Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

the quad packing option in the Mk41s to give the mision flexibility, eg mix of TLAM, ASROC etc and/or "extra" Sea Ceptors?.

Was thinking the same... while being cognisant of the fact that the renders are sometimes produced with less than high fidelity (the CAD/CAM operator taking the component image available in the library.... though with the T31(e) I guess we are now past that sort of thing).

[shark bait]

By the way, T31e is non-related with all of these discussions. It is a 250M GBP ship, only 40% of the cost used for French FTI. Making it "comparable to FTI" is completely out of scope

The French are buying lots of new equipment, there is nothing worth reusing on the Floréal class, where as the well looked after T23's have lots of valuable equipment to recycle. The price tag is different, and so is the scope.

That is the little bit of hope I have left for the project; the £250m is for the vehicle, with the combat systems to be government furnished later.

[matt00773]

The Mk57 is non-standard and would require new parts, maintenance and training, take up more deck space and internal volume. The Mk57 is unique to the Zumwalt class due to the tumblehome hull shape [requiring massive internal buoyancy tanks, as instead of with a normal flare hull, you lose transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water and basically roll over as you have no righting energy/buoyancy to make the ship come back up] standard flare hulls cannot accommodate peripheral cells as they have to be positioned inboard due to the length of the cells relative to the outward cant of the hull.

There's nothing specific about the design of the Mk57 that makes it unique only to Zumwalt. It's simply a larger sized missile silo with advanced architecture that enables integration with different missile systems without modifications to launcher hardware and software - the shape of a ship's hull has got nothing to do with it. It was designed from the outset to be used on multiple sea and land platforms. Yes, it does require more volume compared to full strike Mk41, but it's not that much bigger. Also, BAE Systems UK was heavily involved with the design and build of Mk57 and I'm certain that this was a consideration for the Type 45 as a possible enhancement.

[shark bait]

It would be interesting to know the proposed displacement of Leander proposal. I would imagine in the order of 3500t. Not long ago we were being told it was practically impossible to achieve that fit on that tonnage. Sounds good if possible.

The ship is expected to be around 4,000 tonnes and 120 metres in length with a ship’s company of about 120 and capable of operations in the extremes of the Gulf or Arctic.

A lot of excitement here, but it seems very unambitious for a combatant that will be operational in the 2050's. Likewise a crew of 120 is very unambitious for such a small poorly equipped vessel.

[benny14]

That is the little bit of hope I have left for the project; the £250m is for the vehicle, with the combat systems to be government furnished later.

As well, I think we brought all new equipment for the first three type 26s to stop there been issues with needing the equipment off the type 23s before they are decommissioned. So we essentially have three type 23s worth of equipment left over. Would mean there was equipment there if they wanted to exceed the 5 hulls.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Also, BAE Systems UK was heavily involved with the design and build of Mk57 and I'm certain that this was a consideration for the Type 45 as a possible enhancement.

At the time, yes, but this direction - with the missile upgrade - was again confirmed in March, a year ago
"Defence Ministers signed in September 2015 an Inter-Governmental Agreement enabling full implementation of Centres of Excellence into MBDA, a key step towards creating inter-dependence between us around key missile technologies.

We also intend to develop in 2016 a portfolio approach to strengthen our industrial links and jointly address the current and future operational requirements of our forces. In that respect, France is for instance considering Brimstone 2 for next standard of Tiger combat helicopter and the United Kingdom is considering the Aster Block 1NT for equipping its T45 Destroyers.”

The programme also aims to “extend the range to hit incoming ballistic missiles”.

At the start of the year[2017], Italy also joined the ‘Aster 30 Block 1NT’ programme."

Not that the (joint-)funding of development necessarily turns into an immediate procurement, when the "product" becomes available.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Like this news piece in the DID of Tuesday shows, having a sovereign ABM missile supply may not be a bad idea:
"Egypt's plan to purchase further Rafale fighter jets from France's Dassault Aviation has hit a roadblock, as US authorities are refusing to allow the export of an American component that is used on the SCALP cruise missile. Manufactured by MBDA and going by the name Storm Shadow in the UK, Cairo has requested the inclusion of the munition for its Rafales as part of a deal to purchase a further 15 aircraft. According to French financial newspaper La Tribune, French President Emmanuel Macron might lobby on behalf of MBDA during a planned visit to Washington DC in April."

[donald_of_tokyo]

By the way, T31e is non-related with all of these discussions. It is a 250M GBP ship, only 40% of the cost used for French FTI. Making it "comparable to FTI" is completely out of scope

The French are buying lots of new equipment, there is nothing worth reusing on the Floréal class, where as the well looked after T23's have lots of valuable equipment to recycle. The price tag is different, and so is the scope.

Artisan 5M GBP (if new), CAMM system may be ~50M GBP (if new), CMS-1 partly can be reused (of course T31's CMS is much smaller than T23GP-mods'), but anyway "integration" ( & verification after wiring) is needed, and also "ripping-off" needs big man power if you are to re-use the equipments.

Summed up, I think it is only about 60M GBP at most (I mean +100M GBP - 40M GBP). Never be able to fill the 600M GBP vs 250M GBP big difference.

# By the way, FTI is un-related to Floreal class. It is a successor of La-Fayette class, as you know.

That is the little bit of hope I have left for the project; the £250m is for the vehicle, with the combat systems to be government furnished later.

Even though I share "similar" feeling, it will never fill the "600M GBP vs 250M GBP big gap". In other words, I think FTI = 600M GBP ave. ship and T31e 300-320M GBP ave ship. (~half).

[shark bait]

I think the difference is bigger, I made the following pie chart from a burk destroyer cost breakdown, I think its safe to assume the RN's costs are similar; a T45 cost £650m without sea viper for example.

System have allays been the expansive bit.

(Another example a 737 costs £100m for the top of the line model, with a P8 costing double?)

[donald_of_tokyo]

System have allays been the expansive bit.

Yes. And, system cannot be "copy and pasted" from one ship to the other. If it is easy, AEGIS system is just buying computers A,B,C, bolting them, wiring them, and just turning on the power and let it go.

No, it is not.

Systems "integration" is the most expensive part.

[ArmChairCivvy]

From various studies on warship costs, I am with you @SB for the 40% for hull, propulsion and basic navigation
- but what is the 13 % for other, then?

One would(?) also expect that the more upper end the vessel and its mission, the less the actual platform figures in the overall cost. Might not be true for a T-26 (hull quietness essential part of mission effectiveness) but the Burkes (early on) definitely were a rush-prgrm to get AEGIS out to sea (with a stable enough platform, without having to make it battleship sized)

[NickC]

@ sharkbait

Would not base any figures on the Burkes as they are basically an old eighties design, too expensive, too manpower intensive, too fuel intensive (all GTs), too maintenance intensive, too dense. They were only put back into build after the disaster that was Zumwalt, the new Flt IIIs are having to be built to two separate sets of drawings, BIW and HII, as USN was unable to come to common standard. USN has refused to disclose build cost as "commercially sensitive", total cost is also opaque as Aegis partially funded/paid for by the Missile Defense Agency. At ASNE president's lunch Arlington February 2011, Hein van Ameijden (Managing Director of Damen), stated US paying over the odds for its ships, approx. three times build hours in Holland, quoted 4.4 million hours for a Burke.

My standard for an AAW destroyer (not ASW as would need different hull and propulsion) would be the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class, based on the Absalon hull, built to DNV rules for Naval Vessels, NATO-standard shock protection (STANAG 4142, 4137 and 4549), nuclear, biological and chemical protection (STANAG 4447) and vital area armor protection (STANAG 4569), with 16 watertight sections or compartments and two airtight bulkheads, incorporates survivability and damage limitation features including dual redundancy, automated damage control zones, damage detectors and smoke zones. Has undergone FSST and FOST successfully.

Maersk (a very, very successful commercial shipping company) designed Danish Iver Huitfeldt class, 2010 era, 6,650T FLD, 139m, beam 19.8m, CODAD with four MTU 20V 8000 M70 DE, max. speed 29 knots, range 9,300 nm @ 18 knots, crew ~130, excluding air team.

Two main radars SMART-L radar and HSA APAR X band plus Saab Ceros-200 fire control radar and EO, 32 MK 41 VLS Strike length cells for SM-2s and 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSM's, two eight deck launchers for Harpoon, two 76mm guns, two twin launchers for LWTs, Millennium 35mm cannon & Atlas Elektronik HMS, flight deck and hanger capable sized to take two Merlins.

Iver Huitfeldt class of three, total cost per ship under $400 million which seems unbelievable.
Fully equipped, an Iver Huitfeldt frigate costs the equivalent of $340 million, Rear Adm. Olsen. Most of that, about $207 million, goes to weapons, sensors, and other electronics, which drive the cost of modern warships worldwide. The hull, engines, and other mechanical systems (HME) only cost about $133 million - includes the cost of the re-used equipment, 2 x Stanflex modules each with 1 x 76mm OTO Melara Super Rapid gun mount; 2 x Stanflex modules each with 2 x Mark-141 Harpoon missile eight launchers; 2 x Stanflex modules each with 12-cell Mark-56 VLS for ESSM.

How - Maesk design; Danish Navy had the technical know how to carry out the system integration themselves; steelwork/hull built in eastern European shipyard.

They separated the platform and the payload, with their Stanflex modules which use standard interface into which a wide variety of options can plug, eases maintenance, mission changes, and updates with new technology. Iver Huitfeldt has room for five Stanflex modules on weapons deck. Class has been severely criticised in US as only built to commercial standard and using commercial equipment, which find ironic when instead using bespoke/very expensive kit USN boast of using COTS, Maesk when using COTS installed it on shock proof 'islands' and as said previously passed FOST with flying colours and FSST, Full Ship Shock Trials.

PS Has operated Gulf with no breakdowns due to heat as a certain Type 45 with it's infamous Integrated Electric Propulsion (IEP).

[donald_of_tokyo]

@NickC
I agree Iver Huitfeldt class is nice ship, but it does have limitation.
- Their Mk.41 VLS was empty for a few years from there commission (I mean no test shoot).
- Danish navy is said to cover many of the sea trials by them selves, in many case the builders do in other country.
- Third, and the most important, no other navy ordered Iver Huitfeldt class, even though it is clearly "very cheap".

Nonetheless, I agree the concept and idea is very nice for T31e, which will never be built to full escort standard.

[ArmChairCivvy]

while being cognisant of the fact that the renders are sometimes produced with less than high fidelity (the CAD/CAM operator taking the component image available in the library.... though with the T31(e) I guess we are now past that sort of thing).

Judging by the comment on the other thread
"Postby jimthelad » 23 Feb 2018, 22:54
they have sea wolf radar tracker on top of bridge in that image"
we are not past that sort of thing (despite the reuse of Seawolf tubes, the new design team should have tapped into the CAD/CAM library of the T-26 team, and used those initial post-launch guidance box images of which there are plenty on T-26 renders - and which functionally decouple the type of radar and initial guidance, until each missiles active seeker takes over).
- a good feature for dealing with saturation attacks , or with the JSM type guidance, where after a salvo launch the missiles go round the target so that there is one coming at the target from each and every direction

[matt00773]

At the time, yes, but this direction - with the missile upgrade - was again confirmed in March, a year ago
"Defence Ministers signed in September 2015 an Inter-Governmental Agreement enabling full implementation of Centres of Excellence into MBDA, a key step towards creating inter-dependence between us around key missile technologies.

We also intend to develop in 2016 a portfolio approach to strengthen our industrial links and jointly address the current and future operational requirements of our forces. In that respect, France is for instance considering Brimstone 2 for next standard of Tiger combat helicopter and the United Kingdom is considering the Aster Block 1NT for equipping its T45 Destroyers.”

The Aster 30 Block 1 NT is a great development but only offers entry level BMD capability - missile ranges up to 1500km. The currently being developed Block 2 BMD Aster will improve this up to 3000km some time in the 2020s, but this is moving too slowly. The Phase 3 SM-3 missile can intercept missiles with ranges in excess of 6000km, with further developments in the pipeline. There is space on Type 45 to incorporate additional VLS and US systems should be considered.

[benny14]

There is space on Type 45 to incorporate additional VLS

Heres to hoping that the latest review decides we need to fund BMD.

[indeid]

The Aster 30 Block 1 NT is a great development but only offers entry level BMD capability - missile ranges up to 1500km. The currently being developed Block 2 BMD Aster will improve this up to 3000km some time in the 2020s, but this is moving too slowly. The Phase 3 SM-3 missile can intercept missiles with ranges in excess of 6000km, with further developments in the pipeline. There is space on Type 45 to incorporate additional VLS and US systems should be considered.

It’s one thing increasing the range of the missiles but you have to have the sensors to to get it there. You very quickly out range your organic sensor and then rely on external sources so you can launch or even engage on remote. I’m not sure even the US have got the coverage they need, and they have land, sea and most importantly space assets to narrow in on and discriminate the target.

Sold on the need for BMD, but I would focus on land and sea based SR/ASBM Defence and have a roadmap out to MRBMD when part of a network.

The UK does have a history of Missile Warning and BMD with UEWR, and Project LEWIS will deliver in the early/mid 2020s.

[NickC]

donald_of_tokyo » 24 Feb 2018, 01:37

@NickC
I agree Iver Huitfeldt class is nice ship, but it does have limitation.
- Their Mk.41 VLS was empty for a few years from there commission (I mean no test shoot).

Not sure if the Danes ever bought any SM-2s, Raytheon have re-opened the production line after receipt of new orders, June 2017, for 280 SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles from Australia, Japan, Netherlands and South Korea, $650 million, $2.3 million each, noticeable that Denmark not included.

[/quote]- Danish navy is said to cover many of the sea trials by them selves, in many case the builders do in other country.[/quote]

As mentioned to meet budget the Danish Navy had the ability and tech nous to carry out system integration and sure they carried out their own sea trials.

[/quote]- Third, and the most important, no other navy ordered Iver Huitfeldt class, even though it is clearly "very cheap".[/quote]

My thoughts are that Maersk not marketing Iver Huitfeldt with any enthusiasm, though they bought to bear their massive design expertise on ship they are a commercial company with $35 billion p.a. turnover and have other priorities, eg bringing into operation their fleet of 31 off 196,000DWT Triple E container ships.

The Danish US Embassy did mount a recent campaign to get the Iver Huitfeldt selected as one of the picks for the USN FFG(X) Conceptual Design phase with no success. That just reflects the pork barrel politics of USN, winners were updates of both of the LCS ships, LOL, a ship each from the current duopoly of Ingalls, ship design not revealed, and BIW with version the old Navantia F100, the only decent design picked was the Fincantieri FREMM, Fincantieri in is their shipyard in Wisconsin, Marinette Marine.

[/quote]Nonetheless, I agree the concept and idea is very nice for T31e, which will never be built to full escort standard.[/quote]

The Iver Huitdeldt class established a new paradigm in Europe for design and cost, approx. to those of Japan and South Korea , should be used as benchmark standard by RN for assessing the various T31e contenders if it wants to be price competitive in export market.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Sold on the need for BMD, but I would focus on land and sea based SR/ASBM Defence

We could hide one of these https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2085579/u ... r-weapons/
in the Scottish fjords and sail it out when the threat level is raised

[ArmChairCivvy]

noticeable that Denmark not included.

They only just added the money to their budget.

In this article the US Navy ABM director talks about Danish frigates https://news.usni.org/2015/03/05/what-t ... ate-design

"

This ultra-flexible system may not sound like it would be relevant to some American ship classes, such as cruisers and destroyers, but Capt. Thomas Halvorson, deputy director of the Navy’s surface warfare directorate for Ballistic Missile Defense, Aegis and Destroyers, said there were still lessons to be drawn for future surface combatants.

Halvorson said the Aegis Baseline 9 upgrade effort had been a great accomplishment for the Navy’s cruiser fleet, but it was also a work-intensive accomplishment. A more flexible ship design could allow the Navy to upgrade the computers on a future surface combatant more routinely, rather than having to wait for a massive midlife upgrade.

“One of the other ideas I heard [the Danes] talk about, Adm. Sullivan, was they can change out the computer program completely in 90 days,” Halvorson said. “We all have a little bit of a part to play in the two-year upgrade that involves ripping out pieces massive pieces of ship infrastructure to change out every server in the room. We need to get closer to that Dane mentality.”

Also during the panel, Program Executive Officer for Ships Rear Adm. David Gale explained the importance of building in enough flexibility from the beginning of a program."

[Pongoglo]

Thanks benny14 for those images of Type 26. May I ask where they came from?

A BAE video on the type 26 from about 6 months ago.

A good spot - first time I have seen a graphic of a Merlin in the mission bay. Implies you could carry two in the ASW role and still have room for at least 2 x RHIBs as well ?

[benny14]

A good spot - first time I have seen a graphic of a Merlin in the mission bay. Implies you could carry two in the ASW role and still have room for at least 2 x RHIBs as well ?

"The T26 GCS Flexible Mission Bay can accommodate four 12-metre boats for boarding operations for the insertion of Royal Marines or other forces. Alternatively, it can host a range of manned and unmanned surface, subsurface and aerial vehicles. Such is the flexibility and capacity of the space that it could even hold ten 20-foot containers or mission modules containing anything from disaster relief stores to specialist medical or Command and Control facilities. The spacious hangar can easily accommodate a single Merlin Helicopter or two Wildcat; in extremis, for short surge operations, the Mission Bay could even accommodate a second Merlin. The large flight deck is sized to accept a CH47 Chinook (ramp down) for troop embarkation and disembarkation and can operate a range of smaller helicopters and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs).

[NickC]

@ArmChairCivy

If you have the time, Iver Huitfeldt

[NickC]

Apologies duplicated, here's 2nd video

[Ron5]

Given that CAMM can be quad packed in Mk 41 VLS, why in the installations to date and the depictions we see in various images of possible future installations are the launch tubes so widely spaced? I thought one of the advantages of the soft launch technique was that the missiles could be packed close together. I am curious as to the reasons this is not being done!

The MoD chose to keep the Type 23 Seawolf cells during their upgrade to CAMM. Presumably money. They are well seperated because Sea Wolf is hot fired and had space around the cells for fire suppression etc. Maybe some armor. The dimensions of the Sea Wolf cell allows for one CAMM missile. As a result, the CAMM missiles are not as densely packed as they could be and are in the land CAMM launcher or the ExLs launcher.

The recent Type 31e CGI show the Type23 Sea Wolf cells containing CAMM to have been transferred "en masse". No doubt to save money. Also no doubt that if & when supplies of old Sea Wolf cells dry up, Type 31e's will be fitted with more compact CAMM launchers.