Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Opinion3]

Rivers are not escorts are they? Quite apart from the noted title of the thread do we need patrol boats when a shooting war starts? I say no, and the T31e is as budgeted at £250m clearly not going to be an escort either.

At times I have been swayed to come around to the possibility that the T31e could work. Then I think I kidding myself......

[Repulse]

Rivers are not escorts are they? Quite apart from the noted title of the thread do we need patrol boats when a shooting war starts? I say no, and the T31e is as budgeted at £250m clearly not going to be an escort either.

At times I have been swayed to come around to the possibility that the T31e could work. Then I think I kidding myself......

Like all ships, the T31e could be useful, but it ultimately depends on its focus:
- In its current form, with targeted upgrades it could be a convoy escort. To think any potential foe will not try and stop sea trade getting to the UK is bonkers. Additionally they could be used as coastal UUV MCM Motherships.
- If the design was adapted to be able to carry LCVPs, and a rear ramp for loading / deploying Vikings with a larger troop carrying capability (@ company size), they could be used to support amphibious operations.
- Lastly, is they focused on ASW getting a TAS, and reasonable self defence, they could be part of CBG, protected by the T45 umbrella. This would free the T45s up for more independent ops.

[shark bait]

It will be no good as a 'convoy escort'. The only thing it would add is CAMM and a small helicopter, both of which a supply ship will be able to do it's self.

[shark bait]

HMS Protector should be able to operate it, no?

I don't think so, it requires a clear stern deck to mount the launch and recovery A-frame, and then the decompression chambers behind that. HMS Protector has a helipad in the way, and her own A-frame in the way.

Fortunately the system can be mounted to many platforms, so I guess the best option would be to charter a research vessel from down south.

One thing that has occurred to me is that Frigates and Destroyers that are in service are not traditional Escorts. In size and some of their tasks such as defence diplomacy, protection of shipping in international waters, maintaining sovereignty of overseas territories, NGS for ship to shore operations and engaging enemy surface vessels they are more like WW2 Light Cruisers.

This is spot on.

If we consider the T26, it is vastly more than an ASW escort, it is a large and capable multi-role surface combatant, perhaps perfect GP combatant.

It makes it look like the RN is doing things the wrong way around. This big capable platform should be the GP Combatant, with the smaller platform being the focused ASW escort.

[abc123]

It makes it look like the RN is doing things the wrong way around. This big capable platform should be the GP Combatant, with the smaller platform being the focused ASW escort.

Yep, you might be right about that.

[Caribbean]

It makes it look like the RN is doing things the wrong way around. This big capable platform should be the GP Combatant, with the smaller platform being the focused ASW escort.

I think we've had this conversation before I tend to agree, though - particularly when modern technology can give even a focussed ASW platform quite significant capabilities in the AAW arena

[seaspear]

Why would a type 31 configured/equipped for asw be as good as a type 26 ?

[abc123]

Why would a type 31 configured/equipped for asw be as good as a type 26 ?

Why wouldn't?

[RetroSicotte]

Why would a type 31 configured/equipped for asw be as good as a type 26 ?

Why wouldn't?

None of the available options have the 'soft' ASW tech. You can attack a CAPTAS4 to the back of pretty much anything large enough to take it. Whether the ship is quiet enough, agile enough under quiet conditions and internally designed to be ASW is another thing entirely. That's what I feel he refers to.

Note that I am still a proponent of putting a tail on damn near everything that can float, personally. Even the Horizons, not ASW focused at all, have a mid-range towed sonar on them.

[Lord Jim]

Out of left field, has any work been done regarding ASW that is comparable to the German Troika mine hunting system with a mothership and two remote platforms operating together?

[seaspear]

I believe that certainly ships like the Daring class should of been designed with Captas 4 for self defence , if for instance the type 26 has had an acoustically designed stealthy hull to assist in asw operations ,it is likely to be more effective than a hull that has not , I dont know if the type 31 will be designed to be as effective as a type 23 in asw, but in defending the carriers and type 45,s you would want the best you have.
If the discussion is on a type 26 with just an asw focus stuck to escort duties it may be cheaper .

[abc123]

Why would a type 31 configured/equipped for asw be as good as a type 26 ?

Why wouldn't?

None of the available options have the 'soft' ASW tech. You can attack a CAPTAS4 to the back of pretty much anything large enough to take it. Whether the ship is quiet enough, agile enough under quiet conditions and internally designed to be ASW is another thing entirely. That's what I feel he refers to.

Note that I am still a proponent of putting a tail on damn near everything that can float, personally. Even the Horizons, not ASW focused at all, have a mid-range towed sonar on them.

Of course. But, why would that need a 6000 t ship?

Underlined: Agreed.

Does anybody knows the cost of CAPTAS4-type sonar?

[shark bait]

Noise is a function of speed. The expensive acoustic optimization allows a platform to remain effective at higher speeds.

In the RN's case, a well designed escort will allow a carrier group to transit quicker, which has clear advantages, among which is going too fast for SSK's to operate effectively.

I believe that certainly ships like the Daring class should of been designed with Captas 4 for self defence

CAPTAS is a bit over the top in this instance. Perhaps a better option is to ditch the towed fish and jut fit the towed array. That is what the Americans do, its essentially a massive upgrade to the torpedo defense sensors, making them effective against subs too.

Of course. But, why would that need a 6000 t ship?

It doesn't. The T26 is well over spec'd for ASW because its a platform with many roles.

The T23 is the perfect platform for a focused ASW escort.

Does anybody knows the cost of CAPTAS4-type sonar?

Depending whats included between £10m - £15m per additional unit installed on a platform. Development costs are already sunk, but that cost was in the hundreds of millions.

I dont think the value of this years order has been disclosed, that would be our best indicator.

[RetroSicotte]

It has to be remembered that Type 26 was designed to account for both ASW and GP purposes, because Type 45 is very limited outside of AAW and Type 26 had to account for every other role back when it was going to be the only ship, and create a massive and desperately needed boost in ability. So the size was due to it being the only class and sharing roles.

Then 2015 happened. Now apparently a strong escort fleet "isn't needed".

[ArmChairCivvy]

to account for every other role back when it was going to be the only ship[....] So the size was due to it being the only class and sharing roles.

- something like that
- and a follow-on batch, to succeed the T-45s in AAW role (so less multi-purpose, but a platform of sufficient size to be modified for that role)

[NickC]

I believe that certainly ships like the Daring class should of been designed with Captas 4 for self defence

shark bait reply
"CAPTAS is a bit over the top in this instance. Perhaps a better option is to ditch the towed fish and jut fit the towed array. That is what the Americans do, its essentially a massive upgrade to the torpedo defense sensors, making them effective against subs too."

The USN awarded Raytheon $28M contract last May for the new AN/SQS-62 VDS for their ASW version of LCS ships, 16 planned. The new VDS will feature reduced weight to minimize ship impact due to the LCS very limited payload and increased maneuverability. Raytheon beating off Thales who had been the favourite. Production options, which if exercised will bring the total contract value to more than $300m

It will be used in conjunction with the LM MFTA, towed array, AN/TB-37 on the LCS

Also specified for ASW version of the new FFG(X) and also on wish list to be added to the 30+ Burkes and Ticos with the MFTA-AN/TB-37.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... le&id=3485

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... 10162.html

[RetroSicotte]

to account for every other role back when it was going to be the only ship[....] So the size was due to it being the only class and sharing roles.

- something like that
- and a follow-on batch, to succeed the T-45s in AAW role (so less multi-purpose, but a platform of sufficient size to be modified for that role)

Honestly, in an ideal world the five GP Type 26's would have had enhanced AAW capabilities at the cost of dropping the main gun size (think like Italy's GP), dropping to only 16x Mk41, removing the second CAMM set, using CEAFAR to cuddle up to Australia and at the very least CAMM-ER in the mid-ship silos and then the only real issue, either Aster-30 (requires new silos) or SM-6 (brings a second missile in) to replace the front 24 CAMM. Especially if they got Captas4.

It would have been an ideal use of the 5 GPs to retain them and help cover for the halving of the Type 45 fleet. Think a bigger scale version of what the French are doing with FREDA and FTI. Would have given 19 vessels, 11 of them equipped for AAW, 13 of them for ASW and 8 ready for land strike. Very comparable to what the French are doing with 9, 15 and 6 respectively, but with greater hull quantity in 19 vessels as opposed to 15.

Allows Type 31 and MCM to be more properly joined up after that for a combined build at non-BAE yards to pursue the Govs rebuilding plan.

To lay it out:

6x Type 45 AAW (48x Aster 15/30, 8x ASM, 113mm, Sampson and S1850M)
8x Type 26 ASW (48x CAMM, 8x ASM, 8x ASROC, 8x TLAM, 127mm, Captas4, Artisan)
5x Type 26 GP (24x CAMM-ER, 16x Aster 30, 8x ASM, 76mm, Captas4, CEAFAR)

My only concern is that 11 of the fleet would then lack on board anti-sub weapons, but considering the real life RN is set to have the exact same anyway...

[shark bait]

Sticking to the original plan the T26 was the perfect solution.

Politics now moved the goal posts, and it's an imperfect solution.

[RetroSicotte]

Sticking to the original plan the T26 was the perfect solution.

Politics now moved the goal posts, and it's an imperfect solution.

Despite my big post above, I do agree.

[abc123]

It doesn't. The T26 is well over spec'd for ASW because its a platform with many roles.

The T23 is the perfect platform for a focused ASW escort.


Depending whats included between £10m - £15m per additional unit installed on a platform. Development costs are already sunk, but that cost was in the hundreds of millions.

About Type 23- agreed.

Thanks.

And does anybody knows the cost of average bow/hull-sonar? I presume less than VDS?

[benny14]

A type 23 ASW package consists of a, Sonar 2087 towed array system, Sonar 2050 medium-range bow sonar and a Merlin with FLASH dipping Sonar 2089.

[shark bait]

Honestly, in an ideal world the five GP Type 26's would have had enhanced AAW capabilities

Considering RN is only able to put one fleet to sea at any one time, do they really need more than the six T45 in service?

(once they work properly)

[donald_of_tokyo]

And does anybody knows the cost of average bow/hull-sonar? I presume less than VDS?

The UK payed 27m back in 2014 for Sonar 2050 for eight type 23 ASW frigates.

3.37m per Hull Sonar 2050
8.5m per Towed Sonar 2087

A type 23 ASW package consists of a, Sonar 2087 towed array system, Sonar 2050 medium-range bow sonar and a Merlin with FLASH dipping Sonar 2089.

S2087 was " £340 million" for 6 systems in 2001 = £56M, I think?
http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/So ... 54001.aspx

Also "payed 27m back in 2014 for Sonar 2050 for eight type 23 ASW frigates", is upgrade and maintenance program, as I understand.

Also, MFS7000 sonar for T45 was as cheap as "£20m for 6 systems".
http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/MF ... 77001.aspx

But, anyway these numbers are, as I understand, only sonar itself. In addition, we need ASW analysis systems (cross-crrelation analysis tool, data-link for multi-static ASW, including its CPU/GPU power and software), which is the heart of the ASW system.

[abc123]

Honestly, in an ideal world the five GP Type 26's would have had enhanced AAW capabilities

Considering RN is only able to put one fleet to sea at any one time, do they really need more than the six T45 in service?

(once they work properly)

Agreed. Man could allmost speak about AAW-capability overkill...

[RetroSicotte]

Considering RN is only able to put one fleet to sea at any one time, do they really need more than the six T45 in service?
(once they work properly)

Agreed. Man could allmost speak about AAW-capability overkill...

Given the French have clearly identified a need for at least 9 AAW capable ships, 11 being capable of it out of a fleet of 19 is not much of a stretch, especially when 5 of those would have GP roles as well as their mission bay and a secondary ASW capability. Also note Spain's future requirements on anti-air and its inclusion on their newer upcoming F-110 class as well as the five existing F-100s. Note Italy's upgraded AESAs on their FREMMs, and the PPA's capability to launch Aster-30 as well. Note Japan and Korea's push into AAW.

This is not some singular RN wish.

But the core side of it is that saying "But the Type 45's will only be supporting one fleet anyway so we only need to be able to have a couple out there" is inherently flawed. That assumes the only role of the Royal Navy is to sail around in peacetime. It must have a robustness in depth. A capability to overlap, to replace losses with another ship, to offer more layers of protection. If the entire air defence of a fleet is based around 1-2 ships, then that is a very big potential problem should even one of them go out of action for any reason at all.

Other navies have clearly realised this. But the UK is still too terrified of crossover leading to "well we don't need that then, do we?" to ever keep up with this.

It's the checkbox military all over again, to use the term.