Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

With this statement HMG is setting out its stall that it wants to operate in the High North and the Indo-Pacific if this is their intention they will need more Type 31's to allow a more active flow

Agreed but they need to be as capable as HMS Sutherland.

This not a deployment for a flag waving gunboat set up to defeat a small boat attack in the Strait of Hormuz. I think to a certain extent this shows the limitations of the T31 as currently configured.

[Roders96]

Is it not premature to talk about the configuration of the T31, when we don't know what the government furnished equipment is?

[Ron5]

Is it not premature to talk about the configuration of the T31, when we don't know what the government furnished equipment is?

We know.

[Tempest414]

With this statement HMG is setting out its stall that it wants to operate in the High North and the Indo-Pacific if this is their intention they will need more Type 31's to allow a more active flow

Agreed but they need to be as capable as HMS Sutherland.

This not a deployment for a flag waving gunboat set up to defeat a small boat attack in the Strait of Hormuz. I think to a certain extent this shows the limitations of the T31 as currently configured.

When it comes to type 31 being as capable as a type 23 GP we know what is needed it needs a sonar , 30 CAMM and NSM it will never be as capable in the ASW role but could be more capable in the GP role. As the model shows type 31 could be fitted with Phalanx each side of the rear 40mm and we also know it can take more CAMM plus NSM

Of these Phalanx is a pooled weapon system that can be allocated as needed , CAMM is a stock piled weapon allocated as needed as long as you have the tubes and interface , I-SSGW has a outlined budget of 200 million which could allow 10 to 12 sets of NSM .

[Poiuytrewq]

When it comes to type 31 being as capable as a type 23 GP...

A few points to consider regarding the high north.

1. If NATO now wants increased surface patrols in the high north, that will require extra assets to perform such patrols unless other taskings are being reduced elsewhere. RN have currently little spare capacity for extra presence in the high north without reducing it elsewhere.

2. These patrols would be very much in the UK's national interest, much more than having any sort of continuous presence in the Far East although I can see the strategic rationale for doing both. Clearly the Scandinavian countries and Canada should help carry the burden along with the UK but this is something RN could take the lead on. Long term, due to the increased ice retraction, enhanced trade routes may necessitate a wider global and/or European force.

3. What assets are required to adequately patrol the high north? It's a vast area but clearly the Canadians think the T26 is the best option from a surface perspective. I suspect RN would agree.

What use would a T31 actually be apart from as a flag waving presence in the high north?

Would a AAW enhanced Batch2 T31 actually be more use to RN in a goalkeeper role within the CSG rather than try and turn the T31 into a Tier2 ASW platform? Would this free up more T26's and T23's to patrol the high north?

I suspect rather than try and up-gun the T31's with an ever increasing amount of munitions and systems it would actually be cheaper to build an extra 2 or 3 T26's to do the job properly.

[SW1]

I thought this was the principle purpose of Type 26 fleet. Support to anti submarine operations in the North Atlantic.

[Tempest414]

When it comes to type 31 being as capable as a type 23 GP...

A few points to consider regarding the high north.

1. If NATO now wants increased surface patrols in the high north, that will require extra assets to perform such patrols unless other taskings are being reduced elsewhere. RN have currently little spare capacity for extra presence in the high north without reducing it elsewhere.

2. These patrols would be very much in the UK's national interest, much more than having any sort of continuous presence in the Far East although I can see the strategic rationale for doing both. Clearly the Scandinavian countries and Canada should help carry the burden along with the UK but this is something RN could take the lead on. Long term, due to the increased ice retraction, enhanced trade routes may necessitate a wider global and/or European force.

3. What assets are required to adequately patrol the high north? It's a vast area but clearly the Canadians think the T26 is the best option from a surface perspective. I suspect RN would agree.

What use would a T31 actually be apart from as a flag waving presence in the high north?

Would a AAW enhanced Batch2 T31 actually be more use to RN in a goalkeeper role within the CSG rather than try and turn the T31 into a Tier2 ASW platform? Would this free up more T26's and T23's to patrol the high north?

I suspect rather than try and up-gun the T31's with an ever increasing amount of munitions and systems it would actually be cheaper to build an extra 2 or 3 T26's to do the job properly.

Firstly we all want more Type 26's it not going to happen as buying 3 more type 26 is going to cost 2.4 billion or more were buying 3 more type 31 will cost 1.2 billion as for the type 31 being a flag waving only ship this just down to its as seen poor fit but if laid out as I have put forward i.e

Radar and CMS as is
TAS
1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM
1 x Wildcat with 20 x LMM or 4 x Sea Venom or 2 x Stingray or Depth charges

then for me Type 31 will do just fine in the high North

[Poiuytrewq]

I thought this was the principle purpose of Type 26 fleet. Support to anti submarine operations in the North Atlantic.

Yes but then 13 became 8.

Escorting the CSG, LiTM Group, LSG(s) and conducting TAPS will leave little available for the high north.

Radar and CMS as is
TAS
1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 2 x Phalanx , 30 CAMM , 8 x NSM
1 x Wildcat with 20 x LMM or 4 x Sea Venom or 2 x Stingray or Depth charges

A useful ASuW platform but clearly not in the same league as the T26 for hunting sub surface threats which will be an absolute priority in the high north.

If we take the T31 at a £450m baseline how much will adding these weapons and systems cost?

What will be the increase in manpower and it's associated cost?

then for me Type 31 will do just fine in the high North

The Canadians had the choice of the Iver Huitfeldt for the same mission and they chose the T26. I think that's important.

[SW1]

Yes but then 13 became 8.

Escorting the CSG, LiTM Group, LSG(s) and conducting TAPS will leave little available for the high north.

Well the priority support to asw in the north to support CASD which is really what they’re track Russian submarines heading into the Atlantic and support to the carrier hence why the numbers with type 23 and 26 are 8.

If the carrier was to operate in the Atlantic at the centre of an asw group so be it.

[Poiuytrewq]

Well the priority support to asw in the north to support CASD which is really what they’re track Russian submarines heading into the Atlantic and support to the carrier hence why the numbers with type 23 and 26 are 8.

If the carrier was to operate in the Atlantic at the centre of an asw group so be it.

Eight just isn't enough to do it all unless token deployments is going to be all the UK aspires to going forward.

[SW1]

Well the priority support to asw in the north to support CASD which is really what they’re track Russian submarines heading into the Atlantic and support to the carrier hence why the numbers with type 23 and 26 are 8.

If the carrier was to operate in the Atlantic at the centre of an asw group so be it.

Eight just isn't enough to do it all unless token deployments is going to be all the UK aspires to going forward.

So we don’t do it all. you do what you have the equipment to do.

[NickC]

Here we go again, put F-35 on the Type 31s. Jeesh.

Another Ron's BS posts

[Caribbean]

The Canadians had the choice of the Iver Huitfeldt for the same mission and they chose the T26. I think that's important.

I think it tells you that they were looking for a single class, with the emphasis on top-notch ASW capabilities, but capable of carrying a decent AAW fit as well. You need quite a large platform for that. The IH was built primarily as an AAW platform (which could carry PAAMS/ Sea Viper and all it's kit), with engineering tolerances designed in to allow it to also be equipped as a moderately quiet ASW platform. Very different emphasis (and capabilities).

[Poiuytrewq]

I think it tells you that they were looking for a single class, with the emphasis on top-notch ASW capabilities, but capable of carrying a decent AAW fit as well.

Exactly, the Canadians had a clear objective and a well funded strategy. It will be interesting to see how many they actually build in the end. Shipbuilding in Canada isn't cheap but if they stick with the plan the RCN will be in a very good place by the late 2030's.

[Ron5]

With this statement HMG is setting out its stall that it wants to operate in the High North and the Indo-Pacific if this is their intention they will need more Type 31's to allow a more active flow

Agreed but they need to be as capable as HMS Sutherland.

This not a deployment for a flag waving gunboat set up to defeat a small boat attack in the Strait of Hormuz. I think to a certain extent this shows the limitations of the T31 as currently configured.

When it comes to type 31 being as capable as a type 23 GP we know what is needed it needs a sonar , 30 CAMM and NSM it will never be as capable in the ASW role but could be more capable in the GP role. As the model shows type 31 could be fitted with Phalanx each side of the rear 40mm and we also know it can take more CAMM plus NSM

Of these Phalanx is a pooled weapon system that can be allocated as needed , CAMM is a stock piled weapon allocated as needed as long as you have the tubes and interface , I-SSGW has a outlined budget of 200 million which could allow 10 to 12 sets of NSM .

Fingers crossed they get this extra stuff at their first refit.

By the way there's some expensive boxes that have to be added to get extra CAMM firing channels. If you look at the Lockheed ExLs brochure it gives an idea.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... 042419.pdf

[serge750]

Would be good to see a second batch of upgrade T31 with better sensors & weapon fit, inc sonar, ssm, more CAMM.

Don't bother upgrading the first batch just hopefully sell them at a knock down price - which the uk is brilliant at

Or if we cant sell them then use them for low end / flag waving ships, one for the med, fleet ready escort etc...

[Lord Jim]

The RN with its current and planned assets can really only do the North Atlantic and High North, both key NATO tasks. With the US shift to the Pacific, both our CSG and that of the French Navy's CdG are key, cornerstone assets for the alliance. Yes they may make the occasional foray into the Med and even less frequently further afield, but the NA and HN are the priorities. If we are to routinely have single warships deployed in the Indian Ocean or further east it will have to be the T-31 , and most likely in its present form.

The RN has got its Carriers and must now ensure it actually gets all 8 T-26 and at least 2 FSS, these must be it priorities. Also other Services, especially the Army need every pound that can be found in the MoD Budget over the same timeframe as that of the construction of these ships. The RN is also going to have to find funding to bring the FCASW into service as well as whatever weapon systems are destined for the T-26's Mk41 VLS, something we have heard nothing about, still.

As for the T-31, it may be a better option for the RN to delete the two 40mm gun from the design and instead allocate those two positions to Phalanx CIWS, saving a few more pennies.

[Tempest414]

If we take the T31 at a £450m baseline how much will adding these weapons and systems cost?

Where are you getting a 450 million baseline from?

As for cost of adding weapons NSM cost would come from the said 200 million outlined , Phalanx would be the cost of the interface as the main gun system is pooled , CAMM would be the cost of the mushroom tubes and interface boxes as the missiles are stockpiled

As for the T-31, it may be a better option for the RN to delete the two 40mm gun from the design and instead allocate those two positions to Phalanx CIWS, saving a few more pennies.

As I have said in the past we could remove the 40mm from T-31 and fit a 30mm on point B fit a Phalanx in place of the rear 40mm with a 30mm each side of the phalanx. Then take the 40mm guns and fit 5 of then on the 5 River B2's and fit 2 to each Carrier leaving one as land based training mount this would still give T-31 a good gun fit plus the option to add LMM to the 3 x 30mm and at the same time up arm the B2's. Or fit the remaining 5 40mm to the Hunt class

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting few snippets from the Defense Secretary in today's Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... s-defence/

The Defence Secretary was speaking from Oman, where the MoD today announces a further £23.8 million investment in the UK logistics hub at Duqm port.

The investment in the Omani port will triple the size of the existing UK base and help facilitate Royal Navy deployments to the Indian Ocean.

Duqm has a dry dock facility which could support the UK’s two aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales and is close to a 4,000 square km training area for the Army. It offers the British armed forces an ideal staging post for operations in the Gulf and further east and reinforces the longstanding defence relationship with Oman.

Although Britain has a naval base in Bahrain, home to four Minuhunter ships and a Type-23 Frigate, the waters of the Gulf are too shallow and too close to Iran for the Royal Navy to safely operate the new aircraft carriers.

Mr Wallace said: “It’s clear our adversaries around the world have spread out...if we’re going to be more present [as] Global Britain, places like Duqm give us lots of opportunity to improve our training and capabilities of our armed forces.

“If the carrier comes in next year or a flotilla of warships, it’s the perfect location.

“The Integrated Review will obviously affect the scale [of further British investment in Duqm]. There are other parts of the world where we are looking at similar things.”

[inch]

Think as things looking the next review might be a bit of a Cameron special ,ie cut and promise on the escorts ,then as per usual cut what they promised down the line .it's blatantly starring people in the face , 1)Cummings factor ,2)the mass cut in the economic finances thru covid .we should all be not surprised when it happens .prob with loss off few type 23 first ,maybe Albion class also and say building 2 SSS ships .so net result loss of 4-5 ships and promise only building 2 SSS not 3

[NickC]

As for the T-31, it may be a better option for the RN to delete the two 40mm gun from the design and instead allocate those two positions to Phalanx CIWS, saving a few more pennies.

As I have said in the past we could remove the 40mm from T-31 and fit a 30mm on point B fit a Phalanx in place of the rear 40mm with a 30mm each side of the phalanx. Then take the 40mm guns and fit 5 of then on the 5 River B2's and fit 2 to each Carrier leaving one as land based training mount this would still give T-31 a good gun fit plus the option to add LMM to the 3 x 30mm and at the same time up arm the B2's. Or fit the remaining 5 40mm to the Hunt class

Phalanx - The USN has not spec'd Phalanx for the new 7,400t frigate, FFG(X), for CIWS chosen to rely on the fire and forget RAM Blk 2 >10km range with its 21 cell launcher, so the question raised has time moved on that USN thinks Phalanx no longer effective system.

Is the USN thinking that Phalanx too short range at only 1/1.5 km to stop a heavy supersonic, maybe future hypersonic AShM's which likely become very common during lifetime of T31 eg Brahmos and Brahmos Mk2 etc. If Phalanx hits AShM at that short range and missile breaks up at say 500m will it have a high probability thro kinetic energy the high mass debris will do substantial damage to ship superstruce/radar etc to take ship out of action and why chosen a longer range CIWS?

[Digger22]

It's a very good point that future CIWS presents many challenges. From unsophisticated Terrorism to top end adversary, the integration of a multi layered approach using AI control over energy weapons to Missiles and Smart Ammo. I can't see how just one weapon system could cope in the future, and why shoot something down with a missile when 20mm would do, and why rely on 20mm when you really need a missile.

[Tempest414]

Firstly right now it is making what we have work better and then adding where and when needed next FFGX is in another league to type 31 and more on a par with type-26 in its weapon fit. If Type 31 was to be fitted as I put forward i.e

1 x 57mm , 3 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 30 x CAMM , 8 x NSM + soft kill

It would have a good multi layer defence system with the CAMM starting to engage at 25+ km the 57mm starting to engage at 18 km right down to the Phalanx starting at 2.5 km

[donald_of_tokyo]

Phalanx - The USN has not spec'd Phalanx for the new 7,400t frigate, FFG(X), for CIWS chosen to rely on the fire and forget RAM Blk 2 >10km range with its 21 cell launcher, so the question raised has time moved on that USN thinks Phalanx no longer effective system.

Good point, but as FFG(X) is a counterpart to T26 not T31 (as Tempest414-says), it means "does RN need 20 mm CIWS on T45 and T26"? As you said, it is surely never completely stop a supersonic ASM. I think it is rather a "active armor" = outer layer of "spaced armor". As you described, even if 20mm CIWS successfully engage super-sonic ASM, you get hit from debris and are damaged. But, you MAY not loose everything = typical damage control measure?

To my understanding, against very capable and thus very expensive supersonic missiles, Aster and CAMM are there.

Against very basic and thus very cheap (and thus, existing in number) UAV-like low-end ASM, I think 20mm CIWS is very useful.

If Type 31 was to be fitted as I put forward i.e
1 x 57mm , 3 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 30 x CAMM , 8 x NSM + soft kill
It would have a good multi layer defence system with the CAMM starting to engage at 25+ km the 57mm starting to engage at 18 km right down to the Phalanx starting at 2.5 km

Yes. But this is far from what is planned for T31. As we know, it is
1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 12 x CAMM , 0 x NSM + soft kill
To improve (increase) any of these numbers, you need additional money.

# Interim ASM is for 5 of the 8 T23ASW's "rest of life", and will be freed only after 2032, one-set per year (if no delay). Also, I'm afraid the program is "frozen". Anyway, I understand fund is not yet allocated = it needs additional money.

Also, do not forget up to 2 Wildcat with 4 SeaVenom each, on T31. SeaVenom is NOT to counter enemy high-end escorts. But, against fast attack boats, most of the missile crafts and OPVs, SeaVenom will be "enough". And, I think that is the typical opponent for T31.


By the way, how about
8 T26: 1x 127mm, 24x strike-length VLS (mk41), 48x CAMM, 2x 40mm 3P (banning 2x 30mm and 2x CIWS)
5 T31: 1x 57mm, 12x CAMM, 2x 30mm, 2x CIWS (banning 2x 40mm 3P)

In T26, 48 CAMM and two 40mm 3P will cover high-end and very-low end (drones?) AAW, respectively.
In T31, 12 CAMM for high-end AAW (SeaRAM equivalent) and two 20mm CIWS for very-low-end (drones) and low-end (Exocets/Harpoon equivalent) AAW.

[Old RN]

Firstly right now it is making what we have work better and then adding where and when needed next FFGX is in another league to type 31 and more on a par with type-26 in its weapon fit. If Type 31 was to be fitted as I put forward i.e

1 x 57mm , 3 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 30 x CAMM , 8 x NSM + soft kill

It would have a good multi layer defence system with the CAMM starting to engage at 25+ km the 57mm starting to engage at 18 km right down to the Phalanx starting at 2.5 km

That Phalanx range 1km - 2.5km is maybe why the RN is keen (?) on DS30 + LMM with range out to 9km?