https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... l-warship/
One interesting paragraph that stood out,
Also good to hear that the new economies of scale within the T26 programme will help to drive down costs for RN's T26's.
We say this a lot, meanwhile we have Mach 3 missiles that can target much smaller objects moving much faster than a ship. Targeting might have been an issue in the 90's but it doubt it is today.NickC wrote:Supersonic AShM appear to the becoming the norm, as always targeting is the big unknown to make a AShM an effective weapon system.
Targeting vs. homing?shark bait wrote:Targeting might have been an issue in the 90's but it doubt it is today
Very dubious targeting is easy for an AShM to attack enemy ship at 100 to 200nm distance way beyond range of surface radar.shark bait wrote:We say this a lot, meanwhile we have Mach 3 missiles that can target much smaller objects moving much faster than a ship. Targeting might have been an issue in the 90's but it doubt it is today.NickC wrote:Supersonic AShM appear to the becoming the norm, as always targeting is the big unknown to make a AShM an effective weapon system.
A good post, but where did you get the above (part of it) from? How long is the delay on a satellite phone (OK, it is relay only... add a couple of seconds )NickC wrote:Reconnaissance satellites, if not under attack in space, will take time to get target coordinates to ship to launch AShM, if comms not jammed, guessing an hour if everything working perfectly
Would expect in first few days the Chinese/Russians would target the relatively few in number of the large US reconnaissance, GPS, comms satellites as they are very vulnerable to attack, there have been USAF classified launches that are speculated to be anti-satellites systems to try to counter Chinese/Russian threat, the other possibility is the ground stations would be targeted, shades of early German attacks on Home Chain radars. Trump was/is pushing for a US Space Command equivalent to Air Force, Army and Navy Commands but looks uncertain at moment.ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good post, but where did you get the above (part of it) from? How long is the delay on a satellite phone (OK, it is relay only... add a couple of seconds )NickC wrote:Reconnaissance satellites, if not under attack in space, will take time to get target coordinates to ship to launch AShM, if comms not jammed, guessing an hour if everything working perfectly
Don't know is the answer, the 'common' Mach 5 hypersonic missiles have seen under development are boost and glide to fixed point targets. First thoughts if hypersonic missile at only 2,000m and Mach 5 the heat generated flying though the atmosphere at that height would be massive and would radar be able to transmit and receive though a nose cone necessarily built to take that degree of heat? If possible diameter of the antenna would determine search area, the larger diameter of missile the hotter it will get, it would certainly drastically cut down the area search for vessel but is it feasible?Lord Jim wrote:Out of interest, what would be the search coverage would the seeker head on a Mach 5 missile at say 2000m altitude?
With the proliferation of satellites owned by possible hostile nations, and greatly improved data transfer security and speed, once identified how far could a target move in the time it would take such a Mach 5 AShM to travel say 300nm, and would the target be inside the above weapons seeker envelope as given in the answer to the first question?
Simple question:Lord Jim wrote:What it does show is that rather then try to turn the T-31e in to a true escort or as near to one as possible, we should stick to the RFI and build them as you described, namely as patrol frigates
In war case, not all enemy is “peer”. So your comment lack huge amount of cases, in between HADR and peer on peer conflict.Poiuytrewq wrote:What use are patrol frigates in the 21st century?
OTT for chasing pirates, little use in major HADR situations and a floating target in a peer on peer conflict.
Yes they make up the numbers and the treasury like them because they are cheap but are there better options?
A good approach. The French shipbuilder built a GoWind off their own back and then the navy just provided the crew to sail it around as a year-long defence expo. Can't remember where that particular ship ended up (sales have been good!) but a totally riskless exercise: should nothing come out of it, the navy will have saved one year's worth of CAPEX for something else, to cover uregent shortfalls maybe if they have any over there. They were buying some anyway, and would get the ship ' with a full service record, with a careful owner'.Lord Jim wrote:build the fifth with greater warfighting capability without going overboard. This would be a showcase of what the platform can be in the flesh and a great advising tool for tempting possible customers.
The approach with multiple scenarios (that I outlined on the Rivers thread) would provide the answer - and also quantify the 'optimal' fleet mix, with the same botherPoiuytrewq wrote:What use are patrol frigates in the 21st century?
Looks like the question was asked twice: also by Repulse on the Rivers thread. Further tosome thoughts on how Patrol Frigates sit in between OPVs and Frigates (I won't say full-fat, as it seems that we all have a different interpretation ):
https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097943/ ... AJun13.pdf
It’s is this that continually gets the MoD into situations where its budget continually goes out of control spreads resources too thinly and stretches people and usually requires draconian action to remedy. The MoD and the services have an agreed budget and it is a multi year budget. You can make up any number of scenerios where you “need” 40 warships 30 fastjet sqns and 2 armoured divisions or the like and then say fund them or we’re not be serious about defence but it’s all backwards.Lord Jim wrote:We all agree that the RN needs more true warships, but with resources spread thin over the MoD's procurement plans, and the chance that the Treasury will have a major change of heart at the next CSR being slim to none, any increase in the programme budget for the T-31e is unlikely.
I agree with everything you've just said but the problem is the politians, they set budget then expect the RN and other services to do a lot more than the budget allows.SW1 wrote:It’s is this that continually gets the MoD into situations where its budget continually goes out of control spreads resources too thinly and stretches people and usually requires draconian action to remedy. The MoD and the services have an agreed budget and it is a multi year budget. You can make up any number of scenerios where you “need” 40 warships 30 fastjet sqns and 2 armoured divisions or the like and then say fund them or we’re not be serious about defence but it’s all backwards.Lord Jim wrote:We all agree that the RN needs more true warships, but with resources spread thin over the MoD's procurement plans, and the chance that the Treasury will have a major change of heart at the next CSR being slim to none, any increase in the programme budget for the T-31e is unlikely.
The government and more importantly the MoD needs to prioritise tasks allocate resource and move on. The RN has 2 core requirements provide a continuous at sea deterrent and provide a permanentlay available carrier strike group. For this the RN has more than sufficent true warships.
We may wish to be able to do more than that we may have a budget and assets that currently allow us to do more than that. But when you prioritise tasks you go down the list until you budget with sufficent contingency runs out. At that point you either ask for more money and if the answer is there is none, then you say beyond that these tasks cannot be completed. It’s not hard but you need a hard nosed attitude to do it.
I used to see value in this argument also, but I think the world has changed and will do so more over the next few years, in that behind every non peer nation we are in conflict with will be a peer (Russia or China) who will be playing a modern version of the “great game”. This means we should expect the proliferation of “peer technology” in almost all future conflicts.donald_of_tokyo wrote:In war case, not all enemy is “peer”. So your comment lack huge amount of cases, in between HADR and peer on peer conflict.
Quite!Lord Jim wrote:be looking towards is what will replace the T-26 on the slipways in the late 2030s when the T-26s are all finished
Yes, but there is only one year behind us when the mgt of their EP slice has been delegated to the Commands.SW1 wrote: the services have an agreed budget and it is a multi year budget.
Littoral manoeuvre is the third one (CEPP fully operational in 2026; the definition for what that is I haven't seen yet), but it is often omitted or counted as a half as without carrier support it is/ will be very limitedSW1 wrote:The RN has 2 core requirements provide a continuous at sea deterrent and provide a permanentlay available carrier strike group. For this the RN has more than sufficent true warships.
That is the point I have often made: the 'political' interface is badly constructedSW1 wrote:if the answer is there is none, then you say beyond that these tasks cannot be completed
I guess the question is rhetorical, and so is the answer: none otherLord Jim wrote:What classification would people give the T-31e beyond "Patrol Frigate", if they are, as is most likely, built to the RFI so few if any Sea Ceptor, no Sonar, no AShMs, Simplified electronics