Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Jake1992]

Hard to see the backbench conservative MP's going along with losing three T23's in the near future unless the money saved is reinvested back into upgrading their replacements. If by axing three Type 23's now, the Type 31's unit cost was increased to between £350m to £400m then I think it might actually be a sensible option.

The same Tory back benchers that are up in arms over Brexit - deals get done, especially if the government wraps it up in preparing the Navy for increased UK fisheries protection and focusing funds on globally trotting carrier groups.

A "future 2030 Amphibious review will be pointless at this stage as the decisions will be altered long before 2033/2034 probably mainly due to multiple changes in Government. As far as the second Albion is concerned, in reality, Bulwark is already gone.

Never waste a good opportunity for a review that kicks something in the long grass and ultimately goes nowhere. One point though, Bulwark is supposedly being held at slightly higher readiness than Albion was, so don’t think it is a dead duck yet.

I heard that the reason bulwark is being held at higher readiness is because they found it was cheaper when the cost of bringing her back to full service was included, bringing Albion back up cost more than keeping her at a higher readiness would of.

At least it seems like some lessons have been learnt

[SW1]

Or a case of Nero fiddles while Rome burns. Delaying balancing your budget only means the pain required to sort it grows ever larger, they’ve learned precisely nothing since sdsr 2010.

[chinook88]

LJ

Think Chile is putting mk41 onto there type 23

No, at the moment VLS has not been requested to LM .. everything indicates that the same solution will be chosen as the RN.

P.S.

The Chilean Navy requires at least two frigates {three if the casualty of a T-22, former Sheffield is included} to replace the Jacob van Heemskerck-class. Those supposed type 23 would be a more than interesting option, apart from maintaining the logistics would generate some contracts to existing ones. Brazil requires three to four units.

[NickC]

New pic of the Nanchang, good looking ship.

The new Chinese Renhai Type 055 destroyer/cruiser class, currently eight known in build, four launched, the first Nanchang on its sea trials, displacement ~13,000+ tons, 180m x 20m 112VLS with double hanger, expected to be commissioned 2019.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Type 055 destroyer/cruiser class

I guess that "cruiser" part was put in train by Pentagon - drawing attention to how their cruiser "overmatch" is shrinking.
- they've had no qualms about Japanese "destroyer" designations

[Jake1992]

Type 055 destroyer/cruiser class

I guess that "cruiser" part was put in train by Pentagon - drawing attention to how their cruiser "overmatch" is shrinking.
- they've had no qualms about Japanese "destroyer" designations

New pic of the Nanchang, good looking ship.

The new Chinese Renhai Type 055 destroyer/cruiser class, currently eight known in build, four launched, the first Nanchang on its sea trials, displacement ~13,000+ tons, 180m x 20m 112VLS with double hanger, expected to be commissioned 2019.

Between this and the US vessels it really shows how under armed ours are especially the T45s that are meant to be world class AAW.

[Enigmatically]

How many times do I have to refute this view that warship design should be based on a 6 year olds drawing of one - just stick more weapons on it and it makes it better?

more weapons <> better warship


Or is it based on the Douglas Adams view of guns?

The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. 'Make it evil,' he'd been told. 'Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with.'

That is not how it works

[Jake1992]

How many times do I have to refute this view that warship design should be based on a 6 year olds drawing of one - just stick more weapons on it and it makes it better?

more weapons <> better warship

No more weapons doesn't automatically mean a better vessel but the clear small amount of VLS on the T45s limits them to being a one trick pony while also putting them at greater risk in satiation attacks ( which could become more common while small drones )

Navy's like the US and China seems to think a larger number of VLSs are required in there vessel, is it another case that we know something they don't or simply under arming to saving on pennies while risk losing the pounds.

[Tempest414]

The US are working on there Cruiser replacement which will kick off proper next year with a view to buying the first ship in 2023/24 and already they are saying it needs to be bigger

[Jake1992]

The US are working on there Cruiser replacement which will kick off proper next year with a view to buying the first ship in 2023/24 and already they are saying it needs to be bigger

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with then as thier cruisers aren't small at 10,000tn odd.
It'll also be interesting to see if they stick with them being more dedicated to AAW or a more all rounder like the ABs

[ArmChairCivvy]

working on there Cruiser replacement which will kick off proper next year with a view to buying the first ship in 2023/24

What happened to the 11 refurbed, and another 11 in store, waiting to be?
- cfr. China has 8 in build and four launched

This battle cruiser competition is a bit more mute:
- only Russia has one; there might be a gap when she goes in and Admiral Nakhimov is still "to come out"
... where do slot in the Zumwalts; would they do?

[Enigmatically]

How many times do I have to refute this view that warship design should be based on a 6 year olds drawing of one - just stick more weapons on it and it makes it better?

more weapons <> better warship

No more weapons doesn't automatically mean a better vessel but the clear small amount of VLS on the T45s limits them to being a one trick pony while also putting them at greater risk in satiation attacks ( which could become more common while small drones )

Navy's like the US and China seems to think a larger number of VLSs are required in there vessel, is it another case that we know something they don't or simply under arming to saving on pennies while risk losing the pounds.

If you are using multi-million dollar missiles to defeat hundred dollar drones, you have lost, whatever your silo size

It is much more complex than you can conceive

[Tempest414]

The report on defence news quoting Rear Adm Boxhall states the new big ship will have Flight 111 as a baseline with room to grow

[Jake1992]

How many times do I have to refute this view that warship design should be based on a 6 year olds drawing of one - just stick more weapons on it and it makes it better?

more weapons <> better warship

No more weapons doesn't automatically mean a better vessel but the clear small amount of VLS on the T45s limits them to being a one trick pony while also putting them at greater risk in satiation attacks ( which could become more common while small drones )

Navy's like the US and China seems to think a larger number of VLSs are required in there vessel, is it another case that we know something they don't or simply under arming to saving on pennies while risk losing the pounds.

If you are using multi-million dollar missiles to defeat hundred dollar drones, you have lost, whatever your silo size

It is much more complex than you can conceive

So are you saying that the 48 VLS on the T45s are enough to survive a saturation attack while still hosting missiles for BMD ( as they are planed for ) ?

Why do the USN and plan along with others seem to believe a larger number of VLS are needed and we don't if it's not just penny pinching ?

[Enigmatically]

There is an irony there I cannot explain- but thank you for the laugh.

But look at BMD, US BMD runs are in dedicated areas close to US-. So how many of each do you need?

Beyond that, if you expect us to take on chinese navy single handed, then yes you are correct, T45s do not have big enough silos. But if you want to rejoin planet earth and consider what threats we are really going to deal with then I suggest they are

Plus, the size of the silo is irrelevant if you don't hit that first missile coming towards you. So look at that Chinese ship (or an AB for that matter). Look at the height of the AAW radar. Work out whats its radar horizon is compared to a T45.

Then consider on that factor alone how much better a T45 is, not only for self-defence, but for defending the high value target when the missile is not coming straight past the AAW ship.

There are lots of other factors that determine which is a better warship, they all compromise against each other. You focus on just one, because you don't understand the others

[Jake1992]

There is an irony there I cannot explain- but thank you for the laugh.

But look at BMD, US BMD runs are in dedicated areas close to US-. So how many of each do you need?

Beyond that, if you expect us to take on chinese navy single handed, then yes you are correct, T45s do not have big enough silos. But if you want to rejoin planet earth and consider what threats we are really going to deal with then I suggest they are

Plus, the size of the silo is irrelevant if you don't hit that first missile coming towards you. So look at that Chinese ship (or an AB for that matter). Look at the height of the AAW radar. Work out whats its radar horizon is compared to a T45.

Then consider on that factor alone how much better a T45 is, not only for self-defence, but for defending the high value target when the missile is not coming straight past the AAW ship.

There are lots of other factors that determine which is a better warship, they all compromise against each other. You focus on just one, because you don't understand the others

Lovely start to your comment "you can't explain anything but what others say is funny" ok how about being abit less patronising and have a grown up convo over the subject.

Your taking what I said way out of contex, when did I ever say we would be taking on China alone or at all for that matter ? I never.
I was pointed out that the USN and PLAN and others all have a reasoning around having a greater number of VLSs on their vessel, now is it that we know better or that we are penny pinching ?

I never once questing the T45s radar or tracking capabilty in AAW it's world leading there. What I said what the lack of VLS inhibits the number of missiles that can be carried and in turn makes surviving a saturation attack harder, this will only become harder when BMDM are carried on the T45s as planed due to them taking up VLSs.
The small number of VLS also limits the T45s to being one trick ponnys.

The question I was asking is why do these navy's believe more VLS are needed ?
Why don't we ? Is due to us beliving our better radar set up will compensate for this or is just prenny pinching by HMG ?

[Enigmatically]

I could point out just

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _(nominal)

But we do put more effort into making sure our missiles will hit first. And that is ONE of the compromises.

[Ron5]

In analysis of the duel between Hood and Bismark, did anyone ever compare the size of each ships's magazines i.e. the number of shells each carried?

Of course not, the caparisons were all about which had the more accurate guns & gun control, and who had the most damaging shells.

In other words, the ability to destroy a target is a shed load more important that how many goes at it that you can attempt.

Just my two pennies worth.

[Jake1992]

I could point out just

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _(nominal)

But we do put more effort into making sure our missiles will hit first. And that is ONE of the compromises.

I could understand you mention GDP size of we were aiming for a fleet the size of the us or China but we're not.

I do get that we've put more effort in to one hit one kill but you still havnt gave any reason why these navy's and more see the needed for greater VLS and we don't ?

To me we are not maximising the small number of vessels we have, like I mentioned the T45s are limited to just AAW due to the small number of VLS were as they could be more flexible.

[Enigmatically]

You want a ship that can do BMD, AAW, ASW, ASuW simultaneously, take on a saturation attack in any of lhose domains from any nation navy or likely navy over the next 20 years.

Such a ship would bankrupt a bigger nation than ours, be 20k tonnes and be too valuable to send anywhere. And no navy has one.

So, compromises

Go and consider the trade-off importance of concurrent BMD, salvo size, radar horizon, detection in clutter, capability against ECM, capability against target maneuvering etc.

[Jake1992]

You want a ship that can do BMD, AAW, ASW, ASuW simultaneously, take on a saturation attack in any of lhose domains from any nation navy or likely navy over the next 20 years.

Such a ship would bankrupt a bigger nation than ours, be 20k tonnes and be too valuable to send anywhere. And no navy has one.

So, compromises

Go and consider the trade-off importance of concurrent BMD, salvo size, radar horizon, detection in clutter, capability against ECM, capability against target maneuvering etc.

No I want the T45 ( or Replacement ) to have enough VLS to cope with saturation attack ( which full under AAW ) while still having room for AShM ( future one to me VLS lurched )
BMD will be part of T45 they are pushing ahead with just very slowly.

If we look at what the T45 replacement will need VLS wise is enough for standard AAW ( this includes saturation attacks ), BMD and atleast AShM. That is with out land strike like the T26. To 48 VLS is no where near enough for this and it seems other navy's like the US China Japan and ever Austriala to an extent realise this.

[Enigmatically]

In analysis of the duel between Hood and Bismark, did anyone ever compare the size of each ships's magazines i.e. the number of shells each carried?

Of course not, the caparisons were all about which had the more accurate guns & gun control, and who had the most damaging shells.

In other words, the ability to destroy a target is a shed load more important that how many goes at it that you can attempt.

Just my two pennies worth.

Jake,

read Ron's post. He put it better than me

And then tell me what you will give up to get the bigger silos

[Jake1992]

In analysis of the duel between Hood and Bismark, did anyone ever compare the size of each ships's magazines i.e. the number of shells each carried?

Of course not, the caparisons were all about which had the more accurate guns & gun control, and who had the most damaging shells.

In other words, the ability to destroy a target is a shed load more important that how many goes at it that you can attempt.

Just my two pennies worth.

Jake,

read Ron's post. He put it better than me

And then tell me what you will give up to get the bigger silos

I am not say the best ship is the one with the biggest or most weapons your complety missing the question I was asking and point I was making.

I pointed out how the low number of VLS on our vessels like the T45 has been and will further be a limiting factor on what other wise is an amazing vessel.
It increases its risk in saturation attacks and vastley reduses its flexiblity.
Is this true or not ?

The question I was then asking was-
When you look at navy's such as the US China Japan and now Australia to a lesser extent they all feel the need for a greater number of VLS on their vessels. These are not small Mideast nations that think by sticking aload of things that go bang on their vessels it makes them top line, these are world class navy's who also posses advance radars and sensors.

So why do they believe that a greater number of VLSs are needed and we don't ?
Is a strategice desission on our part or just penny pintching on HMGs part ?

[SW1]

Jake1992

The uks budget will dictate the scale at which the uk can operate and as such force size required to meet that scale. We have been extremely poor at adjusting to that reality.

We have a ship scaled to the needs of the uk. Ultimately we are scaled for small scale uk only operations and to be a contributor to a larger US operation for that type 45 is more than sufficient against the known threats.

There is much hope that type 45/26 get tlam anti ship missiles, asroc ect. Well the question first of is does it need them? then the second question is does it have to put in a vertical launch magazine. There is options in all those cases so there is no yes or no answer. There’s also the option of a gun with extended range ammo. The uk and French are developing a dual purpose replacement anti ship land attack missile does that mean we only need 8? What is means for the RN ship to target ships or building at very very long range to utilise more such weapons. Also if we replace aster 15 with sea ceptor missiles it can quad pack into the missile launch missile number increase dramatically. There is lots of options.

[serge750]

Don't the French/Italian Horizon class AAW ships only carry 48 paam's & 8 x SSM aswell, which are comparable to ourT45?

Obviously if we had a bigger budget more missiles may of been an option, the harpoon was/is still in service when they were designed so 48VLS (& 8 x SSM) was perceived on the cost/capability ratio was enough when designed, is not the T45 just designed for the AAW mission anyway so it's primary function is to protect the asset from air threats, & leave the ASW threat for another dedicated ship,

If desiged now i believe the T45 would have more VLS as the T26 will have. i agree it would be good to add sea cepter but would that cost to much if you still want 48 aster missiles...especially when there are so many other things that are needed.