UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1358
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 18 Aug 2019, 08:19

With autonomous craft land air or sea now being developed and deployed is there any direction from the MOD that human involvement is required or can AI be used to automatically engage targets ?
Should craft that are unmanned have the ability of self defence to prevent the seizing of such assett ? I raised these questions as members can understand electronic countermeasures are likely to be deployed against any autonomous unit ,should such units even have the ability to self destruct to prevent falling to unauthorised sources

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Aug 2019, 14:56

We have yet to see the use of ELINT/ISTAR capabilities in a major conflict even though quite a few nations have invested in this capability. It is a great unknown how a major cyber attack would affect conventional forces given the increasing reliance on unmanned systems and GPS. There needs to be a truly joined up process by all three services to provide both offensive and defensive military capabilities. This issue has been identified and some funding is going in that direction, but is it enough, probably not. Serious thought needs to be given for operating without GPS for a period of time and having unmanned assets disabled or turned against their owner. You never know, with the increasing threat of cyber it may lead to and increase in the use of flesh and bone assets with cannot be hacked.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Aug 2019, 15:31

HMS Lancaster is out of LIFEX. I understand she will finish FOST to deploy elsewhere at the end of this year. From then on, she has only 4 years of life in RN = to be decommissioned in 2024. Very short it is.

Then, disbanding her to "strip" equipments to be transferred to either T31 or T26, or just selling/exporting her abroad, which will be better?

------------
Personally, I think exporting is better. For example, Brazil is struggling to keep their Navy size, because of money shortage. Niteroi-class frigate and Inhauma-class corvettes are decommissioning without replacements, and HMS Ocean has gone to them very recently.

Even in exporting, some ECM kits, and even torpedo defense system could be stripped off, but may be not Artisan 3D. (but anyway Artisan is not that expensive).

serge750
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 19 Aug 2019, 19:35

Would seem to be a bargain for Brazil if they want her, nice fit for the former hms ocean...be like old times :lolno:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5856
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 19 Aug 2019, 19:38

Or Chile, they have three ex RN T23's already.

1. HMS Norfolk (F230) Commissioned RN 1990 (Sold to Chile, Recommissioned 2006 as 'Almirante Cochrane' (FF05))
2. HMS Marlborough (F233) Commissioned RN 1991 (Sold to Chile, Recommissioned 2008 as 'Almirante Condell' (FF06))
3. HMS Grafton (F80) Commissioned RN 1997 (Sold to Chile, Recommissioned 2007 as 'Almirante Lynch' (FF07))

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Aug 2019, 19:40

Very relevant to recent discussions. Particularly like the analogy with the Batch 2 Rivers :thumbup:



Very interesting analysis and strikes me as as being more realistic than ridiculous but will HMG fund it and can RN fix the manpower problems to facilitate such an expansion?

It certainly can't be taken for granted that the answer to both questions is a positive one.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 Aug 2019, 12:49

Would agree . As for me as I have said before if we are to expand for me the best as most cost effective way is to add one more Type 26 and 3 more Type -31's to the current planning and then aim for a build of 10 type 45 replacements based on a 160 meter type 26 hull form

serge750
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 20 Aug 2019, 19:13

would make a lot of sense for the T45 replacements to be based on a T26 but more focus on AAW, as I think has been suggested before, 10 would be awesome !!! ( even 8 would be good ) then maybe back to a more ASW focused evolved T26 after that.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 20 Aug 2019, 19:23

serge750 wrote:would make a lot of sense for the T45 replacements to be based on a T26 but more focus on AAW, as I think has been suggested before, 10 would be awesome !!! ( even 8 would be good ) then maybe back to a more ASW focused evolved T26 after that.


With the way our system seems to work to get 8 I think the RN would have to state they want at least 10, anticipate the requested number will get cut.

Have them based on the T26 design with a 15m plug to allow for around 96 Mk41s, I believe this number would be needed due to the fact that most agree 48 VLS are not enough on the T45s to handle saturation attacks, then add in the needed BMDMs along with the future AShM being VLS and it soon all adds up.

The big question I have is will we go for an upgraded Sampson’s radar and if so how do we think it’ll stack up at that time, or will we design a new radar system as this will be the big cost driver.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Aug 2019, 05:40

The T-26 should make a good basis for a T-45 replacement, with the area used for the Mission Bay being used for an additional six Mk41s, though probably not "Strike" length, and two additional Mk41s forward instead of the "Mushrooms". That would give the platform eighty eight VLS silos for whatever combination of hardware decided upon. With the removal of the amidships "Mushrooms", there would be ample space for deck mounted AShMs as well. Having an evolving design is why I think the second batch of T-26 should do away with the "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor all together and add the two additional standard length Mk41s forward. Of course this would mean the RN would have to adopt the ExLS to allow the use of Sea Ceptor moving forward, but as this should already be part of any T-45 replacement to allow a mixed AAW suite then introducing it earier shouldn't be an issue.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 21 Aug 2019, 07:21

Lord Jim wrote:The T-26 should make a good basis for a T-45 replacement, with the area used for the Mission Bay being used for an additional six Mk41s, though probably not "Strike" length, and two additional Mk41s forward instead of the "Mushrooms". That would give the platform eighty eight VLS silos for whatever combination of hardware decided upon. With the removal of the amidships "Mushrooms", there would be ample space for deck mounted AShMs as well. Having an evolving design is why I think the second batch of T-26 should do away with the "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor all together and add the two additional standard length Mk41s forward. Of course this would mean the RN would have to adopt the ExLS to allow the use of Sea Ceptor moving forward, but as this should already be part of any T-45 replacement to allow a mixed AAW suite then introducing it earier shouldn't be an issue.


IMO I’d keep the mission bay as we don’t know how useful that’ll been yet with the future developments of unmanned system, this is why I’d go for a mid ship plug to the design to allow the extra space for VLS. Also why go for canister launchers when the future AShM is expected to be VLS launched ?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 Aug 2019, 08:09

IMO the days of single role ships is long gone, we should aim for a platform capable of AAW and ASW
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 21 Aug 2019, 08:25

Repulse wrote:IMO the days of single role ships is long gone, we should aim for a platform capable of AAW and ASW


Wouldn’t this be where were going with a T45 replacement based on the T26 design ? You’d have the super quiet hull form ( maybe with a plug ) the rest would deepened with the raft systems and se engines are used.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby matt00773 » 21 Aug 2019, 08:38

Repulse wrote:IMO the days of single role ships is long gone, we should aim for a platform capable of AAW and ASW
Agreed. We should be considering command and control cruisers with multi role capability.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Aug 2019, 10:25

Exactly, I my mind the successor to the T-45 would be a T-26 with up to eight more Mk41s installed together with the appropriate radar. In essence they would be the UK equivalent of the Arleigh Burkes but with better ASW capabilities. Could we afford such platforms, we will have to wait and see.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Aug 2019, 11:34

But, then how many hulls can RN afford?

Four?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 21 Aug 2019, 11:40

Really, something along the lines of what the Canadians or Australians are doing with the T26 as a general escort for the fleet would cover all bases, maybe with a couple of them with some AAW centric touches.

The Hunter class especially is a shining example of the potential of the hull.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 21 Aug 2019, 15:58

UKDJ have published a graphic of what an AAW variant of the T26 might look like, although even they admit its ' our terrible interpretation '. Actually IMHO it doesn't look that bad!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-typ ... y-concept/

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1973
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Gabriele » 21 Aug 2019, 19:15

I just think it is kind of pointless to get too hang up on SAMPSON for a destroyer to be built in the late 30s. There better be some advancement on the radar front by then, or the Royal Navy will seriously be lagging.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

serge750
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 21 Aug 2019, 19:28

Would it be possible to combine a fixed array radar along with a light weight "Sampson" style radar high up to get the same long distance coverage? probably would be even more expensive but maybe best of both worlds with increasingly faster missiles any advantage may save lives..

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 21 Aug 2019, 19:46

Gabriele wrote:I just think it is kind of pointless to get too hang up on SAMPSON for a destroyer to be built in the late 30s. There better be some advancement on the radar front by then, or the Royal Navy will seriously be lagging.


This was my main question over the new T4X, would we go with just an upgraded Sampsons, develop a new high end radar or buy from someone else ( the talk of CEFRA2 ) as this would be the main driver in cost for this future class ?

I’d hate to see us pay from someone else as it’s us giving up on another sovereign capability and one that we’ve been world leaders in.
On the other hand developing a new high end radar would be a real big cost driver.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 298
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jdam » 21 Aug 2019, 20:01

Have we got any weapons for our Mk41s on the Type 26 yet?

serge750
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 21 Aug 2019, 20:08

Especially on so few units ! T45 R&D again, maybe all future batches could have the same main systems but adjust the weapon load ( or length ) accordingly...for example.....a AAW variant with BMD, boat bay etc 72 mk41 + CAMM, 160m ? ASW same RADAR etc, boat bay etc 36 mk41 + CAMM, standard length 149m

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 21 Aug 2019, 21:51

Gabriele wrote:I just think it is kind of pointless to get too hang up on SAMPSON for a destroyer to be built in the late 30s. There better be some advancement on the radar front by then, or the Royal Navy will seriously be lagging.

The article never stated they were. It's just an example of the capability to mount big, high power radars on the hull by comparing its allowances.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3585
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Aug 2019, 14:06

Well the article does cover a lot of what I have been proposing, the difference being I see the second batch of T-26 being an evolution, removing the "Mushrooms", and maximising the number of Mk41s, bringing them more in line with the Australian and Canadian platforms.

Having a factory up north would open the possibility of a third batch of T-26 being more economically viable, with these being ASW, GP or even AAW prioritised platforms or a combination. With the T-26 we have a very good ASW hull with quiet machinery. This means that any variant built should have a reasonable ASW capability built in regardless of how the ship is configured.

As for radar etc. for a future AAW platform, I put the question to Xav on the US threat whether the new USN SPY-6 variants would be a good fit for a future RN platform given the consistent investment the USN is making in this system and the ability to scale the arrays to fit almost any platform. The alternative of developing a new UK bespoke radar of investing in maintaining Sampson's capability will be a substantial cost for the UK to bear alone, whereas adopting a mass produced systems and its future updates could save the UK a fair amount. In fact having a US radar could actually further improve the exportability of the design down the road.

The next question would be whether we keep Sea Viper or move to the US Standard series. Installing a mix of Sylver and Mk41 launchers would probably push up costs as would doing the work necessary to use the Sea Viper form the Mk41, if that is even possible. Going down the Mk41/Standard route would almost certainly allow us to introduce an ABM capability into the platform.

But the elephant in the room is the wish to retain sovereign capabilities. This leads me to an argument I have made multiple times. I have no issue wit this but it should not fall to the Defence Budget to fund the retention of these. It should be up to the other relevant Governmental Departments to providing funding/investment to allow UK companies to carry out the required R&D and be competitive on cost. The Treasury should support such an option seeing the financial returns it will get for having a skilled, high value jobs retained in the UK.

This takes a long term outlook and that is key to the whole of the Warship building dilemma. We long term support and investment from Government to allow the creation of a modern sustainable industrial sector. We currently have a strong skills base but if we do not look to the future these will start to wane and many workers will look overseas where there s a growing demand for their skill.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests