Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

Given the politicall situation in the EU and US then having the ability to independently deploy a CBG is a key part for the UK to keep global influence. As is the ability to project globally at a brigade level (surging to a division at notice). Sharing the T26 design with Canada and Australia would allow them to easily complement this.

As such, more T26s is the only real answer, with a novel way of providing / escorting an ARG.

As before, the T31 should be a multi-role lower end warship focused on providing patrol presence with modular MCM / Survey capability. It should have scalable sensor / weapon fit and built in numbers to eventually replace the MCMS, Survey Ships and eventually the new OPVS. At least 24 ships, but aiming for 30+.

[clinch]

Does anyone think Type 31 will never happen and we will end up with 6 T45 and 6 T26.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3220782/d ... lack-hole/

This Sun piece is based on a report I read in yesterday's Times. The Times piece is behind a paywall.

Successor is already expected to bust the overspend contingency before it has even got going.

May be time to seriously think about whether we should retain the nuclear deterrent now that this bloody government is counting it as part of the defence budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Pretty poor showing as the article is word for word from the Times
... the comment is a good one, though:

" Just on the day that the EU tries to take Gibraltar away from the UK and back to Spain (therefore the EU) this government announces the possible cuts to the "Bootnecks" who have GIBRALTAR on their crest having (with their Dutch colleages) taken 'the rock' during the War of the Spanish Succession."

Now let me find that thread about "Is Britain in a permanent decline" - may be it was on TD, can't be bothered

[marktigger]

donald leaving the EU gives us the opportunity to abandon some of these missions

[abc123]

Having the T31 being only a large pimped out OPV is pointless as that would mean we reduce our already low escort numbers even more to only 14
The whole problem the RN is having is a lack of escorts and a patrol frigate does not solve that all it does is take money away from trying to solve it

bingo!

If RN goes this way, at least 1 standing task must be abandoned, most likely APT-S/NATO-fleet. If UK is OK with it, it is surely a solution. This means you lose "deployment margin", which means letting the anti-Pirates, anti-terrorists patrol to other NATO navy ships, even ask them to escort UK vessels, and in place provide CVTF. This is clearly one solution.

If you have only 4 PF, (say, "UK version of Floreal-like PF, with CIWS and Helo, no SSM (Wildcat can do), even omitting 127mm gun" as a light version of Avenger), you can support one mid-low level standing task 24/7/365, and also second one most of the year. Send it to Sierra Leone in 2000, Somali in ~2008, or Yemen now, while letting the other 14 escorts to support CVTF and ARG. Note the the 4 PF sacrifices 1 T26, yes, but only 1.

So, there are 2 solutions. BOTH is valid/reasonable, and it is just a decision of choice.

Agreed.

[marktigger]

lets leave the EU to sort out the refugee crisis in the Med and adriatic. Possibly supporting our former interests cryprus and malta, And to do more of the anti piracy role of somallia

[LordJim]

I half agree that if the RN and ends up with 14 T-26s and 45s and 4+ T-31 "Patrol Frigates", it still only has 14 escorts, but that is the point. Many of the RNs obligations do not need a full blown high end warship. Saying that as I stated earlier, if the design chosen is flexible enough, like the French and Italian vessels being developed, a full fat version with CAMM, ASuMs and possible a TASS is a viable escort, and would be useful in a CVBG. The French used A69s as part of their CVBGs for used and the USN used Knox and Perry class frigates. If we can get 3 T-31s for the price of a T-26, and that is quite possible given how the latter programmes costs are going up, with the right design and manning levels we could end up with 7-9 T-31s eventually. that makes 3-4 hulls available which would be capable of covering the majority of the RNs obligations. With regards to manning, those operating in a "Coast Guard" roll could even have mixed crews of RN and Civilian personnel.

[ArmChairCivvy]

like the French and Italian vessels being developed

As Fincantieri's knowhow might be fielded through Babcock (their design, if it will be pitched), it should be noted that the RN has been advertising for a friendly, but expert "Challenger" role. Rather than a person, this could be BMT (they can't challenge their own design) or it could be the French state-owned warship yard (orders as such are unlikely, because the every third pound that flows back to the Treasury would then, instead, flow abroad)

[Repulse]

If we can get 3 T-31s for the price of a T-26

That's about £300mn each if you believe in the price tag, would be sizeable, but if 8 T26s cost £8bn how much would be 12? Getting costs down to 800mn per unit would be a great alternative.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If we can get 3 T-31s for the price of a T-26

That's about £300mn each if you believe in the price tag, would be sizeable, but if 8 T26s cost £8bn how much would be 12? Getting costs down to 800mn per unit would be a great alternative.

My (personal) estimation is as follows.

T26 = 8B GBP for 8 hull: 3 unit-cost for design and initial production margin + 8 unit-cost = 11 unit cost. This gives 730M GBP unit-cost. Then, 50% of a T26 is (for me) 365M GBP unit-cost.

A light frigate with 50% T26 unit-cost will need (at least) 2 unit cost for design, since I think it will be Venator 110 or Spartan = not existing design. Drawback of a (proper) light frigate option is here. Even if you spend 3 T26 unit-cost (2.2B GBP), it will give you (2 design+) 4 light-frigates. If 4 T26 unit-cost (2.9B GBP), (2 design+) 6 light-frigates.

On the other hand, a Patrol Frigate with 25% T26 unit-cost will need (at least) 1 unit cost for design, since it will be reuse of existing design (such as River B2). Even if you spend 1 T26 unit-cost (730M GBP), it will give you (1 design+) 3 PF. If 2 T26 unit-cost (1.45M GBP), (1 design+) 7 light-frigates.

[Repulse]

@Donald-san: Losing a T26 equivalent on T31 design costs would be a travesty.

Putting aside any increase in defence spending then I'd say even 3 additional T26s would make a difference to support 2 Maritime Groups plus TAPs/FRE and 2 high threat Standing commitments. Add to that another 3 Batch 2 Rivers and look at a medium gun for all of them, for Patrol / Presence duties then it's probably the best mix, until funds come available for the MHPC in early 2030s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The USN is back in the business of sinking ships (from their own surface vessels)> Scout.com offers a good run trough of the arsenal, especially featuring differences the targeting/ guidance/ terminal phase manoeuvering.

"Navy Missiles & Weapons Being Considered

Harpoon

Littoral combat ship USS Coronado successfully executed the first live-fire over-the-horizon missile test using a Harpoon Block IC missile, July 19, during the Navy's Rim of the Pacific exercise.

RIMPAC is a biennial multinational exercise that provides a unique training opportunity that fosters sustained cooperative relationships critical to ensuring the safety of sea lanes and security on the world's oceans.

Navy officials told Scout Warrior that part of the rationale for the live-fire Harpoon exercise was to assess the ability of the LCS to withstand a deck-firing of the weapon.

Harpoon is an all-weather, over-the-horizon weapon designed to execute anti-ship missions against a range of surface targets. It can be launched from surface ships, submarines and aircraft and is currently used on 50 U.S. Navy ships: 22 cruisers, 21 Flight I destroyers and seven Flight II destroyers, Navy statements said.

The Boeing-built Harpoon reaches high subsonic speeds and is engineered to reach over-the-horizon ranges of 67 nautical miles, Navy information says. It has a 3-foot wingspan and weighs roughly 1,500 pounds. The air-launched weapon is 12-feet long and the ship and submarine launched Harpoon is 15-feet long; it uses Teledyne Turbojet solid propellant booster for surface and submarine launch, Navy information specifies.

The Harpoon generates 600 pounds of thrust and fires with a sea-skimming mode to better avoid enemy ship radar detection. Its warhead uses both penetration and high-explosive blast technology.

Naval Strike Missile

The Navy will soon deploy the Naval Strike Missile aboard the Freedom variant of the LCS that can find and destroy enemy ships at distances up to 100 nautical miles, service officials said.

The Naval Strike Missile weapon is developed by a Norwegian-headquartered firm called Kongsberg; it is currently used on Norwegian frigates and missile torpedo boats, company officials said.

“The Navy is currently planning to utilize the Foreign Comparative Testing program to procure and install the Norwegian-built Naval Strike Missile on the USS FREEDOM (LCS 1). The objective is to demonstrate operationally-relevant installation, test, and real-world deployment on an LCS,” a Navy spokeswoman from Naval Sea Systems Command told Scout Warrior.

The deployment of the weapon is the next step in the missiles progress. In 2014NSM was successfully test fired from the flight deck of the USS CORONADO (LCS 4) at the Pt. Mugu Range Facility, California, demonstrating a surface-to-surface weapon capability, the Navy official explained.

First deployed by the Norwegian Navy in 2012, the missile is engineered to identify ships by ship class, Gary Holst, Senior Director for Naval Surface Warfare, Kongsberg, told Scout Warrior in an interview last year.

The NSM is fired from a deck-mounted launcher. The weapon uses an infrared imaging seeker, identify targets, has a high degree of maneuverability and flies close to the water in “sea-skim” mode to avoid ship defenses, he added.

“It can determine ships in a group of ships by ship class, locating the ship which is its designated target. It will attack only that target,” Holst said.

Holst added that the NSM was designed from the onset to have a maneuverability sufficient to defeat ships with advanced targets; the missile’s rapid radical maneuvers are built into the weapon in order to defeat what’s called “terminal defense systems,” he said.

“One of the distinguishing features of the missile is its ability to avoid terminal defense systems based on a passive signature, low-observable technologies and maneuverability. It was specifically designed to attack heavily defended targets,” Holst said.

For instance, the NSM is engineered to defeat ship defense weapons such as the Close-In-Weapons System, or CIWS – a ship-base defensive fire “area weapon” designed to fire large numbers of projectiles able intercept, hit or destroy approaching enemy fire.

CIWS is intended to defend ships from enemy fire as it approaches closer to its target, which is when the NSM’s rapid maneuverability would help it avoid being hit and proceed to strike its target, Holst added.

Holst added that the weapon is engineered with a “stealthy” configuration to avoid detection from ship detection systems and uses its sea-skimming mode to fly closer to the surface than any other missile in existence.

“It was designed against advanced CIWS systems. It is a subsonic weapon designed to bank to turn. It snaps over when it turns and the seeker stays horizontally stabilized -- so the airframe turns around the seeker so it can zero-in on the seam it is looking at and hit the target,” he said.

Raytheon and Kongsberg signed a teaming agreement to identify ways we can reduce the cost of the missile by leveraging Raytheon’s supplier base and supplier management, Holst explained.

Kongsberg is working with Raytheon to establish NSM production facilities in the U.S., Ron Jenkins, director for precision standoff strike, Raytheon Missile systems, said last year.

Kongsberg is also working on a NSM follow-on missile engineered with an RF (radio frequency) sensor that can help the weapon find and destroy targets.

The new missile is being built to integrate into the internal weapons bay of Norway’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well.

Kongsberg and Raytheon are submitting the missile for consideration for the Navy’s long-range beyond-the-horizon offensive missile requirement for its LCS.

“The Navy has identified a need for an over-the-horizon missile as part of their distributed lethality concept which is adding more offensive weapons to more ships throughout the fleet and they wanted to do this quickly,” Holst explained.

They are pitching the missile as a weapon which is already developed and operational – therefore it presents an option for the Navy that will not require additional time and extensive development, he said.

“The missile is the size, shape and weight that fits on both classes of the Littoral Combat Ship,” Holst said.

Extended Range Griffin Missile

Raytheon is testing a new extended range Griffin missile which triples the range of the existing weapon and adds infrared imaging guidance technology, company officials said.

The extended range Griffin starts off with a baseline Griffin and adds an extended range rocket motor. The emerging Griffin missile can fire more than twice the range of HELLFIREs, Raytheon developers explained.

The existing Griffin missile, which can be launched from the air, sea or land, uses GPS and laser guidance technology. The new variant now being tested allows infrared technology to work in tandem with laser designation, they added.

A version of the Griffin missile is now integrated onto smaller, fast-moving Navy Patrol Coastal boats.

The Griffin uses a semi-active laser sensor which is engineered into the current Griffin. The extended range Griffin has both a semi-active laser system and an imaging infrared dual mode, developers explained. A semi-active laser can point out the target to the missile -- and imaging infrared captures the target and then navigates on its own/

The extended range Griffin also features a data link in order to allow the weapon to receive in-flight target updates, jRaytheon officials said.

The Griffin's targeting technology could help destroy small fast-moving surface targets such as swarming boats and also help fast-moving ships reach targets as well. This technology is well-suited to equip the fast-moving LCS, which can maneuver up to speeds of 40-knots.

The Griffin does not have millimeter wave technology, like the Hellfire, but is capable of operating in some difficult weather conditions, officials added. Overall, however, the extended range Griffin is engineered to operate in reasonably clear weather conditions.

In addition, the new missiles infrared guidance system is configured with computer algorithms which enable the weapon to distinguish targets from nearby objects, Raytheon developers said.

The imaging infrared is passive and uncooled so there is no cooling involved. Once a laser spot is removed, the imaging infrared seeker takes over on its own. This technology allows the weapon to change course and potentially adjust to emerging and new targets while in flight.

Raytheon plans to continue testing of the weapon for another year and hopes the new missile will be considered for a range of ground applications, surface ships and air platforms including patrol craft and even unmanned aerial systems.

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile

Lockheed Martin is developing a new deck-mounted launcher for the emerging Long Range Anti-Ship Missile engineered to semi-autonomously track and destroy enemy targets at long ranges from both aircraft and surface ships.

The weapon, called the LRASM, is a collaborative effort between Lockheed, the Office of Naval Research and the Defense Advanced Project Research Agency, or DARPA.

While this emerging weapon is earlier in the developmental process than both the Harpoon and the NSM, it could provide an even more capable, high-tech ability to the LCS. However, industry sources indicate that the LRASM is expected to be much more expensive than the other alternatives, and a LRASM-specific deck-mounted launcher for the LCS would need to be operational before the weapon could successfully fire from the ship.

Lockheed Martin

A deck-mounted firing technology, would enable LRASM to fire from a much wider range of Navy ships, to include the Littoral Combat Ship and its more survivable variant, called a Frigate, Scott Callaway, Surface-Launched LRASM program manager, Lockheed Martin, told Scout Warrior in an interview last.

“We developed a new topside or deck-mounted launcher which can go on multiple platforms or multiple ships such as an LCS or Frigates,” Callaway said.

The adaptation of the surface-launcher weapon, which could be operational by the mid-2020s, would use the same missile that fires from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System and capitalize upon some existing Harpoon-launching technology, Callaway added.

The LRASM, which is 168-inches long and 2,500 pounds, is currently configured to fire from an Air Force B-1B bomber and Navy F-18 carrier-launched fighter. The current plan is to have the weapon operational on board an Air Force B-1B bomber by 2018 and a Navy F-18 by 2019, Navy statements have said.

With a range of at least 200 nautical miles, LRASM is designed to use next-generation guidance technology to help track and eliminate targets such as enemy ships, shallow submarines, drones, aircraft and land-based targets.

Navy officials said LRASM is currently developing along with what it calls Increment 1 to establish an initial air-launched missile solution for the Navy.

"The objective is to give Sailors the ability to strike high-value targets from longer ranges while avoiding counter fire. The program will use autonomous guidance to find targets, reducing reliance on networking, GPS and other assets that could be compromised by enemy electronic weapons,” a Navy statement said.

The missile has also been test fired from a Navy ship-firing technology called Vertical Launch Systems currently on both cruisers and destroyers – as a way to provide long range surface-to-surface and surface-to-air offensive firepower.

Navy officials told Scout Warrior that the service is making progress with an acquisition program for the air-launched variant of LRASM but is still in the ealry stages of planning for a ship-launch anti-ship missile. The Navy will likely examine a range of high-tech missile possibilities to meet its requirement for a long-range anti-ship missile -- and Lockheed certainly plans to submit LRASM as an option for the Navy to consider.

"The current LRASM program is fulfilling a specific capability for an air-launched anti-surface weapon. While DARPA evaluated the feasibility of a ship-launched variant, it would be inappropriate to speculate about a ship-launched version ahead of the requirements, informed by the updated Analysis of Alternatives, and any resulting budget plans," Yingling added.

High-Tech Semi-Autonomous Missile

Along with advances in electronic warfare, cyber-security and communications, LRASM is design to bring semi-autonomous targeting capability to a degree that does not yet exist. As a result, some of its guidance and seeker technology is secret, developers have said.

The goal of the program is to engineer a capable semi-autonomous, surface and air-launched weapon able to strike ships, submarines and other moving targets with precision. While many aspects of the high-tech program are secret, Lockheed officials say the available information is that the missile has a range of at least 200 nautical miles.

Once operational, LRASM will give Navy ships a more a short and long-range missile with an advanced targeting and guidance system able to partially guide its way to enemy targets and achieve pinpoint strikes in open or shallow water.

LRASM employs a multi-mode sensor, weapon data link and an enhanced digital anti-jam global positioning system to detect and destroy specific targets within a group of ships, Lockheed officials said.

LRASM is engineered with all-weather capability and a multi-modal seeker designed to discern targets, Lockheed officials said. The multi-mode sensor, weapon data link and an enhanced digital anti-jam global positioning system can detect and destroy specific targets within a group of ships, Lockheed officials said.

LRASM is armed with a proven 1,000-pound penetrator and blast-fragmentation warhead, Lockheed officials said."

So which one should we have? Hellfire gets a mention, too, but it is only considered to be an additional weapon, on the side of these longer-ranged ones. And of course its mmw-radar can see through fog, smoke, what have you, to try to use to be able to sneak up close.

[marktigger]

Agree the T31 can take over some of those roles and release a full fat frigate. But the advantages of a "Patrol Frigate" over a River are they will have better endurance, better se keeping capabilities be capable of carrying and supporting a helicopter even if its just a wildcat. On missions like WIGS or FIGS or anti piracy ops of Africa.

[S M H]

But the advantages of a "Patrol Frigate" over a River are they will have better endurance, better se keeping capabilities be capable of carrying and supporting a helicopter even if its just a wildcat. On missions like WIGS or FIGS or anti piracy ops of Africa.

From the little we ascertain from the requirements for the Patrol Frigate it looks like we will end up with a modern type 81.

[ArmChairCivvy]

from the requirements for the Patrol Frigate it looks like we will end up with a modern type 81.

Specified as a Tribal class sloop and designed as a Type 82; Sometimes described as a "light cruiser",[3] she was officially classified as a destroyer.
- I hope something has been learned from the numerous iterations with T26

[S M H]

she was officially classified as a destroyer.

I visited Gurkha alongside prior to her departing as the last Gibraltar guard ship she was classified as a frigate. It was the classification of Bristol as Type 82 destroyer that caused the confusion.

[marktigger]

From the little we ascertain from the requirements for the Patrol Frigate it looks like we will end up with a modern type 81.

That's what it meant to be. I would like to see the bench mark set at the type 21 capabilities.

[marktigger]

80 series ships are General Purpose which is really what the Type 31 should be designated

[ArmChairCivvy]

I agree with Mark, immediately above. Would love to hear the rationale for "31".

Following on from the piece I inserted @18:51 yesterday, in the caption picture this http://www.defensenews.com/articles/unc ... gger-fleet has LCS looking like a real warship (a similar upgrade plan is in someone's drawer for the numerous Legend Class cutters, too).

The problem is that as long as the ASuW (may be with a secondary landstrike, as was the plan with NLOS that LCSs were supposed to get, before the prgrm got cancelled) missile is Harpoon - note the number of them, front AND back - then there will be a problem using it exactly where it might be needed: in busy choking points
- that's the reason why I am referencing yesterday's piece, with special emphasis in it on guidance solutions (note that the plural can go even for a single missile, e.g. JSM)
- explains why there are so many development prgrms on the go, in parallel
- now, which one should we get?

[donald_of_tokyo]

The USN is back in the business of sinking ships (from their own surface vessels)> Scout.com offers a good run trough of the arsenal, especially featuring differences the targeting/ guidance/ terminal phase manoeuvering.

"Navy Missiles & Weapons Being Considered

Harpoon
Naval Strike Missile
Extended Range Griffin Missile
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile

Thanks a lot! Very interesting read.

NSM can "identify" ship class, and attack only warships. It can maneuver to counter CIWS. It is stealthy, and even fly lower than existing sea skimmer. LRASM can also do more, but is clearly mentioned to be much expensive than NSM. If we think Perseus shall come around 2030 or 35, interim solution shall better be cheap. NSM and VL-JSM, will surely be a good candidate.

Personally, I prefer, NSM for T45 and T23 (also T31), and TLAM B4 for T26, if production continues.

[shark bait]

NSM looks spot on, especially when we consider it's brother on the F35 and P8. It would do us nicely in the interim untill 'Perseus' comes online.

[ArmChairCivvy]

especially when we consider it's brother on the F35 and P8

And coming to Norgie, German (and possibly Polish) subs, too.

[donald_of_tokyo]

From T31 thread.

Interestiing paper from BMT on the design philosophy behind the Venator.
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6697773/B ... -Mar17.pdf
Has some things to say about the whole mission bay concept - possibly a hint toward why the Type 26 has got so damned expensive.

I'm still hoping the Venator is the only serious competitor in the Type 35 running. Some of the things they have to say about the partnership approach echo exactly what we've been hearing in commons select committees recently.

Very interesting read. Thanks, RichardIC-san.

BMT has NO magic pocket for making VENATOR110 cheap.

Good, I do not believe those "innovative ideas", the term which BAE uses so frequently, and fails in most cases. Technically, no problem, innovation is important. But, in cost-wise, it turns out to be, in many case, not as cheap as expected.

All what they say looks logical and thus reasonable.
- Fully utilize the learning curve. (see p.10 Fig. 6, with the learning curve of Leander FFs)
- Define a hull which has good performance as a light frigate (incl. sea-keepling capability), say 4000t FL.
- Define "blocks" within the hull, and make these blocks right-sized (by communicating with users = CMS integrator, accomodation standards of many navies, weapons.)
- Stick to the hull and blocks, as un changed as possible (other than those required from the specific requirements) so that the learning curve can continue to grow.
- No "let's get larger Mission bay", No "let's get more VLS", and No "let's carry more weapons". Just stick to the base hull/block. If you break the basic design, you lose the learning curve and all cost starts to grow.

This is what I understand. In other words, hull size do matter the cost, not because the hull is large, but because people "tend" to add requirments if they are allowed to enlarge the hull. BMT clearly says NO, to it. Very interesting, reasonable, logical, and understandable argument.

Also they are proposing to "peak-out" the initial in-efficiency (=high cost) in build, by making the first 1-2 ships as simple as possible, and gradually add armaments/stuffs on later hulls. (spiral development).

The problem is, how many hulls can RN afford? Also for export, how many hulls can be built in UK. (if it is NOT built in UK, the learning curve magic is largely gone).

Note Colombian Navy, an VENATOR 110 export candidate, want to built the ship in their domestic yard, as I understand. There will be some learning curve, which could be fed-back to RN ships (building scheme, order, block-size and interface tuning), but the majority of learning curve will not be there. Of course, design effort can be shared, which I repeatedly pointing out to amout to ~2 unit hull cost, in general. Thus, export with foreign built, is not BAD. But, the main aim is to exporting UK-built light frigates.

[marktigger]

yeap that is noticible on hear type 31 was welcomed as a GP frigate program then suddenly it had to be an ASW specialist on top of its original specification.

[shark bait]

no instead of that original 'specification'.

A GP frigate needs to be big with lots of features, if we wanted a proper one we would end up with another T26, which we're being told in unaffordable. So instead go for ASW which is more achievable on a small platform. Either that or end up with more patrol boats.