Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[GibMariner]

So now we know the name of the T26 class what about the T31?

The trend seems to be to release the name on the day the first steel is cut, so until (if?) that happens, it's likely we won't know.

Say they select a variant of the Venator what about names starting with a V?

First ship in class being HMS Venator then how's about Vulcan, Valiant, Victor, Viking ?
Last ones a stretch mind you. 4 of them being RAF aircraft (Viking trainer?) Give the ship's association with RAF squadrons that used to fly said aircraft?

Just because BMT calls it 'Venator' doesn't mean they would have to start with a V in service, besides, we could still have some members of the current 'V-class' in service when (if?) this class enters service.
However, Venator would be a good name for an ASW frigate. Valiant would be a waste of a good capital ship name. The other two have some precedence as RN warships.

[Pseudo]

Bare with me, about to type in total guff.

So now we know the name of the T26 class what about the T31?

Say they select a variant of the Venator what about names starting with a V?

First ship in class being HMS Venator then how's about Vulcan, Valiant, Victor, Viking ?
Last ones a stretch mind you. 4 of them being RAF aircraft (Viking trainer?) Give the ship's association with RAF squadrons that used to fly said aircraft?

Given the alphabetical naming conventions they'll likely be an 'H' class. I'm tending towards either a Battle-class starting with HMS Hogue or an Admiral-class starting with HMS Hawke, Hardy or Hood. I quite like the idea of the latter because I think an HMS Woodward would be quite fitting.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Hood

PoW was already stretching it. Aside the topic, is there any background to Adm. Z disappearing from the scene as quickly as the TF "Z"? Or was I again somewhere else when the news made it to print...

[Ron5]

As far as I know, Zambellas is happily retired. Don't remember any stories about him joining industry or anything similar.

[LordJim]

With PoW and now Hood should we look at other famous Ships sunk by enemy action to form the class

[donald_of_tokyo]

From T31 news thread...

Produce a T31 with half the crew requirement of the T23, and that creates lots of space for combat systems within the same footprint.
Sure, it wont be a world beating multi mission frigate, so I will again reiterate the T31 needs to be a focused specialist platform. Its not possible to combine many roles into a light frigate and maintain our high performance standards. It is possible to build a specialist high performance light frigate.
A T23 sized platform with 100 crew focusing on ASW will make a fine addition to the carrier group. Like wise a A T23 sized platform with 100 crew focusing on NGFS will make a fine addition to the wider fleet.

Yup, lets pick an arbitrary dimension to design around. How about height? or draft? or bunkerage? There's plenty more: speed, SHP, beam...

1: We are not naval architect, so we shall start from existing designs.

- FREMM-(fr). unit cost 580M GBP, avegare cost 750M GBP.
Displacement: 6,000 t FLD, Size: 142x20m, Draught: 5 m, Crew; 108 (incl flight)*1
CODLOG (32MW GT) +27kt (15.6kt DL), Range 6000nmi@15kt, Endurance 45 days,
76mm G, 16 Aster 15 SAM, 16 SCALP-N, 8 Exocet MM40b3, 4 AS Torpedo tubes,
1 NH90, CAPTAS4, UMS 4110 Hull sonar.

*1 (Is this reliable?) https://www.naval-group.com/en/news/dcn ... ench-navy/

- FTI (fr):*2. unit cost 470M(?) GBP, avegare cost 660M GBP.
Displacement: 4,250 t FLD, Size: 122x17.7m,
CODAD 32MW +27kt, Range 5000nmi@15kt, Crew; 125 (incl 15 flight)
76mm G, 16 Aster-30(or 15) SAM, 8 Exocet MM40b3, 4 AS Torpedo tubes,
1 NH90, CAPTAS4CI, Kingklip Mark II Hull sonar.

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

2: Analysis
CODLOG need more engine space than CODAD. FREMM carries 16 SCALP. This will be the reason for the size difference of 1750t (40% larger). So, T31 shall have cheaper CODAD propultion. Also note that FREMM has smaller crew size. Thus, I do not think automation will make the ship smaller, because at the same time it requires many systems to be added (to compensate lack of crew).

Start from FREMM, and take off 16 SCALP missiles, and change CODLOG to CODAD. Maybe 5000t size?

Start from FTI, we can reduce the size of 16 Aster-30 to 24 CAMM, but replace 76mm gun with 127 mm. I guess we can have a 4000t hull for "ASW capable" version of T31 (but with CODAD propulsion), like Venator 110. (note both FREMM and FTI can carry 127mm gun if you like, but it does not mean it will NOT reduce the CoG/future growth margin).

There is no spcace for mission-bay on T31-ASW. In other words, the space used as a hangar and for CAPTAS4CI is the "mission bay", which carries ASW system as a "mission", in this case. I have no problem here, considering ther are so many "mission bays/decks" in RN fleet (CVF, T26, River B2, Bay ...).

How much will this design cost? It is equivalent to FTI. For 5 of it, French payed 3.8B Euro = 3.3B GBP. I am sure UK need to pay more, because French is paying a lot to their ship building industry historically and can enjoy its "fruits", while UK did not.

Because it is 5 hulls, design cost (+ training curve effect) amounts to ~30% of the total cost. Thus, thnking of 3000t FLD ship as a T31 as a 6 hull program, is NOT a totaly bad idea. We will need to omit some armaments onboard the above assumption (= 127mm G, 8 NSM, 24 CAMM, 1 Wildcat, 1 CAPTAS4CI), but smaller size means smaller unit cost, smaller design cost and larger merit from training curve. I believe it is worth discussing.

[LordJim]

The RN really needs to remove NGFS from the core capabilities of the T-31.

[marktigger]

The RN really needs to remove NGFS from the core capabilities of the T-31.

Why?
\The T45 will be to busy trying to provide airdefence arround the fleet and the T26 will be to busy being the ASW platform around the fleet. The T31 is likely to be working as a single ship in enviroment where NGFS could be required for training. Having a single main gun type makes sense in terms of support economics,logistics and training. Putting a 30mm which will be the only other weapon available will effectivly make it an Offshore patrol vessel with a very expensive missile defence. NGFS is a capability that is more than likely to be used during the frigates lifetime.

[Digger22]

You wouldn't use a T45/26 for NGFS would you? Too high a value unit for that surely. That said i can't actually see anywhere a published required spec for T31.

[donald_of_tokyo]

All tasks shall be reviewed. Let's start from NGFS.

I believe, before NGFS starts, almost all major land-based long-range anti-ship weapons shall be almost neutralized by F35B and TLAM.

In Falkland war, UK needed to land the troops even though there still is a air-raid. But, did they had any reaction from the ground? The reason HMS Ardent was lost is because of using "not well armed vessel" in singleton (this is my understanding). T45 or T26 can do it much better. Why not use them, while letting the TF escort covered by T31s? Sending a lightly armed T31 in danger for NGFS is not a good idea. If the theater is even danger for T45/26, why you can send a T31?

The case when T31 "could" be sent for NGFS, as I assume, is when the enemy effectively do NOT have air-force, nor long-range anti-ship missiles. In this case, TF is safe, so again sending T45/T26 for NGFS and T31 for escort is not a bad idea.

Thus, the only case T31 "will" do NGFS, as I assume, is when it is the minor area for UK and there is only a T31 in the vicinity = no T45 nor T26 around, and only LPDs are there with a single T31 (Sierra Leone like). This means the enemy is weak. In this case, T31 will do NGFS. Some ASMs launched from hidden site can be handled with even only 12 CAMM (or even a 20mm CIWS). So, yes, T31 is "happy" to have 127mm gun, I agree.

For small-scale pin-point land attack (against terrorists), NGFS may not be used for collateral damage point of view in many cases. Wildcat with LMM (and possibly SPEAR3 in future) can do it, as well as the NSM in land attack mode.

So, NGFS is it the top priority armament? I do not think so. May be having 3 "gun frigate T31" for (minor) NGFS will be fine, while the other 3 "can-do ASW T31" may omit it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Wildcat with LMM (and possibly SPEAR3 in future) can do it, as well as the NSM in land attack mode.

The navy is procuring missiles for their Wildcats that have been designed for littoral use, ie. are land target capable.

having 3 "gun frigate T31" for (minor) NGFS will be fine, while the other 3 "can-do ASW T31" may omit it.

- the idea is not as crazy as it sounds, as then there would always be at least one "ASW" available in home waters
- the other 3 could provide at least one on station in the Gulf/ Indian Ocean as
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l0y5XtQw2lI/ ... raffic.jpg save for the Gulf of Guinea the pinch points of major SLOCs are watched and secured by friendly and competent navies. Taking this idea further, on of the three can be forward based in the area on a fixed rotation (instead of the MCM way of doing things, where the presence is by rotating crews). "Permanent" here as opposed to the "Big Guns" of the RN turning up every now and then.

[ArmChairCivvy]

RE: RN Wildcat numbers. While the Merlins are very tightly stretched across various types of models (for varying duties), out of the 28 Wildcats one can
-give one to the T45s each (though they rarely carry it)
- one as a utility/ liaison copter for each carrier
- for the patrol type of T31 (see above post) one each
- convert 8 to light attack role for the RM/ SF
... that is still just 19 out of 28, so the availability (%) should be doable, with brand new machines

And for those 8 that would be an integral part of joint ops, buy the TDL, as per what The Register describes in Feb of this year (so must still be the case, even though the deletion was decided in 2008)
"Although the new Leonardo Wildcat helicopters have already been deployed operationally aboard Royal Navy warships, including deployments as the sole helicopter aboard frigates patrolling overseas, they do not have a tactical data link (TDL) capability allowing them to transmit data to other units.

Instead, crews must use a USB stick after landing to transfer data collected by the Wildcat's radar and camera systems to its host ship. The only other alternative, at present, is for the crew to call out contacts over the radio by voice – just as Fleet Air Arm observers did during the Second World War.

Air International magazine reported in its February issue that although Wildcat HMA2s are fitted with the Bowman secure voice radio system, the helicopters still lack the TDL capability fitted to other frontline naval and military helicopters such as the Merlin and Puma."

[marktigger]

All tasks shall be reviewed. Let's start from NGFS.

I believe, before NGFS starts, almost all major land-based long-range anti-ship weapons shall be almost neutralized by F35B and TLAM.

In Falkland war, UK needed to land the troops even though there still is a air-raid. But, did they had any reaction from the ground? The reason HMS Ardent was lost is because of using "not well armed vessel" in singleton (this is my understanding). T45 or T26 can do it much better. Why not use them, while letting the TF escort covered by T31s? Sending a lightly armed T31 in danger for NGFS is not a good idea. If the theater is even danger for T45/26, why you can send a T31?

The case when T31 "could" be sent for NGFS, as I assume, is when the enemy effectively do NOT have air-force, nor long-range anti-ship missiles. In this case, TF is safe, so again sending T45/T26 for NGFS and T31 for escort is not a bad idea.

Thus, the only case T31 "will" do NGFS, as I assume, is when it is the minor area for UK and there is only a T31 in the vicinity = no T45 nor T26 around, and only LPDs are there with a single T31 (Sierra Leone like). This means the enemy is weak. In this case, T31 will do NGFS. Some ASMs launched from hidden site can be handled with even only 12 CAMM (or even a 20mm CIWS). So, yes, T31 is "happy" to have 127mm gun, I agree.

For small-scale pin-point land attack (against terrorists), NGFS may not be used for collateral damage point of view in many cases. Wildcat with LMM (and possibly SPEAR3 in future) can do it, as well as the NSM in land attack mode.

So, NGFS is it the top priority armament? I do not think so. May be having 3 "gun frigate T31" for (minor) NGFS will be fine, while the other 3 "can-do ASW T31" may omit it.

Ok lets put this in simple

T45 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with airdefence
T26 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with ASW defence
TLAM there will be enough to attach strategic targets
F35 will be trying to provide Airdefence and attack strategic targets
Apache there will be enough provide some suppport for limited periods
Artillery and NGFS can provide support on call for much longer periods than any of the above in the case of raids its unlikely guns will be deployed ashore.

As to wildcat carrying out any form of gunship operation that would provide only some .50 browning fire

adding the 76mm adds to much to the logistics and support chain to justify the expence. having to retrain crew on posting between vessels is an unnecessary complication!

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks for response, Mark-san

Ok lets put this in simple
T45 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with airdefence
T26 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with ASW defence
TLAM there will be enough to attach strategic targets
F35 will be trying to provide Airdefence and attack strategic targets

As I said, in this sever condition, there will be no landing operation. So no NGFS needed. Thus, only a little need for T31 to carry 127mm gun (= when RN follow the same approach as they did with HMS Antrim, putting light-frigates in very high risk. Note RN did it in Falklands war, like HMS Alacrity going though the strait to see there is no mine...).

Apache there will be enough provide some suppport for limited periods
Artillery and NGFS can provide support on call for much longer periods than any of the above in the case of raids its unlikely guns will be deployed ashore.

No objection. That is why I am not proposing to take-off the guns from T45s and T26s.

As to wildcat carrying out any form of gunship operation that would provide only some .50 browning fire

Do you mean the LMM option was omitted? I couldn't find its info...

adding the 76mm adds to much to the logistics and support chain to justify the expence. having to retrain crew on posting between vessels is an unnecessary complication!

Partly agree. In any case 57 mm or 76 mm gun to be added to RN equipments, it is when
- MHCs are getting it, in place of CAMM. Omitting CAMM from MHC is highly likely I guess, because it is expensive. In that case, if they need some "punch" and "AAW self-defence", 57/76 mm guns will come. If no "punch" nor "AAW", they will simply carry 30mm guns. In between there is a possibility to carry a 20mm CIWS in rotation, along with 30 mm guns.
- Only if MHCs are armed with 57/76 mm guns, then the T31-ASWs can be armed with the same gun, I think.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good list there, allow me to do the in-line commenting

T45 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with airdefence TICK
T26 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with ASW defence TICK
TLAM there will be enough to attach strategic targets (if we can locate any) TICK

F35 will be trying to provide Airdefence and attack strategic targets
- there is the rub: keeping two up (no need to rearm, just to refuel and potentially change pilots in-between so call it 4 sorties/ac/day = x number of sorties in all from the 24 embarked, making for a serious dent in any other capabilities available
- a work-around could be with the 24/7 Crowsnest covering more than the narrow radar angle (360 for sensors is not the same as 360 for radar) and also being the hub for the interface to the carrier, rather than loading its overall capacity with two separate, mainly AD channels
- that would let just one F-35 be in the air, and another - because of the limited A2A loadout - sitting ready on the tarmac; sorry , deck
Apache there will be enough provide some support for limited periods
- the operative word "limited" not just for endurance/ persistence, but also for a useful range when fully loaded
Artillery and NGFS can provide support on call for much longer periods than any of the above in the case of raids
- anything less than a full BG being a raid, really

[marktigger]

Donald do you know what sort of warhead is on LMM? because its explosive yeild will be considerably less than a 127mm projectile.

if you note the Royal navy got rid of the otomalara many years ago and hasn't rushed back to it. They have also over the last number of decades consolidated their shipboard guns......I wonder why? ease of training, simplicity of logistics and expense of carrying multiple sets of spare parts springs to mind.

of course you have evidence that the MHC will get them as I suspect they will stick with the 30mm again for logistical and cost reasons. Given the Type 31 will probably be in service before the new MHC as I suspect the Hunts will soldier on for a good few years before they are replaced.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Do you mean the LMM option was omitted? I couldn't find its info...

You're looking in the wrong place. This was a month ago (txt be Jane's, bolding added so that it is easier to read between the lines):

the test was the first of a series of Sea Venom/ANL qualification flights.

Sea Venom/ANL is a 110 kg-class high-subsonic, drop-launch sea-skimming missile incorporating an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker (with space and weight provisions for an additional semi-active laser [SAL] guidance channel), a two-way datalink for operator-in-the-loop control, and a 30 kg semi-armour-piercing blast/fragmentation warhead.

[marktigger]

A good list there, allow me to do the in-line commenting

T45 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with airdefence TICK
T26 there are barely enough to provide the carriers with ASW defence TICK
TLAM there will be enough to attach strategic targets (if we can locate any) TICK

F35 will be trying to provide Airdefence and attack strategic targets
- there is the rub: keeping two up (no need to rearm, just to refuel and potentially change pilots in-between so call it 4 sorties/ac/day = x number of sorties in all from the 24 embarked, making for a serious dent in any other capabilities available
- a work-around could be with the 24/7 Crowsnest covering more than the narrow radar angle (360 for sensors is not the same as 360 for radar) and also being the hub for the interface to the carrier, rather than loading its overall capacity with two separate, mainly AD channels
- that would let just one F-35 be in the air, and another - because of the limited A2A loadout - sitting ready on the tarmac; sorry , deck
Apache there will be enough provide some support for limited periods
- the operative word "limited" not just for endurance/ persistence, but also for a useful range when fully loaded
Artillery and NGFS can provide support on call for much longer periods than any of the above in the case of raids
- anything less than a full BG being a raid, really

I totally agree with you re F35 just like the harriers in 82 ground attack will be a secondry mission and only on important targets. one issue you also missed with the F35 is range and performance issues will they need AAR support to be viable and will that be buddy tanking?
Apache is limited by range to payload issues and Wildcat the same possibly suicidal operations.
You are unlikely to see guns deployed ashore for a raid so NGFS becomes the only viable option for on call support over a number of hours.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Given the Type 31 will probably be in service before the new MHC as I suspect the Hunts will soldier on for a good few years before they are replaced.

That interval we can judge better when we get to see what (if anything) will be housed under the T31 helo deck.

[marktigger]

That interval we can judge better when we get to see what (if anything) will be housed under the T31 helo deck.

depending on the design chosen

[ArmChairCivvy]

will that be buddy tanking?

The crux of the matter with QECs is sortie generation.
- in multi-mode that will be further curtailed (for fast jets)
- to cover an Ops area when an amph. landing in its initial stages is being supported involves a lot of short ranged strike missions
... and a lot of loitering
- when the weapon load has not been expended, it is this the alternative cost in whatever dimension you calculate it that will provide the justification for a few Ospreys (as tankers; they don't lift much, but they won't need to go far, either. A petrol station with longer hoses, so to say: you can fill up on either side and the throughput goes up)
- and once we have them, they will be the asset for deep SF missions and/or CSAR

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald do you know what sort of warhead is on LMM? because its explosive yeild will be considerably less than a 127mm projectile.

That's why I am NOT against T26 carrying 127mm gun. Also, LMM's guided and smaller warhead means small collateral damage, makes it a better weapon for anti-terrorists attack. I am not saying a Wildcat/LMM will replace 127mm gun. I am saying T31 will rather do Wildcat/LMM job more frequently than NGFS.

if you note the Royal navy got rid of the otomalara many years ago and hasn't rushed back to it. They have also over the last number of decades consolidated their shipboard guns......I wonder why? ease of training, simplicity of logistics and expense of carrying multiple sets of spare parts springs to mind.

Agree. I just remember you said 57/76 may come in as OPV or MHC main weapon, and I am not against it. This is what I meant.

of course you have evidence that the MHC will get them as I suspect they will stick with the 30mm again for logistical and cost reasons. Given the Type 31 will probably be in service before the new MHC as I suspect the Hunts will soldier on for a good few years before they are replaced.

Yes. So, as you can see, I do not propose to carry 76 mm gun in T31-ASW version. Just no mid-calibre guns will be the default. Like T22B1/2s or Leander Batch2/3B mods.

[ArmChairCivvy]

depending on the design chosen

It really is a zero/ one type of question:
- if there is no kind of mission deck (not speculating on multi-mission a la TAS/ ROVs/ boats),
then
- the MH(P)Cs will be needed earlier than otherwise

-----------
The "P" is of course T31+the better Rivers

[ArmChairCivvy]

T22B1/2s or Leander Batch2/3B mods.

Were they good?

[donald_of_tokyo]

T22B1/2s or Leander Batch2/3B mods.

Were they good?

As an ASW frigate, I understand they were good, much better than T21. As a tool for NGFS, of course not.