Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

This is timely so with EXLS quad-packing CAMM proven and working Type 31 with 8 cell =32 CAMM's or in the case of Arrowhead 120 which has a 16 cell option on it buff sheet 64 CAMM. A little more hope that type 31 could come good

[shark bait]

I don't see the point. ExLS is useful for retrofitting into Mk41, New Zealand is a prime example, but for a new build whats the point?

[Tempest414]

the point now becomes that if type 31 is only fitted with EXLS system on RN ships they can still pack 32 CAMM and god forbid if type 31 got a 8 cell MK-41 VLS it could carry 18 CAMM in 4 cells and 4 cells free for what ever

[shark bait]

ExLS doesn't increase the packing density, it doesn't effect how many can be fitted on the T31.

[Tempest414]

but now it is a working stand a loan system it becomes a cheaper option

[shark bait]

CAMM is already a stand alone system, why is putting a box in a box better?

[Ron5]

ASW tactics has changed, from passive TASS to multi-static active. And, it is crystal clear active ASW requires less quietness.

Incorrect:

1. Detecting a faint "ping" echo against a lot of background noise of which the biggest source by a factor of 2 or 3 is your own ship, is exactly the same signal to noise challenge as that faced when performing passive i.e. detecting a faint self generated noise against a lot of background.

2. Knowing the frequency of your "ping" and therefore the likely frequency range of the echo helps but so does the library of acoustic signatures that you have that indicate which frequencies you are most likely to hear doing passive.

3. Making your ship silent in one frequency is a tough challenge. There's lots of sources that change volume & frequency. I doubt if it is any easier than trying to quieten across the spectrum.

4. Active ASW is always performed as an adjunct to passive. Just performing active to the exclusion of all else would be like hunting for deer with a large bell hung around your neck. The deer would hear you coming a long, long time before you were aware of their presence.

5. Multi-static (which seems to be the latest buzzword here) is a red herring. The challenge is detecting a faint noise against a noisy background. Doesn't matter how many are listening. Each should be a quiet as they can to be most effective.

[Ron5]

why in the hell does the T-26 cost so bloody much

For exactly the same reason that tanks cost so bloody much and fighter jets cost so bloody much and missiles cost so bloody much.

Defense is an expensive business. The UK and the US are the only two western nations that aspire to navies with a global reach that can take on the best that Russia & China can offer. So their warships are the peak of capability and are the most expensive.

Actually comparing UK warships: submarines, carriers, amphibs, escorts, to their US counterparts show that the UK ships are always cheaper. For example: submarines are a third cheaper per ton. T45's are cheaper than AB's per ton, QE is cheaper per ton than the Fords etc etc.

The UK problem is not the cost of its ships as governments of both flavors would have you believe, its their cuts to defense spending.

If defense spending today was at the same level as when the Type 23's were built, replacing them one for one with Type 26's would be perfectly affordable as would keeping the RN large enough to man/women them all.

[RetroSicotte]

I've always figured that the approach would ideally be the "home base" ship being passive as much as possible, and using off-board things to ping active to not endanger the ship itself.

The French experimented with a CAPTAS 1 on one of their landing craft a couple years ago, for example. US are experimenting with unmanned sonar carriers. Helos are obviously big ones for it.

Properly supported, a mission bay loaded T26 sending off a wolfpack of active sonars both on, above and under the waves, while it remains on passive seems very potent.

[Ron5]

Out in the north sea there is no point in a single active sonar, the sub will locate the ping well in advance and just go where the frigate isn't. Out there you need a big multi-static network, enter P8.

In that case might it not be the case that a few active pinging UUV's combined with noise making UUV's deployed over a wide area could provide a good acoustic shield for an SSBN?

You do realize the bad guys can hear your pings and the echos from your pings just as well as you can? And at a longer range than you can hear them. IOW, your cunning plan would immediately unveil the SSBN that you are trying to hide.

[shark bait]

4. Active ASW is always performed as an adjunct to passive. Just performing active to the exclusion of all else would be like hunting for deer with a large bell hung around your neck. The deer would hear you coming a long, long time before you were aware of their presence.

This is especially true when hunting, but how true is it when escorting?

When a Frigate is working to protect a task group, consisting of a big loud carrier and noisy auxiliaries (destroyers too apparently), the Frigate must assume the location of the high value units are already well known. In this instance the Frigate want's to detect as far way as possible, and is less concerned with the penalties of active sonar.

[Ron5]

"CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher"

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-relea ... -launcher/

I knew that Donald-san would be the happiest with this announcement

As I am, undiluted good news.

[Ron5]

ExLS doesn't increase the packing density, it doesn't effect how many can be fitted on the T31.

It most certainly increases the density over the Type 23 arrangement that's been featured on the Type 31 piccy's.

On the Leander for example, using ExLs would enable 4 3-cell ExLS up forward that could carry 48 CAMM instead of the current arrangement of 12 cells & 12 CAMM.

[Ron5]

I've always figured that the approach would ideally be the "home base" ship being passive as much as possible, and using off-board things to ping active to not endanger the ship itself.

The French experimented with a CAPTAS 1 on one of their landing craft a couple years ago, for example. US are experimenting with unmanned sonar carriers. Helos are obviously big ones for it.

Properly supported, a mission bay loaded T26 sending off a wolfpack of active sonars both on, above and under the waves, while it remains on passive seems very potent.

But once again, the bad guy can hear the ping echos off your T26 better than you can hear him (or her).

[shark bait]

It most certainly increases the density over the Type 23 arrangement that's been featured on the Type 31 piccy's.

The arrangement on the T23 is defined by the old sea wolf silos, that density could definitely be improved upon in a new build. It is puzzling why that arrangement has appeared on the new Leander renders though....

[Ron5]

CAMM is already a stand alone system, why is putting a box in a box better?

I think we're saying its a better solution than the Type 23 hand me downs.

I agree with you that ExLs offers nothing over a dedicated CAMM launcher that was once advertised by MBDA but for whatever reason, they've not appeared anywhere except on army trucks!

[Ron5]

Ha, ha, snap. I need go to bed.

[Ron5]

4. Active ASW is always performed as an adjunct to passive. Just performing active to the exclusion of all else would be like hunting for deer with a large bell hung around your neck. The deer would hear you coming a long, long time before you were aware of their presence.

This is especially true when hunting, but how true is it when escorting?

When a Frigate is working to protect a task group, consisting of a big loud carrier and noisy auxiliaries (destroyers too apparently), the Frigate must assume the location of the high value units are already well known. In this instance the Frigate want's to detect as far way as possible, and is less concerned with the penalties of active sonar.

I would think the attacking sub upon hearing your T26 ping would position itself on the other side of the fleet. Behind those noisy destroyers.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't see the point. ExLS is useful for retrofitting into Mk41, New Zealand is a prime example, but for a new build whats the point?

ExLS doesn't increase the packing density, it doesn't effect how many can be fitted on the T31.

NZ will not use Mk 41, they are ripping it out. ExLS do not need Mk 41. ExLS has more high density than the "mush rooms".

[donald_of_tokyo]

ASW tactics has changed, from passive TASS to multi-static active. And, it is crystal clear active ASW requires less quietness.

Incorrect:
1. Detecting a faint "ping" echo against a lot of background noise of which the biggest source by a factor of 2 or 3 is your own ship, is exactly the same signal to noise challenge as that faced when performing passive i.e. detecting a faint self generated noise against a lot of background.
2. Knowing the frequency of your "ping" and therefore the likely frequency range of the echo helps but so does the library of acoustic signatures that you have that indicate which frequencies you are most likely to hear doing passive.
3. Making your ship silent in one frequency is a tough challenge. There's lots of sources that change volume & frequency. I doubt if it is any easier than trying to quieten across the spectrum.
4. Active ASW is always performed as an adjunct to passive. Just performing active to the exclusion of all else would be like hunting for deer with a large bell hung around your neck. The deer would hear you coming a long, long time before you were aware of their presence.
5. Multi-static (which seems to be the latest buzzword here) is a red herring. The challenge is detecting a faint noise against a noisy background. Doesn't matter how many are listening. Each should be a quiet as they can to be most effective.

Sorry, you totally miss my point, and sometimes wrong.

1. and 2. Distributing "signals" in many frequency is different from a sum of pings. Similar technology is used in radio technology.

3. "Making your ship silent in one frequency" is orders of magnitude easier than "Making your ship silent in all frequency". This is mechanics (physics), and dumping technology problem. As an engineer, believe me, it does differ a lot.

4. There is no hope in passive detection for SSK. They are as silent as a "water". Active detection for ASW does reveal the location of the pinger, but that is why there are "escorts" and HVUs. Also, torpedo can be relatively easily "soft kill", because accoustic signal processing is not easy. So, "knowing position" does not directly mean "killed".

5. There are two difference in multi-static to normal active ASW.
5A. Pinger location is known to enemy, but listener one is not known. If the enemy SSK is chasing pinger, the listener can sneak to the SSK.
5B. Cross correlation analysis of signals detected in multiple location is largely different from just 1:1 data analysis. Improvement in analysis power (computer improvements) enabled this new approach. It is new and different.

[donald_of_tokyo]

why in the hell does the T-26 cost so bloody much

T26 is expensive because it is highly capable.
- ASW and AAW both deeply connected with strong CMS power.
- Safety standard, good accommodation, damage control, hull quietness, and extensive automation, all with military standard fire, shock, incline tolerance is surely very expensive.

At the same time, this means T31e cannot be highly capable to meet the 250M GBP cost. Crystal clear. This is why we are discussing "CAPTAS4/4CI/2 or even CAPTAS-1 on normal noise hull" and not quiet hull, why I am happy with "only 12 CAMM, in even only 2 or 3 of the 5 hulls", and "just extending the Khareef corvette, which has very low standard.

...CAMM...
I knew that Donald-san would be the happiest with this announcement
As I am, undiluted good news.

Exactly!

On the Leander for example, using ExLs would enable 4 3-cell ExLS up forward that could carry 48 CAMM instead of the current arrangement of 12 cells & 12 CAMM.

I suspect, it will simply make the VLS space compact. I am not surprised to see only 3 cells of ExLS, carrying 12 CAMM (=1 fire unit with electronics, as I understand). Better be 12 +12 = 24 CAMM.

Compact is good. Everything can be easily fit within the "6-cell SeaMICA" room. At least in the first hull, this will significantly reduce the integration cost.

[Ron5]

ASW tactics has changed, from passive TASS to multi-static active. And, it is crystal clear active ASW requires less quietness.

Incorrect:
1. Detecting a faint "ping" echo against a lot of background noise of which the biggest source by a factor of 2 or 3 is your own ship, is exactly the same signal to noise challenge as that faced when performing passive i.e. detecting a faint self generated noise against a lot of background.
2. Knowing the frequency of your "ping" and therefore the likely frequency range of the echo helps but so does the library of acoustic signatures that you have that indicate which frequencies you are most likely to hear doing passive.
3. Making your ship silent in one frequency is a tough challenge. There's lots of sources that change volume & frequency. I doubt if it is any easier than trying to quieten across the spectrum.
4. Active ASW is always performed as an adjunct to passive. Just performing active to the exclusion of all else would be like hunting for deer with a large bell hung around your neck. The deer would hear you coming a long, long time before you were aware of their presence.
5. Multi-static (which seems to be the latest buzzword here) is a red herring. The challenge is detecting a faint noise against a noisy background. Doesn't matter how many are listening. Each should be a quiet as they can to be most effective.

Sorry, you totally miss my point, and sometimes wrong.

1. and 2. Distributing "signals" in many frequency is different from a sum of pings. Similar technology is used in radio technology.

3. "Making your ship silent in one frequency" is orders of magnitude easier than "Making your ship silent in all frequency". This is mechanics (physics), and dumping technology problem. As an engineer, believe me, it does differ a lot.

4. There is no hope in passive detection for SSK. They are as silent as a "water". Active detection for ASW does reveal the location of the pinger, but that is why there are "escorts" and HVUs. Also, torpedo can be relatively easily "soft kill", because accoustic signal processing is not easy. So, "knowing position" does not directly mean "killed".

5. There are two difference in multi-static to normal active ASW.
5A. Pinger location is known to enemy, but listener one is not known. If the enemy SSK is chasing pinger, the listener can sneak to the SSK.
5B. Cross correlation analysis of signals detected in multiple location is largely different from just 1:1 data analysis. Improvement in analysis power (computer improvements) enabled this new approach. It is new and different.

1. Doesn't your point about varying frequencies of "ping" negate your point about silencing for just one frequency?

2. I fear that you are thinking a ship is a steady state machine, it is not. Noise sources change volumes & frequencies depending on ships state & location.

3. You are forgetting that your "pings" reveal the location of your "silent" assets just as much as they reveal the bad guys. With the difference that the bad guy can detect you and your silent partners at far greater ranges.

4. Multi-location acoustic analysis is just as sensitive to signal to noise ration as single location. Multi-static is a red herring in this debate.

[Lord Jim]

I agree, but going by figures posted here, a stripped down T-26 still costs less than or equal to a full kitted out FREMM. UK submarines, Escorts and Carriers might be cheaper than their US equivalents, but they are also lacking in capability.

Virginia class vs Astute Class
Arleigh Burke Flight II vs T-26
Ford Class vs Queen Elizabeth Class

Which would you have? Also based on prices quoted on line, 8 T-26 vs 16 FREMM, as what Italy is paying for their vessels, even with certain UK equipment would mean we could have had double the number or 13 at a reduced programme price.

[jimthelad]

Depends on water tracts, littoral noise and accoustic interface, etc. Even if you can hear you cant estimate range, bearing, or even time of inception. If you are the emitter the original point of reference and timing mean you can get more information than anyone listening.

It is not like ESM but more like indirect ray path propagation for HF radio. A good frigate using combined multistatic and passive may detect and prosecute a sub before it clears the datum. That is also before yo factor in an ASW helo.

[Ron5]

I agree, but going by figures posted here, a stripped down T-26 still costs less than or equal to a full kitted out FREMM. UK submarines, Escorts and Carriers might be cheaper than their US equivalents, but they are also lacking in capability.

Virginia class vs Astute Class
Arleigh Burke Flight II vs T-26
Ford Class vs Queen Elizabeth Class

Which would you have? Also based on prices quoted on line, 8 T-26 vs 16 FREMM, as what Italy is paying for their vessels, even with certain UK equipment would mean we could have had double the number or 13 at a reduced programme price.

Much of the US ships extra capability is conferred by their extra size. For example the UK carriers are 70% of the displacement of the US carriers and probably deliver 70% of their capability. Which is why I was careful to talk about cost per ton to normalize.

For comparisons: there's more than a few in the USN who would prefer an Astute over a Virginia. Traditionally, British subs are the quietest of anybody's and their sensor equipment is first rate.

Hunting submarines, everyone would select a T26 over any AB. AB's are not the USN's primary submarine hunter/killers.

Providing air defense, the T45's have some significant advantages over today's Aegis equipped ships. Too close to call I think. AB flight III's are a step up but none are in service yet.

As for your European comparisons, every naval officer in the world that wasn't entirely xenophobic ,would chose to go to war on a carrier protected by T45's, T26's and Astutes rather than Italian or French Horizons, FREMMs & Barracudas. The capabilities are not close. Especially when you factor in the worldwide reach of the RN. As you pointed out yourself, extra money confers extra capability. The French FREMMs are particularly poor and would have been worse if the Italians hadn't insisted on a higher standard.