Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[dmereifield]

Assuming we want a solid all rounder, but first tier ASW T26, capable of holding it's own on singleton deployment if required, but will spend virtually all of its time escorting the carriers or conducting TAPs. So, presumably it doesn't need TLAM or to be capable of NGFS. How much money could be saved by going with something like Donald's suggestion? I'd say it's unlikely that they would drop to a 30mm main gun. But how much could be saved by dropping to the manual loaded 5", or the 76mm or 57 mm?

Those guns will need man power, and dedicated training stream to handle it. If money allows it, I agree we can get it, but I think it will be better not be with gun. As you can see, my proposal is a "Type-22 B2" like ship = ASW specific version of T26.
.

Thanks Donald. I was thinking that the T31 and/or future MHC would likely introduce one of these new gun systems, so going with whatever system that turns out to be would be an option.

[shark bait]

To change the tune: how would you folks improve the Type 26's?

Nothing.

It's very nearly perfect, a big flexible multi-mission beast, its just a shame money does not match the ambition.

I would build the first batch to the current UK spec, then let the Australians do the hard work integrating their nice radar, and buy that technology for future batches.

Plus another MT30. Rolls Royce show a propulsion arrangement on their site

That would be crazy, 80Mw in a Frigate, sounds great!

Sticking a second big gas turbine in there is pretty much starting from scratch again. Wondering what the benefits would be in real life, and are they greater than all electric propulsion? I'm not convinced they are.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Sticking a second big gas turbine in there is pretty much starting from scratch again. Wondering what the benefits would be in real life,

We would have our version of USS Freedom:

Engine(s): 2 x Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines with 2 x Colt-Pielstick diesel engines in COmbined Diesel And Gas (CODAG) arrangement; 4 x Rolls-Royce waterjet thrusters...

[RetroSicotte]

That's a good theorycraft by Ron there, how to improve the Type 26, because while it is an excellent looking ship, it does have some elements that could be improved.

Step 1 for me is improving the radar. Artisan is the weakest component of Type 26, it's decent but it's definitely a "last gen" design at its core. Getting a nice fixed array AESA up there similar to CEAFAR or Seafire would be an excellent future proofing for the Type 26, permitting future upgrades to GaN type radars.

Step 2 would be hard-kill torpedo countermeasures. For a future ASW hunter, this would be unique for the vessels, and extremely important in changing the hunted to the hunter.

Step 3 would be improving its propulsion to enhance that speed to a sprint capable ship similar to the Duke classes well known chase speeds. Whether dual mounted MT30s, or an upgrade to CODAG, getting it above 30 knots with ease would be highly desirable. Ron's concept of prop replacement is certainly an interesting one.

Step 4 would be ensuring acquirement of ASW USVs, Being able to deploy two fast USVs that can run off and active ping CAPTAS 1-2 type sonars till their heart's content without a worry in the world about losing lives would be a massive force multiplier for putting the pressure on subs. Combined with a helo, that takes pressure off the ship to risk itself.

Step 5 would be enhancing SAMs. CAMM is a good missile, but allowing the Type 26 to have the ability to fire out there via datalink would be a huge force multiplier for throwing down those threat bubbles alongside Daring classes. SM-6 and and CEC would transform Type 26 into a fully multirole vessel. In addition, the midship CAMM becoming CAMM-ER would give it varied engagement ranges. This would be valuable anti-BMD aid too.

Step 6 would be mounting torpedo launchers. With only 24 Mk41 silos to go around TLAMs, ASMs, ASROCs and SAMs, having means outside that space to still engage ASW like most other nations using both do would be optimum.

The above is of course presuming the the possible expansions of directed energy CIWS, guided high velocity munitions from the gun and the Mk41 contents all emerge as is.

Fantasy of course, but there's no harm in examining a nice top level thought.

[shark bait]

it does have some elements that could be improved.

Steps 2, 4, 5 & 6 are payloads, not the platform.

If the platform is built right, adding those payload options should be easy.

[RetroSicotte]

it does have some elements that could be improved.

Steps 2, 4, 5 & 6 are payloads, not the platform.

If the platform is built right, adding those payload options should be easy.

They're not "just" payloads. The platform needs to be enabled to actually use them, for example. CEC in step 5 for example is definitely not just a payload, but an extremely in depth and complex modification. As is BMD. Step 2 hard-kill for example would need to be built into the superstructure, as would torpedoes, so definitely not just payload.

[shark bait]

Cooperative engagement is software, no in depth platform modifications needed.

Bolting on some torpedo's is a trivial change too, they seem happy to bolt some harpoon launchers on the roof for the Canadian bid, torpedo should be no different. If the platform is right, adding these payloads is easy.

[NickC]

Dutch expected to authorise major expenditure of additional Euro 6.7 billion (Euro 2.5 billion already budgeted for two submarines) on navy.

Includes updates of their four AAW FLD 6,050 ton De Zeven Provincien class destroyers, will receive the all new SMART-L MM/N (EWC) extended long range L-band radar replacing the old generation SMART L / S1850M 400 km range radars, MM/N with a new active electronically scanned array using high powered GaN silicon transmit/receive modules, designed to detect air, surface, and high-speed exo-atmospheric targets out to an instrumented range of 2,000 km forming part of the Netherlands' national contribution to NATO's ballistic missile defence (BMD) capabilities.

Two new ASW frigates, replacement for the two remaining Karel Doorman M-class FLD 3,320 ton class of eight frigates after sales to Belgium, Chile and Portugal, coming towards EOL ~2024. New frigate seven year program, ships operational 2025, estimated cost euro 1 to 2.5 billion (don't understand massive spread) and expected to be built by Damen Gorinchem. Joint program with Belgium, Belgium will lead on build new mine hunters.

[indeid]

Cooperative engagement is software, no in depth platform modifications needed.

Bolting on some torpedo's is a trivial change too, they seem happy to bolt some harpoon launchers on the roof for the Canadian bid, torpedo should be no different. If the platform is right, adding these payloads is easy.

Really? When I last saw it there were multiple equipment racks and antenna arrays. It needs to do a lot of processing and as an independent data link will need the transmitter/receiver kit. I think the AN/USG-2 is the surface ship kit, no doubt updated from when I last saw it. Another different varient is on the E2s.

You could use the link16 terminal update to get you some of the way there, that would just need a CMS upgrade and possibly some antenna changes.

[inch]

wonder if the type45 will upgrade their s1850m radar to the dutch system in the future ,sounds like a huge upgrade to me from 400km to 2000km for BMD but also the general performance compairing the 2 systems ,but im no expert on this issue at all

[shark bait]

a server and an antenna, how on earth are they going to fit that on a 7,000 tonne ship?

[indeid]

a server and an antenna, how on earth are they going to fit that on a 7,000 tonne ship?

I never said it wouldn’t fit, I was saying you were wrong.......

[RetroSicotte]

http://www.janes.com/article/79889/sele ... ed-shortly

End of May start of July.

All hope. The Australian one I've sort of passed off in a way due to past things, been more hopeful for Canada (despite Canada's "reputation" with procurement). But I'm hoping to get a cheery announcement here.

[Ron5]

I was thinking Sampson MkII would probably be fixed arrays. 4 sided, each side smaller than the current Sampson to keep weight down. I'm suggesting a Sampson base to keep the software changes to a minimum and to maintain compatibility with the T45's. Software is the key.

To ACC, hasn't the UK demonstrate a Sampson multi-mode (ABM/AA) capability? Maybe I missed/misunderstood something.

CEC would be an excellent T26/T45/CVF addition. I should have thought of that. Shame it's so expensive.

I'm not convinced changing from a single MT30 to a dual system is a huge deal in terms of T26 re-design. Physically the MT30's aren't much bigger than the diesel gensets. Certainly much smaller and lighter than the cross connect gearbox that would no longer be needed. The shafts and screws would need to be upgraded for the extra power. Larger screws would be hard to fit. The diesel gensets & associated electrical gear and the e-motors would be unchanged. I would think the biggest issue would be to find space for the extra set of large up/down takes. That would be a challenge.

Pumpjets would require a complete redesign of the aft underwater section. On the plus side, space would be freed up by the removal of the steering gear.

And the speed dial would need to be updated

[ArmChairCivvy]

a good theorycraft

[Ron5]

I first read that as Thorneycroft

[ArmChairCivvy]

To ACC, hasn't the UK demonstrate a Sampson multi-mode (ABM/AA) capability? Maybe I missed/misunderstood something.

As said, been hard of time for more than half a year (for reading primary sources), but it could be me... or you.
- aren't they still at the stage where either can be done - but ONLY BY switching between the modes?

Sampson MkII would probably be fixed arrays. 4 sided, each side smaller than the current Sampson to keep weight down.

- sounds like a good idea... for getting it all onto the (T45 sized) T26 hull

CEC would be an excellent T26/T45/CVF addition. I should have thought of that. Shame it's so expensive.

- we were part of a lead items order (5% of something, th e something being for 6 vessels)
- and then it was all (on our part) cancelled

[Ron5]

aren't they still at the stage where either can be done - but ONLY BY switching between the modes?

Good question. I don't remember.

[Poiuytrewq]

Picking up on one of the questions from the Defence Select Committee yesterday were Mark François asked the Defence Secretary about the possibility of keeping a number of outgoing T23's in reserve rather than selling or scraping the whole class.

Is this a viable option, although perhaps not in the way Mr François intended?

I am not a fan of putting vessels into reserve as the reactivation usually leads to an expensive refit, further draining the already squeezed budget, much better to scrap or sell and recoup as much money as possible to be reinvested into replacement vessels. This is very much in line with Sir John Parkers 15 year service life of the T31's.

Rather than put the T23's into extended readiness, would it be possible to remove some of the most costly and labour intensive systems thereby bringing the running costs and crew allocation down to a more sustainable level?

For example, if HMG committed to raising escort levels to 24 vessels by 2030 with a follow-on batch of five T31ASW frigates, the first five T23's could be retained in the short term until the new vessels are commissioned and the escort fleet reaches 24.

If all but the most essential communication and navigation systems were removed, along with Harpoon and the majority of the CAMM cells could the crew allocation get down to 80 to 100?

If these semi retired T23's retained the Mk8 gun, 30mm's, possibly 10 or 12 CAMM, HMS and the ability to embark a helicopter up to the size of a Merlin they would probably still be better equipped than the T31 that is due to replace it.

They would be ideal vessels for Tier 2 escorting duties such as Albion's recent deployment to the far east or providing the Fleet Ready Escort in the UK.

It's easy to make the argument that the T23's are past their best and should be disposed of asap but the same was said of HMS Ocean and it now looks like she will go on to provide many years of great service for Brazil.

Are options like this worth exploring or is RN destined to an escort fleet of 19 ships or less for the foreseeable future?

[ArmChairCivvy]

If all but the most essential communication and navigation systems were removed, along with Harpoon and the majority of the CAMM cells could the crew allocation get down to 80 to 100?

If these semi retired T23's retained the Mk8 gun, 30mm's

Didn't we do something like that with the last couple of T42s (to keep up the patrol/ NGFS numbers)?
- how much did the crew number reduce by (if at all)?

[Tempest414]

I would say that it can be done but there will be no reduction in crew also I think a follow on order for Type 31 would be a more cost effective option in the long run. as for crew numbers now the carriers are manned numbers for the escorts should start to rise as newly trained crew come on line

[Poiuytrewq]

If the running costs and crew allocation can be reduced down to something approaching a T31 level it may be a short term solution. If the crew allocation were to remain anywhere near 180 it's a total non starter.

How low could a stripped out T23 go?

[Poiuytrewq]

..... I think a follow on order for Type 31 would be a more cost effective option in the long run.

I agree, it would only be a very short term solution.

If HMG really are serious about increasing escort numbers it certainly is an option to start to genuinely increase escort numbers within 5 years.

Interestingly, when pushed hard on escort numbers, Mr Williamson was absolutely committed to eight T26's but when it came to the T31's his answers became extremely evasive.

Reading between the lines the T31 programme appears to be under review as part of the MDP but perhaps not in a negative way. RN's ASW capability and the North Atlantic appear to continue to be hot topics.

[Tempest414]

one thing that could make a difference is if they removed the 4.5 gun and fitted a 76/57mm which would then be moved on to a new ship down the line this would reduce a good number of crew and if in line with the Type 31 logistic and maintenance cost of that system as for CAMM if the ship has the cells then carry the missiles they will be in stock anyway

[Poiuytrewq]

one thing that could make a difference is if they removed the 4.5 gun and fitted a 76/57mm which would then be moved on to a new ship down the line

This could apply to lots of the transferable systems for the second batch of T31's.

Might be a bit drastic but if the second batch T31's were to get a Phalanx could the semi retired T23's have the main armament and the VLS cells removed to be replaced by the Phalanx.

This would then leave 2x 30mm's, Phalanx and the embarked wildcat for offensive/defensive armament. More than enough for deployments in low threat areas. It's a far from ideal specification but as a 5 year stop gap, it may be worth considering if the medium term prize is getting the escort fleet back up to 24 hulls.

Getting the crew numbers down to 120 or less is the biggest hurdle.