Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Read "Blind mans bluff" operation Ivy bells

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

seaspear wrote:Read "Blind mans bluff" operation Ivy bells
Have read that book many moons ago very interesting read, I believe that the Russians still have the undersea tapping machine on show in a museum, funny thing was that they didn't have to look too far as to who put it there as it was marked US government property, did they think they were going to get it back when discovered :clap: :clap:

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Perhaps they did not have to look far as there was a traitor in the U.S intelligence service who told the Russians

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

seaspear wrote:Perhaps they did not have to look far as there was a traitor in the U.S intelligence service who told the Russians
Perhaps so, but the only reason they found the undersea cable tapping machines was because they actully accident cut it but landing on it,

Must have been nerve racking being well inside the 12 mile limit having to retrieve and replace tape recordings

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Lord Jim wrote: HomeEquipmentRoyal Navy
Lord Jim wrote:Where there is a will there is a way, and given how much both China and Russia are investing in these areas, as they see them as one of the West's greatest vulnerabilities, and given the number of out of work Russian subs, if it far from inconceivable for the Russians to put a server farm inside a Typhoon hull, equip it with remote submersibles, park alongside/over an undersea cable, uncover it and use some sort of gadget to splice into the cable whist causing the minimum of disruption to the flow of data. Very Tom Clancy but stranger things have happened, just read about how the CIA contracted Howard Hughes to retrieve a sunken Russian submarine in the deep ocean, covertly.
plot of a 80's detective program "CATS Eyes" but was criminals diverting money from stock market

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

albedo wrote:Trying to access the land-based ends (eg the terminal equipment) of the cable strikes me as substantially easier as an option. For basic details see eg:

https://sites.google.com/site/bit4554fi ... w-it-works

Quite content to be proved wrong, but I do seriously wonder if it still isn't in the realm of 007 in practice.
Your find here demonstrates the challenges of engineering such a cable. OTDR would find a cut in a cable pretty quickly. I can't imagine not knowing a cable had been spliced and where the splice was...... but do the private operators care if the cable miraculously repairs itself? Personally unless a repeater was tapped I am struggling to work out how to tap and even then repeaters (if I recollect correctly were for amplification and not a joint unless essential.) So still hard to imagine.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Ron5 wrote:CAMM VLS cell dimensions are governed by the missile width over its fins and not the diameter of the missile body. In other words, the cell diagonal width has to be such that the fin tip to fin tip distance will fit.

Both CAMM and CAMM-ER have the same fin tip to fin tip dimension (remembering that the tail fins are folded in the cell).

So from a width point of view, both missiles will fit the same cell. In fact the CAMM-ER container/launcher is just a longer version of the standard CAMM container. About a meter longer.

As for the original observation that CAMM-ER is superior so should be fitted. Well yes and no. The CAMM missile system key requirement is to destroy anti-ship missiles which may be first detected at very short ranges. So quick response, high agility and a short minimum engagement distance is vital.

CAMM-ER has roughly double the minimum engagement distance. Not good.
Thanks for that - interesting - 'CAMM-ER has roughly double the minimum engagement distance' . Do you have a source ? Even so I still hold that we will be missing a trick if we dont fit a silo system that will be able to accommodate both CAMM and CAMM-ER in the same way that the Sylver VLS on the T45's can handle both Aster 15 and Aster 30. The cost difference should be pretty much negligible if we design it in from the start.

Interesting that reports suggest that the Italians are planning to replace Aster 15 with CAMM when they reach their sell by date. Given the shortage of T45 if we fit a VLS to our other escorts that can handle CAMM-ER length missiles it will give us the option of having a long range - medium range mix depending on the threat, if we dont it wont. Also following the Italian decision I believe that CAMM-ER has got to be the way forward for the RA too.

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Range isn't everything. If you look at the Falklands, which missile would you select to protect your ship: long range Sea Dart or very short range Sea Wolf?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

Ron5 wrote:Range isn't everything. If you look at the Falklands, which missile would you select to protect your ship: long range Sea Dart or very short range Sea Wolf?

If building from scratch both with a 4.5 MK8 a couple of 40mm bofors, 20 mm oerlikon and 20mm phalanx. with space for Blowpipe and lotss of GPMG, LMG and SLR

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 »

marktigger wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Range isn't everything. If you look at the Falklands, which missile would you select to protect your ship: long range Sea Dart or very short range Sea Wolf?
If building from scratch both with a 4.5 MK8 a couple of 40mm bofors, 20 mm oerlikon and 20mm phalanx. with space for Blowpipe and lotss of GPMG, LMG and SLR
But, it will just result in 30% less number of hulls. At least in San Carlos, SeaWolf will be much needed.

<What if>
1: what if ALL RN escorts were equipped with 20mm CIWS? Maybe ALL Argentina aircrafts will be shot down in a single attack?

2: more practically, MANPADS (blowpipe or stinger, at that days) and 40 mm guns, which were more effective?

P.S. Actually, I'm wondering what if RM was equipped with hundreds of Stinger MANPADs ? May be, low-level incoming Argentina aircrafts will be shot down more easily? But, this is unrelated to the topic now & here, sorry.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
P.S. Actually, I'm wondering what if RM was equipped with hundreds of Stinger MANPADs ? May be, low-level incoming Argentina aircrafts will be shot down more easily? But, this is unrelated to the topic now & here, sorry.
being a Tail chaser shot down after hitting their targets

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Presumably range comes into play for Area Defence. Pongoglo are you wanting these on the T26s or T31es?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

To change the topic and pose a question. Given that currently the 8 T26s will primarily be tied up with CSG escorting and TAPS, is there a way to get better use of these “expensive” assets?

As per the T31 Fantasy thread, I’m thinking if we could build a series of semi autonomous “cheap” ASW ships (call the, T27s for argument sake) to sail in a combined groups, say two T27s to a T26. The T27 could be based on an evolution of the existing RV Triton design, primarily with a TAS, ASW tubes and limited self defence weapons, no hanger but deck space to refuel a Merlin, and with a small (<20) crew. It would need to be fast enough to keep up with the CSG and T26, and would primarily operate 10-20nm away from the T26 mothership. Aim for a £100mn cost per ship.

This would allow a single T26/T27 combo to protect the CSG in “peacetime” requiring 3 groups in rotation. It would also free up 5 T26s to cover standing commitments in the North Atlantic and East of Suez.

Alternatively, we could pair the T27s with the T45s, giving a larger protected AAW umbrella from the CSG and freeing up the T26s completely for other activities...
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

First off all I'm not sure what "semi-autonomous with a small crew (<20)" really means. Do you mean a very higly automated ship?

To burst your bubble, there a number of very difficult challenges for such as design and there is no way it would be cheap.

For ASW in a carrier group it would need a propulsion system that can provide high speed "sprint" (>24 kts) and silent "drift" at 12-15 kts. Such a system will never be cheap, requires constant supervision and frequent maintenance/ inspections. Operating such a system in an autonomous vessel (or even "semi-autonomous") would be a 'world first' achievement.

The ship would need a quiet hull form, which again would be a world first for a trimaran.

Even for a fully autonomous ship, as it would be providing a mission critical defence for the carrier group, it would still need a high degree survivability. So it would need a similar degree of air defence to the T26 (sea ceptar, phalanx, decoys, ESM, Artisan radar, etc.) Operating such a system in an autonomous vessel (or "semi-autonomous") would be a yet another 'world first' and as before these system will never be cheap, require constant supervision and frequent maintenance/ inspections.

There would no doubt be similar issues for surface defence.

Damage control with a crew of less than 20 would be almost impossible.

For ASW ops, the ship would need to operate 50 to maybe 100 nm away from the 'mothership'. The datalink over such a distance would be very challenging to say the least.

Good luck trying to develop and build all that for less than £1billion a pop.

I think this idea should be taken back to where it belongs in the fantasy thread.

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 »

Repulse wrote:As per the T31 Fantasy thread, I’m thinking if we could build a series of semi autonomous “cheap” ASW ships (call the, T27s for argument sake) to sail in a combined groups, say two T27s to a T26. The T27 could be based on an evolution of the existing RV Triton design, primarily with a TAS, ASW tubes and limited self defence weapons, no hanger but deck space to refuel a Merlin, and with a small (<20) crew. It would need to be fast enough to keep up with the CSG and T26, and would primarily operate 10-20nm away from the T26 mothership. Aim for a £100mn cost per ship.
My view of "semi autonomous “cheap” ASW ships".
- to just steam with CVTF, 2000t hull is enough (I suspect it is the Helo operation, and crew tiredness, requiring 4000t hull).
- start from River B2, and make the diesel engine "rafted" = so-so quiet hull.
- rip-off the cranes and shift the flight deck forward, and locate CAPTAS4 VDS part astern
By forgetting the passive part, make the system quite simple. In this case, no need for wide-band link (multi-static ASW is network heavy in passive part only), no need for hi-level analysis machine (the same). But, Sea Sentor torpedo-defnese system (soft-kill) is must, ESM and chaff/flare launcher is also MUST (since no reload is possible, maybe 3-sets will be needed). 20mm CIWS "may be, but not sure (do we really want to mount a so-so strong firepower on remote operating system?).

Even with this limited capabilities, £100mn cost per ship may not be easy...

We shall start with 4 of them, to be coupled with 2 or 4 T26.
- "1 drone + 1 T26" pair or "2 drones + 1 T26" trio, which is better ? How far these drones will be located ? (I think 5nm or less). How frequently a "manned maintenance" will be needed ? (I think once in a week).
- adding passive part (and broad-band data link) to 1 of the 4 drones, and verify its capability. If good, add it to the other 3, as well.


These test/trials will be much more needed.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Aethulwulf wrote:I think this idea should be taken back to where it belongs in the fantasy thread.
Fair enough will do so. The point I’m making is primarily that in the Triton design the RN has a ready platform which would be more stable, cheaper and by design (given the trimaran design) more robust than the T31 being proposed.

The semi-autonomous comment is as you say ultimately a very highly automated manned warship, where the crew are focused on primarily maintenance, navigation in complex environments and self defence. If we removed the passive role as @Donald-san suggests and just went for a TAS in active mode then would “silenced” rafted engines be enough - it could be.
”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

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I think what you are after is an array that can be deployed at some distance from a Type 26 which could transmit its data back to mother.

I can image (fantasize) a few ways this could be done. Not all require a surface ship.

Some are in service.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:I can image (fantasize) a few ways this could be done. Not all require a surface ship.
Some are in service.
What type? Actually, I have no idea of such a asset in service.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I can image (fantasize) a few ways this could be done. Not all require a surface ship.
Some are in service.
What type? Actually, I have no idea of such a asset in service.
I guess one being the Merlin and I believe small UUV designs are being looked at. The point I would make is that none of these can combine all of the following: speed, endurance (on station more than a few hours) and ability to add to a CSG / EEZ defensive layer.

Without going too far into fantasy territory, the key point I’m making is by adding highly connected “Picket Frigates” could offer a “cheaper” way to add significant layered defence around a HUV or UK/BOT EEZ without tying up “expensive” ships such as the T26s. Adding Artisan, CAMM and CEC to the picket also would increase the cost, but would allow for an even higher level of defence. By making the picket ships autonomous or at least highly automated allows the overall design to be simplified in areas of crew protection.

The T31e as it currently stands is unlikely to be much better than a River with a hangar, so in my view has zero chance of being an export success at the price tag given. We do need global ocean going patrol / ambassador ships which can be slightly pimped B2 Rivers at half the cost. The real export winner for the UK would be to steal a march on these future “Picket Frigates”.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote:I guess one being the Merlin and I believe small UUV designs are being looked at. The point I would make is that none of these can combine all of the following: speed, endurance (on station more than a few hours) and ability to add to a CSG / EEZ defensive layer.
Agreed. A constantly "pinging" VDS for multi-static ASW is what I would like to see. Merlin can do this, but it needs a single 20000t class or larger helicopter carrier AND 9 units of Merlin to do it 24/7 = very very expensive.

Active node is the key in "multi-static ASW", while the active node can be located from hundreds of km away = the 1st node to be attacked. Making this node "cheap" and less or non-human life consuming will be a high priority.
The T31e as it currently stands is unlikely to be much better than a River with a hangar, so in my view has zero chance of being an export success at the price tag given. We do need global ocean going patrol / ambassador ships which can be slightly pimped B2 Rivers at half the cost. The real export winner for the UK would be to steal a march on these future “Picket Frigates”.
250M GBP average OPV and 125M GBP average OPV will NEVER be the same in capability. Never.

Not only hull size, range/endurance, but also CMS, network, ESM/chaff/flare, fire control, damage control level: even if the spec-list will look the same, actual capability will be very different.

I myself is not so negative against Floreal-like patrol frigate, and I do NOT think their capability is the same to River B2.
But, I do agree that an ASW-drone is a good alternative to consider.

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

What about T26 plus an SSK? Is that better or worse than 2 x T26? I assume it will be less crew than 2 x T26? Would it cost more (assuming you had to keep extra "riverey" type ships for patrol etc)? Would the SSK have problems keeping up with carriers? Just a thought, welcome the idea being shot down. Clive F

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

@Donald-san, your comment of £125mn vs £250mn is valid, but my fear is that a lot of the difference will be made up of redesign, tender and set up costs. What we’ll end up with is a slightly better River, equipped to a level that doesn’t allow it to fulfill any additional role.

The more we understand the changes going on in the world the more we can see that active aggression is likely or at very least passive-aggression (e.g. EEZ encroachment, interception of trade or communications, aggressive military training exercises, etc). The UK being primarily a maritime nation needs kit to counter these. So whilst a shiny T31 OPV+ may be attractive to play top trumps, Sea Denial (around UK/BOT EEZs and CBGs) and Defence of SLOCs is needed.

I still believe a B2+ River is possible for the original £125mn budget (without TOBA) with hangar, medium gun and CIWS/PDMS. We need another 5 to cover patrolling EEZs and flag waving.

For Sea Denial / SLOC defence we should look to free up 5 of the T26s from CSG/TAPS duties. To do this we should build atleast 6 semi-autonomous Picket Frigates to assist in the duties instead.
”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

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

@donald-san

Do you realize that an active "ping" gives away your location just as much as it reveals the bad guys? Not just the pinging source but the ping echos from your fleet?

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 »

Ron5 wrote:@donald-san
Do you realize that an active "ping" gives away your location just as much as it reveals the bad guys? Not just the pinging source but the ping echos from your fleet?
I do not agree.
Direct ping power is several orders of magnitude powerful than the reflected echo signal. Thus, there are many many occasions "an active "ping" gives away your location, while NOT ABLE to reveal the bad guys' locations". This is what I meant.

Also, detection power of the "reflected echo" is determined by the passive TASS capability. Here, surface fleet can
- deploy longer TASS cable than SSN/SSKs, as well as more powerful analysis system.
- do multi-static correlation analysis among a few passive TASS (if there is a broad data link), while SSN/SSK must do it in singleton.

These facts (actually just physics) make the importance of "active node", and hence destroying it a high priority for your enemy. Thus deploying the active node apart from the expensive escorts is "a good option" to consider.

Now, I think a combination of FLASH from helo and CAPTAS-passive-part will be the best option. But, the Merlin's endurance is short (and NH90 & Wildcat much shorter). Therefore the floating "ocean going ASW active pinger" is what I think is something worth considering. Of course, this is a new approach and need testings/verification.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

What about developing very powerful active sonar buoys. Wouldn't this achieve the same result when teamed with other assets?

Post Reply