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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:unloading the propeller tip decreases the noise disturbance of the water/cavitation by the propeller, but can reduce its efficiency. Type 26 uses an optimised FFP for this reason, whilst FREMM uses a CPP, as always a trade off as though FPP will be quieter at low ASW speeds, its less efficient than a CPP at higher speeds, lowers max speed.
These terms (abbreviations) throw me 'off the scent' as I am trying to look for
"F" as in fixed
and
"V" as in variable

I buy the argument, no probs.
Apologies
It should read FPP - fixed pitch propeller and CPP - controllable pitch propeller

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: FPP - fixed pitch propeller and CPP - controllable pitch propeller
Thanks Nick. Anyone done the two together yet: FPP for drifting (slow speed), and bringing along CPP(s) for higher speeds?
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I have read some of the articles on this development and wondered if this may be the successor to the Captas system
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0154
although the below article suggests the game will go on
https://www.livescience.com/49689-steal ... rines.html

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

ArmChairCivvy Wrote
Anyone done the two together yet: FPP for drifting (slow speed), and bringing along CPP(s) for higher speeds?
I must have been asleep for 5 months, I did not realise it was 01 April already. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

You clearly have not followed the discussion around whether 2, 3, or 4 shafts are better (enter the waterjets, and the 100-yr old debate changes slightly). Though there is no generic definitive answer to the question, but for this "discussion" take three shafts and you could (especially with IEP) have one used for drifting speeds while doing ASW and still quickly switch to higher speeds when required.
- er, shafts and :) propellers go together, right
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)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

And a non-turning propellor is of course a "brake" on the movement of a ship, let alone two of them. Or do you intend to send a diver or three over the side to remove the blades of the (about to be) "non-turning" propellor(s) and fit the blades to the required propellor(s) every time you wish to change from one to the other? :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

CPP and FPP

CPP use hydraulic mech on large propeller boss to change pitch appropiate to speed and sea state, more expensive than FPP which most merchant ships use as more efficient as optimised for a limited speed range

USN Burkes with its four GTs, two combining MGRs, two prop shafts and CPPs, max 30+knots (usually operate with one powered shaft and second in trail shaft mode, reason being that GTs are gas guzzelers if not at 90+% rpm, GAO quoted with one GT LM2500 gives Burke 18 knots for ~ 4,300 nm range, though as operate on minimum fuel reserve of 30%, ~ 3,000 nm so short range ships).

T23/26 use FPP for its low noise/cavitation properties at low speeds.

More info on Google.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I do know what CPP and FPP are. My last post still stands. A propellor cannot possibly be both, it is either one or the other. :mrgreen:

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

seaspear wrote:I have read some of the articles on this development and wondered if this may be the successor to the Captas system
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0154
Doesn't sound like it will have great utility in open ocean, but might be part of the mix for littoral ops. Can't tell if it requires separate equipment or just a change in processing and emissions, it could just be a different 'mode' for the likes of CAPTAS. Sounds a fair distance off though.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Scimitar54 wrote:A propellor cannot possibly be both, it is either one or the other.
I tried to make the point that beyond tankers and Liberty ships a lot of ships have 2-4 propellers... you could count waterjets as propellers, too, as they are not a power source but a means of, er, propelling the ship.

You reduced that to the special case of one. Folks with sail boats (the bigger ones; where an outboard will not do) are now distressed with your news that the propeller will be a brake :D - though you have an inch of truth there (they buy special propellers, for that reason).
- what they should buy is a warship instead, that has enough power, always on, to keep the propeller idling... but these 'poor buggers' only have a wind propeller - to keep their beer cold, in the fridge :)
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)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

ACC, I had a little chuckle at your post. A Water Jet of course, is neither a CPP nor an FPP. Even an "Idling Prop", if it could effectively be isolated from it's shaft would create additional drag that the remaining Propellor(s) would have to cope with. A ship not running on both (or all) of it's Propellors/Shafts would not be able to achieve anywhere near the designed speed and would also make it more difficult to maintain a given course. In any case, how on earth do you suppose that an FPP could be (to use the Aeronautical term) "feathered". :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Scimitar54 wrote: A Water Jet of course, is neither a CPP nor an FPP.
You seem to have a discourse going on with your good self?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:you could count waterjets as propellers, too, as they are not a power source but a means of, er, propelling the ship
this mention was included just for the fact that to quickly change up from 1-12 knot drifting/ slow speeds - useful in ASW - it is now often achieved with a combination of propellers and waterjets.
Scimitar54 wrote: A propellor cannot possibly be both, it is either one or the other.
A rather idiotic [self explanatory] statement, but do carry on the discourse with yourself.
- but without going into aeronautical terms, let's stick with bringing power on (and continue with the Burkes that were already used for an example): there are three common plant-operation modes. (1) In trail-shaft mode, only one of the four turbines is online. It drives one shaft, while the idled shaft is said to be “trailing.” (2) In split -plant mode, two engines are online, each driving one shaft. (3) Under full-power mode, all four turbines are online, with two turbines driving each shaft.
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)

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Anyone done the two together yet: FPP for drifting (slow speed), and bringing along CPP(s) for higher speeds?
The only way I can imagine that working is if you used fixed-pitch propellers for slow speed/quiet work and somehow lifted them out of the water flow to switch to a water-jet sprint mode. However, I can’t think of a lifting propeller being used on a large warship since the days of mixed steam and sail propulsion, when the propeller was lifted to reduce hull drag and increase speed under sail.

The problem with mixing propeller types on a single hull is that whichever propeller shaft is not in use becomes a brake, imposing hydrodynamic drag and creating excessive flow noise as it is pulled through the sea.
The same would apply at high-speed if all shafts were driven, here the fixed-pitch propellers, even though powered and turning, would be being dragged through the water by the more efficient (at high-speed) variable-pitch propellers, both slowing the ship and increasing fuel consumption.
Sometimes trailing a shaft can result in a fuel saving, especially in fuel-hungry gas-turbine powered ships (Arleigh Burke Class destroyers for example), but it is still a high drag and high flow noise solution.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Just out of curiosity is the s1850m sensor capable of being upgraded to increase performance ,as the principle radar protecting the carriers from attack with the advent now of more supersonic if not hypersonic threats is there any feasibility of this?
I can understand the f35b has some ability in detecting missile threats and can share this data but I would believe the range of the upgraded s1850mm in ewc is more than the range in patrols of an f35b in this duty and to have radars carrying out this task may be cheaper than employing the f35b for this role any thoughts please

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

seaspear wrote:Just out of curiosity is the s1850m sensor capable of being upgraded to increase performance ,as the principle radar protecting the carriers from attack with the advent now of more supersonic if not hypersonic threats is there any feasibility of this?
I can understand the f35b has some ability in detecting missile threats and can share this data but I would believe the range of the upgraded s1850mm in ewc is more than the range in patrols of an f35b in this duty and to have radars carrying out this task may be cheaper than employing the f35b for this role any thoughts please
The S1850M is a variant Thales Nederland long range SMART-L band PESA radar, there was the software upgrade to ELR, Extended Long Range, and of follow on SMART-L EWC, (Early Warning Capability) programmable PESA radar, but Thales Nederland has moved on to the next gen SMART-L MM/N, Dutch MoD funded R&D in 2012, AESA using GaN T/R modules, first installed HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën March 2019, one of four in class 6,000t AA destroyers/frigates as part of upgrade to Block 2, the MM variant replaces the existing SMART-L radar. Mention of possible purchase of SM-3 BMD missiles for the De Zeven Provinciën class though as yet seen no mention of Dutch budget approval or contract for these expensive missiles, the latest BMD SM-3 IIA US/Japan joint development may cost near $40 million each.

SMART-L MM/N uses the same Dual Axis Multibeam receiver technology as used the Thales Nederland S-band NS100 to be fitted to the T31.

Re the specs notice the BMD 2,000 km capability only in fixed staring mode, non-rotating,

"Unrivalled long range performance The unique and patented extended long range waveform and matched processing and flexible scan time results in very long range performance. It covers an instrumented range of maximum 2000 km against space objects and ballistic missile targets. Autonomous Ballistic Missile Search and Track Capabilities SMART-L MM/N independently finds Ballistic Missile type targets.
Following fast track initiation, the ballistic target track is maintained up to zenith. The Ballistic Missile defence capability is based on the extended long range waveform functionality proven in ballistic missile trails in Hawaii (2006) and the “At Sea Demonstration” in the North Sea (2015).
Thanks to AESA, Ballistic Missile detection range is even improved significantly by applying forward/ backward scanning and staring modes. Easily upgradable and prepared for future In traditional radar systems the functionality remains unchanged through its lifespan."


THALES NEDERLAND B.V. spec
Antenna weight 9t
Instrumented limits Ballistic missile defence Up to 2000 km
instrumented Air targets 480 km
instrumented Surface targets 60 km
instrumented Minimum range 5 km
Tracking capacity 1000 tracks
Technical Characteristics
Frequency band D-band
Update time 5 sec. or shorter (in staring mode)
IFF antenna Integrated and fit for mode 5 and S"


The ability of the F-35 to detect BMDs at long range based on their IRST, not radar, detecting them on launch phase from the massive heat/IR signature given off from booster rocket, said to have picked up BM launch at 800 miles, no mention of any ability to track them after they reach space. The F-35 IRST is the NG AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) uses six modules distributed around aircraft to give 360 degree, spherical situational awareness for missile detection and tracking; launch point detection; situational awareness; IRST & cueing weapons support; day/night navigation, to be replaced by new gen Raytheon DAS/IRST system in lot 15 a/c 2023.

The USAF uses their OPIR satellites, Overhead Persistent Infrared, to monitor BMD missile launches.

jcs1959
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 17:04
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jcs1959 »

The Brit on twitter reporting Type 31 contract has been signed, (@thebrit96).

Whoops thought I was posting type 31 news. MODS please feel free to move if necessary.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

NickC wrote:
seaspear wrote:Just out of curiosity is the s1850m sensor capable of being upgraded to increase performance ,as the principle radar protecting the carriers from attack with the advent now of more supersonic if not hypersonic threats is there any feasibility of this?
I can understand the f35b has some ability in detecting missile threats and can share this data but I would believe the range of the upgraded s1850mm in ewc is more than the range in patrols of an f35b in this duty and to have radars carrying out this task may be cheaper than employing the f35b for this role any thoughts please
The S1850M is a variant Thales Nederland long range SMART-L band PESA radar, there was the software upgrade to ELR, Extended Long Range, and of follow on SMART-L EWC, (Early Warning Capability) programmable PESA radar, but Thales Nederland has moved on to the next gen SMART-L MM/N, Dutch MoD funded R&D in 2012, AESA using GaN T/R modules, first installed HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën March 2019, one of four in class 6,000t AA destroyers/frigates as part of upgrade to Block 2, the MM variant replaces the existing SMART-L radar. Mention of possible purchase of SM-3 BMD missiles for the De Zeven Provinciën class though as yet seen no mention of Dutch budget approval or contract for these expensive missiles, the latest BMD SM-3 IIA US/Japan joint development may cost near $40 million each.

SMART-L MM/N uses the same Dual Axis Multibeam receiver technology as used the Thales Nederland S-band NS100 to be fitted to the T31.

Re the specs notice the BMD 2,000 km capability only in fixed staring mode, non-rotating,

"Unrivalled long range performance The unique and patented extended long range waveform and matched processing and flexible scan time results in very long range performance. It covers an instrumented range of maximum 2000 km against space objects and ballistic missile targets. Autonomous Ballistic Missile Search and Track Capabilities SMART-L MM/N independently finds Ballistic Missile type targets.
Following fast track initiation, the ballistic target track is maintained up to zenith. The Ballistic Missile defence capability is based on the extended long range waveform functionality proven in ballistic missile trails in Hawaii (2006) and the “At Sea Demonstration” in the North Sea (2015).
Thanks to AESA, Ballistic Missile detection range is even improved significantly by applying forward/ backward scanning and staring modes. Easily upgradable and prepared for future In traditional radar systems the functionality remains unchanged through its lifespan."


THALES NEDERLAND B.V. spec
Antenna weight 9t
Instrumented limits Ballistic missile defence Up to 2000 km
instrumented Air targets 480 km
instrumented Surface targets 60 km
instrumented Minimum range 5 km
Tracking capacity 1000 tracks
Technical Characteristics
Frequency band D-band
Update time 5 sec. or shorter (in staring mode)
IFF antenna Integrated and fit for mode 5 and S"


To be clear on this Nick the s1850-m as used on the R.N fleet cannot be upgraded but would need to be largely replaced to match the capabilities as used by new Dutch naval ships for an abm capability ?

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 Type-31 thread.
dmereifield wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
dmereifield wrote:GFE can't be account for much of that, surely.
Why not?

I (optimistically) imagined that it reflects the decision to "add" non-negligible GFE to the program?

# If total money is not enough, for exmpke, by disbanding HMS Monmouth now and relocating CAMM system (and its ~60M GBP update cost), directly to T31.

By the way, from there this "2B GBP" came from?
Sounds surprising that GFE could comprise 40% of the programme costs, especially since Babcocks AH140 seems to use so little kit from RN inventory. What are they using exactly other than CAMM that could be furnished by HMG?
Among the 2B GBP, 1.25G GBP is for build and first year maintenance/training/manuals, 250M GBP is for "other" (non-related to building, as noticed several months ago). So, the added 500M GBP (or 100M GBP per hull) could be the GFE.

If so (and only if), what can be done?

# A little too much assumption, I agree

Here I assume the basic 1.25B GBP hull has
- a 57 mm gun, 2x 40 mm gun, and 12 CAMM
- a Helo hangar, 4 boat bays, place for 2-4 ISO 20ft container.
(completely meeting the T31 RFI requirement).

Then, if the 100M GBP per hull, is for "addition", what shall we do?
- add Sea Sensor ship torpedo defense system (was option in RFI) = ~10M GBP?
- add 12 more CAMM to make it 24 = 10-20M GBP? (+ 12M for missile itself?)
- execute hull-sonar option = 3-4M GBP?
- execute muzzle speed radar on the 57mm gun = 1M GBP?
- improve the FCS for 40mm guns from optical/IR/laser to those including radar, = 3-4M GBP?
- and to handle all these options, improving the CMS to
-- improve AAW analysis capability (added CPU/memory, 5M GBP?)
-- newly add ASW tactics/analysis capability with 2-3 more consoles for ASW team (20-30M GBP?)
So, ~50-80M GBP to make it "normal GP frigate" is easy to imagine.

For another 20-50M GBP, there are many options easily foreseen. For example, the CMS level shall be pretty low (even with above improvements) in the basic 1.25B GBP program = it is just a corvette budget. ESM/ECM systems have many options and the level differs very much. Even with only these two, it is very easy to amount to 50M GBP.

Again, a little too much assumption, I agree, but if include the CMS improvements, the 100M GBP per hull is very easy to be consumed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

So you're saying that its only an increase of £500 million to the budget (do we know if this £2 billion programme budget for the batch if 5 is accurate?) Since the previous programme budget was £1.25 billion for the ships + £250 million for xxxx (whatever associated costs accounted for previously).

So it seems there is an extra £500 million added to the budget. It would be great if at least some of this is used to improve the baseline specs from the £250 million design. Until we see conformation of this or the final ship specs I'll not get my hope's up, but I will enjoy reading here peoples views about how the ships could be improved with such additional funding available.

What other costs might the additional £500 million have been included for? Maintenance? Or was that originally included in the £1.25 (+0.25) billion budget?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

@Aethelwolf's post from Janes' indicated a substantial amount would be put aside to cover fluctuations in exchange rates. Boring but, as far as I can tell, all of the ships systems have to be imported, so needed. Not bad for a "British" warship :-(

Service & support through trials will also be rather expensive.

Anyhoo in the spirit of the game and in priority order:

Hull mounted sonar - UMS 4110
Towed array - CAPTAS
Quietening - improves top 2 items
Better EW
Better radar - NS200
Mk 45 5" gun instead of 57mm, regular not automated magazine

I'm assuming a 24 cell CAMM VLS is part of contract fit.

Munitions are normally excluded. Different budget.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I also see any extra money being put aside as back stop for the program but if it was for extras then I would go for

Rafting 2 engines
CAPTAS-4CI
NSM x 8
76 mm to Vulcano / DART round spec in place of 57mm
Phalanx mounts x 2 one each side of the rear 40mm mount

not saying all this ca be got for the money more a list of things to think about

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:I also see any extra money being put aside as back stop for the program but if it was for extras then I would go for

Rafting 2 engines
CAPTAS-4CI
NSM x 8
76 mm to Vulcano / DART round spec in place of 57mm
Phalanx mounts x 2 one each side of the rear 40mm mount

not saying all this ca be got for the money more a list of things to think about
What do we think will happen to that extra money if it is not swallowed up by exchange rate changes or over runs ?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

I think the £2bn budget is simply a realistic estimate of what the programme will cost. An average price of £400m for each of the five T31's is still good value especially if they are configured at a credible level.

With the contract for the first five signed, I would like to see HMG now commit to a total of eight T31's to be launched before 2030. This would give Babcock an incentive to invest properly in expanding Rosyth to incorporate a modern and efficient Frigate construction facility. It would also heap further pressure on BAE's operation on the Clyde which would be no bad thing.

Rather than start to bust the budget at this stage by adding the extra wish list items straight away, I believe a more prudent approach would be to build the first four T31's in the basic configuration for a fixed target of £1bn. The fifth hull could then be upgraded to include a hybrid propulsion setup and anything else RN requires to make the T31 a true successor to the T23 GP's.

By dangling a further £1.2bn carrot for hulls 6,7 and 8 if the first four are completed on time and on budget, it may concentrate minds whinin Babcock to ensure that the T31 programme gets off to a flying start.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think the £2bn budget is simply a realistic estimate of what the programme will cost. An average price of £400m for each of the five T31's is still good value especially if they are configured at a credible level.

With the contract for the first five signed, I would like to see HMG now commit to a total of eight T31's to be launched before 2030. This would give Babcock an incentive to invest properly in expanding Rosyth to incorporate a modern and efficient Frigate construction facility. It would also heap further pressure on BAE's operation on the Clyde which would be no bad thing.

Rather than start to bust the budget at this stage by adding the extra wish list items straight away, I believe a more prudent approach would be to build the first four T31's in the basic configuration for a fixed target of £1bn. The fifth hull could then be upgraded to include a hybrid propulsion setup and anything else RN requires to make the T31 a true successor to the T23 GP's.

By dangling a further £1.2bn carrot for hulls 6,7 and 8 if the first four are completed on time and on budget, it may concentrate minds whinin Babcock to ensure that the T31 programme gets off to a flying start.
What the heck are you talking about? They've just signed a contract with Babcocks for 5 ships at an average 250 mill each. You want to rip up that contract that's a mere two days old?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

500mill is way too much for currency fluctuations on a project of this size. Imported content cannot be more than 50%, maybe 10% of that as a prudent fx contingency. The GBP is at an all time low, not much downside risk from here.

Post Reply