Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[shark bait]

A good idea. If they're built like RRS sir David Attenborough with all its acoustic optimizations it would be equally capable of operating a sonar.

What is the £1.4bn for? I don't think I've seen that before.

[shark bait]

A good idea. If they're built like RRS sir David Attenborough with all its acoustic optimizations it would be equally capable of operating a sonar.

What is the £1.4bn for? I don't think I've seen that before.

[seaspear]

The AN/SQR-20 0R tb37U towed array system recently developed , had an order placed for seven units for a total of 27.3 million U.S ,these are being fitted to the A,.Bs ???

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good idea. If they're built like RRS sir David Attenborough with all its acoustic optimizations it would be equally capable of operating a sonar.

What is the £1.4bn for? I don't think I've seen that before.

About five years into the Prgrm (the £1.4 bn figure had been floated at launch) TD provided a "Whatever happened to it" piece (02/2015) and a FOI piece within it provides a potted summary:
"(MHPC) has now been renamed the Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic Capability (MHC). The name was changed following the announcement of the Maritime Composite Option (MCO) deal between MoD and BAE on 6 November 2013, which included the purchase of 3 new Offshore Patrol Vessels and therefore delivered the ‘Patrol’ solution.

Work undertaken during the Concept Phase produced compelling evidence that unmanned, off-board systems (OBS), deployed from low-value steel ships, or from ashore, could deliver most elements of the capability. However, a solution based on like-for-like replacement of the current, low-signature Mine Countermeasures Vessels (MCMVs) and Survey Vessels (SVHOs) cannot yet be discounted.

The Programme passed ‘Initial Gate’ in July 2014 and was approved to proceed to the Assessment Phase with the associated funding. MHC has been designed as a transformational and incremental programme that will update and subsequently replace the full existing MCM and Hydrographic capabilities to provide assured maritime freedom of manoeuvre, delivering minehunting, minesweeping and hydrographic mission systems"

Though the prgrm was never predicated on designing a vessel, the Spanish BAM was an early favourite in speculations, only to be replaced by Venator 90 (of roughly same dimensions) when the slideware became more progressed (ie. a concept design). Black Swan (a thought piece, not quite a concept design) was there, somewhere in-between, too.
- like for like replacements, at least for some of MC and H, remain on the table until the contrary is confirmed;
- P "done", across the oceans deployable MC on the horizon... still leaves a lot of vessels to be covered with the residue of the monies

[shark bait]

Comparison of the updated sonars

[RetroSicotte]

There really is no excuse now.

Between Mk41 being acquired by the fleet already, the Mk45's are rebuilds, CAMM being so easy to fit on smaller ships, Stingray exists, the helos are known sizes, a smaller Captas-4 being developed and Artisan being super lightweight to fit..there is just no excuse.

All the parts are there. They all exist.

Now it's just whether the Gov can put enough braincells together to add 2 and 2.

[seaspear]

Is there a reason only to consider the captas range if the U.S.N and Japanese navy are ordering the new mfta tb-37u surely it should be considered

[shark bait]

I agree @RetroSicotte, there really is no excuse now, much of the equipment is already in service. There is so much great about the RN, its foolish to cut corners now and risk centuries of hard earned reputation.

Other sonars probably should be considered, but the Thales products are regarded as the best in the world, and are already in service on the T23, making them look highly attractive.

The MFTA likely isn't as capable as the CAPTAS 4, as it is just a single towed array, no variable depth body. In comparison the CAPTAS 4 has a towed array and a separate steerable body two giving two separate arrays that can be placed at different depths boosting performance.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Allegedly Thales is actively looking to market the new, repackaged CAPTAS-4 to the RN for use on the T31...Not convinced of how far they will get with it...The Treasury seems to have already made up its mind on the matter and the Admirals have given up trying to fight them it seems.

[donald_of_tokyo]

FTI has a 76 mm gun. Its export version has 127mm.
FTI has CAPTAS4CI, the compact version of CAPTAS4.
FIT has 16 ASTER30 missile. Export version will have ASTER15 and SeaMICA.
ESM will be fully digital.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: FTI look similar to Venator 110 GPFF, if we make it "full armored" = execute all the FFBNW.

Design : FTI: Venator
------------------------------------------------
Gun : 76 mm : 127mm (or 76mm)
SAM : 16 ASTER30 : 48 CAMM ( but default will be 24)
SSM : 8 canistered : 8 canistered
Heli : NH90 with FLASH : Merlin with FLASH (but in many case, will be Wildcat)
UAV : VTOL : VTOL
TASS: CAPTAS4CI : CAPTAS4CI (but by default without)
Hull: normal : normal (no super quiet)
size : 4000t : 4000t
------------------------------------------------

Way of thinking of SAM historically differs between the channel. French like to have small number of longer range higher level (=expensive) missiles, while RN was always for a large number of shorter mid-low level (=cheaper) missiles. Former can shoot down enemy at 120 km distance, but if "attacked with 16 Exocet and 1 Bramos", it will sink. Latter can do nothing to enemies more far than 25km, but when "attacked with 16 Exocet and 1 Bramos" it will survive.

2: Also note that French navy is going to use, 76 (not 127) mm (FREMM, Horizon and FTI) and 100 mm (till Cassard class, Georges Leygues class, and LaFayette class (as well as A69)) to be decommissioned. ---> Sorry I first thought it was 127L76+100, but it was 76+100. I made a mistake. French FREMM has only 76 mm. This means, French navy is going to unify its mid-calibre gun to 76mm. Very interesting solution.

3: If the "large sonar in normal noise hull" is the trend (USN, French navy), why not we have CAPTAS4CI on T45? Do anyone know how much space is left at their stern? This is only fantasy, but will make T45 a true multi-purpose escort, which can cover inner layer ASW as well as AAW.

[RetroSicotte]

Latter can do nothing to enemies more far than 25km, but when "attacked with 16 Exocet and 1 Bramos" it will survive.

As a note, CAMM is "25+", with IHS Janes having disclosed "60km" at one point. (Although thats probably at the extreme end of its kinetic energy retention). I wouldn't be surprised if it could handle 40ish fairly normally, which isn't entirely unlike Aster-15 in absolute range. Aster is just more agile and has (I think) a higher ceiling.

It's worth bearing in mind though, the horizon line is at about 25km for most ships. So in most cases even the Asters will be launching at the same time as a CAMM would.

It's also worth noting that they both use AESA radars too, so they match up there. Seafire 5000 and Artisan. Seafire is solid state and has no rotation downtime, but Artisan can track up to 900 targets, Seafire only 100 "per face" (so 400 total). So again fairly even handed.

[seaspear]

@Sharkbait the tb-37u is described as having variable depth abilities in various releases , my point though if its a matter of cost determing its inclusion then its better to have a cheaper towed array than none.

[Ron5]

Allegedly Thales is actively looking to market the new, repackaged CAPTAS-4 to the RN for use on the T31...Not convinced of how far they will get with it...The Treasury seems to have already made up its mind on the matter and the Admirals have given up trying to fight them it seems.

No "alleged" about it. Direct from the mouth of Stephane Valentini, Thales’ product line director for sonar.

[shark bait]

Good luck to you Mr Valentini!

[Aethulwulf]

The exact quote is
"In addition to the FTI, Valentini added, Thales also hopes to place the new CAPTAS-4 Compact on the UK’s future Type 31 frigates"

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/fra ... for-export

It should noted he did not say 'sell' the CAPTAS-4 Compact for the Type 31, but 'place' them on the frigates. This could be part of a demonstration rather than a purchase...

[RetroSicotte]

Might be reading a little too closely into it there. They've got France about to fully demonstrate them, and tons of the normal one in service already. I very much doubt it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

They've got France about to fully demonstrate them, and tons of the normal one in service already.

And we have been counting every extra meter to the body/hull form of the light frigate here... I think we have got well ahead of the facts... but the facts could easily prove me wrong.

[seaspear]

On another note there have been launches of ships with invereted bow and axe bows , certainly the latest French proposal models an inverted bow this is stated to reduce pitching and slamming , is this known to be an advantage for naval ships are there any cons with this ?

[SKB]

Wiki:

"In ship design, an inverted bow (occasionally also referred to as reverse bow) is a ship's or large boat's bow whose farthest forward point is not at the top. The result may somewhat resemble a submarine's bow. Inverted bows maximize the length of waterline and hence the hull speed, and have often better hydrodynamic drag than ordinary bows. On the other hand, they have very little reserve buoyancy and tend to dive under waves instead of piercing or going over them.

Inverted bows were popular on battleships and large cruisers in the early 20th century. They fell out of favour, as they were very wet on high speeds and heavy seas, but have made a comeback on modern ship design."

Apparently, they're not a new thing...


Ulstein tank test models

[clinch]

My thoughts on what we should do, for what they are worth (don't all shout at me at once). I would be inclined to scrap Type 31 and go for a distinct high-low mix. Increase the number of ASW Type 26 to nine, giving us a front line escort fleet of 15. I would keep the earlier batch Rivers (they are not that old). We are already building three batch 2 and are committed to two more in the last SDSR. That takes us to nine with the original Rivers. I would order six more, taking the OPV fleet to 15.
If the Government is wanting to save money now, then front-load the construction of the Rivers, delaying the Type 26 build. I think the ASW Type 23s are the newer ones, anyway. An AW Type 26 would replace Type 45 at the end of the ASW build.
Long term, BAe would know it had an average of one ship a year, alternating between Type 26 and River, and the fleet would be renewed over 30 years. With a regular drumbeat, what could the cost be reduced to? Perhaps £600m to £700m for a Type 26 and a River? That's an average of £300m to £350m per year.
From what I can make out, crewing levels with this mix would be pretty much the same as the original plan.
The front line ships would concentrate on protecting Successor and escort duties. The Rivers would do the other stuff and we would have the extra vessels we would need to patrol our own waters following Brexit.
In times of crisis, the Rivers could be fitted with containerised weapons systems to act as minor escorts. See this blog: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/t ... ver-class/
The other UK shipyards could be given work on the minehunters and other RN and RFA vessels to ensure their continued existence.

[Repulse]

Given the increased threat level from Russia and the need for greater global influence / local EEZ patrol post Brexit, I am feeling confident of a future modest increase in defence spending.

With a more positive (though modest) outlook I think a return to a 3 tier structure is the optimal future model:

- C1: First Rate Warships with world class AAW, ASuW and ASW capabilities able to act independently globally or attached as escorts to key HVUs. Effectively a combination of the T45 and T26.
- C2: Second Rate Warship with significant ASW capabilities and ability to act as UUV / USV mother ships with good self defence capabilities to be able to support task forces and act independently in the North Atlantic or UK / BOT EEZ. This is where the T31 should fit in,
- C3: Effectively the MHPC designed to primarily operate in lower threat environments. Perhaps a future evolution of the River class.

In terms of numbers, I'd say with modest investment 16 C1s, 12 C2s and 12 C3s is more than possible.

An example CBG escort composition could be 3 C1s and 4 C2s.

[seaspear]

Although much of the discussion is on higher tier requirements ,constabulary duties per anti drug smuggling can reqire a ship to patrol on station long term even searching a small ship may take two days what is an optimum size and crewed and crewed size

[marktigger]

the low numbers is the issue the use of RFA's and OPV's in standing taskings needs to be declared a temporary fix with the aim that we will have sufficient escort to fill these roles in a defined time frame say 10 years that lifetime of 2 parliments. Along with capability to escort the carrier groups and the Amphibious group simultaneously with out effecting the standing tasks and we need a proper list of those because it isn't just WIGS and FIGS we have vessels on standing tasks that a defined guard ship should be covering

[Old RN]

I really believe that the capabilities in the surface and air environment for very simple ecsorts is much greater than it historically used to be. ASW remains very challenging and appears to be an expensive issue. While it might seem blasphemy, I suspect an OPV+ sized ship with a decent radar (Artisan), 24 CAMM tubes, taking both Seaceptor and SPEAR 3 weapons (max range 160km?) along with a UAV and a 76mm would be a very capable platform for the vast majority of current RN tasks.