Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote:The Type 26 CAMM VLS is not fitted to anything.

P.S. try not to be a smart ass.
T23
@LandSharkUK

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 »

Another example for CAMM launcher. ExLS, from navyrecognition. (it is of 2015/9 report)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EurneHA4wzs

- Note it is for CAMM (no mention of CAMM-ER), but does not mean cannot hold it
- it is for 3 quad = 12 cell. Another example CAMM is designed for 12 xN units, 12, 24, 36, 48 and further.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ExLS is not long enough in its current form for CAMM-ER plus it would be ridiculously over engineered for the job of a full time CAMM VLS.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

with uture escort plans there needs to be a realistic long term manpower plan with extra posts to provide spare capicity

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

Bungling Defence Minister's "ludicrous" claim of "more ships and planes than ever" utterly demolished
A blundering Defence Minister stands accused of insulting Britain’s servicemen and women over a “ludicrous” claim the Government is giving the military more ships, planes and equipment than ever.

Bungling Tory Harriett Baldwin made the “outlandish” statement as she updated MPs over new Royal Navy vessels.

But a former Shadow Defence Minister today demolishes the claim by highlighting huge Conservative cuts to the Armed Forces since 2010.

Toby Perkins wrote to Ms Baldwin outlining a 41% reduction in main battle tanks, 19% reduction in armoured personnel carriers and how RAF fighters and bombers have been have been slashed by almost a third.

She triggered the row after telling the Commons this week: “We are in the process of providing our Armed Forces with more ships, more aircraft and more equipment than ever before.”

But Labour MP Mr Perkins used the Government’s own Strategic Defence and Security Review, published last November, to rip the claim to shreds.

He pointed to a 17% reduction in the number of submarines, 29% reduction fighter/ground attack aircraft and a 100% reduction in the number of maritime patrol aircraft after Nimrod spy planes were scrapped.

His letter, seen by the Mirror, tells Ms Baldwin: “To put your outlandish claim in a historical context, during World War 2 the British Army lost more tanks in a single month then we currently possess, the Naval task force sent to the Falkland Islands in 1982 had 17 destroyers and 38 frigates (the SDSR 2015 shows we now have just 19 of these two class of vessels combined).

“In 1990 we had 33 fighter squadrons, the SDSR confirms we now have 8.

“Even after the reduced order of Type 26 frigates and F35 fighter jets arrive we will have nothing like the number of ships or aircraft we have held in the past.”

Admiral Lord Nelson’s Navy at Trafalgar in 1805 sent 33 ships into battle.

And a century ago, Britain's Grand Fleet at the Battle of Jutland - the biggest naval clash of the Second World War - was 151 strong.

Now, it has just six Type 45 destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates.

The frigates are due to be replaced by just eight, similar Type 26 ships and vague plans for five “lighter” frigates.

Accusing Ms Baldwin Tory of being “loose with the facts”, Mr Perkins told her: “The reality is that, under the Government you have been a member of, we actually have fewer warships and aircraft than ever before.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bu ... ar_twitter

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Apparently BMT are offering a strike length VLS option for the Venator 110.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/venator ... t-frigate/

I didn't notice that before, in fact, I think some of the earlier designs/concepts explicitly ruled out strike length VLS

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Good spot, Strike Length VLS hasn't been included before. The author says; "This comes from information made available to us by BMT, information that will be made public soon."

Sounds like they're developing the top level design now its clear there is a demand for a Light Frigate.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

dmereifield wrote:Apparently BMT are offering a strike length VLS option for the Venator 110.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/venator ... t-frigate/

I didn't notice that before, in fact, I think some of the earlier designs/concepts explicitly ruled out strike length VLS
Before reading the article and seeing the pictures I was going to say to take UKDJ articles with a pinch of salt, but it seems legitimate enough. I've checked BMT's website and datasheet for the Venator-110 and they still haven't updated it, but the article's author states in the comments that BMT will be making information public soon.

Were the general purpose frigate meant to be the old C2 global cruiser (role, not size) ship, I could see the merit in strike length VLS but as it seems to be a concept driven only by cost, it might be better to do without it. Still, good to see there's options and flexibility. Still believe they should stretch the hull a bit.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

The three new images from BMT show different options:
•6 cells for 24 sea ceptor, or
•12 cells for 48 sea ceptor, or
•6 cells for 24 sea ceptor and 8 strike length VLS cells.

What this really shows is that BMT (along with everyone else) doesn't yet know what are the customer's key requirements.

Personally I would go with the 12 cell 48 sea ceptor option, with the hope that a sea Spear 3 missile might one day also be available for use in some of these cells.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Aethulwulf wrote:Personally I would go with the 12 cell 48 sea ceptor option, with the hope that a sea Spear 3 missile might one day also be available for use in some of these cells.
Yep, sounds good, a naval cold launched Spear is defiantly worth exploring, as is CAMMs capability against small surface craft. 48 mixed Anti-air, surface and land attack missiles would be a valuable outcome.

Would then look towards 8 deck launched cruise missiles for anti ship and land attack, that would put it at a good point on the cost vs capability curve.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Is it significantly more expensive to add the 8 strike length VLS over the 24 CAMM silos? It would surely be the safer and more flexible approach to go with the strike length option since missiles/torpedos are already available. They could also take the CAMM and any land/surface attack derivatives, if developed in future, if required.

Would probably be more desirable for export also?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

thought the purpose of Type31 was at this stage to provide work for BeE's ship design office......Doesnt buying a design frim BMT kinda defeat the object of part of the exercise?

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Good to see BMT further maturing the Venator concept and, importantly, seemingly taking the initiative when it comes to making the T31 concept as credible as possible.

Would be interesting to see if BMT has made any changes on the ASW front. TASS was always a pursuable option for the Venator design, that much has been made clear, but it'd be interesting to see if they start to present a more ASW optimised version of the vessel as the their T31 submission.

If they are responding to anticipated lethality requirements, then there is at least a chance they are working on other aspects of the ship's combat capability too.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The Venator does seem to be the most credible out of the concepts we've seen so far, but I'm not convinced it can be classed as a credible combatant without a capability against subs.

The purpose of the T31 is not to maintain BeE's ship design office, in fact there are rumours the Royal Navy would like to dislodge BAE's position and separate the build and design office. The purpose of the T31 is solely to be cheaper than the T26.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:The Venator does seem to be the most credible out of the concepts we've seen so far, but I'm not convinced it can be classed as a credible combatant without a capability against subs.
Would a HMS, ASROC (up to 8) and a merlin sized hangar (not sure what the hangar size is for the 110?) be sufficiently credible?

I wonder if the T31 is seen to be too ASW capable (even though it won't be quiet), might the bean counters in the treasury push to reduce the T26 numbers and offset with increased T31s....

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by imperialman »

GibMariner wrote:Before reading the article and seeing the pictures I was going to say to take UKDJ articles with a pinch of salt, but it seems legitimate enough.
Interesting, why do you say that?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

dmereifield wrote:Would a HMS, ASROC (up to 8) and a merlin sized hangar (not sure what the hangar size is for the 110?) be sufficiently credible?

I wonder if the T31 is seen to be too ASW capable (even though it won't be quiet), might the bean counters in the treasury push to reduce the T26 numbers and offset with increased T31s....
Hull mounted sonars aren't much good for detecting subs, take or leave ASROC, Merlin is excellent, an anything less than a Merlin capable facilities in unacceptable.

To be effective against subs it needs to be towing something to listen for subs without interference, and then it needs a helicopter to go and explore that contact, and possibly sink it.

T31 could be quiet enough at slow speeds to be effective against subs if it has diesel electric propulsion, it will however become ineffective much sooner than the T26 as speed increases thanks to the T26's advanced optimizations.

I don't think the T31 could be seen at too ASW capable, at present the plan is to replace 13 ASW capable frigates with 8 ASW frigates. What it would be doing is properly replacing the T23.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

imperialman wrote: Interesting, why do you say that?
It's just that at times they don't seem very reliable. For example, after the SDSR they insisted for a while that nothing had changed with the frigate plans, that the general purpose frigate would be a stripped down Type 26 etc. At other times, they seem to just post clickbait articles, or repost their own articles from a while back with one or two amendments.

Nothing against them and bravo to them for getting news out there and attempting to raise defence issues, particularly in chasing a scoop like this directly through BMT - something established mainstream media and journalists seem mostly incapable of doing.

shark bait wrote: Hull mounted sonars aren't much good for detecting subs, take or leave ASROC, Merlin is excellent, an anything less than a Merlin capable facilities in unacceptable.

To be effective against subs it needs to be towing something to listen for subs without interference, and then it needs a helicopter to go and explore that contact, and possibly sink it.

T31 could be quiet enough at slow speeds to be effective against subs if it has diesel electric propulsion, it will however become ineffective much sooner than the T26 as speed increases thanks to the T26's advanced optimizations.

I don't think the T31 could be seen at too ASW capable, at present the plan is to replace 13 ASW capable frigates with 8 ASW frigates.
I've been in agreement with you for a while that the general purpose frigate should have some ASW capability in order to be a credible and useful vessel - if not it would be cheaper to just grind out a few more Rivers to an enhanced BAM-like design and strap on a few CAMM.

I'd also agree Merlin capability should be a must-have (whether there are enough Merlins to go on it is another matter). Some space should also be reserved for a towed array, even if not fitted - perhaps this space could be used to operate future ASW USVs which might be more useful in a littoral environment, give them a recycled 4.5 inch gun from the Type 23s (IMO with a view to move all escorts to 5 inch) and they could have a more valuable wartime role.

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by imperialman »

GibMariner wrote:
imperialman wrote: Interesting, why do you say that?
It's just that at times they don't seem very reliable. For example, after the SDSR they insisted for a while that nothing had changed with the frigate plans, that the general purpose frigate would be a stripped down Type 26 etc. At other times, they seem to just post clickbait articles, or repost their own articles from a while back with one or two amendments.
Thanks for the feedback, will take it on-board and try and improve the quality of headlines and limit reposting of older content. In our defence however, the idea of a stripped down T26 is what we were told by a friend at Scotstoun and that admittedly does now seem to have been incorrect.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Would a HMS, ASROC (up to 8) and a merlin sized hangar (not sure what the hangar size is for the 110?) be sufficiently credible?

I wonder if the T31 is seen to be too ASW capable (even though it won't be quiet), might the bean counters in the treasury push to reduce the T26 numbers and offset with increased T31s....
Hull mounted sonars aren't much good for detecting subs, take or leave ASROC, Merlin is excellent, an anything less than a Merlin capable facilities in unacceptable.

To be effective against subs it needs to be towing something to listen for subs without interference, and then it needs a helicopter to go and explore that contact, and possibly sink it.

T31 could be quiet enough at slow speeds to be effective against subs if it has diesel electric propulsion, it will however become ineffective much sooner than the T26 as speed increases thanks to the T26's advanced optimizations.

I don't think the T31 could be seen at too ASW capable, at present the plan is to replace 13 ASW capable frigates with 8 ASW frigates. What it would be doing is properly replacing the T23.
Thanks for the explanation. Is a HMS not at least useful when the ship is static, say at a choke point or when the task force is static? Or perhaps in the littorals when the towed gear is impractical?

Under such conditions what is the theoretical detection range of a HMS such as the 2050 or MFS-7000? I know there are many variables but there are advertised indicative figures for the towed sonars - are there some ballpark figures for HMSs?

Lastly, is it technically challenging to transfer the HMSs from the GP T23s, and to provide a design to accommodate them into say the Cutlass or 110?

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

imperialman wrote: Thanks for the feedback, will take it on-board and try and improve the quality of headlines and limit reposting of older content. In our defence however, the idea of a stripped down T26 is what we were told by a friend at Scotstoun and that admittedly does now seem to have been incorrect.
Hope it helps improve the quality & credibility of your work.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
the purpose of the T31 is not to maintain BeE's ship design office, in fact there are rumours the Royal Navy would like to dislodge BAE's position and separate the build and design office. The purpose of the T31 is solely to be cheaper than the T26.
Be nice to go back to something akin to the "Bretheran of Bath

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

dmereifield wrote:Thanks for the explanation. Is a HMS not at least useful when the ship is static, say at a choke point or when the task force is static? Or perhaps in the littorals when the towed gear is impractical?

Under such conditions what is the theoretical detection range of a HMS such as the 2050 or MFS-7000? I know there are many variables but there are advertised indicative figures for the towed sonars - are there some ballpark figures for HMSs?

Lastly, is it technically challenging to transfer the HMSs from the GP T23s, and to provide a design to accommodate them into say the Cutlass or 110?
The performance of the hull sonar degrades much quicker with speed than a towed sonar, so it's will be more useful when static, but how often is a task group static?

In the littorals I am told its most effective to go active and the best way to do that is with lots of sonobuoys so you're not broadcasting you're location within a vulnerable environment.

I was told the effective range of a modern hull sonar is around 20k, but of course that's highly variable. It's why ASROC hsd a similar range, it was developed to work will a hull sonar, and as towed sonars became more popular with greater detection ranges tactics changed to use helicopters instead of rockers.

It should be fully possible to integrate the sonar from the T23 onto a new T31 platform, its makes good sense to do so.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

So, if this Venator-110 will have 1 Mk41 and say 24 CAMMs, isn't it better to simply cancel Type 26 and start building them instead?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/venator ... t-frigate/
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 »

marktigger wrote:
shark bait wrote:
the purpose of the T31 is not to maintain BeE's ship design office, in fact there are rumours the Royal Navy would like to dislodge BAE's position and separate the build and design office. The purpose of the T31 is solely to be cheaper than the T26.
Be nice to go back to something akin to the "Bretheran of Bath
The Bretheran didn't go anywhere, they re-emerged as BMT. Doing OK for themselves.

Post Reply