Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[tomuk]

as normally fired in pairs

Active seeker missiles aren't fired in pairs this is one of the advantages of Sea Ceptor/Aster over SM2/ESSM.

[NickC]

as normally fired in pairs

Active seeker missiles aren't fired in pairs this is one of the advantages of Sea Ceptor/Aster over SM2/ESSM.

Think it depends on the perceived threat level of the target?, interested if you have additional info.

DE&S stated on Sea Ceptor missile test firing complete at sea, Jan 2018, "During the firings the system was first tested against single aerial targets. This was followed by more demanding tests, including a single target engaged by two missiles and a twin firing (two targets, each engaged by a single missile at the same time)."

From <https://des.mod.uk/sea-ceptor-missile-t ... ng-trials/>

[Ron5]

So, what does the GFE for the T31 comprise? And of that, what’s being transferred over from the T23s?

Simple answer is that we don't know. But very little is likely to be transferred over from the T23s.

That’s what I thought, but Ron5 said explicitly that we do know, so I’m curious... do we or do we not? I’ve not seen it announced anywhere...

GFX comprises CAMM plus the usual sensitive comms & ew kit. The cost of CAMM was subtracted from the target budget of 125 mill per ship because neither bidder could meet the target otherwise i.e. it was the MoD/Treasury saving face..

Any hopes of more than 12 cells and sonars are just a wet dream.

[NickC]

BAE quoted T26 displacement at 6,900t, not specifying if light, standard or full load, the above PBO report on the CSC quoting 7,800t light ship displacement, assuming the BAE T26 figure is also light ship displacement, CSC shows an increase of 900t, looks high?, speculating mainly accounted for by the much more capable/powerful radar and the associated weighty AC plant necessary to cool the power hungry four panel GaN silicon TRMs in the SPY-7 radar .

To put the CSC light displacement into perspective that is the same as latest variant of the USN Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers (7,719t), with its 96 VLS cells and very large SPY-6(V)1 GaN radar, Burkes full load displacement is 9,800t.

PS To be noted Hunter full load displacement was quoted at 8,800t, thou there have been press reports that it has had to be increased to accommodate its CEAFAR2 GaN radars, Hunter will have a crew of 180 compared to T26 157 due to the additional weapons and kit fitted, PBO also mentions a RAND report which suggests that a 1% increase in light ship displacement would increase costs by 0.96%.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Navy Lookout web (https://www.navylookout.com/the-integra ... oyal-navy/) says, HMS Monmouth is laid-up from 2019 (not getting LIFEX yet) although her out-of-service date is scheduled as 2026, only 5 years from now. She is likely to be disbanded soon, I understand.

Losing Monmouth is "good news" for me, because anyway man power issue is not yet solved to provide enough crews, and likely not within 5 years. RN need to train the new members, RN still has one T45 in extended readiness, and many T23 now in LIFEX are coming back very soon. Not doing LIFEX will save a lot of money. Its CAMM system (if already prepared) can go to T31, providing 2 of the 10 data-link antenna, and 4 of the 5 Launch Management Systems (electric boxes supporting 8 to 12 CAMM missiles each) (a good GFX for T31 program?)

Will be a good export case for Chili or Brazil. If it is Chilli, she can be upgraded in Chilean manner (with CAMM and TRS4 radar) replacing Almirante Williams (T22B2).

Not sure how many T23 will be gone for a while in the next review, but at least she will go?

# On the other hand, HMS Sutherland, not yet LIFEXed (currently lacks AAW missile), may go into LIFEX? Commissioned in 1997, her out-of-service date is scheduled as 2032, still 11 years to go.

[MikeKiloPapa]

BAE quoted T26 displacement at 6,900t, not specifying if light, standard or full load, the above PBO report on the CSC quoting 7,800t light ship displacement, assuming the BAE T26 figure is also light ship displacement, CSC shows an increase of 900t, looks high?

For once i agree with you Nick ......those displacement figures looks off .....900 tons is a MASSIVE amount on essentially the same platform and footprint, ( CSCs greater LOA compared to T26 ,is due to it having a stern transom flap, but hull dimensions are the same ) ...even the propulsion plant is the same so any difference would have to be caused by either having a much larger super structure (which it clearly doesnt) OR by sporting a heavier build ...ie stronger frame and heavier plating. Both extremely doubtful.

A few more missiles and a slightly heavier radar, even with associated cooling equipment would add 10s of tonnes, not hundreds and does therfore not explain the substantial LSW difference. The huge discrepancy in available deadweight payload is also hard to explain,...1600t for CSC, 1300t for the Constellation class , but a whopping 1750t for the T31...by far the smallest design of the lot.???? No matter which way you look at these numbers, they just dont add up.

I have two possible explanations though.....
1: CSCs quoted 7800t LSW displacement is in fact in short tonnes , which would give it a metric LSW figure just shy of 7100t....a far more reasonable number and easily explained by the known design changes from T26. Now the PBO obviously uses metric tonnes for the CSC in their rapport , however that could well just be an (erroneous) assumption on their part.

2: That we arent looking at an apples to apples comparison because the three respective warship designers have used different definitions and ways of calculating light ship displacement. The 3000t difference in LSW between CSC and T31 could support this theory, as its a much larger discrepancy than the dimensions of the ships would suggest.

To put the CSC light displacement into perspective that is the same as latest variant of the USN Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers (7,719t), with its 96 VLS cells and very large SPY-6(V)1 GaN radar, Burkes full load displacement is 9,800t.

Considering the flight III Burkes are basically operating right at the design limit in terms of reserve buoyancy and stability margins, one cant help but wonder if the same will be true of the similar sized CSCs, which if the PBO numbers are accurate, seems to use up much of its design margins from birth.....Putting its growth potential ( and ability to support a heavy BMD sensor suite) into question.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The huge discrepancy in available deadweight payload is also hard to explain,...1600t for CSC, 1300t for the Constellation class , but a whopping 1750t for the T31...by far the smallest design of the lot.???? No matter which way you look at these numbers, they just dont add up.

No one would care, but
the navy says that PBO used (erraneous) weight-based costing measures

So what does one get:
wrong weights
times
erraneous costing
= DOUBLE wrong

[NickC]

BAE quoted T26 displacement at 6,900t, not specifying if light, standard or full load, the above PBO report on the CSC quoting 7,800t light ship displacement, assuming the BAE T26 figure is also light ship displacement, CSC shows an increase of 900t, looks high?

For once i agree with you Nick ......those displacement figures looks off .....900 tons is a MASSIVE amount on essentially the same platform and footprint, ( CSCs greater LOA compared to T26 ,is due to it having a stern transom flap, but hull dimensions are the same ) ...even the propulsion plant is the same so any difference would have to be caused by either having a much larger super structure (which it clearly doesnt) OR by sporting a heavier build ...ie stronger frame and heavier plating. Both extremely doubtful.

A few more missiles and a slightly heavier radar, even with associated cooling equipment would add 10s of tonnes, not hundreds and does therfore not explain the substantial LSW difference. The huge discrepancy in available deadweight payload is also hard to explain,...1600t for CSC, 1300t for the Constellation class , but a whopping 1750t for the T31...by far the smallest design of the lot.???? No matter which way you look at these numbers, they just dont add up.

I have two possible explanations though.....
1: CSCs quoted 7800t LSW displacement is in fact in short tonnes , which would give it a metric LSW figure just shy of 7100t....a far more reasonable number and easily explained by the known design changes from T26. Now the PBO obviously uses metric tonnes for the CSC in their rapport , however that could well just be an (erroneous) assumption on their part.

2: That we arent looking at an apples to apples comparison because the three respective warship designers have used different definitions and ways of calculating light ship displacement. The 3000t difference in LSW between CSC and T31 could support this theory, as its a much larger discrepancy than the dimensions of the ships would suggest.

To put the CSC light displacement into perspective that is the same as latest variant of the USN Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyers (7,719t), with its 96 VLS cells and very large SPY-6(V)1 GaN radar, Burkes full load displacement is 9,800t.

Considering the flight III Burkes are basically operating right at the design limit in terms of reserve buoyancy and stability margins, one cant help but wonder if the same will be true of the similar sized CSCs, which if the PBO numbers are accurate, seems to use up much of its design margins from birth.....Putting its growth potential ( and ability to support a heavy BMD sensor suite) into question.

Re the 900t PBO claimed increase in the light displacement of the CSC compared to the T26

My speculation/theory is the increase displacement driven by the CSC SPY-7 GaN radar. In the main general radar capability governed by the size of antenna array and power output eg taken to extreme with the $1 billion Alaskan Missiles Defense Agency LM SPY-7 variant, Long Range Discrimination Radar, which has two massive antenna arrays of ~3,000 sq ft each

CSC SPY-7 vs the T26 Artisan
Size - SPY-7 has four flat panel antenna arrays each comparable size? to the to single rotating Artisan antenna. Power - SPY-7 uses the new generation GaN silicon TRMs which can take ~ 5x the power of the Artisan GaAs silicon TRMs. So looking like the SPY-7 ~20 times capability/power of the Artisan, one of the downsides with the SPY-7 GaN radar is it needs equivalent twenty times cooling capacity required to control the temperature of its water cooled TRMs

Its known the USN Burke Flt III destroyer with its large four panel SPY-6(V)1 GaN radar fitted with five 300t AC plants, total 1,500t for cooling, one panel consist of 37 2' x 2' modules, 148 sq ft, don't know the size of the much smaller CSC SPY-7 panels but if one assume one third size of SPY-6 panel CSC will require ~500t of AC plant for cooling its SPY-7.

The former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC earlier this month the CSC full load displacement is expected to weigh in at 9,400 tons and as the Burke Flt III is 7,700t light and 9,800 full load displacement does suggest the PBO CSC 7,800t light figure looking on the high side.

Assuming all PBO figures in metric tonnes, Canada totally metric, the FREMM/FFG-62 figures quoted are metric tonnes, so think we can discount any use of short tons

PBO quote light displacement of T31e as 4,900t and expect correct figure as referenced Babcock, that's 550t lighter than the Iver Huitfeldt frigate class, reflecting the cut back in sensors and weapon systems installed and why i classify the T31 as an OPV and not a frigate. As you imply " a whopping [deadweight] 1750t for the T31" is a joke, the only way to get to that figure would be by adding 100s of tons of lead ballast, think remember seeing a figure Babcock T31 for full load displacement, expect Donald-san can give correct number.

Would think T26 full load displacement would be ~8,300t, based on its 6,900t light displacement and gives a deadweight 1,400t , for ref the FFG-62 light 6,100t, full load 7,400t, deadweight 1,300t

[ArmChairCivvy]

The former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC earlier this month the CSC full load displacement is expected to weigh in at 9,400 tons and as the Burke Flt III is 7,700t light and 9,800 full load displacement does suggest the PBO CSC 7,800t light figure looking on the high side.

And the Canadians had discounted... before the facts of the competition that 'Baby'-Burkes were not an option!

[MikeKiloPapa]

My speculation/theory is the increase displacement driven by the CSC SPY-7 GaN radar.

No, it really isnt. Ofc a bigger more powerful radar is going to add weight to the design, but not nearly as much and perhaps not for the reasons you'd think. I'll explain in detail later.

CSC SPY-7 vs the T26 Artisan

Which is an almost pointless apples to water melons comparison because of the different (generation) technology involved. CSCs SPY-7 will undoubtedly require much more cooling, but that will only result in negligible increase in displacement.

What DOES have a significant impact on the design is the placement of the heavy arrays , relatively high up on the ship, resulting in a higher COG which will negatively impact the stability compared to T26. To compensate CSC is likely to have more fixed and/or water ballast, which would contribute FAR more to a displacement increase than any additional cooling capacity would.

Its known the USN Burke Flt III destroyer with its large four panel SPY-6(V)1 GaN radar fitted with five 300t AC plants, total 1,500t

Wait what?..... ...are you seriously telling me that you think an AB flt III dedicates 1500t of its displacement JUST for its AC plants ? .... .... .
Ok...to clear this misconception......the 300t mentioned for the Burkes AC chillers is NOT their weight , but nominal cooling capacity :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_of_refrigeration

If you then look up Chillers in the "300t" class, you'll find they typically only weigh about 5-10 metric tonnes each for a complete system. Which for a burke would mean between 25-50t for its entire AC capacity...a much more reasonable figure dont you think
These chillers are not just for the radar but for cooling the entire vessel, and in fact an AB only needs 2 AC plants running for normal operation. I suspect though that 1 of the chillers is reserved for radar cooling , leaving 2 AC plants as back-up.

Also when comparing the AB flt III with CSC , we have to keep in mind that the SPY-7 , at least as currently rendered, is a MUCH smaller array. It looks to be broadly comparable to the 9 RMA SPY-6(V)3 on the FFG(X) Constellation class, ie about 2x2m (SPY-6 is 1.8x1.8m) ....which would give it 1500-1600 T/R modules , or less than a third of the number on the ABs 14ft AMDR (5328 T/R elements).....with a comensurate decrease in required cooling capacity. Actually going by the antenna size alone, the SPY-7 seems to be somewhat smaller and likely less capable than the NS200 from Thales (which uses same level tech and sports at least a 5-6 m2 array as far as i can tell) ....so really not all that powerful.
Ofc the CSC will have 4 fixed arrays and so total system capability is going to be superior to a single rotating NS radar.

The former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC earlier this month the CSC full load displacement is expected to weigh in at 9,400 tons and as the Burke Flt III is 7,700t light and 9,800 full load displacement does suggest the PBO CSC 7,800t light figure looking on the high side.

Yeah something smells fishy allright.

Canada totally metric

Is it?....the canadians i know rarely use anything but lbs, ft, inches etc.....i honestly think that when north americans use tons, they simply dont consider that there are different definitions and standards. I also note that a lot of official govenment websites in CA use either imperial standard or metric AND imperial.

so think we can discount any use of short tons

Well i dont ....i actually think there is a fair chance of these numbers being a complete mashup of metric/ imperial tonnes.....If you look at the displacement figures for the Constellation there are actually very conflicting sources whether the 7400t is short tons or metric....although i'll concede the latter is more likely.

As you imply " a whopping [deadweight] 1750t for the T31" is a joke, the only way to get to that figure would be by adding 100s of tons of lead ballast,

Not sure i quite understand what you mean by this? .....the 1750t figure is mine.....calculated by subtracting the LWS displacement from the platforms Full Load ditto. What lead ballast could possibly have to do with those figures i cant quite deduct...?

think remember seeing a figure Babcock T31 for full load displacement, expect Donald-san can give correct number.

Well we dont really need Donald-san to figure out the FL potential of T31. As it retains the exact hull dimensions and shape of the Iver Huitfeldt , T31 will have more or less the same FL design max, ie around 6600-6700 metric tonnes.

[NickC]

@MikeKiloPapa

Thanks for info on chillers and completely negating my speculation/theory why weight of the SPY-7 AC plants driving the 900t increase in the light weight of CSC compared to the T26, so question remains what is the driver for the 900t increase, would be surprised if its the SPY-7 GaN four panel antenna array?

CSC full load displacement 9,400t, light 7,800t, deadweight 1,600t, deadweight doesn't look an outlier compared with FFG-62 figures 7,400t FLD, 6,100t LWD, 1,300t DW and Iver Huitfeldt 6650t FLD, 5450t LWD 1,200t DW

PS Out of interest the FFG-62 SPY-6(V)3 is a three panel antenna array, one panel nine 2'x 2' modules, 36 sq ft with 24 TRMs per module, so in total 108 sq ft with 648 TRMs, the four panel AB Flt III SPY-6 consist of 148 modules 592 sq ft, 5.5 times the size of the FFG-62 radar. The size of the four SPY-7 panels unknown, need some one good at scaling to work out size from CSC image or the Spanish F110 which also uses the SPY-7.

think remember seeing a figure Babcock T31 for full load displacement, expect Donald-san can give correct number.

Well we dont really need Donald-san to figure out the FL potential of T31. As it retains the exact hull dimensions and shape of the Iver Huitfeldt , T31 will have more or less the same FL design max, ie around 6600-6700 metric tonnes.

The OMT/DALO April 2014 presentation on the Iver Huitfeldt quoted displacement as 5,452t light and 6,649t full, deadweight 1,200t. PBO quotes Babcock International figure of 4,900t for the light ship displacement for the T31e, and as you say the T31 retains the exact hull dimensions and shape of the parent Iver Huitfeldt so max displacement will be aprox the same, 6649 less 4,900 giving a deadweight figure of 1,750t, the 550t increase over Iver Huitfeldt reflecting T31s lower light displacement.

Why is the T31 550t lighter than IH? T31 is not fitted with IH weapon systems, 32 Mk41 VLS cells for SM-2's, 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSMs, Harpoon Block II launchers, 2x2 LWT launchers, larger guns 2x 76mm plus Millennium 35mm etc and also T31 light on sensors, no hull mounted sonar and with radar IH has both the long range SMART L and APAR four panel X band whereas T31 single N110 S-band etc, would also mention weight taken out by fitting ~1MW less powerful diesel generators. Whether that accounts for the 550t not known, might speculate using thinner plate steel though would be surprised.

The bottom line would expect T31 useful deadweight maxed out around ~1,100 tons compared with IH 1,200t with full tanks/stores plus its limited weapons giving 6,0000t full displacement, think that might be on high side as Wikipedia quotes 5,700t, and the reason why said if T31 displacement were to match IH it would need hundreds tons of lead ballast

[dmereifield]

Do we have any updates on when we'll find out the final T31 specifications?

[Ron5]

Do we have any updates on when we'll find out the final T31 specifications?

We already know them.

[RichardIC]

Do we have any updates on when we'll find out the final T31 specifications?

What we seem to have is a relatively good idea of is what Babcock said they could provide for the capped price. Will that be all? Very possibly on service entry.

[serge750]

95% sure the specs will not change until they are delivered to the customer as its a fixed price biuld.

Maybe the RN may upgrade them ( i would like to see more CAMM/mk 41 ) but now we know there will be a T32, i suspect they may concentrate on them and just use the T31 as patrol frigates/flag waving ships

[dmereifield]

Do we have any updates on when we'll find out the final T31 specifications?

We already know them.

I'm not convinced they'll enter service with the minimum specs we've seen. I still think theres a reasonable chance of more than 12 CAMM and a sonar

[JohnM]

The latest models show 24 CAMM and no sonar... I wonder why they don't just transfer the 32 missile farm from the T23s over... I guess we'll have to wait and see...

[tomuk]

The latest models show 24 CAMM and no sonar... I wonder why they don't just transfer the 32 missile farm from the T23s over... I guess we'll have to wait and see...

Well the missile 'farm' is getting on for 40 years old like the rest of ship. It is the original Sea Wolf silo modified.

Sea Ceptor missiles are in self contained canisters anyway you could fire them just by bracing them in an upright postion (see Land Ceptor)

[NickC]

Re recent CSC posts

Nov 2020 the RCN released graphic showing latest CSC specifications quoting displacement as 7,800t, Feb 2021 PBO reported this was its light displacement, not standard or full, also ex-head of Irving Shipbuilders told CBC that full load displacement will weigh in at ~9,400t, think that confirms the 7,800t figure

This a puzzle as BAE only quotes 6,900t for the T26 and raises the question why CSC 900t heavier, as don't think additional CSC kit will total 900t which appear to consist of the much more capable/heavier SPY-7 radar, 8 more Mk41 VLS cells, deck launchers for 8 NSM plus LWTs.

One possibility might be that the BAE T26 6,900t light weight displacement is understated, it is some years old, the actuality might by up to 500t higher, for a total of 7,400t?, if so would explain the CSC 7,800t figure.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/ass ... 11_web.pdf

[Ron5]

The latest models show 24 CAMM and no sonar... I wonder why they don't just transfer the 32 missile farm from the T23s over... I guess we'll have to wait and see...

12 not 24.

[Jensy]

The latest models show 24 CAMM and no sonar... I wonder why they don't just transfer the 32 missile farm from the T23s over... I guess we'll have to wait and see...

12 not 24.

I think John is referring to the large scale physical model from Amalgam which has either 24 CAMM, or 16 MK41.

The latest 'CGI' from Babcock does indeed have only 12 CAMM.

[Scimitar54]

12 on the Starboard side visible (2 x blocks of 6) and presumably another 2 x blocks on the Port side does seem to point to a total of, ahem, 24!

[andrew98]

Looks more like 2 x 6 =12. One block of 6 just offset port/starboard of centreline

[donald_of_tokyo]

Also see the first figure of the NavyLookout's article show below. It is official Babcock image. https://www.navylookout.com/type-31-fri ... -pandemic/

1x 57 mm gun,
2x 40 mm gun,
12x CAMM
1x Merlin-calable hangar
3x boat bays (reduced from original 4)
NS110 4D radar, no sonar, the 3 guns are operated by Mirador Mk.2 EO system = no radar-based FCS.

[Scimitar54]

The latest 'CGI' from Babcock does indeed have only 12 CAMM.

Image


Reference to another image, when this is the one referred to is irrelevant.