Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

I am a fan of the Mk41 though try to be discreet, but the ExLS by itself allows far more rounds to be carried in the same amount of space if used just as a stand alone. Replacing the "Mushrooms" ahead of the MK41s on the T-26 would allow the area amidships to be used for something else is needed. It would allow the T-31e to carry more Sea Ceptor in less space as well. Sea Ceptor is already integrated into the ExLS so the cost increase in using it would be minimal and not having to fit Sea Ceptor amidships on the T-26/City would probably save money. Also the design change is very small at the front of the ship. The "Mushrooms" should end with the T-23.

[shark bait]

ExLS does not increase density.

See below, tightly packed, no ExLS required. The canister is a self contained launcher, there is no need to put a launcher inside another launcher. The only requirement is something to hold it upright.

[Jake1992]

ExLS does not increase density.

See below, tightly packed, no ExLS required. The canister is a self contained launcher, there is no need to put a launcher inside another launcher. The only requirement is something to hold it upright.

Using this system how many silos do you think we could fit say in the same space currently fill with the mushroom silos mid ship on the T26 ?

If ExLS is just putting this lurcher in another why is it classed as stand alone ? I was under the impression that the above idea was in relation to it being used with mk41

[matt00773]

There's an article on US effort to get commonality between the new frigates of UK, US, Canada and Australia. The story confusingly looks that the prospect of using a US Aegis combat system in each of the new frigates. They don't seem to realise Canada already developed their own CMS (CMS 330) and UK also have their own (CMS-1). I suspect commonality would be around standards and compliance of systems and how they integrate.

https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/navy-h ... canada-u-k

[Caribbean]

I think there's some confusion. There are two ways of using ExLs, one inside the Mk41 (to my mind, very much for the retrofit market, where you have an existing Mk41 and need some extra flexibility) and one as a stand-alone launcher. I believe the intention is for it to become a standard "smaller missile" VLS (either mounted in the same way as Mk41, or in a bolt-on above-deck enclosure).
As @SB's photos show (nice photos by the way), CAMM doesn't need much more than a rigid frame to support the missile launch canister, so ExLs is by no means essential.
However, the land and maritime environments are very different, so I would expect a naval version of the CAMM launcher to provide additional environmental protection. ExLs provides that, but it can also be provided in a cheaper and simpler fashion (ergo, the mushrooms). ExLs also provides the potential to handle additional type of munitions, in the same way as Mk41, but currently only 3 missile types and 1 decoy (Nulka) have been certified for use with it (and one of the missiles has never gone into production). ExLs also has the ability to handle hot-launch missiles, but CAMM doesn't need that feature.
My personal feeling is that it's a very nice technical solution, but it hasn't yet made it to the point where it has critical mass, so the RN is probably being sensible in hedging its bets by sticking with the simple T23-style launchers, for now. If additional land-attack/ ASuW missiles are certified for use with ExLs, then I think the decision could well be re-evaluated. A lot may happen before the first T26 (or T31) goes into service and I suspect that inserting ExLs in lieu of the "mushrooms" would be a relatively simple task, that could be done quite late on in the build.

[donald_of_tokyo]

ExLS does not increase density.

See below, tightly packed, no ExLS required. The canister is a self contained launcher, there is no need to put a launcher inside another launcher. The only requirement is something to hold it upright.

I understand, ExLS is exactly this tube, with front door. I do not care if it is ExLS or not, but as densely as packed as shown in ExLS (of course without Mk.41) or this LandCeptor launcher is better to have. This is whole my point.

I understand my pushing ExLS has no conflict with Sharkbait-san's counter arguments, because it is "similarly" densely packed. If we need such "door" (ExLS) or more simpler approach can take place is another story, I don't care. Both is surely high density than the mushrooms.

And, simply because Mk.41 reduces this density, I do not like ExLS to be combined with Mk.41. No thanks. (Actually ESSM will win, in that case for export).

[Lord Jim]

My primary issue is that the RN should not pursue the installation if "Mushroom" launchers for the Sea Ceptor fitted to the T-26 and T-31e. Using ExLS increases the number of rounds each vessel could carry, in both cases at least doubling the number for the same amount of space. ExLS also offers flexibility, able to deploy decoys now and will probably have more options in the future. Four three cell standalone ExLS launchers take up the same space a one Mk41. Given the Hunter class has shown there is space for a forth Mk41 on the T-26 instead of the 24 "Mushrooms", the City class currently have, replacing the latter would allow the City class to carry 48 Sea Ceptor in the same space, but the design can probably handle a further two stand alone ExLS launcher in the same position bring the Sea Ceptor loadout to 72.

Now if the Land Ceptor Launcher could be adapted to carry one or two of the three cell ExLS its loadout would increase from eight to between twelve or even twenty four. Just thinking outside the box.

[tomuk]

Mk41 VLS = 8 cells
Sea Ceptor can be quad packed in Mk41 using ExLS as host/adapter. Therefore 32 Sea Ceptor per Mk41.

I think the 2x 24 cell 'mushroom' launchers on Type 26 should be replaced with Mk41 giving 5 Mk41 = 40 cells instead of 24.
These can then be loaded with Sea Ceptor (using ExLS adapter), Tomahawks, ASROC, future ASW missiles etc. as appropriate. If fully loaded with Sea Ceptor that would give you 160 missiles.

Type 31e should also have Mk41 and the space allocated on the type 45 should used for 2x Mk41.

Mk41 gives the greatest flexibility.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Mk41 gives the greatest flexibility.

Indeed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Mk41 VLS = 8 cells
Sea Ceptor can be quad packed in Mk41 using ExLS as host/adapter. Therefore 32 Sea Ceptor per Mk41.

I think the 2x 24 cell 'mushroom' launchers on Type 26 should be replaced with Mk41 giving 5 Mk41 = 40 cells instead of 24.
These can then be loaded with Sea Ceptor (using ExLS adapter), Tomahawks, ASROC, future ASW missiles etc. as appropriate. If fully loaded with Sea Ceptor that would give you 160 missiles.

Type 31e should also have Mk41 and the space allocated on the type 45 should used for 2x Mk41.

Mk41 gives the greatest flexibility.

No objection. The only reason I am posting against Mk.41 is, there is not enough money.

T31e is even struggling to carry 12 CAMM (noted in RFI as "SAM" or "CIWS+SAM(FFBMW)"), just because of its very tight cost cap. As installing CAMM in Mk.41 VLS needs "ExLS adaptor", while you need a good maintenance for Mk41 itself, including the seldom used "exhaust door/openings", I am just pushing stand-alone ExLS, which is light-weight, simple structure and thus cheaper than Mk41, and much cheaper than Mk.41 with ExLS-adaptor.

Since introduction of ExLS will need cost (need to pay development cost for LM/MBDA), even "12-24 CAMM in mushroom tubes" is "OK" for me, if we can arm all 5 T31e with SeaCeptor system.

So, my push is
1: let's mount 12-24 CAMM on all 5 T31e.
2: if money is left, let's make it ExLS with 24 CAMM (+24 FFBNW) on 5 T31e.
3: if further money is left, let's replace 48 mushrooms on (at least) 3 initial T26 with ExLS (48 CAMM + 144 FFBNW)
4: if even further money is left, let's locate Mk.41 with ExLS-adopter version in place,

Because I think we are struggling for even "1", my answer is "we do not need Mk.41".
Not meaning Mk41 is useless.

[Lord Jim]

I have come around to he fact that the three cell stand alone ExLS id probably the best launch system for the Sea Ceptor for both the T-26 and T-31e. It has been cleared for use with Sea Ceptor so there would be no developmental costs for the UK and it would improve the density of the Sea Ceptor loadout on both classes.

I Still think we should have at least one eight cell Mk31 on the T-31e though, ideally Tactical length.

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, completely agree on 12-24 CAMM reusing the current launcher for any MHPC/Light Frigate, unless I’ve missed the MDP and it’s double the Navy budget? Even then I’d being pushing more T26s, more SSNs and a 3rd CVF first

[Dahedd]

donald_of_tokyo, completely agree on 12-24 CAMM reusing the current launcher for any MHPC/Light Frigate, unless I’ve missed the MDP and it’s double the Navy budget? Even then I’d being pushing more T26s, more SSNs and a 3rd CVF first

Rather 2 or 3 LHD than a 3rd QE class

[Timmymagic]

I have come around to he fact that the three cell stand alone ExLS id probably the best launch system for the Sea Ceptor for both the T-26 and T-31e.

It would be nice if Brimstone 2 or Spear were actually integrated to EXLS as well.

[ArmChairCivvy]

nice if Brimstone 2

By now we are starting to leave the silos practically empty: the smallest missile that has gained consensus so far is CAMM
- at 3.2m (ER longer)
- and Brimstone 1.8m

Some variety of Stalin Organ design, brimming with Brimstones, might be more economical with space (and you could sprinkle them around the superstructure (it is hot launch, after all) to compensate for the directional neutrality advantage that the VL-method achieves.

[Rambo]

Perhaps it is an eye opener that the RRS Sir David Attenborough, a large semi complex research ship is being built for approx 150m. What is also interesting is that it has been less than 2 years from the keel being laid to the hull launch. I believe she is expected to be in service in 2019. Type 26 i guess is far more complex. But we are expecting the build time to be almost triple that of the Polar vessel and at an astronomical price in comparison. Based on the experience at CL maybe the MOD realise they can get a decent frigate for 250m with a short build time. But only time will tell.

[Poiuytrewq]

Perhaps it is an eye opener that the RRS Sir David Attenborough, a large semi complex research ship is being built for approx 150m.

It's great value for money and built in Britain too!

The comparison between the RRS SDA and T26 is difficult due to them being totally different propositions but one thing it does prove is that with good management UK shipbuilding can be competitive once again.

[Simon82]

It’s a shame Cammell Laird wasn’t building the Type 26s in parallel with BAe. It’d add an element of competition and put more hulls in the water faster. Perhaps the government could use the Type 31 budget to explore that option...

[NickC]

Farnborough - Leonardo/L3/Ultra are combining to better to compete against Thales FLASH in the ASW Helicopter / UAV market with dipping sonar and/or sonobuoys, its light weight so able to fit to lower powered future UAV's.

Leonardo will be supplying new 6.5 kg very lightweight Ultra-Light Sonics Enhanced System (ULISSES), a development of the Selex ES OTS-90 sonics suite, able to process collect data from the dipping sonar and multiple sonobuoys, multistatic, and combine data to develop an in-depth under sea picture.

L3 supplying the dipping sonars HELRAS or FIREFLY, HELRAS a low frequency 1.4 kHz sonar, lower than FLASH, has a track record of orders e.g. Chile AS532SC, Italian EH101, Canadian CH-148s, can operate at 500 m weighs 325 kg, whereas the FIREFLY is lighter a development of the AQS-18A a mid frequency sonar.

Ultra supplying its new generation miniaturised 12" sonobuoys, same dia as standard sonobuoy, but are two-thirds shorter than standard 36" long sonobuoys. Active and pasive for multistatic operation, Ultra is the only company to provide miniaturised sonobuoys fitted for multistatic operation, suitable for small UAV applications.

PS USN has had major development issues with its P-8A Multi-static Active Coherent senor system, MAC, active and passive sonobuoys, multistatic , with the LM acoustic processing and aircraft mission computer software suite, software problems and has had to develop a new more powerful active sonobuoy.

[donald_of_tokyo]

"Royal Navy Type 31e frigate programme abruptly suspended – but not dead in the water"
by savetheroyalnavy site.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/type-3 ... suspended/

[inch]

Shame not dead in water becouse now think will only be downgraded to khareef type of affair ie lets not step up to the plate lets downgrade even further and do a load of spin

[serge750]

I was thinking would it be that bad if we only got 4 or 5 shorter legged Khareef type patrol frigates/corvettes ??? one for uk instant reaction and one permanently stationed in the far east, one supporting fellow NATO forces in the med...then the T45/26 supporting the CVBG and higher risk tasks...in a ideal world I would have all T26/45 but bean counters rule

[dmereifield]

I was thinking would it be that bad if we only got 4 or 5 shorter legged Khareef type patrol frigates/corvettes ??? one for uk instant reaction and one permanently stationed in the far east, one supporting fellow NATO forces in the med...then the T45/26 supporting the CVBG and higher risk tasks...in a ideal world I would have all T26/45 but bean counters rule

What would a UK spec Khareef look like?

[inch]

A couple of yoghurt. Cartons with string attached a pop gun a bow and arrow and a for long rang engagements a slingshot

[inch]

Oh and if things get a bit sticky with the enemy a red postbox that pops out of the bow to post strongly worded letters to the opposing foe