Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Firstly it depends how you are going to use them. And for me I don't see how 2 ships can carry out home waters EEZ duties and AP-N. so this is how I see it the Venari 95 Multi Mission corvettes would swap for

3 x MM corvettes carrying 2 x MCM kits and 1 carrying a ASW kit replacing 4 x MCM and the Bay on Kipion
4 x MM corvettes replacing the 3 x Rivers and type 23 on TAPS
1 x corvette replacing the river in the Falklands
3 x corvettes deployed to the Asian- Pacific replacing the escort
2 x corvette on AP-N and S

I agree that 18 ship sound high but the new ship would be replacing the 13 MCM 2 Echos and 5 Rivers = 20 hull and feel we need to get away from the crap that 1 new ship can do the job of 2 or 3 old ship so we don't need as many. The RN is cut to the bone and needs hulls in the water and as we will only have 14 top escorts and 5 second rate escorts I feel that 18 multi mission corvettes/ sloops is the way a head

[donald_of_tokyo]

With 2 CV coming, "RN cut to the bone" argument will never be widely supported, sorry.

In this decade, each and every time RN "opted" for optimistic solution, they were forced to pay a lot for it.

- hoping T26 build will start 2014 --> forced to order River B2. Failed to prepare "better" design (say, T31e) in advance.
- modernizing Illustrious, to disband it very shortly
- modernizing Ocean, to disband it very shortly.
- And now, RN is modernizing T23GP, which are in a big risk to be sold off. Why not modernize T23ASW first?

On the other hand
- Two Hunts were disbanded early, without modernization. Good. ("Good" means, disbanding them is bad, but if it is anyway inevitable, not modernizing them was very nice). I guess this saved ~100M GBP of money.
- RN was clever enough to stop selling River B1. This was at first for Brexit, but now to handle River B2 delay. Good. I think it shall be kept until MDP comes out. May be (=with 30-50% possibility) RN be forced to "replace" a few T23GPs with River B2s (might be modified), and keeping a few River B1s in place.

Being realistic will keep RN more powerful, I think.

[Tempest414]

I would agree that a lot of bad decisions have been made along the way. As we said a few weeks ago the RN and BAE should of had a 112 meter khareef heavy corvette ready to go and 3 should have been built in place of the B2 rivers under TOBA. However what the RN needs now is hulls in the water and my point is that looking at the mid to long term building 18 Venari 95 multi mission corvettes to replace 20 old hulls would give the RN a very good work horse. And that we need to stop the rot of replacing 2 or 3 ships with 1 new ship

[donald_of_tokyo]

...And that we need to stop the rot of replacing 2 or 3 ships with 1 new ship

But this means, all Venari 85/95 will be of very low specification. Many of them only with a 30mm gun, no CAMM, no Artisan 3D, with very simple CMS. The budget is very strict that,
- more than half of replacement budget for MCMVs are going to RoV kits, I guess?
- River B2 has been already payed, so its replacement budget is nowhere until early 2040s.

On the MCMVs, "1 for 2" or "2 for 3" (or hopefully "1 for 1"?) all depends on the mine hunting kits cost. On ASW kits, what level of CMS and network, will define the number. Because the hull cannot be "very quiet" (other than when in slow speed), efficient blue-water ASW will be very difficult, anyway. But, for shallow water active-ASW, yes, it will be good.

[Tempest414]

I have never said Venari 95 should have Artisan 3D radar or CAMM . What I said over on the fantasy thread was they should have

Scanter 4100 2D radar
Sharp eye Nav radar
type 2193 HMS
1 x 57mm and 2 x 30mm ( and I said if a mount was fitted for Phalanx then maybe buy some SeaRam units
Hangar for a wildcat

[Poiuytrewq]

I have never said Venari 95 should have Artisan 3D radar or CAMM . What I said over on the fantasy thread was they should have

Scanter 4100 2D radar
Sharp eye Nav radar
type 2193 HMS
1 x 57mm and 2 x 30mm ( and I said if a mount was fitted for Phalanx then maybe buy some SeaRam units
Hangar for a wildcat

image.jpg

[Tempest414]

And right on queue this is what I am saying we should have 15 to 18 of . No CAMM no Artisan radar just a good solid multi role platform. I feel we should be able to get this ship for 150 million per unit

Also as for ASW work this for Littoral area mostly

[Poiuytrewq]

Venari 85/95

Venari 95

Its not fantasy now...
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... ri-85-yet/

From the text,

The company (BMT) said that while the Venari-85 indicates a platform length of 85m this could change to between 70m and 100m depending on requirement. This also allows the platform to be flexible in terms of weapon systems and payloads.

Regarding the potential build of the Venari, Stephen Braham, head of business development at BMT, said: ....the Venari would not be limited to MCM and could be used as a general mothership for unmanned and autonomous vehicles for operations such as ASW.

[Tempest414]

Maybe they have been looking at your work

[matt00773]

Im not sure of the tonnage quoted is that correct in that it (Hunter class)is significantly heavier than City class is that short tonnes or what and there is not mention of abm capability
t

Actually, I'm sure you're referring to the announcement by PM Turnbull on the strategic ballistic missile capability. In which case this would be something that would be developed over time. Haven't heard anything since that announcement or seen any funds that would support a programme for it. There was something about UK testing the CEAFAR2 radar and wonder if this was referring to the ABM test range they set up for the MESAR/MESAR2/SAMPSON programme...

[seaspear]

I would expect the Hobart class as its SPY is upgraded to the current new upgrades of the Arleigh Burkes it would certainly be first for ABM capability of course it will be several years before the Hunter class are in the water and would expect further development in mean time

[Poiuytrewq]

But T31 could fit the bill, particularly if they could ship the 5" guns, Sea Ceptor and other kit over. But crucially the price would interest the RNZN.

Built in the UK?

[ArmChairCivvy]

while the Venari-85 indicates a platform length of 85m this could change to between 70m and 100m depending on requirement.

A bit like the Spanish BAM (a mln euros for any xtra meter). There is even the 130m version for Arctic/ Antarctic work.

Another BMT study indicates that for global (S. Atlantic included) patrol work a 103-105 m platform is the minimum
- here we are (?) talking only about self deploying (to where ever), so the discomfort from heavy seas, if any, will be a passing experience for the crew

[jedibeeftrix]

With the price pressure on the T31 its capability is likely to be limited - a lot of FFBNW.

With the success of T26 in Oz, is there likely to be any wind in the sails of scrapping T31 and simply buying more T26 and MHCP(Venari95) instead?

[Caribbean]

With the success of T26 in Oz, is there likely to be any wind in the sails of scrapping T31 and simply buying more T26 and MHCP(Venari95) instead?

I suspect that the T31 will still be built, primarily to cover the potential gap as the first T23GP go out of service, but also because it's at the centre of the NSS at the moment. In fact the success of the T26 may actually improve the chances of the T31 being built, as it could potentially be seen as endorsing the validity of the export-led NSS. Basically - the UK just proved that it can build/ design ships for export. The T31 may, or may not end up as a wholly-British design, depending on which proposal wins, but after a few are built in the UK, that will be frankly, forgotten.

That said - whether it affects the relative numbers of T26/ T31 built is another issue. Another T26 would be excellent and two even better, but we may possibly only end up with some higher-spec T31s and no extra hulls - I'm not sure how much UK PLC is going to make out of the Hunter program, or whether HMG will put more than 2% of the increased GDP back into defence (at a rough guess, if we get 25% of the program work in the UK i.e. £5b, the Government will take c. £1.7 - 2b of that in additional tax, NI and VAT etc, plus maybe some direct license fees for the IP).

[Spinflight]

onto the Canadian competition! 15 more ships.

while i'm glad for all this success, it's tragic how the type 26 wasn't able to compete in the us frigate contest

My understanding is that it will be.

The contract award for FFG(x) was for others to up their designs to the US specs, a Cenceptual Design Competition, T26 already exceeds them.

And with Lockmart integrating their Aegis along with other gubbins for the convicts might even help quite a bit in the long run.

The actual RFP is set for 2019 or 2020 and I'd be surprised if the T26 wasn't in with a pretty decent chance.

[matt00773]

My understanding is that it will be.

The contract award for FFG(x) was for others to up their designs to the US specs, a Cenceptual Design Competition, T26 already exceeds them.

And with Lockmart integrating their Aegis along with other gubbins for the convicts might even help quite a bit in the long run.

The actual RFP is set for 2019 or 2020 and i'd be surprised if the T26 wasn't in with a pretty decent chance.

While it's true that the Conceptual Design phase and Design & Construction competition (2020) are two different things. Given that we now know that T26 is 8800 tonnes full load, this is highly unlikely to fit the "light" frigate which the USN are after. I appreciate there's been an uplift in capability by NAVSEA for FFG(X), but not that much.

[Tempest414]

I see type 31 being built and if we go for A140 I see New Zealand jumping on board. I could see them porting some of they kit over to help keep costs down. As said up thread I can see them going for 3 new frigates to replace the 2 they have. Plus if we go for something like Venari 95 I could see them opting for 2 or 3 of these as well to replace their 85 m Protector class in 15 years or so.

So I could see type 26 and 31 doing well in export and if we go for Venari 95 this ship also doing well in export

[serge750]

I wonder what else they will fit in their 32 mk 42 cells? isn't the essm quad mounted in each cell? 128 max? if they will have BMD, maybe one per cell as well? did I see 8x ssm missile launchers in the videos as well

[Spinflight]

While it's true that the Conceptual Design phase and Design & Construction competition (2020) are two different things. Given that we now know that T26 is 8800 tonnes full load, this is highly unlikely to fit the "light" frigate which the USN are after. I appreciate there's been an uplift in capability by NAVSEA for FFG(X), but not that much.

Kindof, though it has nothing to do with the tonnage.. F100 and FREMM aren't babies either. Small combatant in US Navy parlance describes where it can go, not how big it is.

Price point would be an issue clearly, though this depends upon Congress. We have a few friends there. Assuming the moose worriers see sense and someone bothers to do a capability analysis at pricepoint in between re-organising their paperclips I suspect moves will be afoot to accommodate it.

Assuming BAes can't get it down to target cost anyway without glueing bolt heads back on.

[Scimitar54]

Assuming BAes can't get it down to target cost anyway without glueing bolt heads back on.

Nuts & Loctite Spring to mind

[RetroSicotte]

- Full on 32+ Mk41 silos
- Vastly superior radar to Artisan
- Torpedo launchers as standard, still capable of ASROC
- Aegis connectivity
- Thus capability to use SM-6 with its datalinked OTH mode
- In addition to the Type 26s own capabilities as a hull

Not to mention a 9th ship.

The Hunter class is honestly what the City class ought to have been, with some slight equivilence changes (CAMM instead of ESSM for example).

[Jake1992]

- Full on 32+ Mk41 silos
- Vastly superior radar to Artisan
- Torpedo launchers as standard, still capable of ASROC
- Aegis connectivity
- Thus capability to use SM-6 with its datalinked OTH mode
- In addition to the Type 26s own capabilities as a hull

Not to mention a 9th ship.

The Hunter class is honestly what the City class ought to have been, with some slight equivilence changes (CAMM instead of ESSM for example).

Do we really need anything better than artisan on our T26s ?

I would of replaced the forward 24 CAMM silos with and extra 16 mk41s giving us 40 over all

I'd like to see if the 24 CAMM mid ship could be replaced with 16 ExSL cells with out taking up any real extra space.

Are LWT really any better than Japan's extended range ASROC ?

These few simple changed would give our T26s a real up lift in defence and fire power

[RetroSicotte]

Do we really need anything better than artisan on our T26s ?

I would of replaced the forward 24 CAMM silos with and extra 16 mk41s giving us 40 over all

I'd like to see if the 24 CAMM mid ship could be replaced with 16 ExSL cells with out taking up any real extra space.

Are LWT really any better than Japan's extended range ASROC ?

These few simple changed would give our T26s a real up lift in defence and fire power

Artisan is easily the weakest link in the Type 26 at the moment, as while it's good, it's still using older technology. If there's one thing I'm happy for in seeing the Hunter its that it has proved that the City is capable of a better radar fit someday, but it would be a heck of a refit, given the scale of modern ones. The new standard is already 360 fixed array AESAs in new ships, and the T26 won't even enter service until 2027, doing so with a radar that is already out of date by then. It's a problem that gets no talk, and really restricts the ship in a lot of ways outside of just pure ASW. Which in a fleet with only 14 escorts, and 6 of those escorts incapable of pretty much anything bar AAW, is just begging for trouble.

I wasn't saying if LWT are better or not than ASROC, so much as the Hunter can easily carry both. It's fitted for Torpedoes, and is getting them. ASROC is a very simply modification, and just goes in a silo. Contrast to the Type 26, which is not fitted for LWT, and thus relies entirely on LWT. Stingray is around, and will continue to be around. It's an oversight that will have been purely on budget reasons.

It's my real hope that "batch 2" has some big changes to the design. Entering service with such an old style of radar especially is not a great move when every single ship in the fleet must be able to rise to the occasion, owing to there being so few of them. Australia and France understand this, the UK may do too, but simply can't fund it. Hence the "budget" design of City compared to Hunter.

[Jake1992]

Do we really need anything better than artisan on our T26s ?

I would of replaced the forward 24 CAMM silos with and extra 16 mk41s giving us 40 over all

I'd like to see if the 24 CAMM mid ship could be replaced with 16 ExSL cells with out taking up any real extra space.

Are LWT really any better than Japan's extended range ASROC ?

These few simple changed would give our T26s a real up lift in defence and fire power

Artisan is easily the weakest link in the Type 26 at the moment, as while it's good, it's still using older technology. If there's one thing I'm happy for in seeing the Hunter its that it has proved that the City is capable of a better radar fit someday, but it would be a heck of a refit, given the scale of modern ones. The new standard is already 360 fixed array AESAs in new ships, and the T26 won't even enter service until 2027, doing so with a radar that is already out of date by then. It's a problem that gets no talk, and really restricts the ship in a lot of ways outside of just pure ASW. Which in a fleet with only 14 escorts, and 6 of those escorts incapable of pretty much anything bar AAW, is just begging for trouble.

I wasn't saying if LWT are better or not than ASROC, so much as the Hunter can easily carry both. It's fitted for Torpedoes, and is getting them. ASROC is a very simply modification, and just goes in a silo. Contrast to the Type 26, which is not fitted for LWT, and thus relies entirely on LWT. Stingray is around, and will continue to be around. It's an oversight that will have been purely on budget reasons.

It's my real hope that "batch 2" has some big changes to the design. Entering service with such an old style of radar especially is not a great move when every single ship in the fleet must be able to rise to the occasion, owing to there being so few of them. Australia and France understand this, the UK may do too, but simply can't fund it. Hence the "budget" design of City compared to Hunter.

I'm no expert on radars and understand that fixed arrays seem to be the way most are going but artisan can't be that bad as it's also been fitted to the QEs. A rotating array can still be up there with the best as shown with sampsons that if it gets its BMD upgrade will still be one of the best in the world.

My comment on LWT and ASROC was more in relation to my idea of increasing the Mk41s to 40 cells, In doing so I'd fit 8 ASROC so with them arguably be as capable as LWT there would be no need for the LWT tubes.

I agree I'd like to see the follows batches have some changes.

I'd go with
16 ExSL mid ship in place of CAMM sills giving 64 CAMM ( and maybe CAMM-ER )

40 mk41s up front in place of 24 mk41s and 24 CAMM silos

New radar would depend on cost not just to the class but possible lose of sales for artisan.