Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

shark bait wrote:Escorts have 2 full time medical staff, the amphibs have 5 full time medical staff, both have more part time first aiders on board.

http://qna.files.parliament.uk/qna-atta ... 210751.doc
Thanks. :thumbup:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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 »

# From Malaysian thread...
Lord Jim wrote:Why haven't we looked at the Gowind Corvettes for the T-31e. They Malaysia has bought six fully tooled up platforms for £1.4Bn including BAe 57mm and NSM. That's £235M per ship delivered and with support. Again it seems we are rubbish at this whole procurement thingy.
Good point. I guess, original idea of NSbS was to design a "British version of Gowind-2500 class corvettes", to compete in export market. Venator 110, Arrowhead 120, Leander/Cutlass/Avenger, all were well-aligned in this vision.

# From here, it is just guess.

However, when the total cost of 1.25B GBP was revealed, Venator 110 was dead. And BMT teamed up with Babcock, who was then proposing Arrowhead 120. Arrowhead 120, which was basically completely new design, can gain a lot from BMT's studies for Vanator 110.

Next, Babcock seeing the Leander concept, they suddenly realized Arrowhead 120 will not win, because of design cost. Then, they introduced Arrowhead 140, inviting OMT.

From here, suddenly the program has lost their way. Arrowhead 140 is not British design, clearly. The only hope is, their own shipyards is already gone, so maybe in future, Babcock may have some "footprint" on Iver Huitfeldt class export. At least, even if some license agreement is done, I think it cannot override all of the OMT's own effort to date (like Indonesia).

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Moving across from the River Class (OPV) thread -
Tempest414 wrote:I think talking about Khareef's is a long way north of what a River class is and should be. For me the end of the line River class should be 100 meters with Wildcat hangar with a Phalanx mount on top so the weapon can be fitted if needed and a 57 mm gun the extra 10 meters should be used to hold the helicopter team, fuel and weapons with all other things staying the same . This would allow BAE to have 3 classes of ships

1) OVP's 85 meter basic ship up to 100 meter Sloops
2) 99 meter Corvette up to 120 meter light Frigate
3) Type 26 global combat Frigate
I think you are right that a River Sloop (Avenger without CAMM/Artisan) and River Corvette (Al Khareef) is a good offering extending on existing products and proven export track record. However, do not feel that a 120m version is a must, by all means have it on brochures but personally can’t see many buying it.

Perhaps the right answer all along has been to have a RN version of the Al Khareef, keeping it to the same size, but customised to RN operational needs, kit and build standards (like the Amazonas Class was the basis of the B2 Rivers) with a higher level of automation.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:Perhaps the right answer all along has been to have a RN version of the Al Khareef, keeping it to the same size, but customised to RN operational needs...
Personally I think the Rivers and Leander balances best around 105m.

The 105m Leander is particularly interesting as it still retains the forward and amidships VLS cells, two mission bay's for the RHIBs and space for canister launched AShM's. Add in a Mk8, 2x 30mm's, an embarked Wildcat, a crew allocation of around 80 with a 6000nm range and a top speed around 25knts it would be a very attractive Corvette option if RN wants to join the Corvette club. A 105m RB3 version would be just as good for a non combatant variant.
image.png
Lots of potential but it certainly isn't a Frigate :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Firstly, thanks to Repulse for moving this over here.

Secondly, don't forget sea keeping. BMT did a thorough study and concluded 120m length was the minimum for a global blue water frigate in order to allow a large percentage of time for the ship to remain operational. That's why BMT lengthened its Venator design.

That's also why the RN requested a 120m Type 31.

Donald-san did a very nice graphic that showed how Bae inserted two hull plugs into Al Khaareef to create Leander. The longer plug midships created the mission bay. A constant section plug that is mostly steel & air, accommodation & fuel tanks, no expensive systems, and therefore not expensive to add.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq, we’ve had RN frigates in the past - what is the difference between a Frigate, Sloop, Corvette and OPV; my view is that not a lot comes in a name. Personally, I’d be happy for a 100m ish “Sloop” if we went for a RN version of the Al Khareef as long as we don’t need to pay the 50% uplift to £250mn for the name only.

Ron5, fair point, but personally I’d argue if we wanted a “Littoral Warship” that could be forward based in the Gulf, Singapore, Med or South China Sea does it need to be a optimal blue water warship? If we could get a variation on the 100m version for £175mn then I’d take it and save the cumulative £75mn for other things.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok I am sold, let buy four Leanders with the money form the fifth used to give the other four a little bit extra capability. There job done, now lets move on to the next debate. :thumbup:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2785
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:BMT did a thorough study and concluded 120m length was the minimum for a global blue water
They also decided that 105m was about the smallest you could go and still self-deploy globally (able to sustain a transit in up to sea state 8, with (just about ) acceptable speed, slamming and rolling - and no more than 20% of the crew disabled by sea-sickness!), but not able to operate effectively beyond about sea state 5-6. So probably suitable for lower-end patrol assets that can run for cover in heavy weather (when all their potential targets have also run for cover), but not, as you say, for a global, blue-water navy.

Personally I would be happy to see a few helicopter-capable OPVs added to the fleet, (for a maximum build budget of c. £80-85m ea.), since there is a lot that they would be able to do and, they would be good for training and career development within the RN. However, even if we had them, we would still need more actual frigates than just the eight T26. We also need them soon.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Repulse wrote:Poiuytrewq, we’ve had RN frigates in the past - what is the difference between a Frigate, Sloop, Corvette and OPV; my view is that not a lot comes in a name. Personally, I’d be happy for a 100m ish “Sloop” if we went for a RN version of the Al Khareef as long as we don’t need to pay the 50% uplift to £250mn for the name only.

Ron5, fair point, but personally I’d argue if we wanted a “Littoral Warship” that could be forward based in the Gulf, Singapore, Med or South China Sea does it need to be a optimal blue water warship? If we could get a variation on the 100m version for £175mn then I’d take it and save the cumulative £75mn for other things.
Don't forget the Leanders will have to come in around 200 million to meet the budget so I'm not sure you'll save enough to make it worthwhile.

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:BMT did a thorough study and concluded 120m length was the minimum for a global blue water
They also decided that 105m was about the smallest you could go and still self-deploy globally (able to sustain a transit in up to sea state 8, with (just about ) acceptable speed, slamming and rolling - and no more than 20% of the crew disabled by sea-sickness!), but not able to operate effectively beyond about sea state 5-6. So probably suitable for lower-end patrol assets that can run for cover in heavy weather (when all their potential targets have also run for cover), but not, as you say, for a global, blue-water navy.

Personally I would be happy to see a few helicopter-capable OPVs added to the fleet, (for a maximum build budget of c. £80-85m ea.), since there is a lot that they would be able to do and, they would be good for training and career development within the RN. However, even if we had them, we would still need more actual frigates than just the eight T26. We also need them soon.
As Repulse also says, if you take the blue water requirement away then sure you can get away with a smaller ship. But I don't want to!! I still see Leander having a war role as a HVU goal keeper. And that means blue water. I'd rather the Leanders be able do that than the QE's (for example) getting their own CAMM.

From Twitter:
Nicholas Drummond

Nice to have lunch and share Defence perspectives with @FTusa284 yesterday. After being roundly criticised by naval types for suggesting that QE carriers are under protected, Francis tells me that the Navy now wants to put Sea Ceptor/ CAMM on both ships.

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 »

The "HVU goal keeper" really doesn't seem worth the effort. If the objective is to place a capable air defence system next to a carrier/amphib whats is simpler;
  • Building and operating a brand new class of surface combatant?
  • Adding a couple of silos and an extra console to the HVU?
The latter sounds way simpler and many times cheaper.
@LandSharkUK

Varus
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 20:09
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Varus »

Interesting that Brazil has gone for TKMS MEKO A100 for their new corvette....

https://navaltoday.com/2019/03/29/brazi ... corvettes/

Looks like Sea Ceptor, Artisan.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote:Personally I would be happy to see a few helicopter-capable OPVs added to the fleet, (for a maximum build budget of c. £80-85m ea.), since there is a lot that they would be able to do and, they would be good for training and career development within the RN. However, even if we had them, we would still need more actual frigates than just the eight T26. We also need them soon.
I think we miss this with TOBA had we set out from the start to keep the B1 Rivers we could of built 4 or 5 100 to 105 meter B2 Rivers something like

105 meters by 13.6
speed 25 knots
Scanter 4100 radar
BAE CMS
wildcat hangar and flight deck
room for 50 troops
1 x 57 mm , 3 x 30mm , FFBNW Phalanx/ SeaRam

As you said we would still need more frigates however we could have built 4 for 300 million each

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 »

Varus wrote:Interesting that Brazil has gone for TKMS MEKO A100 for their new corvette....
The unit price is almost the same as the T31.

£250m buys a 107m 3,455 ton corvette equipped with SeaCeptor, Exocet and an OTO 76 mm gun when built in Brazil.

Doesn't make me optimistic for the RN's corvette!
@LandSharkUK

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:As Repulse also says, if you take the blue water requirement away then sure you can get away with a smaller ship. But I don't want to!! I still see Leander having a war role as a HVU goal keeper. And that means blue water. I'd rather the Leanders be able do that than the QE's (for example) getting their own CAMM.
shark bait wrote:The "HVU goal keeper" really doesn't seem worth the effort. If the objective is to place a capable air defence system next to a carrier/amphib whats is simpler;
  • Building and operating a brand new class of surface combatant?
  • Adding a couple of silos and an extra console to the HVU?
The latter sounds way simpler and many times cheaper.
I agree shark bait-san's comment is correct.
But I also understand Ron5-san's aim.

If based on T31e importance, "a HVU goal keeper" is clearly a good job. T31e as a goal keeper AAW, and as a inner-layer ASW asset (if added with hull-sonar and/or CAPTAS-1/2/4CI), it will work very well. It can also deploy in singleton in peace time, because not always such an escort is not needed.

On the other hand, for AAW (goal keeper) of CVF, arming them with CAMM will be the cheapest solution. If T31e is to be cancelled, or de-scoped as "Flores-Like level", arming CVF with CAMM will be a good solution.

Of course, as arming CVF with CAMM is very cheap, I shall say, "why not both?" :thumbup:

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 »

Varus wrote:Interesting that Brazil has gone for TKMS MEKO A100 for their new corvette....
https://navaltoday.com/2019/03/29/brazi ... corvettes/
Looks like Sea Ceptor, Artisan.
Thanks! I'm afraid it is SMART-S Mk2? Not sure.
But, doesn't the CAMM silo look like ExLS?
shark bait wrote:The unit price is almost the same as the T31.
£250m buys a 107m 3,455 ton corvette equipped with SeaCeptor, Exocet and an OTO 76 mm gun when built in Brazil.
Doesn't make me optimistic for the RN's corvette!
Not sure. Including technology transfer, the cost is reasonable as a corvette. Rumanian Damen proposal for 4 corvettes was also 1.6 billion euro (built in Damen).

Also, if Leander are to win the bid, it will be only a little more expensive because of 10m longer hull (to accommodate mission bays). Not a lot. Another important aspect will be the hull standard. Leander as T31e is NATO frigate standard. Damen 10514, at least for Maxican navy, is OPV standard, as I understand. How about this (extended) MEKO A100?

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 »

Even so that is a small, poorly equip corvette built in Brazil, costing more than the ceiling price of a T31. It does not bode well.

I don't know if I posted this on here before, but a little reminder there's likely to be little equipment free issued from the government.



Furthermore consider two out of the three bidders are proposing lots of brand new equipment, why would they do that if free equipment was on offer on a fixed proce contract? it's fairly safe to say there is little free transfer of equipment.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

shark bait wrote:Even so that is a small, poorly equip corvette built in Brazil, costing more than the ceiling price of a T31. It does not bode well.
Sorry, I am a bit confused. The price of Brazilian MEKO A100 corvette, 1.2B GBP for 4 hulls including local build support, is higher than 1.25B GBP for 5 T31e. I think this means, T31e price limit is "competitive" = cheap (of course, direct comparison of two prices are not easy. I even think what shall be compared is not 1.25B GBP in T31e, but 1.5B GBP, which includes "all T31e-related costs other than ship building").

If you are concerned about too low cost, and afraid of too limited capabilities of T31e, I am all with you. I am saying that, "T31e will be armed with a simple (no-smart shell) 76/57mm gun, 12 CAMM, 2x 30mm gun, ESM/chaff/flare kits, and a Wildcat", and nothing else, at best, at the price of 1.25B GBP for 5 hulls." At least in RFI, it was clearly written so. I even think it is a good buy with such a low cost. The "12 CAMM" can even be "12 CAMM fit-to-receive and a 20mm CIWS", in place.

T31e will never be comparable to T23GP. Simply, "8 T26 and 5 T31e" will be comparable to "8 T23ASW and 5 T23GP". And I think it is NOT BAD.
I don't know if I posted this on here before, but a little reminder there's likely to be little equipment free issued from the government. ... Furthermore consider two out of the three bidders are proposing lots of brand new equipment, why would they do that if free equipment was on offer on a fixed proce contract? it's fairly safe to say there is little free transfer of equipment.
Thanks. 2dSL's comment is no surprise for me. The T31e program continuously states so = no free transfer. It is just SavetheRoyalNavy's mis-reading that some GFE will come "free". It is clearly written in all documents that GFEs will be costed = included in the 1.25B GBP.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

A few more details,
Length 107.2 m; Beam 15.95; Draft 5.95 m; Displacement 3,455t; 4 x 6MW MAN 12V 28/33 DSTC; 4x Caterpillar C32 Gensets; cruise 14 knots; CMS Atech/ ATLAS ELEKTRONIK; Integrated Platform Management System L3 MAPPS (as spec'd for Type 26)

Pics show
Armament
MBDA’s Exocet MM40 Block 3 AShM; SeaCeptor SAM; Leonardo 76/62 main gun with Dart Strales ammunition; Bofors 40 Mk4 with 3P rounds; C-Guard decoy launcher; SEA LWTs; FN Herstal 12.7 mm RWS

Sensors
Radars, Artisan, the first export order?; Raytheon navigation and surface search; Thales FCR for 76/62 main gun.
Optronic sighting system, two Safran PASEO XLR (eXtra Long Range), feature a stabilized turret cameras with very high magnification, a HDTV (high-definition TV) channel, a powerful telescope (spotter) and a very-long-range Satis XLR infrared imager and laser rangefinder. A SWIR (shortwave infrared) channel is offered on option, to enhance performance under foggy conditions. (XLR spec'd for the new French FTI frigates).
ESM/Jammer system - Indra Rigel
HMS Atlas ASO 713

Four ships for $1.6B / ~£1.2B, ~£300M per ship look like warships with their armanents and sensors, the T31 as currently spec'd would classify as an OPV. With Brazillian MEKO-A100 ships acting as a baseline will be interesting to see what Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems need to delete in armaments and sensors on their bid for the T31 to meet £250M cost cap.

https://www.naval.com.br/blog/2019/03/2 ... or-oferta/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Italian gun, British SAM, French AShm, Swedish autocannon, German hull, Spanish ESM...

Modern shipbuilding. What a world.

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 »

Thanks a lot, NickC-san!

- it is Artisan 3D = the 1st export success?
- it is (sadly) 12 CAMM with mushroom tubes.
- gun is shown as 76mm (but the CG is 57 mm), but with ordinal stealth turret. No DATS rounds.
- ASO 713 hull-sonar's radius of 950mm is, as I remember, similar in size to MFS7000 (EDO 997 sonar).
- AS topped tubes are good, but not expensive kit, anyway.
- 4 Exocet SSM is also good, but not expensive kit, anyway.
- 40mm 3P gun could be reused from existing corvettes?

~300M GBP average (not unit cost) including local build support, is interesting price. I think it is well balanced, and so-so capable asset. For example, I think 12 CAMM is "so-so powerful AAW asset". Could be a good starter for T31e consideration, yes.

Also, this is yet another CAMM export success!!. Added to Artisan 3D export success, this news looks "nice" for UK.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

A few points here,

1. With the Artisan and CAMM export, is this the start of the 'Ocean effect' with the Brazilian navy?

2. It proves once again that trying to build credible Frigates in the UK for £250m is virtually pointless. Yes five £250m vessels could prove worthwhile for RN but they won't be Frigates unless the cross decking valuations are extremely low. I am really interested to see how Arrowhead 140 can be brought in on a £250m budget, especially with a distributed build. Looks highly unlikely but even at £300m each they would still be a bargain and if properly equipped, a worthy successor to the T23's GP's.

3. The design of this stretched A-100 variant is really interesting. I quite like it and the hull dimensions are very similar to the Holland class OPV's so good numbers. This is the reason why I think for £250m we should really be looking to build credible Corvettes and the best we can hope for is long range credible Corvettes. The crucial part is capping the price firmly at £250m or less. Any further money should be spent on credible Frigates, ideally more T26's.

ThyssenKrupp has done something very clever here, something I believe BAE should have done with Leander. They have not only stretched the length of the hull by 9m but also widened the beam by 2m. Why did BAE not do this? By widening the beam of Leander by 2m to 16.5m and stretching the length further to 125m or 130m we would have had a credible Frigate design that was UK designed, owned and built. At 125mX16.5m we would have had an FTI comparable British design.

The MEKO designs have been successfully improved gradually over the years, it would be good to see BAE do the same with an improved Leander design to help rebuild RN's escort numbers in a cost effective way.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, this is yet another CAMM export success!!. Added to Artisan 3D export success, this news looks "nice" for UK.
CAMM was selected a looong time ago, but good news on Artisan. Second export if you count Ocean, so Brazil must be satisfied with its performance.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Does this also mean Brazil will be taking the BAE CMS-1?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

One of the complex weapons families scores another success perhaps other areas of defence procurement could learn from this successful area of uk defence procurement.

Which countries are we aiming the e part of type 31 at?

Post Reply