Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think you're assumption on the 20nm radar limit for detection of sea skimming missile is misguided. This may be true of low mounted fixed planar arrays, but not the case with Artisan and SAMPSON which are mounted twice as high.

Just FACT.

Height vs Horizon.
60 m 15.8 nm
45 m 13.7 nm
30 m 11.2 nm
10 m 6.5 nm

When a 45 m high radar is looking for 10 m attitude missile, the available detection range is 13.7+6.5 = 20.2 nm (=37 km). Including ~6% refraction effect, it will be 21.4 nm (39.6 km).

[SW1]

aligned with some of the discussions on Think Defence about 10 years ago.

By then I had lost the count of 'resets' in Obama Administrations effort to do a 'Kissinger' with Russia (as opposed to the 'original one' with China) and thereafter Trump has tried to do the same - with a very different style.
- both/ all attempts have failed
- the likelihood of peer-to-peer conflict has gone up, and the need to be able to deter (on the same lines) has done likewise

A 'ship that is not a frigate' has become much less useful (if that was the reference, back in time). Ron made a v good comment upthread about our fleet composition.
- or may be it was on carriers thread; could not find it
- anyway, on the lines " we have just invested in shit-loads of AAW in the form of our carriers, and the shaping of the escort fleet capabilities should be done/ prioritised in the light of that fact"

perhaps 12 vessels fitted out to the levels seen in hunter class as our sole high end escort and 6 large fwd deployed mother ship vessels

Understand where are going with and aligned with some of the discussions on Think Defence about 10 years ago. I’d argue though that if the MOD could avoid wasting money on going down dead ends or constantly changing build schedules due to cash flow, a target fleet of 15 first rate warships is well within reach of even our current fianancial constraints - built to a rhythm of one every 18 mths (and shorter RN lifespans).

The thing I do disagree with is that everything else can be done by large simple motherships. That would be okay(ish) if the UK only needed to operate in the North Atlantic, but it doesn’t and we need “fast” smaller (war)ships to operate in coastal waters where larger ships would not be able to operate effectively - basically we need to retain a balanced manned fleet complemented by off board and aviation assets.

The primary focus for the RN is or should be the North Atlantic. The primary peer offensive deployed capability is the carrier task group.

I don’t know how much beyond 12 is the actual numbers of RN ff/dd are really full manned and maintained and how many beyond that are window dressing giving the illusion we have more than we actually do. Now they’re maybe a hope of future funds or plans to get more people and the like but how much of that is continued wishful thinking I don’t know. By all means if more funds become available and the people numbers increase then such we can added numbers on the end of the 12.

As for the “simple” mother ship. When people develop what these other tasks are it invariable comes back to Falklands guardship, something in the med, mcm in the gulf or something in the Caribbean doing martime security and then insist they much be met by an opv or something described as a light frigate or sloop, I think this is in part because they look like a frigate and that continues the illusion. It isn’t all about fighting a peer enemy in the traditional sense and a lot of what a peer enemy will do short of outright conflict is fight assymetrically using proxy groups or states, this and littoral sea control is gaining in importance not reducing. Traditional peer conflict is to be handled by the high end escorts and carrier group.

As systems gradually become separated from requiring to be built in, in an historic sense it is allowing the mother ship concept to be explored more and more the us navy has been experimenting for years. To an extent we have as well with our RFA assets and in particular the bays and fort class. The simple ship is not necessarily so simple but they are configured to allow the payload they carry to be tailored much more quickly in rapidly changing situations, this being the best example of the idea http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... retirement

[Tempest414]

Do not agree here. MHC with such an equipment will not be cheap. May be only 8 hull will be possible with 1B GBP, and another 1-1.5B GBP is desparately needed for developing/buying drones, which will never be cheap.

I feel this ship can be built for 150 million each meaning 15 would = 2.25 billion

Venari 95 100 meter Multi mission ships with
Core crew 50 plus space for 60 off board systems crew
Scanter 4100 radar
BAE CMS
Hull mounted Sonar
helicopter Hangar
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , FFBNW Phalanx / SeaRam

And this is how I see the of board systems

Unmanned MCM x 8 kits @ 30 million each = 240 million
Unmanned littoral ASW x 5 kits @ 30 million each = 150 million ( seagull usv $30 million) anything more than this and we might as well put CAPTAS on it
Hydrograthic x 3 kits @ 20 million each = 60 million
Wildcat x in service and paid for
UAVs
RM raiding craft x in service and paid for
Phalanx / SeaRam ( 6 of each to be pooled across all 15 ships ) Phalanx in service paid for

For me you can't have your cake and eat it. If like you say we don't have the crews and can't get them then we need to spend the money on better more capable ships the way I see it we could have the above for 3 billion GDP replacing 12 MCM and 2 Echos = 14 ships with 8 ships is cloud la la land no matter how good they are

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good point

a lot of what a peer enemy will do short of outright conflict is fight assymetrically using proxy groups or states, this and littoral sea control is gaining in importance not reducing. Traditional peer conflict is to be handled by the high end escorts and carrier group.

and we should be able to do both
- the former together with the local navies, and
- the latter with USN/ Canada/ Oz/ Singapore/ Japan (/ India)

[matt00773]

Unless the radar can detect out of its backplate, that makes no difference in that it will always have a gap on each rotation.

Indeed, the rotation of the radar does mean that for a brief period of time there is no scan that s taking place. You need to understand thought that the Artisan/SAMPSON radar (in fact all modern radars) incorporate a predictive algorithm which is able to track a threat between refresh periods - based on speed/direction of travel. To put it simply - all radars, whether rotating or fixed planar, have refresh scan rates whereby an update is made to a predictive real-time model. There is no such radar that is able to monitor every aspect of the sky to which is it facing 100% of the time - there are always gaps. The other thing you need to appreciate is that the faster a missile goes, the less it is able to change direction (inertia) and therefore the more predictable it is.

Source on its power output in comparison to Seafire, CEAFAR, the new Kronos, SPY-6? It's a much smaller radar than any of these, with smaller physical components and less electrical power running into it, with software written many years before any of them. Any logic would dictate that it is on Artisan to prove that it somehow breaks this trend.

Additionally, I still have never seen a single official source confirming that the in service result of the program is an AESA. Only ever vague theories about a possible future technology, and not what actually got made. Which essentially means nothing as far as proof goes. It'd be like using Sampson's original spec as a PESA to prove its not an AESA.

Actually, I'm sure the radars you listed utilise GaN technology and therefore have smaller physical components. What does the size of Artisan have to do with any of this in any case? It has capabilities to detect over 800 threats travelling over mach 3 at over 200km simultaneously. If it was the size of a grain of sand, what would it matter? The software for Artisan is CMS-1 - the same as for SAMPSON and the rest of the RN fleet. This software is constantly in development.

Artisan is an AESA radar developed from both the MESAR2 and ARTIST programmes:

http://daspworkshop.org/uploads/DASP11P ... r_Bill.pdf

https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... ?ARC_ID=51

[donald_of_tokyo]

Do not agree here. MHC with such an equipment will not be cheap. May be only 8 hull will be possible with 1B GBP, and another 1-1.5B GBP is desparately needed for developing/buying drones, which will never be cheap.

I feel this ship can be built for 150 million each meaning 15 would = 2.25 billion
...
And this is how I see the of board systems

Unmanned MCM x 8 kits @ 30 million each = 240 million
Unmanned littoral ASW x 5 kits @ 30 million each = 150 million ( seagull usv $30 million) anything more than this and we might as well put CAPTAS on it
Hydrograthic x 3 kits @ 20 million each = 60 million
Wildcat x in service and paid for
UAVs
RM raiding craft x in service and paid for
Phalanx / SeaRam ( 6 of each to be pooled across all 15 ships ) Phalanx in service paid for

For me you can't have your cake and eat it. If like you say we don't have the crews and can't get them then we need to spend the money on better more capable ships the way I see it we could have the above for 3 billion GDP replacing 12 MCM and 2 Echos = 14 ships with 8 ships is cloud la la land no matter how good they are

I think our cost estimation is consistent for ships, but may be twice different in the off-board systems.

Anyway, I understand it is 2-2.5B GBP, while you assume 3 billion GDP budget. With more resource, we can do more, for sure. So, we are just talking about plans with different resource assumption.

[Caribbean]

The issue that I have with the "downgraded T26" suggestions above, is that you very rapidly get into the realms of "upgraded T31" costs. How much, realistically, are you going to save by making the changes above? Add to that, the fact that you now have three variants on the same ship, all with different capabilities and availability cycles and you open up a massive can of worms, should you ever need to deploy these vessels on missions that they aren't primarily equipped for.

Surely it would be better to build 6 "full fat" T26, for approx. £6b, then combine the remains of the T26 budget and the existing T31 budget (so approx £3.5b excluding GFE) to build 8 T31 ASW at around £425-450m each, for a total of 14 ASW-capable frigates. An additional £500m on that budget would push that up to c. £500m per ship, which I think most agree, should be enough to build a fairly decent ASW asset (which would still be cheaper than a "cut-down" T26). The fly in the ointment for that plan is that £3.6b has been allocated for the first three T26, meaning that the last three would have to come in at £2.4b (this MAY be possible, but I suspect it is not going to happen - quite - there may be a couple of hundred million less in the proposed T31 budget as a result). Even so, that would be c. £400m/hull, which is still a decent budget

The fleet of 8 T31ASW would provide everyday protection to the carriers, allowing the T26s to do the singleton deployments in peacetime, or to reinforce the carrier group(s) in wartime.

On the MHC issue. I agree with Donald-san and others, that the hullforms for patrol and utility vessels are different. Retain the B1s and B2s, for a patrol fleet of 8 ships. The B2s should provide decent service and, when the time comes for the B1s to retire (again), perhaps there will be funds available for a modest replacement (say in the 50-60m range) for EEZ work.

For the MHC itself, I'm firmly in the "buy it cheap and paint it grey" camp. A look at TD's "ship that is not a frigate" concept should give a good idea of where I feel that we should go with that. A standard OSV hull, with some enhanced damage control, and a flight deck (forming a sheltered garage area underneath) and military grade sensors, comms and defensive systems. Probable costs £25m for the hull, £10-15m for the enhancements and c. £30-40m for the "military" stuff). The cost will be in the offboard systems. Each one should be capable of replacing 2-3 minehunters, plus their mothership, so we would only need (say) 6-8 hulls for the "M" part and two for the "H" part (plus a separate specialised deepwater survey hull to replace HMS Scott). They can all do "P" when they aren't doing their day jobs, but that would not be their primary purpose.

All of this, however, ignores the fact that we need to build replacements for the older T23GPs as they go out of service and that, in order to do that, we have to a) build them fast and b) keep them simple, as they will, more than likely, be built by the commercial yards that are the ones with spare capacity (but lacking in complex warship building experience)

[serge750]

I know it's a long way of but what would the pros & cons of using the T26 hull to replace the T45 ?
ok they are slightly smaller but is the hull design appropriate for the AAW mission ?

Maybe delete the mission bay & put the viper replacement missile silos there? delete the midship CAMM,retain the forward 24 x CAMM & lower the mk 41 to 8 or 16 for SSM.

Since the OZ T26 are more rounded would it be worth going down this route to replace the T45...

Wouldn't it be a better and just as easy way forward to put a 10m-15m plug midship between the mission bay and superstructure.

Use this same to add the nessisary VLS while keeping the same VLS space up front. IMO it'd make a lot more sence to go all mk41s and pay the cost of qualifing aster 30 for thrm than keeping 2 kinds of VLS especially on a single vessel.

Say something along these lines based on the T26 hull -
Length - 160-165m
Beam -21m
Displacement - 9000-10,000tn
Speed - pushing 30knots
Range - 7,000nm
Endurance - 60 days
Core crew - 150
Accommodation - 250
Weapons fit - 1 x 5" auto mag, 2 x 30mm, 2 x phalanx, 1 x dragonfire, 72-96 mk41s, hand full of GPMG and mini guns, the usual soft kill

The changes to the basic T26 design by adding a plug will be not greater than striping away the mission bay to add VLS and on the plus side the vessels would be more flexible.
I'd look at removing rafting and other quieting messures as these would not be needed on an AAW platform

Never thought about extending the hull, that has the benefit of increased space aswell as maybe an increase in speed? & as u you say keeping the mission bay to keep flexibility when not escorting the carriers

[donald_of_tokyo]

... As for the “simple” mother ship. When people develop what these other tasks are it invariable comes back to Falklands guardship, something in the med, mcm in the gulf or something in the Caribbean doing martime security and then insist they much be met by an opv or something described as a light frigate or sloop, I think this is in part because they look like a frigate and that continues the illusion. ...
As systems gradually become separated from requiring to be built in, in an historic sense it is allowing the mother ship concept to be explored more and more the us navy has been experimenting for years. To an extent we have as well with our RFA assets and in particular the bays and fort class. The simple ship is not necessarily so simple but they are configured to allow the payload they carry to be tailored much more quickly in rapidly changing situations...

USA has a large Coast Guard, equipped with dozens of "Floreal like" OPVs. They use it, heavily, so need for "an opv or something described as a light frigate or sloop" is clearly identified by them and continuously supported.

For large mother ship, I agree it is good, but UK already have Bays. Do we really need more? Amphibious operation rarely happens, so using them for "other tasks" in "normal days" is quit important. HADR and MCM mother ship are perfect match. If not, they will be simply disbanded, as RFA Largs Bay.

[Repulse]

I don’t know how much beyond 12 is the actual numbers of RN ff/dd are really full manned and maintained

It is clearly higher than 12 currently but agree less than 19 - given the reduced crew numbers on the T26, 15 is a reasonable target.

As for the “simple” mother ship. When people develop what these other tasks are it invariable comes back to Falklands guardship, something in the med, mcm in the gulf or something in the Caribbean doing martime security and then insist they much be met

A large mothership built to civilian standards and the size of a Bay is (a) not a warship (b) not something you’d want close to shore without real warships escorting. Whenever we get into these discussions the point that gets made is that air is free and fewer larger ships can do the job. They can’t and air (size) is not free when it comes to speed, noise and stealth.

Fact is the RN has historically ignore smaller warships only to have to fill the gap quickly in conflict. Fact is we need them - if a gun is needed to deter and protect a ship, a hangar is needed to support aviation assets, a radar is needed for surveillance and it needs to have a shallow draft to get to coastal areas or shallow seas - it looks exactly like a small warship.

[SW1]

... As for the “simple” mother ship. When people develop what these other tasks are it invariable comes back to Falklands guardship, something in the med, mcm in the gulf or something in the Caribbean doing martime security and then insist they much be met by an opv or something described as a light frigate or sloop, I think this is in part because they look like a frigate and that continues the illusion. ...
As systems gradually become separated from requiring to be built in, in an historic sense it is allowing the mother ship concept to be explored more and more the us navy has been experimenting for years. To an extent we have as well with our RFA assets and in particular the bays and fort class. The simple ship is not necessarily so simple but they are configured to allow the payload they carry to be tailored much more quickly in rapidly changing situations...

USA has a large Coast Guard, equipped with dozens of "Floreal like" OPVs. They use it, heavily, so need for "an opv or something described as a light frigate or sloop" is clearly identified by them and continuously supported.

For large mother ship, I agree it is good, but UK already have Bays. Do we really need more? Amphibious operation rarely happens, so using them for "other tasks" in "normal days" is quit important. HADR and MCM mother ship are perfect match. If not, they will be simply disbanded, as RFA Largs Bay.

They do and we have 5 or 8 river class opv vessels for martime security around the uk. We do have the 3 bays and the 2 Albion’s which could be assigned and refitted and used in such roles,

I didn’t say we would be buying more ships straight away they could be the replacement for these 5 vessels. What we don’t have is the a/c manned and unmanned, surface and sub surface vessels, vehicles and weapons systems to undertake these security missions which is were investment would be, along with the increased funding required to fully equip and expand the type 26 fleet.

[SW1]

I don’t know how much beyond 12 is the actual numbers of RN ff/dd are really full manned and maintained

It is clearly higher than 12 currently but agree less than 19 - given the reduced crew numbers on the T26, 15 is a reasonable target.

As for the “simple” mother ship. When people develop what these other tasks are it invariable comes back to Falklands guardship, something in the med, mcm in the gulf or something in the Caribbean doing martime security and then insist they much be met

A large mothership built to civilian standards and the size of a Bay is (a) not a warship (b) not something you’d want close to shore without real warships escorting. Whenever we get into these discussions the point that gets made is that air is free and fewer larger ships can do the job. They can’t and air (size) is not free when it comes to speed, noise and stealth.

Fact is the RN has historically ignore smaller warships only to have to fill the gap quickly in conflict. Fact is we need them - if a gun is needed to deter and protect a ship, a hangar is needed to support aviation assets, a radar is needed for surveillance and it needs to have a shallow draft to get to coastal areas or shallow seas - it looks exactly like a small warship.

Is hms Albion not a warship then? I didn’t mention civilian standard build not that it doesn’t work. If I have 4 scan eagle, 3 armed wildcat or a couple of mq-8c or something like with riverine craft which if you look at the us mk 6 patrol craft are about the size of our archer patrol craft and you could have a design covering both tasks or some atlas usvs, or with the likes of himars on the ship, with phalanx or 30mm Seahawk sigmas or even energy based weapons it covers all those tasks but with some stand off capability. If we want to deploy for a long time then habitability for the crew will be important.

[Poiuytrewq]

They do and we have 5 or 8 river class opv vessels for martime security around the uk. We do have the 3 bays and the 2 Albion’s which could be assigned and refitted and used in such roles,

Exactly, we need to be maximising what is in the water now rather than spending billions more on pretend frigates. These logistic support/Amphibious vessels will be superior in almost every way than a £250m T31.

We have plenty to choose from,

2x Albions
2x Waves
3x Bays

If the T45's/T23's are the escort fleet the above vessels are the patrol fleet. Backed up the RB1's and RB2's in the EEZ it makes for a pretty balanced fleet. Especially considering that the Forts and Tides remain in their core roles.

If I have 4 scan eagle, 3 armed wildcat or a couple of mq-8c or something like with riverine craft which if you look at the us mk 6 patrol craft are about the size of our archer patrol craft and you could have a design covering both tasks or some atlas usvs, or with the likes of himars on the ship, with phalanx or 30mm Seahawk sigmas or even energy based weapons it covers all those tasks but with some stand off capability. If we want to deploy for a long time then habitability for the crew will be important.

I really like the sound of this and it's exactly what a T31 type vessel, if it really must be built, should be aiming to achieve. It's controversial but I think you are on the right track here

[Poiuytrewq]

For large mother ship, I agree it is good, but UK already have Bays. Do we really need more?

Yes please

[donald_of_tokyo]

For large mother ship, I agree it is good, but UK already have Bays. Do we really need more?

Yes please

But we have no task for "the 4th Bay". Station 2 Bays in Caribbean? Using it for APT-S? I think there is no need for amphibious tasks, in normal days... May be as a drone mother ship trial ship? Or as Argus replacement?

[Tempest414]

As I said over on the Amphib thread when the time comes replace the 3 Bays and Argus with 4 200m Enforcer LPDs one of them set up as the PCR ship each should have a Hangar for 2 Merlins and a flight deck for 2 Chinooks in MERT set up. As for tasks one on AP-N , one in the Indian Ocean on HDRA standby with the ships swapping every 6 months meaning 3 ships are close for NATO

[Poiuytrewq]

The issue that I have with the "downgraded T26" suggestions above, is that you very rapidly get into the realms of "upgraded T31" costs. How much, realistically, are you going to save by making the changes above? Add to that, the fact that you now have three variants on the same ship, all with different capabilities and availability cycles and you open up a massive can of worms, should you ever need to deploy these vessels on missions that they aren't primarily equipped for.

It appears you and I are trying achieve the same thing but just going about it in different ways. I was formally a big proponent of a ASW T31 but having looked at the figures in great detail I have come to the conclusion that the T26 hull is the best foundation to build the UK's blue water ASW fleet. Littoral ASW is a different ballgame, better suited to the MHC vessels but that's different conversation.

I understand that I won't convince you and that's fine but I will lay out my reasoning so you can understand why I have moved on from the ASW T31 proposal.

1. The UK has spent well over a decade designing the finest ASW platform in the world to ensure that RN stays one step ahead. Why would we now look to build inferior vessels just because they are cheaper? It's the T26's ASW performance that is crucial, it's globe trotting TLAM firing capability is less important and should really be the domain of the destroyers.

2. The main reason the T26's are so expensive is due to the numbers being cut from 13 to 8. The programme had financial issues before this point but that's when the costs snowballed. By building the frigate factory at Scotstoun and upping the order to 11 or 12 it will allow the speed of build to be increased and bring the unit cost down. It would also reduce the SNP's ammunition for sniping at the UK government. How much could that be worth over the long term?

3. The T26 in my opinion should be an escort frigate not a global combat ship. This is were the T26 programme started to go wrong. It was simply due to an over compensation for a lack of destroyers. We really needed 8 to 10 TLAM capable T45's. If we had of got them, the T26 would have, in all likelihood, been the £500m to £600m escort frigate it should have been from the start.

4. I believe that developing a highly capable T31 ASW frigate will cost in the region of £750m to £1bn (although something like a Venator 110/120 could speed things up substantially). An extra £1bn pumped into the T26 programme would make a big difference now, especially as BAE would be very keen to kill off the T31 idea. It would also probably result in the frigate factory getting built.

5. Who is going to build these highly complex ASW frigates? Babcock? They have zero experience in doing so and due to this what is the likelihood that the budget will be kept under control and the vessels delivered on time? This point should not be overlooked.

6. So bearing all that in mind were do we go from here? I believe if we need ASW frigates they need to be T26 based. The upgraded T26's that I have proposed are effectively the additional destroyers that we should have had within the T45 programme. The downgraded T26's are the escort frigates RN desperately need and should have had in the first place and the severely downgraded T26's are TAPS only vessels and are as good as they need to be to get the job done.

The fly in the ointment for that plan is that £3.6b has been allocated for the first three T26, meaning that the last three would have to come in at £2.4b

If the order book is swelled, the frigate factory built and the build schedule accelerated, around £710m for hulls 4 to 6 seems at least plausible. Especially if the TLAM capability was deleted and the Mk45 and auto magazine was removed and replaced with a 57mm/76mm.

Surely it would be better to build 6 "full fat" T26, for approx. £6b, then combine the remains of the T26 budget and the existing T31 budget (so approx £3.5b excluding GFE) to build 8 T31 ASW at around £425-450m each, for a total of 14 ASW-capable frigates. An additional £500m on that budget would push that up to c. £500m per ship, which I think most agree, should be enough to build a fairly decent ASW asset

For the reasons given above I think this is not the best way forward, but if it came to be, I for one would not complain as even though I think it is sub optimal, it is clearly superior to current planning.

The fleet of 8 T31ASW would provide everyday protection to the carriers, allowing the T26s to do the singleton deployments in peacetime, or to reinforce the carrier group(s) in wartime.

Agreed 100%. You propose ASW T31's for this role whereas I favour simplified T26's. As long as the outcome is successful I would be happy with either.

[Repulse]

Is hms Albion not a warship then? I didn’t mention civilian standard build not that it doesn’t work. If I have 4 scan eagle, 3 armed wildcat or a couple of mq-8c or something like with riverine craft which if you look at the us mk 6 patrol craft are about the size of our archer patrol craft and you could have a design covering both tasks or some atlas usvs, or with the likes of himars on the ship, with phalanx or 30mm Seahawk sigmas or even energy based weapons it covers all those tasks but with some stand off capability. If we want to deploy for a long time then habitability for the crew will be important.

Yes, Albion is an amphibious assault warship and I have suggested ideas for replacements, even using the T31e budget. The principle I am objecting to is that the RN doesn’t need smaller Patrol (Minor) warships for UK (and BOT) Protection like OPVs (Sloops) and also small fast Patrol craft like the 2 being upgraded in Gibraltar - I actually see these ships becoming more important not less.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, if the number of escorts were closer to 24+ I’d agree a mix of T26s would be possible, but the numbers are never going to be that high so all of them need to be “full fat” versions. The thing that I would consider is if a T26 variant became the T45 replacement, whether to build hulls 7-15 with a SAMPSON follow up.

[Ron5]

Unless the radar can detect out of its backplate, that makes no difference in that it will always have a gap on each rotation.

The name of the game is early detection of sea skimmers (the most challenging target). Even though Artisan will have gaps (albeit small) in their scans is more than offset by its ability to be mounted higher due to its low weight and low power & cooling requirements.

Additionally, I still have never seen a single official source confirming that the in service result of the program is an AESA. Only ever vague theories about a possible future technology, and not what actually got made. Which essentially means nothing as far as proof goes.

Quote: "BAE Systems is Britain’s principal aerospace manufacturer. In defense terms ranking number three in global defense rankings (just behind Boeing), the Company manufactures the Artisan 3D shipboard AESA radar. GaN-based and operating in S-band Artisan is BAE Systems’ the next generation medium range 3D surveillance radar for the Royal Navy and replaces the Type 996 surveillance and target indication radar.  Designed to be modular and highly configurable it provides a cost-effective high-performance radar, capable of operating effectively in littoral zones and improving air-defence, anti-surface (anti-ship) and air traffic management capabilities.
Artisan 3D is already in service with the Royal Navy equipping the Albion and Ocean class Assault Ships. It will also be fitted from build to the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers and retrofitted to Type 23 Frigates, amphibious assault ships and helicopter carrier. This AESA is an advanced development based on the Company’s earlier SAMPSON AESA.
Since Artisan 3D implements GaN MMICs within the TRMs it is likely the TRMs are obtained from RF2M who in turn purchase the GaN MMICs from UMS (Ulm)."

Thats an inversion of the point. Someone made a statement that it's just better at X and Y and noting something that basically all new radars have as listed capability, and implying its some Artisan only thing. There is no evidence to support that only Artisan can do this.

This is gobbledygook. Nobody claimed Artisan is the only radar in the world that can suppress clutter. The claim is that Artisan can do it better than anybody else due to its software. There's plenty of material online that you can read to justify that claim.

Your repeated assertion that anything newer must be better is absurd. Newness in anything (let alone software) confers no inherent advantages.

Likewise, the fact that no other countries have bought a piece of kit does not mean it is inherently inferior. Just means that it has not sold.

[Ron5]

Disappointing to read that informed commentators rate the T26 as second division

The UK made the choice some decades ago to spit the tasks of AAW escort and ASW escort into two classes of ship on the basis that a design trying to do both will inevitably compromise one or the other. Not only that but the tactical requirements of each task means that they may not be done concurrently. So, for example, taskforce ASW will take the ship far away from the point where it can be a useful AAW asset.

The Type 45/Type 26 combination shows this choice.

The Arleigh Burkes shows the weakness of the opposite choice: a superb AAW asset but shitty at ASW. The new USN program, FFG(X), could be seen as the USN moving toward the UK point of view.

To say that the UK T26 is inferior because it was designed and being built to a different doctrine/requirement is patently absurd. It's like saying the Queen Elizabeth is a terrible submarine compared to an Astute.

[Poiuytrewq]

For large mother ship, I agree it is good, but UK already have Bays. Do we really need more?

Yes please

But we have no task for "the 4th Bay". Station 2 Bays in Caribbean? Using it for APT-S? I think there is no need for amphibious tasks, in normal days... May be as a drone mother ship trial ship? Or as Argus replacement?

I see them as being commercially built non combatant logistic support vessels.

They need to be lean crewed and lightly armed but highly versatile especially if surged. The surge capability is key. A quote from SW1's excellent article posted previously,

On Sept. 27, 2017, Ponce, also known by the nickname “the Proud Lion,” sailed back into Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia after her extended tour of duty in the Middle East attached to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, where she acted as a crisis response command center, ready to assist with a wide array of missions, including mine sweeping, hunting pirates and terrorists, and general maritime security and humanitarian relief.

Apart from possibly the minesweeping aspect this is to me exactly what a Global Patrol Vessel should be doing on a daily basis. A large multipurpose platform deployed across the globe, with an ability to rapidly react to a wide range of events.

It could be argued that ground bases would be more suited than having multiple GPV's dotted across the globe but again SW1's previously quoted article has an interesting perspective,

In service since 1971, she was already destined for the scrap yard. Instead, in 2011, in something of a surprise decision, the Navy changed course and refitted her for new mission as a dedicated forward base in a part of the world were facilities on land might be vulnerable to attack or otherwise difficult to maintain.

A perfect platform for SF? Sounds like it to me and with enough of them in service we should always be in with a good chance of having one in the right place at the right time.

To keep costs down I would look at replacing the well dock with a steel beach/ramp. This would still make for a high versatile and cost effective setup.

Maritime Security

image.jpg

HADR

image.jpg

Logistics Support for Amphibious Assault

image.jpg

These vessels would be in the region of 150m X 24m so easily capable of deployments such as APT(S) and also suitable for APT(N) with its impressive HADR credentials. The mothership role for the MCMV's would be easily achievable and as mentioned they would provide excellent platforms for SF operations. All of this is possible for modest procurement and operating costs mainly due to low crew allocations. The increased support for Amphibious operations if required would be the icing on the cake.

[ArmChairCivvy]

keep them simple, as they will, more than likely, be built by the commercial yards that are the ones with spare capacity (but lacking in complex warship building experience)

and the designed-in upgradeability would come to use straight away , all of them flowing thru the one and only military fitting out yard we have

This is were the T26 programme started to go wrong. It was simply due to an over compensation for a lack of destroyers. We really needed 8 to 10 TLAM capable T45's.

Agreed. Taking the helo deck off would have equated to "no design changes"

a T26 variant became the T45 replacement, whether to build hulls 7-15 with a SAMPSON follow up.

Quite a good idea

[Poiuytrewq]

Poiuytrewq, if the number of escorts were closer to 24+ I’d agree a mix of T26s would be possible, but the numbers are never going to be that high so all of them need to be “full fat” versions. The thing that I would consider is if a T26 variant became the T45 replacement, whether to build hulls 7-15 with a SAMPSON follow up.

Ok, look at it from a different angle.

Suppose the T45's had been given the TLAM capability from day one and the T26 programme had of been a bit more straight forward and RN was now in the process of replacing our outgoing 13x T23's with 12x T26's.

If the T26's were being built with multiple different specs like the Italian PPA's would it be so unusual?

Especially considering the T23's were built with different specs between the ASW and GP variants?

If we were getting 12 of the finest ASW frigates the world has ever seen but only 4 of which were getting a TLAM/ASROC capability and the Mk45 plus auto magazine whilst the remaining 8 would be getting the 57/76mm and Mk41/ASROC spec, would we really be complaining?

That would be 18 Tier1 escorts, 10 with a TLAM capability and 12 towing 2087 along with a Mk41/ASROC capability.

I really don't think we would be complaining.

[Ron5]

Quite a good idea

I had to laugh.

But what exactly does it mean to use the T26 as a basis for a T45 replacement? Would not the interior require a redesign to accommodate the different systems? Wouldn't the weight distribution have to be different to accommodate two large and heavy radars mounted up top? Wouldn't the expensive to manufacture super quiet hull be a waste of money?

I could go on. But basically, why?