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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Jan 2019, 14:56

This is why I say the NSS is wrong to be looking out at the export market and that with

13 x Frigates
3 x Forts
3 X Bays
2 x LPDs
1 x Argus
12 x MCMV
2 x Echos

To replace we have enough work keep 3 ship yards working for 15 years with 2 of them going on for 30 years like so

BAE Govan ) tier 1 escorts 1 every 2 years 8 x type 26 followed by the 6 to 8 T45 replacements = 30 + years work
Cammell Liard ) 5 x type 31 1 ship every 2 years followed by 15 MHPC ships = 25 years work
Babcock Rosyth ) 2 x SSS followed by 4 200 meter Enforcer LPDs 1 ship every 2 years followed by a LHD built over 3 years = 15 years work

And feel this could be done for 825 million a year

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jan 2019, 16:04

Tempest414 wrote:And feel this could be done for 825 million a year
I am not convinced by this number. How much are MOD paying for ship build each year, now?

- 8 T26 frigates, 7.5-8B GBP, 2016-2036 = 360-380M GBP/yr ave.
- 5 River OPV, 620M GBP, 2014-2021 = 78M GBP/yr ave.
- 2 SSS, 1B GBP, 2019-2026 125M GBP/yr ave, after River B2 ends.
- 4 Tides AOR, 750M GBP (see wiki), 2012-2019 = 94M GBP/yr ave.
- 2 CVF, 6.5B GBP, 2007-2017, 590M GBP/yr ave.

At first glance, it is much less than 825 million a year. Depending on calculation, I think it will be 550-600M GBP/yr. This is ~2/3 of your number, 825M GBP. I agree it was ~800M GBP/yr before 2010, but UK defense budget has seen cuts since then.

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 24 Jan 2019, 16:32

matt00773 wrote:
NickC wrote:Not to be parochial, looking at how rest of the world's navies are progressing, encourage discussion on recognising that RN with Type 26 and 31 class now falling into world's second division, or could you argue limitations will be compensated by relying on carriers Crowsnest to supply the necessary reconnaissance, that assumes T26 and T31 cannot operate independently in high threat environment.

A few highlights re the Japanese and Spanish frigates v. T26 & 31

No new generation GaN radar
No high definition band surface radar, X-band, for max advance warning of sea skimming anti-ship missiles, as will be fitted to Hunter.
No IRST for same mission when operating in EMCON mode.
Delivery timescale, Type 26 build started 2017, delivery fully operational to RN 2027, Japanese 30FFM, build start later this year 2019, delivery to JMSDF March 2022, not sure if fully operational standard but makes the length of Type 26 build pathetic, we know the reason as Treasury limiting release of funds, WHY?
WHY, my argument is the cost of T26 is too expensive for MoD/Navy budget under current funding limitations, obfuscated by the MoD/RN in refusing to disclose actual build costs so as to compare to rest of world's frigates and if not, what needs to be done to bring in line to make competitive so as RN can have more first rate frigates it desperately needs.
Crowsnest supplies ISTAR capability for the carrier group. I wouldn't expect any of the support ships - T45, T26, T31 - to supply this. The US also have an equivalent capability supported through drones launched on the carrier.

S-band is fully capable of detecting sea skimming missiles as has been proven time and again through testing. You might want to refer to the ARTIST programme from which Artisan was developed to understand the full capabilities of this radar. T45 also can easily detect these missiles using S-band. You might also appreciate that T45 and T26 have their radars positioned much higher than fixed planar radars which gives an advantage with detection.

I don't think you can compare T26 with T31 - they're completely different ships - let alone both these with 30FFM and F110. The T26 is effectively a cruiser with global reach with loads of missions it can undertake. Plenty of room for growth over the life-cycle of the ship including extra weapons.


Thanks for comments, my understanding.

Agree S-band capable of detecting sea skimming missiles, though no radar expert understand radar range resolution is approx. inversely proportional to bandwidth and bandwidth is roughly proportional to frequency, X-band radar ~ 9-10 Ghz  would have a range resolution roughly three times better than an Artisan S-band radar in ~2-4 GHz range, X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150mm-250mm whereas S-band radar might achieve only half to one metre, depending on the choice of frequency of S-band.

If X-band radar is of the new generation with four flat panel antennas (as Hunter with its CEAFAR2 S/X/L band active phased array radars), instead of an Artisan single rotator antenna, which is also tasked with volume search as well as surface search, would the X-band radar not significantly increase dwell time and probability of earlier detection of a modern stealth sea skimming missile aided by its three times higher definition, the seconds count in earlier detection in aiding a higher Pk of successful countering the anti-ship missile.

These new generation flat panel type radars will be installed on the Japanese and Spanish frigates which will be in service long before the T 26 enters service.

The Spanish frigate also includes IRST, infrared search and track, primary role to detect anti-ship sea-skimming missiles, hot rocket engine, aerodynamic friction and hot shock cone, Mach 4 missile creates >650 degree C shock cone, even small missiles can be relatively easily detected and tracked.

IRST’s shorter operational wavelength 3-5 and 8-14 μ means greater resolution with far greater ability to detect small targets as well as to distinguish between the low-flying targets and the background clutter, though will not replace radars because in high humidity conditions at sea level significantly reduces its range, however, it is still an important sensor, especially during the times of EMCON, radar silence due to threat from anti-radiation missiles, immunity to jamming and passive operation makes it extremely important in an electronically degraded environment.

By 2027 the ISD of first T26 the Artisan radar will be old generation for a first rate frigate, with no sign of any R&D in new generation radar, no IRST, T26 increasing looking like a second division frigate plus RN saddled with the T31, why my contention is the T26 is too expensive for the current foreseeable funding in MoD/Navy budget reflecting the reality of the cut from 13 ships to 8.

PS All the main fighters eg Typhoon/F-35, use IRST so as to operate in EMCON/Stealth mode, though can be less affected by humidity.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3505
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 24 Jan 2019, 17:27

NickC wrote:Not to be parochial, looking at how rest of the world's navies are progressing, encourage discussion on recognising that RN with Type 26 and 31 class now falling into world's second division


The Type 26 is the world's finest ASW frigate as was the Type 23 in an earlier generation. None of your sniping is going to change that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Jan 2019, 19:12

Agreed but the RAN with the Hunter Class has taken the design to a higher level. It does show that the design gives the Rn options moving forward, and technology advances. There would be nothing stopping the RN from adopting a similar mast sometime in the future. Again look what the RAN has done to the ANZACs.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Jan 2019, 19:22

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:And feel this could be done for 825 million a year
I am not convinced by this number. How much are MOD paying for ship build each year, now?

- 8 T26 frigates, 7.5-8B GBP, 2016-2036 = 360-380M GBP/yr ave.
- 5 River OPV, 620M GBP, 2014-2021 = 78M GBP/yr ave.
- 2 SSS, 1B GBP, 2019-2026 125M GBP/yr ave, after River B2 ends.
- 4 Tides AOR, 750M GBP (see wiki), 2012-2019 = 94M GBP/yr ave.
- 2 CVF, 6.5B GBP, 2007-2017, 590M GBP/yr ave.

At first glance, it is much less than 825 million a year. Depending on calculation, I think it will be 550-600M GBP/yr. This is ~2/3 of your number, 825M GBP. I agree it was ~800M GBP/yr before 2010, but UK defense budget has seen cuts since then.


I would agree with your figures how ever I feel this is artificially low spending by HMG and I still feel 825 million a year is more than doable for the UK and could give us over the next 25 years

12 - tier 1 escorts = 900 million each
5 - tier 2 escorts = 350 million each
15 - MHPC = 150 million each
2 - SSS = 400 million each
4 - 200 meter Enforcer LPDs = 400 million each

matt00773
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby matt00773 » 24 Jan 2019, 19:30

NickC wrote:Thanks for comments, my understanding.

Agree S-band capable of detecting sea skimming missiles, though no radar expert understand radar range resolution is approx. inversely proportional to bandwidth and bandwidth is roughly proportional to frequency, X-band radar ~ 9-10 Ghz would have a range resolution roughly three times better than an Artisan S-band radar in ~2-4 GHz range, X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150mm-250mm whereas S-band radar might achieve only half to one metre, depending on the choice of frequency of S-band.

If X-band radar is of the new generation with four flat panel antennas (as Hunter with its CEAFAR2 S/X/L band active phased array radars), instead of an Artisan single rotator antenna, which is also tasked with volume search as well as surface search, would the X-band radar not significantly increase dwell time and probability of earlier detection of a modern stealth sea skimming missile aided by its three times higher definition, the seconds count in earlier detection in aiding a higher Pk of successful countering the anti-ship missile.

These new generation flat panel type radars will be installed on the Japanese and Spanish frigates which will be in service long before the T 26 enters service.

The Spanish frigate also includes IRST, infrared search and track, primary role to detect anti-ship sea-skimming missiles, hot rocket engine, aerodynamic friction and hot shock cone, Mach 4 missile creates >650 degree C shock cone, even small missiles can be relatively easily detected and tracked.

IRST’s shorter operational wavelength 3-5 and 8-14 μ means greater resolution with far greater ability to detect small targets as well as to distinguish between the low-flying targets and the background clutter, though will not replace radars because in high humidity conditions at sea level significantly reduces its range, however, it is still an important sensor, especially during the times of EMCON, radar silence due to threat from anti-radiation missiles, immunity to jamming and passive operation makes it extremely important in an electronically degraded environment.

By 2027 the ISD of first T26 the Artisan radar will be old generation for a first rate frigate, with no sign of any R&D in new generation radar, no IRST, T26 increasing looking like a second division frigate plus RN saddled with the T31, why my contention is the T26 is too expensive for the current foreseeable funding in MoD/Navy budget reflecting the reality of the cut from 13 ships to 8.

PS All the main fighters eg Typhoon/F-35, use IRST so as to operate in EMCON/Stealth mode, though can be less affected by humidity.
Yes, the X-band radar has higher resolution, but much shorter range - 150km typical. It's about compromising on range and resolution and S-band would be able to detect any current or future threats if designed correctly. This is indeed an advantage of GaN technology as it has a much smaller footprint to allow for duel S/X band sets which are presently popping up.

By the way, Artisan is also an active phased array radar - though it does of course rotate. Read about the ARTIST programme to understand the research that went into dealing with background clutter and from which the Artisan radar was developed. Artisan doesn't need a separate IRST device for assistance as it can detect and track concurrently up to 800 objects the size of cricket balls as well as deal with difficult atmospheric conditions and heavy interference.

Artisan went operational in 2016, so I doubt it will be a generation behind by 2027. The UK is always conducting research into radar technology (even if it isn't always made public) and has been working on a X/S band GaN cylindrical radar since 2013.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 25 Jan 2019, 08:45

NickC wrote: T26 increasing looking like a second division frigate


  • A more advanced main gun than many of its peers, and the biggest the RN ever had.
  • A greater air defence capacity than many of its peers, and the greatest the RN ever had.
  • Space for more cruise missiles than the entire RN has ever used in a single campaign, the most the RN ever had.
  • More space for aircraft than many of its peers, and the greatest the RN ever had.
  • The most powerful engine fitted to any combatant in Europe
  • Maintainability features baked in from the beginning to ensure the platform start at the top of its game for decades.
  • Its predecessor is well regarded as one of the best sub hunters in the world, the T26 will be even better.
  • Already endorsed by 2 of the more serious naval forces in the world, in the form of multi billion pound contracts

Please explain how the above = "second division"?
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 09:08

I think it'll be good for what it is, but I feel some of this is exaggeration.

shark bait wrote:[list][*]A more advanced main gun than many of its peers, and the biggest the RN ever had.

It's got the same gun as ships from decades ago, and doesn't yet have a confirmation of guided ammunition.

[*]A greater air defence capacity than many of its peers, and the greatest the RN ever had.

Its air defence is nothing on the Type 45, let alone a Burke, Type 055, Sejong or Atago. I hear the "but they aren't frigates!" thing, but when it comes to the battlefield, we don't divide the battles by weight division like a sport. Escorts are escorts, and the T26 is the backbone.

[*]Space for more cruise missiles than the entire RN has ever used in a single campaign, the most the RN ever had.

And no confirmation it'll carry any.

[*]More space for aircraft than many of its peers, and the greatest the RN ever had.

This is legitimate, and big advantage. It's probably the best "internal space" escort in the world.

[*]The most powerful engine fitted to any combatant in Europe

And yet its slower than most major escorts.

[*]Maintainability features baked in from the beginning to ensure the platform start at the top of its game for decades.

This is very "fluff", implying that no-one else has?

[*]Its predecessor is well regarded as one of the best sub hunters in the world, the T26 will be even better.

The Type 26s big advantage, and its true area of world beating design, more than likely.

[*]Already endorsed by 2 of the more serious naval forces in the world, in the form of multi billion pound contracts

Canada is a bit of a stretch to call a "serious naval force", and remember that Australia's version is substantially more potent than the British one.

And while I know every time I bring it up people get in a twist, remember that the Type 26s radar is pretty subpar for a first rate ship in 2027, let alone the mid-30s when this will still be entering service, and its lack of any AShM until likely the mid 30's as well unless something changes suddenly.

It's a prime ASW and Helo escort that will make its mark as the best in those roles, but we need to be real. Type 26 in the British form is definitely not a complete package in the world of current gen escorts.

It easily could be. Ensure it gets a better radar, ensure it gets the right munitions, ensure its supported by contents for the mission bay that enhances its operation, ensure it gets some better air defence...then it'll be among the premier of worldwide escorts. The Australian one's abilities combined with the (hopeful) British aims for land attack and CEC would be a good result, but that isn't whats happening.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10194
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Jan 2019, 10:28

RetroSicotte wrote:It's probably the best "internal space" escort in the world.

What's this based on when there are navies that routinely design in the carrying of two helos?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 11:14

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What's this based on when there are navies that routinely design in the carrying of two helos?

The Mission Bay is (as far as I'm aware?) connected to the Hangar. If they wanted, they could fit more than 2 helos in there. Merlin + 2 Wildcats is certainly doable. Might be a bit clumsy to operate, but the mere allowance permits some very projection from a single escort.

Plus allows for larger UAVs without infringing on the helo space at all.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 25 Jan 2019, 12:26

RetroSicotte wrote:
  • It's got the same gun as ships from decades ago
  • Its air defence is nothing on the Type 45
  • And no confirmation it'll carry any
  • And yet its slower than most major escorts.

  • What ship had an auto magazine in the past?
  • It has more silos than the T45, with very similar software, within visual range AAW performance should be excellent.
  • The ship not due in service for over decade so of course they haven't signed a contract yet for cruise missile yet.
  • Maybe on wikipedia it is slower. Please note the MT30 will massively out perform any other frigate in a hot climate, something the stats don't represent.

RetroSicotte wrote:Canada is a bit of a stretch to call a "serious naval force", and remember that Australia's version is substantially more potent than the British one.

Depends, during the cold war they certainly were one of the most capable sub hunters. The T26 selection hints they want that back.

Australia's version is no more or less potent, the only significant difference is the radar. Most here, including myself, will not be able to say which one is better for an ASW escort.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10194
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Jan 2019, 12:32

RetroSicotte wrote:Plus allows for larger UAVs without infringing on the helo space at all


A good point: put the 'remotes' in water or up in the air... or simply send some (small numbers) of Green Death onto shore.
- once we have had sight of all three t-31 designs, we can then score them on this aspect (as well)

Another good point about the gun (the Peacocks, I think, had the light version of the 76 mm, with rounds in the turret and no expensive auto-mag... if it even existed at the time)
shark bait wrote: What ship had an auto magazine in the past?

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 25 Jan 2019, 13:07

matt00773 wrote:
Yes, the X-band radar has higher resolution, but much shorter range - 150km typical. It's about compromising on range and resolution and S-band would be able to detect any current or future threats if designed correctly. This is indeed an advantage of GaN technology as it has a much smaller footprint to allow for duel S/X band sets which are presently popping up.

By the way, Artisan is also an active phased array radar - though it does of course rotate. Read about the ARTIST programme to understand the research that went into dealing with background clutter and from which the Artisan radar was developed. Artisan doesn't need a separate IRST device for assistance as it can detect and track concurrently up to 800 objects the size of cricket balls as well as deal with difficult atmospheric conditions and heavy interference.

Artisan went operational in 2016, so I doubt it will be a generation behind by 2027. The UK is always conducting research into radar technology (even if it isn't always made public) and has been working on a X/S band GaN cylindrical radar since 2013.[/quote]

Thanks for your info on Artisan.

Agree X-band has normally much shorter range than S-band for ships as size of long range X-band antenna arrays large, but for surface search for a sea skimming missile horizon is what 20nm depending on height, so having separate X-band fixed panel radars dedicated to that role with their higher definition plus longer dwell times and a S-band for volume air search is the choice of Australia, Japan and Spain for their new frigates as mentioned.

"Artisan doesn't need a separate IRST" As have said previously you need to be able to operate in EMCON mode, radar silence due to threat from anti-radiation missile attack from land, air or sea, immunity to jamming and passive operation makes it extremely important in an electronically degraded environment. Would expect the Chinese and Russians AShM seekers to have or developing exactly same capability as LRSAM which has the ability to target active ship radar emissions, you can normally detect radar emissions at one and half to two times range ship radar able to pick up target, then LRASM will drop down in sea skimming attack mode.

PS You can have long range X-band radars though normally unsuitable for ships as normally too large, the TPY-2 has 9.2 sq. mtrs array, whose range varies from ~500 to 3,000 km in forward base mode, with performance degrading the longer the range, at 870 km said to track target with a RCS of 0.01 sq. mtrs; dwell time, time the radar spends on each beam position, for each target of 0.1 sec and a S/N ratio for detection of 20. Infers that the radar can track 10 targets with one measurement on each target every second, or alternatively 100 targets every ten seconds. Why dwell time so important if under attack by sea skimming AShM that only in range of radar at 20nm, especially when supersonic, reaction time measured in seconds.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 13:19

Damn, your maintaining lists in quotes is better than my own. I always screw those up. :p

Also, good idea to keep to fewer quotes, I'll try to do the same.

shark bait wrote:
  • What ship had an auto magazine in the past?
  • It has more silos than the T45, with very similar software, within visual range AAW performance should be excellent.
  • The ship not due in service for over decade so of course they haven't signed a contract yet for cruise missile yet.
  • Maybe on wikipedia it is slower. Please note the MT30 will massively out perform any other frigate in a hot climate, something the stats don't represent.

Auto magazine or not, it's still the same gun with just a higher rate of fire. Useful, but still lacking guided round confirmation, and there are common ship guns out there with higher rates of fire anyway. (See - Oto-Melara 127/62)

The Type 26 has 48x CAMM, the Type 45 has 48x Aster-15/30. If the Type 26 wants to chuck more CAMM into its Mk41s than it will have to A) Actually integrate it into the ship (unlikely), B) Want to do it at the cost of losing other roles (also unlikely). And again, thats only talking T45, not even thinking about things like Atago, Sejong, Type 055, Burke Flight III...the "top end" of escorts has raised the bar above even the RN's aspirations these days.

I haven't heard of anything about Type 26 getting anything comparable to PAAMS, and its radar is a massive drop off by comparison. Lacking long ranger missile defence is a huge downer for the vessel. Escorts wandering about without that themselves require escorting. This is easily the biggest reason why the Hunter class is superior to the Type 26 variant of the GCS, in combination with a more powerful radar.

RetroSicotte wrote:Depends, during the cold war they certainly were one of the most capable sub hunters. The T26 selection hints they want that back.

That has withered and died, Canada's naval output has been not that great in the last couple decades. Aspiration or not, the Canadian Navy I am sorry to say just isn't even vaguely close to being a major navy any more.

Australia's version is no more or less potent, the only significant difference is the radar. Most here, including myself, will not be able to say which one is better for an ASW escort.
[/quote]
It also has anti-ship missiles out the gate, torpedoes on board in addition to whatever ASROC they want to put in it, and long range air defence, in addition to the much better radar. It's just a much better balanced warship that can fulfill ASW just as well (if not better in some ways if they also pick ASROC) and as a result, is more capable as a platform.

The key point is that the top end of escorts these days are much larger platforms that can handle a good selection of ASW, ASuW, Land Attack, BMD, AAW, general utility and have large stockpiles of silos. In its current confirmed form, the Type 26 only has ASW and utility to a world class level. It will eventually handle ASuW as well. It COULD handle land attack, and with a better radar and missiles it COULD handle AAW as well. It's got a high ceiling, but none of that is confirmed to be happening.

To be clear, the platform has the scope to be a first rate, but the Gov doesn't share it.

A Type 26 with a confirmed radar upgrade to something akin to CEAFAR, APAR, or Seafire before entry to service, confirmed AShMs, confirmed Tomahawks, confirmed guided rounds, and an enhancement to mount SM-2 or SM-6 would be a fearsome multipurpose ship.

But as of right now, it's a pure submarine hunter with good hangar utility and a good number of limited range SAMs for moderate defence. Fine for its role, but definitely not among the best out there in terms of overall capacity for war.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 Jan 2019, 13:29

As I have said before T26 is designed to be the best singleton it can be yes it can be tweeked but we have the best part of 10 years to do that. However what I have also said in the the past is T26 will be to much ship for the job it will do i.e we will have 8 T26s 4 will be tired to the Carriers and 2 for TAPS leaves one alongside and 1 in refit. So type 26 with Artisan is fine as they will be working under the carrier group with Crowsnest and Type 45 or on TAPS under a P-8 MPA. Now all of this said I still believe that Type 31 should be Carrier group ASW ship

130 meters long x 16 meters beam ASW hull
Artisan radar
hull mounted & CAPTAS sonar
BAE CMS
Merlin capable Hangar and flight deck ( NO MISSION BAY )
1 x 57mm - 2 x 30mm - 1 x Phalanx - 24 cell Mk-41 VLS for 32 CAMM and 16 ASROC

This could then free up T26 to do what is designed to do be a global combat ship

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 13:36

Tempest414 wrote:As I have said before T26 is designed to be the best singleton it can be yes it can be tweeked but we have the best part of 10 years to do that. However what I have also said in the the past is T26 will be to much ship for the job it will do i.e we will have 8 T26s 4 will be tired to the Carriers and 2 for TAPS leaves one alongside and 1 in refit. So type 26 with Artisan is fine as they will be working under the carrier group with Crowsnest and Type 45 or on TAPS under a P-8 MPA. Now all of this said I still believe that Type 31 should be Carrier group ASW ship

Aye, fantastic platform, but my concern is twofold:

1) There is a large gap between entry to service in 2027 and actually gaining these abilities, if it even gets some of them. The Type 45 should be the warning, it took it years to even get some basic things that every major escort in the world should have on day 1 (and outdated ones at that even when they did come) and is still essentially defenceless vs subs. The MoD WILL let ships go with huge flaws if they feel they can soundbite around it. Type 26 risks the same.

2) 2027 is a long way off, and some of its fitting is already just "on par" at best in service today, such as Artisan. Fast forward almost another decade and a half till its properly moving around as more than one ship, and that is hitting some real problems of early obsolescence.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10194
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Jan 2019, 13:37

RetroSicotte wrote:I haven't heard of anything about Type 26 getting anything comparable to PAAMS, and its radar is a massive drop off by comparison. Lacking long ranger missile defence is a huge downer for the vessel. Escorts wandering about without that themselves require escorting.

+
RetroSicotte wrote:But as of right now, it's a pure submarine hunter with good hangar utility and a good number of limited range SAMs for moderate defence. Fine for its role, but definitely not among the best out there in terms of overall capacity for war.


Quite> It's part of the effort to transition to a carrier navy
- in an MTF, both T-45 (at least one) and T-26 (one or more) would be team players, complementing each other
- the criticism of t-45s' [lacking] ASW capability seems to have fallen off in the last couple of years ;)

RE
Tempest414 wrote: free up T26 to do what is designed to do be a global combat ship
it was going to be that when we had C1, 2, 3 coming
- now the most likely thing is 2+3 being rolled into one "mass-produced" hull, though years apart
- and likewise: ASW optimised T-26 turning into the nxt-gen AAW platform, in due course

End result: a two type Escort fleet/ navy
Exam question: what has happened, more often than not, in that respect, post-WW2?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 13:44

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- the criticism of t-45s' [lacking] ASW capability seems to have fallen off in the last couple of years ;)


Everyone already knows it, what else to say, I guess? It's no longer the "hip new thing" that everyone is trying to boast about or undermine like during all the "TYPE 45 VS <SHIP>" era stuff.

That and the Government has been spinning the Type 26 announcement of ASW to cover it every time it's brought up.

"What do you have to say about the Type 45 lacking ASW?"

"Blah blah rising defence budget blah growing navy blah ASW from Type 26."

"...and the Type 45?"

Happens every time. It was actually the originator of where I got the term "Checkbox Military" from.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 25 Jan 2019, 13:53

RetroSicotte wrote:I haven't heard of anything about Type 26 getting anything comparable to PAAMS, and its radar is a massive drop off by comparison.


The Sea-Ceptor control system is a derivative of Sea-Viper, it is the missile specific bits that have been changed.

It's fair to say the radar isn't a capable as a the T45, but does that really matter? Is there a requirement for out ASW frigate to track space objects, including ballistic missiles? What matters is the ability to accurately detect and track low level fast moving objects, which ARTISAN should be perfectly capable of doing. Artisan may not be at the cutting edge of panel technology, but its signal processing reportedly is, which potentially gives extra seconds because it can identify a low fly object from the clutter more effectively. Within visual range performance should be great, and that's where the performance counts on an ASW frigate.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 14:11

shark bait wrote:It's fair to say the radar isn't a capable as a the T45, but does that really matter? Is there a requirement for out ASW frigate to track space objects, including ballistic missiles?

There is a requirement for first rate escorts to be capable of air defence both long, short, and ideally also BMD if they want to be regarded among the top in the world similar to things like the ones I've mentioned above, yes. T26 is an escort. Ergo, lacking that capability is a strong aspect to not consider it on par with them.

What matters is the ability to accurately detect and track low level fast moving objects, which ARTISAN should be perfectly capable of doing.

Only rotating at 30RPM is a very dangerous flaw for those sorts of speeds. The refresh rate won't be too great vs more advanced radars that have essentially real time updates. Also remember just how small Artisan is. There is much bigger out there, and other countries haven't rested on their laurels like the UK has.

Artisan may not be at the cutting edge of panel technology, but its signal processing reportedly is, which potentially gives extra seconds because it can identify a low fly object from the clutter more effectively.

I have still yet to see any form of confirmation that other modern radars are not capable of this.

Within visual range performance should be great, and that's where the performance counts on an ASW frigate.

As said, I have no disagreement on that it is a world beater at ASW and its fine for that...but implying it's a globally first rate escort in the vein of the monsters being launched in the Pacific these days? That is a whole different ballgame.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10194
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Jan 2019, 14:51

shark bait wrote:What matters is the ability to accurately detect and track low level fast moving objects, which ARTISAN should be perfectly capable of doing. Artisan may not be at the cutting edge of panel technology, but its signal processing reportedly is, which potentially gives extra seconds because it can identify a low fly object from the clutter more effectively. Within visual range performance should be great, and that's where the performance counts on an ASW frigate
Good points there

RetroSicotte wrote:a requirement for first rate escorts to be capable of air defence both long, short, and ideally also BMD if they want to be regarded among the top in the world similar to things like the ones I've mentioned above,
local AAW, beyond point defence, capable of crossing shots to defend also those you are sailing with?
- and then the AAW specialists, when required (because they are a "one-trick" pony, and designed as such)
- team work: in AAW a 360 threat sector can be handled; in ASW (if you have a noisy carrier... and some more... in the middle, one vessel is not enough). If you need more, they can excel in one thing, but not be "all things"

RetroSicotte wrote:globally first rate escort in the vein of the monsters being launched in the Pacific these days? That is a whole different ballgame

- we debate about what is a frigate vs. a destroyer
- they have moved to the destroyer vs. cruiser game, over there. And we would be a bit player... so let's stick to our knitting (and the geography West of DG :) )

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1249
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 Jan 2019, 14:57

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:As I have said before T26 is designed to be the best singleton it can be yes it can be tweeked but we have the best part of 10 years to do that. However what I have also said in the the past is T26 will be to much ship for the job it will do i.e we will have 8 T26s 4 will be tired to the Carriers and 2 for TAPS leaves one alongside and 1 in refit. So type 26 with Artisan is fine as they will be working under the carrier group with Crowsnest and Type 45 or on TAPS under a P-8 MPA. Now all of this said I still believe that Type 31 should be Carrier group ASW ship

Aye, fantastic platform, but my concern is twofold:

1) There is a large gap between entry to service in 2027 and actually gaining these abilities, if it even gets some of them. The Type 45 should be the warning, it took it years to even get some basic things that every major escort in the world should have on day 1 (and outdated ones at that even when they did come) and is still essentially defenceless vs subs. The MoD WILL let ships go with huge flaws if they feel they can soundbite around it. Type 26 risks the same.

2) 2027 is a long way off, and some of its fitting is already just "on par" at best in service today, such as Artisan. Fast forward almost another decade and a half till its properly moving around as more than one ship, and that is hitting some real problems of early obsolescence.


I have to say you have lost me a bit with this reply. I am saying that T26 will be to much ship to just escort the carriers and undertake TAPS I understand what you are saying about Artisan and if T26 was going to be working as singleton I would say the radar needs sorting but I can't see it and this makes me feel we are going the wrong way and say we need to make T31 a carrier group ASW only platform inline with the new thinking and operating plus get on with making T26 a real top class singleton

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 16:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- we debate about what is a frigate vs. a destroyer
- they have moved to the destroyer vs. cruiser game, over there. And we would be a bit player... so let's stick to our knitting (and the geography West of DG :) )

That's pretty much my point.

The statement was that the Type 26 is among the best out there.

The above statement is only accurate if we add the moniker "In its weight class", which is sort of a pointless statement in my eyes. There's no weight classes in war. It's not like UFC where McGregor doesn't have to worry about ever fighting Cormier.

It just feels like "feel good" accolades to me, which I am very wary about as the UK has fallen into that trap in the past.

When it comes down to it, isn't just isn't actually what the real top end of escorts is doing now. Even the Italians are pushing for 10,000 tonne ships now. In the global view, Type 26 is a second line ship. It can not handle the sort of warfare the real escorts these days could throw out, not without notable changes to the plan.

It could be. The platform could be. Just right now it isn't, Australia is closer to it, mind.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Jan 2019, 16:18

Partly inspired by the discussion "how to improve T26"....

1: Assessment on crew allocation for T31e.
table.png
As we see, among the 19 escorts of RN, 2 are in extended readiness (without crew), and 6 are in refit. Among the 6 in refit, 3 can be considered as in normal rotation (say, 1 out of 6), but further 3 is just because of LIFEX of T23. This fact suggests that, RN lacks at least 2 full crew (230+190=420), and even up to 3 full crew more (190x3 = 570). (Personally think the 3 LIFEX ships may retain about half of their crew, 570/2 = 285. In short, 420+ ~285 = ~705 crew lacking.)

Among the 5 T23GPs (of which 1 can be in refit in normal cycle), there will be 190x(5-1)= 760 crew needed. But, as RN now lacks 705 crew, I'm afraid only 55 will be remaining for the 5 T31e to come, when the T23 LIFEX ends (= no need for 3 more ships in refit).

As 1 more T45 may go into refit (in addition to the 1 in normal-cycle refit) for diesel-gen addition, another 230 crew can be found. In summary, the 5 T31e will have only 285 crew to man. Even if 1 will be always in refit, 285/(5-1) = 71 is the average crew a T31 can take. (If T45 diesel-gen addition ends, there will be virtually no crew left).


2: Logical way to go.
With this situation, logical way to go will be to buy a ship which is more cost heavy than crew heavy. In other words,
A- increase T26
B- further improve T26, to spend more money, but not much their crew
C- make T31 much lean crewed.
D- or just build 5 T31e and leave 2 or 3 of them always at Extended Readiness.


3: Cancelling or re-formatting T31e, to gain free money of 1.5B GBP.
Option-D is a total waste of money. Hoping for future man-power increase is nothing bad, but RN did try and budgeted for "500 more" and the current result is "0 more". So, if we be realistic, RN shall better cancel T31e (if you like, say "re-structure" it), to provide a fleet much more suited for RN tasks. This will mean 2-3 years delay, meaning 2-3 T23GP may go out before any new program takes shape. But it does not hurt RN at all, because anyway 2 escorts are already in extended readiness.

#May be we need another General Election to cancel T31e program, but it may come soon?


4: Personal Proposal
- add 1 more T26. [allocate 650M GBP (750M - 100M efficiency savings)] :
-- Now, after hull-4, I understand "21 months" drumbeat is planned (just scaling it to see hull-8 commission in 2036).
-- Adding 1 more T26 need to change it to "18 months" drumbeat, to provide hull-9 in 2036. Doable, I think.
- improve T26 fleet [allocate 450M GBP]
-- add sensors and armaments amounting "50M GBP per hull" to improve all "9" T26s. (adding AESA? TLAM? High-density CAMM package?)

This will make the "escort" fleet 15 = 6 T45 and 9 T26. Also, the 9 T26 will be upgraded to be "more" a 1st-rate escort, as RetroSicotte-san proposes.

This will leave 400M GBP. As to compensate T31e program cancel, I think this 400M GBP shall be used in "other UK ship yards" to build 3 "Floreal-like" large OPVs, i.e. a 3000t ship with a helo hangar, a CIWS, and maybe a 5 ing gun. (Call it T32.) Or, any other ships.

Also, to compensate the other 1.1Bn GBP going into T26 program, I think "other UK ship yards" must join T26 build program, such as building funnel, bow, or hangar sections. Even as a sub-contractor, a steady flow of welding job sustained until 2036 will be much more fruitful for those shipyards, compared to a sudden 1.5B GBP investment with nothing coming later.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abc123, bobp, cyrilranch, Poiuytrewq and 9 guests