Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

RichardIC wrote:Oh guns have still got their place... just not the particular one currently sitting on the front end of all RN escorts.
I share to a degree this view when we are discussing the T45, who will be sailing with a CBG all of their time.

My main reservation is that with smart ammunition, the naval gun probably has more to offer in the medium term in terms than what was/is primarily a NGFS role.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:when we are discussing the T45, who will be sailing with a CBG
Me too. If we have 6, and 4 available, then we can hardly 'afford to' allocate the precious few 'onto the gun line'.
- partially the same argument applies to T26s
- the auto-mag guns ordered for them should be put onto T31s... some here already (in anticipation :lol: ) call them gunboats
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5619
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me if we are going to sort out the T-45 for its only real job then I would replace the 114mm and Phalanx with 3 x 57mm and add the 16 extra cells and go with a load out of 48 Aster 30 and 64 CAMM = 112 missiles then to finish fit 8 x NSM

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5589
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Compared to Hermes and Invincible with 31 SeaHarrier/Harriers in 1982, the "24 or 36" F35B carried on QNLZ or PoW is much better at both strike and air-defense. F35B is a 1st rate fighter among those including CTOL fighters, but SeaHarriers were not. And, what is more, "31 SeaHarrier/Harriers" in 1982 is a very tiny fraction of world's whole fighter, but "36 F35B" in 2020 is very significant power (= simply because fighters today are much more precious than in 1982).

Therefore, most of the strike (land and ship) can be carried out but CV air-wing.

In 1982, T22 frigates and gun-less Leanders (T-12M) were almost tied-up to defend CVTF. What is more, T42 destroyers had a gun, but was never sent to NGFS tasks. As such, ripping-off large calibre guns from T45 destroyers are not a big issue, and relatively unrelated to the importance of gun identified in 1982.

We are just talking about T45, and no one is talking about ripping off the guns from T26 (and T23). :thumbup:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:We are just talking about T45
Check :idea: uptread (and the header, too)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2822
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

As a half-way house between donald-san's optoins, how about:

Add the 16 Aster cells to the T45. Add BMD capability (software, sensor upgrades etc) to at least 3 x T45. Leave the 114mm be or fit a 40/57mm if it has to go to accommodate the extra VLS

For 3 x T31, increase CAMM capacity to (say) 60 - 72 missiles (or whatever the hull can take if less than that), with a mix of CAMM and CAMM-ER. Optimise the planned CMS & sensors for AAW. The T31 already has the gun-based AAW capability.

We would then have 3 x Tier 1 AAW/BMD, 3 x Tier 1 AAW and 3 x Tier 2 AAW escorts available for use with the carrier group, amphibious group etc.

If the carriers still need additional protection, then add a one or two 40mm or even Dardo twin 40mm on each side.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5589
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:We are just talking about T45
Check :idea: uptread (and the header, too)
Sorry. At least, I am talking about ONLY T45. By the way, I agree that the 114mm gun is really not attractive. It is really a dead-end technology. It could only be used against 3rd-rate nations.

But, there are many "3rd-rate nations" worldwide, so it is not totally useless, I agree.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Changing the subject. shark bait, your Twitter post yesterday on an example RN fleet which was smaller but more focused than today, has got me thinking.

I cannot help but think that the future structure of the RN is linked to the discussions a week or so ago on larger 30-50m USVs for roles such as ASW, and also discussions on the potential area that would be covered by a mothership/home port and a number of smaller USVs (the Rib in the Bay of Biscay discussion :)).

Given the scale of the Chinese navy and the growth of other navies, how does the RN remain relevant and what’s more project real not token power. Also, how does it possibly secure UK/ BOT EEZ waters and strategic area such as the North Sea and Atlantic without changing what it does - the RN will never be able to afford enough traditional Frigates etc to do this.

My view is that something in the order of 6 T45s, 8 T26s and 10 T31s /T32s coupled with say 8 cheaper Echo/River sized manned Survey/Surveillance/Ice/Patrol ships is probably the optimal and affordable size. It would allow for 3 (carrier) task groups to operate in rotation, plus assets to defend around the UK/BOTs, whilst allowing for a level of forward presence.

What I do think would be a game changer in parallel is a massive investment in semi manned / unmanned smaller vessels that when working in large numbers could deliver Sea Control (area denial to surface and underwater threats) or Secure the seas around a landing area. They could operate from a sovereign/friendly port or from a new ship class focused as “Gobal Boat Carriers”, with support from existing CSG or land based assets as required.

If the RN could have say 3 flotillas each with say two dozen mixed 10-30m craft of different classes, each class optimised to give a balance of ASuW, ASW, AAW and land attack capabilities, then it would then be able to act at its own will, at a scale that would be very difficult to challenge.

The Sea Class will already be a 40 odd strong fleet, by expanding on the concept and adapting / growing existing designs, I think is is both possible and affordable. Also, and being focused on using increasingly a path of automation to get to completely unmanned craft would be a pragmatic way of achieving this.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:We would then have 3 x Tier 1 AAW/BMD, 3 x Tier 1 AAW and 3 x Tier 2 AAW escorts available for use with the carrier group, amphibious group etc.
I find that quite attractive, and in line with
1. that while the construction prgrm needs speeding up, not to leave any gaps
2. the proposal would be in line with what DefSec Wallace said that (while waiting for the 1. above?) the navy should make the best of what it has got, and
3. T31s can have quite an impressive missile park midship - while a few of them retain the boat bays for other types of operations

The only downside is that for all of this to happen on the required timelines, we would need to tie ourselves to Aster ABM
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

Although I agree the 114mm gun could (should?) be replaced by a 57mm one and an extra 16 Sylver cells installed, an even cheaper option would be to phase out the Aster 15 and replace them with Aster 30 Block 1 NT for ABM and just add 12 ExLS cells in front of the Sylver launcher to recover short/medium range AA, leaving the current gun in place... a load out of 48 Aster 30 and 48 Sea Ceptor would be much better than what’s in place today...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

JohnM wrote:a load out of 48 Aster 30 and 48 Sea Ceptor
Only 4% short of the 'proper' std for AAW: 100 or more missiles at the ready, chip in some CISW
... Anything that comes with AHEAD seems to get overlooked (exc. by the Danish navy)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I did think the Millennium Gun as used by the Danes would have been a good option for the T-31, especially as the mount is self contained and non deck penetrating.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1452
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

The RN ships AAM numbers and capabilities low compared to others? eg

7,800t CSC AA missiles,
Fitted with 32 Mk41 VLS cells, Nov 2020 US approved sale of 100 SM-2 IIIC to Canada ~100km MR-SAM, Canada part of the ESSM build consortium for point defence ~50 km, if 8 cells used for ESSM, four per cell gives 32 ESSMs plus 24? Sea Ceptor for CIWS.

"Contacted by Naval News, an MBDA source shed some light on how the Sea Ceptor was selected in addition to the ESSM. The two missiles were not competing against each other. Raytheon’s ESSM was selected to provide “point defense”. Instead, MBDA pitched its missile for the RCN’s close in weapons system (CIWS) requirement. The Sea Ceptor beat out systems usually used in that role such as the RAM, SeaRam or Phalanx // likely be 24x missiles launched from Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launching System (ExLS) located amidship."


Israeli 1,900t Sa'ar 6 AA missiles,
32 Israeli VLS cells, specifically designed for the Israeli/Indian Barak 8 ~100km MR-SAM plus 40, two 20 round launchers, for Tamir missiles part of the Rafael C-Dome, a navy version of the land-based Iron Dome (British Army buying the Iron Dome Rafael battle management command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence for Sky Sabre /CAMM-L)
 

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Maths isn't my strong point but if the 32 Mk41 VLS cells are quad packs that gives a total of 128 Milles split between ESSM and Sea Ceptor. Of course the Canadians probably have other uses in mind for some of the VLS, but the models show canister AShMs and the RCN doesn't use ASROC but could I suppose adopt ASROC-VL loading eight VLS cells for example. TLAM is a remote possibility so with ASROC-VL that would still leave the CSC with 64 ESSM and 32 Sea Ceptor. Remember the CSC is primarily an ASW platform not a DDG so that is a considerable number of missiles for such a platform.

AS for the Israeli Navy, well they have followed their own path from FACs to corvettes to now light Frigates as their area of operations has expanded to now cover off shore production facilities. Their Barak line of SAMs has become more and more effective with their range increasing with each version. Sea Dome is an obvious development for them but it is an expensive system, with each missile costing between $40-60, 000 each, and the installation on each ship costing up to $30 million. It does however provide a very effective defence against the threats the Israeli navy are likely to face.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Their Barak line of SAMs has become more and more effective with their range increasing with each version. Sea Dome is an obvious development for them but it is an expensive system,
As the area (off-shore infrastructure) to be secured is potentially twice that of Israel's land area, range is an important factor, as in
" the vessel’s detection systems, such as a radar with a range exceeding 100 kilometers, and its weapons and defense systems that can react to high-trajectory rockets and missiles. "

The problem with hi-trajectory rockets is that they can be fired in salvos, so both cost and total loadout (count) are also important
- the early spec was to include a lot of smaller (than the) Barak8 missiles,
- but now the application of Iron Dome to the problem seems to have been decided on
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Anthony58
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 14 Feb 2021, 19:23
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Anthony58 »

JohnM wrote:just add 12 ExLS cells in front of the Sylver launcher to recover short/medium range AA, leaving the current gun in place...

There is no space, as it would limit the use of the gun.

ExLS launcher, could be fitted admidships as Sea Ceptor is cold launched.

The 4.5' gun, could be replaced by the 5" BAE gun at re-fit.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5589
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Anthony58 wrote:
JohnM wrote:just add 12 ExLS cells in front of the Sylver launcher to recover short/medium range AA, leaving the current gun in place...

There is no space, as it would limit the use of the gun.

ExLS launcher, could be fitted admidships as Sea Ceptor is cold launched.

The 4.5' gun, could be replaced by the 5" BAE gun at re-fit.
I think JohnM-san is thinking about the space reserved for 16-cell Mk.41 VLS, located just after the 114mm gun turret. The space is now used as very tall Gymnasium. Locating 12-cell ExLS is very easy, just need to "shorten" the high of the room. :D

ref:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

All kinds of plans have competed for the above "empty" space, located in front of the existing 48-cell VLS silo, behind the 4.5" Mk8 Mod1 gun

The stopgap nature of the gun we can observe today was made clear in that
" there were concerns that the very large magazine required would use up the volume reserved for the 16 extra VLS cells for deep strike missiles. In December 2007 it was decided that at least the first six Type 45 ships would mount the 4.5" (114 mm) Mark 8 Mod 1 gun "

Well we know the story with the quantity of "at least six", but for a while things proceeded for having the only destroyers in a broader role than what they fill today:
- what had already been going on, before the stop gap decision was that the Mark 45 Mod4 United Defense proposal had been rejected by the Royal Navy in early 2005 as being too
expensive.
- BAE stepped into the breach and stated in their further proposal that the Mark 8 Mod 1 gunhouse could also be used for a Fourth generation Maritime Fire support weapon (FMF) using the longer-barrel 155 mm/52, but that this combination would require strengthening of the gunhouse in order to meet the added recoil forces.

MOD awarded BAE a research contract in 2007 to pursue their TMF design. However, the project was cancelled in late 2010 as part of large UK budget cuts in defense and across the board, So
1. an age-old gun on the, so far, latest destroyer
2. and no large mag (for NFS) nor strike-length silos in that same, empty space

Most likely the gym will stay, until we decide to "splurge" on ABM
... when ;) might that be?

How to bridge the gap between RoF of land-based guns and what the navy required to have from a single gun (20/ minute) is explained in detail here https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... cClure.pdf
being from 2009, which is about as far as the idea got before the 2010 cancel 'struck'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

I wrote this little piece on the RNs priories ahead of the upcoming review, thought I would share here too

Unpopular opinion: the Navy has enough frigates, and more frigates should not be a priority. I'll explain;

Today's fleet consists of 13 Type 23 frigates split 8:5 between anti-submarine & patrol duties respectively. That force will soon transition to 8 anti-submarine Type 26 frigates & 5 patrol Type 31 frigates. This means the force will remain constant for the foreseeable future.

The role given to the T26 is clear, it will be a high quality anti-submarine frigate, primarily focused on group escort tasks. This current plan generates enough availability to protect the two carrier groups, which will likely consist of two T26 frigates. For those keeping count, only half of the Type 26 fleet is required for the carrier groups leaving spares for surge conditions, to escort an amphibious group, or to protect NATO groups.

On top of that are the five T31 patrol frigates, which the Navy call general purpose frigates. If the T26 is focused as an escort force, the T31 will be more of a reactive force, ready to respond to the unpredictable needs of the day.Used traditionally 5 is not much of a force. Luckily the Navy has already started trailing forward basing and crew rotations to increase force levels.

The whole T31 operational concept should be based around this, to stretch as much use as they can out of them. With a little work the Navy could increase this figure, and could realistically maintain a combat force at deployed high readiness in three regions. For example the T31 could be ready to respond at short notice in the Atlantic, Gulf and Indo-Pacific region.The T31 is ideal for this. It's big & simple, making it easier to support away from the UK, and importantly, with that size comes inherent flexibility. We are terrible at predicting future conflict, pre-positioned flexible ships enables a speedy repose to the unpredictable.

So far we have the carrier groups protected, and a global reaction presence established. Whats missing is coverage for domestic tasks which is clearly important for an island. The solution to this problem is not more frigates;

The basic domestic maritime security needs of the UK do not require Frigates, they need smaller craft as things like smuggling or environmental issues are more ad-hoc in nature. (I'd argue this a role for a coastguard, but that's another discussion). The more complex domestic maritime security issues need addressing, especially as lots of our national infrastructure if coastal or offshore. Critical energy, transport and communication infrastructure can be held at risk by a maritime adversary.

Thankfully the UK has finally finally corrected a huge fault in its domestic security as Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) return to their natural habitat in Scotland. Unfortunately the P8 9 aircraft on order does not come close to the 21, then 18, then 12 at the bare minimum number of Nimrod the RAF required. This small fleet of 9 MPA's will only be put under more pressure as the RAF sentinel is scrapped very soon. More needs to be done here, and more frigates is not the solution. The UK needs more P8, or a low cost MPA, or a drone MPA or synthetic aperture radar satellites or a combination of these. Complete this system and the surface search portion of UK maritime security is satisfied.

This leaves the submarine portion of UK maritime security left open. The RAF's P8 MPA will fill part of this void, but not completely because while the submarine threat is persistent, a patrol aircraft is not. Unlike the during the cold war, frigates are not the solution, and today we need more sensors under the water. The problem is the RN doesn't have many submarines, neither can it afford more, and even if it could there is no capacity to build more.

These constrains mean a more novel solution is required, and luckily the Navy is already developing one, drone subs! Or XLUUV in terrible MOD language.

This development is still in its infancy and should be perused as a priority above additional frigates. A drone sub can achieve a similar effect to an ASW frigate, while being cheaper, requiring fewer operators, and the few operators it has get to go home at night. We can't expect too much too soon from a novel technology, which is what makes this task the perfect introduction point. Unarmed patrols under and around domestic waters if fully achievable with current technology, as as confidence grows the mission will expand. The initial goal should be a fleet of drone subs, launched and recovered from Scotland silently collecting data throughout the North. These will become the persistent nodes in a network, tipping off the manned platforms to increase their effectiveness on task. Once this basic task is achieved more complex operations can be developed, and the scope here is massive, perhaps a discussion for later...

To sum up;
  • The Navy has the T26 as the fleet escort force.
  • The Navy has the T31 as the global reaction force
  • The RAF has the P8 for wide area domestic maritime security
  • The Navy needs drone subs for the persistent domestic maritime security
This puts the UKs maritime priories firmly on the carrier group, for which there are enough frigates, and domestic maritime security, for which frigates are not the best fit.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

On the assumption that T23 LEP prgrm completes around 2022, the official line has been that their availability will be so much better than hitherto that there will be no frigate shortfall.
- with the rumour of 4 going out prematurely (2 out of the four were a near-fact, already) one would need to calculate again if even a 100% availability could make the MoD statement (more exactly: the PUS to the Defence Committee, answering questions there) hold water
- more likely during 2023-27 RN frigate numbers will continue to fall, only to recover 2027-30

Therefore, even though the logic for all pieces in the @SB commentary above, on their own, is solid, it could be that for most of this decade (that has only just begun) we are taking a 'holiday'
... but 'free beer' will then start to flow as we approach the next decade

That monstrous acronym for the 'persistent' unmanned sub should be a heading for one of those two projects that 'our DARPA' will be funding to the tune of a hundred million p.a. over x years
- but over those years (and many more, for the follow on construction) one should not count it/ them as a fielded capability
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1452
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

shark bait:
If you take your benchmark for a frigate as the GP T23, I wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate, maybe a OPV?

Surface Warfare
Anti-ship missiles , T23 8x Harpoon vs T31 zero
Main Gun T23 4.5" 46lb shell ~12 nm vs T31 Mk57 2.2" 6lb shell ~6 nm
Wildcat T23 LMM & Sea Venom vs T31 LMM & Sea Venom

AAW
Missiles T23 32x Sea Ceptors vs T31 12x Sea Ceptors
Guns T23 2x DS30B vs T31 2x Bofors 40mm

ASW
Hull sonar T23 S2150 vs T31 none
LWT T23 2x2 Sting Ray vs T31 none

Not sure details 100% correct, but think shows why i wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate due to its lack of firepower

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:shows why i wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate due to its lack of firepower
Yes, but (and I'm no Little Englander :D ) consider it (and the surface navy mix) more broadly:
" having dual-use OPVs that will mainly appear within our various EEZs (and won't v easily get shot at) is like a stop-gap 1... to be replaced by stop-gap 2. But you can (if time allows) upgrade StopGap2s to do something else. And ;) put another stop-gap, namely the 1 above, to meet their function"
- that something else could even be ABM (the power upgrade is taxing the destroyer availability to the middle of the decade, so don't take them out of service again, for the next conversion... rather think 'sensor-shooter' within the/ a TF)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Jdam
Member
Posts: 939
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Image

A comparison between Sea Ceptor and Camm-ER. Doesn't look like you would require that much more room to accommodate.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5619
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

NickC wrote:shark bait:
If you take your benchmark for a frigate as the GP T23, I wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate, maybe a OPV?

Surface Warfare
Anti-ship missiles , T23 8x Harpoon vs T31 zero
Main Gun T23 4.5" 46lb shell ~12 nm vs T31 Mk57 2.2" 6lb shell ~6 nm
Wildcat T23 LMM & Sea Venom vs T31 LMM & Sea Venom

AAW
Missiles T23 32x Sea Ceptors vs T31 12x Sea Ceptors
Guns T23 2x DS30B vs T31 2x Bofors 40mm

ASW
Hull sonar T23 S2150 vs T31 none
LWT T23 2x2 Sting Ray vs T31 none

Not sure details 100% correct, but think shows why i wouldn't classify T31 as a frigate due to its lack of firepower
Type 31 will never be as good as T-23 at ASW it was not designed to be however in the GP field T-31 could out strip T-23 being able to carry more CAMM up to 16 NSM even Mk-41 VLS it is all down to money the simple fact is T-31 is a Frigate with a corvette weapons fit. Type 23 is maxed out as far as weapons type 31 could have the same as the IH class i.e 32 MK-41's allowing for 128 CAMM or any mix of weapons

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply