Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:2018) Ex off Oman 1 x LPD , 1 x T-45 , 2 x LSD's , 1 x Point class , 2 x MCM
2019) Baltic 1 x LPD , 1 x T-23 , Argus , 1 x LSD , 1 x Point class
2020) Med 1 x LPD , 1 x T-45 , 1 x LSD
The LPD is the common denominator but is that because of the 4x LCU capacity or the Command & Control facilities?

Depending on what such a force is trying to achieve there may be a more efficient way to attain the same result with a much more streamlined group of vessels.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

IF the primary role of the new Type 32 were to be escort to the LRG, what capabilities would the T32 require?

If the Littoral Strike Ship is still a thing (maybe it should now be called Littoral Response Ship), then it was to be forward based and deployed with an escort. As and when required for exercises or operations, it would be joined by LSD and LPD.

So for 90%+ of the time the LSS and T32 are operating in low threat environments, conduct training, presence and HADR ops. But for the odd hot op, they will be the gateway force for the LRG.

What does that mean for a T32?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:ALSO include MCM tasks?
My view is outside of UK waters then yes, MCM would be part of the LRG. You could call the Gulf based “Bay + T23 + 4 MCM” a LRG now.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Aethulwulf wrote:IF the primary role of the new Type 32 were to be escort to the LRG, what capabilities would the T32 require?
I would say that a T32 should not only escort, but also compliment the LRG. Like the recent LRGX trial has shown I’d also expect the group to split in normal times to do different things. So ability to sail independently into higher threat zones should be part of the requirement.

However, for a complementary escort, I’d see the following as essential requirements:

- Aviation facilities for 2 Merlin / Wildcats
- Large gun for NGFS
- Active Sonar
- Local air defence via CAMMs
- ASuW missiles
- Ability is to support a 30-60 RM detachment
- Boat / Mission bay to handle USV/UUVs and manned fast boats

Just a shame we can’t afford more T26s...
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:IF the primary role of the new Type 32 were to be escort to the LRG, what capabilities would the T32 require?
I would say that a T32 should not only escort, but also compliment the LRG. Like the recent LRGX trial has shown I’d also expect the group to split in normal times to do different things. So ability to sail independently into higher threat zones should be part of the requirement.

However, for a complementary escort, I’d see the following as essential requirements:

- Aviation facilities for 2 Merlin / Wildcats
- Large gun for NGFS
- Active Sonar
- Local air defence via CAMMs
- ASuW missiles
- Ability is to support a 30-60 RM detachment
- Boat / Mission bay to handle USV/UUVs and manned fast boats

Just a shame we can’t afford more T26s...
Or could we switch them around ie move the T26 to the LRG as you say it fits the bill quite nicely and design the T32 as a “mini” T26 something like I described up thread.

Keeping the T26 hull form to allow great ASW but in a vessel that is say -
Length - 130m
Beam - 18.5m
Displacement - 5,500t
Merlin flight deck + hanger
3 x 57mm
16 Mk41 for 8 ASCOR or replacement and 8 AShM
6-9 ExLS for 24-36 CAMM

5 of the above for CSG ASW moving 4 of the T26 for LRG and 2 for CASD leaving 2 x T26, 2 x T45 and 5 x T31 for everything else.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:Japanese plan for a total of 22 30DX's, 6 ordered to date and a further $951 million for two more ships in its latest defense budget request.

The 30DX, ~5,500t FLD; 30 knots, one MT-30 GT and two MAN 12V28/33D diesel engines; Mk.45 mod.4 127mm gun; FFBNW Mk.41 VLS 16 cells; SeaRAM ×1; MHI Type 17 anti-ship missiles ×8; 12.7mm RWS ×2; Mitsubishi Electric OPY-2 MFR and OAX-3EO/IR; NEC OQQ-25 VDS/TASS; Hitachi OQQ-11 anti-mine sonar; UUV (OZZ-5 by MHI) and USV (unknown type) for mine counter measures; Sea mines for offensive mine warfare.

Donald-san any knowledge if $951 million for two ships is only the shipyard costs or includes GFE, ~£720 million, ~£360 million per ship
The cost ingredients, I do not know in detail. As I understand, it includes all weapon systems, and even some set of ammo, but does not include the 1st-year maintenance costs, which is included in UK case.
Thx, another query Naval News saying the 16 Mk41 VLS cells FFBNW, do you know if correct as was surprised as thought would be needed for the ESSM and SM-2's, if correct 30DX will only have the SeaRAM with 11 RAM Block 2 AA missiles.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote:Or could we switch them around ie move the T26 to the LRG as you say it fits the bill quite nicely and design the T32 as a “mini” T26 something like I described up thread.
Would say that that is what the T31 should now become. Appreciate they are not designed to be “stealthy ASW hunters”, but with Active pingers and combined with MPAs and XLUUVs, 5 T31s could make a solid Home Fleet freeing up the T26s.

Even then though along with the CSG duties, 8 T26s will not be enough for significant LRG roles - so unless more are purchased, a T32 makes sense.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Thanks, in summary
- a far less tortuous evolution than that for the T26
- over a much shorter time span and with less cost to tax payer
- likely to be a successful delivery, and end up with a happy customer
... might even buy more
Not sure about all that. Success is not guaranteed and there's plenty here and in the RN that will tell you the end result is a rather pathetic excuse for a warship that's not good enough to do any real fighting. But with room for some of that to be fixed down the road so not all bad.

I still wonder about exports, rather a key part of the whole program.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Ron5 wrote:3. Babcock's burned through two designs in order to end up with A140. The delay inserted into the program last year was clearly to allow Babcock's more time to take direction from the MoD that their initial designs were not good enough, so they could scrabble around to end up with A140. It's not fair and open competition when the MoD steps on one end of the scales.
This statement is not true.

Initial bids were first submitted to MOD for the Value Management Phase. MOD received bids / designs from CL/BAE (Leander), Babcock (Arrowhead 120), BMT (Venator), OMT (Iver Huitfeldt), Atlas (Meko A200) and Navantia light frigate.

By that stage Babcock and BMT were working together, although their two separate designs were both submitted.

After receiving the feedback from MOD in the Value Management Phase, Babcock then also teamed up with OMT.

The Arrowhead 140 design from Babcock/BMT/OMT, the Leander design from CL/BAE and the Meko A200 from Atlas were all entered as bids for the Competitive Design Phase. It was only after these bids/designs had been received that MOD paused the programme, in order to change the rules regarding counting the cost of GFE and inflation (plus contractual matters). MOD did this so that all three bids could be taken into the Competitive Design Phase (which they were). The CL/BAE bid made the most use of GFE, and so would likely have benefited the most from the pause in the programme and rule adjustment.

The pause had nothing to do with allowing "Babcock's more time to take direction from the MoD that their initial designs were not good enough, so they could scrabble around to end up with A140" The A140 design was submitted by Babcock before the pause occured.

If MOD had stepped on one end of the scale as you allege, I'm sure BAE/CL would have protested loudly. No such protests were made.
Knowing you, I'm sure this is backed with impeccable sources but it sure reads like pure revisionist history seen through MoD rose colored glasses. A perfect program run perfectly.

Here's the things that don't gel right with me. Of course you'd be perfectly correct in saying "so what, who are you?".

1. The process as announced made it very clear that design and build would not be divorced. A package was required. So only those with the ability to design, develop and build need apply. The only exception was for major component suppliers. So design shops without UK build need not apply because this was not going to be a design competition. Yet you list design companies entering the competition on their own.

2. So design shops like BMT paired up with builders like Babcock's to enter. And they entered as a team. Their teaming was proudly announced well before the competition started with interviews with both parties. They dodged questions about whose design would be entered. As we now know, both were.

3. And both that team's designs were reject. For different reasons. The economics of the program made adapting a current design the only practical choice so the team was extended to include OMT and their IH design. This happened during the process. So team 31 did indeed burn through two designs to end up with the winner.

4. I made up that shit about the MoD stopping and starting the competition in order to help Babcock's to see if ACC would bite. he didn't. I believe that what was reported by Janes at the time, was the correct story i.e. both CL/Bae and Babcock's team 31 told the MoD they could not build a type 31 at the target price. Hence the MoD announcement that not enough qualified submissions were received and the temporary halt. The MoD came up with loosening the GFX rules i.e. not including their price in the 1.25 billion, and magically they had enough qualified bids. There were also stories that Atlas had their arms twisted to ensure they bid to make the competition didn't look like Babcock's vs Bae, which it was. Plus live up to the MoD/Treasury stories that the Type 31 opportunity was so attractive the world and its shipbuilders would beat down their door to help the ailing British shipbuilding industry to its feet. Yeah right.

5. Lastly the anti-Bae sentiment at the MoD & Treasury. There's enough insider stories to confirm that was very real and SJP's shipbuilding strategy quite clearly states that Bae should not be awarded the Type 31 program. There's many that believe that Bae had zero chance of winning either by itself or in partnership with CL. Fortuitously, Babcock's was guided toward a ship design that in hidsight, looks like the best entry won. But only if delivered on time & budget.

6. As for protesting, puleeze. This is the UK, if you complain you stand no chance of an independent judgement and less chance of winning future work. So nobody does.

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:I made up that shit about the MoD stopping and starting the competition in order to help Babcock's to see if ACC would bite. he didn't.
I only serve facts, not as-if facts like some (other :) ) folks like to make out, when their argument sinks.
Ron5 wrote: the GFX rules
We've had many lovely discussions about the general (within the MoD and Gvmnt accounting) rules that apply, but of course in this context the 'rules' were very specific to the bidding.
Ron5 wrote: in hidsight, looks like the best entry won
A happy end; we can move on :thumbup:
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Aethulwulf wrote:IF the primary role of the new Type 32 were to be escort to the LRG, what capabilities would the T32 require?
Given the clean sheet of paper my first query would be, is the LSS even necessary?

Could the LRG be formed around multiple T32's if the escort was designed correctly? Obviously that depends on what roles are required of the T32.

IMO it's entirely possible to design an escort capable of hosting offboard MCM systems, conduct ASW in the Littoral and provide hanger space for 4 Merlin with 2 landing spots, one of which could be Chinook capable. A mission bay large enough to launch/retrieve multiple ORC's is straightforward as is LCVP's and small LCM's. Depending on the design, an EMF of around 200 on a large escort is plausible although the maximum number of Marines would be dependant on the additional modular systems embarked.

The caveat is that no escort could conceivably do all of this at the same time. Multiple escorts would have to combine if the EMF, Aviation, MCM and ASW capabilities were all required simultaneously.

Too ambitious? I think it's worth considering before discounting it.

Absalon is the obvious starting point but it would require alterations and these would cost time and money, perhaps now RN have both.

By removing the Stanflex modules and boat bays from the superstructure forward of the double Merlin capable hanger, a large mission bay could be created. This mission area would be vast, much larger than on the T26 and could be connected to the hanger space giving stowage space for at least 2 extra merlin. Of course it could also be used for transporting multiple ISO's for HADR, offboard MCM and/or ASW systems or a modular medical facility.

The flexdeck could be left as is or additional bulkheads could be added to increase damage control and provide additional EMF accommodation. This would still allow enough space for a stern ramp or steel beach and a modest stern garage allowing extra launch/retrieval options as well the option of embarking modular ASW systems. Very much like the Spartan design for the T31 programme. The Mk45 could be retained for NGFS as well as a 57mm in the 'B' position if required and still plenty of space for 16x Mk41 cells, 8x NSM and CIWS.

The difficult part with Absalon is creating the second Merlin capable landing spot. I estimate that this would take a hull stretch of around 24m giving a LOA of around 161m and perhaps a complete hull redesign to accommodate it rather than a simple stretch.

Regardless of the practicalities of stretching Absalon, such a concept is viable in my opinion and if a new hull was necessary then it would become an entirely British design even with another OMT/BMT/Babcock collaboration. Given the reliance on offboard systems, a CODAD propulsion system with an non-acoustic hull is probably suitable so a new hull form or a significant redesign is probably not a deal breaker.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Put a 57mm gun and a camm missile launcher on the bay class save the trouble.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:IF the primary role of the new Type 32 were to be escort to the LRG, what capabilities would the T32 require?
Given the clean sheet of paper my first query would be, is the LSS even necessary?

Could the LRG be formed around multiple T32's if the escort was designed correctly? Obviously that depends on what roles are required of the T32.

IMO it's entirely possible to design an escort capable of hosting offboard MCM systems, conduct ASW in the Littoral and provide hanger space for 4 Merlin with 2 landing spots, one of which could be Chinook capable. A mission bay large enough to launch/retrieve multiple ORC's is straightforward as is LCVP's and small LCM's. Depending on the design, an EMF of around 200 on a large escort is plausible although the maximum number of Marines would be dependant on the additional modular systems embarked.

The caveat is that no escort could conceivably do all of this at the same time. Multiple escorts would have to combine if the EMF, Aviation, MCM and ASW capabilities were all required simultaneously.

Too ambitious? I think it's worth considering before discounting it.

Absalon is the obvious starting point but it would require alterations and these would cost time and money, perhaps now RN have both.

By removing the Stanflex modules and boat bays from the superstructure forward of the double Merlin capable hanger, a large mission bay could be created. This mission area would be vast, much larger than on the T26 and could be connected to the hanger space giving stowage space for at least 2 extra merlin. Of course it could also be used for transporting multiple ISO's for HADR, offboard MCM and/or ASW systems or a modular medical facility.

The flexdeck could be left as is or additional bulkheads could be added to increase damage control and provide additional EMF accommodation. This would still allow enough space for a stern ramp or steel beach and a modest stern garage allowing extra launch/retrieval options as well the option of embarking modular ASW systems. Very much like the Spartan design for the T31 programme. The Mk45 could be retained for NGFS as well as a 57mm in the 'B' position if required and still plenty of space for 16x Mk41 cells, 8x NSM and CIWS.

The difficult part with Absalon is creating the second Merlin capable landing spot. I estimate that this would take a hull stretch of around 24m giving a LOA of around 161m and perhaps a complete hull redesign to accommodate it rather than a simple stretch.

Regardless of the practicalities of stretching Absalon, such a concept is viable in my opinion and if a new hull was necessary then it would become an entirely British design even with another OMT/BMT/Babcock collaboration. Given the reliance on offboard systems, a CODAD propulsion system with an non-acoustic hull is probably suitable so a new hull form or a significant redesign is probably not a deal breaker.
I have to say I'm pretty keen on T32 turning into a pretty large, pretty hollow and pretty cheap (considering presence), littoral manouvre and sea control ship, it could provide much needed versatility and redundancy to the fleet.

Is it possible to just blow up the Absalon blueprints by a factor of 1.5? Could possibly have accommodation for 450, with 100 base crew.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Repulse wrote:
However, for a complementary escort, I’d see the following as essential requirements:

- Aviation facilities for 2 Merlin / Wildcats
- Large gun for NGFS
- Active Sonar
- Local air defence via CAMMs
- ASuW missiles
- Ability is to support a 30-60 RM detachment
- Boat / Mission bay to handle USV/UUVs and manned fast boats.

Sounds like a variation of the Absalon would be pretty much perfect.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Bigger than Absalon, but not quite this https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... _ships.jpg big?
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)

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Tbf the San Antonio's only come in at £1.2bn, if we could get something half the size for half the cost it would be perfect.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Roders96 wrote: Is it possible to just blow up the Absalon blueprints by a factor of 1.5?
Unfortunately not.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Bigger than Absalon, but not quite
Too big, too slow and too expensive but the concept is sound. Add a floodable well dock and it's not a Frigate IMO.
Roders96 wrote:Tbf the San Antonio's only come in at £1.2bn, if we could get something half the size for half the cost it would be perfect.
Why so expensive? Given the reliance on offboard systems an enlarged UK designed Absalon clone shouldn't be much more expensive than a T31 with similar armament.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Roders96 wrote: Is it possible to just blow up the Absalon blueprints by a factor of 1.5?
Unfortunately not.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Bigger than Absalon, but not quite
Too big, too slow and too expensive but the concept is sound. Add a floodable well dock and it's not a Frigate IMO.
Roders96 wrote:Tbf the San Antonio's only come in at £1.2bn, if we could get something half the size for half the cost it would be perfect.
Why so expensive? Given the reliance on offboard systems an enlarged UK designed Absalon clone shouldn't be much more expensive than a T31 with similar armament.
Because I want an oversized day 1 door-knocker with 168 MK41 and atleast two companies of commandos, of-course.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Roders96 wrote:Because I want an oversized day 1 door-knocker with 168 MK41 and atleast two companies of commandos, of-course.
Crystal clear now.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:My only (minor quibble) is the suggestion that a new design frigate would have to be small. I can see no reason for this. I think the Type 31 has set the bar and any new design would follow. I think the genie is out of the Royal Navy bottle that ship size and cost are not related. I don't think it will get stuffed back in :D
SD67 wrote:Donald-san I'm also concerned about the design skills dissipating, which have been built up over a long period and at great cost, I had a long rant about this on this thread a few months back. Personally I think FSS is the bridge to t4x in terms of retaining these skills. FSS is due mid 2020s, and BAE are the only UK based firm who have the capability to do the detailed design - even if BMT supply the concept and Cammells lead the build. So the t26 teams move onto FSS then to t4x. Of course there's also Hunter to finish.

I really don't see the Navy going smaller for t32, if t31 can be delivered on budget then the cost-size link is broken.


2: For a multi-role vessel, or sloop, it is a new concept. Here I think something like 3000-4000t, with T31-level armament and Venari-85 level utility. As being a new concept, if UK RN purchase them in real, not power points, then the world will start looking at it. And export is foreseen.
I hadn't thought of this, maybe it's a pull forward of a Hunt/Sandown replacement, Venari85/Black Swan type thing, Boris is hyping it up and calling it a frigate. Would kind of make sense - BAE could detail design it, with build at Appledore.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Bigger than Absalon, but not quite this https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... _ships.jpg big?
With all this talk of a modern, auxiliary crusier once again my mind drifts towards...

Image

Ok... The ski-jumps and mini-Taranis are clearly beyond even a topped up MoD budget and design itself is a decade plus old.

However one of the aspects of the UXV Combatant that most appealed was the attempt to create a ship that was almost it's own task group in a package not much larger than a Type 45.

Were the concept reorientated towards a multipurpose platform, you'd have the helicopter facilities that we are desperately lacking on the Albions, davits for LCVP and USVs, a stern ramp, a moonpool for launching UUVs and space for an embarked military force.

Building on a Type 45 hull is probably a bit long in the tooth now, though to my knowledge it's the only current or future Royal Navy ship that has ever been considered for a substantial stretch, back in the early Noughties.

In an ironic twist this stretched Type 45 was originally considered for the Interim Capability Frigate, which was to precede the ASW focused FSC, which itself became Type 26 (after a few more abbreviations VSC, MVD and S2C2). It was to be a 'cruiser sized' variant with an emphasis on land attack, reduced AAW focus, fitted with 2087 sonar, 155mm artillery and with space for an embarked force of 60+ Royal Marines.

Image
(The middle of the three. Image from Richard Beedalls old site)

In updated form, that could sound a great deal like:
Repulse wrote: - Aviation facilities for 2 Merlin / Wildcats
- Large gun for NGFS
- Active Sonar
- Local air defence via CAMMs
- ASuW missiles
- Ability is to support a 30-60 RM detachment
- Boat / Mission bay to handle USV/UUVs and manned fast boats
With large flexible spaces incorporated, it could be tailored for a smaller or larger embarked force or other specialised missions.

Were there to be ever be a budget for a Albion replacement it could go towards enhancing the RFA amphibious fleet and a couple more of these.

Ok, now back to reality and trying to work out how many 40mm guns it would take to turn a River Class into a frigate... :?

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 »

NickC wrote:Thx, another query Naval News saying the 16 Mk41 VLS cells FFBNW, do you know if correct as was surprised as thought would be needed for the ESSM and SM-2's, if correct 30DX will only have the SeaRAM with 11 RAM Block 2 AA missiles.
The initial 6 hulls (and may be 2 more now proposed for JFY2021) are planned to be delivered WITHOUT Mk.41 VLS. So, yes, only SeaRAM is their AAW armament.

If you take a look in JMSDF DE-class (Abukuma-class), you can see they do not have SAM. This is because DEs are planned to be operated not in the front-line, but under the air-cover and/or in the logistic backend. FFM is "DE and MCMV replacement". Now we can see MCMV building pace has been slow down (only Awaji-class MSO is in build, an slowly). If you think it is "DE + MHC", SeaRAM is enough. But, if you think it is a "frigate", of course NOT enough.

It is planned that, al least in the later hull of 22 planned, they are to carry VLSs. Also, from the beginning, the first 8 was designated to be "batch-1". The next hulls to be proposed (or not) for JFY2022 is the first batch-2 hulls, and VLS may be added, I guess.

The program looks like following the "gradually improving/increasing equipment" idea discussed by the BMT paper, to reduce risk and flatten cost. I myself feel OK, if it is really to be "the initial 8 out of total 22 vessels", because omitting AAW capability (very CMS intensive) will contribute significantly to reduce cost = increase number of hulls. Anyway, the space are left (big hole), and the hulls is big enough (at least for ESSM), so "Fitting out later" is easy.

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:
Tempest414 wrote:2018) Ex off Oman 1 x LPD , 1 x T-45 , 2 x LSD's , 1 x Point class , 2 x MCM
2019) Baltic 1 x LPD , 1 x T-23 , Argus , 1 x LSD , 1 x Point class
2020) Med 1 x LPD , 1 x T-45 , 1 x LSD
The LPD is the common denominator but is that because of the 4x LCU capacity or the Command & Control facilities?

Depending on what such a force is trying to achieve there may be a more efficient way to attain the same result with a much more streamlined group of vessels.
No the common denominator is at least 1 LPD + 1 LSD + 1 escort

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 »

Below is how this thread reads;




Lets be honest the Navy is still poor, and the black hole is still bigger than the funding boost. The recent news is good, the high profile projects are now secure, but don't be lulled into a false sense of security just yet.
@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 »

Tempest414 wrote: the common denominator is at least 1 LPD + 1 LSD + 1 escort
, while also heeding SB's point of needing to be able to do 'additional' things on a shoestring...
Let's see what a recent USNI opinion piece says about their ARG, which resembles the above quoted closely and/or in scale:

"The ARG generally is ill-prepared to “fight in,” but the Navy could take some steps to be better primed for that fight. The first would be to cease disaggregation of the ARG, which leaves the ships with no mutual support. The new LPD alone is a large improvement."

The article assumes that heavy equipment (tanks, arty pieces, part of logs) being removed is known to the reader, and hence:
"With less need for the LCUs, ARGs could carry Mark VI patrol craft in their well decks and deploy them in theater to act as escorts. Packing a hearty armament on a sleek frame, these craft would give ESG commanders greater flexibility. In a low-end threat environment, particularly against suicide boats and attack craft, these boats would be invaluable."

They don't quite go (straight in) to a single large combatant, housing also the assault element, but rather, incrementally
"Adding even one small surface combatant would tremendously increase the ARG’s combat ability for ASW, anti-air warfare, and surface combat. The new class of frigates will be entering service at the same time as the LPD Flight II and would give an area air-defense capability not currently available."

" Furthermore, the frigate will have the AN/SQQ-89 undersea combat system and will be able to manage ASW operations without any modification to any other ship in the ARG. Making a frigate a permanent part of the ARG would greatly increase the ARG’s flexibility and ability to conduct independent missions, while not drawing further on destroyers in the fleet."

Without any combatant added
"The two-mile range of the 25-mm and 30-mm guns on the LHD and LPD gives those ships no ability to threaten something as large as an enemy corvette or frigate."

So does that translate (there are 3 infantry companies and a 4th, heavy weapons company to be landed, even after the deletions)? Perhaps 2+ for us?

Make a T31 more like an Absalon, with a 127 mm gun (US Mk 45 Mod 4) ready for extended range ammunition and put "back :) " the 900 square meter multi-purpose deck (245 lane-meters) that can take 75% of a [Danish] Army reconnaissance battalion" and pair it with a std T31 which alone can put ashore two platoons as recce parties
... and off we go :!: while still short of boats/ LCVP capacity; surely a problem that can be solved
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)

Post Reply