Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:if there is a problem with the gun why do they keep buying them?
Because they built a whole factory to make them (and will have to amortise the cost).

Buying from the main factory (=import) would have afforded chipping in a FC radar, for the same price total ;)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Additional news re USGG last week awarded $117M contract for ScanEagle UAV with Boeing Insitu after trails, no numbers quoted, for use on its 4,500T Legand class ships.

ScanEagle can remain aloft for more than 24 hours, can cruise at 55 knots with a maximum speed of 90 knots, and has service ceiling of 15,000 feet. The system is shot from a pneumatic launcher and recovered using a hook and arresting wire, 8.2-feet long and has a 16-foot wingspan, provide 200 hours flight time per 30 day patrol, for “persistent, tactical airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability that can remain airborne for at least twelve hours per day.”

The RN terminated its trials with ScanEagle which began June 2014 and ended in 2017 after extension to three years, £30M funded by UOR (not paid for out of the defence budget), for use in Arabian Gulf and anti-piracy. The commanding officer of HMS Somerset, Type 23, the first Royal Navy ship to deploy with the system, described ScanEagle as providing "game-changing, persistent surveillance and reconnaissance capability, supplementing our Lynx aircraft so that it can be held for higher-priority missions." It is to be noted no magical "mission bay" involved for this UAV.

Officials speaking at a UAS conference London 2016 said they were looking to push ahead with a program known as the Flexible Deployable UAS (FDUAS) to replace ScanEagle, but that was subject to gaining funding, have seen no recent mention of this programme.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A couple of years back a "vertical... must mean rotary...platform for the RN, to carry unconventional payloads" had a funding line
- nothing heard since
- perhaps the money was not enough (once the RFI responses, if any, came in with cost estimates)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A couple of years back a "vertical... must mean rotary...platform for the RN, to carry unconventional payloads"
Could that refer to the experiments with the "optionally manned" UAV based on the RUAS (now Leonardo) SW-4 Solo?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

They have switched from Solo to the smaller Hero. Trials on Type 23 are expected sometime this year. Assuming it is part of 8 million funding for unmanned rotorcraft work to keep Yeovil alive. Not much is known, though.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, depends on what you read into the "unconventioal payloads"
- and why carry something so manpower intensive (in supporting it) to do the same job a couple of UAVs, taking turns, could do better?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ahhh, there must have been a page break in between, did not :oops: see Gaby's update
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I hope the trials go well as for me it is platforms like Hero and camcopter that will take ships like the B2 Rivers and MHC to the next level. The ability to put 2 or 3 Hero's in a 20 ft container and put them on a B2 River would give it a better capability when working outside UK waters on tasks like AP-N or in the Med

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Gabriele wrote:They have switched from Solo to the smaller Hero. Trials on Type 23 are expected sometime this year. Assuming it is part of 8 million funding for unmanned rotorcraft work to keep Yeovil alive. Not much is known, though.
I'd heard about the Hero - I guess the Solo was a trials platform, though it did get mentioned a few times in speeches as something for the future RN and it was at Unmanned Warrior. I guess it's a question of your requirement. 35kg payload (latest SD150 variant) vs 600+kg and whether you'll ever need the manned option. Seems that one of these and something like Scan Eagle would both be very useful
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote:It dose say on the PDF under C&C link in with a digital fire control system. Could this mean that the CMS / FCS on the LCS was at fault and not the gun or is it the gun. also if there is a problem with the gun why do they keep buying them?
The USN LCS ships use the Navantia DORNA EO/IR gun fire control system for the Mk 110 57mm gun with the DORNA EO electro-optical sensors (EOD: Electro-Optical Director) variant, the EO suite includes one TV camera, one IR camera and an eye-safe Laser Range Finder.
(There is a variant the DORNA R/E-O FCS claimed as a reliable, all-weather, compact and highly accurate Radar and Electro-Optical fire control system) It appears the that USN chose the simplest/cheapest option for the LCS.

Whereas USCG uses the Gun Weapon System Mk 48 for the Mk 110 57mm gun based on the GCS for the USN Ticos and Burkes for their 5" guns with the Optical Sight System Mk 46 with a Electro Optic Director Mk 85 (L3), AN/SPQ-9B X-band radar, Gun Computer System Mk 160 Mod 12.

Most Fire Control Radars are built for purpose, not a general X-band search radar as the SPQ-9B, the popular SAAB Ceros 200 operates in the high frequency Ku-band for higher definition.

The IH AAW has a full suite of radars, SMART L- band for long range air volume search, APAR X-band air and surface search, tracking and guidance, SCANTER 6000 X-band surveillance and helicopter guidance and two dedicated CEROS 200 fire control radars for guns and ESSM.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Color me very unimpressed with the Solo.

Weak specification (low payload, tiny range) and a petrol two stroke? Good grief, even lawnmowers have advanced beyond that.

And what the heck is an unconventional payload?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

AW Hero, looks interesting. A rival to CAMCOPTER?

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/sd150-hero-ruav
this is old, (looks like). If se see http://www.janes.com/article/71911/late ... den-flight
The aircraft's maximum take-off weight of has increased from 150 kg in the earlier variant to 205 kg, which is in part enabled by a larger main rotor diameter - 4 m versus 3.5 m - the endurance has also increased to six hours and the maximum payload to 35 kg.

CAMCOPTER https://schiebel.net/brochures/?product ... ir-systems
Endurance: >6 hours with 34 kg (75 lbs) payload
plus optional external fuel tank
extending endurance to >10 hours
Typical payload: 50 kg (110 lbs)
MTO weight: 200 kg (440 lbs)
Empty weight: 110 kg (243 lbs)
Max. dimensions: 3110 mm (122“) length


Anyway, interesting that RN did not opt for ScanEagle or is elder sister, but went to "CAMCOPTER"-class UAVs. May be the operational loss-rate was unacceptable?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:Color me very unimpressed with the Solo.

Weak specification (low payload, tiny range) and a petrol two stroke? Good grief, even lawnmowers have advanced beyond that.

And what the heck is an unconventional payload?
Do you mean the Hero? The original version had a two-stroke. The Solo has a RR turboshaft, IIRC. There's a new version of the Hero with 6 hours endurance @ 50kt, "an improved heavy-fuel engine" and payload around 85kg (including fuel, so c. 30-35kg useful, up from 15kg).

Edit: Donald-san jumped in with the appropriate links - thanks
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Piston engine has no problem, I guess.

I am interested in "maintenance hour" needed. In other words, if we want 24/7 operation for 1 week, how many airframes do we need?

I understand we need at least 6-9 airframes in case of Wildcat and/or Merlin.

Also, if larger variant is needed, I am very much interested in MQ-8C. Has 12hrs endurance. Even I do not think MQ-8C can be cheap, the Bell407 on which it was based, is cheap. Why not adopt a dozen of Bell407 for basing training (replace Squirrel), ~6 more for manned simple operations (e.g. for River B2), and 2 dozens of MQ-8C for high-end warfare? :D
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... _Sheet.pdf

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Color me very unimpressed with the Solo.

Weak specification (low payload, tiny range) and a petrol two stroke? Good grief, even lawnmowers have advanced beyond that.

And what the heck is an unconventional payload?
Do you mean the Hero? The original version had a two-stroke. The Solo has a RR turboshaft, IIRC. There's a new version of the Hero with 6 hours endurance @ 50kt, "an improved heavy-fuel engine" and payload around 85kg (including fuel, so c. 30-35kg useful, up from 15kg).

Edit: Donald-san jumped in with the appropriate links - thanks
Thanks, yes I did and the new version make it sound a bit better. Not a lot.

Personally, I'd prefer one with a 3,000 lb payload and 15 hours endurance. 12 million quids and it's yours :-)

[edited, seems like Donald-san likes that one better too!]

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:[edited, seems like Donald-san likes that one better too!]
Thanks, yes I do.
But, we must be careful that the AW Hero UAV (~200 kg MTO (Max Take Off) Weight) and MQ-8C (2.7t MTO Weight) are completely difference class of UAVs. It is like comparing Bell 407 vs Chinook.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Piston engine has no problem, I guess.

I am interested in "maintenance hour" needed. In other words, if we want 24/7 operation for 1 week, how many airframes do we need?

I understand we need at least 6-9 airframes in case of Wildcat and/or Merlin.

Also, if larger variant is needed, I am very much interested in MQ-8C. Has 12hrs endurance. Even I do not think MQ-8C can be cheap, the Bell407 on which it was based, is cheap. Why not adopt a dozen of Bell407 for basing training (replace Squirrel), ~6 more for manned simple operations (e.g. for River B2), and 2 dozens of MQ-8C for high-end warfare? :D
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... _Sheet.pdf
given what we know about Camcopter and taking its 5 to 6 hour endurance I feel that 5 airframes and a team of 8 people should be able to carry out 24/7 ops for a week. This at a cost of 400,000 euros per unit = 2 million euros or 1.76 million pounds today

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:given what we know about Camcopter and taking its 5 to 6 hour endurance I feel that 5 airframes and a team of 8 people should be able to carry out 24/7 ops for a week. This at a cost of 400,000 euros per unit = 2 million euros or 1.76 million pounds today
So how much space would that require?

Sounds like a second hanger or a hanger with combined mission space would be a useful addition to any new vessels to ensure they are fully future proofed for this emerging technology.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Hero is 3.5 meters by 1 meter when folded so you could get 5 in a 20 ft container however I feel most ships would carry 2 or 3 at a time.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

I'm totally unimpressed by any of the remote control helicopters.

Integrator, Scan Eagles big brother, looks much more interesting. Far greater endurance, and now comes with a useful payload all whilst leaving the flight deck free!

The catapult launched aircraft don't carry weapons, which I don't think is an issue at all. Keep it as a simple reconnaissance asset, and hand off to the manned platforms for weapons release.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Re the landing of that uav would the addition of a pole be attached to deck of a frigate

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

seaspear wrote:Re the landing of that uav would the addition of a pole be attached to deck of a frigate
"Funnily" enough, in the early trials, off the coast of Scotland, the conditions were so rough that they had to land (recover) the UAV on land
- may have had something to do with the ownership of the said asset (if on loan, will have to be "extra careful")
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:Hero is 3.5 meters by 1 meter when folded so you could get 5 in a 20 ft container however I feel most ships would carry 2 or 3 at a time.
The safest thing for new platforms would be to leave ample amounts of extra space to allow future growth but current planning actually appears to going backwards in this regard.

The infamous Black Swan concept provided lots of space for both a helicopter and multiple UAV's.
image.jpg
The Type 26 back in 2012 had lots of space designated for UAV's as well as the embarked helicopter. This was in effect a double hanger design at this stage.

The stern mission area would have been a great space but I think mainly due to issues with the towed array the stern ramp capability was dropped. Pity.

image.jpg
In addition to the stern mission area and double hanger the 2012 Type 26 concept had a useful mission space forward of the hanger.

image.jpg
Although the overall styling is a bit suspect and the design was still maturing, in many ways the mission spaces and hanger layout was vastly superior than the in build Type 26 design today.
image.jpg
The current Type 26 design has a much more limited helicopter and UAV capability which is clearly shown in the detailed hanger plan in this document.

https://my.nps.edu/documents/105575500/ ... 5190bcf6fe

This reduction in allocated space for UAV's seems odd for vessels expected to be in service until the 2040's at least. Lots could change between now and then.



The T31 designs also seem to lack much in the way of designated UAV space again showing the important attached to this capability 5 or 6 years ago now appears diminished in current planning.

The Leander design has some space built in for UAV operation but could this be removed if the hanger is redesigned to make it Merlin capable?
image.jpg
The A140 has a hanger capable of housing a Merlin but not a lot more.
image.jpg
Could this be another reason why the double Absalon type hanger would be a useful addition on the A140?
image.jpg
The one T31 contender that did attach a lot of importance to the UAV capability was the Spartan concept.
image.jpg
I think this concept had the best hanger layout of all the submitted designs.
image.jpg
The similarities between the Stellar Systems Spartan and the 2012 Type 26 concept are obvious.
image.jpg
It is very fashionable to talk about building in room for future growth but as far as UAV's are concerned, current planning appears to be building in a lot less room for future growth as was envisaged only 5 or 6 years ago.

This UAV technology is an emerging capability and the designs will continue to evolve but it must be at least plausible that the UAV platforms are going to increase in size and weight before getting smaller. It would therefore seem sensible to increase the space allocated to UAV operations to truly allow for future growth in all future RN vessels.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

The Integrator footage is shown being brought to land via an upright pole catching it is this the consideration for the integrator having one of these fixed to the deck ?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:This reduction in allocated space for UAV's seems odd for vessels expected to be in service until the 2040's at
Genuine question, why do you need allocated space for UAVs?

A blooming big hanger (which can extend into the mission bay on the T26) can house helicopters, UAVs or a mix of the two.

I thought it was generally agreed that the small UAV hanger on the initial T26 concepts produced a really inflexible arrangement. I think Gab referred to it as a “dog kennel”. Apologies in advance if I’ve made that up.

Post Reply