Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[shark bait]

An enemy can detect a ping at ten times the distance we can detect the reflection off their submarine. Active sonar is broadcasting your location, no question.

It is increasingly being accepted active sonar is the only way to locate modern SSK's, especially in more cluttered environments. Without a breakthrough in non-acoustic detection methods, active multistatic sonar is the future.

Donald is correct to point out this cant be achieved with Merlin, requiring network of floating and flying nodes instead.

[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?

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.

Sorry but I'm not understanding all of this. That's OK, I'm no expert on sonar.

Not really a new approach though. Idea has been around before. D K Brown talks about it in is "Future Surface Fleet" and, of course, the original idea of he Type 23 was to be a tug for a towed array.

Big problem is that a warship with such a tiny, focused capability is that its useless at everything else and a bad idea for a navy with limited resources.

[ArmChairCivvy]

You can use these (self-powered, so when not moving, can recharge the batteries) as the active nodes:
https://www.liquid-robotics.com/press-r ... ory-board/

Adm. Z says so (well, I have not seen anything from him on this, in public, as he is on the advisory board, not on the Board; to speak for the company).

[shark bait]

Big problem is that a warship with such a tiny, focused capability is that its useless at everything else and a bad idea for a navy with limited resources.

I'm not so sure; place it in a carrier group or close to home, where masses of air power are readily available to support, and it becomes a focused node within a multi-role network. Viewed this way, is it more acceptable?

You can use these (self-powered, so when not moving, can recharge the batteries) as the active nodes:
https://www.liquid-robotics.com/press-r ... ory-board/

These are great little things, trialed at unmanned warrior equipped with a small towed array they supposedly succeeded in tracking a submarine. It essential becomes a rechargeable sonobuoy that can be steered.

Skip a decade or so down the line and its easy to see a swarm of these working with a P8 to help close the gap.

They also do some interesting work with underwater communications, these acting as a router between the underwater vehicles and satellites/aircraft.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Slow moving UUV/USV can contribute to ASW, if it is within limited area. Actually, I think "consider moving the sonobuoy" is a good start point.

- If the UUV/USV is a passive node, like passive-sonobuoy, you need a "sonobuoy transducer" in the sky (large UAV or P-8A).
- If the UUV/USV is an active node, you need power and and hence size. If it is "small" active node = like active-sonobuoy, it could be small and can sustain for 8-12 hours.

In short, I think ASW-UUV/USV is a "slowly moving and expensive (=considering re-use) sonobuoy". If you need to "recharge" it once a day, you need a ship doing it in very busy. How in harsh weather? Re-using small sonobuoys will be more easy and will be a good example.

It is also clear the UUV/USV cannot "cruise" along with the CVTF. I agree it will be good tools to do shallow water ASW, near Britain island, supported from the ports and patrol vessels (like River B1/B2), but not for CVTF.

Note, "quietly seeking ASW UUV" is very difficult, because, active multi static is needed against modern SSK/SSN. Surely active node cannot be "quiet", and also passive nodes needs wide-band network to share info. So, ASW UUV/USV will be a good defense measure, but not in the hostile environment.

[NickC]

Post sea trials with the 7,000T FGS Baden-Württemberg, it is reported the German defense procurement agency BAAINBw has refused to take delivery due to hardware, software, listing and weight issues. It is the the lead ship of German Navy’s new class of four F125 frigates, a TKMS/Lurssen(Blohm+Voss) ship.

[ArmChairCivvy]

refused to take delivery due to hardware, software, listing and weight issues.

A gr8t chance to hive off all the "stabilisation shite" and fit it out as a "proper" warship?

[Repulse]

I'm not so sure; place it in a carrier group or close to home, where masses of air power are readily available to support, and it becomes a focused node within a multi-role network. Viewed this way, is it more acceptable?

Completely agree. Also, extend into a broader Picket Frigate by giving it CEC and CAMM means it still has a single role but a broader one.

[shark bait]

It is the the lead ship of German Navy’s new class of four F125 frigates, a TKMS/Lurssen(Blohm+Voss) ship.

A platform that is as confused as the LCS, they have done an incredibly shit job, and ended up with a 7,000 tonne OPV.

Note, "quietly seeking ASW UUV" is very difficult, because, active multi static is needed against modern SSK/SSN. Surely active node cannot be "quiet", and also passive nodes needs wide-band network to share info. So, ASW UUV/USV will be a good defense measure, but not in the hostile environment.

That is certainly true for the smaller types being trialed today, but I don't see whats stopping a larger unmanned vessel operating in hostile environments in a carrier group for example?

[donald_of_tokyo]

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

How to "cruise" with CVTF will be the main problem. So, I think SSK is not a good asset to go along with CVTF. To "control" specified area (e.g. sea-denial), SSK will work well.

Note, "quietly seeking ASW UUV" is very difficult, because, active multi static is needed against modern SSK/SSN. Surely active node cannot be "quiet", and also passive nodes needs wide-band network to share info. So, ASW UUV/USV will be a good defense measure, but not in the hostile environment.

That is certainly true for the smaller types being trialed today, but I don't see whats stopping a larger unmanned vessel operating in hostile environments in a carrier group for example?

I was talking about small UUV/USVs. Small = no range/endurance. But, large = expensive. So, small drones and large drones have different roles.

I'm not so sure; place it in a carrier group or close to home, where masses of air power are readily available to support, and it becomes a focused node within a multi-role network. Viewed this way, is it more acceptable?

Completely agree. Also, extend into a broader Picket Frigate by giving it CEC and CAMM means it still has a single role but a broader one.

I think you are calling for a "proper-light-frigate", something like FTI excluding Aster30. It will cost at least 400M GBP. If major equipments (CAMM, Artisan and sonar?) are "obtained from T23GPs for free", it would be 350M GBP. If we want 5 of them, we need (with 2-unit cost for design+initial) (5+2)*350 = 2.45B GBP. In other words, twice the program cost of T31e (or T31e cost + reducing F35B numbers by ~10).

I believe T31e program itself is already tuned to provide "a ocean going lightly armed warship" (I will call it, a heavy-corvette or a Floreal-like ship) to be built as cheap as possible, so that T26, Successor, and T45mod can be secured (although not sure).

[Jake1992]

Does any one on here know what they one line is for the USN FFGX program in comparison to the T31 program ?

[donald_of_tokyo]

...USN FFGX program in comparison to the T31 program ?

?? Comparing a full "proper frigate" and a "Floreal-like" patrol frigate is, in short, "different class of ship", I think. (Not sure if I get your question correctly). Like comparing "battleship vs cruiser", or "FFG7 vs USCG Famous-class cutter", their task differs and not easy to compare, I guess.

[Jake1992]

...USN FFGX program in comparison to the T31 program ?

?? Comparing a full "proper frigate" and a "Floreal-like" patrol frigate is, in short, "different class of ship", I think. (Not sure if I get your question correctly). Like comparing "battleship vs cruiser", or "FFG7 vs USCG Famous-class cutter", their task differs and not easy to compare, I guess.

I think you have misunderstood me I was wondering how the timing of the programs compare ( when they're meant to start build and so on )

As what Iv seen on the recent exhibition videos on the US thread, from what being offered and asked for I could see a slightly modified Arrowhead 120 fitting nicely. If put forward and chosen around the same time as the T31 project it could be a good thing for the RN ( getting the Arriwhead 120 as its full light frigate and at a cheaper rate )

[donald_of_tokyo]

- FFGX unit cost (excluding design and 1st ship): $950M = 660M GBP.
at p.7 of https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44972.pdf
Target Unit Procurement Cost
Follow-On Ships
The Navy wants the follow-on ships in the FFG(X) program (i.e., ships 2 through 20) to have an average unit procurement cost of not more than $950 million each in constant 2018 dollars.17 By way of comparison, the two LCSs that the Navy has requested for FY2018 have an estimated average unit procurement cost of about $568 million each, and the two DDG-51 class destroyers that the Navy has requested for FY2018 have an estimated average unit procurement cost of about $1,750 million each.

- USCG Ocean Patrol Cutter's unit cost: = $421M = 292M GBP.
ref: "Summary" page (2nd page) of https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42567.pdf
OPCs are to be smaller, less expensive, and in some respects less capable than NSCs. They have an estimated average procurement cost of about $421 million per ship.
(Note OPC is a 25-ship program and design and initial cost will be small when divided by 25.)

- T31e unit cost (excluding design and 1st ship): = estimated to be 180-210M GBP
T31e total cost for 5 hulls = 1.25B GBP. "T31e unit cost (excluding design and 1st ship):" can be estimated as 1.25B/(2+5) = 180M GBP for new design (such as Arrowhead 120), and 1.25B/(1+5) = 210M GBP for modified-existing design (such as Cutlass/Leander).

In other words, FFGX is 3.2-3.7 times costy than T31e. So, for sure, they are not in the same class of war ships.

T31e is much more similar to USCG OPC. By reducing the hull standard and significantly reducing the range/endurance (as required), T31e can share common design with OPC, I guess.

Of couse, direct comparison of ship building cost of different country is not easy. I am not surprised if the "country dependent difference" (e.g. what is actually included in the cost) can amount to 20-30%. But even so,
it is clear that T31e is similar to (or less than) OPC, and ~3 times cheaper than FFGX.

Therefore, I think basing the Arrowhead 120 design on 110-m-long OPC (and not the FFGX) will be nice. Adding 10 m of hull, re-arranging the super structure (to accommodate CAMM-VLS), and the stern design (for mission-bay = CAPTAS-2/4 carrying space) will be very nice way to go. Reduction in range/endurance will enable the hull to accommodate a little more "fighty" equipments. (Mid hull mission bay is not needed. Not required in RFI, not appealing for export, and need big re-design work = good for nothing).

[Jake1992]

Donald I completly get the difference in budget for the two programs ( USN ship tippicley more expensive that European counterparts ) but what I am getting at here is when look at what's being asked for by the USN for the ffgx and what's being prosented from like likes of the modified freedom class LCS proposal, the arrowhead 120 that we have seen at its top end fits quite nicely.

My thinking here is if the programs run close together in there timings it could be worth trying to put the Arriwhead 120 forward for the ffgx program but state the first few to built in the UK, this could give a boost to the T31 program and hopefuly push a higher quality and capablity ship here for the RN.

I know it's a long shot and abit out of the box but it could done as a way to improve defence and cooperation between the 2 navy's if the programs run close in timings

[andrew98]

The USA will never have warships built in the UK. There would be too much backlash from the shipyards/politicians/media.

[marktigger]

nope but the basic design built in a US yard with US systems at 4 times the price so the US govt can covertly provide subsadies to its ship building industry (just like it does to its aircraft builders)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sharing design on very different class of ship will not work. This is my point.

Will French navy build Floreal-class as a "hollowed" version of T23? Why not French navy build Floreal class as a hollow version of La Fayette? I think it will not work.

On the other hand, if we regard the OSC as an Arrowhead 120 in the least form, their difference is much smaller. This means, we can share the detailed design, share the verification testing results (such as shock tests, accoustic noise measurement, range, top speed, see-keeping, helo-operation in bad weather, etc etc ...), share many (may be half?) of the equipments onboard to enjoy block buy.

Since OPC is ~2 years ahead of T31e, we can use their "lessons learnt", which is a big merit, as well.

I think this is a big merit.

[Jake1992]

Sharing design on very different class of ship will not work. This is my point.

Will French navy build Floreal-class as a "hollowed" version of T23? Why not French navy build Floreal class as a hollow version of La Fayette? I think it will not work.

On the other hand, if we regard the OSC as an Arrowhead 120 in the least form, their difference is much smaller. This means, we can share the detailed design, share the verification testing results (such as shock tests, accoustic noise measurement, range, top speed, see-keeping, helo-operation in bad weather, etc etc ...), share many (may be half?) of the equipments onboard to enjoy block buy.

Since OPC is ~2 years ahead of T31e, we can use their "lessons learnt", which is a big merit, as well.

I think this is a big merit.

Donald I think you are complety missing what I'm trying to say
The ffgx program does not have a design as of yet just a requerment from a vessel of around 4,000tn odd 125m length that can undertake ASW work and fitted with a half decent armerment. This ASW capability will not be anything like the T26 it'll be more of a second rate ASW.

When we look at the modified freedom class that has been put forward we see a vessel that is around 4,000tns has a limited quiet hull can use a tow sonar and is fitted with 8 x canister lurnchers and 8-16 mk41s.
This compares very nicely to the Arriwhead 120 design that is 120m length 4,000tn and carries the same wepons fit with rear mission space for a tow sonar.

What I am surgesting is that the Arriwhead 120 design is put forward for the ffgx program with descustions between the uk and us to have a few built here in an attempt to boost theT31 program. It could be put forward as " you want us to be a strong naval partner, help us here with few built in the uk to kick start our light frigate"

As it stands the Arriwhead 120 is the most likely candidate for the T31.

The USN are not going for a top of the line T26 like vessel even if their budget is closer to that, the requirements are much close to that of a second tier escort frigate.

It's could be used as leverage to get a better over T31 for the RN

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry, I am saying Arrowhead 120 (for T31e) is much less than 2nd-rate ASW vessel (such as FTI or Japanese 30DD). It is civilian hull, and FFGX hull standard is naval, to my understanding. What is more, T31e is 3 times cheaper than FFGX. We cannot share the design of two projects, with completely different cost regime. Impossible. In other words, if you arrange Arrowhead 120 design as for FFGX, it will largely exceed the T31e price cap. Hence, your idea will not work. This is my 1st point.

On the other hand, your basic idea of sharing design between US and UK is good. So, why not do it with OPC, not FFGX? This is my 2nd point.

# But anyway, I shall stop here.

[Jake1992]

Sorry, I am saying Arrowhead 120 is much less than 2nd-rate ASW vessel. It is civilian hull, and FFGX hull standard is naval, to my understanding. What is more, T31e is 3 times cheaper than FFGX. We cannot share the design of two projects, with completely different cost regime. Impossible. In other words, if you arrange Arrowhead 120 design as such, it will largely exceed the T31e price cap. Hence, your idea will not work. This is my 1st point.

On the other hand, you basic idea of sharing design between US and UK is good. So, why not do it with OPC, not FFGX? This is my 2nd point.

# But anyway, I shall stop here.

That's what I was trying to get at at the moment arrowhead 120 is at least part commercial hull due to budget limitations of the T31 project. If we could come to an agreement with to US that they build there first few ffgx hulls in the uk it could give some much needed boost to the T31 cost and hopefuly allow a full naval hull for the RN arrowhead 120s.

Most people here would be happy if the T31 was the Arriwhead 120 built to full naval and the weapons fit depicted, it would come as a good boost for the RN and in most ways a more capable ship than the GP T23s they'll replaces.

As for the cost of USN vessel I think it is widely accept that they cost so much more due to it being a way for the US to heavily subsides there ship building industry. Is anyone really going to belive that a modified freedom class LCS will truely cost around £670 per hull when the T26 is exepevted to come in at around £750-£800m per hull average. When you look at what is being put forward for the ffgx program these are not £600-£700m vessels these are really £350-£400m vessel at most.
Now I do understand that that is still more than the £250m hull cost for T31 but that is why I'd like to see us use the so called speicle relationship to say to the US " hey help us out here give our T31 programs a boost by using our design and building a few here so we can be a better naval partner out there when it matters"

Like I say I know this is a big long shoot and out of the box but could be a nice way to boost the T31.

[donald_of_tokyo]

As I referred, DDG51 class is $1750M = 1215M GBP in the same document.
Are you saying UK can build DDG51 class with 730M GBP (60% of the cost)? I do not think so.
As I said, yes 20-30% difference will be there (so, 1215M GBP can be 934-1012M GBP in UK contract, in paper). But never 70% (=1/0.6).

(On the other points, "you have your proposal, I do not think it is doable.", is still my standpoint).

[Jake1992]

As I referred, DDG51 class is $1750M = 1215M GBP in the same document.
Are you saying UK can build DDG51 class with 730M GBP (60% of the cost)? I do not think so.
As I said, yes 20-30% difference will be there (so, 1215M GBP can be 934-1012M GBP in UK contract, in paper). But never 70% (=1/0.6).

(On the other points, "you have your proposal, I do not think it is doable.", is still my standpoint).

What I am saying is USN ships are over priced in comparison to other nations and this is no accident this is done as away of subsidising the ship building industry with out calling it subsidies.
A T45 average build cost was expected to be around the £750m mark if the 12 had been built like planed, and is widely accept that a second batch built today would cost less than £700m per hull.
Now besides the extra VLS's what does a burk really have to justify costing £500m more or even £250m more than the 6 T45s we have today ?

Are you really telling that the modified freedom class LCS that is being put forward for the FFGX program is a £670m vessel ? I defo wouldn't

Down to the essence of it my proposal is to go to the US with a begging bowl by using the "special relationship" to say look you need us to be a strong partner on the seas and we can't properly fund the T31 project so will you help us out by using our design and have a few built here so we can get the price down for a full naval hull.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: CEC, BMD, 96 cells of VLS with TLAMs. There is no way thinking DDG51 "similar" to T45. DDG51 is NOT a pure AAW asset, but T45 is. DDG51 is significantly larger than T45, as well. So, the cost difference as I mentioned has a good rationale, I think.

Are you really telling that the modified freedom class LCS that is being put forward for the FFGX program is a £670m vessel ? I defo wouldn't

2: LCS has many gimmicks within. Its CEC is in very high standard. 20-30% over costing can be there, I agree, but never "nearly twice". And I do think its modified FFGX version can easily be £670m/1.2 (or 1.3) = £515--560m vessel. I think it will never be £300m or so. You are only looking into the armaments I'm afraid, which is not the main cost driver now. It is sensor, datalink, CMS, and their integration.

3: Yes US is subsiding their ship building. Then, why you think they will suddenly stop it and order the initial few ships from UK? No hope, for sure.

4: Also, do you understand "T31e distributing works all around UK ship builders" is EXACTLY what the "subsiding" means? Are there difference there? This is why I think such an approach will increase the T31e cost (in fact, decrease the ingredients of the ship). Why US will pay a lot to subside UK ship builders by their own tax?

5: Cooporation, win-win share, will be possible. This is why I propose USCG-cutter --- T31e collaboration. Much more practical, much more beneficial, much more realistic (simply because OPC's detail design is done by Babcock).

[Jake1992]

1: CEC, BMD, 96 cells of VLS with TLAMs. There is no way thinking DDG51 "similar" to T45. DDG51 is NOT a pure AAW asset, but T45 is. DDG51 is significantly larger than T45, as well. So, the cost difference as I mentioned has a good rationale, I think.

Are you really telling that the modified freedom class LCS that is being put forward for the FFGX program is a £670m vessel ? I defo wouldn't

2: LCS has many gimmicks within. Its CEC is in very high standard. 20-30% over costing can be there, I agree, but never "nearly twice". And I do think its modified FFGX version can easily be £670m/1.2 (or 1.3) = £515--560m vessel. I think it will never be £300m or so. You are only looking into the armaments I'm afraid, which is not the main cost driver now. It is sensor, datalink, CMS, and their integration.

3: Yes US is subsiding their ship building. Then, why you think they will suddenly stop it and order the initial few ships from UK? No hope, for sure.

4: Also, do you understand "T31e distributing works all around UK ship builders" is EXACTLY what the "subsiding" means? Are there difference there? This is why I think such an approach will increase the T31e cost (in fact, decrease the ingredients of the ship). Why US will pay a lot to subside UK ship builders by their own tax?

5: Cooporation, win-win share, will be possible. This is why I propose USCG-cutter --- T31e collaboration. Much more practical, much more beneficial, much more realistic (simply because OPC's detail design is done by Babcock).

I never once said that they would stop subsidings there ship building I don't know where you got that from at all.

And once again I think you have missed my point in the proposal.
I surgested we go to the US with a begging bowl, basically asking them to use our T31 design for the ffgx program and have a few built here in the UK to try to bring down our own cost so we can get a full naval arrowhead120. Do this by trying to leaning on the "special relationship and insisting that it will be benificail to the US by making sure we are a strong naval partner "

I am not saying the US will drop the price there willing to pay or that our T31 budget matches the FFGx budget, what I am saying is to use politics to have the US choose our design and have a small part of the over large order built here to help bring down cost and in doing so allow the RN to get a proper naval ship instead of part commercial