Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

I also doubt that future RN surface ships will carry lightweight torpedos - far better to deploy them from aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary, manned or otherwise).
This is very likely, but also very stupid. Without a rocket-delivered torpedo and with ships carrying only one helicopter, it means you are able to fire a torpedo only a small percentage of the time, and there is no real snap-response capability. If a sub sneaks past the outer helicopter layer, there is nothing able to annoy it while it wreaks havoc in the group.
It is really quite amazing that after nearly succumbing in two world wars to submarine actions, the RN is again putting itself in the same old spot of unpreparedness.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

back to wildcat MATCH

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Caribbean wrote:Because the primary purpose of the T31 is not really military - it's to "revive" the UK's military shipbuilding industry and to allow diversification away from relying on a sole supplier. In order to keep that diversified industry running, it needs to export, as the RN cannot provide sufficient orders, on its own, to keep two manufacturers running. In order to export, we need to own the IP for the designs and also to operate some "samples" for foreign buyers to look over. Personally I feel that a lot of the funding should be coming out of the DoTI budget, since it's as much about political aspirations for jobs and industrial capacity, as it is about equipping the RN.
The messages coming from MOD point to the primary role of the T31 will be to undertake FRE, APT(N), APT(S), Op Kipion, HADR, and NEO. This will free up the T45 and T26/T23 to concentrate on carrier group operations and TAPS. Given the many tasks for T31 and only 5 (or maybe 6) ships, it is possible that one or two T31 could be forward based under a 3 watch system.

The warfighting role for the T31 will be to support the carrier group, by conducting close consort escort to RFAs as they travel to and from the carrier group, or other ships transporting men and materials to the operational area. Unlike all the other roles listed so far, this would require a basic ASW capability (helicopter and maybe a HMS).

Another warfighting role will be to detach from the main group and close with the shore to gather (electronic) intelligence or provide NGFS. However, this role could be provided by other assets.

Given all this, it is unlikely that the RN will fund the fitting of any CAPTAS systems to the T31s, unless they have their arms twisted enough to convince them that fitting such a system to one or two ships will be vital to export success.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Gabriele wrote:Without a rocket-delivered torpedo and with ships carrying only one helicopter, it means you are able to fire a torpedo only a small percentage of the time, and there is no real snap-response capability
If that's on offer, I would grab it with both hands. It makes more sense to engage a submarine at greater ranges than the lightweight torpedos are capable of themselves, preferably outside the engagement range of the heavyweights carried by the subs. Frankly, if an enemy did get in close, then decoys and countermeasures are probably going to be more effective at defeating an attack than firing off some relatively short-ranged lightweights at a target that you more than likely (if they've got that close) can't actually see
I guess it really depends on what the RN sees as being the role for these ships. If they are to have any realistic solo ASW capability, they will need at least CAPTAS-2 (to give the detection range) and an HMS. Otherwise they may well be limited to operating a helicopter in support of T26. From what has been said, I think that ASW capabilities will be secondary
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Helicopters are the king of ASW ops, if there are no helicopters, there is no effective countermeasure to subs.

If a sub is within reach of a hull mounted lightweight torpedo, that ship is already well within the kill range of the subs heavyweight torpedo's. It is essential to be engaging subs beyond that range, even beyond the range of ASROC. The carriers will have a bunch of helicopters on board for delousing, that's the quickest and most accurate way to engage a sub, and with a handful there should always be at least one of the maintenance heavy Merlin available to chase away anything that has slipped through the net.

Solo ASW ops without aircraft is just a no go.

If we have platforms sub hunting out in the north Atlantic it is essential they are linked up with the systems on the P8 for cooperative hunting and prosecution. They will struggle to be effective in that role without something that can make use of the huge detection ranges of a towed array.

In that instance we're replacing the Merlin with a P8. The Frigate makes a very distant contact, typically only providing a bearing to the target, so then it spends time working out what the sub is doing (speed, depth, heading). With that intel it can then send in the P8 to localize the contact and if needs be engage the target.


Caribbean wrote:Because the primary purpose of the T31 is not really military - it's to "revive" the UK's military shipbuilding industry and to allow diversification away from relying on a sole supplier. In order to keep that diversified industry running, it needs to export, as the RN cannot provide sufficient orders, on its own, to keep two manufacturers running.
The sooner they realize others wont be buying complete warships from us the better, then we can start coming up with a realistic plan.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Another warfighting role will be to detach from the main group and close with the shore to gather (electronic) intelligence or provide NGFS. However, this role could be provided by other assets.

.
the last document I saw NGFS was specifically mentioned and would make sense rather than risk an ASW or AD asset close inshore

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Caribbean wrote:I would point out that the T23GP doesn't have Captas 2, Mk 41 or ASROC.
Didn't say they did, which is why Mk41 and ASROC are separated out of my post.

Captas 2 is a minimum because hull mounted sonars are no longer enough to maintain parity with the role of the GPs back in the day.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:the last document I saw NGFS was specifically mentioned and would make sense rather than risk an ASW or AD asset close inshore
If its going to get close enough to start shelling a beach it needs to be one real tough cookie, I have little confidence the patrol frigate this is shaping up to be is going to be tough enough.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

type 21 and the ANZACs did ok in Falklands and Al Faw

a good ESM/EW package, CAMM and CIWS. Sub threat how useful is a TASS close inshore?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Type 21 did ok in the Falklands? Two were sank and another got hit by a torpedo and was extremely lucky the torpedo was a dud. Out of the Severn we deployed three took fatal hits, that's an unacceptable rate.

The point of the towed sonar is to release what is arguably the worlds best frigate from the carrier group, and we can stick our tough ass T26 in a higher risk zone, being more confident it will survive than our pimped patrol boats.

The T26 is already the perfect GP frigate, it needs to be used in that role.
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Gabriele wrote:
I also doubt that future RN surface ships will carry lightweight torpedos - far better to deploy them from aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary, manned or otherwise).
This is very likely, but also very stupid. Without a rocket-delivered torpedo and with ships carrying only one helicopter, it means you are able to fire a torpedo only a small percentage of the time, and there is no real snap-response capability. If a sub sneaks past the outer helicopter layer, there is nothing able to annoy it while it wreaks havoc in the group.
It is really quite amazing that after nearly succumbing in two world wars to submarine actions, the RN is again putting itself in the same old spot of unpreparedness.
Quoted for truth. And in the same time, they have mouths full of how they have learnt a lot from their wars... And their CV has no air-defence missiles...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:The point of the towed sonar is to release what is arguably the worlds best frigate from the carrier group, and we can stick our tough ass T26 in a higher risk zone, being more confident it will survive than our pimped patrol boats.

The T26 is already the perfect GP frigate, it needs to be used in that role.
The point of a Towed Sonar on T31 is not to release the T26 from the carrier group.

If you want a ship to take on the ASW role in the carrier group, it will need (roughly):
•the same HMS as T26
•the same towed sonar as T26
•the same sprint speed as T26
•the same endurance as T26
•the same underwater noise reduction features as T26
•the same survivability and design standards as T26
•the same hanger size as T26
•the same air weapon magazine size as T26
•etc.

What you end up with is a ship that costs almost as much as a T26, and way over the budget for the T31.

The point (if there is one) of a towed sonar on T31 would to provide a secondary ASW capability to deter submarines in lower risk scenarios such as APT(S) and close consort escort of RFAs.

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Engaging Strategy »

shark bait wrote:Type 21 did ok in the Falklands? Two were sank and another got hit by a torpedo and was extremely lucky the torpedo was a dud. Out of the Severn we deployed three took fatal hits, that's an unacceptable rate.
Type 21 did it's job. It got sunk, the amphibious ships and carriers whose loss would've resulted in defeat were not. All escorts are ultimately expendable.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Type 21 did it's job. It got sunk, the amphibious ships and carriers whose loss would've resulted in defeat were not. All escorts are ultimately expendable.
With a big help from the Argies, who focused their efforts on the escorts, for who knows what weird reason. Shudder to think what would have happened had they been a little bit smarter.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Gabriele wrote:
Type 21 did it's job. It got sunk, the amphibious ships and carriers whose loss would've resulted in defeat were not. All escorts are ultimately expendable.
With a big help from the Argies, who focused their efforts on the escorts, for who knows what weird reason. Shudder to think what would have happened had they been a little bit smarter.
Agree on both counts which why a low end warship is needed, and why having only one (or even two) of something is stupid. Would still a place for a "picket" ship even today.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Gabriele wrote:With a big help from the Argies, who focused their efforts on the escorts, for who knows what weird reason. Shudder to think what would have happened had they been a little bit smarter.
The escorts in San Carlos water were deliberately placed up threat sp the Argentines would see and attack them first. It was their job to put up fire and make it difficult for them to press the attack all the way to the amphibious ships. It wasn't a case of "being smarter" the escorts mission-killed the aircraft by making the pilots panic, attack the closest target (the escorts) and bug out by using missiles, guns and a hail of small arms and cannon fire.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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 »

A simple question. Why the T21 suffered so much in Flaklands war?

I guess because they were new ship. They were young, so many were deployed (actually HMS Amazon was at gulf, Avenger joined late, and other all available T21 joined the campaign).

With COGOG propulsion, it can sprint much faster than Leanders (boiler-propelled ships), providing better maneuverability, and better survivability. In other words, they might be placed in the most dangerous location? This is my guess, but do anybody know the fact? T21 is nothing worse than Leanders in its AAW weapon and speed. I can find no other reason, actually?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:A simple question. Why the T21 suffered so much in Falklands war?
Wiki:
Criticism was levelled at the performance of the Type 21 Frigate in the Falklands conflict. The ships developed cracks in their decks due to the different expansion properties of steel and aluminium. This was a vulnerability particularly demonstrated under the severe weather conditions that they encountered in the South Atlantic. Steel reinforcing plates were eventually fitted down the sides of the ships. Built to an exacting budget and design specification (and although carrying obsolete anti-aircraft weaponry), they distinguished themselves in a theatre for which they were not designed.

The class was also criticised for being overcrowded - at 384 ft (117 m), they had 177 crewmen compared to 436 ft (133 m) and just 185 crewmen for the modern Type 23 frigate. This was important at a time when the Royal Navy was facing a manpower shortage. The standard of accommodation for the officers was better than the RN average and the senior ratings enjoyed separate cabins – unlike the petty officers of the Type 42 destroyer of the same era, who slept in bunk rooms. The ratings' accommodation was also improved, with four-man sleeping berths leading off from the communal mess deck; again, far better than those of the Type 42 destroyer. In essence, the standard of accommodation and fitting were better, especially for officers, because it was a design intended to attract export orders. It is very little more than a stretched version of the MK 7 Vospers frigate built for third world Libya and, other than the fitting of CAAIS, with its electronic and intended weapon fit essentially the same as the Mk 7 prototype in type or level of sophistication. Higher automation and the new Mk 8 4.5 inch automatic gun combined with, in many ways, a much simpler electronic fit than the Leanders or Type 42, the new Type 21 class lacked both the long range radar, the Type 965, carried by most UK warships or the Limbo mortar and it associated sonar. Inevitably, that meant a much smaller crew than the Leanders, with little capability to modernise (owing to its small size) and already being close to its top weight limit; the Type 21's days were numbered. The several hundred tons of ballast that had to carried low down meant that the frigates could not usually achieve their planned 35 knots speed for any long distance, but the ships were all still good for a dramatic 37 knot burst speed, with two ships claiming to have exceeded 40 knots on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, these ships were regarded favourably by their crews and proved to be highly manoeuvrable and reliable assets in a navy suffering depletion in the number of modern escort hulls.
Image
HMS Amazon (F169), in 1986

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 »

So, in short, look like nothing was wrong in Falklands war (other than the crack, which apparently was not a big issue for a moment). Every shortfall noted above are important only "after" the war.

So, again, why T21 suffered a lot in the war?

Again I think, it has "similar to Leander" armament, better maneuverability, and being young, better availability. But, those merit was not enough to make them survive in the harsh condition they were sent. In other words, the loss of Ardent and Antelope was because they did there best, while keeping the Leanders stay in a bit safer location. This is all guess, so I better like to know where T23 and T12Ms are located at each moment. Are there any good web site or book showing it?

I am not saying T21 was a nice ship. I am just asking if ALL (not only T21) escorts in 1982 was not so good, and only T21 was highlighted. As shown in wiki, all the claim for T21 is those for AFTER the war.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

The escorts in San Carlos water were deliberately placed up threat sp the Argentines would see and attack them first.
That is what escorts will always do, and the Argentines cannot have possibly expected anything different. They chose to attack the escorts first, not just out of some kind of "panic". Repeatedly, they had the chance to go for the troopships or other big, key targets. They did not, and that remains surprising. I wonder if their high command thought they would be able to sink all escorts and get to the other ships later, but by then the stuff was already going to be ashore.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by LordJim »

I fully understand that a modern submarine manned by a well trained crew, properly maintained and supported by other naval and ISTAR assets is a threat to the RN, but how many countries meet this criteria, and are likely to be opponents the RN is going to have to face alone? I have noticed in the past that there are a number of persons who believe that unless the RN is returned to the size it was at the end of the Cold War and comprises of high end escorts it might as well stay in port because it would be too dangerous to leave because somewhere in the world there might be a submarine that bears us ill will.

Yes we cannot afford to lose vessels but in an all out war it will happen. For all we know the enemy will use a nuclear tipped ASM and wipe out our CVBG in one go. Our CVBG will be used as a NATO assets a lot of the time and its escort group will be substantially greater then when operating as a solely UK asset. It will have a SSN operating with it even if never admitted, as this will be their 2nd most important task after safeguarding our CASD leaving on and returning from patrol. We might be short of assets but the CVBG will get everything we can find to protect it at the detriment of all other commitments when it deploys, we have to for unlimited political as well as military reasons.

The T-31 will not be a cannon fodder picket ship if operating with the CVBG. Its AA defence will be comparable to the T-26 and it will provide an additional home for a Merlin or Wildcat. Remember the USN attached Perrys to its CVBGs and the French regularly had a A-69 as part of there carriers escort force.

If we are going to become paranoid about the bogeyman submarines the T-26 should be turned into a single role ASW escort, remove the mission bay and increase the number of Mk41s, allocate them totally to holding VL ASROC and provide an extended hanger to house both a Merlin And Wildcat. In addition we should only ever have 12 F-35s on the CV as the remaining space is need for ASW helos. In fact maybe we should get the F-35s carrying ASW Torpedoes as a fast react force. It has he computing power so maybe it could carry sonarbouys as well as be the would first carrier borne, single seat MPA!

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Gabriele wrote:That is what escorts will always do, and the Argentines cannot have possibly expected anything different. They chose to attack the escorts first, not just out of some kind of "panic". Repeatedly, they had the chance to go for the troopships or other big, key targets. They did not, and that remains surprising. I wonder if their high command thought they would be able to sink all escorts and get to the other ships later, but by then the stuff was already going to be ashore.
You forget just how difficult it was to identify and attack the right target. The pilot had seconds after coming over the hills to identify and strike the ships. Most attacked the closest target rather than the optimal one.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

The T-31 will not be a cannon fodder picket ship if operating with the CVBG. Its AA defence will be comparable to the T-26 and it will provide an additional home for a Merlin or Wildcat.
But why build a ship that will cost a lot for doing so little, then? Why has it to be a "frigate" when the same capability can be embarked on a more useful, boxy hull that would offer that much more flexibility? Just because a sleek grey vessel looks nicer and makes a few knots more?
And why money should be wasted on at least partial duplication when a new class of ships starts appearing to replace MCM and Survey?
It is always the same basic point: yes, we know it won't be useless. Very few things are completely useless. But many things are overpriced and ill thought out for what they do, especially if no thought is given to what is meant to follow and how the two things can best complete each other.

Mind you, it is a syndrome that does not affect only the Royal Navy. In Italy we build the excellent frigate/LHD, but only for export, aiming instead for the PPA for our own use. The PPA is fantastic in some areas, but uselessly hairbrained in others.
The Type 31, by the looks of it, won't even have the good things and innovations of the PPA, but literally just a step into the past. A ship less capable than those it replaces, and absolutely flattened on "existing".
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:But why build a ship that will cost a lot for doing so little, then? Why has it to be a "frigate" when the same capability can be embarked on a more useful, boxy hull that would offer that much more flexibility?
Because it is cheaper than your idea. Same standard, smaller hull, with no well-dock, no long-vehicle deck = cheap, better fuel efficiency, and more tolerable to attack even built to the same standard.
Just because a sleek grey vessel looks nicer and makes a few knots more?
Good point. T31 need not to be sleek. Look Venator 110, Vard7-110, both a very fat vessel.
And why money should be wasted on at least partial duplication when a new class of ships starts appearing to replace MCM and Survey?
Good point. Here, I propose to build MHC on "more" cheaper hull, as PSV like, so without high speed. Also I think T31 must not have large mission bay/deck (small one is needed). So, in my mind, T31 and MHC are very different.
But if MHC is to be MH"P"C, I agree that it has duplication with T31.
Mind you, it is a syndrome that does not affect only the Royal Navy. In Italy we build the excellent frigate/LHD, but only for export, aiming instead for the PPA for our own use. The PPA is fantastic in some areas, but uselessly hairbrained in others.
Sorry, I think you are proposing to "arm Bay-class". Correct? (which is exactly what Algerian navy did). But, it has large hull and large vehicle-deck/well-dock = fuel in-efficient, easy to be hit, and very vulnerable. I am not yet convinced with this idea. What is the merit there?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Because it is cheaper than your idea. Same standard, smaller hull, with no well-dock, no long-vehicle deck = cheap, better fuel efficiency, and more tolerable to attack even built to the same standard.
Most likely no, it isn't any cheapter, actually. Algeria paid its LHD-frigate an amount of money directly comparable to the target price for Type 31. And it included ammunition and training, both things that Type 31 doesn't really include as the first comes through other budget lines and the second through yet another.
Finally, we know what usually happens with target prices. Type 26 itself started out at 350 million, remember...?
Sorry, I think you are proposing to "arm Bay-class". Correct? (which is exactly what Algerian navy did). But, it has large hull and large vehicle-deck/well-dock = fuel in-efficient, easy to be hit, and very vulnerable. I am not yet convinced with this idea. What is the merit there?
The merits are:

- Where disaster rellief is the mission, it has space to carry people and stores and means to bring them ashore. Significant help, unlike what a frigate can carry.

- A greater flight deck and space for carrying multiple helicopters / UAVs to better respond to the mission. Counter-piracy to counter-smuggling to blockade of Libya or Somalia (the scenarios offered for a "war" use of Type 31, in other words) would all benefit from carrying boats, helicopters and Marines.

- Adds amphibious lift and greater flexibility of role.

- In task group ops, rather than adding a lillypad for a single helo, it can sustain more helicopters and leave space on the carrier for more jets.

- Once armed with a main gun and CAMM and related sensors, it has exactly the same weapons fit.

- Vulnerability. So, what? You are willing to load invaluable resources on the amphibs, with exactly the same level of survivability. Also, we have already been told that Type 31 will cut back in this area to achieve savings, so how much better will it actually be? It will also likely be a CODAD propulsion, probably not much on the sprinter side, so that we actually don't know how much actual "advantage" there might be.
Also again, the RN desperately needs to reassess what it really needs in terms of survivability when hit, and what can realistically be achieved in this area. They are paying a whole lot of money to protect the crew, and that is very noble, but any kind of damage that would sink a lower standard ship will mean, at the very least, a mission kill on the higher standard vessel.
You have to decide, very urgently, how many more hulls you are willing to lose in order to pursue a survivability that might save lives but that will ultimately still cost the war as you will run out of ships very, very quickly.
Also, passive survivability standards so far have effectively come at the expense of investment in decoys, active protection, sensors and weaponry. All of these are being cut back more and more, making it more likely that the ship will be hit in the first place.
Obsession with these mythical standards will end up meaning little. It already does on Type 45, which is horribly vulnerable to loss of power from battle damage (or simple failure) despite all the capital expended into separate machinery spaces and bla-bla-bla.

I also remain supremely unconvinced about these mythological RN "special" standards that supposedly go above and beyond what happens in other navies.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Post Reply