Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

I think that as long as the T-31e has the potential to grow in capability the RN should be content as should we. They may never expand beyond what they start with but is the situation changes, having five more hulls able to be given more warfighting capabilities would be a useful addition to the fleet, especially if these capabilities were the same as other platforms. This is why having even only one 8 Cell Mk41 would be so advantageous. Having two would be better, but before that clearing Sea Ceptor for Ex LS in partnership with the manufacturer should be sought as a matter of urgency. Sea Ceptor is a world class system and being cleared for use with the Mk41 would gain significant export potential. Then again I am trying to think logically here, something the MoD often fails to do with its programme planning and management.

[Tempest414]

CAMM is cleared for ExLS and can be quad packed in the 3 cell system so that open up to the option of 6,9,12 cell ExLS or 24,36,48 CAMM

[Lord Jim]

If Sea Ceptor is cleared, then the Mk41 should become a default system an all UK Warships including the T-26 and T-31e and the former should have the dedicated Sea Ceptor Silos replaced by additional standard or self defence length MK41s, double the number of modules to four. It would improve the chances of exports by simply reducing the number of changes another navy would have to make to the RN version.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If Sea Ceptor is cleared, then the Mk41 should become a default system an all UK Warships including the T-26 and T-31e and the former should have the dedicated Sea Ceptor Silos replaced by additional standard or self defence length MK41s, double the number of modules to four. It would improve the chances of exports by simply reducing the number of changes another navy would have to make to the RN version.

Why? ExLS is stand alone. There is ZERO NEED FOR short Mk.41 if it is to be used for CAMM. So, short-length Mk.41 VLS will never be needed for RN and/or CAMM. Completely a waste of money.

On the other hand, I believe RN MUST use ExLS in T31e, so that to be "cleared" for use. "Technically cleared" and "already in use" is very different. This will also enable RN to "replace" simple tubed in the first 3 T26, or at least adopt ExLS from hull-4 of T26.

[ArmChairCivvy]

That's in addition to the 4 MCM and the bay class, and the odd FF/DD/Albion showing it's face en route to the East every now and then

Yea. RFA Fort Rosalie has also been in the Gulf for the last 6 months. Only returned recently for refit.

Things must be desperate if both Ft Victoria and Ft Rosalie are in refit at the same time, leaving just one
- well, desperate because of the snail's pace of the FSS part of MARS
- and we know where those monies went, along the way

[Spinflight]

On the other hand, I believe RN MUST use ExLS in T31e, so that to be "cleared" for use.

Erm.... Why?

Only difference between them is the depth to fit. We currently have nothing in our entire arsenal that needs strike length 41s. The only thing of any distant possibility is a project which might see something in the late 20s.

In fact the only thing that we have requiring vertical launch which may go on the 31 is Sea Ceptor, which has it's own much simpler and cheaper cold launch tubes.

As long as there is space in the design for export jobbies, job jobbed.

I mean why would we want to quad pack relatively titchy Ceptors into strike length cells in the first place? These things are not small.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the other hand, I believe RN MUST use ExLS in T31e, so that to be "cleared" for use.

Erm.... Why?

To promote ExLS+CAMM for export. May be you missed my point? I said nothing about Mk.41. We do not need Mk.41 on T31e. Having it on power-point brochure is OK, for export.

But, if we are to carry CAMM, it shall be better with ExLS and not "mushrooms" for export promotion. It will nicely fit within the "ex-SeaMICA" place. May be even only half of it. OF course I understand mushrooms are a little cheaper and even T31e having any CAMM is not guranteed.

[EDIT] I also totally agree it is not a good idea to carry CAMM on Mk.41 strike length cell. Huge waste of space, weight and cost.

[ArmChairCivvy]

why would we want to quad pack relatively titchy Ceptors into strike length cells in the first place?

Good question; it is like buying a man's suit for a 6-yr old ("room for growth").

Talking about men, put one and a half of the normal height together
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/da ... f04ee8.jpg
and you get the size of a Seaceptor.

[Spinflight]

On the other hand, I believe RN MUST use ExLS in T31e, so that to be "cleared" for use.

Erm.... Why?

To promote ExLS+CAMM for export. May be you missed my point? I said nothing about Mk.41. We do not need Mk.41 on T31e. Having it on power-point brochure is OK, for export.

But, if we are to carry CAMM, it shall be better with ExLS and not "mushrooms" for export promotion. It will nicely fit within the "ex-SeaMICA" place. May be even only half of it. OF course I understand mushrooms are a little cheaper and even T31e having any CAMM is not guranteed.

[EDIT] I also totally agree it is not a good idea to carry CAMM on Mk.41 strike length cell. Huge waste of space, weight and cost.

My understanding, and it is merely that, was that the ExLS was so you could fit existing launch tubes into far longer tubes. In other words to cut down on integration costs and whatnot, or having to rip existing Mk41s etc out...

Hence a potential export customer who already sported Mk41 etc could merely use ExLS to fit CAMM.

Do I have this the wrong way around?

Either way it means fitting cheap cold launch tubes into a far larger and massively more expensive hot launch system. Ceptors are relatively titchy compared to the 7m deep behemoths which only need their length for SM6 and T'hawks.

Not difficult to find somewhere with a few metres depth for CAMM tubes. And I suspect they are pennies in comparison to something designed to take 3500lb fireworks.

[Caribbean]

fitting cheap cold launch tubes into a far larger and massively more expensive hot launch system

ExLs is also currently certified for use with SeaRam, Precision attack missile (NLOS-LS) and Nulka decoys in addition to CAMM, so it looks as if it is hot-launch capable as well. As you say, it can be used as a standardised quad-packing system for use inside an existing Mk41, but there is also a stand-alone version for independent use. There are also single-cell versions of both ExLs and Mk 41, allowing for both to be fitted to relatively small vessels or in different numbers from the 8-cell "standard block " for Mk41 (3-cell for ExLs)

[Simon82]

ExLS has two versions; one is an insert for Mk 41 launchers that houses the ejection system for the cold launch and 4 CAMM, the second is a stand alone CAMM launcher. It is this version I believe donald_of_tokyo is referring to. As each launcher houses four missiles it allows for a much greater packing density than the adapted Seawolf ‘mushroom’ VLS used on the Type 23 upgrade while taking up a similar volume.

[donald_of_tokyo]

My understanding, and it is merely that, was that the ExLS was so you could fit existing launch tubes into far longer tubes. In other words to cut down on integration costs and whatnot, or having to rip existing Mk41s etc out...

Hence a potential export customer who already sported Mk41 etc could merely use ExLS to fit CAMM.

Do I have this the wrong way around?

I agree you can do so. But, for example, RNZN is ripping off their Mk 41 VLS to fit CAMM, because it is just a dead-weight, making center-of-gravity worse. No info. yet if they will adopt mushroom or ExLS. I'm afraid it is muchroom and only 12-16 CAMM will be carried.

Anyway Mk 41 is not needed if only CAMM is to be carried.

If a ship with strike-length Mk 41 VLS to carry TLAM, but the situation turns out to be air defense is the most important in the theater, then it can "temporary" carry ExLS within the Mk.41 VLS to improve AAW capability. If enemy air-force has been beaten, then in the next deployment she can come with full of land attack missile. Yes, this is flexible, and will be nice to happen in large escorts. (but not in small escorts or patrol frigate, such as T31e).

[Simon82]

Here’s a video demonstrating a stand alone ExLS and a Mk 41 VLS that shows the comparative sizes

[Simon82]

I can understand why for simplicity’s sake the ‘mushroom’ launcher conversion was performed on the Type 23s during their upgrade, but I really don’t understand why these launchers are being carried over to the Type 26 and Type 31 designs. If the amidships ‘mushrooms’ on the Type 26s were changed to quad packed ExLS silos it would allow an increased number of Mk41 units to be fitted forward (or at least FFBNW), in common with the proposed SEA5000 version, with no loss to the quantity of CAMM carried. The Royal Navy would get a ship with an easy upgrade path, it would increase structural commonality with Type 26s proposed for allied navies and it would showcase CAMM/ExLS in a much more export friendly format. Oh well, bit late now...

[Tempest414]

for me if the UK are thinking of deploying type 31 on Kipion then it will have CAMM and for me a 9 cell ExLS makes best use of space on both the Leander and Arrowhead 120 concepts

The mushroom cells on type 23 were also the only way forward at the time as CAMM and ExLS only really came together in late 2017 the same time Argyll was being refitted. It would good to see latter type 23 refits fitted with 12 or 15 cell ExLS to give 48 to 60 CAMM

[Lord Jim]

There are three sizes of Mk 41 ranging from the self defence to the strike length. Whilst it appears that the planned 2 8-Cell Mk41s on the T-26 are to be strike length and able to launch any of the current or planned load outs, the additional Mk41 for the T-26 and those for the T-31e would at most be the standard length or even the self defence version. For the RN we sort of in a "Chicken or the Egg", situation. Do we decide to adopt the Mk41 and then choose which weapons systems to employ or the other way around. At present, especially with the T-26 we seem to be doing the latter. IF the MoD could decide what it wants to fit out the T-26 with it would make the argument for fitting one or more MK41s to the T-31e easier.

[Jake1992]

There are three sizes of Mk 41 ranging from the self defence to the strike length. Whilst it appears that the planned 2 8-Cell Mk41s on the T-26 are to be strike length and able to launch any of the current or planned load outs, the additional Mk41 for the T-26 and those for the T-31e would at most be the standard length or even the self defence version. For the RN we sort of in a "Chicken or the Egg", situation. Do we decide to adopt the Mk41 and then choose which weapons systems to employ or the other way around. At present, especially with the T-26 we seem to be doing the latter. IF the MoD could decide what it wants to fit out the T-26 with it would make the argument for fitting one or more MK41s to the T-31e easier.

Where did you get that from I read that the RN T26 are having 24 strike length mk41s ( 4 x 8 cell ) and 24 CAMM silos ?

[benny14]

Things must be desperate if both Ft Victoria and Ft Rosalie are in refit at the same time, leaving just one
- well, desperate because of the snail's pace of the FSS part of MARS
- and we know where those monies went, along the way

I mixed them up. Fort Victoria is under going a major refit to be compatible with the QE carriers after been deployed for two years. Fort Rosalie has returned from a six month gulf deployment and is up in Rosyth for at least some maintenance, if not a refit. Fort Austin is laid up.

Wave Knight is undergoing maintenance and Wave Ruler is laid up.

[donald_of_tokyo]

There are three sizes of Mk 41 ranging from the self defence to the strike length. Whilst it appears that the planned 2 8-Cell Mk41s on the T-26 are to be strike length and able to launch any of the current or planned load outs, the additional Mk41 for the T-26 and those for the T-31e would at most be the standard length or even the self defence version. For the RN we sort of in a "Chicken or the Egg", situation. Do we decide to adopt the Mk41 and then choose which weapons systems to employ or the other way around. At present, especially with the T-26 we seem to be doing the latter. IF the MoD could decide what it wants to fit out the T-26 with it would make the argument for fitting one or more MK41s to the T-31e easier.

Where did you get that from I read that the RN T26 are having 24 strike length mk41s ( 4 x 8 cell ) and 24 CAMM silos ?

As we all know, RN T26 will have
- 24 strike-length Mk.41 VLS
- and, 48 (24 near the Mk.41 and 24 near the mission bay) CAMM.

However, as (I think) Ron5-san has suggested, the "6 cell mush room section" has the same dimension as "6 cell ExLS", which means the 48 CAMM can, in paper, be increased to 192 CAMM/SPEAR3 or else. At least, making it double (96 CAMM/SPEAR3) will be quite easy.

[Simon82]

There are three sizes of Mk 41 ranging from the self defence to the strike length. Whilst it appears that the planned 2 8-Cell Mk41s on the T-26 are to be strike length and able to launch any of the current or planned load outs, the additional Mk41 for the T-26 and those for the T-31e would at most be the standard length or even the self defence version. For the RN we sort of in a "Chicken or the Egg", situation. Do we decide to adopt the Mk41 and then choose which weapons systems to employ or the other way around. At present, especially with the T-26 we seem to be doing the latter. IF the MoD could decide what it wants to fit out the T-26 with it would make the argument for fitting one or more MK41s to the T-31e easier.

I hadn’t considered that the extra Mk 41 silos on the SEA 5000 proposal might not be strike length. I guess that makes sense as a good proportion of the cells will always be carrying quad-packed ESSMs for ship defence. I don’t suppose you have any sources for the layout of the VLS on the Australian proposal? I’m guessing from what you say is that it is 24 strike length cells (3x8) as per the Royal Navy variant and then a further 8 self-defence cells (one module) up front, rotated at 90 degrees to the strike-length modules, in place of the forward CAMM ‘mushrooms’?

[Tempest414]

There are three sizes of Mk 41 ranging from the self defence to the strike length. Whilst it appears that the planned 2 8-Cell Mk41s on the T-26 are to be strike length and able to launch any of the current or planned load outs, the additional Mk41 for the T-26 and those for the T-31e would at most be the standard length or even the self defence version. For the RN we sort of in a "Chicken or the Egg", situation. Do we decide to adopt the Mk41 and then choose which weapons systems to employ or the other way around. At present, especially with the T-26 we seem to be doing the latter. IF the MoD could decide what it wants to fit out the T-26 with it would make the argument for fitting one or more MK41s to the T-31e easier.

Where did you get that from I read that the RN T26 are having 24 strike length mk41s ( 4 x 8 cell ) and 24 CAMM silos ?

As we all know, RN T26 will have
- 24 strike-length Mk.41 VLS
- and, 48 (24 near the Mk.41 and 24 near the mission bay) CAMM.

However, as (I think) Ron5-san has suggested, the "6 cell mush room section" has the same dimension as "6 cell ExLS", which means the 48 CAMM can, in paper, be increased to 192 CAMM/SPEAR3 or else. At least, making it double (96 CAMM/SPEAR3) will be quite easy.

The ability to carry 96 CAMM/ SPEAR3 plus 24 Mk-41 SL VLS would make type 26 the ship it should be

[Lord Jim]

3 x 8-Cell MK41, Strike Length at present. Having 192 Sea Ceptor/Spear 3 would be great, but we couldn't afford it

[Poiuytrewq]

As we all know, RN T26 will have
- 24 strike-length Mk.41 VLS
- and, 48 (24 near the Mk.41 and 24 near the mission bay) CAMM.

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

48 CAMM
12 TLAM
4 ASROC
8 ASuW

I think this spec is good enough, extending this load out further is not a priority in my view. I would prefer to increase the spec of the T31 instead.

[Jake1992]

There are three sizes of Mk 41 ranging from the self defence to the strike length. Whilst it appears that the planned 2 8-Cell Mk41s on the T-26 are to be strike length and able to launch any of the current or planned load outs, the additional Mk41 for the T-26 and those for the T-31e would at most be the standard length or even the self defence version. For the RN we sort of in a "Chicken or the Egg", situation. Do we decide to adopt the Mk41 and then choose which weapons systems to employ or the other way around. At present, especially with the T-26 we seem to be doing the latter. IF the MoD could decide what it wants to fit out the T-26 with it would make the argument for fitting one or more MK41s to the T-31e easier.

Where did you get that from I read that the RN T26 are having 24 strike length mk41s ( 4 x 8 cell ) and 24 CAMM silos ?

As we all know, RN T26 will have
- 24 strike-length Mk.41 VLS
- and, 48 (24 near the Mk.41 and 24 near the mission bay) CAMM.

However, as (I think) Ron5-san has suggested, the "6 cell mush room section" has the same dimension as "6 cell ExLS", which means the 48 CAMM can, in paper, be increased to 192 CAMM/SPEAR3 or else. At least, making it double (96 CAMM/SPEAR3) will be quite easy.

I complety get what Ron is getting at and if it's doable to me it should be a no brainer.

My comment was in reference to the lord Jim quote that the RN T26s will only have 2 x 8 cell strike length mk41s and the remainders will be only self defence mk41s. I was wondering where he got that from as for everything Iv read and heard states it's 3 x 8 cell strike length.

Do you know if ExLS can quad pack CAMM-ER aswell ? If so a nice mix of both CAMM and CAMM-ER mid ship would give one hell of an air defence

[Ron5]

My comment was in reference to the lord Jim quote that the RN T26s will only have 2 x 8 cell strike length mk41s and the remainders will be only self defence mk41s. I was wondering where he got that from as for everything Iv read and heard states it's 3 x 8 cell strike length.

Do you know if ExLS can quad pack CAMM-ER aswell ? If so a nice mix of both CAMM and CAMM-ER mid ship would give one hell of an air defence

I think Jim had a typo when he said 2 Mk 41's on the Type 26, it is 3.

I don't think CAMM-ER will fit ExLs. Not 100% sure but I don't think the cell is long enough.

The Australian Type 26 configuration is 4 lengthways 8 cell Mk 41's rather than the UK 3 8 cell sideways config fronted by the mushrooms.

Easier shown in pictures:

Australian Type 26.jpg

UK Type 26.jpg