Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

CAMM-ER is longer, has wider middle section with wing, and the similar tail with folded tail wing. Ref: MBDA cite.

camm_camm_er_white_seeker-900x500.jpg

I guess the mid-wing is for increased agility (Its not for float. Modern missile go just ballistic for longer range). I think UK shall better stick only to CAMM, and not CAMM-ER, for logistics reason. CAMM-ER also reported to have longer minimum range than CAMM. On the other hand, I think T45 shall carry CAMM and ban ASTER15 (can we just change the booster and re-use the dart as ASTER30?), again for logistics reason.

Regarding quad pack, it need ExLS. And as I said, ExLS do not need M.41 nor Silver. So, it will be better to just locate ExLS in somewhere else, so that T45 can carry 48 ASTER30, in addition to 24 or 48 CAMM.

[Ron5]

(Its not for float. Modern missile go just ballistic for longer range)

Incorrect. The wings are to provide additional lift during the boost phase. CAMM does not follow a ballistic path to its target.

I'm not sure that CAMM-ER fits ExLs. Is ExLs long enough internally?

Also, I'm not sure ExLs is a good match for CAMM. The point of the Mk 41 and it's derivative ExLs is that many types of missiles can be accommodated. For example, for one mission a Mk 41 could contain ASROC and for the next mission: SM-3. It's all about versatility.

So to buy one of these VLS and always load the same kind of missile is a huge waste of their capability (and therefore money).

Far cheaper to just build a pure CAMM silo. Sky Sabre shows how simple & basic that can be.

[donald_of_tokyo]

スクリーンショット 2018-03-16 21.57.51.jpg

From RNZN Navy Today - Issue 218, Feb. 2018. Te Kaha modernization plan (X-post from NZ thread).

We can see
- two CAMM data-link, one on the bridge, and one on the main mast (when there was the SPS-49 radar).
- torpedo-defense, the same (or similar) to those on T23.
- curious to know what launcher they are going to use for CAMM, and how many missiles will be there.

Also, we can see how T31e shall be "crowded". The hull size is the same to Leander/Cutlass. Armament is almost the same.
- Te Kaha mod will not carry Mk.41 VLS (replaced with CAMM tubes. Anyway, it was not strike-length).
- Artisan and SMART-S Mk2 is similar radar (in capability and size), and Te Kaha has a small, 2nd-rate hull sonar (in this case Spherion-B). T31e also will have a (small) hull sonar FTR.
- Te Kaha has a 5inch gun, while Leander 57/76 mm, but T31e has a 2 ISO container space, 2 more large-RHIB space, in addition to the two 7m class RHIB, also carried on Te Kaha.
- Te Kaha is CODOG, a GT requiring big air intake and exhaust, while all-diesel Leander can enjoy larger deck space.
- Also, Te Kaha = MEKO200 modular design requires more space and weight (inevitable "tax" of being modular) than as built design.

But, Te Kaha is in the final stage of their life, and hence its future growth margins is limited. I think, T31 Leander has not enough growth margin, OTHER THAN the "mission bay" itself. Automation may answer, but 100 crew in 2020 accommodation standard will need the same size as a 180 crew in 1990 accommodation standard.

Also, automation is alway expensive. Yes it is cheaper than the man-power cost itself. But it means the ship cost will inflate. (Also, if you actually do not cut your manpower, only the increase in ship cost remains).

[donald_of_tokyo]

(Its not for float. Modern missile go just ballistic for longer range)

Incorrect. The wings are to provide additional lift during the boost phase. CAMM does not follow a ballistic path to its target.

Is this true? AMRAAM, SM2/6, ASTAR15/30, all follows ballistic trajectory for their long range. Note, for a Mach 4 high velocity missile, "ballistic trajectory" is more "strait and low" than even MBT's main gun's trajectory (which is only Mach 2 or 3).

Also, I'm not sure ExLs is a good match for CAMM. The point of the Mk 41 and it's derivative ExLs is that many types of missiles can be accommodated. For example, for one mission a Mk 41 could contain ASROC and for the next mission: SM-3. It's all about versatility.
So to buy one of these VLS and always load the same kind of missile is a huge waste of their capability (and therefore money).
Far cheaper to just build a pure CAMM silo. Sky Sabre shows how simple & basic that can be.

Agreed. Even if it is ExLS, it can be, and shall better be, stand alone. I think there is no big merit on carrying CAMM on Mk.41.

[dmereifield]

Since the new BAE press release (from the T31 news thread) states that BAE are favouring a 57mm bofors main gun for it's T31e design, I wondered what the rough costs for purchase of the 57mm is compared to 76mm Oto or 5" BAE. Does anyone have ball park numbers please?

[Lord Jim]

Isn't BAe also tied into to Bofors? Saying that, the 57m is a good match as even if a simpler version is fitted initially, there would be scope to upgrade it to he full monty, which bring with it some very nice capabilities.

[Caribbean]

I wondered what the rough costs for purchase of the 57mm is compared to 76mm Oto or 5" BAE

From what I've seen around the internet, the 57mm and 76mm Oto are approximately the same at around $5m. Oto claim lower through-life costs (less frequent RTB refurbs). The 127mm is "probably" three times as much to acquire, more with the automated magazine designed for the T26.

[NickC]

China has started build of its 6th 13,000T/180M Type 055 "destroyer". First ship laid down 2014, launched in 2017 and expected to be commissioned this year, nearly twice the size of a Type 45.

Equipped with 128 vertical launch cells, possible load out - land attack YJ-18 missile; anti-ship missile YJ-12; HQ-9 long-range and HQ-16 medium range SAM; quad-packed DK-10A shorter range SAMs; FL-3000N/HHQ-10 Missile CIWS; CY anti-submarine rockets; H/PJ-38 130mm main gun; H/PJ-11 30mm CIWS and with S-band and X-band array radars plus helicopters.

China launched 28/29th 4,000T/140M Type 054A ASW frigate last December, the third launched 2017. Cost quoted at $340 M/ ~£250M. First ship was commissioned in January 2008, 25 Type 054A frigates have been commissioned in 9 years.

Range ~4,000 nm @ speed of 18 knots, max. range is ~ 8,000 miles.

Type 054A come with 32 VLS cells for HQ-16 medium range SAMs, 8 x YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, a H/PJ-26 76mm main gun, two H/PJ12 seven-barreled 30mm CIWS guns for first 16, H/PJ11 eleven-barreled 30mm CIWS for later vessels, for ASW HMS, TAS, ASROC Yu-8 and anti-submarine rockets with two triple YU-7 torpedo launchers.

The first of the improved 5,000-ton Type 054B ASW frigates expected to be commissioned in 2018 expected to include improved anti-submarine warfare kit and an all electric propulsion system.

[matt00773]

China has started build of its 6th 13,000T/180M Type 055 "destroyer". First ship laid down 2014, launched in 2017 and expected to be commissioned this year, nearly twice the size of a Type 45.

Equipped with 128 vertical launch cells, possible load out - land attack YJ-18 missile; anti-ship missile YJ-12; HQ-9 long-range and HQ-16 medium range SAM; quad-packed DK-10A shorter range SAMs; FL-3000N/HHQ-10 Missile CIWS; CY anti-submarine rockets; H/PJ-38 130mm main gun; H/PJ-11 30mm CIWS and with S-band and X-band array radars plus helicopters.

China launched 28/29th 4,000T/140M Type 054A ASW frigate last December, the third launched 2017. Cost quoted at $340 M/ ~£250M. First ship was commissioned in January 2008, 25 Type 054A frigates have been commissioned in 9 years.

Range ~4,000 nm @ speed of 18 knots, max. range is ~ 8,000 miles.

Type 054A come with 32 VLS cells for HQ-16 medium range SAMs, 8 x YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, a H/PJ-26 76mm main gun, two H/PJ12 seven-barreled 30mm CIWS guns for first 16, H/PJ11 eleven-barreled 30mm CIWS for later vessels, for ASW HMS, TAS, ASROC Yu-8 and anti-submarine rockets with two triple YU-7 torpedo launchers.

The first of the improved 5,000-ton Type 054B ASW frigates expected to be commissioned in 2018 expected to include improved anti-submarine warfare kit and an all electric propulsion system.

China is pumping out ships all the time as they make efforts to change the strategic horizon in the china sea and also globally. Most interesting for me is the development of IEP capability and it would be interesting to know how advanced they are in comparison with RR.

I should point out though that the Type 45 has a displacement of 8500T, so the Type 055 is a third larger and not twice the size as stated.

[Tempest414]

At 13000 t and with that armament I would say the type 055 is more a heavy cruiser than a destroyer

[Lord Jim]

As long as China lags behind in both conventional and nuclear submarines and to a certain extent carriers, it will not be able to dominate the area it wishes to. Trouble is it is catching up fast. Building escorts for the RN larger than the T-26 is basically going to remain in "Shipbucket". We are going to have to increase the offensive capabilities of RN vessels though as a matter of urgency. Operations are beginning to evolve beyond and pirate and smuggling operation s to ones more like the "Cold War". I wouldn't be surprise if all three of the RN's new classes of escort start having new kit bolted on as soon as funding is available as the reason/need already exists but funding shortages have prevented their inclusion from the start and the world was different even a decade ago.

[NickC]

Firepower "Quantity has a quality of its own" variously attributed to Napoleon Clausewitz Stalin.

Eight Type 055 planned, six in build, 128 VLS cells each x 8 = 1,024

To put that in perspective compared to the RN

Six Type 45 48 VLS cells each X 6 = 288

[Enigmatically]

Firepower "Quantity has a quality of its own" variously attributed to Napoleon Clausewitz Stalin.

The internet view of good quality specification and design

[RetroSicotte]

The internet view of good quality specification and design

This might be true in a most extreme sense.

But when the issue is "frontline ships lacking entire capabilities" then it really isn't the case any more and is indeed a legitimate, and huge, concern.

[matt00773]

Firepower "Quantity has a quality of its own" variously attributed to Napoleon Clausewitz Stalin.

Eight Type 055 planned, six in build, 128 VLS cells each x 8 = 1,024

To put that in perspective compared to the RN

Six Type 45 48 VLS cells each X 6 = 288

I don't agree with this approach of counting VLS on ships and using this as the basis for comparison in this way. Whilst the number on the Type 055 is impressive, I'm reminded of the "Fire Effectively First" doctrine where understanding the target effectively (range, disposition etc.) enables the correct action for engagement - appropriate missile etc. I don't know much about the radar on this ship or the capabilities of it's CMS, so would have to wait and see on it's overall capabilities and what they mean strategically. The Type 45 has a leading CMS/radar and provides a guaranteed single missile to kill response - or so they say.

[whitelancer]

As you say numbers are not everything, however to assume the capability of others are less than your own is not sensible, and even if true how long will that remain the case? Then numbers really do matter. A single Type 055 with half its VLS filled with anti ship missiles is going to give a CBG considerable problems unless it can be put out of action before it starts launching. Which itself wont be easy if the other half are full of SAMs.

[abc123]

RN being worried about capabilities of Chinese Navy is something like being worried about capabilities of Klingon Space Fleet. Neither is close/important enough to be a threat to the RN ( except if the RN-better to say their political masters- decides to make herself a target ), nor the RN ( in her current sad condition ) is able to do something very useful about that. RN is here something like Italian forces on Eastern front against the Soviet Union ( or China here ), with Germany ( or in this case USA ) playing the main role.

[whitelancer]

Now if China was in a Galaxy far far away you would be right, unfortunately they are only half a world away. Unless the RN is going to be nothing more than a coast defence force it needs to concern itself with the capabilities of all navies, in particular the most capable ones, such as the PLAN. Their may be no imminent prospect of conflict with China, but no one knows what the future may bring. So unless you happen to have a TARDIS to hand and can nip into the future and find out, to think the RN can ignore developments in the PLAN is foolish.

[Lord Jim]

I am sure the RN is far from ignoring the growth of the PLAN in both numbers and capability, the problem is it cannot do much about it without additional investment which as yet is not forthcoming. If the RN is going to send anything to the far east the best bet would be an Astute with all the bugs worked out. The me the RNs current plans will produce a fleet design to meet the threats of the late 1990s early 2000s and is going to struggle against those evolving now and in the future.

[matt00773]

As you say numbers are not everything, however to assume the capability of others are less than your own is not sensible, and even if true how long will that remain the case? Then numbers really do matter. A single Type 055 with half its VLS filled with anti ship missiles is going to give a CBG considerable problems unless it can be put out of action before it starts launching. Which itself wont be easy if the other half are full of SAMs.

I wasn't assuming the capability of the Type 055 was less than any other ship, simply asking the question and what this actually means strategically. The key point is that China is progressing at an aggressive rate and we need to be able to assess what overall capability their new ships have in expressing their strategic goals - counting VLS canisters is not the way to do this.

[sunstersun]

If UK wins say the Australian and Canadian competitions, does that provide enough funding/efficiencies/royalties for more type 26 orders from the UK?

[matt00773]

If UK wins say the Australian and Canadian competitions, does that provide enough funding/efficiencies/royalties for more type 26 orders from the UK?

I think it helps mitigate risk more than anything, as well as provide a better and more global operational capability - maintenance etc. The budget and numbers for the T26 programme in UK is set so I wouldn't expect any more.

[Tempest414]

I agree with this if anything with the mind set of the UK HMG the RN would end up with more type 31's as said in the past time is marching on and the window for type 45 replacement is starting to open in terms of planning and build time table if we are not to have any gaps

[Poiuytrewq]

If the Type 31e is not an ASW platform, why would RN want more than 5?

[Tempest414]

what I am saying is HMG need to change there mind set before we see anymore type 26's and if we were to build more this would have an affect on the type 45 replacement with possible gaps between the first type 45 going out of service and it replacement coming in

it should be noted that the type 31 brief has ASW as part of export program with most of the designs saying this capability could worked in their ships. for me this is not ideal by a long way but there is more scope for more hulls