Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

FWIW cost of the 6,000t French FREMM's estimated by French Institute for Research on Public Administration and Politics report Feb 2018, estimated a unit price of €800M (£720M) to €1B (£900M), first ship laid down in 2007, so looking at current build cost of ~$1.1B/£900M? for the last two FREMM DA frigates/destroyers (DA "Défense Aérienne"/ AAW). The reason the French moving to the cheaper FTI, originally they had planned for 17 FREMM's, shades of T26/T31.

NavalNews article confirming new tech designs result as in the FREMM with low crew numbers, 109 plus 14 aircrew for the first six ASW ships, DA need additional 10 crew, crew numbers less than half T23 and T45 respectively.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/>

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Crystal clear. The North Atlantic must always be the UK's top priority but I think it's very interesting that the Future Commando Force is above forward presence.

Hard to see how the Future Commando Force and Commando Heicopter Force is going to gel with the Albions and Bays without some kind of an FLSS as a facilitator.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Hard to see how the Future Commando Force and Commando Heicopter Force is going to gel with the Albions and Bays without some kind of an FLSS as a facilitator.
As said on the Bay thread add a full width deck garage on the Bays capable of holding 3 Merlin's or what ever keep space for two Merlin spots meaning in war time they could carry 4 Merlin's each meaning that 1 Albion , 2 Bays and 2 Points could support around 1200 troops

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

DSEI 2019: Royal Navy ‘must not bask in avoidance of decline’

The departure of HMS Queen Elizabeth for the second iteration of the WESTLANT 19 sea trials off the eastern seaboard of the US in August is the latest step in the supposed rejuvenation of the UK Royal Navy as it looks to return to blue water strike operations.

That the UK’s industrial base has had the capacity to build and deliver two carriers, which are currently only surpassed in size by those operated by the US Navy, is testament to its ability to think big picture ambitions and, for the most part, deliver.

Indeed, Adm Tony Radakin, the recently appointed First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, during Day Zero at DSEI 2019 in the Maritime Capability Conference spoke of a service ‘bullish’ about its future prospects, which included the introduction of Type 26 and 31e frigates, Dreadnought SSBNs and carrier strike capability.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... nce-decli/

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Just been watching the latest evidence to the Defence Committee on recent events in the Gulf...

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d ... 54e925b58f

Admiral West very clear that you can not use River Batch 2 OPVs for escorting shipping in the Gulf.

Similar message from Penny Mordaunt, "we need not just more hulls, but hulls that are highly capable, are fast ships and can look after themselves."

Sounds to me a bit like she is repeating some of the key arguments that have been used in discussing Type 31 options.

For example, I believe the Leander baseline design only made provision for 12 CAMM missiles and a top speed of 25 kts. I would not be surprised if the Navy has now decided that 12 CAMM are not enough for T31 and that a higher top speed is very desirable.

Any Government acceptance that the T31 needs to be up-armed from the initial bare minimum assumption might also be behind recent announcements of budget increases.

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 »

Aethulwulf wrote:Just been watching the latest evidence to the Defence Committee on recent events in the Gulf...

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d ... 54e925b58f

Admiral West very clear that you can not use River Batch 2 OPVs for escorting shipping in the Gulf.

Similar message from Penny Mordaunt, "we need not just more hulls, but hulls that are highly capable, are fast ships and can look after themselves."
Lord West, as a free hand Navy specialist now, not as a 1st SeaLoad who must follow HMG, must say this. No objection. I think everyone knows, if UK wants RN to do what they want, RN needs XX escorts, or "at least" YY escorts. (For me, XX is 32, and YY is 24, could differ person by person. And the 24 escorts must be 8 T45 fully equipped and 16 T26 fully equipped.)

But, NavyLookOut twitter also says
Lord West was forced, against his wishes, to cut 3 frigates to get the aircraft carriers built. The right decision in the circumstances.
Blame politicians and Treasury, not the services left to make the 'least worst' choices!


This is the reality, and many here are now talking about reality. Only in this circumstances, we need to think about how to make T31e as cheap as possible, or even ban it to increase 1 or 2 T26 (= abandon "19 escort saga") to keep the quality and cope with man-power shortage. Discussions such as "up-arming River B2" also comes into consideration only with this circumstance.
Sounds to me a bit like she is repeating some of the key arguments that have been used in discussing Type 31 options.

For example, I believe the Leander baseline design only made provision for 12 CAMM missiles and a top speed of 25 kts. I would not be surprised if the Navy has now decided that 12 CAMM are not enough for T31 and that a higher top speed is very desirable.

Any Government acceptance that the T31 needs to be up-armed from the initial bare minimum assumption might also be behind recent announcements of budget increases.
Not sure. MOD needs more budget to improve man-power shortage, the top priority. Also MOD needs to fill the ~10B GBP black-hole in equipment budget, introduce drone-fleets (RN even cut the cheap ScanEagle contracts...), cyber, anti-ship missile gap (5 set is surely far from optimum), BMD capability gap, not-enough Merlin, not-enough P-8, etc etc...

Even if T31e be with only 12 CAMM in mushroom canister initially, it is "not so bad". For example, at least the first 4 hulls of JMSDF FFM frigates are reported to omit ESSM/SAM to save money, and only relying on 11-cell SeaRAM. And FFM is nearly twice as expensive as T31e (although FFM is ASW capable). It is a matter of choice. Anyway, if CAMM is in mushroom, increasing its number by a factor of 4 is relatively easy, by simply replacing it with stand-alone ExLS (which Canada and Brazil has already selected). Although money is needed, space is already there.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Frankly, I'm not really interested in your opinion of what you think the RN should do (or anybody else's).

What I am more interested is working out what is the RN's thinking and what are they actually going to do.

Cancelling T31 and using the money to build an extra one or two T26 is fantasy - it is never going to happen.

Up arming OPVs is also pointless speculation, as again it will not happen.

On the other hand, using some of the budget increase to up arm the T31 is exactly the type of option that is debated within the walls of MOD.. Reading between the lines of statements made by those in the know is probably also pointless speculation, but of a sort that I find much more interesting.

In the same way, the news media is always full of speculation about what they think the PM is likely to do next. But they never report what I would do next if I were PM. Nor should they.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:current build cost of ~$1.1B/£900M? for the last two FREMM DA frigates/destroyers (DA "Défense Aérienne"/ AAW). The reason the French moving to the cheaper FTI, originally they had planned for 17 FREMM's, shades of T26/T31.
Not a surprise
Admiral West very clear that you can not use River Batch 2 OPVs for escorting shipping in the Gulf.
... nor is this one
Aethulwulf wrote:What I am more interested is working out what is the RN's thinking and what are they actually going to do.

Up arming OPVs is also pointless speculation, as [again] it will not happen.
I agree, but there is another layer:
- what they actually are going to do
vs.
- will that match with the stated goals (ambitions)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next ... ed-at-dsei

The new system is similar to a water-borne drone. At 13 metres long, the vessel swims around a naval task force, while being remote controlled from a rig. The systems can be used to identify threats such as mines or collect intel on enemy ships.

The kit was put through its paces today in a demonstration at the Defence and Security Equipment International conference in London, where it protected HMS Argyll in a harbour force protection. The system, attached to PAC24 rigid inflatable boat, navigated the river bed, detecting possible threats and feeding information back to HMS Argyll. The demonstration was observed by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

So looking at the above, probably the first thing we need to add to the T-31 if finding is available would be a Bow Sonar. What about those fitted to the T-23, the Type 2050? Was this ever actually replaced as per original plan or was everything put into the 8 Type 2087 sets? Doing a Wiki search it mentions the Type 2031Z. However it also mentions that the Sea Gnat decoy systems is or will be withdrawn from RN use. Is that correct? if so what has replaced it on the T-23 as well as the T-45 and other platforms?

Moving on, looking at the Priorities stated by the Admiral, with operations in the North Atlantic still at the top of the list followed by Carrier Strike, it looks like this is where the T-26s are going to spend the majority of their time. With Amphibious Operation third forward presence also on the list this is where we need to focus on the T-31e. We can probably get by with a vanilla T-31e for a while but a thorough through life plan needs to be drawn up to have additional capabilities added and those already fitted improved as and when funding becomes available. With the acceleration of the FLSS we need a platform capable of following them into littoral areas of operation and be able to both protect themselves and those platforms under its charge.

This means we really need to select a platform for the T-31 that has plenty of growth potential, and just as important, being easy to update in as efficient and cost effective manner.

Like all warship construction though we need to ensure that there is a seamless transition from the T)26 to the next class, most likely the T-45 replacement. This may require one or more additional T-26 being added to the tail end of that programme. The MoD must be able to make a strong case for the benefits to the industry and MoD by doing this if it becomes necessary. By then industry will have built up its workforce and its skill levels to a respectable level and we do not want a gap in production to allow these to atrophy. Even is we retain a two year drum beat we must not repeat what happened with Submarine construction and its ten plus year gap and the issues that brought.

If a second yard remain viable after the T-31e programme it should be automatically be given follow up work like the next generation MCM platforms and so on, whilst BAe continues with high end escort construction and possible the two large RFAs to support he Carriers. If the current warship programmes that are underway are properly managed from MCM platforms to SSBNs, the UK could end up with a far better construction capacity as well as capability. BAe for example if confident of the work on eight T-26, more to fill a gap in programmes and the follow on T-45 replacement, may decide to invest in a more modern medium warship construction site which could reduce costs to the MoD.

For the MoD's part as well as the warship construction plan it must put greater effort into increasing its manpower levels. The French Navy has announced that it is going to have two crews for its FREMM Frigates. The Rn is already doing this with its forward deployed T-23 HMS Montrose but this needs to be extended, both to increase the number of days the vessels already in service can be at sea and increase the manpower pool to more readily crew additional vessels if the Navy starts to grow.

A lot of work is going to be required over the next ten yeas at least to move things forward and the Government is going to have to open the purse strings across many Departments to facilitate much of this. But we could end up the a Royal Navy of the right size and capabilities to actually carry out the six priorities listed by the Admiral and the aspiration for the Government for the service to show the UK is still an effective global power. Fingers crossed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:we really need to select a platform for the T-31 that has plenty of growth potential, and just as important, being easy to update in as efficient and cost effective manner.

Like all warship construction though we need to ensure that there is a seamless transition from the T)26 to the next class, most likely the T-45 replacement.
As we now have surface combatants only (destroyers and frigates seem to be alive and well, despite that assertation made by the RN a good number of years back), the rationale above could easily be extended to RN operating two, not three classes: T31(e) and T26(ASW/ AD)
- pointers might emerge as early as tomorrow?
- industrial (and cost) benefits obvious
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Aethulwulf wrote:Cancelling T31 and using the money to build an extra one or two T26 is fantasy - it is never going to happen.
in fact type 31 could be the key to number of upgrades in armaments. Lets say type 31 comes in with 76mm and 40mm this could then open the door to viable options for both type 45 and River B2 as we know the Mk-8 is a dead end the 30mm lacks any real anti-air. A 76mm fitted to type 45 could offer a good upgrade if it comes with Vulcano rounds extending NGFS from the Mk8s 27 km to 40km plus the 76mm could offer better anti-air than the Mk-8. As for the 40mm it in turn could a viable upgrade to the B2's with its 3P rounds offering better surface and air defence of the ship
Aethulwulf wrote:Up arming OPVs is also pointless speculation, as again it will not happen
you are right but for me this is down to the lack of a viable in service option if Type 31 comes in with 40mm or 57mm this could change

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:the first thing we need to add to the T-31 if finding is available would be a Bow Sonar
Definitely. One of the often-overlooked features of a hull-mounted sonar is its ability to detect small surface craft at range. Possibly not as useful as it used to be, with the increasing capabilities of radar, but still of use in littoral environments where radar line-of-sight may be blocked by coastal features. A modest HMS is not particularly expensive in the great scheme of things and would be a definite advantage in the sort of environment where the T31 is likely to be actively deployed i.e shallow ( < 300ft) and littoral.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Why a hull sonar over a compact towed system? Arrowhead has cheap, simple machinery, so a sonar should be isolated from the hull as much as possible.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

So why not isolate it from the hull altogether off board it onto a usv and/or helicopter particularly if your using it in the littoral and process the data on the ship.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote:So why not isolate it from the hull altogether off board it onto a usv and/or helicopter particularly if your using it in the littoral and process the data on the ship.
I am sure that will be part of the solution, and very effective, but an HMS is still useful when you haven't got an offboard system deployed (and a fairly capable HMS is probably cheaper than the offboard system, to be honest). If you were to add LWTs to a USV, then you would have a very useful system indeed.
shark bait wrote:Why a hull sonar over a compact towed system? Arrowhead has cheap, simple machinery, so a sonar should be isolated from the hull as much as possible.
Without getting into the merits (or lack of) of the hull, HMS systems have the benefit of simplicity of handling and seem to have little disadvantage over towed arrays in shallow (< 100m) water. As I'm sure you know, littoral sonar use is very different from open ocean ASW sonar use. If used for detecting surface craft, you actually want to deploy your sonar within the upper layers (i.e. < 10-20m depending on conditions), rather than deeper down. If used for ASW work, then you would more than likely be operating in active mode anyway. I also believe that self-noise is less of an issue that you do, as modern signal processing should be able to effectively separate out your own noise from the received sonar signal in real time. There is also the "half-way house" of a retractable HMS, which allows you to raise and lower the sonar by (from what I have seen) up to 10m below the hull, but without the handling issues of a towed array.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Is it just me with the feeling the t31 winner is going to be a no show at dsei ?

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SDL »

Think i saw something on twitter yesterday that put an announcement tomorrow as happening

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

The timing of such announcements are often taken out of the hands of the MOD and are under Cabinet Office control. They will try to find a quiet news day, so to maximize the chance that this good news story will feature on TV news and not hidden away on inner pages of just a few newspapers.

They may be struggling to find a quiet news day at the moment.

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 »

Now plenty of information is coming.
Aethulwulf wrote:What I am more interested is working out what is the RN's thinking and what are they actually going to do.
Actually, I agree to you. My comment is based on this (as your comment), but adding my "speculations", sometimes fantasy, sometimes not.
Cancelling T31 and using the money to build an extra one or two T26 is fantasy - it is never going to happen.
T31e selected as Arrowhead 140, although its equipment level is not known yet. Done. :thumbup:
Up arming OPVs is also pointless speculation, as again it will not happen.
Now it is on the table, but not sure how it will take shape (or not). So, from now on, it is not a fantasy anymore (just because it is officially stated = what RN is actually discussing to do.).

“We are thinking about how we might enhance the lethality of the Batch II OPVs”
RAdm Paul Halton
(by NavyLookOut twitter.)
On the other hand, using some of the budget increase to up arm the T31 is exactly the type of option that is debated within the walls of MOD.. Reading between the lines of statements made by those in the know is probably also pointless speculation, but of a sort that I find much more interesting.
So, this is the right thing to discuss now, I guess?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So, this is the right thing to discuss now, I guess?
Personally I would keep them simple and try and get as many in the water as possible. BUT they need to be credible Frigates so a hull mounted sonar is a must as is some form of ASuW option.

Something along these lines,

Mk8
24 CAMM
2x 30mm (with LMM)
8x NSM or similar with perhaps Spear3 VLS to follow
Phalanx FFBNW
Artisan
2150
Decoys etc

Along with the embarked Wildcat it would make a very versatile and cost effective platform.

Adding S1850M and 2087 to a later batch would be a very attractive option especially if combined with the installation of hybrid propulsion and nose reduction measures.

It might be best to build a couple of basic variants to start with to see how the cost control is working followed by a 3 to 4 hull batch optimised for ASW/AAW.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe the Royal Navy has realised that get a "Vanilla" platform in the water and then improving it through its life as and when funding is available is a more cost effective option to trying to get all the bell and whistles fitted from the very start.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Looking at the Arrowhead 140 site it would appear the spec excludes sonar and use Thales NS100 rather than Artisan

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

IF Artisan sets are available from the GP T-23s I am pretty sure they will use them. As for a Bow sonar like the 2150 again from the T-23, that is up for haggling between the various interested parties I am sure.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:IF Artisan sets are available from the GP T-23s I am pretty sure they will use them
Thales are the system integrator, and Thales are supply their own combat system, so there's a high change they will also supply their own radar.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply