Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

The second vessel then: Gin Palace

So HMS AGinCourt, then

[NickC]

Thought to compare the Cammell Laird/BAE Systems Type 31 export 'frigate' Leander concept with the successful Damen Sigma 10514LRP, Long Range Patrol, one recently sold to Mexico, both ~ £250 million, with limited info available, its depressing comparison.

HME
The Sigma 10514 is a sophisticated hybrid design giving ability to operate in ASW role due to its low noise, with costs kept down by modern tech. Damen chose Bakker Sliedrecht system with new electromagnetic compatibility control. Two Spanish Indar 1,325 kW electric motors with two water-cooled variable frequency drives with active front ends. VFD's cooled by one water cooling unit to save weight, space, cost and connected to the vessel’s power grid without the use of a transformer also saving big on weight, space and cost. Normally direct (conductive) coupling can cause unwanted effects on sensitive operational equipment connected to the grid, the Bakker Sliedrecht smart filter techniques mitigates the disturbance levels in order to comply with the IEC and Navy regulations, plus selective earth fault detection. .

If true the Leander HME is designed for simplicity and low cost and will feature all diesel propulsion, very noisy, per SavetheRoyalNavy.

The Sigma 10514 CODLOD uses two 10 MW diesel engines for max. 28 knots and its two electric motors for 5,000 nm range at 14 knots. The ~50% larger Leander only quoted as max. speed of 25 knots and range of 7,500 nm, though no speed quoted so would expect ~ 5,000 nm at ~ 14 knots. Leander is constrained by availability of naval high speed diesels, largest max. 10MW per engine, as used in the Sigma 10514, eg MTU 20V 8000 M91 and MAN 20V V28/33D STC. The rule of thumb is that for every 4 knot increase in speed requires double the horsepower, four engines would be needed, high speeds gets expensive fast, so zero chance of higher speed for Leander.

The major difference between the ships is the displacement Sigma 10514 2,575 TPC, similar to the Khareef, the Leander is 4,000T FLD. The difference appears to be the mission bay inserted amidships on an essentially a stretched Khareef. Why the T31e RFI specified a mission bay as its a costly option with at the moment no known use for weapon systems, and if in future if they are available can be fitted to the Type 26, to keep costs down why not just leave space on weapons deck.

Weapons and sensors highlights, another shortfall in the Leander compared to the Sigma 10514

Radar & Fire Control
Sigma - Smart S Mk2 plus STIR 1.2 Mk2 EO
Leander none included in price, Artisan to be transferred from T23, Fire Control ?

Hull Mounted Sonar
Sigma - Thales UMS4132 Kingklip
Leander - None, just space to possibly fit in future

MCG
Sigma - Mk 110 57mm
Leander - Assuming the same

Anti-Ship Missiles
Sigma - 8 x Harpoon Blk II
Leander - None

AAW/PDMS
Sigma - SeaRAM + 12.7mm RWS
Leander - Phalanx + 12 CAMM, included in price?

Torpedoes
Sigma - 2 x Triple Launchers for MK 54 Mod 0 LWT
Leander - None

So arbitrary guess would need to add £millions to cost of Leander to outfit to similar standard as Sigma and having to compete with Sigma and similar foreign designs, may be doable but at moment most glaring shortfall in Leander design is the propulsion system compared to Sigma.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thought to compare the Cammell Laird/BAE Systems Type 31 export 'frigate' Leander concept with the successful Damen Sigma 10514LRP, Long Range Patrol, one recently sold to Mexico, both ~ £250 million, with limited info available, its depressing comparison.

Great compilation! Thanks a lot.

I do share your "depression", but your analysis also contains some of the "answers/solutions", I think.

1: HME.
I unserstand Khareef is equipped with RR's CODOE propulsion system, 2x 9200 kW MTU (up to 25 knots) + 2x motor (up to 7.2 knots). It is well know as "operational cost efficient" system. (Note the CODOE is in many cases called simply as "diesel propulsion", as exactly as we see in Wiki of Khareef itself).

ref: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... tions.html
But, the diesel is wrongly documented. It is actually 2x MTU 20V 8000 M91. For propulsion, see, e.g. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaw ... 02012c.pdf

Khareef_powerline.jpg

#A good document by MTU, worth reading. Already presented elsewhere in this forum.

May not be good for ASW when using the big diesels, but may not be a big problem in using CAPTAS2/4CI, or if ASW is not the primary task.

2: Armaments/equipments:
Cost of equipments presumably to be transferred from T23 is not that much. Artisan was 5M GBP if new, 30mm turret is also not much costing. 2ndary-level hull mounted sonar, e.g. MFS7000 of T45 is also 5M GBP or so. CAMM front-end electronics and launchers may cost 30-40M GBP. This is estimate in case it is ALL NEW, so may be about half of this cost? In this case, it will be 20-30M GBP in total.

But we all know the majority of the cost resides in the CMS and softwares therein. At least in the case of Arrowhead 120, they are using TACTICOS CMS, so it is totally new. They even need to integrate SeaSeptor system to TACTICOS.

The major difference between the ships is the displacement Sigma 10514 2,575 TPC, similar to the Khareef, the Leander is 4,000T FLD. The difference appears to be the mission bay inserted amidships on an essentially a stretched Khareef. Why the T31e RFI specified a mission bay as its a costly option with at the moment no known use for weapon systems, and if in future if they are available can be fitted to the Type 26, to keep costs down why not just leave space on weapons deck.

This is the big characteristics of T31e. Larger hull, and hence, smaller armament compared to the ship built with the same cost. Simple and clean.

3: Then, how to "sell" T31e is clear:
A: Blue water sea-going capability, which cannot be done with ~2500t large Corvette.
B: How to use mission bay.
"A" is OK. Some navy will want it, some will not. But "B" is the problem.

Currently, RN has nothing to carry in the mission bay, other than a few ISO containers and RHIBs. For sure, it is useless for export (as well as for RN use). Then, I think UK must invest on UUV and USVs development/testings, to "fill" the many many mission bays it already has (River B2) and will have soon (T31e and T26, and MHC). To do this, I'm happy to ban one T31e (make it from 5 to 4) and use the ~200M GBP here.

4: Related but not directly, UK must really think strategically on where to invest. Now it is too much short sighted, I think.

I cannot understand why UK is not investing on quad-pack (or high-density) CAMM launcher. I do not think its development needs more than 100M GBP. For example, I am very happy to ban one F35B to enable introducing ExLS to RN fleet, which will enable good export.

SSM, the same.

[Caribbean]

@NickC. An interesting document, but I suspect that anyone who puts forward an absolutely minimum spec. offering isn't going to get the contract. The government will be looking at other offerings on the open market and asking industry to justify their costs and choices

Why the T31e RFI specified a mission bay

Did it? The RFI specifies capabilities and the ability to adapt to future systems and technologies, but I don't recall an explicit request for a mission bay. Maybe a mission bay is just the best way of meeting the RFI

most glaring shortfall in Leander design is the propulsion system compared to Sigma.

Donald-san's comments address that, I think. The RFI does request a noise-limiting mode for ASW and "pragmatic" noise-reduction features.

[ArmChairCivvy]

puts forward an absolutely minimum spec.

I seem to remember the word "Threshold" used for what is the required minimum; the rest at the bidders' discretion (but designed/ selected to cost)

the ability to adapt to future systems and technologies

- so this one has been spelt out as part of "the rest" but nothing needs to be fitted (but will come from future budgets)

Been a while since I read the doc; pls correct if memory does not serve

[Digger22]

T45 Should have been named after Counties, T26 Cities and T31e names currently owned by T45! I think the naming system is about 40 yrs out of date.

[ArmChairCivvy]

T45 Should have been named after Counties

So far, so good. But under the Counties, we then had the Darings... so I would reverse the latter two, for naming

[Lord Jim]

I would push a T-26 variant for the FFX, and ask Trump to give the Queen a new Royal Yacht as a present to boot.

[shark bait]

The Sigma 10514 is a sophisticated hybrid design giving ability to operate in ASW role due to its low noise, with costs kept down by modern tech.

I'm glad you brought this up, marine electric propulsion has been maturing rapidly with the civilian world pushing development, it is no longer an expensive luxury. Another example is the new polar ship, featuring acoustically isolated electric propulsion, built for £150m.

I find it concerning none of the T31 contenders are talking about modern propulsion systems. There are a handful of advantages to an electric system, including acoustic performance, which of course opens up possibilities for ASW one day.

These ships will be operational in the 2050's, there has to be something modern about them.

But we all know the majority of the cost resides in the CMS and softwares therein. At least in the case of Arrowhead 120, they are using TACTICOS CMS, so it is totally new. They even need to integrate SeaSeptor system to TACTICOS.

This does worry me. If the T31 comes into service with anything other than BAE's combat system it will prove what a joke this project is.

Currently, RN has nothing to carry in the mission bay, other than a few ISO containers and RHIBs. For sure, it is useless for export (as well as for RN use).

Isn't that largely the point? The Navy should recognize the world is changing much quicker than we can build new Frigates to meet new threats, that's why the mission bay is there and I doubt its only the Royal Navy who are thinking this way.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I find it concerning none of the T31 contenders are talking about modern propulsion systems. There are a handful of advantages to an electric system, including acoustic performance, which of course opens up possibilities for ASW one day.

But, Khareef is, and hopefully Leaders will also be, CODOE. From NickC-san's post, I understand the issue is the silent machinaries, such as pumps, fans and so on. Also, I do not think MV Sir. D. Attenborough's system is shock tolerant. Dutch design is good and not comparable to MV SD Attenborough.

But we all know the majority of the cost resides in the CMS and softwares therein. At least in the case of Arrowhead 120, they are using TACTICOS CMS, so it is totally new. They even need to integrate SeaSeptor system to TACTICOS.

This does worry me. If the T31 comes into service with anything other than BAE's combat system it will prove what a joke this project is.

Thanks. Many here pushing Arrowhead 120 is not aware of this risk. But, this is two-ways.
- Negative-1 = Having 3 deferent CMS in the fleet. T45's, CMS-1 (T23 mod, T26, River B2), and TACTICOS. Training and maintenance will be complicated.
- Negative-2 = Need to pay for the integration of Artisan and CAMM (and SCOTT5/6, may be).
- Positive = The negative-2 means, Artisan and CAMM will be included in the future French and other export vessels, because TACTICOS is very popular CMS. In other words, it can be considered as "investments".
Over all, the two negative dominates over the positive, I think.

Currently, RN has nothing to carry in the mission bay, other than a few ISO containers and RHIBs. For sure, it is useless for export (as well as for RN use).

Isn't that largely the point? The Navy should recognize the world is changing much quicker than we can build new Frigates to meet new threats, that's why the mission bay is there and I doubt its only the Royal Navy who are thinking this way.

Yes and No.
- ALL OTHER navy is putting mission-bay like system only on 2nd (Corvette) or even 3rd tier (OPVs) vessels, and not in warfighters. Former is Italian PPA, and later is French navy's B2M patrol vessel, I think. And of course, FREMM and FTI do not have it.
- RN is NOT taking the mission bay issue seriously for sure. RN is not investing a lot on it. Yes, RN is trying some UUV/USVs, but all other navies NOT pushing mission bay, is also working on UUV/USV in the same level.

We all know the Dutch Crossover design and Danish Apsalon design. Even though both were very "popular among this forum", they never succeeded in export. On the other hand, SIGMA class corvettes and Gowind class corvettes, both lacking mission bay, are very popular in export. Clear, mission bay is not popular for export.

[NickC]

@Donald-san

T31e HED propulsion

Thanks for info on the Khareef propulsion system, assuming roughly similar to the Arrowhead CODEOD design as the new USCG ~ 3,600T OPC (Babcock awarded contract for detail design), which use two low power/cost 335 kW motors for HED propulsion for ~8 knots.

The Damen Sigma 10514 for ~£250 million using the new HED commercial tech able to install two 1,325 KM motors, four times the power of the motors of the Khareef and OPC, the higher powered electric motors enable speeds up to 14/15 knots, approx. twice that of Kareef and OPC, allows better fuel consumption as DG's operating at peak efficiency and not using its big noisy 10 MW DE's at low power/rpm rating, with higher fuel consumption, coking and carbon build up. Much cheaper to silence the DGs than the big 10 MW diesels.

Figures show USN DDG-51 class destroyers operate ~ 50% of their time at or under 15 knots, would expect T31e the same or higher percentage so easy to see what operational flexibility the Sigma HED gives, the Leander max. range quoted at 7,500 nm, but no speed quoted, so doubt it would be better than the Sigma 5,000 at 14 knots, even though one third more tonnage with larger fuel tankage.

Looking to the not too distant future, electric power required goes up year by year, eg power hungry new generation GaN radars and may be if lasers become operationally viable it will require further major increase. With HED and powerful electric motors as used by Sigma it would be possible to install VFDs with AFE to turn electric motors into electric machines, giving PTO/PTI - bi directional, gives the flexibilty to take power from main diesels for the extra electric power for lasers, a key selling point in future export market ?

[Ron5]

ALL OTHER navy is putting mission-bay like system only on 2nd (Corvette) or even 3rd tier (OPVs) vessels, and not in warfighters. Former is Italian PPA, and later is French navy's B2M patrol vessel, I think. And of course, FREMM and FTI do not have it.

Do not forget LCS.

[shark bait]

which actually has an export contract!

[Poiuytrewq]

In my opinion if the Type 31e is ever going to be a success it has to be a basic and cheap patrol frigate, comprising a simple weapon and sensor fit and optimised for constabulary duties in low threat areas.

This will make it an extremely useful tool for RN and provide in the end the vessel the Batch 2 River could and should have been. It will however not be a comparable Type 23 GP replacement.

I can see the logic of building to a naval standard up to River Batch 2 level but I would rather see the £250m budget spent on range, endurance, crew comfort and excellent sea keeping qualities for long deployments with large mission bays and ample space for ISO containers to help local populations meaningfully in times of natural disaster or for migrant rescue.

The current and future lack of ASW capability is real and to address this I think serious consideration should be given to building future batches of a shortened and much more basic ASW frigate based on the Type 26 hull with the mission bay removed and the Chinook capable flight deck shortened to produce a 4500 to 5500 ton frigate aimed at primarily protecting the carriers and CASD. This would allow the Type 26 to be what it is, a globally deployable multi purpose cruiser.

Would an ASW frigate in this configuration not be very appealing for export?

Maybe with the Type 31e we are trying to export the wrong frigate.

The Type 31e has an important role to play but keep them basic, within budget and build as many as is needed but keep the serious war fighting for platforms designed for the task.

[shark bait]

The RN is building 5 vessels that are 'optimised for constabulary duties in low threat areas', why the the Navy need more?

[Poiuytrewq]

The Batch 2 Rivers in my view are compromised by the lack of a hanger and an embarked helicopter.

How many other navies conduct globally deployed anti narcotics patrols and disaster relief operations with an OPV or frigate without an embarked helicopter?

In my opinion although they are over specced for the role, I would gradually bring the RB2's back to the UK waters as it would appear fisheries enforcement and EEZ patrol is going to rise up the priority list in the next few years.

[shark bait]

That is a problem, and I'll suggest it's better to fix that problem directly on the Rivers, rather than paying for 5 more platforms to fix the problem indirectly.

The RN would also need more helicopters.

[Lord Jim]

The RN could probably lease a dozen or so in a similar arrangement to what operates in Belize and Cyprus. They don't need a full military spec platform and there are many helicopter that can operate from ships available to choose from. I do agree though, not having a hanger on the Batch 2 Rivers was a poor decision.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think River B2 is good as it is, and T31e is not bad as it is. May be there is a better option, but those two themselves are not bad.

1: River B2
- It is expensive, but it is to save T26, not necessarily related to River B2 itself.
- 90m-long, 2000t FLD size is a typical of OPV. Armament of single 30mm is also typical of an OPV. See Japan coast guard.
- Not having a hangar is ALSO not rare world wide. See again Japan coast guard. To my understanding, a 90m 2000t vessel cannot operate helicopter efficiently. (And here comes the 120m-long hull requirement.) ref; Portugal OPV, Irish OPV, Danish OPV, new RAN OPV.
- The crew is 36 (or 34), only 20% increase compared to River B1, but anyway not large.

Overall, a good ship for EEZ patrol.

2: T31e
- Making it a "large OPV armed as a corvette" is not bad, I agree. It is exactly the modern Floreal class (which was successful, I understand). USCG Heritage-class cutter and Danish Thetis-class frigate are also very similar.
- However, less-armed examples are also plenty: Japan coast guard's Tsugaru-class PLH (4000t, 105m long). Dutch Holland OPV. Indian coast guard also has some. Of course, these "less-armed" ones are cheaper, and hence the T31e debate starts "more armaments or less armaments". But, as shown above, T31e is not alone anyway.
- I have no idea how to use the mission bay (I mean much better to charter a PSV off the shelf), but anyway it is future growth margins, so no problem. In future, if needed to add armaments, just ban it. If RN buy plenty of USVs in future (which is unlikely I'm afraid), then just carry it (but no additional armaments will be there).

Overall, it is a modern example of Floreal and Thetis classes. She is also a sister of USCG long-rage cutters. So, the idea itself is not so strange.

In short, River B2 and T31e both a not bad. Surely they both are not useless. The only issue is "if it is the BEST option?", "are there any alternatives?". Worth discussion, I agree. But, I cannot agree saying River B2/T31e is useless.

[Caribbean]

As you say, they both have their niches. The River B2s for EEZ and guardship roles, the T31es for APT(N), WIGS, the Med and probably APT(S), plus various taskforce roles. I could also see the Rivers acting in concert with the T31s in the anti-piracy/ smuggling role. However, all the contenders for the contract contradict the OPV classification, stating that the T31 will be a combat capable vessel (though not very heavily armed at present). I certainly wouldn't describe it as a corvette - too big, to long a range and too little armament. Patrol frigate is probably the correct classification, with the margin to be a (lighter) frigate

[Tempest414]

I agree with this and I also feel the Batch 2 Rivers will work well in western and central Med as part of migrant rescue and patrol mission. I would also class type 31 as a global patrol frigate

[Lord Jim]

Part of me still thinks we should have threatened BAe with the MoD ordering the FREMM from Italy in both ASW and GP variants unless it got the cost under control. They had the Government over a barrel regarding the T-26, as they were the only UK source. Replace the Aster and VLS with 4x8 Mk41, with an additional 8 cell Strike length on the GP for TLAM. Adopt the latest MM40 or OTOMAT as an interim ASM, with the ASW variant also using the TESEO ASW missile and job done. BAe sell their yard to the Italians and they provide the RN's next generation of warships. As we would be then be part of the FREMM programme and its on going export potential, we could probably build the vessels at regular intervals allowing additional vessels beyond the 8 planned, allowing the T-31e to be produced as a much less capable stop gap, sold on when additional T-35 FREMMS are built. We retain a ship building capability, which would be more secure as a partner in a consortium though probably more in line with Italy. When it is time to replace the T-45 and the Italian's two Horizons, having already worked closely together, a joint programme would be far more stable, as would the RNs next generation amphibious platforms. I love it when my meds kick in!

[Jake1992]

Has there been any thought on bringing CAMM-ER in to service along side CAMM as a replacement for aster 15 ?

My understanding is that it can be used from the same VLS as CAMM, having a combination of CAMM-ER and CAMM on the T26 and possible the T31 would greatly increase their untility and survivability

[Timmymagic]

My understanding is that it can be used from the same VLS as CAMM, having a combination of CAMM-ER and CAMM on the T26 and possible the T31 would greatly increase their untility and survivability

They use the same launch system and by all accounts are the same diameter, but are of a different length. It will be interesting to see if the launch systems used by the RN have any growth margin, this could have a bearing on any theoretical use of a VL Spear 3 as well. The Army's Land Ceptor vehicles appear to be able to accommodate additional length launch boxes (admittedly with a substantial overhang at the rear). Whether or not we ever see ER in UK service is another thing.

[Jake1992]

My understanding is that it can be used from the same VLS as CAMM, having a combination of CAMM-ER and CAMM on the T26 and possible the T31 would greatly increase their untility and survivability

They use the same launch system and by all accounts are the same diameter, but are of a different length. It will be interesting to see if the launch systems used by the RN have any growth margin, this could have a bearing on any theoretical use of a VL Spear 3 as well. The Army's Land Ceptor vehicles appear to be able to accommodate additional length launch boxes (admittedly with a substantial overhang at the rear). Whether or not we ever see ER in UK service is another thing.

Thanks for the info, another question Iv had on my mind is if the sylver VLS on the T45s can quad pack CAMM like the mk41s or CAMM-ER for that matter ?

If so replacing aster 15 with CAMM-ER ( like the Italians are ) could be a way of helping solve satiation acts