Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

In what sense, 1 T26 is better than 3 T31 (equivalent in cost) when fighting against such boats?
Even comparing 1 T26 with 5inch gun vs 1 T31 with 57mm gun, I guess the latter MAY be better, if equipped with Orca guided rounds.

Sorry, maybe I am missing your point?

[EDIT] ORCA guided rounds, from BAE. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 2aD1iCjWtN

[EDIT2] Or you are proposing to mount, SeaBrimstone on T31e, T26, and T45s? It will be good, I agree, if RN thinks Iran is the main threat.

[EDIT3] Or, you are talking about more long-range ASMs? If the enemy boat is small and fast, their detection horizon will be quite small? Not sure...

[Simon82]

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
You are proposing to mount, SeaBrimstone on T31e, T26, and T45s? It will be good, I agree, if RN thinks Iran is the main threat

I agree that harpoon, or similar, is not the weapon to deal with a swarm attack on a lone vessel by Iranian missile boats and that either a guided 3” - 5” main gun round or lightweight missile such as Brimstone would be ideal, if funding is available to develop a vertical launch version for the CAMM VLS. With that in mind I don’t suppose equipping SeaCeptor with an secondary anti-surface role has ever crossed anyone’s mind? It might not be ideal, but I’m sure it’d be enough to ruin a boghammer’s day.

It’d be a bit careless to allow a lone patrol boat/very light-frigate to get into that situation in the first place though. Especially given Iran’s well established track record in these matters.

[Lord Jim]

Has it been suggested anywhere to develop ship launched versions of Sea Venom and/or Martlet like was done with Sea Skua?

Also with regards to numbers of Escorts, it might not be acceptable to have the number drop further but it is probably going to happen as the current timeline is so taught the slightest issue and it will snap. The first T-26 is due according to DE&S in 2025 with additional vessels hitting the water every eighteen months. The first T-31e will hit the water in 2023. We know BAe can build the T-26 faster so it is possible if given the green light we could have up to six T-26 in the water by 2030 if the programme was speeded up and funding moved from the T-31e to T-26. Once six are built we start seeing the economies of scale kicking in to possible a second batch of six T-26 that are more capable or focused differently could then begin to emerge from BAe, maybe with enhance AAW capability to bridge the gap between the initial T-26 and the T-45 and then following these a further six as preplacement for the T-45 entering service towards the end of the 2030s. This would eventually give the RN an escort force of 18 high end vessels with considerable commonality and capability. I am sure there would be an initial drop in numbers but in the end the picture is far better. Also with the variants of the T-26 being built by Australia and Canada we will be able to incorporate any improvements they have made ad visa versa and the list of in service options will only make the platform more appealing to potential export customer.

[Lord Jim]

Crossing over from the T-31 thread, where is the T-31e going to be facing large swarm attacks with AShMs? an Admiral that placed one in such a predicament needs to be Court Martialled for negligence. As it is currently planned this is not the role for which the T031 is being designed for. The Gulf is not a benign theatre and require top tier platforms to carry out patrols. It would be liker sending Tucanos to carry out the Baltic policing role instead of Typhoons. However it still might encounter a lower level of threat and a single 57mm or 76mm is far better suited to this situation than a Mk8 as was my original point. One of the advantages of both systems is that they can have their capability upscaled to match ones budget. A T-31e armed with a fully capable 57mm would not need a Phalanx nor would it need secondary auto cannon, possibly only a number of M2 HBs. For a longer reach is needed it could use its embarked Wildcat. And yes a 57mm is quite capable of sinking large vessels as happened when the RCN sank a old DDH with gunfire from a Halifax class without even using specialist ammunition. At present I see a very real danger of the T-31e being used for missions it is not suited to mainly because it is being sold as a true warship, admittedly not a full fat one. The temptation will be to deploy them to the Gulf for example but I for one would not want myself or anyone I know to be part of that ships compliment.

[RetroSicotte]

In what sense, 1 T26 is better than 3 T31 (equivalent in cost) when fighting against such boats?
Even comparing 1 T26 with 5inch gun vs 1 T31 with 57mm gun, I guess the latter MAY be better, if equipped with Orca guided rounds.

Sorry, maybe I am missing your point?

[EDIT] ORCA guided rounds, from BAE. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 2aD1iCjWtN

[EDIT2] Or you are proposing to mount, SeaBrimstone on T31e, T26, and T45s? It will be good, I agree, if RN thinks Iran is the main threat.

[EDIT3] Or, you are talking about more long-range ASMs? If the enemy boat is small and fast, their detection horizon will be quite small? Not sure...

Looking back at the T31 thread, I realise I somehow mistook your post as meaning to not even have the gun due to the ordering of posts, which would explain my point in return.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Topical... almost ten years ago:

" performance of the Freedom
Class Littoral Combat Ship [compared] with five similar
international frigates and corvettes in a littoral combat
environment. The alternative ships are: Formidable class
frigate, Singapore Navy; MILGEM (Milli Gemi) class
corvette, Turkish Navy; Steregushchiy class frigate,
Russian Navy; Sigma class corvette,
Indonesian Navy; and
Visby class corvette, Swedish Navy. The study is conducted
within a fictitious scenario in the Strait of Hormuz,
countering Iran’s naval capabilities. Hughes’s Salvo
Equations Model is used to evaluate a variable number of
friendly combatants versus a fixed opposing force."

A good read http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a501687.pdf overall, and for the topic at hand,
Table 49.
FRIFOR Anti-Missile Defensive Power Calculations
might be additional food for thought?

[Tempest414]

As I have said before for the cost of one Phalanx we could fit

1 x 57mm
4 x 30mm
4 x 50 Caliber HMG
this would give type 31 a surface defence from 10m to 9000m with it highest wight of fire being 620 of 57 and 30mm rounds per minute @ 4000 meters and 1620 round per minute of 57 - 30mm and 50 cal @ 2000 meters on one side leaving 2 x 30mm and 2 x 50 cal on the other giving another 1400 rounds per minute @ 2000 meters if we could add 30 CAMM to this it would be well covered . It would take a very well planned and highly motivated attack to get though this defence

[RetroSicotte]

As I have said before for the cost of one Phalanx we could fit

1 x 57mm
4 x 30mm
4 x 50 Caliber HMG
this would give type 31 a surface defence from 10m to 9000m with it highest wight of fire being 620 of 57 and 30mm rounds per minute @ 4000 meters and 1620 round per minute of 57 - 30mm and 50 cal @ 2000 meters on one side leaving 2 x 30mm and 2 x 50 cal on the other giving another 1400 rounds per minute @ 2000 meters if we could add 30 CAMM to this it would be well covered . It would take a very well planned and highly motivated attack to get though this defence

My problem there is it leaves it without any "quickflick" automated response. The 57mm may be useful as anti-air, even anti-missile these days, but it lacks the remote automation from moment of detection of the Phalanx, which is why the CIWS is such a unique system unto itself. It cuts down response time by a massive, massive margin. It's effectively just "ready to go". The 57mm needs some degree of setup time and manpower dedication to respond to a sudden pop-up threat.

It's not just about weight of stuff in the air, CIWS is a unique capability.

[NickC]

My view, a revision/updated of post on Type 31e thread is that the Type 26 is too expensive and should be cancelled. Canada provisional budget C$60B for 15 ships, Australia $35B+ for 9 ships.

The goal should not be to make ships last longer by increasing costs and complexity and building in more potential capabilities for future proofing as it's impossible to predict future technologies and their associated requirements. The aim should be to build cheaper and smaller ships, at least half the cost of a Type 26, that can be replaced often enough so that the technology stays fresh and you can advance the design incrementally. Design for a 20 year life span so ships will always be state of the art.

Fisher refused to keep old ships in the fleet, few of the big ships were older than 1908 at Jutland. The IJN had a standard in the early twentieth century that new warships would be first rate for eight years and still usable for eight more years. . 

How - ship should be designed for it's primary task and have a secondary function as long as it doesn't impact on the primary function and move away from multi-function ships, looking at the very, very expensive and nearly 9,000t Type 26. Limiting the number of missions per hull type is the most practical solution to reducing the 150%? plus cost overrun and years of programme slippage in acquisition of the Type 26

Cancel the remaining five Type 26s, £800M+ each? saving £4B and the Type 31e £1.25B for a total of £5.25B and spend approx £350M on new frigate as was the cost talked of for the Type 26 and reflects the current sentiment on board that you need approx the same £350/400M for an effective T31e+ and you would have 13/14 new Type 31e+ frigates plus the 3 Type 26 under contract for a total of 17 frigates instead of current plan of 13, 30% increase in numbers.

If build less costly ships you keep the industrial base and it gets a consistent work load which makes it stronger and in a war gives you the shipyard capacity to ramp up build, not as now when it looks like another shipyard Appledore is closing, . 

The additional ships gives opportunity for younger officers to command ships at sea, extensive service at sea is the only reliable teacher to establish a competent cadre of trained officers and crew, a point not emphasised enough.

PS Commercial ships, tankers/bulk carriers life ~20 years, others ~ 25 years before scrapped

[RetroSicotte]

That runs into the big issue though. Replace high end ships with low end ships for the entire fleet, and what happens the moment you run into someone who actually bothered to build capable ships (as most are doing)? You lose lives.

[Tempest414]

As I have said before for the cost of one Phalanx we could fit

1 x 57mm
4 x 30mm
4 x 50 Caliber HMG
this would give type 31 a surface defence from 10m to 9000m with it highest wight of fire being 620 of 57 and 30mm rounds per minute @ 4000 meters and 1620 round per minute of 57 - 30mm and 50 cal @ 2000 meters on one side leaving 2 x 30mm and 2 x 50 cal on the other giving another 1400 rounds per minute @ 2000 meters if we could add 30 CAMM to this it would be well covered . It would take a very well planned and highly motivated attack to get though this defence

My problem there is it leaves it without any "quickflick" automated response. The 57mm may be useful as anti-air, even anti-missile these days, but it lacks the remote automation from moment of detection of the Phalanx, which is why the CIWS is such a unique system unto itself. It cuts down response time by a massive, massive margin. It's effectively just "ready to go". The 57mm needs some degree of setup time and manpower dedication to respond to a sudden pop-up threat.

It's not just about weight of stuff in the air, CIWS is a unique capability.

My point is this is what you can have for 2/3 the cost of a Phalanx and at this time type 23 dose not have phalanx would this plus phalanx be better yes but it is about cost . The list list above will cope with a large swam attack of small fast attack boats

[Simon82]

" performance of the Freedom
Class Littoral Combat Ship [compared] with five similar
international frigates and corvettes in a littoral combat
environment. The alternative ships are: Formidable class
frigate, Singapore Navy; MILGEM (Milli Gemi) class
corvette, Turkish Navy; Steregushchiy class frigate,
Russian Navy; Sigma class corvette,
Indonesian Navy; and
Visby class corvette, Swedish Navy. The study is conducted
within a fictitious scenario in the Strait of Hormuz,
countering Iran’s naval capabilities. Hughes’s Salvo
Equations Model is used to evaluate a variable number of
friendly combatants versus a fixed opposing force."

It’s interesting to note that the study assumes the LCS to be effective are operating in mutually supporting Surface Action Groups (SAG) of 3 vessels thus ensuring almost continuous helicopter coverage. Important when so much of the offensive/defensive capability relies on helicopter launched weapons, in this case ASW torpedoes and ASuW Hellfire missiles. I’m not sure sending the Type 31e around the world in flotillas of three is a viable strategy for the Royal Navy with a total buy of only 5 ships!

[RichardIC]

My view, a revision/updated of post on Type 31e thread is that the Type 26 is too expensive and should be cancelled.

The world's passed you by on that.

Fisher refused to keep old ships in the fleet, few of the big ships were older than 1908 at Jutland. 

Is that because it was too difficult to upgrade their software?

[whitelancer]

A good read http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a501687.pdf overall, and for the topic at hand,Table 49. FRIFOR Anti-Missile Defensive Power Calculations might be additional food for thought?

I do have a problem with such models trying to represent real world situations, particularly when they rely on open source information. They rely too much on the assumptions made, alter those assumptions and you can get completely different results. For instance one assumption is that LCS has 2 helicopters aboard, that both are airborne and equipped with the appropriate weapon for each scenario i.e. 2 Mk 54 torpedoes or 8 Hellfire missiles, is that a reasonable assumption to make?
As for the table you highlight, the relative effectiveness of RAM and Aster is simply determined by the number of missiles available!

[NickC]

That runs into the big issue though. Replace high end ships with low end ships for the entire fleet, and what happens the moment you run into someone who actually bothered to build capable ships (as most are doing)? You lose lives.

The only high end capability of the Type 26 is ASW, it does't have a modern high end GaN S-band radar, no high definition X-band radar for optimum detection of anti-ship sea skimming missiles, just local area AA defense with the Sea Ceptor, the VLS cells may possibly be fitted in future with the LRASM, but could just as easily launched from deck canisters and no Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system for when in EMCON mode.

[RetroSicotte]

The only high end capability of the Type 26 is ASW, it does't have a modern high end GaN S-band radar, no high definition X-band radar for optimum detection of anti-ship sea skimming missiles, just local area AA defense with the Sea Ceptor, the VLS cells may possibly be fitted in future with the LRASM, but could just as easily launched from deck canisters and no Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system for when in EMCON mode.

All issues that I have previously highlighted and said require solving, especially if the first ship comes into service in 2027. No argument from me there.

But you need the platform to be capable of said upgrades, to have the room and the power generation. Type 26 has that. It makes little sense to go for an even lower end vessel that isn't even capable of the same level of upgrade.

[Gabriele]

Shepard News reports that the UK will follow the US lead on Tomahawk modernisation, adopting the Maritime Strike package with moving anti-ship seeker.

That is huge. Restores a long range anti-ship capability to the submarines and solves the ASM problem for Type 26, if VL missiles for MK41 are procured.

[Timmymagic]

That is huge. Restores a long range anti-ship capability to the submarines and solves the ASM problem for Type 26, if VL missiles for MK41 are procured.

Whats the long term prospects though?
-Is the non-stealthy Tomahawk actually a credible ASM these days? I can't see it penetrating a Russian/Chinese ships defences or being available in sufficient numbers to saturate someones defences.
-Also, surely that could end up (as LRASM could) impacting the proposed FC/ASW Franco-British project.
-Will the US continue to produce encapsulated Tomahawk (at eyewatering expense) for the UK Astutes? All the USN SSN's have VL via tubes or common missile compartment (the lack of VL's on Astute always astonished me)
- What of the mooted new US sub-launched missile?
- Can we actually target at the ranges its capable of?

My concern is the US, with their colossal budgets, could see this as a mere stop gap until better things arrive in due course (like LRASM cap 2, Harpoon 2ER, NSM or Sea Dragon). Whereas the RN could end up carrying them around for 25 years whilst simultaneously not developing a new system of our own that could have the prospect of significant sales and capability increase (and sovereign control).

[Jake1992]

Iv heard rumours that the future spear 3 will have a naval version with the possibility of it being quad packable in mk41
Could this combined with say LRASM ( then future Anglo French ASM ) make a very could base point for the T26 and other T class vessels.

[Simon82]

Iv heard rumours that the future spear 3 will have a naval version with the possibility of it being quad packable in mk41
Could this combined with say LRASM ( then future Anglo French ASM ) make a very could base point for the T26 and other T class vessels.

It depends if anyone is willing to pay for the development or integration. Sea Brimstone is another project awaiting a golden goose. Both would be useful weapons against swarm attacks by fast ‘boghammer’ type vessels in asymmetric confrontations, especially in the absence of a conveniently placed airborne armed helicopter. Against near peer adversaries with modern anti-ship missiles their lack of range would become a liability however, so they remain somewhat niche weapons, which is probably why they haven’t been adopted by anyone to date.

[Lord Jim]

Couple of things. First the return of the anti-ship Tomahawk. The USN is looking at this as purely an interim solution to the long range anti-ship requirement. IT is not an ideal platform for the role as it is big and slow and vulnerable to counter measures unless used in large numbers against a target. The US has stocks of Tomahawk available for conversion we do not so we would only be buying very limited stocks along the line of the quantity of TLAM. This would mean it would end being more of a case where we have the capability but will lack the capacity to be truly effective.

On the issue of the 57mm not being an effective CIWS, I disagree. It takes to full capability version to be able to do this, but like the Italian 76mm, it can do the job very well with either on board targeting and tracking hardware of remote, as the Italians do. This does however increase to cost by quite a large amount and it would be interesting to see how this compares to the purchase price of a lower spec 57mm plus Phalanx.

[dmereifield]

Couple of things. First the return of the anti-ship Tomahawk. The USN is looking at this as purely an interim solution to the long range anti-ship requirement. IT is not an ideal platform for the role as it is big and slow and vulnerable to counter measures unless used in large numbers against a target. The US has stocks of Tomahawk available for conversion we do not so we would only be buying very limited stocks along the line of the quantity of TLAM. This would mean it would end being more of a case where we have the capability but will lack the capacity to be truly effective.

On the issue of the 57mm not being an effective CIWS, I disagree. It takes to full capability version to be able to do this, but like the Italian 76mm, it can do the job very well with either on board targeting and tracking hardware of remote, as the Italians do. This does however increase to cost by quite a large amount and it would be interesting to see how this compares to the purchase price of a lower spec 57mm plus Phalanx.

If we 're talking about the T31 then you don't need to account for the phalanx cost - it has to be fit to receive Phalanx according to the RFI, and none of the competitors are going to cost it into the build. They will include sea captor instead, and allow the RN to bolt on Phalanx as and when required from the pool of Phalanx they have available. If the pool needs to be expanded the RN can do so (if they wish) outside of the T31 budget. The T31 budget is too tight to waste funds on Phalanx

[Aethulwulf]

Iv heard rumours that the future spear 3 will have a naval version with the possibility of it being quad packable in mk41
Could this combined with say LRASM ( then future Anglo French ASM ) make a very could base point for the T26 and other T class vessels.

If the RN does ever develop a sea launched version of Spear 3, its primary role will probably be land attack.

It would supplement naval gunfire support, providing a precision strike capability against fixed and mobile targets. In terms of range, I suspect the RN would want at least 70 km and desire around 150 km, to allow ships to standoff over the horizon but still support a RM land force to 100+ km inland.

Utility against sea targets (corvettes and smaller), would likely be a secondary consideration, given the availability and utility of Sea Venom and Martlet on Wildcat.

Such a weapon would have been very useful in Libya.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the issue of the 57mm not being an effective CIWS, I disagree. It takes to full capability version to be able to do this, but like the Italian 76mm, it can do the job very well with either on board targeting and tracking hardware of remote, as the Italians do. This does however increase to cost by quite a large amount and it would be interesting to see how this compares to the purchase price of a lower spec 57mm plus Phalanx.

57mm in high-spec will be very expensive. Another issue will be the "man-power". Phalanx CIWS is maintenance intensive (gatling gun has many parts). Including the control console member, 1 CIWS will need 4-8 crew to be added?

Adding a "CIWS level capability to 57mm gun", how many additional crew will be needed?

Couple of things. First the return of the anti-ship Tomahawk. The USN is looking at this as purely an interim solution to the long range anti-ship requirement. IT is not an ideal platform for the role as it is big and slow and vulnerable to counter measures unless used in large numbers against a target. The US has stocks of Tomahawk available for conversion we do not so we would only be buying very limited stocks along the line of the quantity of TLAM. This would mean it would end being more of a case where we have the capability but will lack the capacity to be truly effective.

But, the Anglo-French ASM's full-production date does not meet 2025 (=first T26 commission). Also, 100% sure, it will delay (new missile in delay is no normal and understandable). Integration to Raphael, Sylver VLS will be paid by France, but for Typhoon, F35B, Mk.41 VLS, is from UK, I guess. It will surely take time, may be several years.

I think an interim solution is MUST, and there is a good room for LRASM and/or NSM coming in.

For me, the issue is if it could be NSM only (for all T45, T31, and T26 (adding canister is easy)), or LRASM? LRASM will be in production in number, and it can use canister similar to harpoon. As even RAF has storm-shadow, RN is using TLAM for their SSN. Clear, none payed for the Sub-launched version development.

LRASM can be launched using TLAM-front-end-electronics, so buying TLAM as a interim solution for T26 will make LRASM very strong competitor.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I suspect the RN would want at least 70 km and desire around 150 km, to allow ships to standoff over the horizon but still support a RM land force to 100+ km inland.

Yes, the range and multiple launches (more than 4) for surprise effect - plus ability to deal with moving targets - would take it well beyond what Sea Venom now (from 2020?) offers:
"Sea Venom is designed to attack surface targets, such as fast in-shore attack craft (FIACS) ranging in size of between 50-500 tonnes, as well as larger surface targets of up to corvette size. With its 30 kg warhead, the missile is also capable of inflicting significant damage to larger vessels through precision aim point selection, and can also attack static land-based targets. The missile is capable of several attack modes including sea skimming and “pop up/top attack.” Sea Venom uses an IR Seeker with the option of man in the loop track-via-missile guidance via data-link; the high speed two-way data-link transmits the images “seen” by the seeker back to the operator, enabling them to remain in control of the missile throughout its flight in addition to having an autonomous engagement capability."