Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

What is the thinking (or have there been any images in circulation): is any of that boat space continuous, or is the CAMM intrusion cutting too much into the middle of it?

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.

Not necessarily a big loss within the given gun ranges... and can't be fooled by chaff

[Repulse]

We should call them the Pointless Class - suitable only to replace the forward based B2 River Class vessels in benign environments.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Or QuickHulls Class so that the pending hull numbers crisis in the surface fleet won't 'surface' for everyone to see
- the flexibility and upgrade-ability (together with the simplified maintenance arrangements that will be of great benefit while 'forward positioned') no doubt were big factors in driving the RN choice

[Tempest414]

We should call them the Pointless Class

If we are going down this rote then the two carrier are much more inline for this name as they are some 60% under full capability

Yes type 31 is under armed but for 150 million pounds all five ships could be fitted with one Mk-41 VLS allowing 32 CAMM to be carried plus 8 NSM allowing for OTH strike at sea or on land . this cost is based on the sale of 4 x Mk-41 systems to Finland for 70 million dollars this included the cost of logistics and training which we already have for type 26 and the cost to the US of 14.8 million dollars for a single NSM system that included 1 x fire control system deck launchers and 12 missiles. based on these figures the cost would 145 million dollars or 105 million pounds add 40 million for fitting and testing = 150 million

[Repulse]

If we are going down this rote then the two carrier are much more inline for this name as they are some 60% under full capability

Interesting, you say a class of ship capable (today with no additional cost) of operating fast jets and every helicopter in the UK’s arsenal as Pointless, and then go about how you can make the T31 a real warship if we spent more money on it.

This FFBNW fantasy is dangerous as the world will not wait till they are fitted. Also, by all means have a simple / flexible design that can be built in multiple shipyards, but the T31 isn’t it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I agree T31 is very lightly armed, I do not think it is so bad.

In RN, GP frigate are "invented" when T81 Sloop were renamed so. In other words, GP frigate is a long-range corvette, by definition, NOT a multi-purpose full-fat frigate.

In addition to T81 Tribal class, T21 class is a typical of GP frigate. It was with "a 114 mm gun, a quad SeaCat SAM, hull sonar, and a Lynx" in a 3600t hull. Its armament is typical of the corvettes of the day.

T31 is with "a 57 mm gun, 2x 40 mm guns, 12 CAMM, no sonar, and a Wildcat (Merlin capable)". Its armament is better than Al Khareef class corvettes, and broadly the same to Damen Sigma 10514 class light frigates/heavy corvettes (although inferior in ASW). Also, T31 is better than T21 in many (if not all) respects.

T31 inferior:
- T21 can do NGFS, but T31 are not required to (see T31 RFI). With modern tactics, I admit NGFS is of less important for a corvette.
- T21 has basic ASW capability (very basic), while T31 do not. Clearly it was not required, as adding a small hull sonar and AS torpedo is not so costy.

T31 superior:
- T21 SeaCat quad launcher was totally outdated even when it was commissioned. T31 SeaCeptor is brand new. Carrying "only" 12 missile is the same as many heavy corvettes. 114 mm gun is not much useful in AAW, while a 57 mm gun and 2x 40mm guns are much better.
- T21 close-in warfare relies on her 114 mm gun. Normal as in 1980 environment. But, in modern "gray-zone" theater, a 57 mm gun and 2x 40mm guns give much greater close-in defense against small fast surface threats.
- T31 was originally planned as 4000t vessel (see T31 RFI). Clearly it has large growth margins.

Again, its armaments is the same to 3600t French LaFayette class light frigates, which are tasked with similar duties. T31 is just 1.5 times larger than required (Babcock officially says so). It provides good sea keeping. Looking "very empty and lightly armed" is because of 1.5 times larger hull (which is good), not because of lesser armaments.

As such, T31 is "laser focussed" on being a Sloop (or a GP frigate), but with very very large hull. Its too large hull enables future up-arming, when required. However, any such up-arming needs additional money. And I think there are no such money left now. If any, it shall go to the City class = the most lightly armed T26 frigates, CVF (armed only with small guns), P-8 (9 is not efficient), F35 (integrate JSM and SPEAR3), and not T31. Only when UK decides to increase defense spending by ~30%, then yes, up-arming T31 will come in as a good option (after covering items listed above).

[donald_of_tokyo]

Some people say River B2 shall have been added with a helicopter hanger. Also some say it shall be up-armed. But, many of the 80-90m/2000t class OPV are struggling with low helicopter availability, and many modern 80-90m class OPVs now omits hanger (See Australian OPV, Japan Coast Guards OPV, and German corvettes). This is why T31 RFI required 110-120m long hull.

When reading through the T31 RFI, it was clear that T31 is exactly the assets to cover the tasks many here says shall be covered with "River B2 added with a helicopter hanger and up-armed".

RN was long using T23GP to cover GP tasks. This resulted in some T23s deploying without ASW crew, or even not carrying any SeaWolf SAM. Not needed. Of course, some tasks do need SAM. But, T31 has 12 CAMM SAM. Not sure GP frigates are tasked with ASW seriously. In short, T23GP is in general "over spec" as a Sloop (= GP frigate). When RN has many money, it is OK (original plan for T26 program included 5 T26 GPs !!). But, RN lack money and they need specialist GP-frigate = cheap to operate intensively with minimum level of armaments. RN will not (and shall not) send OPVs for these tasks. T31 is there to cover this.

In short, T31 is not useless.

I do not like T31. I still think it should have been 10 T26 and 3 "100+m class River B3" with hanger. But, the chance for it has gone in 2014. As a secondary choice, 8 T26 and 5 T31 as lightly armed as now, with 5 River B2 OPVs (as lightly equipped as now), looks NOT BAD to me. But of course, not optimal. This is what I mean.

[Repulse]

In short, T31 is not useless.

Agreed, but the money should have been spent more wisely as you nicely put below.

I do not like T31. I still think it should have been 10 T26 and 3 "100+m class River B3" with hanger.

Agreed, but let’s not make the same mistake with the T32.

[Tempest414]

Interesting, you say a class of ship capable (today with no additional cost) of operating fast jets and every helicopter in the UK’s arsenal as Pointless, and then go about how you can make the T31 a real warship if we spent more money on it.

Yes interesting that to bring even one of the carriers to full operating capability we will need to spend close to 1 billion pounds because we still need to buy and test the jets and aew helicopters needed so the point is as a class the carriers are only at 30% of there capability the same as the Type 45 70% , type 31 50% , type 26.60% To bring the both Carriers up to full combat capability we will need 80 F-35 , 16 AEW and 30 ASW Merlin so along way from no additional cost

[Poiuytrewq]

...many of the 80-90m/2000t class OPV are struggling with low helicopter availability, and many modern 80-90m class OPVs now omits hanger...

That's just the LOA the RB2's ended up being. Many designs could have been chosen, especially for the cost.

IMO the unbalanced escort fleet, slow delivery of the T26 programme and eye-watering costs associated with T23 LifeEx are all directly attributable to the RB2 procurement.

If the RB2's had of been 105m LOA with a hanger , the T31 programme would probably never have happened and RN would have in all likelihood recieved many more T26's.

[NickC]

Naval News reporting that the MBDA Italy have won first export contract for their new Albatros NG System (CAMM-ER), speculation its for the new Brazilian ~ 3,500t Tamandaré class , earlier provisional info had Sea Ceptors fitted. In February Egypt was the launch customer for the MBDA France VL MICA NG thought for Egyptian Gowind corvettes and the new MEKO A-200 frigates, both Albatros NG and MICA NG range ~40 km plus compared to Sea Ceptor/CAMM 25 km, statistically too small a sample to be significant but trend showing navies opting for longer range more expensive AA missiles?

PS Naval News also reported SEA/Cohort PLC awarded contract for its Triple Trainable Torpedo Launcher System for LWT's, again thought for Brazilian Tamandaré class

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ng-system/>

[donald_of_tokyo]

both Albatros NG and MICA NG range ~40 km plus compared to Sea Ceptor/CAMM 25 km, statistically too small a sample to be significant but trend showing navies opting for longer range more expensive AA missiles?

Interesting is the AL MICA NG approach. They shrunk the electronics part, and improved the motor to be dual-pulse. It can add second ignition wherever they want.
- against long range target: if boosted at the top of the ballistic trajectory, it can significantly increase the range
- against mid-range target: if boosted a few second before the engage, it can significantly increase its agility and hence kill area
- against short-range target: if boosted right after the main booster burn out, it can increase the speed to reach the target with shorter time
As MICA has similar in size with CAMM, I think making the CAMM booster dual-pulse is worth thinking.

[Tempest414]

As said before given what has been said about type 32 i.e 5 ships and the talk in 2019 when Babcock got type 31 of a follow on order it looks like we will be once again getting the wrong ship. We can only guess that type 32 will be in the 250 to 350 million price range for me the RN should be looking to spend this money better if we take a budget of 1.5 billion or 300 million per ship for type 32 this should be reworked with 250 million going to upgrade type 31 weapons fit plus a buy of 2 or 3 CAPAS-1 sonars capable of being moved between ships as needed using the mission deck under the flight deck. This would leave 1.25 billion for new ships which should be spent on 8 new 110 x 16 meter ships with

Scanter 4100 radar
M-Cube CMS
crew 50 plus 60 extra PAXs
2 x 40mm guns
hangar and flight deck for up to SH-60
25 meter covered and open working deck capable of operating all new and future USV/ UUV
speed 20 knots
cost 155 million

[inch]

Thinking about things , would probably just build more astutes if could than frigates( I know capacity a big issue on that one) , build a Trieste type ship and scrap Albions ,and just build 2 x13,k cruisers heavily armed for the carriers ,and forget type 31 and 32 , forget building just for showing the flag but useless ,we can't afford it now,for my two pennies worth right or wrongly ,thanks

[Poiuytrewq]

As said before given what has been said about type 32 i.e 5 ships and the talk in 2019 when Babcock got type 31 of a follow on order it looks like we will be once again getting the wrong ship. We can only guess that type 32...

We really don't know enough about the T32 yet to make a judgement yet but regardless, the overall balance of the fleet still looks suboptimal.

Personally I think improving the overall fleet balance is pretty straightforward from this point but it's now or never for the next two decades. RN must grasp the opportunity to get this right.

The T32 is a great idea if done right and a follow-up Absalon inspired design based on Arrowhead looks like a perfect option.

Understanding that the RB2's are at best a 'sticking plaster' solution to offset poor procurement decisions and keeping them firmly within the UK EEZ/Gibraltar/Falklands etc is now the best outcome.

Replacing the RB2's in the forward based global role with 5x 105m/110m RB3's or Leanders with a T31 armament level would make complete sense IMO.

Upgrading the 8 to 10 T31's and T32's to a T23 level of armament would again make complete sense IMO. Fully credible Frigates is what RN REALLY needs if the shooting starts.

Trying to squeeze out the 9th T26 must be a priority before attention turns to the T45 replacements.

This would give RN an optimal mix of high/low vessels along with an acceptable level of commonality.

5x RB2
5x RB3/Leander
8x or 10x T31 and T32
8x T26
6x T45

An escort fleet of 24 vessels backed up by a patrol fleet of 10 seems appropriate and affordable for the UK in the 21st century.

Just my opinion.

[Ron5]

As MICA has similar in size with CAMM, I think making the CAMM booster dual-pulse is worth thinking.

I was just reading an Italian document that I posted n the MBDA thread that says the CAMM-ER has this ability.

[RichardIC]

The T32 is a great idea if done right and a follow-up Absalon inspired design based on Arrowhead looks like a perfect option.

I just absolutely don't get what this thing is that some people have with the Absalons. Having a frigate-transport vessel hybrid is just weird. It does nothing well. The Danes didn't follow through with it and in nearly two decades it's been around no-one has gone with a similar concept.

[Poiuytrewq]

I just absolutely don't get what this thing is that some people have with the Absalons. Having a frigate-transport vessel hybrid is just weird. It does nothing well. The Danes didn't follow through with it and in nearly two decades it's been around no-one has gone with a similar concept.

We don't know enough about the T32 yet to debate it in detail but if it becomes a large multipurpose vessel with a Frigates speed, armament and damage control the Absalon design is a good place to start, mainly but not exclusively due to the commonality with Arrowhead. An updated Absalon with a higher degree of compartmentalisation for deploying ever larger and more complex systems would seem at least plausible.

Many other designs including the Damen Crossover may also prove to be suitable but at this stage we need more information on how RN intends to use the T32 before we can debate each designs pros and cons.

[Poiuytrewq]

Great news!

Appledore or Cammell Laird?

[dmereifield]

Great news!

Appledore or Cammell Laird?

Positive, sounds like there's a lot up in the air still with regards to design etc. The sooner we get it pinned down the better

[Jensy]

Great news!

Appledore or Cammell Laird?

My money would be on CL, due to the recent BAE link over Type 31. However there's been plenty of talk about Appledore getting work soon:



Had a certain frigate factory been built at Scotstoun, there might have been capacity to build them on the Clyde...

[tomuk]

Great news!

Appledore or Cammell Laird?

My money would be on CL, due to the recent BAE link over Type 31. However there's been plenty of talk about Appledore getting work soon:



Had a certain frigate factory been built at Scotstoun, there might have been capacity to build them on the Clyde...

Im not so sure about CL (Peel et al) their fingers were burnt with RRS Sir David. Ifrastrata H&W seem to want to prove themselves and John Wood their CEO is ex BAE

[Timmymagic]

Some people say River B2 shall have been added with a helicopter hanger. Also some say it shall be up-armed. But, many of the 80-90m/2000t class OPV are struggling with low helicopter availability, and many modern 80-90m class OPVs now omits hanger (See Australian OPV, Japan Coast Guards OPV, and German corvettes). This is why T31 RFI required 110-120m long hull.

This is true. We often see OPV's with helo hangars, but you have to wonder if they are fully equipped (for full maintenance) or little more than covered shelters as many of the navies concerned have barely enough naval helicopters to equip their main combatants.

But....it was disappointing that the B.2 did not include a collapsible hangar for use with a Wildcat sized helo or (more likely long term) a RUAS, or storage for a UAS, which have real utility for an OPV.

Truth is the RN's lessons from the Falklands around the need for decent sized helo decks and hangarage for every vessel of note was learnt in some respects (in the form of Chinook capable decks on T45 and T26, helo decks on OPV's following Castle Class experience) but simultaneously unlearnt with a number of major vessels with little aviation provision (looking at the Albion Class and Bay Class). There's also ships with a mis-match between deck and hangarage (the Tide Class with a comparatively small hangar in relation to an enormous helo deck).

[ArmChairCivvy]

mis-match between deck and hangarage (the Tide Class with a comparatively small hangar in relation to an enormous helo deck).

By the nature of their duties, they will be in the main in the immediate vicinity of a TF, and hence if they only carry one helo, the deck can be used to refuel/ rearm (?) many others while their 'home' is occupied with take offs/ landings.

[Scimitar54]

That’s a Deck Chair, not an Arm Chair!