Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

If your not wanting a well dock but need to use of a number for unmanned systems then I guess that’s pointing more toward a configuration that looks like the rss david Attenborough or a similar support vessel.

But what ever it is, the mind set probably needs to change from what roles the ship does to what roles it’s deployed systems do.

[Tempest414]

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.

Why not we have had a through deck cruiser so why not a LSD frigate just push the top speed up to 25 knots job a good one

[SD67]

If your not wanting a well dock but need to use of a number for unmanned systems then I guess that’s pointing more toward a configuration that looks like the rss david Attenborough or a similar support vessel.

But what ever it is, the mind set probably needs to change from what roles the ship does to what roles it’s deployed systems do.

I really don't understand this TBH, maybe one of the experts on the board can explain it.
Presumably these "unmanned" systems still need to be maintained, deployed, recovered, armed, integrated to the overall mission planning etc. How is that different from a helicopter and why does it drive a radical change in mind set? The deployed systems extend the reach but can do very little without the ship. I'd have thought evolved t31 with tweaks should be able to meet most of the requirements.

[SW1]

If your not wanting a well dock but need to use of a number for unmanned systems then I guess that’s pointing more toward a configuration that looks like the rss david Attenborough or a similar support vessel.

But what ever it is, the mind set probably needs to change from what roles the ship does to what roles it’s deployed systems do.

I really don't understand this TBH, maybe one of the experts on the board can explain it.
Presumably these "unmanned" systems still need to be maintained, deployed, recovered, armed, integrated to the overall mission planning etc. How is that different from a helicopter and why does it drive a radical change in mind set? The deployed systems extend the reach but can do very little without the ship. I'd have thought evolved t31 with tweaks should be able to meet most of the requirements.

Radical is your word not mine. But using your example say the ship just has 4 helicopters. If those 4 helicopters are Apaches whats the role of the ship. next time out it has 4 merlin asw helicopters instead of the apaches whats the role. Or if it’s 4 aew merlins or the time after that 4 chinook. It’s not a frigate or a minesweeper or a destroyer it’s a base for deployed systems.

[SD67]

If your not wanting a well dock but need to use of a number for unmanned systems then I guess that’s pointing more toward a configuration that looks like the rss david Attenborough or a similar support vessel.

But what ever it is, the mind set probably needs to change from what roles the ship does to what roles it’s deployed systems do.

I really don't understand this TBH, maybe one of the experts on the board can explain it.
Presumably these "unmanned" systems still need to be maintained, deployed, recovered, armed, integrated to the overall mission planning etc. How is that different from a helicopter and why does it drive a radical change in mind set? The deployed systems extend the reach but can do very little without the ship. I'd have thought evolved t31 with tweaks should be able to meet most of the requirements.

Radical is your word not mine. But using your example say the ship just has 4 helicopters. If those 4 helicopters are Apaches whats the role of the ship. next time out it has 4 merlin asw helicopters instead of the apaches whats the role. Or if it’s 4 aew merlins or the time after that 4 chinook. It’s not a frigate or a minesweeper or a destroyer it’s a base for deployed systems.

So there's nothing on the platform which needs to be changed to switch between Minesweeper and Destroyer roles. Combat management system, ship based weapons, crew? It's all just plug and play? Sounds a little bit extreme

[ArmChairCivvy]

Combat management system, ship based weapons, crew? It's all just plug and play? Sounds a little bit extreme

Not all, let's not be too radical
- CMS needs extra investment (to be able to cope with the changing roles), so call that extra an 'overhead'... but it is a one-off
-self-defence weapons go with it, naturally, but so does the base crew
- whereas for the plug& play mission modules (some so with the CMS; some just plugging into the allocated physical space and also ship's services... in order to play) in the main the crew gets augmented as these systems are onboarded ( and v.v.). Taking some numbers from a thin air: if a current frigate (type) sails w/o its helicopter that will make for at least minus 12 bods; if the ASW suite, including operators and weapons handling)is not used would mean c. 20 less. Extend that to other areas (without them taking up a fixed allocation of space on the ship) and it starts to look like a valid proposition.

On average crewing (the most expensive over-the-life cost factor) goes down, the (in the medium term) fixed number of hulls can be configured more flexibly, to match the threat picture and - as a big bonus - the very expensive MLUs needed to keep any class current become less drastic (both in duration and in cost)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ohh, trying to keep lane discipline when the Highways Dept has not painted the lines (= missing the x-thread quote facility...)

to get the first batch of T4X destroyers handed over to RN by 2033/2034. Effectively this means speeding up the rate of T26 construction by around 4 years ideally by building the Frigate factory on the Clyde. Completing 8 (or 9) Type 26's within 10 years is ambitious but absolutely possible

Yes

if the T4X turns out to have the same ASW credentials as the T26's.

Not quite, but somewhat: all-rounders and all that...

Even building at the steady pace of 0.5 units per year the first T4x will be finished when Daring is 33.

Don't know what would be built at that rate (?) but taking the Shipbuilding Strat Doc (for T26) 24 months is quite different from the indicated (later on rate) of 18 months per unit.

What can we make of all of this?
- Ron says T26 will not be a good platform to modify to T4(X)... why might that be?
- it would be prudent to take the minister's answer at 'face value' and plan (... that is not the outcome ) accordingly

While I await the incoming (Ron's arguments to the contrary) I conclude that
A. the T26s will be interleaved/ dovetailed in build schedules with the AAW-Nxts, or
B. the AAWs will be on a different hull

For 'A' the oddity that steel in bashed on one site and then the hulls are floated to another one nearby for the military fit-out might turn out to be a boon, as the first part of the process (slightly different hull, a - slightly? - different propulsion arrangement is hardly noticeable to the trades who have worked on Mk1 )
- cost avoidance . One frigate factory is in the works already... don't need another one for 'destroyers'

[Tempest414]

The answer to the BAE frigate factory will only come once the Scottish question is answered clearly what is needed is a 200 x 70 meter build hall allowing escorts to be built up to 180 x 30 meters i.e anything from frigates to Cruisers

[ArmChairCivvy]

will only come once

Not something to predicate shipbuilding plans on (far out to the future)
- plans without action are worthless
- acting now gets

[Tempest414]

will only come once

Not something to predicate shipbuilding plans on (far out to the future)
- plans without action are worthless
- acting now gets

Then there are two ways forward

1 ) give the SNP what it wants and have a second ref but make quite clear they will not get another one for 50 years after that

2 ) build the frigate factory in England to get over the problem of if the Scots leave

[ArmChairCivvy]

get over the problem of if the Scots leave

Are DevoMax and IndependenceLight still around
... and if so, would that make any difference?

[Timmymagic]

Not sure if anyone has posted this before...

Lockheed Martin JQL - VL system for Joint Air to Ground Munition.
Hot launch system, can either be mounted into a ships structure like a traditional VLS (on the left) or mounted on the deck (on the right).

If it fits JAGM....it will fit Brimstone/Sea Spear...



Apparently you can also fit 2 on the back of a JLTV for an 8 missile loadout...

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... 091720.pdf

[ArmChairCivvy]

Apparently you can also fit 2 on the back of a JLTV for an 8 missile loadout...

Looks much like the Israeli Jumper
- one can reposition them
- and then just transmit the coordinates, whereto 'travel'

[seaspear]

With the discussion of the timeframe for replacing the type 45 should though planning be instead of upgrading the Sampson which only has a short-range upper atmosphere range to one with a longer range for earlier detection of ballistic and hypersonic missiles which were not envisioned in the design of Viper ?

[Jake1992]

With the discussion of the timeframe for replacing the type 45 should though planning be instead of upgrading the Sampson which only has a short-range upper atmosphere range to one with a longer range for earlier detection of ballistic and hypersonic missiles which were not envisioned in the design of Viper ?

Would we be looking at Sampson Mk2 or a complete new radar design, I ask as the current set up is high speed rotation 2 panel and I saw a few days ago that BAE are starting the work on a full sphere design.

[J. Tattersall]

Lockheed Martin JQL - VL system for Joint Air to Ground Munition.
Hot launch system, can either be mounted into a ships structure like a traditional VLS (on the left) or mounted on the deck (on the right).

If it fits JAGM....it will fit Brimstone/Sea Spear...

Don't quite understand why you'd want a hot launch system when MBDA have dedicated a lot of engineering effort to successfully develo a cold launch system for CAMM which could presumably also be used for Brimstone etc.

[seaspear]

With the discussion of the timeframe for replacing the type 45 should though planning be instead of upgrading the Sampson which only has a short-range upper atmosphere range to one with a longer range for earlier detection of ballistic and hypersonic missiles which were not envisioned in the design of Viper ?

Would we be looking at Sampson Mk2 or a complete new radar design, I ask as the current set up is high speed rotation 2 panel and I saw a few days ago that BAE are starting the work on a full sphere design.

Was this what you were referring to , would it being steerable be able to address some of the developing threats
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 10%29.html

[Caribbean]

It looks as if there is still ongoing development of Sampson-based technology, though in this case, to produce a less-capable 2D radar for use in OPVs and auxiliaries (currently installed on RFA ARgus)
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/a ... aval-radar
Looks like a competitor to the Scanter 4200 (interestingly, it can also track > 800 targets, like Artisan)

[tomuk]

BAE are working on a fixed cylindrical array. Imagine a single flat panel wrapped round the mast. This would not rotate.
It would combine the advantages of a fixed and rotating array ie lighter so can be at top of tall mast but can stare in all directions.

The article seaspear posted a link to is from 2000 and refers to the work BAE did to create the Sampson ball.
MESAR the research predecessors to SAMPSON were boxes and a better solution than the rotating box of Thales Herakles was preferred.

Thales Herakles


Prototype and production SAMPSON note the ribs around the dome on the prototype

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across,

2035 - 2009 = 26

I wasn't suggesting commissioning and decommissioning like for like, hence growing the number of escorts as the T4X's start to enter the fleet.

On the current trajectory, even with the addition of the T32's, the fleet size will not increase within the next decade.

If some of the T23 GP's are decommissioned early then the fleet will shrink further.

If 5x T32's are going to entirely replace the MCMV's the fleet will shrink further.

If the RB1's are decommissioned without replacement the fleet will shrink further.

If Argus is decommissioned without replacement the fleet will shrink further.

Further shrinkage isn't acceptable and a plan to grow the Royal Navy in the mid 2030's isn't exactly ambitious especially given the recent commitment to increased defence spending.

The current build schedule will have to change IMO.

[ArmChairCivvy]

even with the addition of the T32's, the fleet size will not increase within the next decade.

If some of the T23 GP's are decommissioned early then the fleet will shrink further.

Facts (we have seen a couple of nice spread sheets here, rehashing the official (piece meal) announcements

If 5x T32's are going to entirely replace the MCMV's the fleet will shrink further.

If the RB1's are decommissioned without replacement the fleet will shrink further.

With those two - capability wise - I am not too worried... aren't the RB1s on 'Ops' and surely their extension is met from the Treasury Contingency
- there's a link between the two (manning those extra OPVs from mine hunters that stay by the quay side)

If Argus is decommissioned without replacement the fleet will shrink further.

Again, not worried about helo spots, but the primary casualty receiving function is critical (to maintain... and we aren't hearing anything about the plans for it)

[Tempest414]

Moved across,

2035 - 2009 = 26

I wasn't suggesting commissioning and decommissioning like for like, hence growing the number of escorts as the T4X's start to enter the fleet.

On the current trajectory, even with the addition of the T32's, the fleet size will not increase within the next decade.

If some of the T23 GP's are decommissioned early then the fleet will shrink further.

If 5x T32's are going to entirely replace the MCMV's the fleet will shrink further.

If the RB1's are decommissioned without replacement the fleet will shrink further.

If Argus is decommissioned without replacement the fleet will shrink further.

Further shrinkage isn't acceptable and a plan to grow the Royal Navy in the mid 2030's isn't exactly ambitious especially given the recent commitment to increased defence spending.

The current build schedule will have to change IMO.

The current fleet size is 47 RN ships over 550 tons and 11 RFA ships this brakes down to

RN
2 x Carriers , 2 x LPD's , 19 x escorts , 8 x OPV's , 12 MCM , 4 x survey

RFA
4 x Tide , 2 x Wave , Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , Argus

Now we know that the escorts feet is planned to grow to 24 what is needed to make the RN work for me the key is still MHPC . We now know that the 5 x T-32 will be the top end of this program for me what is needed is a class of 12 ships allowing the OPV's , MCM , and 2 Echo's = 22 ships to be replaced by 17 ships this could lead to a new fleet of

2 x Carriers , 1 x LHA , 24 x escorts , 12 x MHPC , 2 x Multi mission survey ships = 41 ships

The RFA will need to change too with 4 new Tide class and 2 maybe 3 SSS what needs to change to maintain 11 ships with capability. Maybe the 2 Wave class and 3 Bay class need to be replaced with 4 ships a bit like Karl Doorman class a multi mission Amphib support ship

[ArmChairCivvy]

RN
2 x Carriers , 2 x LPD's , 19 x escorts , 8 x OPV's , 12 MCM , 4 x survey

RFA
4 x Tide , 2 x Wave , Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , Argus

It is good to look at it in a bare-bones view of what kind of ships within the total; let's rearrange (with the assumption that is open to challenge that Strike Carriers have become cEPP ships in their main function)
- deterrent aside, SSNs a major sea denial force
- presence: 5 of the known new escorts+ 5 of the current OPVs
- from the sea power projection force:
-- 2 carriers
-- 1-2 LPDs, 2-3 Bays
-- Argus (one might expect some casualties, rather than just walk-overs)
- multi-tasking surface fleet:
-- 6 AAW
-- 5-8 ASW (tbc)
- enablers:
-- 4-6 oilers (down to 4?)
-- 1 SSS (up to 2-3)
-- 12 MCM + 4 survey (how to slice this up for replacements? As you point out T32 cannot be the only answer... and let's push aside the question of classification (of a frigate vs. multirole motherships, ie. can it be both?)

As we can see the only 'land of plenty' is the oilers, purely due to the 'bulk buy' to get them cheaper.
The deterrent is a(n expensive) given;
SO, where is the flex in redirecting budgets between ship categories?
AND, how much growth in the overall budget can the navy reasonably expect?

[Lord Jim]

Over what time period are we talking? Over the next three to four years we will probably see little new money but the good news will likely be the confirmation of the 5 remaining T-26, two or three SSS and the small beginnings of the T-32. Most of this is already funded but a little extra may find its way into the first two as well as other programmes looking at unmanned systems for example. The bright future for ship building is mainly going to be about having a secure future with the end of feast and famine.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Is

about having a secure future with the end of feast and famine.

- the indication was that IR would include a 30-yr ship building plan
- while that is ambitious and we don't even know if and when the document might be coming out, it is a clear recognition that the industry needs better than the outlines todate of what would be required