Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The El Khareef corvettes have hybrid propulsion and can be propelled up to 7 or 8 knots with RR electric motor. This enables very quiet running and provides sufficient economy for a decent range (for a corvette).

I'm surprised those here haven't leapt on this as an opportunity to increase the Type 31e ASW credentials by having the same propulsion arrangement with a suitable towed array.

Less sprint and drift, more fast walk and drift, but potentially effective never the less.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:The El Khareef corvettes have hybrid propulsion and can be propelled up to 7 or 8 knots with RR electric motor. This enables very quiet running and provides sufficient economy for a decent range (for a corvette).

I'm surprised those here haven't leapt on this as an opportunity to increase the Type 31e ASW credentials by having the same propulsion arrangement with a suitable towed array.

Less sprint and drift, more fast walk and drift, but potentially effective never the less.

I have no doubt whatsoever that they will find some way to make them with faulty engines, like Type 45. :yawn:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by whitelancer »

@ Ron5
I understand why the CAMM launchers are so far apart on T23, Though I would have thought it would have been easier to simply remove the Seawolf launch tubes and replace them with a dedicated CAMM VLS. I'm sure the RN had its reasons. But on new builds surely they cant save anything by reusing the Seawolf launch tubes, particularly as many of the depictions seem to show them in groups of six, which isn't how they are grouped on T23. I assume the CAMM missiles comes in its own launch canister, all the VLS has to provide is protection and services, it should be relatively cheap. If you look for instance at the depictions of T26 the CAMM launchers take up as much room as the Mk 41, I just don't understand why this should be so.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:I'm surprised those here haven't leapt on this as an opportunity to increase the Type 31e ASW credentials by having the same propulsion arrangement with a suitable towed array
The RFI does mention "stealthy / self noise limiting speed to allow active sonar usage where fitted"
Though it only mentions hull mounted sonar in the RFI, the phrase "active sonar" could apply to towed arrays as well,. I don't think it's intended for batch 1, but who knows what might happen in the future?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

whitelancer wrote:@ Ron5
I understand why the CAMM launchers are so far apart on T23, Though I would have thought it would have been easier to simply remove the Seawolf launch tubes and replace them with a dedicated CAMM VLS. I'm sure the RN had its reasons. But on new builds surely they cant save anything by reusing the Seawolf launch tubes, particularly as many of the depictions seem to show them in groups of six, which isn't how they are grouped on T23. I assume the CAMM missiles comes in its own launch canister, all the VLS has to provide is protection and services, it should be relatively cheap. If you look for instance at the depictions of T26 the CAMM launchers take up as much room as the Mk 41, I just don't understand why this should be so.
Unlikely anyone here can answer your question. I'd guess it's money. Don't forget that fitting of a component is just one part of the total cost. Testing, servicing, etc. also need to be factored in.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

abc123 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The El Khareef corvettes have hybrid propulsion and can be propelled up to 7 or 8 knots with RR electric motor. This enables very quiet running and provides sufficient economy for a decent range (for a corvette).

I'm surprised those here haven't leapt on this as an opportunity to increase the Type 31e ASW credentials by having the same propulsion arrangement with a suitable towed array.

Less sprint and drift, more fast walk and drift, but potentially effective never the less.

I have no doubt whatsoever that they will find some way to make them with faulty engines, like Type 45. :yawn:
Have you heard that there's been problems with the El Khareef propulsion system or are you just being a troll?

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,

Liked the first vid:
- be prepared to send back one engine, one shaft, and one propeller
- however, on one of those you will keep doing 18 knots for the declared range
... and if you happen to have all the 4 engines, 30 knots, no probs

Will "read" on...
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:The El Khareef corvettes have hybrid propulsion and can be propelled up to 7 or 8 knots with RR electric motor. This enables very quiet running and provides sufficient economy for a decent range (for a corvette).
I'm surprised those here haven't leapt on this as an opportunity to increase the Type 31e ASW credentials by having the same propulsion arrangement with a suitable towed array.
Less sprint and drift, more fast walk and drift, but potentially effective never the less.
Hopefully, the same to Khareef. :D
- "E" part of CODOE is not mentioned in many cases. RNZN Canterbury, sometimes referred as diesel propulsion, has electric motor (for low speed). Khareef also in many cases referred to as "diesel propulsion".
- Khareef's top speed is 25+knot high, using "two 20V 8000 M91, 9100kW x2, CODOE" (ref MTU document: https://mtu-online-shop.com/print/30517 ... _S8000.pdf).
- With longer hull, the top speed may even increase in the Leander concept. But, in low speed, if use the same motor, to electric mode speed will decrease, say slower than 7.7 knots.
Anyway, may be we will see it soon.
abc123 wrote:I have no doubt whatsoever that they will find some way to make them with faulty engines, like Type 45. :yawn:
Here, "they" are RN/MOD, and NOT BAE, as you know. RN/MOD insisted on using WR21, not BAES. So, if "RN/MOD" do not try to add something "new", the drive train will be super low risk = the proven MTU + RR CODOE..

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

whitelancer wrote:I understand why the CAMM launchers are so far apart on T23, Though I would have thought it would have been easier to simply remove the Seawolf launch tubes and replace them with a dedicated CAMM VLS. I'm sure the RN had its reasons. But on new builds surely they cant save anything by reusing the Seawolf launch tubes, particularly as many of the depictions seem to show them in groups of six, which isn't how they are grouped on T23. I assume the CAMM missiles comes in its own launch canister, all the VLS has to provide is protection and services, it should be relatively cheap. If you look for instance at the depictions of T26 the CAMM launchers take up as much room as the Mk 41, I just don't understand why this should be so.
I suspect that is just the CGI. The type 26 will get the mushrooms.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The El Khareef corvettes have hybrid propulsion and can be propelled up to 7 or 8 knots with RR electric motor. This enables very quiet running and provides sufficient economy for a decent range (for a corvette).

I'm surprised those here haven't leapt on this as an opportunity to increase the Type 31e ASW credentials by having the same propulsion arrangement with a suitable towed array.

Less sprint and drift, more fast walk and drift, but potentially effective never the less.

I have no doubt whatsoever that they will find some way to make them with faulty engines, like Type 45. :yawn:
Have you heard that there's been problems with the El Khareef propulsion system or are you just being a troll?
No, just a realist that follows UK military acquisitions for years...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

The type 31 mission statement screams, everything could be carried out by Rivers for a fraction of the price. This Governments attempt to keep the escort numbers at 19 is just as stupid as the magical 2% spend on defense. I wish they would just accept that our escort fleet is dropping to 14

Type 31 going by its role description is truly a Jack of all trades, master of none. Seems like we would be better of keeping the current batch 1 rivers and building 1-2 more type 26s instead of the type 31. At least then we would have some much needed warfighting capability, as it seems warfighting is not a role of the type 31.
NickC wrote:Primary roles in order as listed.
1) Counter drugs and counter piracy
2) Port visits
3) Official entertainment
4) "Demonstrations" of military capabilities
5) Training
6) Natural disasters, supply emergency relief stores (Two 20 feet ISO containers)
"The T31e will be a General Purpose Frigate, providing an enduring and continuous worldwide maritime security presence in several forward operating areas and releasing other, more complex warships to their primary roles.

The T31e will carry out various maritime interdiction tasks, such as counter drugs and counter piracy. It will also carry out defence engagement activities, such as port visits and official entertainment, demonstrations of military capability and participation in allied training exercises.

It must be ready to respond to emergent events, such as natural disasters or evacuation of non-combatants and will routinely carry specialist emergency relief stores in certain operating areas.

The T31e design will need to be adaptable, providing evolution paths for future capability to enable growth of the destroyer and frigate numbers into the 2030s, and to address export customers’ needs."

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

No, T31 will be Jack of SOME trades, master of none.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

benny14 wrote:everything could be carried out by Rivers for a fraction of the price.
Only it couldn't. The Rivers proved to be a bit of an irrelevance in the Caribbean. All they served to do was to reinforce the impression that a small ship, with a small crew and without a helicopter is pretty much useless as a singleton. The USCG have comparable cutters to the Rivers and they deploy them in numbers (there are c. 27 USCG Reliance and Famous class cutters, with crews of 75 and 100 respectively), backed by the USN and fixed-wing patrol aircraft. The Rivers are unlikely to be deployed as singletons in anything other than the most benign of environments (i.e. the Med and Caribbean) where they have the prospect of immediate back-up from allied forces (and that's not for combat, that's for ordinary maritime security roles). The T31 is intended to operate as a singleton, able to carry out maritime security roles without backup and capable of engaging (defensively) in and surviving surface, air and even submarine attack (hence the requirements for Main gun, CIWS, PDMS, helicopter, SSTD, decoys, CBRB citadel, armoured crew and magazines areas etc, etc.).
Personally I find it somewhat odd that what was effectively an act of desperation by the RN is now being held up as an example of something to emulate.
As for the mission statement - all that was in the RFI, so hardly news, accompanied by the line "The threshold requirement is focussed on maritime security and defence engagement tasks". i.e. the minimum spec. As discussed at great length, the purpose of these boats is to fill the gaps and substitute for the primary platforms in low-end tasking, until the top-end design and production facilities actually start getting sufficient new hulls in the water. Hopefully the top-end platforms will stabilise at around 16-18 hulls by the end of the T45 replacement build and that, in the future, construction will be continuous. Personally I would regard the objective of 16-18 tier 1 and 5-6 tier 2 escorts (by then second generation), plus an MCH platform based on a common hull as a good thing.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »



^ Reposted here to try and avoid another inevitable name debate in T26 NEWS thread.... :shh:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:Personally I would regard the objective of 16-18 tier 1 and 5-6 tier 2 escorts (by then second generation), plus an MCH platform based on a common hull as a good thing.
Most would view that as a figment of your imagination.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes we could build the fleet up to those levels over a couple of decades, but our Governments(s) have not the will to do so and have their priorities elsewhere. I will simply be happy if we actually get eight T-26 and five T-31e, but this is far from certain, especially if no new money is found and external events cause either or both the RAF's and Army's needs come to the fore.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

2nd vessel has to be HMS Cardiff. Will be announced tomorrow.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

benny14 wrote:2nd vessel has to be HMS Cardiff. Will be announced tomorrow.
It seems likely, especially as its St. David's Day tomorrow. Will they paint leeks or daffodils on the bow?!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

oh a type26 named sorry I thought it was going to be naming a new rib armed with a pop gun and they announcing it as another major warfighting warship in the ever expanding escort fleet :crazy: ( ps I know its not the navy they would luv to have a bigger proper armed vessels its the guv/mps in parliament both sides and lack of interest in the forces full stop)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

it will the 3rd as the first 2 are Glasgow and Belfast

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

Vessel 1 is HMS Glasgow and vessel 3 is HMS Belfast, it is hull 2 that is as yet unnamed. I don’t know why they’ve chosen to name them in that order.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »



Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Sant Hapus!

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

dmereifield wrote:Thanks. I didn't notice the cost er module - if anyone sees it, or has any other info, it'd appreciate it.
Under this budget document it says that a US destroyer VLS set costs $52.29m, which includes twelve modules. So $4.35m per module, x3 = $13.05m for three modules. This is the US buying in bulk from their own country, with their own currency and it is purely hardware costs.

3 x $13.05m = $39.15m. Convert to pounds and you get £28.52m for 9 sets. This gives us a minimum cost assuming we got the same deal as the US, but you can bet we did not and it is far higher for us. Then most likely tens of millions if not hundreds for support costs.

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Docu ... N_Book.pdf

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

benny14 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Thanks. I didn't notice the cost er module - if anyone sees it, or has any other info, it'd appreciate it.
Under this budget document it says that a US destroyer VLS set costs $52.29m, which includes twelve modules. So $4.35m per module, x3 = $13.05m for three modules. This is the US buying in bulk from their own country, with their own currency and it is purely hardware costs.

3 x $13.05m = $39.15m. Convert to pounds and you get £28.52m for 9 sets. This gives us a minimum cost assuming we got the same deal as the US, but you can bet we did not and it is far higher for us. Then most likely tens of millions if not hundreds for support costs.

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Docu ... N_Book.pdf

IMO, you can use rule of thumb of US price x 2-3, so say somewhere 40 mil. USD per ship-set... With additional costs for first-time user.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

If bought under the terms of a foreign military sale, the UK would pay exactly the same as the US military would. That's usually the way deals are done but not always.

I don't know of any US military sale to the UK where the US company was paid 2 to 3 times the price paid by the US military. I think that's just a bad rumor. I'd be interested to hear of examples.

Post Reply