Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
matt00773
Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by matt00773 »

Lord Jim wrote:To this I would modify the T-45s already in service with sixteen "Tactical" versions of the Mk 57, allowing the vessels to carry a combination of LRASM, Sea Ceptor and even ASROC. I have stipulated the LRASM over say the Harpoon block II as the additional VLS would greatly reduce the deck space to install these launchers, but obviously this and other AShMs would be options at the expense of VLS cell numbers.
Actually, I believe the Type 45 was originally designed to have 12 Mk 57 silos in the space between the Sylver silos. However they hadn't finished Mk 57 development and testing by the time the Type 45 started hitting the water. There was probably also the matter of money that was another factor...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

matt00773 wrote: Actually, I believe the Type 45 was originally designed to have 12 Mk 57 silos
Many iterations: at one point there was space reserved for the 155mm "navalised" gun, coming with a big magazine for continuous shore bombardment... isn't that space now taken up by the gym?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Many iterations: at one point there was space reserved for the 155mm "navalised" gun, coming with a big magazine for continuous shore bombardment... isn't that space now taken up by the gym?
Had to find something for the loaders to lift in the end, what else are they meant for?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote:The reason I mentioned the MK57 was that there is far more flexibility as the where it can be installed, mainly due the different way it deals with exhaust. The Mk41 dominates by far because 99% of users place their VLS in the same position. The length isn't an issue, as I was suggesting a possible combination of the two systems but solely using the Mk41 would be a good decision as well.
The Mk57 is non-standard and would require new parts, maintenance and training, take up more deck space and internal volume.
The Mk57 is unique to the Zumwalt class due to the tumblehome hull shape [requiring massive internal buoyancy tanks, as instead of with a normal flare hull, you lose transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water and basically roll over as you have no righting energy/buoyancy to make the ship come back up] standard flare hulls cannot accommodate peripheral cells as they have to be positioned inboard due to the length of the cells relative to the outward cant of the hull.

WASHINGTON, FEB. 20, 2018 - The State Department
The Government of Finland has requested a possible sale of four (4) Mk 41 Baseline VII Strike-Length Vertical Launching Systems.  Also included are spares, handling equipment, test equipment, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, training, technical, and logistical support services, and other related elements of logistical support.  The estimated total case value is $70 million.

From <http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/fi ... ng-systems>

1) First mention seen of a Baseline VII
2) Cost $17.5 million per eight cell Mk 41 VLS Strike Length
3) May be similar price for Type 26, $17.5M x 3 = ~ £37.5 million per ship

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 »

Leander-concept-for-Royal-Navy-Type-31e-Frigate-3-1014x487.jpg
From T31 news thread :Thanks Gabriele-san
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/leander ... -industry/

So, from the bow section.
- a 76mm gun
- 12 CAMM (in 6+6)
- chaff/flare launcher x4
- bridge/mast: with 1 FCS for gun, 2 data-links for CAMM, Artisan 3D (no link16 nor satcom, yet).
# up to here, it is almost "copy-and-paste" of Khareef, which is very good to reduce re-design cost.

- amid-ship extension:
-- 2x quad SSM (Harpoon)
-- 2x large RHIB (maybe ORC)
-- 2x RHIB (maybe pacific 24)
-- a space for 1 (looks like 2) 6m ISO container.
-- a 8-cell VLS (possibly strike-length Mk.41)
-- 2x anti-torpedo decoy launcher

- a little raised funnel with RAS-rig on both sides, and TACAN on the top.
- a 3-story high hangar (for NH90, may or may not be Merlin capable)
- 2x 30mm gun and a 20mm CIWS
- a Merlin capable flight deck.

Savetheroyalnavy page says it is all diesel propulsion. There is no indication of sonar, yet. Also they note that this is "Leander concept", and T31e, which is just one of the variant of the series, costing only 250M GBP, may not have all these armaments.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Thanks Donald. Very useful.

If this is possible within the budget, is it now the front runner? Is it a credible (assuming good build standards/damage control) light FF?

Would be interested in everyone's views on this.

Aside from the low number of CAMM and no info regarding sonar, it seems considerably better than we had feared previously. But then, it's not clear if all 5 could be fitted out to this level given the overall programme budget.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Better hope they can fit all that into the budget. 12x CAMM really isn't a lot. Especially since it's still unclear if CAMM is intended to be capable of quadpacking in actual service yet. Even the FREMM/FTI, with considered a "low" number of SAMs has 16, and those are all Asters.

It says something that such a ship would be considered "too high end" at this point...

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Better hope they can fit all that into the budget. 12x CAMM really isn't a lot. Especially since it's still unclear if CAMM is intended to be capable of quadpacking in actual service yet. Even the FREMM/FTI, with considered a "low" number of SAMs has 16, and those are all Asters.

It says something that such a ship would be considered "too high end" at this point...
I understand your point, but, I think 12 CAMM is a good starter.
- In future, if RN decide to adopt ExLS, then it can easily be increased to 48.
- For now, T31e is 250M GBP average ship (or ~200M GBP unit-cost). Compared to T26, which is a 1B GBP average ship (or ~750M GBP unit-cost), it is ~1/4. So, T31e carrying 12 CAMM is comparable to T26 carrying 48 CAMM. :D

Actually, for me, "12 CAMM" is something like a SeaRAM. Not a local-area defense SAM, but just a point defense SAM. Also, 12 SAM is common in export corvettes, so it is not a big drawback. "Re-use of T23GP's CAMM tube" will be much more important here, to save cost.


Among the 5 hulls, I guess
- 2 will be (actually hope to be) built with "76mm/57mm gun and a 20mm CIWS (and no CAMM), coupled with very simply CMS-1, with 90-crew",
- and the remaining 3 with "76mm/57mm gun and 12 CAMM (and no CIWS) with so-so level CMS-1, with 120-crew".
I think this kind of "biased resource" will be needed to realize CAMM-armed-T31e. Paired with this option, we can just ban 2 remaining T23GP without modification into "extended readiness", or just leave it "gapped till 2025 (just 6 years gap)", which will save 100-200M GBP and big operational cost, which can be very helpful for RN. At the same time, this "gap" will have NO IMPACT on RN operations, because anyway ~2 escorts are not used because of man-power shortage.

Till T31e is ready, crew for 3 T23GP is 540. With T31e, crew for 2+3 hulls will be 540 :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: The Government of Finland has requested a possible sale of four (4) Mk 41 Baseline VII Strike-Length Vertical Launching Systems.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: (no link16 nor satcom, yet).
donald_of_tokyo wrote:no indication of sonar, yet.
RetroSicotte wrote:such a ship would be considered "too high end" at this point...
I obviously made a major mistake :) when on the news thread I compared this concept to the Finnish 2 kt corvette design (add the mission bay and endurance for global deployment)... but surely all of it won't come for the £250 mln per piece
... no link 16??? All very good that CAMM can do crossing shots (and then you skimp on stuff that even fighter planes, each, have to be able to be a part of "a system")
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:Thanks Donald. Very useful.

If this is possible within the budget, is it now the front runner? Is it a credible (assuming good build standards/damage control) light FF?

Would be interested in everyone's views on this.

Aside from the low number of CAMM and no info regarding sonar, it seems considerably better than we had feared previously. But then, it's not clear if all 5 could be fitted out to this level given the overall programme budget.
I would say that we now have two credible designs in Arrowhead 120 and Leander. we will still have to wait for a answer as to what kit will be ported over from the Type 23's it would also be good if we could see what Babcocks / BMT final concept looks like

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Cheers for the info on the Mk57. Interesting that the PR doesn't seem to cover what has been pointed out just the supposed benefits. Sticking to the MK41 raises no issues though as long as we actually use it.

Regarding the T-31e, I an starting to wonder if there are plans in place to purchase an austere platform but actually refit it soon after they enter service, or that another pot of money may appear, to give the vessels better capabilities from the start, so that the PR branch can attempt to refer to them as escorts. Adding £500M to the budget over the duration of the programme could be possible.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Adding £500M to the budget over the duration of the programme could be possible
Funnily enough, that is exactly the sum that the T-26 allocation for the next 5 years went down with in the latest Eq. Plan
- how many T-31s would there be to fit out over that period?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

RetroSicotte wrote:12x CAMM really isn't a lot
The strike-length Mk.41 could either quad pack CAMM or use CAMM cells instead. That would give us 20x CAMM with the latter option and if I understand correctly that CAMM can be quad packed in to Mk.41 then that would give us a total of 44x CAMM with that option, with the ability to reduce the amount slightly and add other missile types such as ASROC.

It makes sense since they are for the most part copying the Khareef-class and there is no extra room on the front, so adding CAMM cells to the new middle part of the ship next to the mission bay makes sense. Also follows what they have learned from the type 26 with having CAMM on the front and midship.

As has been said, the CAMM cells are essentially free, as there are more on the type 23s than will be going on the type 31s. So why not add a couple more on top of the newly created mission bay area.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Digger22 »

It would be interesting to know the proposed displacement of Leander proposal. I would imagine in the order of 3500t. Not long ago we were being told it was practically impossible to achieve that fit on that tonnage. Sounds good if possible.

User avatar
2HeadsBetter
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by 2HeadsBetter »

Thanks benny14 for those images of Type 26. May I ask where they came from?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Digger22 wrote:It would be interesting to know the proposed displacement of Leander proposal. I would imagine in the order of 3500t. Not long ago we were being told it was practically impossible to achieve that fit on that tonnage. Sounds good if possible.
I've not read it myself, but allegedly, behind the Janes paywall it says they will be 3700t

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

2HeadsBetter wrote:Thanks benny14 for those images of Type 26. May I ask where they came from?
A BAE video on the type 26 from about 6 months ago.


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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

dmereifield wrote:
Digger22 wrote:It would be interesting to know the proposed displacement of Leander proposal. I would imagine in the order of 3500t. Not long ago we were being told it was practically impossible to achieve that fit on that tonnage. Sounds good if possible.
I've not read it myself, but allegedly, behind the Janes paywall it says they will be 3700t
A tad lighter than the current Anzacs, will be interesting to see what the Kiwis do if it does have capacity for ASW.

Personally I think the UK should be looking to see if they would join the UK build for Type 26 to see if you both could get the price down to more of an acceptable margin say a build of three for the Kiwis

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Could anyone tell me how much extra time and money is involved in building an acoustically quiet hull as opposed to a standard hull ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

benny14 wrote: The strike-length Mk.41 could either quad pack CAMM or use CAMM cells instead. That would give us 20x CAMM with the latter option and if I understand correctly that CAMM can be quad packed in to Mk.41 then that would give us a total of 44x CAMM with that option, with the ability to reduce the amount slightly and add other missile types such as ASROC.
I am not certain if quadpacked CAMM is actually confirmed to be getting integrated yet. At most I've seen some testing, no certification.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

RetroSicotte wrote:I am not certain if quadpacked CAMM is actually confirmed to be getting integrated yet. At most I've seen some testing, no certification.
True, but it is a possible option if we are willing.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

Given that CAMM can be quad packed in Mk 41 VLS, why in the installations to date and the depictions we see in various images of possible future installations are the launch tubes so widely spaced? I thought one of the advantages of the soft launch technique was that the missiles could be packed close together. I am curious as to the reasons this is not being done!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Speaking of CAMM. We see the type 23 system with a bubble, even though CAMM has always been shown off as having a hatch on it. The type 26 for example shows this.

Here are MBDA from 2-3 years ago showing the type 23 been retrofitted with CAMM, the first image is removing sea wolf, the second is replacing it with quad-packed CAMM cells.

I assume the RN simply retrofitted the sea wolf tubes to accept 1 CAMM missile. Can we expect the same thing on the type 26? as they will be coming off the type 23. Interesting how they show 1 sea wolf missile been replaced by 4 CAMM missiles in the same space.
Image
Image

Looked in to it a bit more, and given this statement "Sea Ceptor will operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration, various flexible canister configurations are also available." I take it as they were showing off replacing Sea wolf with SYLVER/MK41 cells.
Image

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 »

1: The compact canister as shown in old movies resembles that of "LandCeptor". I do not know why RN did not use it, and go with "mushroom head". In future, "after" LandCeptor was fielded, it will be one possibility.

2: For "quad packing", Mk.41 VLS needs ExLS, which is developed by LM. This is one way to go. If my memory works, LM says ExLS can be mounted on Mk.41 VLS, Sylver VLS, and what is more can be stand alone. But, ExLS is not fully funded, to my understanding, and apparently RN is not adopting it yet. (*1)

But here, please not that we do not need to install CAMM on Mk.41 VLS. As noted, ExLS is OK as stand alone. For example, in the CL Leander concept, adoption of ExLS will increase the forward magazine size from 12 to 48, more than enough, and no need to use Mk41 VLS for CAMM. If we apply it to T26, 192 CAMM can be carried in the "48 CAMM" launcher space.

3: By the way, T31e is non-related with all of these discussions. It is a 250M GBP ship, only 40% of the cost used for French FTI. Making it "comparable to FTI" is completely out of scope, and even keeping the 12 CAMM is a big challenge. Mk 41 VLS only as FFBNW, only 12 CAMM is already great, no 5 inch gun and even a re-used normal 76 mm OTO gun is OK (no modern shells = very expensive), hull sonar "FTR" is good enough, and the hull standard will never meet the RN escort level (but will be better than OPV standard).

Too densely packed is a problem, which will impact the cost. Lack of future growth margin is also an issue, but we can just ban the mission-bay if needed in future to add equipments/networks/armaments/accommodations. (RN will have too many mission bays in future, and will be lacking units to be carried in it).

*1 this is one of the reason I propose to stop upgrading 2 remaining un-updated T23GPs, so that the 100-200M GBP saved there can be used to "buy" ExLS, which will greatly improve the CAMM sales worldwide. "There are many other things to do".

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Old RN »

There could be a logic for the Sea Ceptor installations in that there is a "simple" 6 missile block (2 for T31e and 4 for T26) giving your permenant fit, and the quad packing option in the Mk41s to give the mision flexibility, eg mix of TLAM, ASROC etc and/or "extra" Sea Ceptors?.

Post Reply