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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Nov 2018, 17:21

Caribbean wrote:has no feasible "secondary war role", except perhaps as a floating ambulance.


Or as a "door guard" against infiltration of supply harbours, back at home.

NickC
Member
Posts: 356
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 04 Nov 2018, 17:28

Repulse wrote:
NickC wrote:My understanding is that with the new generation of extremely quiet submarines you need a very powerful active sonar, TAS no longer effective, so left with a very expensive and limited number of T26s at ~£1B as sitting targets when using active VDS with close to 150 people on board.


I’ve no doubt that new submarines are getting quieter - but there are two sides to every coin and detection will keep pace. The T26 has an ultra quiet hull / engines - the T31e will not. The T26 will have standoff ASW weapons and ability to deploy / operate complex off board ASW sensors including 1-2 Merlins - the amount of money available will mean the T31e will not. Operating a TAS is part of the solution but not all of it.

I’d rather be sat deploying off board pingers at range on an ultra quiet ship able to kill at range, rather than sat on a noisy ship with a local pinger with limited kill capability.


Question is the source of these necessary powerful off board pingers, Donald-san "Increasing signal = 4-barrel VDS (CAPTAS-4 and 4CI) is twice better than CAPTAS-2". think that no UV on horizon has that capability to deploy/operate a CAPTAS 4, need a low cost T31 or if not available will be left to the T26 to use its CAPTAS 4 and making it a noisy fat target.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 04 Nov 2018, 17:34

Looking again at Leander when compared with T22/23 I was surprised to see that with a beam of 14.3 m she is almost as wide as a T22 - all batches - which had a beam of 14.8 m. Of course the 'new' Leander is 10 metres shorter than the Batch 1 T22 and 20 metres than the Batch 2 and 3, however in beam alone there is nothing to stop it having a Merlin capable hanger.

Interestingly the original Leander's were beam 12.5 m (Broad beam 13.1) and had a length of 113 m so they were both narrower and slightly shorter which didn't stop them being regarded as excellent ocean going ships, as proven by their escapades during the Cod War if nothing else. At 2,500 tons they were also about 1,000 tons lighter too.I suppose the point I am making is that whilst we may consider Leander small by today's standards, she certainly qualifies as a Frigate by those of the past and is most certainly not a Corvette.

If you take the T42's also regarded as excellent ocean going ships they too were of a similar size at 14.3 metres beam and 119.5 metres long ( 132 metres batches 3). In terms of tonnage they were also pretty much the same as quoted for Leander at 3,600 tons standard, whereas according to the brochure the 117 metre (ours ?) 'new' Leander comes in at 3,677 tons - I'm amazed they can be so precise. Point is Leander may look a tad small when judged by our current expectation, but she ain't that small !?

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 04 Nov 2018, 17:44

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:Foward bases in Germany and the the Baltics


The latest proposal is to keep 60 folks looking after the big A/C garage, and also keep the exercise area available. Or that is what I picked up, MDP might come out with something different.


Actually it's 187 uniformed, 80 civil servants ( mainly DIO range safety staff) and 200 German LEC's. Not just to maintain the kit in Ayreshire Barracks ( the big garage) which houses about 2,000 mainly A vehicles but also to ensure we keep the brilliant range facilities at Hohner and the armour manoeuvre area that is Sennelager and which we have spent so much money on over the years. What it giives us in terms of capability is cheap at the price but a forward deployed Division it is not . Much cheaper than flying everyone to Suffield (Canada) however, and Salisbury Plain is just too small. If your going to have an army, and I know some on here would rather we not, it has to have somewhere to train.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1160
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 04 Nov 2018, 18:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Or as a "door guard" against infiltration of supply harbours, back at home.

Yes - also a possibility, though I would have thought that an HMS Magpie-class vessel would be quite good in that role as well (being equipped for sonar work!), maintaining the honourable tradition of the Harbour/ Seaward Defence launches
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Nov 2018, 18:55

NickC wrote: no UV on horizon has that capability to deploy/operate a CAPTAS 4, need a low cost T31 or if not available will be left to the T26 to use its CAPTAS 4 and making it a noisy fat target.


The pinger part (equivalent to it) from the full set should not be beyond practicalities... the rest done by the T-26. Getting incoming signals bounced off the sub at different angles should also help to deal with improving stealth?

SW1
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 04 Nov 2018, 19:18

Caribbean wrote:
Repulse wrote:I’m all for a volume of multi-role Patrol (MHPC) Sloops able to protect UK/BOT EEZs and have secondary war roles,

I think you just described the baseline T31.
UK/BOT EEZs - Light helicopter, fast boats, HADR supplies
Secondary war role - NGFS, convoy local air defence, contributor to ASW
I'm not sure why so many people here want to put our sailors in such low-end boats like the Venari, designed to have nothing more than junk-busting capabilities. We don't send the Rivers on anti-pirate patrols, but for some reason, an identically-equipped Venari is going to be able to do the job.


This is the bit I’m struggling with type 31. on uk and overseas territories are we invisaging we need more than Bay/River in the Caribbean depending on time of year or more than a river or hms protector in the Falklands or more than rivers around the uk to patrol our seas. I don’t see a need to upscale in any of those areas.

In the war role it would be interesting to see how far up the fighting capability of the opposition you’d be prepared to go. If your doing NGFS Shore launched anti ship missiles are likely against a near peer particularly a Russian one, if it’s as benign as Libya or sierra leone would an mlrs on the deck of a lpd be better.

likewise if your worried about convoy protection your enemy will be pretty capable if its attacks at range, if we use the 1980s tanker wars as an example would you put a type 31 into that?. The ship will need to be pretty sophisticated to deal with such a threat. Or if lower threat like the build up to Iraq and fast ribs and rpgs at choke points is the likely issue is it better to use fleet protection group on our RFAs and fit phalanx for example.

I struggle with how we get from 8 type 26 for 8 billion pounds to 5 type 31 for 1.25b and yet it’s still capable of being a high threat escort ship as type 26 was originally supposed to be at the price we’re hoping type 31 is now at. If we use cost to distinguish capability then the cost difference between an asw type 23 and gp type 23 is the cost of buying a towed array sonar which I doubt is 1/2 a billion quid+.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Nov 2018, 19:39

SW1 wrote:the cost difference between an asw type 23 and gp type 23 is the cost of buying a towed array sonar


Going back to the days when they changed the ASW spec for T23 to include a Merlin + a hangar, the cost went up by 50% (£57 mln in the money of those days) and I presume some kind of sonar was already costed in; but Merlin not.
- of course we have made our Wildcats super expensive (£27 mln apiece), too, without any ASW capability... but that is another story. And we have enough of them.

SW1
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 04 Nov 2018, 19:59

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:the cost difference between an asw type 23 and gp type 23 is the cost of buying a towed array sonar


Going back to the days when they changed the ASW spec for T23 to include a Merlin + a hangar, the cost went up by 50% (£57 mln in the money of those days) and I presume some kind of sonar was already costed in; but Merlin not.
- of course we have made our Wildcats super expensive (£27 mln apiece), too, without any ASW capability... but that is another story. And we have enough of them.


Was the original design of type 23 not a tug with a towed sonar with the fort Victoria with seawolf as command ship and protection. Then they became what we know as type 23.

I’m more meaning what we have today in the type 23 fleet, both a gp and an asw type 23 are pretty much the same. If type 23 is the baseline how far above has type 26 gone and how far below has type 31 gone?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1160
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 04 Nov 2018, 22:43

SW1 wrote:on uk and overseas territories are we invisaging we need more than Bay/River in the Caribbean depending on time of year

The Rivers have not proved to be a huge success in the Caribbean. Too limited for the anti-smuggling/ maritime security/ HADR role. If we had them there in significant numbers, then they might possibly have some impact, but a single ship, without air assets and limited to a short-endurance 8m rib, is too little in a million sq. miles of the Caribbean (never mind the Gulf of Mexico and the Lucayan Archipelago/ North Atlantic). The Rivers even had to ship extra crew , so that they could field a full rugby team for the obligatory matches against local sides. :) The T21 was much more effective in that role, however, when used in a wartime scenario, it's lack of adequate air defence proved crucial - that has been significantly improved in the T31, being both CAMM and Phalanx capable (one up on the T23, at that). AND they could field a Rugby, football and cricket team AT THE SAME TIME.

SW1 wrote:I don’t see a need to upscale in any of those areas.

See my comments on the RB1's above. Yes - we need to upscale in the Caribbean. In the Falklands and the UK, there are significant land-based assets available, so a different scenario.

SW1 wrote:if we use the 1980s tanker wars as an example would you put a type 31 into that

Considering that we used both Leanders and T21s in the Armilla patrol (both equipped with Sea Cat, which was obsolete by the time of the Falklands), I don't actually see why you couldn't (assuming that, like other ships on Gulf duties, it gets a Phalanx mounted and some CAMM in it's tubes). Ditto for any scenario involving FIACs etc. That's what the Wildcat/ Martlet/ Sea Venom combo is designed for.

SW1 wrote:If your doing NGFS Shore launched anti ship missiles are likely against a near peer particularly a Russian one

And do you really think that ANY current RN warship is going to be doing NGFS solo in that environment? There will be T45s, T26 and Carriers with F35s involved in that scenario.

SW1 wrote:if it’s as benign as Libya or sierra leone would an mlrs on the deck of a lpd be better.

Has anyone actually got that to work? I believe that all attempts so far have been complete failures. Something to do with salt water spray and non-marinised equipment (and the fact that MLRS is not designed for use from a wobbly platform - much prefers solid land under it.).

SW1 wrote:it’s still capable of being a high threat escort ship as type 26 was originally supposed to be

Sorry - straw man argument. Where did I say that. You said "secondary war role" and there are a lot of "secondary war roles" that a ship capable of defending itself and others would be able to do. Convoys don't typically enter high threat zones - quite the opposite, but it doesn't mean that they will never be attacked. The T31 has never been intended to be a T26 equivalent - it's original description was "a T21 for the 21st Century", which shows you exactly what it is aimed at - a Caribbean and Atlantic patrol ship, with the capability to take on a "secondary war role" (though hopefully with the weaknesses of its predecessor eliminated)..
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Nov 2018, 07:16

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Once again I make a case for the main gun on the T-31e.
Thanks. For 76mm Strales CLOS guided ammunition, I think this movie is better.


To say the truth, I am not much optimistic about its capability. Line of sight means weak against target maneuver. Good for Exocet/Harpoon era ASM, drones and helicopters, and of course fast attack boats. But not sure for NSM, LRASM (high maneuver) or Blamos (Mach 3). I might be wrong. Also LOS means its range will be limited, because the dart is not on ballistic trajectory.


This is an issue with all gun based CIWS systems though. The advantage of both the 76mm and 57 mm is that they carry out a multitude of roles which would make them very effective main armament for the T-31e, not perfect but IF supplemented by Sea Ceptor would give the platform a reasonable self defence capability and as Phalanx is compulsory in any design even more so. Mu main point is to try to convince those who believe either a second hand Mk8 or a new 5" are the way forward. Personally I think the 57mm is the way forward, with the gun being retrofitted to the B2 River upon refit and also the T-45s.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Nov 2018, 07:26

Despite its large fam base, NGFS is going to be way down the list of tasks for any RN platform. As for going in solo, well that is exactly what the RN did during the Falklands, and where if said platforms gun malfunctioned the troops lost he support. Also HMS Glamorgan was very lucky when engaged by an Argentinian shore based Exocet battery when conducting NGFS. Unless the enemy cannot shoot back it is just too dangerous to risk a naval vessel doing such a mission. What is need is an over the horizon fire support capability, which some ammunition types allow, but this role if actually used should be the realm of the T-26, not the T-31e and definitely no the super valuable T-45s.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 07:58

donald_of_tokyo wrote:For 76mm Strales CLOS guided ammunition, I think this movie is better.

To say the truth, I am not much optimistic about its capability.

I agree, there are big question marks hanging over its capability.

Performance against a big old missile is probably good, the Strales system can throw up a bigger wall of metal than any CIWS, and at a greater range.

However I have serious doubts it can perform against faster more maneuverable targets. The turret is slow to move, and the projectiles don't have good terminal maneuverability needed to pin point a fast missile.

I think what we end up with is something too big for AAW, and something too small for NGFS. In the case of the T31, I think the RN would be better off not bothering with a medium sized gun, save what little funds there are for a system with real capability.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Nov 2018, 08:03

shark bait wrote:end up with is something too big for AAW, and something too small for NGFS


True, and to me it would appear a fallacy that T26s/T45s will be joining the 'gun line' when they are OTH (in low numbers) escorting the MTF

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 08:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Or as a "door guard" against infiltration of supply harbours, back at home.

That's what an MPA is for, and doing the job at 100 times the range.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:True, and to me it would appear a fallacy that T26s/T45s will be joining the 'gun line' when they are OTH (in low numbers) escorting the MTF

Yep, a ship need to be hard as nails to sit within visual range of a hostile coast line and stay in the fight. That will not be the T31, so it means bringing in the escorts. (or bringing back the T26 GP, that was such a nice plan)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Nov 2018, 08:36

shark bait wrote: ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Or as a "door guard" against infiltration of supply harbours, back at home.


That's what an MPA is for, and doing the job at 100 times the range.


Infiltration as in 'covert'. An MPA would be pretty bad at inspecting if a civilian yacht meandering in the approaches to, say Marchwood, is legit or not. We have fairly little to mobilise for the job done by Gendarmerie Maritime, a component of the French National Gendarmerie under operational control of the chief of staff of the French Navy. It employs 1,100 personnel and operates around thirty patrol boats and high-speed motorboats.
- call up the University flotillas :) ?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 08:49

Ok, fair point, and more of a role for the patrol boats than the frigates. (and maybe one day the MCM platforms)
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1160
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 05 Nov 2018, 10:19

shark bait wrote:Ok, fair point, and more of a role for the patrol boats than the frigates. (and maybe one day the MCM platforms)

I would have thought that they will have their work cut out ensuring that the ports haven't been mined
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 05 Nov 2018, 10:43

ArmChairCivvy wrote:True, and to me it would appear a fallacy that T26s/T45s will be joining the 'gun line' when they are OTH (in low numbers) escorting the MTF


If NGFS is on the list for type 31 then it should be fitted with a 76mm capable of using VULCANO however for me if you need to support troops on the ground during a landing we now have the Apache and F-35

For me right now given the budget I was team Leander would fit 1 x 57mm , 4 x 30mm , a Phalanx mount only and redesign the tubs to hold a maximum of 15 CAMM each they need only fit 6 in each to start but lets have the capability

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Nov 2018, 11:34

Tempest414 wrote:support troops on the ground during a landing we now have the Apache and F-35

Sure, they are the primary means. But it is fashionable these days (and has always been a good practice) to have a 'backstop'.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Phil R » 05 Nov 2018, 12:02

Pongoglo wrote:If you take the T42's also regarded as excellent ocean going ships they too were of a similar size at 14.3 metres beam and 119.5 metres long ( 132 metres batches 3).


Batch 1 ships were known to have difficulties in heavy seas.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Destroyer/Sheffield-Type-42-class.htm

Phil

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 05 Nov 2018, 12:52

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sure, they are the primary means. But it is fashionable these days (and has always been a good practice) to have a 'backstop'.


and the backstop is the 4.5 & 5 inch guns on the tier 1 escorts and more over if it is taken up VULCANO for said 5 inch gun. As said if the RN wants type 31 to have a NGFS role then as a base line they need to fit a 76mm with Vulcano to give it a 40 km range but in real terms type 31 in it current form has no place doing NGFS

NickC
Member
Posts: 356
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 05 Nov 2018, 13:37

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Unread postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Nov 2018, 18:55

NickC wrote:
no UV on horizon has that capability to deploy/operate a CAPTAS 4, need a low cost T31 or if not available will be left to the T26 to use its CAPTAS 4 and making it a noisy fat target.


The pinger part (equivalent to it) from the full set should not be beyond practicalities... the rest done by the T-26. Getting incoming signals bounced off the sub at different angles should also help to deal with improving stealth?


My thinking differs in that I see no possibility whatsoever of any future UV pinger with enough power to be effective in detecting the new gen exceptionally quiet subs, agree that you need signals bounced off sub at different angles to improve chances of detection. That's why think you need a ASW squadron, one T24/26 with two or three simple/cheap T31s for pinging.

The USN use civilian crewed T-AGOS class ships, some nearly 6,000t, to conduct surveillance operations, using very powerful low frequency active pingers, 100-1000 Hz 235+dB, USN Navy gave a figure of 160 dB at about 2 km from the LFA generated by the massive sound transmitters towed behind TAGOS ships that can reach 100 miles, necessary to detect quiet subs at longer ranges, programme required a 50% reduction in weight and power requirements for the acoustic source. Controversy surrounded the project as noise effecting marine mammals, e.g. whales and dolphins.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Nov 2018, 14:26

NickC wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Unread postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Nov 2018, 18:55

NickC wrote:
no UV on horizon has that capability to deploy/operate a CAPTAS 4, need a low cost T31 or if not available will be left to the T26 to use its CAPTAS 4 and making it a noisy fat target.


The pinger part (equivalent to it) from the full set should not be beyond practicalities... the rest done by the T-26. Getting incoming signals bounced off the sub at different angles should also help to deal with improving stealth?


My thinking differs in that I see no possibility whatsoever of any future UV pinger with enough power to be effective in detecting the new gen exceptionally quiet subs, agree that you need signals bounced off sub at different angles to improve chances of detection. That's why think you need a ASW squadron, one T24/26 with two or three simple/cheap T31s for pinging.

The USN use civilian crewed T-AGOS class ships, some nearly 6,000t, to conduct surveillance operations, using very powerful low frequency active pingers, 100-1000 Hz 235+dB, USN Navy gave a figure of 160 dB at about 2 km from the LFA generated by the massive sound transmitters towed behind TAGOS ships that can reach 100 miles, necessary to detect quiet subs at longer ranges, programme required a 50% reduction in weight and power requirements for the acoustic source. Controversy surrounded the project as noise effecting marine mammals, e.g. whales and dolphins.


All of the above works well for "blue water" ASW but as I mentioned above this is very different from the area where these new very quiet conventional submarines are going to hang out most of the time, that being in the coastal and littoral arenas.

As for the effectiveness of the Italina 76mm in its role as a CIWS, well give the darts ride a beam to the target they should be pretty effective against maneuverable targets, both aimed at the vessel and against target crossing towards other friendlies. In fact the trials show exactly these sort of senarios. The other big advantage of botht he 76mm and 57mm is that they can engage the threat at a far greater range than Phalanx, almost out the the horizon infact. As part of a layered defence they are truely more flexible than the good old 20mm CIWSand if your troops ashore need fire support, the 76mm has been used in this role in the real world.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 14:29

Tempest414 wrote:if the RN wants type 31 to have a NGFS role then as a base line they need to fit a 76mm with Vulcano to give it a 40 km range


If that is the case it needs a 5 inch gun with the guided Vulcano to give it a 100 km, plus a shit load of CAMM.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gandalf, hovematlot, jimthelad, pbs and 1 guest