Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
We will have C1 , C2 and C3
C1 = Type 23, 26,45 ( tier 1 fighting ships )
C2 = Type 31 ( global Patrol mid range fighting ships )
C3 = MCM , Echo and River ( MHPC )
As I have said in the past I would like to see at the end of this
6 x T-45 = C1
9 x T-26 = C1
6 x T-31 = C2
6 x Venari 100 meter ( MHPC )= C3
6 x PSV 90 meter ( MHC ) = C3
C1 = Type 23, 26,45 ( tier 1 fighting ships )
C2 = Type 31 ( global Patrol mid range fighting ships )
C3 = MCM , Echo and River ( MHPC )
As I have said in the past I would like to see at the end of this
6 x T-45 = C1
9 x T-26 = C1
6 x T-31 = C2
6 x Venari 100 meter ( MHPC )= C3
6 x PSV 90 meter ( MHC ) = C3
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some upgrades. C3 are the B1 Rivers, Echos and Commercial design ships which need Escorts.Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3
Ideally something like 16 C1s (T45s and T26s), 10 C2s (inc upgraded B2 Rivers) and 12 C3s.
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26 or in today’s terms a decently armed Arrowhead would fit.Repulse wrote:Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some upgrades. C3 are the B1 Rivers, Echos and Commercial design ships which need Escorts.Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3
Ideally something like 16 C1s (T45s and T26s), 10 C2s (inc upgraded B2 Rivers) and 12 C3s.
Your c2 sound very much what the original c3 which was meant to be based on the black swan design.
For me the C3 should be something like the black swan or Venari 95 discussed on here.
I’d be ok with ( not happy ) 16 C1s ( T45/T26 ) and around 20 C3s as above with 5+ OPVs for EEZ work.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4104
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
And that's were it should have stayed....Jake1992 wrote:The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26
I don't think I would be comfortable with designating the RB2's as C2's.Repulse wrote:Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some
Mid range = Mid budget. They should be £400m plusTempest414 wrote:C2 = Type 31 ( global Patrol mid range fighting ships )
Agreed, it amazing how many times initial planning gets it right before a lack of money ruins everything.Lord Jim wrote:We should have stuck to the C1/C2/C3 programme
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
C2 was never originally a Type 26 anything (as one programme replaced the other), though the Arrowhead is a really good example of what it could/should have been.Jake1992 wrote:Repulse wrote:The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26 or in today’s terms a decently armed Arrowhead would fit.Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3
Your c2 sound very much what the original c3 which was meant to be based on the black swan design.
For me the C3 should be something like the black swan or Venari 95 discussed on here.
I’d be ok with ( not happy ) 16 C1s ( T45/T26 ) and around 20 C3s as above with 5+ OPVs for EEZ work.
It was always a lot less capable a ship than the C1 (Medium Vehicle Derivative) which was widely expected to be an ASW Type 45, with a tail and no Sampson radar.
From further back in the thread:
When it came down to it, the money was no longer there for the old plan, and as the Type 26 grew in size, cost and capability there was still the same combination of C1 and C2 ideas ratio between them.Jensy wrote:Back in the old days, the escort part of the old FSC (Future Surface Combatant) program was supposed to be made up of:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Contrary to 'folklore' about T31 being a rushed idea, the decision to to split the class in two (8+5) was taken in 2010, but seeing T-26 through the main gate took longer than anyone had expected
[...]
Officially, of course,T-31 only came out of the 2015 SDSR ( by then it was apparent to all that T-26 was going to be too expensive. Despite the fact (!?) that the concept and assessment phases of Type 26 development emphasised cost efficiency).
- what happened in 2010? Britain had just cut its defence budget of 36.9 billion pounds by eight percent in real terms up to 2015.
- but Osborne had promised 'jam' thereafter. 'Better' defence and security reviews were due in 2015 and 2020, which could alter future plans.
- Reuters reported on Nov 29 (, 2010) :
10 x C1 (Top tier ASW "Combatant")
+
8 x C2 (Medium sized Vessel Derivative - for "stabilisation")
These 18 ships were not of the same baseline, displacement or indeed hull-form. The below 2006 BMT concept, gives a good indication of the scope of the C2. It interestingly looks a lot like Venator 110 from the rear.
This second image is a for a "Thales concept about 135 metres long, which would indicate a full load displacement between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes", defined as a "basic General Purpose frigate".
Medium gun, basic AAW system, lots of room for unmanned systems and potential for specialised upgrades. This does not seem a million miles away from the T31 RFI of last year. The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.
If there was only discussion of 13/13+ Type 26s for a limited time around 2010, whilst before and since it has been intended to have 10 ASW + 8 GP, now reduced to 8 + 5, has it truly been such a massive downgrade? Especially considering the reductions to other sectors of the Royal Navy? e.g. subs, AAW destroyers, fixed and rotary wing aviation.
Leander and Arrowhead seem to offer parts of the old C2 concept, with large mission bays and modular weapon fittings respectively, just not to the same level, on the same ship at present.
Still at least C3/MHPC/MHC is yet tbd.
Jensy
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The biggest change, over so many yearsJensy wrote: The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.
... and even that more so "in philosophy" though palpable in displacement (C2)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
When it comes to T-31 the two ships we know the most about are to be built to navel standard i.e Lloyd's navel ship rules. now if they are fitted with the same level of kit as
Artisan radar
BAE CMS
Good level soft kill system
hull mounted sonar
hangar and flight deck for Wildcat / Merlin
1 x main gun , 2 x 30mm , 24 camm , 1 x Phalanx , 8 x Harpoon
These ships become heavy corvettes and to my mind that makes them C-2 and as for not being able to fight any ship with the above speck is not to be freely messed with and could if cornered fight back using its helicopter and harpoon and with a bit of luck put a tier 1 ship out of action
Artisan radar
BAE CMS
Good level soft kill system
hull mounted sonar
hangar and flight deck for Wildcat / Merlin
1 x main gun , 2 x 30mm , 24 camm , 1 x Phalanx , 8 x Harpoon
These ships become heavy corvettes and to my mind that makes them C-2 and as for not being able to fight any ship with the above speck is not to be freely messed with and could if cornered fight back using its helicopter and harpoon and with a bit of luck put a tier 1 ship out of action
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
This as far as I know is an optional extra not included in the base T31 cost - and is unlikely to be within the £250mn price bracket, or have I missed something?Tempest414 wrote:8 x Harpoon
”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
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
However, it might be included in the £13b (IIRC) budget available for guided weapons.Repulse wrote:This as far as I know is an optional extra not included in the base T31 cost - and is unlikely to be within the £250mn price bracket, or have I missed something?Tempest414 wrote:8 x Harpoon
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
For me this is the key. The UK has a 13 Billion pound budget for missiles so the CAMM and Harpoon for T-31 should come from this budget. All T-23's and 45's going East of Suez are fitted with Harpoon so why would RN not fit them to T-31 when deploying to the same region. For me I see T-31 coming FFBNW Harpoon which will be fitted to ships as needed
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Presumably the same applies to phalanx, which will come from the pool and be added when required?Tempest414 wrote:For me this is the key. The UK has a 13 Billion pound budget for missiles so the CAMM and Harpoon for T-31 should come from this budget. All T-23's and 45's going East of Suez are fitted with Harpoon so why would RN not fit them to T-31 when deploying to the same region. For me I see T-31 coming FFBNW Harpoon which will be fitted to ships as needed
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?
The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.
The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If we were to order more I would go for 10 SeaRam to allow both carriers to have 2 each and HMS Albion to have 1 leaving a pool of 5 for RFA ships or the FLSS. This would free up Phalanx units for the Escort fleetJake1992 wrote:Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?
The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I agree here that seaRam should be introduced, personally I’d sooner see CAMM used on the carriers and LPD replacement but a pool of seaRAM to use on the LPDs for now and across the RFA vessels along with a future multi mission sloop as and when needed would the best way to go.Tempest414 wrote:If we were to order more I would go for 10 SeaRam to allow both carriers to have 2 each and HMS Albion to have 1 leaving a pool of 5 for RFA ships or the FLSS. This would free up Phalanx units for the Escort fleetJake1992 wrote:Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?
The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
SeaRAM is completely a different class of weapons compared to Phalanx CIWS. It is somewhere in-between CAMM and CIWS. I'm afraid buying SeaRAM will mean completely omitting CAMM from T31e. So, "5 T31 with only SeaRAM and no CAMM", or "5 T31 with CAMM and CIWS FTR", will be the answer, I guess.
This is surely a valid option, but I prefer to keep CAMM, because it is one of the few "British weapon" good a export these days.
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.
This is surely a valid option, but I prefer to keep CAMM, because it is one of the few "British weapon" good a export these days.
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Yes, SeaRAM is not really a replacement.
Due to CAMM's launch method there is significant overlap between CAMM and SeaRam, with the latter only offering a slightly smaller minimum engagement range than CAMM. Because of this, there is little point equipping the RN with SeaRam. Phalanx + CAMM should be sufficient.
Due to CAMM's launch method there is significant overlap between CAMM and SeaRam, with the latter only offering a slightly smaller minimum engagement range than CAMM. Because of this, there is little point equipping the RN with SeaRam. Phalanx + CAMM should be sufficient.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I really can’t see the logic in not keeping the canisters, we need 2 set for the T45s just like the first 4 got theirs from the T22s, and why not use as much reusable equipment from the T23s as we can ?donald_of_tokyo wrote:SeaRAM is completely a different class of weapons compared to Phalanx CIWS. It is somewhere in-between CAMM and CIWS. I'm afraid buying SeaRAM will mean completely omitting CAMM from T31e. So, "5 T31 with only SeaRAM and no CAMM", or "5 T31 with CAMM and CIWS FTR", will be the answer, I guess.
This is surely a valid option, but I prefer to keep CAMM, because it is one of the few "British weapon" good a export these days.
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.
Something like canisters that in a sense are as much plug and play as a phalanx is it’d be just daft not to keep at least 7 sets.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capabilityPongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Sorry for not being clear. I meant "canister" the CAMM tube here.Jake1992 wrote:Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capabilityPongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?
On the SSM, it is completely independent issue, I think. We know the total cost is only 100-200M GBP (if my memory works), and we do not know what missile, and what number of control electronics, and what number of missile-darts will be procured. It is anyway clear, the current Harpoon system will go away by 2022. Even if RN selects Harpoon Block II+, it is not the same system as the current Harpoon, and it is not clear how many sets will be procured.
I think it will be good to carry ASMs on T31e, than on escorts of CVTFs, on which many F35 can kill any ship approaching the TF.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Oh I agree here reusing the CAMM tubes off the T23s would be just pointless, I’m not really happy even using mushroom tubes on the T26 be much better to invest in ExLS to give a much better use of space.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sorry for not being clear. I meant "canister" the CAMM tube here.Jake1992 wrote:Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capabilityPongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?
When we look at the T26 design it could pack much more of a punch if invested in properly, we could fit 12-15 ExLS where the current mid ship mushrooms are allowing 48-60 CAMM/CAMM-ER, and as the Canadian variant has shown we could fit up to 48 mk41s forward. Now that would pack a real punch.
ExLS would also allow a nice pick up for the T45s, it’s often said on here that 12 ExLS velds could be fitted between the current Aster cells giving a nice up kick in AAW while still keeping the 16 mk41 space free.
Its a real shame because if money was there these to vessels could pack one hell of a punch
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If there was a little bit more money I would definitely add some CAMM for the T45, badly needed to help protect the carriers ! not really that concerned with the T26 yet as compared to the T23 they will be a lot better armed & a lot can happen till they come on line in 8 years but I do agree with the ExLS would be better than the mushrooms in the longer term.
When the harpoon goes would it be better to equip the T45 with CAMM in it's place ? more so if we could get a anti ship missile for the F35?
When the harpoon goes would it be better to equip the T45 with CAMM in it's place ? more so if we could get a anti ship missile for the F35?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I seem to remember CAMM for the T45 was discussed and it was going to replace the Aster 15 for short range defence, I'm guessing nothing came of it.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Yeh I think you are right, thanks, something about it being Quad packed ? will have to go back & try to find it, would be interesting to see how much in would cost for intergration compared to the ExLS system
I think the ExLS launcher suggestion was in addition to the 48 Aster missiles though, which would be better.
I think the ExLS launcher suggestion was in addition to the 48 Aster missiles though, which would be better.