UK Defence Forum

Nothing new here but an interesting round up all the same.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... l-warship/

One interesting paragraph that stood out,

A BAE/CL source talking about Leander?

Also good to hear that the new economies of scale within the T26 programme will help to drive down costs for RN's T26's.

Navy Recognition/Xav, has article today on the Franco-British next generation of AShM Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon (PERSEUS / CVS401) not sure what prompted this as no new info given. FC/ASW funded back in March 2017 with 100M Euros for its 3 year Conceptual Phase with aim for operation 2030'ish is both anti-ship and deep strike missile, mention of ramjet propulsion.

PS Navy Recognition January 3 reported on the Taiwanese launched a Hsiung Feng-3 "Brave Wind III" third generation AShM, supersonic with ramjet + rocket boosters, from the new class Tuo Chiang stealth corvette, mention of 400km range. Supersonic AShM appear to the becoming the norm, as always targeting is the big unknown to make a AShM an effective weapon system.

From <http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... siles.html>

On top, the Hsiung Feng-3 and below, the Hsiung Feng-2, at Navdex 2017 in United Arab Emirates (Picture source : Navy Recognition)

NickC wrote:Supersonic AShM appear to the becoming the norm, as always targeting is the big unknown to make a AShM an effective weapon system.

We say this a lot, meanwhile we have Mach 3 missiles that can target much smaller objects moving much faster than a ship. Targeting might have been an issue in the 90's but it doubt it is today.

Hypersonic 5'' projectile fired successfully from a Mk45.

With the possibility of adding a guided capability down the line it looks very interesting, and very expensive....

https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/navy-q ... rs-deckgun

shark bait wrote:Targeting might have been an issue in the 90's but it doubt it is today

Targeting vs. homing?

At sea (with great distances involved):
- knowing were(abouts) the target is
- homing in, the terminal phase (evasive actions, defences & decoys...)

shark bait wrote:

NickC wrote:Supersonic AShM appear to the becoming the norm, as always targeting is the big unknown to make a AShM an effective weapon system.

We say this a lot, meanwhile we have Mach 3 missiles that can target much smaller objects moving much faster than a ship. Targeting might have been an issue in the 90's but it doubt it is today.

Very dubious targeting is easy for an AShM to attack enemy ship at 100 to 200nm distance way beyond range of surface radar.

The long range surface launched AAMs have range ~300nm eg USN SM-6, of which UK has none, or air launched AAM eg Meteor with a range of ~100nm should be able to shoot down big fat targets like a reconnaissance P-8A Poseidon or USN Broad Area Maritime Surveillance MQ-4C with no problems as designed to hit much smaller a/c or missiles. Reconnaissance satellites, if not under attack in space, will take time to get target coordinates to ship to launch AShM, if comms not jammed, guessing an hour if everything working perfectly, and in that time target ship steaming at 20 knots could be anywhere within a 1,250 sqnm circle, very little chance AShM with a small dia active radar homing finding target. That's why US developed the LRASM, a stealth missile as a carrier for the BAE Inc high tech seeker with active radar, RF/ESM, IR and ship recognition computer hardware/software and the Australians developing an RF seeker for the JSMs they have on order from Kongsberg to add to the IR head and why think EMCOM mode operations so important for surface ships. The heavy AShM especially can be very effective ship killers if current accurate target info available, which think not easy.

NickC wrote:Reconnaissance satellites, if not under attack in space, will take time to get target coordinates to ship to launch AShM, if comms not jammed, guessing an hour if everything working perfectly

A good post, but where did you get the above (part of it) from? How long is the delay on a satellite phone (OK, it is relay only... add a couple of seconds )

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

NickC wrote:Reconnaissance satellites, if not under attack in space, will take time to get target coordinates to ship to launch AShM, if comms not jammed, guessing an hour if everything working perfectly

A good post, but where did you get the above (part of it) from? How long is the delay on a satellite phone (OK, it is relay only... add a couple of seconds )

Would expect in first few days the Chinese/Russians would target the relatively few in number of the large US reconnaissance, GPS, comms satellites as they are very vulnerable to attack, there have been USAF classified launches that are speculated to be anti-satellites systems to try to counter Chinese/Russian threat, the other possibility is the ground stations would be targeted, shades of early German attacks on Home Chain radars. Trump was/is pushing for a US Space Command equivalent to Air Force, Army and Navy Commands but looks uncertain at moment.

US now looking to future with DARPA funding R&D for cubesats and micro/nano satellites to address the vulnerability of the large satellites, if they get taken out launch another dozen or so with single rocket, presume much harder to target due to numbers but come wilth limited capabilities. The Finish ICEYE talks of 30 cubesat constellation with SAR radar to give coverage of areas of interest 15 times a day, how long before satellite in line of site to download data to ground station?

Though as said my estimate of an hour to obtain target coordinates in the fog of war was a guess.

Out of interest, what would be the search coverage would the seeker head on a Mach 5 missile at say 2000m altitude?

With the proliferation of satellites owned by possible hostile nations, and greatly improved data transfer security and speed, once identified how far could a target move in the time it would take such a Mach 5 AShM to travel say 300nm, and would the target be inside the above weapons seeker envelope as given in the answer to the first question?

Lord Jim wrote:Out of interest, what would be the search coverage would the seeker head on a Mach 5 missile at say 2000m altitude?

With the proliferation of satellites owned by possible hostile nations, and greatly improved data transfer security and speed, once identified how far could a target move in the time it would take such a Mach 5 AShM to travel say 300nm, and would the target be inside the above weapons seeker envelope as given in the answer to the first question?

Don't know is the answer, the 'common' Mach 5 hypersonic missiles have seen under development are boost and glide to fixed point targets. First thoughts if hypersonic missile at only 2,000m and Mach 5 the heat generated flying though the atmosphere at that height would be massive and would radar be able to transmit and receive though a nose cone necessarily built to take that degree of heat? If possible diameter of the antenna would determine search area, the larger diameter of missile the hotter it will get, it would certainly drastically cut down the area search for vessel but is it feasible?

For thousands of years battle theatre was constrained to land and sea, early in 20th century with the invention of the aeroplane allowed the battle theatre to move into the air during WW1 and now in 21st century tech battle theatre moving into near space, eg as mentioned USAF launches with space vehicles that can manoeuvre in space and speculated as being test of an anti-satellite weapon in response to Chinese and Russians testing of anti- satellite attacks in space, US complained about massive amount of debris resulting from destroyed satellites, Chinese also said to be developing their own land base missiles to take out satellites and a manoeuvrable anti-satellite equipped with lasers to attack satellites, lasers in space are not degraded by atmosphere.

Interesting/dangerous times as you say with the proliferation of satellites owned by possible hostile nations and the anti-satellites and presuming why Trump wants an independent Space Command.

From what I have read, the Chinese "Carrier Killer" IRBMs do have terminal guidance on their warheads. Even if these are unpowered they are coming in near vertically at very high Mach numbers and one hit will put a Carrier out of action, two are likely to sink one. However there is a lot of spin regarding these and they are unproven, but they have scared the USN regardless.

Hopefully the answer is yes...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/can-br ... e-revived/

Lots of straightforward common sense contained within but it would make a massive difference if the conclusions were actually to come about.

Realistically £250m is only going to procure the basic vessel anyway so even if a late budget boost was to occur, I suspect the extra funds could be easily incorporated into higher grade weapons and systems without drastically altering the programme schedule.

Wishful thinking I know....

Building 5 (first) lighter Patrol Frigates is a lithmus test for the industry and the NSS
"to put it [more] simply, five capable frigates for £1.25 billion, only a little more than a single Type 26 frigate. A greater investment in the Type 31e and a commitment to build more than five ships (whatever its export success)"
and the budget to sex them up is most likely to be tied to further orders (if any).
- putting the 'goodies' in at build is cheaper than pulling the ships back from service, so it will be a while before we'll get to the upgrading cycle for the first few. Clearly, the need for the design, to be chosen, to have that potential/ space/ provision has been spelled out in the request to industry right from the beginning.

IF the T-31e is going to attract exports, potential customers need to see what the platform can be. Why not build four of the T-31e as Patrol Frigates as per the RFI, and then with a little extra funding say from the DTI, build the fifth with greater warfighting capability without going overboard. This would be a showcase of what the platform can be in the flesh and a great advising tool for tempting possible customers. It would also allow the RN to assess what combat roles the design could undertake if made more capable than the basic design. Just a thought.

Pulled across,

Lord Jim wrote:What it does show is that rather then try to turn the T-31e in to a true escort or as near to one as possible, we should stick to the RFI and build them as you described, namely as patrol frigates

Simple question:

What use are patrol frigates in the 21st century?

OTT for chasing pirates, little use in major HADR situations and a floating target in a peer on peer conflict.

Yes they make up the numbers and the treasury like them because they are cheap but are there better options?

Buiding one-of-a-kind ships, not a good idea.

Poiuytrewq wrote:What use are patrol frigates in the 21st century?

OTT for chasing pirates, little use in major HADR situations and a floating target in a peer on peer conflict.

Yes they make up the numbers and the treasury like them because they are cheap but are there better options?

In war case, not all enemy is “peer”. So your comment lack huge amount of cases, in between HADR and peer on peer conflict.

Also, “peer” also is not equipped with all high-end assets. For example, both China and Russia operates significant number of corvettes.

Clearly, there are many tasks a Patrol Frigate can do, or must do, in war time.

I like to have “2 more T26” than “5 T31”. But this doesn’t mean T31 patrol frigate is useless.

Lord Jim wrote:build the fifth with greater warfighting capability without going overboard. This would be a showcase of what the platform can be in the flesh and a great advising tool for tempting possible customers.

A good approach. The French shipbuilder built a GoWind off their own back and then the navy just provided the crew to sail it around as a year-long defence expo. Can't remember where that particular ship ended up (sales have been good!) but a totally riskless exercise: should nothing come out of it, the navy will have saved one year's worth of CAPEX for something else, to cover uregent shortfalls maybe if they have any over there. They were buying some anyway, and would get the ship ' with a full service record, with a careful owner'.
- what makes this even more riskless is that the yard is majority owned by the 100% owner of the Armed Forces

Poiuytrewq wrote:What use are patrol frigates in the 21st century?

The approach with multiple scenarios (that I outlined on the Rivers thread) would provide the answer - and also quantify the 'optimal' fleet mix, with the same bother

In the meanwhile, some thoughts on how Patrol Frigates sit in between OPVs and Frigates (I won't say full-fat, as it seems that we all have a different interpretation ):
https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097943/ ... AJun13.pdf

some thoughts on how Patrol Frigates sit in between OPVs and Frigates (I won't say full-fat, as it seems that we all have a different interpretation ):
https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097943/ ... AJun13.pdf

Looks like the question was asked twice: also by Repulse on the Rivers thread. Further to
"For each of these [FIGS+WIGS] a RB3 would be cheaper and have equal effect." I will add
- equally well covered by RB2s, for reasons that Repulse gives on that thread
- and, as we (will) have 5 of them and: when this crisis with rubber dinghies in the Channel & more intensive counting of fish will have passed, we (the RN) will need to find a task for the more than three number - three being the right one for the home waters
... and 'we' (Repulse) have found it, saving building two ships for £250 mln and putting that money twrds a better fit-out for whatever number of Patrol Frigates we will end up in service with

We don't have a thread for 'the best surface vessel mix' but as escorts (+hi-end OPVs) are the category in which there is - most readily - substitutability between ship classes, then this thread should serve well
- can't remember what "Your National Naval Rqrmnt" thread was about... will have to look with better time (and perhaps bring it back to life?)

What classification would people give the T-31e beyond "Patrol Frigate", if they are, as is most likely, built to the RFI so few if any Sea Ceptor, no Sonar, no AShMs, Simplified electronics, only main gun and Phalanx as armament, though latter not always fitted. As often mentioned these vessels are also supposed to have a relatively short service life and so upgrades may not be an economically viable option once in service.

We all agree that the RN needs more true warships, but with resources spread thin over the MoD's procurement plans, and the chance that the Treasury will have a major change of heart at the next CSR being slim to none, any increase in the programme budget for the T-31e is unlikely.

I think this battle is lost even though the design hasn't been agreed yet. What the RN should be looking towards is what will replace the T-26 on the slipways in the late 2030s when the T-26s are all finished. It weill have taken the MoD more than forty years to get the T-26 from its beginnings as the Future Surface Combatant to being in the water. Planning for the next generation needs to start now is it hasn't already.

Lord Jim wrote:We all agree that the RN needs more true warships, but with resources spread thin over the MoD's procurement plans, and the chance that the Treasury will have a major change of heart at the next CSR being slim to none, any increase in the programme budget for the T-31e is unlikely.

It’s is this that continually gets the MoD into situations where its budget continually goes out of control spreads resources too thinly and stretches people and usually requires draconian action to remedy. The MoD and the services have an agreed budget and it is a multi year budget. You can make up any number of scenerios where you “need” 40 warships 30 fastjet sqns and 2 armoured divisions or the like and then say fund them or we’re not be serious about defence but it’s all backwards.

The government and more importantly the MoD needs to prioritise tasks allocate resource and move on. The RN has 2 core requirements provide a continuous at sea deterrent and provide a permanentlay available carrier strike group. For this the RN has more than sufficent true warships.

We may wish to be able to do more than that we may have a budget and assets that currently allow us to do more than that. But when you prioritise tasks you go down the list until you budget with sufficent contingency runs out. At that point you either ask for more money and if the answer is there is none, then you say beyond that these tasks cannot be completed. It’s not hard but you need a hard nosed attitude to do it.

SW1 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:We all agree that the RN needs more true warships, but with resources spread thin over the MoD's procurement plans, and the chance that the Treasury will have a major change of heart at the next CSR being slim to none, any increase in the programme budget for the T-31e is unlikely.

It’s is this that continually gets the MoD into situations where its budget continually goes out of control spreads resources too thinly and stretches people and usually requires draconian action to remedy. The MoD and the services have an agreed budget and it is a multi year budget. You can make up any number of scenerios where you “need” 40 warships 30 fastjet sqns and 2 armoured divisions or the like and then say fund them or we’re not be serious about defence but it’s all backwards.

The government and more importantly the MoD needs to prioritise tasks allocate resource and move on. The RN has 2 core requirements provide a continuous at sea deterrent and provide a permanentlay available carrier strike group. For this the RN has more than sufficent true warships.

We may wish to be able to do more than that we may have a budget and assets that currently allow us to do more than that. But when you prioritise tasks you go down the list until you budget with sufficent contingency runs out. At that point you either ask for more money and if the answer is there is none, then you say beyond that these tasks cannot be completed. It’s not hard but you need a hard nosed attitude to do it.

I agree with everything you've just said but the problem is the politians, they set budget then expect the RN and other services to do a lot more than the budget allows.

Just look at what they expect on top of CSG and CASD they want the RN to up its ASW in the North Sea and N.A + increase presence in the Arctic + increase presence in the far east ( working with Aus and Japan a lot more ) whilst still maintaining the gulf,the med, the Caribbean and S.A.

What is needed is for top brass to be a lot fermour and more up front with politians and say if you want us to do this then a lot more money if needed if not then forget it as we can't do it no ifs no buts, but the sad thing is too many top brass are only thinking of thier pensions.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In war case, not all enemy is “peer”. So your comment lack huge amount of cases, in between HADR and peer on peer conflict.

I used to see value in this argument also, but I think the world has changed and will do so more over the next few years, in that behind every non peer nation we are in conflict with will be a peer (Russia or China) who will be playing a modern version of the “great game”. This means we should expect the proliferation of “peer technology” in almost all future conflicts.

The days of simple patrol Ships enforcing western rule is over - the U.K. needs real warships and “patrolling” will either be with a RN CSG, SSN or in partnership with allies.

Lord Jim wrote:be looking towards is what will replace the T-26 on the slipways in the late 2030s when the T-26s are all finished

Quite!

SW1 wrote: the services have an agreed budget and it is a multi year budget.

Yes, but there is only one year behind us when the mgt of their EP slice has been delegated to the Commands.
- so if we are fully adjusted to that, in such a short time, then congrats to everybody

SW1 wrote:The RN has 2 core requirements provide a continuous at sea deterrent and provide a permanentlay available carrier strike group. For this the RN has more than sufficent true warships.

Littoral manoeuvre is the third one (CEPP fully operational in 2026; the definition for what that is I haven't seen yet), but it is often omitted or counted as a half as without carrier support it is/ will be very limited

SW1 wrote:if the answer is there is none, then you say beyond that these tasks cannot be completed

That is the point I have often made: the 'political' interface is badly constructed
- we have just seen a new team being nominated to the top of the military side of the interface, but whether it is just down to people in the posts... remains to be seen

Lord Jim wrote:What classification would people give the T-31e beyond "Patrol Frigate", if they are, as is most likely, built to the RFI so few if any Sea Ceptor, no Sonar, no AShMs, Simplified electronics

I guess the question is rhetorical, and so is the answer: none other

There is a very closely related question, namely once we have got the issues such as the integration of off-board vehicles into future minor warships, appropriate levels of survivability, and pragmatic levels of modularity straight in our heads, where do we draw the line between 'escorts' and 'minor warships'?

The link to a paper from two authors from BMT explored these themes, illustrating the aspirations for a future “Patrol Frigate” . That was in 2013 and within a year from today we should be clear how these aspirations and economic realities can be made to match: then it could well be that the true escorts are allocated to what SW1 was listing above, and within other surface combatants the trail blazer will be the Patrol Frigates
- in that kind of future minor warships would be other than combatants
- the USN LCS saga has highlighted this dilemma: is it enough to do patrolling and presence, and perhaps a 'recce' - perhaps jointly with forces on land - when the shooting starts
- or is it a requirement to stay afloat and continue to be part of that shooting... only the latter to be counted into combatants?