Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[shark bait]

The French are taking a very different approach with the FTI and it's CODAD propulsion combined with the CAPTAS 4 Compact.

Sure but that's a bit of a brute force approach, I like to think we could be a bit more refined.

[Lord Jim]

I only asked those questions as I has been informed earlier in response to my mentioning that there was no mention of fitting sonar in the RN RFI, that that was not the case and it was explicitly stated that sonar was part of the RFI.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.

A US carrier group typically deploys with at least 4 or 5 escorts made up of a Tico-CCG and Arleigh Burke-DDGs, plus a SSN. The SSN is the primary ASW asset of the group, coupled with the surface escorts and helicopters and P8s.

I understand your point, but not convinced. (not blaming you, sorry, but just really not convinced). For me, it looks like very similar to the arguments such as, "QECV do not need CAMM", "T26 do not need torpedo", and "Merlin do not need SeaVenom". But, USN CVN has ESSM/RAM, Tico-CCG has complete set of sonars and torpedos, and their SH-60R ASW helo carries ASM.

I understand Tico-CCG is the AAW leader. But, it carries significant sonar suits. They will not "rush" to the enemy sub, but just alert it to Helos, I guess. I see no difference to T45 stationed for AAW. The area not covered by T45-CAPTAS, will be covered by Merlin.

ASW Helos lack endurance. Ship sonar can be easily 24/7 used.

And, adding CAPTAS to T45 is cheaper than adding the same to T31e.

... For inner CVG defense, towed arrays are not usable but more decent hull mounted sonars on a platform that can deliver a Stingray would help.

I know this was the case in 1990s. But, is this true also now?

In 1990s, TASS was passive. Operating passive sonar in the inner layer is NG. The only active sonars were hull sonars and VDSs. But, because VDS was smaller than hull sonar, hull sonar were preferred. This is what I understand.

I also understand that, current submarine technology (including sound-stealth coating/tiles) made an escort with hull sonar, not effective in ASW. This is why every Navy is introducing Low Frequency Active Passive towed sonar suits.

CAPTAS works as an active sonar. Is the "hull sonar only in inner layer saga", still valid? Isn't it "active sonar only in inner layer"? This is my point.

"Towing TASS limits the maneuver?" No it doesn't. Just "maneuver limits the TASS". But then, until right before the maneuver, CAPTAS will work well. If you shorten the TASS, "NG time after maneuver" gets shorter. Also, anyway, T45s are towing torpedo defense TASS (albeit very small).

As almost all discussion on "T31 with CAPTAS", has been frequently done, so here I am focusing on "T45 with CAPTAS", as an alternative.

Again, Tico-CCG = the AAW leader, does carry significant sonar suits.

[seaspear]

Is there any information about the feasibility studies of the Royal Navy into the Aster 30 Block 1 N T being used with the Sea Viper system on the Daring class .

[Poiuytrewq]

A positive take on 2018, worth a watch.

[RetroSicotte]

Is there any information about the feasibility studies of the Royal Navy into the Aster 30 Block 1 N T being used with the Sea Viper system on the Daring class .

The last known news was they were interested in it in exchange for France being interested in Brimstone on the Tiger.

Then suddenly France starts looking at MMP on Tiger instead.

What. A. Surprise.

[seaspear]

Perhaps Im naive in thinking that the best protection for carrier defence would weigh more than those sort of games

[RetroSicotte]

Perhaps Im naive in thinking that the best protection for carrier defence would weigh more than those sort of games

One would hope, yes.

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across,

My point is, it will cost a lot.

It will cost a lot but the short term cost to replace all Mk8's with Mk45's is just too high at this stage. At least that's the reason why it probably won't happen, along with the fact that it simply isn't a high enough priority.

Regardless of cost, now is the perfect time to start the changeover and the T31's should also get the Mk45's, primarily for NGFS. No need for the auto magazine but they should get a CMS suitable for use with guided rounds. Expensive but necessary in my opinion. Maybe not all T31's, maybe the first batch of three could be fitted with a Mk8, 12 CAMM, and 2x 30mm's to get them in the water cheaply, with a follow-on batch of 3 or 4 fitted out with more of a escort spec. I'm not saying this will happen just that it should happen.

Different point but looking at the viability of transferring the HMS across from the T23's to T31's must be a top priority. If an LSG is going to be escorted by T31's even infrequently an HMS must surely be a basic requirement.

The T31 was not primarily designed as an escort but with the new LSG strategy, at least a proportion of T31's are going to have to perform escort duties. This changes everything for the T31 programme and I think it's a welcome change.

Are we now looking a two tier T31 programme? A split order between basic patrol and escort variants?

[Scimitar54]

Or maybe even a "3 x sub-type" T31E, reflecting the inadequate numbers of T26 & T45
1. ASW - WIith a larger Hangar, Merlin & ASROC along with Harpoon successor.
2. AAW - With an enhanced Sea-Ceptor Load-out along with Harpoon successor.
3. GP - In it's true meaning a "Jack of all Trades", but nonetheless lacking in some respects.

4 or 5 of each would probably do it.

[serge750]

I would be happy with 3 of each = 9 !!!

Since the T26 will have 24 x mk 41, would it be possible that for the first 3 or 4 ships to fit them for all 24 x mk41 tubes, but only fit 16 in the short term while transferring them to the T31 ? then after all the T31 are in service buy some more for the T26 that had them borrowed...or just have 3-4 x T26 with only 16 or rotate them through the fleet when in refit,

Fitting the T31 with mk 41 could make them more usable, ASROC/SSM & maybe quad packed CAMM & if there are more batches then they can be built to the same specs

[Ron5]

That made me smile

In response to Donald-san and the King of Mercia's earlier remarks: my notion of the Type 31 as a CVG escort sees it as an inner layer escort providing last ditch defense against both missile/aircraft and submarine leakers through the groups outer defenses provided by T45 & T26. So definitely not a substitute for either.

As such would be in close proximity to the carrier.

The T31 platform would be capable of that role: big enough, fast enough, long legged enough, seaworthy enough, and equipped with decent RAS.

Artisan/CAMM/EO sensors/decoys/CMS are more than capable to intercept any airborne threat. In Leanders case, they would be the same set as fitted on the T26.

Assuming a reasonably quiet hull (once again for Leander, a decent assumption), for ASW, a HMS plus shipboard Stingray launch is all that would be needed. A towed array would be too dangerous to be used that close to a carrier subject to sudden and violent maneuvers. An active system would not be useful as the pings would merely announce the CVG's location to anyone within a large radius.

STRN today has a nice article on ship launched Stingray. Well worth a read. https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-a ... elicopter/

T31's embarked Wildcat could also be used as an inner defense asset. It's radar & EO are first class. As is its weapons set. This role was mentioned by the RN guy running the introduction squadron in an article not long ago.

So T31 as submarine & missile goalkeeper prepared as a last resort to throw itself in the path of any incoming just as any good bodyguard should.

No need for a main gun in that role but probably being the first choice to be detached to investigate any suspicious surface contacts, a Mk 8 or Mk 45 would be very handy. I have little respect for anything smaller and I don't really buy smaller guns supposed usefulness in AAW. If a CAMM can't hit it, I doubt v much if a 57mm or 76mm would.

[seaspear]

Perhaps Im naive in thinking that the best protection for carrier defence would weigh more than those sort of games

One would hope, yes.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/uk-and ... e-defence/
This is an earlier article that worth another read in consideration of the SM3-11A

[Lord Jim]

You would only want to use a T-31e fitted out as per the RFI, for NGFS if the enemy can't shoot back. NGFS is inherently dangerous for the platform conducting it, just look at HMS Glamorgan in the Falklands Conflict and the Israeli Saar 5 off Lebanon. To carry out this sort of mission against a hostile coastline you are going to need a T-26 that is covered by both a T-45 and a F-35B CAP. The risk to high value assets just to lob a few dozen HE shells at a area somewhere in land simply isn't worth it.

Mind you as to what the T-31e can or cannot do we really should wait until the contenders submit their bids as I think most of us here are still being wildly optimistic. If the RFI is amended or the budget increased we may see some of the capability that has been discussed here.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The risk to high value assets just to lob a few dozen HE shells at a area somewhere in land simply isn't worth it.

Mind you as to what the T-31e can or cannot do we really should wait until the contenders submit their bids

Quite right. At the same time, war cannot be made to be a zero-risk business.

[shark bait]

A towed array would be too dangerous to be used that close to a carrier subject to sudden and violent maneuvers. An active system would not be useful as the pings would merely announce the CVG's location to anyone within a large radius.

Your suggestion is fully reasonable, and would delivery a modest but still capable escort, which is exactly what the RN need. I would however amend the sonar 'specification' with the addition of a proper towed array, upgrading the T31 to a much more flexible escort that will have the option to operate detached from the carrier group as well.

Is there value pairing the T31 with the T26 to operate forward of the group, or perhaps for sub hunting operations in the North Atlantic?

You would only want to use a T-31e fitted out as per the RFI, for NGFS if the enemy can't shoot back.

Absolutely.

If a ship is going to sit within visual range of a hostile coastline and start shooting it better be as hard as nails. It's unlikely the T31 will be that ship.

[Lord Jim]

I agree war is not a zero risk business but said risk should always be assessed and mitigated as much as possible, therefore it is imperative that we use the tools for the job that do this. It has been stated elsewhere that we must conduct any future amphibious operation form OTH due to the threat to the assets involved. Why is it then perfectly fine to sail a platform within visual range of an enemy coastline when it is ill equipped to defend itself against any return fire.

[Poiuytrewq]

If a ship is going to sit within visual range of a hostile coastline and start shooting it better be as hard as nails. It's unlikely the T31 will be that ship.

Why is it then perfectly fine to sail a platform within visual range of an enemy coastline when it is ill equipped to defend itself against any return fire.

Which is why any vessel performing NGFS really needs guided rounds.

For example BAE's Vulcano round has a range of 60km to 90km. Well outside visual range. Yes it's expensive, but if the T31 is to conduct NGFS it needs the Mk45 and guided rounds.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... -munitions

[donald_of_tokyo]

That made me smile

In response to Donald-san and the King of Mercia's earlier remarks: my notion of the Type 31 as a CVG escort sees it as an inner layer escort providing last ditch defense against both missile/aircraft and submarine leakers through the groups outer defenses provided by T45 & T26. So definitely not a substitute for either.

As such would be in close proximity to the carrier.

The T31 platform would be capable of that role: big enough, fast enough, long legged enough, seaworthy enough, and equipped with decent RAS.

Artisan/CAMM/EO sensors/decoys/CMS are more than capable to intercept any airborne threat. In Leanders case, they would be the same set as fitted on the T26.

Assuming a reasonably quiet hull (once again for Leander, a decent assumption), for ASW, a HMS plus shipboard Stingray launch is all that would be needed. A towed array would be too dangerous to be used that close to a carrier subject to sudden and violent maneuvers. An active system would not be useful as the pings would merely announce the CVG's location to anyone within a large radius.

Thanks, I almost agree to your point here.

But, towing is not a big issue, if the TASS is not so long. I understand, "escort near carrier" is 1-5 km away, not 100 m. Also, all escorts, CVs and RFA vessels will be towing Sea Sentor ship-torpedo-defense-system's short TASS.

The reason I stick to low-frequency active-passive TASS is that, an escort with just a hull-sonar is now considered to be an easy game from SSN/SSKs, to my understanding. Yes they will be VETOing some region, but very short detection range can be expected. Nowadays, almost all SSK/SSN has acoustic stealth applied, and hence "multi-static" ASW is essential. Low frequency active pinging is important, so why not tow CAPTAS-1/2 or even 4CI? Just personal opinion, I agree.

So T31 as submarine & missile goalkeeper prepared as a last resort to throw itself in the path of any incoming just as any good bodyguard should.

Agreed.

No need for a main gun in that role but probably being the first choice to be detached to investigate any suspicious surface contacts, a Mk 8 or Mk 45 would be very handy. I have little respect for anything smaller and I don't really buy smaller guns supposed usefulness in AAW. If a CAMM can't hit it, I doubt v much if a 57mm or 76mm would.

Not sure AAW of 57/76mm gun is not capable. Surely they will never be capable as CAMM, but what if compared to Phalanx CIWS? As T26 has CIWS in addition to CAMM, they are complementary. So, CAMM+57/76mm is also complementary on AAW, I guess.

Also for "investigating suspicious surface contacts", 57/76mm may work. The gun do not need to sink a big container ship. If sinking is needed, just shoot SSM or attack with F35B. For small boats, I understand 114mm and 127mm guns are not good at. And, small boats will be more numerous than big container ships.

[donald_of_tokyo]

You would only want to use a T-31e fitted out as per the RFI, for NGFS if the enemy can't shoot back.

Absolutely.
If a ship is going to sit within visual range of a hostile coastline and start shooting it better be as hard as nails. It's unlikely the T31 will be that ship.

Depends. If the threat is high, even T26 will never do NGFS. If the threat is medium, they will. And, if the threat is low, even French Floreal can easily do NGFS. It all depends on "where to go".

Guided round will be important for NGFS, but in that case, a 76 mm Volcano-round can pin-point the enemy. In most of the cases, it will be enough. 114mm guns will not have any guided round, because of its dead-end of development, I'm afraid. T31e as build may not have guided round capability. But, if it is 127mm, 76 mm or 57 mm, USA and Italy is already intensively developing guided rounds, so it can surely be added later. In 114mm case, UK itself must invest on it, and with T26 having 127mm gun, it is nearly zero possibility.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Man power shortage is not getting well in RN? So, two escorts in "extended readiness" will remain so for coming few years. I am reluctantly thinking it is a time to think of disbanding at least one T23GP now, without modernization, which will save a million of pounds or more.

[donald_of_tokyo]

My post was mistakenly posted to escort thread. Moved to QE thread.
Apologize.

[Lord Jim]

If a ship is going to sit within visual range of a hostile coastline and start shooting it better be as hard as nails. It's unlikely the T31 will be that ship.

Why is it then perfectly fine to sail a platform within visual range of an enemy coastline when it is ill equipped to defend itself against any return fire.

Which is why any vessel performing NGFS really needs guided rounds.

For example BAE's Vulcano round has a range of 60km to 90km. Well outside visual range. Yes it's expensive, but if the T31 is to conduct NGFS it needs the Mk45 and guided rounds.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... -munitions

And that is why the T-31e will not get a Mk45 let alone Guided rounds. WE would do better installing a "Basic" fit 57mm or 76mm and then installing the "Full Fat" version of the same gun on to the T-45 at a later date.

[Tempest414]

Man power shortage is not getting well in RN? So, two escorts in "extended readiness" will remain so for coming few years. I am reluctantly thinking it is a time to think of disbanding at least one T23GP now, without modernization, which will save a million of pounds or more.

It should be noted that this 1350 is right across the RN - RM & FAA and not just the escort fleet and it still has 29,100 that could be retrained and re-posted

[donald_of_tokyo]

But if RN could man the two escorts, they should have done it. I understand there is no surplus’s crews. Every info says so.

By cancelling upgrade of 2 T23GP now and get 2 sets of CAMM from complex weapon budget and ~120m GBP from Lifex budget, we can arm BOTH 2 CVs with CAMM. As CMS upgrade is not needed (just add software), with remaining money (~100mn) we can make “~2 of the T31es added with ASW”, or anything else.

And this “relocation of money” will only improve RN’s fighting power.