Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:With China you also have to factor in that they are concentrating their fleet in a given area, or at least the majority of it. Other nations have to spread their assets globally or at least in multiple areas of operation which slews the numbers more in their favour with the exception of Carrier Groups and SSNs
You are right however as i have pointed out NATO Europe have about 130 escorts. The main players in the Pacific have 129 escorts of which 43 are from the US pacific fleet however if we lump in all the small allies it could push up to 160 escorts. Also what I have left out and not counted in these figures are the 49 escorts of the US Atlantic fleet plus the 12 Canadian escorts and 23 Indian escorts plus the 21 LCS of the US navy = another 104 ships in the middle this equals about 390 odd allied escorts world wide. These need to face China's 125 escorts Russia's 36 escorts and Pakistan's 16 escorts = 177 odd escorts. Of course this leaves out all the escorts in South America the Gulf and Africa plus the carrier's LHD's , SSBN's , SSN's , SSK, LPD's , Tankers , SSS , Corvette's , OPV's

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:Just like how the T26 started out!
Back to the future!
shark bait wrote:Also one has been missed above, the Italian PPA has pretty much this exact configuration.
Did you miss this one?

Poiuytrewq wrote: I suspect OMT have been constantly extolling the virtues of Absalon since the IH design was chosen and RN maybe like what they see. The PPA is also a massively capable GP design and I suspect RN is keeping a close eye on that too.
The PPA is aesthetically challenged but highly capable, I like it but I try not to look at it too often (with the light on.)
shark bait wrote:Finally the T31 has a mission space below the flight deck, how this will be used remains a mystery with the only real access being a hatch in on the helicopter pad that needs a dock and a crane to access. I guess this could be one of the growth areas to be exploited moving to the T32 concept!
From the start I have never been able to understand why this area under the flight deck was wasted. Hopefully RN make some practical use of it now as the budget situation has eased.
What could have been. A-140 with some movement and a little effort we could have fitted 5" in A position 2 x EXLS = 24 CAMM in B position a Phalanx on the the Hangar roof and 40mm each side freeing up a 13 meter by full width mission bay the the middle with 8 x NSM on top would of made a great GP ship

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Have seen various posts on how the T31 with its minimal capabilities improved, we could all come up with our own wish list if funding were available, but, a big but, understand T31 contract was deliberately written so specification was set in concrete, MoD/Navy has no ability to request/fund any changes, changes could be added very expensively post delivery or will have to wait for Batch 2, T32?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

NickC wrote:Have seen various posts on how the T31 with its minimal capabilities improved, we could all come up with our own wish list if funding were available, but, a big but, understand T31 contract was deliberately written so specification was set in concrete, MoD/Navy has no ability to request/fund any changes, changes could be added very expensively post delivery or will have to wait for Batch 2, T32?
It does make me wondering with the post the other day stating that the MOD new about the T32 when ordering the T31 why did they stick to the spect. Wouldn’t it of been better to have a absalon style T32 fitted out to the current T31 armourment spec and the T31s fitted out to be truely capable GP frigates ?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

NickC wrote:Have seen various posts on how the T31 with its minimal capabilities improved, we could all come up with our own wish list if funding were available, but, a big but, understand T31 contract was deliberately written so specification was set in concrete, MoD/Navy has no ability to request/fund any changes, changes could be added very expensively post delivery or will have to wait for Batch 2, T32?
Essentially yes. Conventional tenders go with the MoD telling industry what they want and then changing their minds about it over and over again, even after final design agreed and construction started, leading to cost escalation among other things.

Type 31 started with the MoD saying to industry, this is how many £ we have, what can you give us? A baseline was set but with a lot of flexibility.

Everyone was expecting an enhanced OPV. Then Babcock teamed up with OMT to offer a very capable frigate design but with an austere equipment fit. But the deal is the RN gets what Babcock offered and if they want anything extra it gets done once the ship is off contract.

Certainly better than an enhanced OPV with an austere equipment fit, which was the alternative.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

They wouldnt have gone with Absalon from the start because they weren't initially registered as Frigates and therefore would have undermined their case in the competition.

They are still very similar ships and what with the under-flight deck storage space, highly likely to be equipped with towed sonar.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by AndyC »

The trouble is that they said the same thing about the T45s getting extra VLS launchers but they never came!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Oh well, the T32 mystery tour over,

Jensy wrote:
Roders was very close to the right answer just 20m short.


Back to the daily drudge:
Now that idle speculation turned into a near fact on the other thread "Royal Navy’s New Type 32 Frigate To Serve As Unmanned Systems Mothership" I guess on this one we will (out to the end of this decade :( ) only have
- the number of ASW specialists in that production run ( 8 or lower),
- and the related hull form for the AAW-Nxt (T26 derived, or otherwise)
to speculate :D about.

I will start: the RN
- paid for the carriers with the size of the surface fleet
- now that it is the time to reconstitute that fleet, the numbers have reached a new level, and as 'a ship cannot be in two places at the same time' it will be all-rounders all round as the main rule

All-rounders and motherships and "Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed" 8-)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Tempest414 wrote:What could have been. A-140 with some movement and a little effort we could have fitted 5" in A position 2 x EXLS = 24 CAMM in B position a Phalanx on the the Hangar roof and 40mm each side freeing up a 13 meter by full width mission bay the the middle with 8 x NSM on top would of made a great GP ship


The important thing here is not the weapons fit but how they fit so if we keep to what we have and move them around so 57mm in A position 12 to 24 CAMM in B position fit the 2 x 40mm each side of the Hangar we keep the weapons as put forward however what my point was by moving the CAMM to B position it frees up the midships for 14 meter by full width = 266 m2 mission bay this would still allow latter down the line with the use of EXlS for CAMM to go up to 36 and for NSM and Phalanx to be fitted . So my over all point was with a little more effort A-140 could have been a really good multi mission frigate able to operate up to 4 x 13 meter USV or 5 ORC

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Simply always surprised USN LCSs are always over looked. It is very very similar to (or even the default design of) such "under flight deck mission bay".

LCS's mission bay has its own good and bad.
- Its good aspects are a good lessons learned
- and its bad aspects are also a good lessons learned

Taking them into account is only good for the new program. Are there any good summary of it?
Moved from T31/32

The LCS 'streetfighter', both classes an unmitigated disaster, thou first LCS was commissioned in 2008, USN never had the confidence to deploy either class in Persian Gulf which thought would be their natural milieu, the first four to be scrapped next year, the fourth ship was only commissioned in 2012.

LCS max payload only 180t, 75t JP-5 leaves only 105t for helo/spares plus its mission module, cost for latest Independence class $584 ~ £440 million each plus cost of MM, GAO report noted O&S costs not too far off the Burke costs and had problems launching and recovering USVs

Results in write ups as on Forbes 9th November "Now Is The Perfect Time To Sink The Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship" thou advocating Independence class you could list just as many breakdowns/problems with it as Freedom class.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... mbat-ship/

USN now using an ESB in testing its full Mine Countermeasure Mission Module Package suite (too large and heavy to install on either LCS class ships). ESB, Expeditionary Sea Base, >60,000t ship, flight deck of ~52,000-sq. ft. to note on ships 6 & 7 fitting the Vestdavit Mission Ease Boat Handling System to launch USV/boats up to 14 metric tons).


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:USN now using an ESB in testing its full Mine Countermeasure Mission Module Package suite (too large and heavy to install on either LCS class ships).
... but works fine on a Bay (was tested on one in the Caribbean/ Gulf of Mexico... somewhere there and not that long ago)
NickC wrote:'streetfighter'
I note that you haven't capitalised the first letter, but Streetfighter was the initial concept, not much bigger than the Visby class, from which the much bigger and not so fighty LCS evolved - with the installed power of a cruiser :wtf:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:LCS max payload only 180t, 75t JP-5 leaves only 105t for helo/spares plus its mission module, cost for latest Independence class $584 ~ £440 million each plus cost of MM, GAO report noted O&S costs not too far off the Burke costs and had problems launching and recovering USVs...
Thanks for the info.

So, in short, lack of weight margin?

Regarding the MCM kits' weight, it means what was wrong was the MCM system, which has grown in weight and size significantly. --> RN have to be careful about the UK's own MCM USV system size and weight grow in future. (personal opinion)

We all know LCS is armed as much as T31. T31 can handle only 3 boats, up to 9.5m long. Has a cargo space for containers, but not that large. As such, T31 is remarkably similar to LCS in its armament, inferior in multi-purpose capability, slower, but significantly larger and sea worthy. I'm not saying T31 is the same to LCS. Just saying it is very similarly equipped. So, many but not all of the LCS lessons learned can be applied to T31.

Then, if USN think LCS cannot go into the Gulf, why T31 can? --> Yes T31 can. We know Cyclone class PC and USCG cutters were sent to the Gulf.

I guess LCS is considered as a warfighter not strong enough, and as a USV/UUV mothership not weight-tolerant enough. It must be OK as a patrol frigate. For USN, however, it completely overlaps with USCG large cutters. In case of UK, there is no large cutters and T31 can be "OK" (River OPVs are similar to medium cutters). --> Looks like T31 is laser focussed as Patrol Frigate, but not much as a multi-mission ship. (personal opinion)

#Of course, a T31 is nearly twice as large as an LCSs. So its future can be very different.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

You’ll all end up with what I suggested for type 31 before even type 31 had a design concept published. The future “frigate” is a bay class ship and the payload carried defines the role not the ship.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well unfortunately you were wrong about what the T31 would be and in all likelihood you will be wrong about this one as well.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

NickC wrote:....the Vestdavit Mission Ease Boat Handling System to launch USV/boats up to 14 metric tons).
It is hard to imagine a less efficient system. The space required by 4 RHIBs or 4 ISO's is ridiculous.

The height of the deckhead is the limiting factor.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

What we get is surely going to depend on what budget the program gets, if it gets a good healthy budget I can see the RN going for something like an updated version of the UXV based on the T26. If it gets a low to modest budget I can see something like a British Absalon or a modified Absalon if real tight.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:....modified Absalon if real tight.
Modified how?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:on ships 6 & 7 fitting the Vestdavit Mission Ease Boat Handling System to launch USV/boats up to 14 metric tons
In 'Merica everything is bigger :D . Points to note, though
- laden containers (heavier?) only in harbour conditions
- USN has standardised their USV size; one system will handle all
... and more importantly, as for the waste of space, some of those USVs will be armed, so imagine the busy bees around an a/c on a carrier; how much space around them they need to do the arming quickly and safely (harbour conditions - not!)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:....modified Absalon if real tight.
Modified how?
I am not sure to be honest but I could see on a very tight budget the RN would go for an Absalon but would ask for the odd small change here or there, I only say this as I can’t see them just saying Yh we’ll take it exactly as is.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Mover across.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:"The Rolls-Royce Mission Bay Handling System, will enable efficient movement of craft and containerised mission packages within the mission bay [and it] also features a launch and recovery capability"
First and foremost a baseline must be set and then everything can flow from there.

1. What size UUV's will the T32 be expected to operate?

2. Clearly a Frigate sized vessel can only handle a certain amount of weight, so how big will the next generation of Frigates actually need to be? One thing is for sure the FTI has never looked smaller.

3. What sea state can a Frigate sized vessel actually deploy and recover a large UUV with a Telecopic Dual Beam style system? The Damen Crossover claims to be able to handle a 15m LCVP with a SWL of 40t but in what sea state? Seems like minimal freeboard for operating in high sea states on the Damen Crossover concept.

4. SW1 advocates an Enforcer derivative, seems reasonable, a modest floodable well dock may actually provide answers to many of the unanswered questions? If so, the list of negatives against floodable well docks are many, not least, can a vessel with such a configuration realistically achieve escort speeds? Not clear and if it can't, is it even a Frigate?

The T31 programme was straightforward but working out what the T32 should look like is a different ball game. This may not be as simple and rapid as many hope.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:I am not sure to be honest but I could see on a very tight budget the RN would go for an Absalon but would ask for the odd small change here or there, I only say this as I can’t see them just saying Yh we’ll take it exactly as is.
If RN wanted Absalon it would have been the T31, perhaps it should have been.

Personally I think a Arrowhead 140 with alterations and additions from the Absalon design is in fact the concept to beat. An Arrowhead 160 design is a very tempting prospect.

If RN deviate too far from the existing T31 programme the whole show could bog down almost immediately. That would be a great pity.

Another reason to adapt the current T31 design is to maintain the Frigate drumbeat. Rosyth needs something else to build around 2027 and cutting steel on a totally new design five years from now seems ambitious, even though it shouldn't be.

It's Babcocks to lose, let's hope they are thinking BIG.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If RN wanted Absalon it would have been the T31, perhaps it should have been.

Personally I think a Arrowhead 140 with alterations and additions from the Absalon design is in fact the concept to beat. An Arrowhead 160 design is a very tempting prospect.

If RN deviate too far from the existing T31 programme the whole show could bog down almost immediately. That would be a great pity.

Another reason to adapt the current T31 design is to maintain the Frigate drumbeat. Rosyth needs something else to build around 2027 and cutting steel on a totally new design five years from now seems ambitious, even though it shouldn't be.

It's Babcocks to lose, let's hope they are thinking BIG.
When Type 32 was announced you were raging at the suggestion it should be based on the Type 31.

Genuine question: What changed your mind?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I am not sure to be honest but I could see on a very tight budget the RN would go for an Absalon but would ask for the odd small change here or there, I only say this as I can’t see them just saying Yh we’ll take it exactly as is.
If RN wanted Absalon it would have been the T31, perhaps it should have been.

Personally I think a Arrowhead 140 with alterations and additions from the Absalon design is in fact the concept to beat. An Arrowhead 160 design is a very tempting prospect.

If RN deviate too far from the existing T31 programme the whole show could bog down almost immediately. That would be a great pity.

Another reason to adapt the current T31 design is to maintain the Frigate drumbeat. Rosyth needs something else to build around 2027 and cutting steel on a totally new design five years from now seems ambitious, even though it shouldn't be.

It's Babcocks to lose, let's hope they are thinking BIG.
I don’t agree, the T31 was not only a rush job but was also on a very tight budget along with asking for a GP frigate design. The T32 is / could differ in almost all aspects, we know the T32 is going to have years of design and competition when compared to the T31, it is also required to be an unmanned mother ship. These 2 factors make for a very different vessel to what was asked for with the T3, but budget will determin what we get.

I see it as something like this -

If a very tight budget we could end up with a very lightly modified Absalon.

If a tight but moderate budget we could end up with a British designed version of the Absalon

If a good budget we could end up with a modern version of the UXV based of the T26.

The idea of what this class need to handle has started to be set out but what we can speculate we can get is up in the air until a budget is set.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:LCS max payload only 180t, 75t JP-5 leaves only 105t for helo/spares plus its mission module, cost for latest Independence class $584 ~ £440 million each plus cost of MM, GAO report noted O&S costs not too far off the Burke costs and had problems launching and recovering USVs...
Thanks for the info.

So, in short, lack of weight margin?
Very much so, LCS 5 & 6, respectively Freedom/Independence classes, production standard, USN had only spec'd minimal 50t built in for future growth over the planned LCS life of 25 years, SLA, service life allowance (USN standard SLA at time was 10% for surface combatants, which would have been ~300 to 350t) before hitting their naval achitecture limit/EOL displacement. Actual SLA for LCS 5 Freedom was 67t and LCS 6 Independence only 31t.

Babcock quoting T31 FLD? 6,095t whereas Iver Huitfeldt 6,649t, so it would seem T31 has 554t capacity for additional weapons/sensor payload?, reflecting the minimal T31 weapons/sensors fit compared to an IH :sick:, leaves a large margin for future weight growth for T32 with USV etc. :angel:

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RichardIC wrote: What changed your mind?
I'm not sure I have changed my mind, more a case of the parameters becoming clearer. If the T32 is to become a large, simple but spacious host for a myriad of offboard systems specialising in Littoral ASW and MCM then there is no point re-developing the wheel. It's a simple requirement so keep it simple.

By using the Arrowhead 140 design as a starting point much time and treasure can be saved. By adapting heavily for RN use it would become a British design in any case regardless whether any design cues are pulled from Absalon. OMT have a lot to offer UK shipbuilding IMO and continuing the OMT, BMT and Babcock partnership onto the next generation makes sense.

An adapted A140 design shouldn't be budgeted for any more than £300m to £350m plus GFE. If RN decide an acoustically optimised hull and hybrid propulsion is required then it should be a clean sheet design IMO but I don't think the T32 is currently heading in that direction.

Post Reply