Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

A minor thought occurs to me - is it possible that, with the new money, the RN could adjust the deal with BAE to allow BAE to build at the most economical rate (thus saving money in the long run) and that the T32 is a "gap-filler" to fit between the earlier end of T26 construction and the start of T4X construction? If that were the case, then I can see Leander being their "go-to" design.

[Poiuytrewq]

No the common denominator is at least 1 LPD + 1 LSD + 1 escort

In which case it will be available for 3 to the 4 months of the year and quite possibly on the wrong side of the world from any flashpoint.

If the idea is for the FCF to react quickly to a crisis situation in various locations across the globe then the LPD/LSD/Escort formation has its limitations.

Reactivating the second LPD and freeing up the Bay in the Gulf would solve the problem but it would be a very very expensive way to facilitate the Royal Marines for short endurance Littoral Ops.

My big query with using the LPD's in this role is what does an LPD do when all the assets of the LRG are widely distributed? The complete lack of aviation is the killer IMO. Of course adding hanger space to the LPD's is possible but it wouldn't be cheap and would like impact on the function of the LPD when reverting back to the LPD role.

Hopefully the review clears up the future direction.

[Poiuytrewq]

If that were the case, then I can see Leander being their "go-to" design.

Five modestly armed 105m Leanders would be a good outcome to replace the RB2 in the global role as but could RN really claim to have 24 escorts as a result?

Calling the T31 an escort as currently configured is pushing it and adding another class of lightly armed long range Corvettes would tilt the high/low mix to far to the low end IMO.

Why not just speed up the T26 builds to commission the T4X's a few years early? An extra 2 or 3 AAW destroyers would be a great way to increase the size of the fleet.

[Tempest414]

In which case it will be available for 3 to the 4 months of the year and quite possibly on the wrong side of the world from any flashpoint.

I am not saying it is right or wrong just that this has been the common deployment of LSG/ LRG or what ever it is today over the past 3 years

For me with the news of a possible T-32 we have lost sight of what is really needed. I think if we got on with MHPC and built 8 to start with based on something like a 100 meter Venari capable of operating all current and future unmanned kit plus a Wildcat when needed then maybe two or three of these could replace the 4 MCM and Bay class in the Gulf freeing up the Bay to head up a LRG.

I think we need to be more realistic when it comes to the LRG and and have it set at one Bay and one T-31 with the LPD and FRE ready to react and support when and where needed

As for T-32 I still think it should be a carrier group only ASW frigate freeing up T-26 to do the job it was design for

[shark bait]

The complete lack of aviation is the killer IMO. Of course adding hanger space to the LPD's is possible but it wouldn't be cheap

It is killer, that's why the LSS was proposed to fix this on the cheap. That reasoning still stands, and can be still be fixed by making the upcoming solid support ships and aviation support ship at the same time.

As for T-32 I still think it should be a carrier group only ASW frigate freeing up T-26 to do the job it was design for

you mean be an ASW escort for the carriers? Because that's what the T26 is designed for.

[Tempest414]

The complete lack of aviation is the killer IMO. Of course adding hanger space to the LPD's is possible but it wouldn't be cheap

It is killer, that's why the LSS was proposed to fix this on the cheap. That reasoning still stands, and can be still be fixed by making the upcoming solid support ships and aviation support ship at the same time.

As for T-32 I still think it should be a carrier group only ASW frigate freeing up T-26 to do the job it was design for

you mean be an ASW escort for the carriers? Because that's what the T26 is designed for.

I would agree that T-26 started out as a ASW for the Carriers but it become to much ship for that task alone this was OK when we were to get 13 but now we are only getting 8 as I say it is to much ship with so few of them can we really allow them to brake away from the carrier group to undertake other tasks I think not. To my mind if T-32 was a CG only ASW we could have a Carrier escort group made up of 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-32 and 1 T-26 with the T-26 being able to brake away in support of other tasks as needed. Also a LRG supported by a T-26 is the perfect outcome with its weapons fit and mission bay

[ArmChairCivvy]

be a carrier group only ASW frigate freeing up T-26 to do the job it was design for

I was going to ask what was that job (open ended form of question),
but SB got there first with my default answer.

you mean be an ASW escort for the carriers? Because that's what the T26 is designed for.

No harm in asking, anyway

T-26 started out as a ASW for the Carriers but it become to much ship for that task alone this was OK when we were to get 13 but now we are only getting 8 as I say it is to much ship with so few of them can we really allow them to brake away from the carrier group to undertake other tasks I think not.

The early part , I think, refers to T-23 replacement 1 for 1 , but never just for carriers... 'too much ship' I (again) think refers to the 'global cruiser' thinking before 'singleton deployments' in the changed threat environment had to be rethought (and more modest ships will now be forward-positioned for a combo of maritime security and a trip-wire supported by local/other allies against more serious incursions)

LRG supported by a T-26 is the perfect outcome with its weapons fit and mission bay

Indeed, but by far too expensive - not just in money terms, but as you said, with so few of them the primary taskings must override everything else (so 'opportunity cost' in that sense
- which angle then directs me to the version that was quietly buried, but exhumed (upthread) by @Jensy: the 'mud-mover' with an army 155 mm and a huge mag for it
- that one we could get cheaper/ faster by putting the newest naval main gun, with all the extended range & precision rounds available for it, on some of the T31s

[Caribbean]

Five modestly armed 105m Leanders would be a good outcome to replace the RB2 in the global role as but could RN really claim to have 24 escorts as a result?

I'm not saying it would be the greatest outcome, or that it would be a straight Leander, more that it would be a plausible starting point for a design. Leander is a denser design , so more in BAE's bailliwick than Babcock's.

Why 105m? Leander comes in 99m, 102m, 117m and 120m variants. The largest would be a good size and potentially could fill the Tier 2 ASW slot.

Avenger iswhat I would look to for an RB3 (though without the 5' gun!). Helicopter capable and room amidships for more boats (or containers)

Calling the T31 an escort as currently configured is pushing it and adding another class of lightly armed long range Corvettes would tilt the high/low mix to far to the low end IMO.

Maybe there will be a little money to improve the GFX for T31. Confirm 24 CAMM, plus NSM and an HMS. Maybe also improved ECM and decoys

Why not just speed up the T26 builds to commission the T4X's a few years early? An extra 2 or 3 AAW destroyers would be a great way to increase the size of the fleet.

I would favour more destroyers as well, but I was thinking more of a rationale for the T32. We should also be looking to the T31 design as a basis for a new Tier 2 destroyer - you could virtually transplant PAAMS/ Sea Viper onto it.

My ideal mix would be 26 escorts:

8 x T26 (tier 1 ASW)
8 x T4X (tier 1 AAW/ BMD)
10 x GP Frigate (5 with ASW focus, 5 with AAW focus)
8 x Patrol vessels (all capable of medium-threat tasks alongside a Tier 1/2 vessel)

But if only 24 are allowed, then only 6 T4X, plus switch one GP(ASW) to a GP(AAW) for a 4:6 split

Apologies - got a bit fantasy fleets there

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not on T32, but on T26 batch-2.

1: Radar
£317m contract awarded to develop next generation radar for the Royal Air Force Typhoon
"https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/3 ... ce-typhoon"

This tells us there is a strong GaN radar development company in Edinburgh?

Can this British Technology, GaN/GaAs combined AESA, be adopted also in upgrading Artisan radar? If more money, back-to-back dual-plate design like SAMPSON is possible ? Or, a fix 4-direction plates version can be designed? Anyway, T26's radar suits are not famous for beating European equivalents', improving it will help a lot. Also, "GaN-based Artisan blk2(TBD)" will be more competitive in export market?

2: CAMM
I think CAMM is good as it is. Covering something "in-between" ESSM and RAM, it can (in many cases) do both jobs. This means, increased number of missile darts within a single hull has a good rationale. Say, 32 for ESSM equivalent, and 42 (21x2) for RAM equivalent = 70-80 of CAMM has a good rationale. Or, it could be 32 + 22 (11x2) = 42. As such, "48 CAMM on T26" is so-so, but increasing its number also has its own rationale. Sharing many parts with ASRAAM blk2, efficiency in mass production is further foreseen, and cost of the missile can be further reduced.

To promote more export of CAMM, I think high-density packaging is important. It could be ExLS, as we all know. But just improving the density of mushroom farm is also doable? As the mushroom-head is taken off by hand, how about a "dual launcher" mushroom, i.e. a single slightly rectangular-mushroom-head to cover two launcher at once? Looking at the launcher density of Sky Sabre, I think this is very easy, with small amount of investment. Also, its production will be much cheaper than ExLS. If this approach can locate 12 CAMM within a 6 CAMM unit (as we see in both T31 and T26), doubling CAMM number in both frigates will be more easy.

If T26B2 has 96 CAMM, it will be able to lead the SAM export world by saying "good against BOTH super-sonic ASM smallish number attack, and cheaper sub-sonic ASM swarm attack".

[NickC]

Just for interest Kongsberg Maritime who bought out RR Commercial Marine last year have been awarded contract 18th Nov. by Navantia for the propellers for the new Spanish 6,100t F-110 class, 5x ASW frigates . F-110 has near carbon copy of the T26 hybrid electric propulsion system with 2x 3.4MW shaft electric motors, 4x encapsulated MTU4000 DG 3MW, 11.5 MW (both motors and DGs same power as the T26) and 1x LM2500 GT, differences T26 uses MT30 GT and F-110 using Controllable Pitch Propellers whereas T26 Fixed Pitch Propellers.

[tomuk]

Not on T32, but on T26 batch-2.

1: Radar
£317m contract awarded to develop next generation radar for the Royal Air Force Typhoon
"https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/3 ... ce-typhoon"

This tells us there is a strong GaN radar development company in Edinburgh?

Can this British Technology, GaN/GaAs combined AESA, be adopted also in upgrading Artisan radar? If more money, back-to-back dual-plate design like SAMPSON is possible ? Or, a fix 4-direction plates version can be designed? Anyway, T26's radar suits are not famous for beating European equivalents', improving it will help a lot. Also, "GaN-based Artisan blk2(TBD)" will be more competitive in export market?

Airborne radar is developed in Edinburgh by Leonardo UK. This was Ferranti it developed the radar for EE Lighning, Blue Vixen for Sea Harrier and Captor for Eurofighter.

Naval radar is developed at Cowes by BAE. There is an ongoing R&D programme following on from MESAR, SAMPSON and ARTIST. They are developing, amongst other things, a cylindrical array rather than flat panels and an x band NCTI (non cooperative target identification) radar. Whether this becomes an actual radar to be fitted to a ship is the question. The answer is more cash to fund it.

[AndyC]

Prior to last week the Royal Navy was supposed to maintain 19 escorts - 6 T45, 8 T26 and 5 T31.

If there's money for more than this wouldn't we be better off accelerating the development and building of a couple of T4X and increase the number of AAW destroyers to 8 before considering any more frigates?

Also should maximise additional VLS launchers on all classes of escorts and end the policy of providing space to fit launchers but not actually fitting them!

[ArmChairCivvy]

wouldn't we be better off accelerating the development and building of a couple of T4X and increase the number of AAW destroyers to 8 before considering any more frigates?

This does not need to be an either-or, as (depending on the choice of hull) there is an option of interleaving ASWs and AAWs (will the latter still be called destroyers, in case they are built on a frigate hull )?
- ahh, the plug in Increase the size and thus push them over to another category??

[Roders96]

Semantics aren't too significant as ever, a combatant is a combatant and it can do stuff.

The stuff it does depends on the fit, nothing else!

[Ron5]

However one of the aspects of the UXV Combatant that most appealed was the attempt to create a ship that was almost it's own task group in a package not much larger than a Type 45.

The UXV Combatant re-used a T45 hull too.

[Jake1992]

However one of the aspects of the UXV Combatant that most appealed was the attempt to create a ship that was almost it's own task group in a package not much larger than a Type 45.

The UXV Combatant re-used a T45 hull too.

Would a modern equivalent based on the T26 hull be the way to go then ?

[Poiuytrewq]

For me with the news of a possible T-32 we have lost sight of what is really needed. I think if we got on with MHPC and built 8 to start with based on something like a 100 meter Venari capable of operating all current and future unmanned kit plus a Wildcat when needed then maybe two or three of these could replace the 4 MCM and Bay class in the Gulf freeing up the Bay to head up a LRG.

A 100m Venari is a tempting prospect but as a standalone class they would probably cost around £2bn to introduce and given the likely size of future MCM and ASW systems I don't think 100m is big enough anymore.

The Belgian/Dutch concept is classy stuff but massively limited IMO with very little growth margin. Adding 18 to 20m would help but not enough to future proof the design. Again only my opinion.



However, a 120m/140m vessel with a Venari layout would be a massively versatile proposition and if constructed to an escort standard, it could be classed as an Frigate. Such a vessel could conduct everything from MCM, Littoral ASW, HADR, provide a modest host for the FCF as well as the usual escort duties. By giving a 'Frigate' the MCM role, HMG would effectively be using the budget for replacing the MCM vessels to increase the escort numbers back up to the 24 target. If correct this could be the reason why the Treasury agreed.

I think we need to be more realistic when it comes to the LRG and and have it set at one Bay and one T-31 with the LPD and FRE ready to react and support when and where needed

I would be amazed if RN gets anything better than 1 LPD at low readiness and 1 LPD at extended readiness after the IR.

As for T-32 I still think it should be a carrier group only ASW frigate freeing up T-26 to do the job it was design for

We would all love to see that but I doubt it!

[ArmChairCivvy]

By giving a 'Frigate' the MCM role, HMG would effectively be using the budget for replacing the MCM vessels to increase the escort numbers back up to the 24 target.

Surprise! The ones that can self-deploy with the MTF will be (kit on) frigates
.... then we will have some for the home waters when the Hunts (that can take the offboard kit) finally wear out.

MC+H+P prgrm was projected at £1.4 bn and my wild guess (as there are no figures to be found) for the v long joint Anglo_french kit dvlpmnt is to have taken a good qrtr bn off that (if all the trialling of it is also costed, then we are down to a bn)
- nominally 'nominate' one of the T31s as the roll-on/ off ship for such kit in expeditionary use... and you are down to £ 750 mln - with only the kit for trials purchased
- buy all the kit needed, and for the change, perhaps, one could get 1-3 of those Belgo-Dutch things at the end of the Hunts' service lives.
... One would be for trials; if 3 one for South, East and the Irish Sea ports, respectively, just like with fishing protection.

[shark bait]

The Belgian/Dutch concept is classy stuff but massively limited IMO with very little growth margin

Yes

However, a 120m/140m vessel with a Venari layout would be a massively versatile proposition

Yes

constructed to an escort standard, it could be classed as an Frigate

oooo so close. Now you only get 2.

Stay away from anything frigaty. That's like using the F35 to move Marines.

[Lord Jim]

To fill the MHPC requirement you want a platform that specialises in that capacity. You wouldn't want a MCV moonlighting as an ASW platform would you. Yes give some of our Escorts a mine warfare capability through the use of unmanned platforms, but these should not be seen as an alternative to dedicated mine warfare platforms. We need both to be honest as out current force levels are insufficient.

A frigate sized MHPC is also a bad idea as it opens up any such programme to mission creep and increase complexity. This in turn leads to increased costs, something we can ill afford.

As for Escort numbers, the win the Navy has achieved with the "windfall" is that the remaining five T-26 and the five T-31 are now secure and we are likely to see an order of the long awaited FSS in the near future. Anything else will have to come through the usual route of giving something else up, be it hardware, personnel, training or sea time.

[Poiuytrewq]

Stay away from anything frigaty. That's like using the F35 to move Marines.

Is an Absalon a Frigate? No issue with cost there. Multi-role going forward will be just that.

I think the reality is that MCM and Littoral ASW equipment is going to be increasingly modular in the future, so it could be embarked on a Bay, Point, Argus or possibly even an RB2. If the equipment continues to grow in size and displacement however the T26 and T31 won't be able to deploy it. This is a problem and perhaps someone, somewhere who is paid to worry about such things has just worked it out. Hence the option of a multi-role T32.

Once you make the leap to designing a big, versatile and highly capable multi-role vessel in a Frigate configuration, embarking the Marines is the next logical step. It just requires a decision as to how many and for what duration.

[Lord Jim]

I can see modular MCM equipment being used for fast clearance by a naval group in order to gain access to an area, being deployed from non dedicated MCM assets, but said areas will not be clean of enemy mines, just the risk will be less. To actually clear an area, or the maintain one you will still need dedicated assets.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Airborne radar is developed in Edinburgh by Leonardo UK. This was Ferranti it developed the radar for EE Lighning, Blue Vixen for Sea Harrier and Captor for Eurofighter.

Naval radar is developed at Cowes by BAE. There is an ongoing R&D programme following on from MESAR, SAMPSON and ARTIST. They are developing, amongst other things, a cylindrical array rather than flat panels and an x band NCTI (non cooperative target identification) radar. Whether this becomes an actual radar to be fitted to a ship is the question. The answer is more cash to fund it.

Thanks a lot.

The answer is more cash to fund it.

Exactly. My whole point here is, the money added is just "modest" (although great), so it must be used to make everything NORMAL (or reasonable), before adding huge large expensive anything.

UK Artisan 3D radar is becoming obsolete. Not utilizing the benefit of GaN technology (said to be 3-times powerful in radar power with the same power consumption), not have a panel-option (most of other AESA has a panel option enabling scalable application). If everything is normal, development plan for improving Artisan 3D must be there (why a frigate to be delivered in 2036 shall rely on a single-panel 2-second rotating GaAs radar? Surely out of date.).

Type-32 is fun to discuss, yes (not saying we shall stop it, actually I myself will ).
But
- T26 batch2 equipments (with 1.5 years drumbeat, hull-4 will be handed-over in ~2029, 8-9 years from now. It is the frigate of 2030s.),
- T45 modernization (nearing its mid-life, also going to lose ASM very soon. How about BMD/hyper-sonic counter measure?)
- T31 equipments (e.g. ASM and hull-sonar),
- MCM drones in real number,
- UAVs on OPVs and Frigates,
- interim ASM program, etc. etc.
are much more important to make everything NORMAL. Of course, among everything, increasing the man-power and utilize all the assets now RN has is much more important.

[Jake1992]

I can see modular MCM equipment being used for fast clearance by a naval group in order to gain access to an area, being deployed from non dedicated MCM assets, but said areas will not be clean of enemy mines, just the risk will be less. To actually clear an area, or the maintain one you will still need dedicated assets.

If as it looks like all mcm equipment is becoming unmanned off board system then what is a dedicated mcm asset ?

[shark bait]

Once you make the leap to designing a big, versatile and highly capable multi-role vessel in a Frigate configuration

The Navy already have that, and they call it the Type 26!

The Navy does not need a Frigate spec mine hunter for the very simple fact that 99% of mine clearance operations is not during combat operations. It would mean spending billions of pounds to cover the extreme fringe use case that has already been covered by the T26 and T31. Moreover, because there isn't the crew to maintain all these complex systems, the navy would be forced to dedicate a big chunk of its combat mass on benign tasks like mine clearance.

Yes, more kit will be moving off board and this is a reason to move away from the frigate form factor which was never designed for this era. Once the complexity is transferred to a modular payload, there is no benefit adding more complexity to the host platform.