Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

My point was on the flexibility that Mk41 allows. It would give the Type 45 access to ASROC as well, TLAM, ASM (including FC/ASW), ABM beyond that of Aster. It's about that flexibility that allows it to (outside of AAW) share munitions with the Type 26 and increase fleet robustness depth by a significant margin.

Land attack in the recent strikes on Syria was only an example, of "only one platform for each role" having drawbacks. The Royal Navy was, due to having to play with the Kilos, left unable to utilise the "designated land attack" platform entirely, because no other platform could do it.

Thanks. But, even if you have Mk41, you cannot put TLAM in it without the TLAM electronics installed. ASROC would be a bit more easy, I guess, maybe only a software upgrade is needed. But, T26's CMS-1 and T45's CMS differs, and I am not sure how it will cost to integrate the ASROC system into T45's CMS. Also, integrating ASTER15/30 to Mk 41 VLS needs costs, which will be high I guess.

But, I do agree these cost will not be so high (though surely not so cheap), and unifying on Mk.41 might have been a better choice, if RN did it from the beginning. Replacing current asset will cost a lot, and I do not think worth doing.

In ~1990, launcher for SeaDart, SeaCat, SeaWolf, and Harpoon was different. Mk 41 has a potential to unify them all, but for me, having Silver for T45 and Mk41 for T26 is not a big issue. Having 2 different GT sets on T45 and T26 will be much more troublesome

Simple question. By writing 12 Mk41, you mean 96-cell Mk.41 VLS system?

Haha, referring to silo quantity, not Mk41 module amount.

Sorry, but you say 12 Mk.41. There is no 12-cell option there? Only, 8, 16, 32, 40, 48, 64 cells.

[Caribbean]

I can't see the point in going to the expense and trouble of integrating Mk41 and associated missiles onto a T45, for the dubious benefit of creating a second-rate ASW or land attack vessel. Maybe in the days before the carriers, it might have been the only option, but now it needs to maximise its specialist capabilities. Much better to spend that money on completing the BMD set-up and maximising the number of AAW missiles that it can carry - it is woefully inadequate in that department as it is. If a T45 wants to do some sub-hunting, give it a Merlin and switch on the HMS. It's big because it needs to carry that radar as high as possible, so it can "see" as far as possible. Instead of spending probably hundreds of millions integrating stuff into a ship that is well designed for a highly specialised role, why not spend the money on additional capabilities for the T31, for instance, using common systems and software with the T26. Or filling up the T26 VLS with something that goes bang, maybe

The only thing I would spend money on integrating onto the T45 is CAMM and possibly a future ASuW missile (whichever the RN decides on), as long as it also comes in a deck-mounted launcher as well.

Move to Mk41 when the T45 is replaced (probably with a design based on the T26 hull)

As for not being able to join in the attacks on Syria, the T45 was there to defend against a Russian threat to attack the platforms that fired the missiles. A hollow threat as it turned out, but one that had to be defended against.

[RetroSicotte]

Also, integrating ASTER15/30 to Mk 41 VLS needs costs, which will be high I guess.

Type 45 has space for Mk41 without having to replace any of the Sylvers.

Sorry, but you say 12 Mk.41. There is no 12-cell option there? Only, 8, 16, 32, 40, 48, 64 cells.

Good point. I wonder why the "12x" is such a known number for it. I've seen 16 kicked about sometimes too. I think Gabe has an image of it at some point?

I can't see the point in going to the expense and trouble of integrating Mk41 and associated missiles onto a T45, for the dubious benefit of creating a second-rate ASW or land attack vessel.

If a Type 45 with 8-16 TLAMs is a "second rate land attack platform", then I guess so is the Astute, Virginia, Type 26 and FREMM.

All ships should have some form of on board ASW and ASuW at the very least. Literally every single other major navy in the world has come to this conclusion. The bonus in using Mk41 for this (via ASROC) is that it also grants the ship access to TLAMs.

This is not "doctrine", this is not "Britain is magically better than every other country in the world".

This is cost cutting. Plain and simple. No other reason.

As for not being able to join in the attacks on Syria, the T45 was there to defend against a Russian threat to attack the platforms that fired the missiles. A hollow threat as it turned out, but one that had to be defended against.

They didn't launch the missiles because they don't have any missiles to launch on T45. Notice how the French were able to perform, and note the utility of the USN as well. Trying to "defend" making a ship worse by saying its "focusing" when to grant it a broader range of abilities does no impact on the ship's ability to do that job is very short sighted.

Funding BMD does not mean the ship becomes incapable of hosting Mk41 (Indeed it'd be better at it due to SM-3 if that were brought in), just as it does not make the ship worse at BMD to have some TLAMs, ASROCs or whatever on board. Unless of course every other navy out there just are all wrong.

If this requires funding, then there's the useless Type 31 that can be cut to the barebones. Better to have 14 high end, fully capable escorts than a fleet that constantly has to "dial a ship" just to perform a standard task for any other navy around.

[matt00773]

Thanks. But, even if you have Mk41, you cannot put TLAM in it without the TLAM electronics installed. ASROC would be a bit more easy, I guess, maybe only a software upgrade is needed. But, T26's CMS-1 and T45's CMS differs, and I am not sure how it will cost to integrate the ASROC system into T45's CMS. Also, integrating ASTER15/30 to Mk 41 VLS needs costs, which will be high I guess.

I agree on the electronic integration of missiles into Mk41, but surely this can be leveraged from US and others who have done this?

On the matter of software, CMS-1 was designed for T45 and is the main system for the RN fleet. It's been installed on T23, Argus, QEC etc and will of course be the CMS for T26. The open architecture and modular nature of CMS-1 is such that integrating missiles (TLAM, ASROC etc.) would only have to be done once for all RN platforms.

[matt00773]

Type 45 has space for Mk41 without having to replace any of the Sylvers.

Swapping Sylver for Mk41 would be a waste of time and money given the primary role of T45. The silos are going to be packed with Aster missiles regardless.

Good point. I wonder why the "12x" is such a known number for it. I've seen 16 kicked about sometimes too. I think Gabe has an image of it at some point?

Could be 12 Mk57 VLS? These come in 4 cell modules. In any case I'm not certain where additional cells would go as there doesn't appear to be any room forward of the current missile platform. There is a massive gap in between the Sylver modules but not sure what can fit there.

Funding BMD does not mean the ship becomes incapable of hosting Mk41 (Indeed it'd be better at it due to SM-3 if that were brought in), just as it does not make the ship worse at BMD to have some TLAMs, ASROCs or whatever on board. Unless of course every other navy out there just are all wrong.

SM-3 is the best developed missile for BMD with capability to intercept missiles with over 5500km range. It is the one RN should be focusing on rather than Aster NT/BMD - in my view. I'd make room somehow for Mk41/57 just for that.

[Poiuytrewq]

I can see lots of merit on both sides of this debate but personally I would start from how many TLAM's is the UK actually going to purchase and work back from there.

If HMG is only going to purchase 100 to 200 or so the T26's will handle it.

I think it is very unlikely HMG is going to purchase 400 to 500 TLAM's, would RN ever realistically fire them?

How likely is it that a T26 will put to sea with all the cells filled in peacetime anyway?

Fully loaded the T26 looks well balanced on paper. For example,

48 CAMM
12 TLAM
4 ASROC
8 ASuW

If the Mk41 cells are fitted to the T45 will there still be room for the Harpoon mounts?

If the Harpoon replacement proves to be Mk41 based the T45's will HAVE to have the cells fitted or they themselves may need escorted

If the Harpoon replacement is canister launched and there is still room for 16 Mk41 cells to be added to the T45 and if it relies on it's embarked helicopter for ASW, the 6 T45's would be able to carry 96 TLAMS and the 8 T26's would be able to carry 160 TLAM's if 4 ASROC were also carried on each T26.

Combined capacity would be over 250 TLAMS if every vessel was filled to full capacity. That's a lot of firepower!

[RetroSicotte]

I can see lots of merit on both sides of this debate but personally I would start from how many TLAM's is the UK actually going to purchase and work back from there.

If HMG is only going to purchase 100 to 200 or so the T26's will handle it.

That's not quite how it works though. It's about how many platforms you can put that stockpile on. Ships aren't sitting around in refit with live munitions for example. Munitions are put on the ships actually heading out. Max Silos = Max missiles bought isn't an accurate way to determine the spread of weapons in the fleet.

If the Mk41 cells are fitted to the T45 will there still be room for the Harpoon mounts?

The extra VLS go up front between silos and gun, if I recall right. I am looking, Gabriel had something on it once. Will post if I find it.

If the Harpoon replacement proves to be Mk41 based the T45's will HAVE to have the cells fitted or they themselves may need escorted

That is the big worry for me that prompts this, yes.

[seaspear]

Is there a policy that all ships on deployment leave fully loaded as far as missile load out is concerned?

[Phil R]

No such policy, as demonstrated by:
2011 when HMS Westminster deployed to Libya carrying just four Sea Wolf missiles.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... siles.html

Phil R

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks. But, even if you have Mk41, you cannot put TLAM in it without the TLAM electronics installed. ASROC would be a bit more easy, I guess, maybe only a software upgrade is needed. But, T26's CMS-1 and T45's CMS differs, and I am not sure how it will cost to integrate the ASROC system into T45's CMS. Also, integrating ASTER15/30 to Mk 41 VLS needs costs, which will be high I guess.

I agree on the electronic integration of missiles into Mk41, but surely this can be leveraged from US and others who have done this?

On the matter of software, CMS-1 was designed for T45 and is the main system for the RN fleet. It's been installed on T23, Argus, QEC etc and will of course be the CMS for T26. The open architecture and modular nature of CMS-1 is such that integrating missiles (TLAM, ASROC etc.) would only have to be done once for all RN platforms.

Oh, I was wrong and you are right. T45 does carry CMS-1.
ref: https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... nt-systems

So, development of CMS integration cost is already /or will be done for ASTER15/30 (T45 but with Sylver), CAMM (T23), TLAM, ASROC and other (will be T26). TLAM and ASROC on Mk41 is OK (USN), but ASTER15/30 on Mk41 is not. (But, RetroSicotte-san was anyway not proposing it).

On the other hand, installing it to each asset is, of course not free (software IS expensive). But, it could be done relatively quickly, if the existing analysis power meats the requirement for the additional softwares. And we know some missile do need specific front-end electronics to be purchased, as we agree.

In short, if it is adding 16 Mk 41 on T45 (Gabriele-san has shown it is between the gun and VLS, a space is reserved), it is not that bad, as I said. We just need to ban 6 F35B to do it. (cut a land-attack resource from CV AirWing and paste it on T45 ), if you like.

I prefer to spend the same resource to something else, because I do not think land attack is critically important, for a navy with 2 large CV. For ASROC, may be, but depends on USNavy future plan on it. So, anyway, not now.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If the Harpoon replacement proves to be Mk41 based the T45's will HAVE to have the cells fitted or they themselves may need escorted

That is the big worry for me that prompts this, yes.

Why? T45 can carry 2 Wildcats, each carrying 2 SeaVenom. For a more sever strike, T45 AAW capability can defeat any such ASM attack (but I think we need 24-48 CAMM added).

But, I do agree they shall carry Harpoon blk II+ for a decade, and then NSM/JSM or LRASM (or Anglo-French ASM, which I do not think is good) in future.

[matt00773]

In short, if it is adding 16 Mk 41 on T45 (Gabriele-san has shown it is between the gun and VLS, a space is reserved), it is not that bad, as I said. We just need to ban 6 F35B to do it. (cut a land-attack resource from CV AirWing and paste it on T45 ), if you like.

I prefer to spend the same resource to something else, because I do not think land attack is critically important, for a navy with 2 large CV. For ASROC, may be, but depends on USNavy future plan on it. So, anyway, not now.

I'm just wondering about this reserved space on T45. It would seem visually that you can't fit any Mk41 between the Sylver silo modules (yellow arrow below) - though there is a large space there. If it's possible to extend the platform up to the gun perimeter marker (orange arrow below), then it would seem there would be ample room for additional silos - the width of Sylver and Mk41 modules is roughly the same.

Could it be possible, I wonder, to fill the space between the Sylver silos with CAMM or ExLS silos, and also insert Mk41/57 up to the gun perimeter?

[RetroSicotte]

Why? T45 can carry 2 Wildcats, each carrying 2 SeaVenom. For a more sever strike, T45 AAW capability can defeat any such ASM attack (but I think we need 24-48 CAMM added).

A Wildcat with a couple of very short range small missiles is not a serious anti-ship capability against a peer foe who's hurling a dozen or more large warhead munitions from hundreds of km's away, as the naval trend is moving towards.

It's like giving the British Army pistols instead of their assault rifles, then saying they can still make kills in the field.

[shark bait]

Yes, wildcat is there for a different role, the RN need to maintain a big bubble of protection around their platforms so it needs big anti-ship missiles.

A big platform like the T45 should be able to do more, if it didn't need new engines adding a bigger capacity for cruise missiles should be the priority.

Interestingly if all the silos we're replaced with the Mk41 they could fit 72 silos. The gun may soon be obsolete, so maybe even more room. Could also add some cold launch silos mid ship like the T26 and add even more!

[Tempest414]

I think what Syria has showed is we need more options had the Type 45 been the launch platform the SSN could have got on with its primary role of playing with the Russian subs the type 45 could have switch back to its primary role had there been a in coming attack. with such a small fleet very ship in the fleet needs primary and secondary roles

[shark bait]

yes, its bizarre we have such a huge single role platform these days.

[RetroSicotte]

Ideally the sort of thing I'd be looking at with the Type 45 being brought to:

1x Mk45 Mod 127mm Gun
This gives the Type 45 just under 10 years to get this upgrade underway to match the entry of the Type 26 with the new gun, however this is not a crucial element as the Mk8 will be supported via the Type 23 until the 2030's.

48x Sylver A50 silos for Aster-15/30
Keep as is. Works fine. CAMM being able to fit into them would be useful to expand the total quantity, but not a requirement. There is a space between the Sylvers right now, but if I recall Gabe's site at one point, it's theorised that is not a usable area due to the design of the Sylvers.

12-16x Mk41/57 silos
We don't really know exactly what silos are being talked of here. Donald made a great point that 12 Mk41 silos isn't possible. The UXV Combatant design had Mk57's, so perhaps that was what was meant? Either way, splitting it between ASROC and TLAM on the short/medium term would be the best use, with a longer plan for SM-3 once the BMD upgrade is complete. This one upgrade opens up the Type 45 to being able to finally do what major escorts do the world over.

8x Naval Strike Missile Canisters
I've talked of my preference for this munition before, due to how it could fit on almost all British military platforms (T23, T26, T45, P-8, F-35, Typhoon, and even murmurings of submarine variants) and already has integration funding for most of them.

BMD and CEC upgrades
Both are equally important going forward.

And then of course the 2x Phalanx, 2x DS30M, Small Arms, Wildcat or two.

I am still concerned by the lack of an available tail for the Type 45, at the very least for passive detection below the thermal layer. But there's not much can be done about that.

Moving forward to 2030+, bringing the FC/ASW to replace NSM at the least would be the next step. Although it seems more likely that will require vertical silos to use, which doesn't bode well for the Type 45, it'll have to lose some of something then.

The robustness and depth that gives the fleet, by having more ships that can launch ASW munitions, more ships capable of land attack, increasing its AAW focus. With so few escorts, having "one trick ponies" is a luxury the RN can no longer afford to risk. Everyone else has realised this, time the UK did too.

[shark bait]

All very important upgrades, an no money for any of them.

On that list BMD and CEC upgrades are probably the most important one. Since the T45 is a single-role ship its needs to be a bloody good at the single-role. That means extending its reach using F35 and Crows-nest sensors, and finally adding that anti ballistic missile capability.

BMD is already in the works, with France and Italy also investing in the tech we need, but is anyone funding CEC for PAAMS? Guess the French wouldnt be much use here becuase they don't operate the same aircraft, but Italy use PAAMS and F35b so they must be a potential partner to help integrate these?

[RetroSicotte]

All very important upgrades, an no money for any of them.

Oh yeah, I definitely am not forgetting the budget element. I just prefer to state it as "too much money going to the wrong places" away from the budget, rather than "not enough money". There absolutely is enough money. It's just a matter of the Treasury stopping wasting it.

On that list BMD and CEC upgrades are probably the most important one. Since the T45 is a single-role ship its needs to be a bloody good at the single-role. That means extending its reach using F35 and Crows-nest sensors, and finally adding that anti ballistic missile capability.

BMD is already in the works, with France and Italy also investing in the tech we need, but is anyone funding CEC for PAAMS? Guess the French wouldnt be much use here becuase they don't operate the same aircraft, but Italy use PAAMS and F35b so they must be a potential partner to help integrate these?

No known funding for CEC, nope. ABM is something you can pitch to the average joe in the street and they'll understand it. CEC though? Falls into the "average voter won't understand why this is important, so don't bother" category for the Government.

One would hope Italy would be useful here, yes. They actually seem to care about their navy.

[indeid]

All very important upgrades, an no money for any of them.

On that list BMD and CEC upgrades are probably the most important one. Since the T45 is a single-role ship its needs to be a bloody good at the single-role. That means extending its reach using F35 and Crows-nest sensors, and finally adding that anti ballistic missile capability.

BMD is already in the works, with France and Italy also investing in the tech we need, but is anyone funding CEC for PAAMS? Guess the French wouldnt be much use here becuase they don't operate the same aircraft, but Italy use PAAMS and F35b so they must be a potential partner to help integrate these?

Why the focus on CEC? The USN is moving to NIFC-CA, which includes CEC, but much more, and brings together MADL/Link16/TTNT/CMN4 etc to give a network which would be able integrate the majority of UK assets, not just a T45 and Crowsnest. Surely with the size of the UK forces this has to be a joint activity?

A wider network is also a must for BMD, a single platform without offboard sensors will be extremely limited. I reckon the RN should focus initially on the ASBM threat and expand from there. If the UK wants a BMD capability for homeland or deployed forces it is going to have to stump up the cash.

[Caribbean]

All very important upgrades, an no money for any of them

..... aaaand back we come to the point that I started from.

Financial constraints are reality. All armed forces have financial constraints, even the USN, with its enormous budget, has to pick and choose its projects. Frankly, jumping up and down on this forum, demanding more money be spent and screaming that its all the governments fault is just a waste of everybody's time. Lobby your MP, sign a petition, START a petition, even. Those are the things that have a chance (albeit a small one) of affecting government policy. Or take it over to the Fantasy Fleets thread. Perhaps we should start a Fantasy Budgets thread to complement it.

Forget the "nice-to-haves", we are taking care of that via other platforms. Spend the little that is available on perfecting the BMD role, since we have no other platform, existing or planned, that can perform that role. Once that is done, then start on the wish list - upgrade/ refresh/ replace Harpoon, add Mk41s, paint them all pink, whatever - unlikely ever to happen, because there are far more important things than "we weren't able to swing our dick alongside the French".

As for ASW, the T45 has hull-mounted sonar (Ultra's MFS-7000) and Ultra's SSTD (which incorporates a passive towed array optimised for torpedo detection), which could be upgraded to a hard-kill variant in the future and it's Merlin-capable, so that it can both defend itself and contribute to fleet ASW efforts. It's also not optimised for URN.

Apologies if I come over as abrupt, but I frankly can't be arsed to pad this out with nice polite phrases and qualifiers to make it seem less so.

[RetroSicotte]

Financial constraints are reality. All armed forces have financial constraints, even the USN, with its enormous budget, has to pick and choose its projects. Frankly, jumping up and down on this forum, demanding more money be spent and screaming that its all the governments fault is just a waste of everybody's time. Lobby your MP, sign a petition, START a petition, even. Those are the things that have a chance (albeit a small one) of affecting government policy. Or take it over to the Fantasy Fleets thread. Perhaps we should start a Fantasy Budgets thread to complement it.

Forget the "nice-to-haves", we are taking care of that via other platforms. Spend the little that is available on perfecting the BMD role, since we have no other platform, existing or planned, that can perform that role. Once that is done, then start on the wish list - upgrade/ refresh/ replace Harpoon, add Mk41s, paint them all pink, whatever - unlikely ever to happen, because there are far more important things than "we weren't able to swing our dick alongside the French".

As for ASW, the T45 has hull-mounted sonar (Ultra's MFS-7000) and Ultra's SSTD (which incorporates a passive towed array optimised for torpedo detection), which could be upgraded to a hard-kill variant in the future and it's Merlin-capable, so that it can both defend itself and contribute to fleet ASW efforts. It's also not optimised for URN.

Apologies if I come over as abrupt, but I frankly can't be arsed to pad this out with nice polite phrases and qualifiers to make it seem less so.

I wouldn't say "abrupt" so much as "misrepresenting other people's posts". It feels like you're creating an argument from others that doesn't exist to argue against.

With the navy, there is a requirement, a world standard, and there is a likelihood. If you think I'm not fully aware of the realities of what the requirements and likelihoods are, or what is highest priority, then you must have missed most of my posts around this forum, because I very much am, and we've all discussed that to death. But this discussion is pretty centred on the world standards, and how the UK pertains to that, and where the UK is faltering in that area against possible adversary both minor and major.

That and it was already clearly described in a previous post what to "cut" from the RN in order to better fund a Type 45 upgrade.

These threads can get pretty rapid at times, with big posts, but please try not to assume too much of someone's post, or imply people are just freaking out. For the record, many here HAVE regularly written MPs, or even visited in person. I think you may have just interpreted the discussion in the incorrect way.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I wouldn't say "abrupt" so much as "greatly misrepresenting other people's posts". It feels like you're creating an argument from others that doesn't exist to argue against with that "abrupt" language.

With the navy, there is a requirement, a world standard, and there is a likelihood. If you think I'm not fully aware of the realities of what the requirements and likelihoods are, or what is highest priority, then you must have missed most of my posts around this forum. But this discussion is pretty clearly centred on the world standards, and how the UK pertains to that, and where the UK is faltering in that area against possible adversary both minor and major.

That and it was already clearly described in a previous post what to "cut" from the RN in order to better fund a Type 45 upgrade. So trying to pretend people aren't actually keeping that in mind is very disingenuous, especially to try and hold oneself above it.

Sorry RetroSicotte-san, it is not clear for me either.

1: I understand you propose to make T31e just a large OPV or totally cut it (which?), to enable T45 to carry 16-cell Mk 41 VLS. Is this correct?

Then, I think it is one idea but not the only choice. I will rather cut a few F35B.

2: I understand you say, making all the escorts "multi-purpose" is the requirement. But, I see no such requirement worldwide.

- Italian navy has ASW FREMM and GP FREMM.
- German F125 is "a large sister of T31e".
- Japan is building 30DD, which lacks good SAM, relying only on SeaRAM.
- Many of the Burg class DDG in USN (and Kongo-class DDG of JMSDF) lacks helicopter hanger, and many of the Burg Batch-2 ships (which has helo hanger) do not carry TASS.

I agree multi-purpose is a "trend", but see no reason to think it is a requirement.

Do I understanding your "understanding of requirements and likelihoods" correctly?

[shark bait]

Why the focus on CEC?

I wasn't referring to the specific protocol, more the general concept. At some point the RN will have to add distributed elements to PAAMS, the sensors will already be in service, and collecting vast amounts of data, so it need to close the last step and get that data integrated so it can be used to increase the sphere of influence for the T45.

[abc123]

Spend the little that is available on perfecting the BMD role,

And why spend scarce money resources when the UK or RN currently allmost has no danger from balistic missiles?