underneath is being used for other compartments, it isn't free. The space free for the Strike Length Mk.41 VLS is between the gun and Sylver missile farm. If you're going to install more VL racks put them in the dedicated space.

If I was going to increase T45 firepower I'd do the following, its listed in order of likelihood, cost and effect, I'd only do each step if the preceding steps were also happening..

1) - Add Martlet to the DS30
2) - Add Starstreak to the DS30
3) - Replace Harpoon with 8 NSM
4) - When the inevitable re-life is undertaken change all Aster 15 boosters to 30, instant doubling (or thereabouts) of RN long range missile stocks (which aren't that massive...). Aim for 32 of the 48 Sylver cells to be Aster 30. Fill the remaining 16 Sylver with as many CAMM/CAMM-ER as you can (quad pack if poss, which is unlikely, or double packed). The CAMM variants would fill the medium to short range role in place of Aster 15.
5) - Install 16 x Sylver A70 or Mk.41 Strike Length (in that order of priority) in the dedicated space between the gun and current Sylver farm. This is only worth it if you're going to get BMD missiles and cruise missiles. My choice would be Sylver A70 with Aster 1NT and MdCN with Mk.41 with SM.3 and Tomahawk a distant second.
6) - Add some ExLS elsewhere on the ship, possibly abreast of the funnel for more CAMM.
7) - Change the main gun..But only if the cost to support Mk.8 to the T45's end of life is more expensive than replacing them with 57mm Bofors.
8) - Replace Phalanx with Millenium Gun or a laser
9) - Add torpedo tubes...

Thanks for the comprehensive response. Another idea I had which I don't know how feasible it is is that I read that the Sampson radar is capable of both long range search and tracking. Is each antennae capable of both functions simultaneously or would each antennae have to perform each function separately? I ask because my thought is that if it's the latter then would arranging three antennae in a triangle and rotating them with two performing tracking and one performing long range search work as a decent solution for an anti-air warfare variant of the Type 26. By my (admittedly not great at this sort of math) reckoning it would mean that the maximum amount of time the tracking radars wouldn't cover any part of the sky would be about two-thirds of a second while for the search radar it would be two seconds (but given the amount of time the S1850M takes to rotate I don't see two seconds as being a problem, in fact it'd be an improvement:)).

Yes, the weight would clearly be an issue, but the tracking radars could be smaller to the point where it's a reasonable compromise between the radar horizon and the range. For instance, if a standard Sampson radar has a range of 400km and that would be used as the search radar then would the tracking radars having a range of between 320km-360km be hugely problematic (not ideal, though I grant you). That said would gallium nitride antennae maybe come to my rescue here?

Sorry, I'm just letting out an idea that's been bouncing around my head that I don't really know enough about to evaluate. As ever, I welcome you or anyone else pulling it apart and tell me why I'm wrong.

[Tempest414]

If I was going to increase T45 firepower I'd do the following, its listed in order of likelihood, cost and effect, I'd only do each step if the preceding steps were also happening..

1) - Add Martlet to the DS30
2) - Add Starstreak to the DS30
3) - Replace Harpoon with 8 NSM
4) - When the inevitable re-life is undertaken change all Aster 15 boosters to 30, instant doubling (or thereabouts) of RN long range missile stocks (which aren't that massive...). Aim for 32 of the 48 Sylver cells to be Aster 30. Fill the remaining 16 Sylver with as many CAMM/CAMM-ER as you can (quad pack if poss, which is unlikely, or double packed). The CAMM variants would fill the medium to short range role in place of Aster 15.
5) - Install 16 x Sylver A70 or Mk.41 Strike Length (in that order of priority) in the dedicated space between the gun and current Sylver farm. This is only worth it if you're going to get BMD missiles and cruise missiles. My choice would be Sylver A70 with Aster 1NT and MdCN with Mk.41 with SM.3 and Tomahawk a distant second.
6) - Add some ExLS elsewhere on the ship, possibly abreast of the funnel for more CAMM.
7) - Change the main gun..But only if the cost to support Mk.8 to the T45's end of life is more expensive than replacing them with 57mm Bofors.
8) - Replace Phalanx with Millenium Gun or a laser
9) - Add torpedo tubes...

I have to say I would go with

1) install 5 x 3 cell ExLS in the space for the Mk-41's quad packed for 60 CAMM (or a mix of CAMM and Spear 3 latter on)
2) fill the 48 A-50 cells with a mix of standard Aster 30 and Aster 30 NT/ BMD
3) Replace Harpoon with NSM
4) replace Mk-8 gun with 57mm ( maybe go as far as to replace 2 x 30mm and 2 x Phalanx with 2 x 57mm giving a gun fit of 3 x 57mm )

As a note as the RN will have 20mm , 30mm , 40mm, 57mm, 114mm , 127 , why would then add 35mm millenium

[Repulse]

Personally wouldn’t overdo it - just add a row of MK41 VLS tubes for cruise / BMD missiles and an active sonar for now.

[Timmymagic]

I have to say I would go with

1) install 5 x 3 cell ExLS in the space for the Mk-41's quad packed for 60 CAMM (or a mix of CAMM and Spear 3 latter on)
2) fill the 48 A-50 cells with a mix of standard Aster 30 and Aster 30 NT/ BMD
3) Replace Harpoon with NSM
4) replace Mk-8 gun with 57mm ( maybe go as far as to replace 2 x 30mm and 2 x Phalanx with 2 x 57mm giving a gun fit of 3 x 57mm )

As a note as the RN will have 20mm , 30mm , 40mm, 57mm, 114mm , 127 , why would then add 35mm millenium

1) You could do this, but as there is space elsewhere for some ExLS why use up such a potentially useful (as its really deep) space?
2) You'll probably need Sylver A70 for the Aster BMD variants
3) Makes sense...
4) Unless the Mk.8 becomes increasingly expensive to maintain it doesn't make much sense to replace. At the moment it gives us 6 additional ships that could undertake NGFS (however unlikely it is that we would use a T45 for that). Dropping Mk.8, DS30 and Phalanx for 3 x 57mm wouldn't really add much capability. Aster is the main anti-air and anti-missile system with soft kill second with guns a distant third. Any FIAC threat is countered very well by Wildcat, Mk.8 firing proximity fused, DS30 (perhaps with Martlet) and Phalanx. Plus you lose the ability for NGFS.

[NickC]

As far as know no CIWS AA missile, including RAM, has been trialled against simultaneously launched multiple targets drones emulating a swarm attack. Multiple high explosive detonations would play havoc with RF and IR sensors limiting chance of successful defence. Pleased to be proven wrong.

Some of the key reasons for the latest Block 2 upgrade for the RAM missile was to increase its range, improve its seeker and its manoeuvrability.
https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense. ... am-missile

Thx for ref. Raytheon state/claim it has "A supersonic, lightweight, quick-reaction, fire-and-forget weapon, the RAM system is designed to destroy anti-ship missiles. Requiring no additional direction upon launch, its passive radio frequency and infrared guidance design provide high firepower to engage multiple threats simultaneously."

Rather conservative and have learned to take all manufacturers claims with a pinch of salt until proven in trials, ie "to engage multiple threats simultaneously".

As said have seen no reports or any PR that RAM has been trialled against multiple threats simultaneously when it was tested on the remotely controlled USN Self Defense Test Ship, a converted Spruance towing a barge 150 feet behind in case of damage (Raytheon reported the USN trials of RAM Block 2A missile June 2019 at the Paris Air Show on the SDTS and at China Lake).

Possibility that RAM was tested successfully against multiple threats simultaneously and kept secret but think unlikely.

PS The raison d'être for the SDTS is its the only semi-realistic way to stress test a weapon system as normal manned ships have for understandable reasons large safety zones around ship in case things go wrong and ship hit, they have in the past. Safety zone range around ship depending on navy, can be several miles (do remember MBDA had a barge the 'Longbow' used in testing PAAMS for RN).

If you take a Harpoon missile head on ~ approx 140 sq inches target for ships radar/AA missile whereas side on Harpoon presents fourteen times larger target at approx 2,000 sq inch for radar/AA missile to home in on. As posted recently Australians have developed a less expensive ramjet powered supersonic target drone Evader to emulate a ski-skimming anti-ship missile, no way are you going aim that directly at frigate or destroyer as the deaths and damage could be substantial if drone hit the ship.

The Israeli with Iron Dome claimed ~90% success rate in targeting the unguided missile attacks from the Gaza Strip, thou an Israeli respected analyst contested the claim and said 90% figure was not believable. If you take the a success rate of 80% with your AAW system that implies one in five of attack missiles wil hit ship?

[Ron5]

Couple of question I have - 1 hasn’t the dragon fire system been shown to be able to be fitted to a phalanx unit ? If so wouldn’t keeping the phalanx system be better.

One consortium in the competition that was won by Dragonfire, proposed a Phalanx based system with the gun mount and tracking mechanism reused for the laser. But they lost. Dragonfire has no relationship to Phalanx and wouldn't be reusing Phalanx mountings.

Physically Dragonfire being used in trials is in the same ball park as Phalanx regarding size, but a production weapon would undoubtedly be a lot larger to handle the extra power required.

2 do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be fitted in ExLS in any form ( quad pack or double pack ) Iv asked a few times and tried to find info on it but its hard to come by. If can be then IMO it’d make much more sence than ESSM

Me too and no answer. I'm pretty sure that it's a no. It would be quad pack because the ER container has the same cross section but obviously is a lot longer, probably too long for ExLs. Mind you, how hard would it to lengthen ExLs? It's mostly steel girders.

[Ron5]

Alternatively you wouldn’t bother with any upgrade to type 45 and use the upcoming defence review to bring fwd type 26 and put the program on a more efficient drumbeat while at the same time aligning configuration with either Canada or Australia for ship 4 onward and replace type 45 with type 26 having a single high end escort vessel..

Neither the Australian or Canadian Type 26's are anywhere close to the Type 45 in AA capability. And seeing the Type 45's need every ounce of that capability to defend the carriers, I'd say your suggestion lacks merit.

[Ron5]

Is each antennae capable of both functions simultaneously or would each antennae have to perform each function separately?

Yes, Sampson is well capable of performing both roles simultaneously. The major reason for the S1850M radar is to satisfy the requirement to perform fighter direction tasks. The requirement spelled out how many different engagements, and at what ranges, the ship needed to handle. That overwhelmed the Sampson and the additional radar was required.

If there was no need for fighter direction, the ships would only have Sampson installed. A fact the Bae vigorously pointed out.

[Ron5]

If you take the a success rate of 80% with your AAW system that implies one in five of attack missiles wil hit ship?

No.

80% would be the probability of one defending missile hitting the incoming missile. Fire two missiles and the probability becomes 96%. Fire three and it becomes 99.2%.

[Jake1992]

Couple of question I have - 1 hasn’t the dragon fire system been shown to be able to be fitted to a phalanx unit ? If so wouldn’t keeping the phalanx system be better.

One consortium in the competition that was won by Dragonfire, proposed a Phalanx based system with the gun mount and tracking mechanism reused for the laser. But they lost. Dragonfire has no relationship to Phalanx and wouldn't be reusing Phalanx mountings.

Physically Dragonfire being used in trials is in the same ball park as Phalanx regarding size, but a production weapon would undoubtedly be a lot larger to handle the extra power required.

2 do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be fitted in ExLS in any form ( quad pack or double pack ) Iv asked a few times and tried to find info on it but its hard to come by. If can be then IMO it’d make much more sence than ESSM

Me too and no answer. I'm pretty sure that it's a no. It would be quad pack because the ER container has the same cross section but obviously is a lot longer, probably too long for ExLs. Mind you, how hard would it to lengthen ExLs? It's mostly steel girders.

Shame, a system that could use both laser and projectile as a means of close in AAW would have a lot of merits IMO. Trading one for the other could see just as many loses as gains in what it’s trying to achieve.

I have a feeling when it comes to CAMM-ER and ExLS it’s going to be a chicken or the egg situation in that which one will push the development the sale of CAMM-ER or the increased use of ExLS. It only makes sence to me as CAMM and CAMM-ER together make a real competitor to RAM and ESSM but only if they can be densely packed anywhere on the ship.