Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[anglocanuck]

Seeking information and views, I notice that the length to beam ratio of type 23 and 26 seems to be about 7.5/8 to 1 however I also note that the Type 22s were lengthened until by batch 3 the ratio was about 10:1. It seems that 10:1 was about the ratio for destroyers and cruisers in WWI and WWII (just my observation).

I have also read the comment that an old class did not have the beam to operate a larger helicopter.

Am I right in deducing that modern RN frigates have got shorter relative to their beam (to accommodate a helicopter on a shorter platform) and is my suspicion that a longer ship with the same beam would perform better at sea reasonable ... or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[ArmChairCivvy]

is my suspicion that a longer ship with the same beam would perform better at sea reasonable ... or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Or is it (the California surf-boy LCSs aside) that speed on its own has less battle relevance now, when getting either guns or torps to bear (into range) is rather secondary (subs omitted)?
- the sphere of influence is so vastly enlarged
- in carrier TFs speed is also a defensive weapon; so all vessels with a primary road in any kind of defence will need to ba able to keep up. Others can catch up 'at leisure'.
- the other exception (ie. where speed can still be primary) is broken up archipelagos and similar littorals: if detection range is reduced, then the importance of your weapons' range is also reduced (in defending. Hiding, and then launching out to a hundred km or more sounds good to me)

[shark bait]

B2 River with 4 of these and AW Hero UAV could patrol and enforce an area the size of the bay of Biscay

Some extremely dubious assumptions there, further more what makes that a good idea? I think this is manufacturing a problem for you to solve.

Back in reality, this is what patrol aircraft are for. Except aircraft can cover an area ten times larger, ten times quicker and with a quarter of the man power, so the River + Drones solves a problem that doesn't exit.

Sea Hunter is 40m, and I’d expect any long distance passive ASW USV to be a similar size.

Brilliant as a development platform, but operationally not feasible.

It'll have to be way bigger to be all weather capable, and then even bigger again to be able to defend itself. It'll balloon and end up costing the same as a frigate, which I think voids the whole concept.

The best thing to do is to put it underwater, keeping it safe from the weather and the enemy (which is exactly what I think the navy are doing).

[ArmChairCivvy]

so the River + Drones solves a problem that doesn't exit.

While I broadly agree, is manned SAR at the edges of our responsibility zone a related/ a sub- problem?

[Tempest414]

Some extremely dubious assumptions there, further more what makes that a good idea? I think this is manufacturing a problem for you to solve.

I am not going into this again but it was a point of area covered not the place or tactics

Back in reality, this is what patrol aircraft are for. Except aircraft can cover an area ten times larger, ten times quicker and with a quarter of the man power, so the River + Drones solves a problem that doesn't exit.

So why is the RN doing it then they must be looking to solving a problem they don't have

The best thing to do is to put it underwater, keeping it safe from the weather and the enemy (which is exactly what I think the navy are doing).

Yep first get the 30 meter UUV's working for ASW then maybe look to use some as loyal wing-men for the SSBN's / SSN's

[shark bait]

So why is the RN doing it then

They're not. The Drone-RIB is a BAE demonstration.

[Tempest414]

The RN are testing the puma UAV from a River B2 right now and USV,s are also being tested for deployment from all RN ships including the B2's . the B2 has been seen a Pac-950 on it wast point ( not the drone one)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting discussion.

Today, I think trial is essentially important.

1: RHIB USV can steam in much harsh weather with much longer endurance than manned RHIB can (because it is tireless). But, to what extent? How can it be recovered in bad sea state? Trial is needed. But, a tireless USB RHIB "sentry" steaming around the port, or intercepting nearing (similarly small) speed boats in Holmes strait, can be easily imagined.

2: Small submarine like UUV for ASW can slowly cruise around deep water. If properly designed, it can replace the tasks SURTASS ships were doing in 1990s. But, it is unlikely to be able to follow not only CVTF, but even RFA logistic flotilla, nor merchant shippings.

3: I personally think a half-submerged UUV, like SSKs in snorting, will be able to steam fast to even follow CVTF, keep high-rate com-link essential to perform multi-static ASW tactics, while towing low-frequency VDS and TASS.

4: Tactics using 11-12m class USVs, as they are the de-fact standard for MCM operations, will steadily improve in coming decades. Adding ASW suits onboard these USVs will be easy. As MCM USV is essentially a shallow (or near shallow) water assets, these USV will be also good at ASW operations at those environments. Surely, long-range multi-static ASW will not work in shallow water, and many mid/short-rage ASW assets will be needed. Here, UUV, half-submerged UUV, and 11-12m USV can all contribute, I guess.

5: UAVs like AW Hero or CAMCOPTER will be very helpful in blue water patrol, in which place land-based air-cover is not easy.

6: mini-UAV like Puma can be ubiquitous. It is in different league to the above UAVs (much much cheaper and less capable), and will provide cheap and easy-to-handle "eyes in the air". As we all know, "eyes in the air" helps a lot.

All these possibilities are there. But, all of them needs extensive trials to provide effective tactics.

[Tilsin]

Hello guys. First post here.

Do you have any informations on the Sea viper (Aster) missiles stock ? Data about it on the net is nonexistent ; only time it's been mentioned was in an Eurosam article, citing the purchase of a PASMM system (with missiles) fort the first Type 45 in the early 2000..

[cyrilranch]

Hello guys. First post here.

Do you have any informations on the Sea viper (Aster) missiles stock ? Data about it on the net is nonexistent ; only time it's been mentioned was in an Eurosam article, citing the purchase of a PASMM system (with missiles) fort the first Type 45 in the early 2000..

You must be Chinese trolling if you think anyone is going to give you this sort of info on a open Web site.

[Tilsin]

I'm not. And I've checked the French senate site and they indeed gave all the infos about their stocks : year of order, receiving, etc.. we know how many they have right now, how many they planned intially and how many they're waiting. The French are very open about their Aster stock situation, but I guess this isn't the case for the British parliament.

[seaspear]

It would be of interest to know if there is a commitment to a realistic stockpile of missiles for all scenarios, or even on what are the guidelines for ships to carry a full missile loadout, and serious conflict with a peer may be on the likelihood of how long a supply of munitions may last and be produced, whether a few days or weeks or missiles may make a huge difference such a commitment could be shown by funding , it might be naive to believe the non-release of strategic information is to protect sensitive information rather than potential embarrassing information

[Lord Jim]

but I guess this isn't the case for the British parliament.

Given our track record on stockpiles of Guided Munitions, it is probably to hide the fact that we actually have so few. What was ordered was post Cold War, with the idea of nation on nation warfighting receding over the horizon and operations like in Iraq and Afghanistan coming to the fore. No real air threat to the fleet and so on.

With an inability to reload VLS at sea, at least Sylver and Mk41, I can sea the lack of capacity on the T-45 and T-26 being a issue in any peer conflict, with ships having to return to port to re arm, assuming the relevant depots haven't been targeted.

[Scimitar54]

The development of a capability to Re-arm at sea is now therefore most urgent, in order to improve the credibility/survivability of our “sovereign” CSGs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Then we better stick with smaller missiles. The USN had it for a while , but decided that 'operability' was too dependent on conditions.

A USN study state in 2017
"While the U.S. Navy is proficient in delivering fuel and other materiel via underway replenishment, it relies upon a network of airports and seaports. The Combat Logistics Force, operating from these facilities, carries this materiel and moves it the last tactical mile; however, the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) represents a critical vulnerability as it can only be reloaded while a ship is in port."

and it did not take long to be noticed, or touched upon in July 2017 interview
"It remains unclear what specifically CNO Richardson and the Navy have in mind for “bringing back” the ability to reload vertical launch cells at sea (Admiral Richardson’s Public Affairs Officer did not respond to an email requesting clarification before publication). Early Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers once had VLS strikedown cranes that were rated to lift medium-range SM-2 surface-to-air missiles and ASROC antisubmarine rocket-boosted torpedoes, but were incapable of lifting larger loads of the size of Tomahawk cruise missiles and the new multipurpose SM-6. The cranes were left off the newer Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes to make room for additional VLS cells. "

National Interest did not get any further detail so they asked experts:
" [not] believe that the Navy’s new reloading capability will take the form of underway replenishment, in which a logistics vessel steams alongside a combatant at 12–13 knots and transfers supplies and fuel over a high wire between them. Rather, both advocate for a doctrine of forward reloading, where combatant and logistics ships meet in protected harbors close to the contested zone and replenish missiles either at anchor or while holding position under power"

And BreakingDefence dug deeper into funding requests for any such trials/ facilities/ exercises
"crucial investments for assuring U.S. and allied viability in potential conflicts in the Western Pacific: $9 million for “airfield damage repair and port damage repair initiatives,” $5 million for “no-notice agile logistics exercises,” and $8 million for “MILCON [military construction] for Dynamic Basing at Palau and Yap.” With the current presence of such large, centralized U.S. and allied bases along the First Island Chain, ensuring the recoverability of shore facilities—so a single attack cannot put them out of action for a strategically significant period of time"

[Scimitar54]

If it proves too difficult to provide “at sea” reloading into Sylvia/Mk 41 Silos on the T45/T26, it also makes an open and shut case for the provision of an (almost certainly re-loadable) silo of adequate size on the Carrier itself.

[Scimitar54]

B***** predictive texts!

[Lord Jim]

It also makes the case for having more Sylver/MK41s on a ship to start with as well as having more AShMs fitted. One study I read a while back stated it would take at least six of a T-23s or T-45 Harpoons to gain a reasonable chance of overwhelming a peer targets defences and scoring a single hit! Of course this means either bigger ships or in the case of the T-26 removal of some or all of the Mission Bay.

The next DDG should have double the number of VLS the current T-45 has and maybe additional Sea Ceptors in stand alone 3x4 ExLS launchers. AS for the T-32 if it actually becomes reality, again storing its Sea Ceptors in 3x4 ExLS launchers would be far more space efficient and with stretching the Bow and replacing the forward 40mm room should be available for at least6x8 Sylver/Mk41 VLS systems. By then we should have decided what we are going to use the VLS for, in the case of the Mk41. Any Sylver VLS could be networked with the T-45 and its successor, allowing the ship to become an additional magazine as well as hopefully housing the result of the FCASW programme.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The next DDG should have double the number of VLS the current T-45

Like I've always said: just convert the helo deck
- T45s won't work alone, going forward... so nothing lost and much gained

[Jensy]

The next DDG should have double the number of VLS the current T-45

Like I've always said: just convert the helo deck
- T45s won't work alone, going forward... so nothing lost and much gained

I have similar feelings about the main gun and its below deck requirements. Between that and the much discussed 16-cell MK41/gymnasium, I'd expect you could have 64 Slyver Cells (I won't mention the A70 and SCALP EG..), and somewhere between 24-48 CAMM depending on the launcher.

Sprinkle a few 40mm Bofors around the hull and the Type 45s would be a very formidable carrier escort, at the cost of their shore bombardment capability. This could be mitigated by SCALP EG (sorry) or getting Spear 3 into a VLS.

Alternatively considering Wildcat is the defacto helicopter for Type 45, perhaps the Hangar could be reduced in size for a brace of CAMM silos?

[serge750]

I would defo keep the flight deck on the T45 but as said they probably will not work alone so convert the hanger for either more asters or even CAMM & also save having a flight crew, 2 x T45 with 96 missiles each would seem to be a better AAW defensive screen,

Since they are getting a engine upgrade might as well do it soon as...even if half the T45 were converted for a dedicated carrier escort

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would also imagine banning 114mm gun and its below deck systems now. Replacing it with "other calibre co-existing in the fleet" will reduce operational cost by speed-up its retirement. On the other hand, I also imagine any upgrade is less likely, but if we keep it modest, there shall be some real possibility.

For example, rip-off the 114mm gun system, and ...

Plan-A
- Add 16-cell Sylver50/70 for 16 more Aster30 NT added with BMD capability (16 Aster15 + 48 Aster30 is not bad),
- and a 57mm gun

Mostly using the 16-cell Mk.41 VLS reserved space, original 114mm gun might be even stay. But, Sylver-VLS needs larger open-space around the it. And anyway, replacing 114mm gun with 57mm will, significantly increase its close-in defense capability against air (like drones and sub-sonic ASMs) and surface (high speed boats), with smaller crew requirement. "Strike" is there, plenty of them onboard the CVs. Anti hyper-sonic ASM are the task for Aster, and anti-ship is NOT the major task for 114mm for long.

Plan-B
- Add 16-cell Sylver50/70
- and 18-cell ExLS (64 Aster30 NT + 72 CAMM is good)
- and replace the two Phalanx-CIWS with two 40mm Mk.4.
Replacing a 114mm gun ad 2 Phalanx CIWS with two Bofors 40mm 3P guns will also contribute to close-in defense capability, especially anti-surface.

Both plans are very modest in view of space, so center-of-gravity issues may not happen, I think.

[RichardIC]

For example, rip-off the 114mm gun system, and ...

Certainly put the 4.5" out to grass as soon as possible. It's completely had it's day:

No capability against aerial targets (the claim it shot down an Exocet has never been verified)
No prospect of guided ammunition
No prospect of extended range ammunition

It's done well for NGS against an enemy that can't shoot back. And unfortunately Glamorgan had to suffer what can happen when the enemy can shoot back.

I'd quite happily see it replaced by a 57mm on T45 and the ASW T23s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Oh, how we go in circles
"Although some of the Leander-class frigates had lost their main gun armament during upgrades, Broadsword was the first to be designed from the beginning without a large-calibre gun turret."

Like the US fighter planes going into Nam, and rusty, old Migs flying circles around them
... at least today we have 'the' pod as insurance

[RichardIC]

Oh guns have still got their place... just not the particular one currently sitting on the front end of all RN escorts.