Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

jedibeeftrix wrote:Some questions for the better informed than I:
to £250m if they have chosen not to reuse the: Radar, CMS, 30mm + Phalanx from older boats?
What is the black-magic of naval procurement!

4. Does this fit-out include any kind of hull mounted sonar - perhaps similar to the T45 - for some basic kind of ASW role?
And does the design accomodate a cheap and cheerful towed array FFBNW for some later date capability uplift?

I was deeply sceptical of the choice of A140 over Leander, because £250m seemed only enough money to afford a coat of Warship Grey paint on 5000 tonnes of steel, but if the fit out is as suggested, and it indicates a fleet wide convergence on 127mm/57mm/40mm, then i'm optimistic!
Similarly confused about the cost of two new proposed calibres. However I don't believe that the Type 23 has even carried a Phalanx or even Goalkeeper back in the day.

The under flight-deck cargo bay (mission bay in PR speak), can be configured as a boat bay with a ramp, so I assume this is where the Towed Array Sonar would be fitted should the money be there. Off-board systems could probably provided a decent alternative should a TAS be too pricey.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:I
Yes all good questions I like the design it should of been were type 26 started from, but the question is can you get if for 250m i too am somewhat sceptical if they had said £350m per Hull I would could see it. However I guess as there starting with an in service design and all systems already in service and a very standardised mission module interface approach, a la a boxer armoured vehicle at sea they maybe more confident about systems integration.

If they do pull it off type 26 hulls 4-8 has got an awful lot of awkward cost justification flak coming there way.

Two interesting pdfs

https://www.ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/ ... 417702.pdf


http://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/valcon/OMT1 ... ss/?page=1

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Firstly, I'm amazed an Arrowhead 140 can be brought in on the £250m budget with this specification. All involved with the T31 programme should be commended if they actually arrive on time and on budget. It's a lot of ship for the money but it's not all good news IMO.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:2: A 57mm gun is great, much better than 114mm for ship’s self defense. But, if looks like without the dedicated FC radar, so guided rounds or even 3P rounds could be FFBNW?
On the surface of it the armament for RN's version of the A140 looks like it's been optimised for recent events in the gulf but how future proof is this configuration?

If the Wildcat isn't flying, where is the offensive capability? Simple answer, there is NONE. Relying 100% on the embarked helicopter for offensive capability seems unwise IMO.
Not sure. RN spend money on hull. That is their choice. If offensive weapon is important, why not RN simply reduced the hull number from 5 to 4? This is "common sense", I think.

How about a few NSM? And, if so, RN must carry it on T45 and all T23ASW, at first. This is the reason I like to see NSM = hopefully the cheapest option, as interim ASM. Let's get 11 sets, not only 5.
How is this vessel going to support Marines ashore with a 57mm gun?
If it is carrying a Merlin rather than a Wildcat perhaps to support an embarked EMF it has no OTH offensive capability whatsoever. Not smart.
Uhm, why does she be alone when supporting EMF? And, if alone, two Wildcat will be better than one Merlin to carry, I guess?
Still no confirmation of any ASW capability at all.
As expected.
The T31 has achieved so much, especially in terms of value for money but sense must now prevail. These vessels really need the Mk45, a decent hull mounted sonar and at least four AShM. At this stage an extra £50 to £60m per hull would make them a fully credible GP Frigate. By all means build a couple of basic variants to get the ball rolling but as a class they should be at least be on a par with the vessels they are replacing.
Do not agree.

Adding ASM will be £30-60m per hull (it is not only canister, but also CMS integration and software, dedicated man-power, and training). But, it is worth doing, I agree.

Adding Mk45 will significantly increase man-power. Also, significantly reduce its self-defense capability (127mm gun is almost useless in self defense, while 57mm is the center-piece of it). Even in view of value for money, I prefer a 57mm gun.

If T31 is to be used like the French Floreal class = "be a Queen of the ocean in zero-threat area", 127mm gun will be nice. But, it is not the case. If strike is important, T45. T26 and CVF is the asset to be used.
The T31 is to be the Self Defence Frigate.
No big objection :thumbup:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Is that just another word for larger than to river class opv then ? May have saved the effort and a bit of cash and just built more rivers then in my view ,just saying

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The T31 is to be the Self Defence Frigate

I would go more with area defence frigate as it will be able to defend it's self and any ships around it out to 17km on the surface and 25km in the air

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Hey, did they confirm that the T31 will have 57mm and 40mm? When/where?

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by cky7 »

tomuk wrote:This is complete nonsense. The parent design, the Iver Huitfeldt, is the Danish equivalent of the Type 45 AAW destroyer.

In a 'cool' situation I'm sure a 9000nm range, full aviation facilities with Merlin sized hangar, four large boat bays and 4x TEU mission space are worse capabilities than a B2 River.

In a 'hot' they will be equipped as well as a Type 23 for none ASW roles. Large calibre gun, Sea Ceptor, Tacitis CMS, Ns100 radar, NSM, 30mm etc. Plus they will have the ability to fit both hull mounted and towed sonar (export options).
The extra range is a benefit but not worth the extra money and therefore lesser numbers (of either high or low end) IMO. Merlin size flight deck again is a benefit but when this can be provided by plenty of other platforms i again don’t see how it’s justifiable compared to possible alternatives. Most things you can say any of this and extra boat bays will be useful for could be just as well provided for by combining a river with another platform and by the time you get to actually needing this level of capability a lot of the time the better bet would be a more capable type of vessel than the puny type 31.

Mentioning the danish parent platform is irrelevant, the type 31 will be equipped with a tiny fraction of the weapons and sensors and therefore combat capability of it. Claiming it could be upgraded is again pointless. When have recent govt.’s ever actually done this? You go to war with what you have or what you can very quickly add, which in the case of the type 31 is nowhere near enough when compared to potential peer opponents or any global first rate modern navy.

Claiming they have enough to go anywhere near a ‘hot’ situation against any half way capable foe is idiotic. They have no sonar on RN so why you mention the export variant I don’t know, utterly irrelevant to the RN. A not medium range radar that though I guess more modern than the distinctly average artisan is still far less capable than anyone else in the world is putting on their first rate escorts. Going on about the excellent though soon beginning to age and see others soon eclipse type 45/Sampson (which we also only have a pathetically small number of) is also utterly irrelevant as the whole idea of the type 31 was it would be what we have for situations outside of the CBG group. What does that leave? Sea ceptor, ok a clever point defence missile (not capable of anything other than point defence though) but only in tiny numbers compared to the numbers being fielded by other navy’s who take things seriously. As others have pointed out there’s nothing stated that it’s going to have a decent ASM (no animation doesn’t prove this anyway) and if you think anything outside of what has been promised will be fitted you’ve not laid attention to U.K. defence procurement for decades. They always under deliver in capability, NEVER over deliver.

Look at nations who actually care about their national defence (US, big guys in Asia etc) and you’d never catch them claiming the likes of type 31 was worthwhile when the rest of the Navy is in such an appalling state.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Let's get 11 sets, not only 5.
Maybe we should order the ships before we start ordering the ASMs. Then build them. Then equip them. I'm told it works better that way
dmereifield wrote:Hey, did they confirm that the T31 will have 57mm and 40mm? When/where?
Not confirmed, though strongly hinted at, according to the STRN article
Tempest414 wrote:I would go more with area defence frigate as it will be able to defend it's self and any ships around it out to 17km on the surface and 25km in the air
Exactly
inch wrote:Is that just another word for larger than to river class opv then ?
No - totally different build standards and equipment. The Scanter 6000 helicopter control radar, for instance, would be the sole "military" radar on an OPV. Add in things like shock-tested hull and five-zone CBRN citadel and you should be able to see that this is a completely different beast
cky7 wrote: Sea ceptor, ok a clever point defence missile (not capable of anything other than point defence though)
Simply wrong. Much more capable than a point defence system. As for the rest of your rant, how about waiting until the actual specification is known. I'm pretty sure the RN want a sonar (the upgrade from 2050 to 2150 was pretty cheap) and ASM (interim solution currently waiting for proposals, different budget as well), so let's see what happens. I would not be surprised if many of the decisions will depend on whether the T23s are sold "as is" or as stripped down hulls.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Let's get 11 sets, not only 5.
No argument there :thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:why does she be alone when supporting EMF? And, if alone, two Wildcat will be better than one Merlin to carry....
Absolutly but it still doesn't change the fact that without a Wildcat the A140 would have no offensive weapons.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:As expected
Yes but not acceptable. If it doesn't have a sonar then it isn't a Frigate.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Adding Mk45 will significantly increase man-power. Also, significantly reduce its self-defense capability (127mm gun is almost useless in self defense, while 57mm is the center-piece of it). Even in view of value for money, I prefer a 57mm gun.
No argument with the effectiveness of the 57mm but adding both the 57mm and 40mm seems like too much of an overlap to reach a price point IMO.

Three 57mm's or three 40mm's along with a Mk45 would seem like a pretty formidable setup. As would a configuration with a Mk45, 2x 57mm's and 2x 30mm's with LMM.

If the T31's are to be the primary escorts for the proposed Littoral Strike Groups, the 57mm/40mm combination really isn't good enough. Add the 76mm with Volcano rounds, VLS Spear3 or a AShM with a land attack capability and the credibility of the platform would increase immediately.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

My understanding of the Thales Nederland PR on their new generation of AESA/GaN radars including the NS100 which presumably will be fitted to the T31, a Multi-Capability Radar, with their Dual Axis Multi-beam forming giving '4D' Surveillance radar - Azimuth, Elevation, Range & full Doppler.

Radars now required to handle many threats, from small and slow-moving UAVs, conventional targets and very small, fast and agile missiles simultaneously with just the one radar. These threats impose conflicting requirements on the radar, a short reaction time to detect high-speed, high manoeuvre and pop-up targets in conflict with the requirements for a long observation time to detect slow moving targets in a high clutter environment, leads to a conflict in planning and utilising the radar's dwell time-energy budget, previously met by different radar modes or radars.

Thales Nederland solution was the dual-axis multi-beamforming to increase the observation time without compromising the reaction time and allow a radar to accomplish various functions and missions simultaneously, a Multi-Capability Radar. A dual-axis multi-beam comprises several simultaneous receive beams in azimuth and elevation. The reduced transmit beam gain due to broadening is offset by a higher processing gain due to the increase in time-on-target, a modern day stacked beam radar. Long observation time for slow targets in a clutter environment and high update rate for fast and high manoeuvring targets

The increase in observation time is also used to exploit the doppler domain to improve the detectability of low, slow and small UAV targets and able to differentiate from birds etc. No longer using fast fourier transform to do the doppler processing but now using finite impulse response with modern fast digital signal computers/processors to provide individual filter controls to enhance detectability and extract unique features for target classification.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I would of thought if the type 31 is to used in the cluttered and congested littoral zone then the gun fit-out would be about ideal, for all the threats there likely to face from land, sea and air. As will sea Ceptor missile system. Perhaps we are seeing the beginning need to shift to a larger close in gun system many others already have maybe this is RN starting to follow suit as funds allow.

Ultimately at this time other than the 5”gun it’s almost identical to the weapons to be fitted to type 26. I havent heard it announced that we’ve purchased anything to fit in mk41. So at present it’s a big gun and sea Ceptor only.

Harpoon isn’t that useful in the littoral and perhaps the interim missile tender is for the type 31. The fact that canister launchers are relatively easy to fit as the space is there then it doesn’t need to be fitted right away, it can be done later when road paths are clearer.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Poiuytrewq wrote:No argument with the effectiveness of the 57mm but adding both the 57mm and 40mm seems like too much of an overlap to reach a price point IMO.

If the T31's are to be the primary escorts for the proposed Littoral Strike Groups, the 57mm/40mm combination really isn't good enough.
Does it make more sense if they're to be used as forward-deployed sea-control frigates.
Seem to make a lot of sense in the gulf including acting as a picket line for larger task groups transiting the gulf.

Yes, they might be a backstop for LSS, but not a primary role.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:No argument with the effectiveness of the 57mm but adding both the 57mm and 40mm seems like too much of an overlap to reach a price point IMO.

If the T31's are to be the primary escorts for the proposed Littoral Strike Groups, the 57mm/40mm combination really isn't good enough.
Does it make more sense if they're to be used as forward-deployed sea-control frigates.
Seem to make a lot of sense in the gulf including acting as a picket line for larger task groups transiting the gulf.

Yes, they might be a backstop for LSS, but not a primary role.
They need to be GP Frigates at least comparable with the vessels they are replacing. It's Iranian gunboats in the gulf that are grabbing the headlines today but it could be something entirely different and unforeseen in five years time. These vessels need to be able to cope and at short notice without costly adaptions and refits.

We know the ASW capability has already been compromised compared to the T23 GP's with the A140's CODAD propulsion and non acoustically optimised hull plus there is still no confirmation that a hull mounted sonar will even be fitted but now we learn that a proper medium calibre gun in the 4.5" to 5" category is being omitted along the 8 Anti Ship Missiles and the CAMM load is also being reduced from 32 to 24.

We all know how we arrived at this point but however HMG want to spin it this is another massive cut to UK Naval capability.

We will find out what the final specification is going to be before Christmas, hopefully sense prevails in the intervening period and RN ends up with five credible Frigates.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I think a lot of people - like me - are surprised over the new calibres on the guns (40+57mm), still will be surprised ( pleasantly! ) if they come in on budget but i'm sure the business people have costed it to make a profit,

I think it would be preferable to have a slightly higher spec eg hull mounted, sonar, mk 41 VLS - could be used for quad packed sea cepter & lots of other mission specific combinations, but if that were to happen the hull numbers would have to be cut for the budget - which I would do, but it would not be politicly possible as that would cut the escort fleet numbers again.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:We know the ASW capability has already been compromised compared to the T23 GP's with the A140's CODAD propulsion and non acoustically optimised hull plus there is still no confirmation that a hull mounted sonar will even be fitted but now we learn that a proper medium calibre gun in the 4.5" to 5" category is being omitted along the 8 Anti Ship Missiles and the CAMM load is also being reduced from 32 to 24.
Pages 5 and ten may answer some of these questions

https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6697773/ ... -Mar17.pdf

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by cky7 »

Caribbean wrote: Simply wrong. Much more capable than a point defence system. As for the rest of your rant, how about waiting until the actual specification is known. I'm pretty sure the RN want a sonar (the upgrade from 2050 to 2150 was pretty cheap) and ASM (interim solution currently waiting for proposals, different budget as well), so let's see what happens. I would not be surprised if many of the decisions will depend on whether the T23s are sold "as is" or as stripped down hulls.

It sits somewhere between rim-116 and ESSM so it’s classification isn’t exactly clear. For certain scenarios it does seem to be a very good solution but will be in such small numbers on type 31 it wouldn’t be right sending the type into really hairy situations IMO. You say rant, I’d call your response nothing but blind optimism of the type that has never been right for as long as I can remember, apologists like you are one of the reasons the govt have such an easy time screwing Navy, raf, army etc with so little opposition. Sorry if that sounds harsh but so is dismissing valid points with a rant description.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

I wonder if the Leander specs for BAE's £250 million bid will leak at some point. I'd be really interested to see the sensor and weapons profile of their offering, given the presumed lower hull costs, vs what we are going to get with the Arrowhead 140

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:We know the ASW capability has already been compromised compared to the T23 GP's with the A140's CODAD propulsion and non acoustically optimised hull plus there is still no confirmation that a hull mounted sonar will even be fitted but now we learn that a proper medium calibre gun in the 4.5" to 5" category is being omitted along the 8 Anti Ship Missiles and the CAMM load is also being reduced from 32 to 24.
Pages 5 and ten may answer some of these questions

https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6697773/ ... -Mar17.pdf
Quite so. As with the IH and in line with much of what has been said in some of the various presentations linked over the last few days, one of the reasons that the A140 has been chosen is because it is a large, empty hull that lends itself easily to upgrading. The IH itself was brought into service using a spiral development strategy - I would expect the same to happen with the A140 (it certainly seems to be a declared objective), both by upgrading existing hulls, and by selling them off after relatively short service lives and building more hulls with new features integrated at build. It appears that a change is coming to RN procurement and, as suggested in the Parker Report, they are specifying what they can get for the budget and building it, not dragging out the design phase, adding bits on year after year, driving up the cost and driving down the numbers, because they're still running under the same budget. Use the budget you have now to build what you can now. Next year you have a new budget - use some of that for upgrades
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:We know the ASW capability has already been compromised compared to the T23 GP's with the A140's CODAD propulsion and non acoustically optimised hull plus there is still no confirmation that a hull mounted sonar will even be fitted but now we learn that a proper medium calibre gun in the 4.5" to 5" category is being omitted along the 8 Anti Ship Missiles and the CAMM load is also being reduced from 32 to 24.
Pages 5 and ten may answer some of these questions

https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6697773/ ... -Mar17.pdf
Quite so. As with the IH and in line with much of what has been said in some of the various presentations linked over the last few days, one of the reasons that the A140 has been chosen is because it is a large, empty hull that lends itself easily to upgrading. The IH itself was brought into service using a spiral development strategy - I would expect the same to happen with the A140 (it certainly seems to be a declared objective), both by upgrading existing hulls, and by selling them off after relatively short service lives and building more hulls with new features integrated at build. It appears that a change is coming to RN procurement and, as suggested in the Parker Report, they are specifying what they can get for the budget and building it, not dragging out the design phase, adding bits on year after year, driving up the cost and driving down the numbers, because they're still running under the same budget. Use the budget you have now to build what you can now. Next year you have a new budget - use some of that for upgrades
The Danes have done an excellent job designing a ship that has separated the weapons system from the hull and conceived a modular system that allows the ship to be upgraded overtime in a very cost effect way. They are to congratulated on that. I suspect a lot were sceptical when the ships first appeared that they weren’t really proper warship, I also suspect a lot of that changed when they sent one to FOST. Saab are doing the same with combat jet systems with gripe e,I wonder why were so keen to get them signed up to tempest.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Mmh not sure if people going to agree or even like this but maybe rn escort fleet getting that small and under equipped that maybe in hind sight it might have been better rn trying not to have 2 large carriers or any carriers all and just have gone for very well top notch escorts and subs and not try too do everything , jack of all trades master of none so too speak .I really love the carriers and great for pride and flying the flag and fantastic engineering too all those involved ,but it's been looking at things a massive catastrophe to the rest of the fleet ,at the end of the day we are a small country and can't try to compete with the likes of USA, China India or future big players ,that I'm afraid is in our past folks but we could have had a cracking escort and sub fleet for our needs .too late now I know but this half as arsed attempt at things just not really cutting it in my view ,soz

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Put it this way the price of the 2 carriers all the f35b the support ships needed for carriers etc would have got the rn another 6 astute and another 10 properly armed escort ships at least and I know which I would be more of a threat for our adversaries thinking dam the British have got lots of top notch astutes somewhere around ,and if you wanted you could have still got the f35a for the RAF

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I know were your coming from, maybe 6 or 7 x T26 instead of the carriers? would the crew situation not be as bad or worse ? I think having a big arse carrier group is worth the downside,

With the benefit of hindsight the escort situation would not of been so bad, but imo it's mainly the politiacal dilly dallying/pennywise pound foolish situation that seems to muck things up, short term thinking at It's finest !!! as suggested before perhaps a cross party type board should be arranged for defence spending should be aimed for, long term planning is required ! give the armed services what they need to do the job & keep the industry going rather than dribs n drabs which looses skills & cost more.

maybe if the 2010 cost cutting of the MOD had not of happened it would not be that bad.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

inch wrote:Put it this way the price of the 2 carriers all the f35b the support ships needed for carriers etc would have got the rn another 6 astute and another 10 properly armed escort ships at least and I know which I would be more of a threat for our adversaries thinking dam the British have got lots of top notch astutes somewhere around ,and if you wanted you could have still got the f35a for the RAF
It’s a question without an easy answer I suppose but I think you’ll this short video is interesting

https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters ... the-topic/

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

cky7 wrote:It sits somewhere between rim-116 and ESSM so it’s classification isn’t exactly clear. For certain scenarios it does seem to be a very good solution but will be in such small numbers on type 31
In missile terms, it sits much closer to ESSM than RIM-116. In software terms it sits closer to PAAMS than ESSM does to Aegis (70% of the code is said to be identical - presumably the 30% is the missile physics package), so is probably more comparable to a short-range SM2 under Aegis. It's a Local Area Air Defence system, capable of covering other ships within range, handling crossing targets etc. etc.. A point-defence system only protects the ship that it is fired from and is not intended to handle missiles fired at nearby ships. So yes - in that, I'm sorry , but you were incorrect.

As for the numbers, the point has already been made by others that CAMM is a very effective system, to the point where it may well need far fewer missiles than the equivalent ESSM system to achieve a hit. I seem to remember that four (or was it six?) ESSM proved ineffective against a couple of ancient ASMs fired by the Houthis a couple of years ago and that it was the decoy systems and countermeasures that actually worked.

As for the rest of your comment, I felt rant was appropriate. It's fine to be pissed off about stuff, but misleading claims should be avoided - you said that the T31 would only have a "tiny fraction" of the systems that the IH had - ignoring the fact that it will actually be better equipped than the IH itself was at launch (no volume search radar, no satcoms, ESSM - the older point-defence variant, a single 76mm gun). We are years away from commissioning the first one, so I am completely relaxed about the lack of information on ASMs, which come out of a different budget and for which we are currently looking for an interim solution. My only real concern is the hull sonar, which we do not yet know about.

As for my "blind optimism", well, I've been paying attention over the last few weeks and months and there definitely seems to be a change in attitude towards program management within the RN. Hopefully it is not a temporary blip and that it spreads to the other services (the Army to be precise - the RAF seem to know what they want). The penny seems to have finally dropped that it is easier to get what you can for the current budget and then go back for more money in next years budget than it is to renegotiate an existing approved budget.
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 »

Well as I think ,If the rn had loads of funds yes a carrier strike force brilliant but as is with limited funds robbing Peter to pay Paul style as is equipping carrier and robbing escort fleet of depth and amoury and quality fit out I think large sub escort fleet would definitely provide a lot bigger headache to our potential enemies and that's the name of the game isn't it

Post Reply