Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Tempest 414 wrote

It has been said here that a acoustic quite hull is 30% more than a standard hull given this it would make the new hull about 330 million so I feel if we were to start again and drop the number of hulls to 4 with a new real world budget of 1.8 billion or 450 million per ship and keep it simple for something like

120 m long X 14.5 m beam quite hull
Artisan radar
BAE CMS
Tow array sonar
NO MISSION BAY
Merlin capable hangar
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm ,1 Phalanx and 24 cell VLS for CAMM and ASROC

we could have a very good ASW frigate capable of operating with the Carrier group and freeing the Type 26's and would only cost HMG/ MOD an extra 550 million pounds on top of the 1.25 billion budget. HMG could say yes we have dropped to 18 escorts but they are more focused on the fleets needs[/quote]



Since we have a man power shortage & probably for the next few years, Why not just build 3 for now with only 16 x mk 42 vls for quad packed CAMM / ASROC etc hopefully with in the 1.25 budget for now then maybe further batches for A GROWING NAVY as the political spin said...

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 »

The T31 is part of the manpower solution, they should enter service with just over half the core crew of their predecessors, leaving little benefit by dropping a few.

Its worth asking, is the Mk 41 VLS reall required on these? The big full length silos take up a lot of space, having a big impact on the design, all that comes with a lot of cost. Is that preferable over simpler deck launched missiles?
@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 »

shark bait wrote:Is that preferable over simpler deck launched missiles?
If, and only if, they need ASROC
- the RFI says they will not be ASW players or in such a way optimised
- a space provision along the centre line (seldom used... empty space, in the best location) might still be an idea?
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 »

The issues with 'space provision' is after all the effort it takes to design in an 8m deep hole into the structure, the cost to actually buy the silos is small at around £3 million a module.

Remember ASROC can be deck launched, as can most cruise missiles, and BAE are marketing a deck launcher that is compatible with the MK41 VLS canisters, so there is other options.

Ill further ask, would it be valuable if the navy to developed an anti submarine weapon
compatible with the cold launch CAMM silos?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:The T31 is part of the manpower solution, they should enter service with just over half the core crew of their predecessors, leaving little benefit by dropping a few.

Its worth asking, is the Mk 41 VLS reall required on these? The big full length silos take up a lot of space, having a big impact on the design, all that comes with a lot of cost. Is that preferable over simpler deck launched missiles?
for me as I have said we need a ship that will allow type 26 to be freed up from ASW carrier ops. as for if it has Mk-41 or not I am not that bothered I would however like to see it have 10+ ready to use torpedo's plus 30 CAMM

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Thanks for the thoughts on my recent vacation. Not been to Sedona before but quite a remarkable place with its red rock buttes. Location for many 50's & 60's westerns. John Wayne had a house there for a few years but now an artists haven. Seriously thinking of moving there.

Anyhoo, more thinking on Type 31 Leander vs Type 23 GP. Of course it's very difficult to be definitive until a final Type 31 spec is decided and contracts signed and we'll not know that for another year.

By the way, has everyone noticed how the MoD has totally closed down on any reports from the program. Everyone connected on both sides have been given firm orders to button lips. Way too much embarrassment from the recent stop/go nonsense. Personally I find it very strange that the most secretive western government by a country mile is the UK. So little is disclosed despite FOI tinsel.

Back to the ships. I think the claims that the Type 23 is greatly superior to a Leander are a little fuzzy.

1. Bigger gun/NGFS - well maybe, maybe not.
2. Hull mounted sonar - well maybe, maybe not.
3. Range - not sure about this, I thought they were practically the same but that does rather depend on usage.
4. Quietness - should a be a clean win for the T23 assuming it hasn't been eroded too much by a 30+ year hull & systems. But at slow speeds the T31 might be quiet enough.
5. Radar stealth - clean win for the Leander
6. Sensors - appear to be the same or better for the Leander
7. CIWS - win for the Leander
8. Flght deck - tie
9. Bigger Hangar but seeing the T23 GP's only every carry Lynx/Wildcat, not sure this is meaningful
10. Ship launched Torpedo's - neither carry any - I don't think the RN Leander has much chance of a Mk 41 VLS for ASROC
11. Crew size - not really a military significant item but if the T23's cannot leave port because of crew shortage, it is. Leander win.
12. More CAMM - 32 vs 12/16 - not sure why the T31's can't carry more, seems odd.
13. Survivability - who knows?? A big important item but no way we can get more than a glimpse.
14. EMF - Leander win
15. Mission bay and all that implies - slam dunk for the Leander.
16. ASMs - can be bolted onto either - tie

Did I miss any?

As Donald-san says, much depends on how the T31 are deployed. If they are judged against what the T23 GP's actually do, they might be an upgrade. And maybe even in a war situation.. maybe. I'd obviously be a lot happier if they come with a decent gun, HMS & more CAMM.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

shark bait wrote:Remember ASROC can be deck launched
I don't think the current production can be deck launched. The very old ASROC was launched from a box launcher. But the only in production variant is VL only.
shark bait wrote:Ill further ask, would it be valuable if the navy to developed an anti submarine weapon
compatible with the cold launch CAMM silos?
Cold launch can be used for larger missiles, the Russian's already use it for S-300 and S-400. But the RN would be the only one to do so for ASW weapons. At that point its a whole lot cheaper just to buy a Mk.41 module.
Ron5 wrote:10. Ship launched Torpedo's - neither carry any - I don't think the RN Leander has much chance of a Mk 41 VLS for ASROC
T23's definitely have Torpedo Tubes for Stingray. T45 and T26 do not. The T23 ones could be ported over to T26 if they wanted (and there surely must be some lying around from old T42's and T22's). For the RN not to bother must indicate that they really see no value in them. Mind you other nations are sticking Heavyweight tubes on Frigates in addition to lightweight.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by CameronPerson »

Ron5 wrote: Personally I find it very strange that the most secretive western government by a country mile is the UK. So little is disclosed despite FOI tinsel.
Amen to that. It was literally just the other day that I finally got an answer to an FOI request on the Type 31 that I’d made on MAY 5th 2017!! All of my questions had already been answered on account of the fact it’s been 18months since I made the request so they provided no new information any different to the news discussed on the Type 31 thread.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:Did I miss any?
Speed
Ron5 wrote:As Donald-san says, much depends on how the T31 are deployed. If they are judged against what the T23 GP's actually do, they might be an upgrade.
Difficult to pass a full judgement because we do not know the final spec, however in general it does not look like 40 years of progress, but perhaps that's because the T23 hit the sweet spot and has been well looked after.

Unless they come equipped with electric propulsion, sonar, 32+ CAMM and space for 2 aircraft its difficult to judge Leander as an upgrade over the T23 GP.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:Back to the ships. I think the claims that the Type 23 is greatly superior to a Leander are a little fuzzy.
Interesting comparisons. I have several comments. Overall, I do not think a "250M GBP version Leander" is better than "T23GP" now. But, I do think it can do their job better than T23GP. These two issues are independent.

1. Bigger gun/NGFS - well maybe, maybe not.
If NGFS, T23GP is much better (the "250M GBP" version will not carry Volcano rounds). But, 57/76mm gun is much better at AAW and anti-swarm attack.

2. Hull mounted sonar - well maybe, maybe not.
"250M GBP Leander" will not have sonar, I guess. And, even it has hull sonar with more money, it will not be as good as S2050.

6. Sensors - appear to be the same or better for the Leander
Why better? ESM? ECM? Optical and IR sensors?

11. Crew size - not really a military significant item but if the T23's cannot leave port because of crew shortage, it is. Leander win.
It is military significant item, because it defines the number of ship which can be deployed.

12. More CAMM - 32 vs 12/16 - not sure why the T31's can't carry more, seems odd.
32 vs 12. May be limited simply because of cost, in "250M GBP Leander" (not in full format).

13. Survivability - who knows?? A big important item but no way we can get more than a glimpse.
I think Leander has only one engine room, while T23GP can steam even one of the engine room is flooded? (I might be wrong).

#All the others, I agree.
As Donald-san says, much depends on how the T31 are deployed. If they are judged against what the T23 GP's actually do, they might be an upgrade. And maybe even in a war situation.. maybe. I'd obviously be a lot happier if they come with a decent gun, HMS & more CAMM.
shark bait wrote:Difficult to pass a full judgement because we do not know the final spec, however in general it does not look like 40 years of progress, but perhaps that's because the T23 hit the sweet spot and has been well looked after.

Unless they come equipped with electric propulsion, sonar, 32+ CAMM and space for 2 aircraft its difficult to judge Leander as an upgrade over the T23 GP.
I do NOT think Leander MUST be more powerful (in warfight) than T23GP. HMG is not investing such money. It is totally unfair comparison. It is a clear scale down on capability, clear. And it is "as intended". We do not need to say a (light)-light cruiser is better than a heavy cruiser. The problem is, the "heavy cruiser" (= T23GP) is nowadays doing a task "even a (light)-light cruiser (=Leander) can do".

Leander's simple figure of merit is, with 3 T23GP crew, all 5 Leanders can be manned, while in many of the tasks T23GP is actually doing, Leander can do the same or even better (stealth/mission-bay/57or76mm gun+CIWS).

On the other hand, "250M GBP Leander" cannot do any kind of ASW, has less CAMM and has less NGFS capability. In future, or with more money, Leander can be better. But, while a T23GP could have become a T23ASW, "250M GBP Leander" will not be able to be "a world beating ASW asset", regardless of how much money HMG will add.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:T23's definitely have Torpedo Tubes for Stingray
Used to, not sure that they're carried anymore.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote: it does not look like 40 years of progress
What progress is that? Frigates these days take more account of low RCS but apart from that, little that can be seen externally has progressed much in those 40 years. Progress is in the bits you cannot see.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is a clear scale down on capability, clear.
My point is that is very far from "clear". Some of that is because we don't, and will not, know details of ships survivability & signatures. And some because some details of equipment are still not clear. For example, the main gun: there's been CGI's showing 4.5", 76mm & 57mm. So it could be any of these. And the HMS, its been suggested that Leander will take the sonar from the retiring T23's so that's an open question too.

Unfortunately, I think it will be a considerable time before we learn.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:been suggested that Leander will take the sonar from the retiring T23's
This (once again :) ) brings in the cost, ie. how will the 1.25+ .25 bn total be affected (should the above happen).
- they won't come dirt cheap (that would be a result from straight-line depreciation, and resulting book value)
- as military inflation tends to be so high, there is something called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), to obtain which indices are used to revalue the asset (which then is followed by the "normal" depreciation calculation)

In the prgrm context the above is by no means limited to the sonar transfers, but is a universal principle
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)

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

So when will they start announcing the T21 names?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Clive F wrote:So when will they start announcing the T21 names?
I think they started in 1970...

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

lol, Sorry, more hastes less speed. T31 names

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

Clive F wrote:So when will they start announcing the T21 names?
It should be H's next so how's about HMS Highlander with the rest of the ships are ordered as Type 26's because there can be only one.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As I said in the past I would like to see a F class with

Faithful
Fearless
Foresight
Fortitude
Friendship

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I wouldn't. It would risk them becoming known as either the ***ing or the Fatal Class "Frigates"

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Not good news for Navantia.

AIBN says they have found safety critical issues relating to HMoNS Helge Ingstad watertight compartments
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Investigations/18-968

Could there be potential implications for navies operating Navantia vessels across the globe like Australia? Bet the RAN are glad they went with the T26 :thumbup:

Shows once again the importance of insisting on full naval standards even in peace time.

Could this have an impact the T31 programme? How does the watertight integrity of Leander compare with A120/A140?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

we can all come up with silly names from any letter like the dead in the water class or death class for the type 45 D class owing to the power problems and weapons systems shutting down at time you need it

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Could this have an impact the T31 programme? How does the watertight integrity of Leander compare with A120/A140?
It could have a big impact on the US frigate program when it comes to what is on the table

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I hadn't read the above report before I posted in the forum concerning Australia but the concern would be for the Hobart class destroyers by Navantia

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by andrew98 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Could this have an impact the T31 programme? How does the watertight integrity of Leander compare with A120/A140?
It could have a big impact on the US frigate program when it comes to what is on the table
With the at sea collisions the USN has suffered in recent years, how many ships and lives could they have lost?

Post Reply