UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Mar 2020, 15:19

With both the Absalons and IHs the Danes got five very useable warships far cheaper then by conventional means. I doubt anyone else could achieve or want to achieve the same with the need for higher standards often given as a reason not to even try. We wanted a cheap warship that could carry out a limited number of tasks, freeing up other escorts of more demanding ones and maintain the fleet at nineteen (or at least the Governments press office wanted the last one). The T-31s will give us the option to increase their capabilities if we choose to, and the Dames are maximising the capabilities of their vessels as and when they can afford to. But the two vessels are definitely chalk and cheese.

As for the IHs being the basis for a T-45 replacement, possible but exceedingly unlikely. The RN will want to maintain as many high end platforms as possible and will probably look to how the T-26 and its relations design evolves. Whether we can continue to maintain two distinct classes of specialised ships may also be a factor.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Mar 2020, 16:03

Lord Jim wrote:As for the IHs being the basis for a T-45 replacement, possible but exceedingly unlikely.

Yep
Lord Jim wrote:Whether we can continue to maintain two distinct classes of specialised ships may also be a factor.
Yep
- destroyer/ cruiser class as one, and the 'jack of all trades' once fitted out for any of those trades the other; see above
Lord Jim wrote:With both the Absalons and IHs the Danes got five very useable warships far cheaper then by conventional means. I doubt anyone else could achieve or want to achieve the same with the need for higher standards often given as a reason not to even try. We wanted a cheap warship that could carry out a limited number of tasks, freeing up other escorts of [for?] more demanding ones and maintain the fleet at nineteen (or at least the Governments press office wanted the last one). The T-31s will give us the option to increase their capabilities if we choose to, and the Dames are maximising the capabilities of their vessels as and when they can afford to.

... getting ABM before we'll get there; and there's the all 5 mln of them (Danes :) )

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 06 Mar 2020, 12:56

Lord Jim wrote:With both the Absalons and IHs the Danes got five very useable warships far cheaper then by conventional means. I doubt anyone else could achieve or want to achieve the same with the need for higher standards often given as a reason not to even try. We wanted a cheap warship that could carry out a limited number of tasks, freeing up other escorts of more demanding ones and maintain the fleet at nineteen (or at least the Governments press office wanted the last one). The T-31s will give us the option to increase their capabilities if we choose to, and the Dames are maximising the capabilities of their vessels as and when they can afford to. But the two vessels are definitely chalk and cheese.

As for the IHs being the basis for a T-45 replacement, possible but exceedingly unlikely. The RN will want to maintain as many high end platforms as possible and will probably look to how the T-26 and its relations design evolves. Whether we can continue to maintain two distinct classes of specialised ships may also be a factor.


Any specific higher standards you would mention that RN would want to maintain over and above those of the IH. My only thought where the T26 is of a higher standard to IH is the quiet and expensive ASW hull and propulsion system, which suggest would not be a priority for a AAW destroyer not with the noise emanating from QNLZ with its four Wartsila diesels.

As a T45 replacement which maybe ten years off do agree T31 highly unlikely choice at present, in future if T31 successful there is the possibility future Navy/Admiralty Board mindset may change and with continuing ongoing severe pressure to keep costs down once again highlighted by the recent NAO report and current 1st SL aiming to cut HQ by 1,000 personnel/50%, may lead to possible future competition between T26 and T31, both have pluses and minuses and depends on what priorities rated more highly at that time plus the politics. Alternatively future AAW system/politics will result in different choice of ship than either T26 or 31.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Mar 2020, 15:21

NickC wrote:may lead to possible future competition between T26 and T31, both have pluses and minuses and depends on what priorities rated more highly at that time plus the politics. Alternatively future AAW system/politics will result in different choice of ship than either T26 or 31.


... or mix :idea:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Mar 2020, 19:00

The RN would really want the whole ship built to true naval standards rather than the pick and choose method used on the IHs. If you want the exact differences then you will need to find a naval ship designer to lay them out. No one else is going to be able to build ships like the Absalons and IHs at the price the Danes paid. They had unique opportunities like the Shipyard will to build the hulls for a knock down price and to the standards the Danish Navy was willing to accept. They also had surplus STANFLEX modules that would be easy to install into the ships once delivered. No other nation to my knowledge has adopted this system though many have looked at it and walked away. The Danes are very happy with their new ships and got a good deal and a leap in capability over the ships they replaced. Yes they are to get BMD abilities but as AAW platforms the T-45 is a better platform with its combination of Sampson and Aster15/30.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 09 Mar 2020, 07:05

Brazilian Tamandare-class-corvettes, contracted with 1.6B GBP for 4 hulls. The price has increased from original 1.2B GBP, but now it says including post-delivery support. Looks like good number to be compared with 2B GBP for 5 T31s.

Compared with T31, it looks "similar" in value. T31 has large-hull (6000t) with much better sea-keeping (and possible future up-arming, which I am very pessimistic of), while Tamandare (3500t) has everything we discuss here, "needed for T31 to make it a true 2nd-tier GP frigate". Actually, it is almost exactly fit in to the T31 RFI (only exception is hull-length. No info yet on its range/endurance, though).

I know this is UK escort thread, not Brazilian. But, with Artisan-3D, CAMM, 40mm gun (with 3P) common with T31, differs in 76mm gun, has SSM, AS torpedo, hull-sonar of which T31 does not have, and soft-kill system of which T31 looks-like not having, will be a good comparison with T31.

In other words, there is zero hope for exporting T31 to Brazil for new build.

BUT, high-commonality in armament MAY enable sells of ex-UK T23, and then ex-UK T31 in ~20 years future.

PS Interestingly, Brazilian navy, originally adopting sister-of-MFS7000 hull sonar (onboard UK T45) moved off to Atlas ASO 713 hull sonar. Similar in size to T45's EDO MFS7000, but completely different gear.

Figures from https://www.edrmagazine.eu/aguas-azuis-consortium-is-chosen-as-preferred-supplier-to-build-four-new-tamandare-class-corvettes, and cost info from https://euro-sd.com/2020/03/news/16632/finally-tamandare/

Image
Image

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 09 Mar 2020, 11:14

donald_of_tokyo wrote:it is almost exactly fit in to the T31 RFI (only exception is hull-length. No info yet on its range/endurance, though).


Given it hull length and so on I would say a range of 4000 to 5000 nautical miles and 30 odd days at sea is where it will sit as for the fitting out of type 31 no SSGW seems to be a RN standard not just type 31 this also goes for fitting torpedo's however a HMS and softkill really are a must for me

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 09 Mar 2020, 15:36

Lord Jim wrote:The RN would really want the whole ship built to true naval standards rather than the pick and choose method used on the IHs. If you want the exact differences then you will need to find a naval ship designer to lay them out. No one else is going to be able to build ships like the Absalons and IHs at the price the Danes paid. They had unique opportunities like the Shipyard will to build the hulls for a knock down price and to the standards the Danish Navy was willing to accept. They also had surplus STANFLEX modules that would be easy to install into the ships once delivered. No other nation to my knowledge has adopted this system though many have looked at it and walked away. The Danes are very happy with their new ships and got a good deal and a leap in capability over the ships they replaced. Yes they are to get BMD abilities but as AAW platforms the T-45 is a better platform with its combination of Sampson and Aster15/30.


Thanks for input, playing devils advocate with your post, need actual specific examples of "true naval standards" not on IH, would as you say really need input of a naval ship designer to list any missing standards and as far as know to date none has come forward despite all the claims IH substandard, it's a big unknown, have you any knowledge of them? Have previously listed all NATO standards IH built to, so at moment these claims appear unsubstantiated. Understand IH HM&E built for 30 year life, don't know T45 figure but think read T26 spec'd for 25 years.

Re the knock down shipyard price result of blocks built by OSS subsidiaries in Estonia and Latvia before ship assembled in Danish shipyard, have commentated before if you can believe the NAVSEA graphic the hull cost is surprising low at 8% of total build cost so even a 50% uplift would not cause major increase in price.

The STANFLEX modules have been successful in the RDN in allowing weapon systems to be transferred from old ships to new ships, the USN Mission Modules for the two LCS classes proved a total failure, an example of how good is Danish design.

The claim T45 is the better AAW system than IH maybe true, would depend on actual operational scenario and missiles fitted, both have pluses and minuses, T45 with its Sampson S-band two antenna array radar and Aster 15/30 missiles with active seekers and 48 VLS cells vs the IH with it's two radars, with advantage of two different radar bands, SMART L-band (as used on the QNLZ) plus APAR X-band four panel antenna and SM-2/ESSM missiles semi-active seekers and 56 VLS cells, IH has possible option of using 32 Mk41 cells option of fitting SM-2/SM-6/SM-3 and 24 Mk56 for ESSM Blk 2 with active seekers, very unlikely as cannot see the RDN having the funding to buy. Understand effectiveness of both systems rely solely on theoretical computer modelling simulations as neither undergone actual attacks by supersonic target drones, eg Aster tested against a single USN Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target drone but that was with French frigate's radar and CMS.

PS The NAVSEA graphic png would not post, too big at 360 KB?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Mar 2020, 17:06

Utter top trumps bollox.

Tomorrow the womble will have us believing they're better than the Arleigh Burkes.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 09 Mar 2020, 17:55

NickC wrote:The claim T45 is the better AAW system than IH maybe true, would depend on actual operational scenario and missiles fitted, both have pluses and minuses, T45 with its Sampson S-band two antenna array radar and Aster 15/30 missiles with active seekers and 48 VLS cells vs the IH with it's two radars,...


Nick you seem to have forgotten that the T45 also has S1850M variant of SMART-L L-band radar.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Mar 2020, 18:03

Ron5 wrote:Utter top trumps bollox.

Tomorrow the womble will have us believing they're better than the Arleigh Burkes.


Oh dear, can't be abusive without explanation, they all shout:

Top Trumps name equivalence:

1. All standards are called standards so they are all the same. Even better if you can't name the T45 standards. No named standards loses every time. Top trumps win for Denmark.
2. All modules are the same. Stanflex modules are the same as LCS Mission modules. One is claimed to work the other not. Top Trumps win for Denmark.
3. All radars are the same because they are all called radars. IH has two, the T45 has one (yeah I know this is wrong). Top Trumps win for Denmark.
4. All missiles are the same because they are all called missiles. T45 has one type (Aster), IH has four types (SM-2/SM-6/SM-3 and ESSM Blk 2). Top Trumps win for Denmark.

IH are dirt cheap:

1. Hull costs are only 8% of US build costs so it doesn't matter that the IH hulls were built in Eastern Europe. Yeah but why not use the percentage cost of the IH that was the hull not what us Yanks get in Yankeeland? and what about all the other unique factors that made IH so cheap?

False Statements

1. T26 specified for a 25 year hull life vs IH built for 30 years.
2. Effectiveness of missile systems rely on theoretical computer simulations so all are equal until tested.
3. Claims that IH have been built substandard.

Utter top trumps bollox. QED.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 09 Mar 2020, 19:44

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Brazilian Tamandare-class-corvettes, contracted with 1.6B GBP for 4 hulls. The price has increased from original 1.2B GBP, but now it says including post-delivery support. Looks like good number to be compared with 2B GBP for 5 T31s.

Compared with T31, it looks "similar" in value. T31 has large-hull (6000t) with much better sea-keeping (and possible future up-arming, which I am very pessimistic of), while Tamandare (3500t) has everything we discuss here, "needed for T31 to make it a true 2nd-tier GP frigate". Actually, it is almost exactly fit in to the T31 RFI (only exception is hull-length. No info yet on its range/endurance, though).

I know this is UK escort thread, not Brazilian. But, with Artisan-3D, CAMM, 40mm gun (with 3P) common with T31, differs in 76mm gun, has SSM, AS torpedo, hull-sonar of which T31 does not have, and soft-kill system of which T31 looks-like not having, will be a good comparison with T31.

In other words, there is zero hope for exporting T31 to Brazil for new build.



Meh, what Germans and Brazilians know, RN knows the best.

But fear not, you will sell them a PoW... :lol:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 10 Mar 2020, 10:16

Ron5 wrote:IH are dirt cheap:


Yes their were dirt cheap but they have proven to be good ships on which RDN are building up a good weapons and sensor package. Above surface I would put them above a FREMM when it comes to weapons , sensors and range and sub surface they are being improved with a TAS starting this year and so far they are proving reliable and able to give a good amount of day at sea each year

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 10 Mar 2020, 11:50

tomuk wrote:
NickC wrote:The claim T45 is the better AAW system than IH maybe true, would depend on actual operational scenario and missiles fitted, both have pluses and minuses, T45 with its Sampson S-band two antenna array radar and Aster 15/30 missiles with active seekers and 48 VLS cells vs the IH with it's two radars,...


Nick you seem to have forgotten that the T45 also has S1850M variant of SMART-L L-band radar.


Thanks for correcting/reminding me.

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 10 Mar 2020, 11:58

@Ron

Must admit when I read your posts and you're having to revert obnoxious language on IH they bring a smile to my face, as you make up fantasy claims, I have challenged you three times to back up on one of your specific claims and you never reply, so I'm sure you will understand if I consider your IH posts laced with pure fiction :clap:

Re T26 design life, checked and found the RN PR 20th July 2017 "Designed for a service life of at least 25 years"

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 10 Mar 2020, 12:58

NavyLookout@NavyLookout Mar 8.
@HMSDauntless alongside in Portsmouth - due to sail for first time this month after 4 years laid up / in refit. Will depart under her own power for short period at sea to baseline existing machinery performance before heading to @CammellLaird for engine upgrade.


For whatever reason why not enamored by the operational availability of the T45 class, it was said Dauntless laid up due to lack of RN manpower, but IH base ships crew planned as 100, actual 120 vs T45 190+?, (HMS Duncan in Channel 5 Warship: Life at Sea quoted 280 crew on board including supernumeraries) both ships built in same time period.

T26 crew quoted as 118? and the new PPA only 90, the Italian Navy has a policy aim for for a one third crew reduction with every new gen of ships so as to fund more ships, based on using the ever improving new commercial tech so as to bear down on operational costs, manpower being by far the biggest expense.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 10 Mar 2020, 15:09

Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:IH are dirt cheap:


Yes their were dirt cheap but they have proven to be good ships on which RDN are building up a good weapons and sensor package. Above surface I would put them above a FREMM when it comes to weapons , sensors and range and sub surface they are being improved with a TAS starting this year and so far they are proving reliable and able to give a good amount of day at sea each year


No problem with that. Danish Navy is a fine outfit.

My problem is with folk that criticize the UK for not building warships at the same low, low, price, and for asserting the IH's are in the same ball park as the Type 45s. Those same folk that recommend dumbing down the Royal Navy at every opportunity.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 10 Mar 2020, 15:19

NickC wrote:Re T26 design life, checked and found the RN PR 20th July 2017 "Designed for a service life of at least 25 years"


Not the same as hull life. Two things with the same name don't mean the same.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Mar 2020, 15:42

Ron5 wrote:Those same folk that recommend dumbing down the Royal Navy at every opportunity.


May be they do; may be they don't... Not saying.
But having a better/ more effective mix, for the same budget, is not the same as 'dumbing down'.
- and for the mix, perhaps the coming SDSR will/ can say something about how the threats are to be prioritised?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Mar 2020, 17:49

Part of me wished that when the T-45s go in to have the engine issue fixed that take the time to carry out a refit, say replacing the Mk8 with a BAe 57mm and on at least one, trial the stand alone ExLS so that the ship can carry 24+ Sea Ceptor. The installation of the first should not be too difficult and the Standalone ExLS can be bolted on almost anywhere, above and below deck. Then send our existing ASTRE-15s back to MBDA to have them converted to 30s maybe even the ABM variant, so upgrading the Sampson etc might be a good idea as well not forgetting CEC. And so the wish list grows.

inch
Member
Posts: 723
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 10 Mar 2020, 18:19

Well let's hope the budget tomorrow is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat and suprise us all and give something to the defence budget so we can get a bit better armed vessels

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 642
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RichardIC » 10 Mar 2020, 22:33

OK, just for fun.

I've just been watching the last episode of Warship on Ch5 catch-up.

And there's an item of equipment one deck below the 30mm and slightly forward that, on several occasions, is blurred out.

WTF? Any guesses?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Mar 2020, 22:56

Decoy launchers?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 10 Mar 2020, 23:11

RichardIC wrote:And there's an item of equipment one deck below the 30mm and slightly forward that, on several occasions, is blurred out.


If it’s blurred out I would suggest you’ll not get an answer from anyone who knows what it is on a forum.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 642
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RichardIC » 10 Mar 2020, 23:17

SW1 wrote:If it’s blurred out I would suggest you’ll not get an answer from anyone who knows what it is on a forum.


You tease! I did say it was just for fun.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rhodes76 and 18 guests