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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 20:22

This is starting get a bit silly now, especially from a fellow NATO member.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1697
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby bobp » 17 Feb 2019, 20:40

Silly indeed. There is a Gibraltar thread where this would be more suitable comes under deployments.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2019, 11:38

Maybe it is time to fit a old 4.5" naval gun on Gib

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 18 Feb 2019, 11:45

donald_of_tokyo wrote:CAPTAS-4 and CAPTAS-4CI differs a lot. It is not the same sonar, even sometimes many here forgets.

Really? I was under the impression the sonar is the same, it is the handling gear that is different

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Even so, T45 do not carry MTLS. So clearly, it is NOT a matter of cost, it is just a matter of will. --> So I say SDSR2020, which will define the will.

I don't expect it will. There is a reason why the RN has typically kept ASW and AAW separate because quite simply the same ship would need to be in different places to be effective at each job.

The T45 is not the solution to the submarine problem, copying the french is the solution.
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2019, 12:22

shark bait wrote:I don't expect it will. There is a reason why the RN has typically kept ASW and AAW separate because quite simply the same ship would need to be in different places to be effective at each job.

The T45 is not the solution to the submarine problem, copying the french is the solution.


I agree the need to fit more AAW missiles like CAMM is what T-45 needs and if we need more ASW then fit CAPTAS-4IC to T-31

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 18 Feb 2019, 12:31

To increase the ASW capabilities of the RN fleet, there are a number of possibilities:

1. Purchase more Poseidon P8s, to allow for coverage of multiple, separate areas (e.g. CASD and carrier group)
2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.
3. Increase numbers of ASW Merlins by moving crowsnest capabilities to another platform (UAV?), or purchase alternative platform for CHF freeing Merlin Mk4s for conversion to ASW.
4. Add HMS and Captas 2 to T31 for TAPS role, freeing T26 for other duties.
5. Build more T26.

Adding a tail and torpedoes to T45 would be an almost pointless exercise, given that they will be solely occupied providing AAW defence to carrier groups. If you did want to increase the ASW capabilities of a T45, embark a ASW Merlin.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 Feb 2019, 13:08

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:CAPTAS-4 and CAPTAS-4CI differs a lot. It is not the same sonar, even sometimes many here forgets.
Really? I was under the impression the sonar is the same, it is the handling gear that is different
Thales guy clearly state that;

"... we just slightly reduced the length of the tow-cable, in order to reduce the total weight." 3:30 of this youtube.

He also state, "more or less, keep the performance of CAPTAS-4 ...".

As the active range is proportional to square-root of square-root distance ( (distance)^(0.25) ), I guess he is saying the difference is small. Although this is guess, there is no way getting the same capability with reduced sonar length.



I understand CAPTAS-4CI is NOT replacing CAPTAS-4. It is a parallel product.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 Feb 2019, 13:36

shark bait wrote:I don't expect it will. There is a reason why the RN has typically kept ASW and AAW separate because quite simply the same ship would need to be in different places to be effective at each job.
The T45 is not the solution to the submarine problem, copying the french is the solution.
Tempest414 wrote:I agree the need to fit more AAW missiles like CAMM is what T-45 needs and if we need more ASW then fit CAPTAS-4IC to T-31
No big objection, so I stated it is a matter of WILL.

But, I am not still clear T31 getting CAPTAS-4CI (or CAPTAS-2 or even CAPTAS-1) is a good way to go. We know T23GP sometimes (frequently?) do not even carry ASW crew. In other words, many of the tasks for T31e have zero ASW need.

To say the truth, I really want to see T31e with CAPTAS-4CI, or even CAPTAS-1. But, adding CAPTAS to T31 will cost a lot:
- add ASW system to its CMS, (more computational power and an ASW software kit)
- add torpedo arsenal for Wildcat
- add ASW crew
- in addition to adding a hull-sonar and a CAPTAS1/2/4/4CI.
May be we can add ASW to only 2 (or 3) of the planned 5 hulls? (not sure...)


On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.

In addition, adding CAPTAS to T45 is much cheaper than to T31e:
- CMS has an ASW system, we only need to improve it. Computational power is already very high, so we just need to version-up the ASW software.
- torpedo arsenal is there
- ASW crew is there, we only need to add a few
- a small hull sonar is already there, and we only need to add a CAPTAS1/2/4/4CI.
[EDIT: add] - also, they already have a Merlin capable hangar, with a Chinook-capable huge flight deck.

Clearly, adding CAPTAS-4CI (or 2) to T45 is much cheaper than to T31e. Of course, as Aethulwulf-san says, it will be much more effective to add a few P-8As, but there is a gap P-8A cannot deploy with CVTF.

Still thinking. At least for me, the answer is NOT crystal clear. Worth discussing.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 18 Feb 2019, 13:41

donald_of_tokyo wrote: We know T23GP sometimes (frequently?) do not even carry ASW crew.

I don't think that is true, just like the T45's the GP's have an under water warfare department and a couple of years back one of the GP's participated in a NATO sub hunting exercise.
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2019, 17:04

donald_of_tokyo wrote:On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.


What I would like to see going forward is T45 getting 48 CAMM added first and maybe a fixed carrier group i.e something like

HMS QE , HMS Dragon & Defender , HMS Kent & Portland + a Tide class and a SSS & the same for HMS POW

after this then maybe the remaining 2 T45s fitted with CAPTAS-4CI

Online
inch
Member
Posts: 606
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 18 Feb 2019, 17:42

Maybe it generates too much noise to be a good platform for asw in any form

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 18 Feb 2019, 17:47

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.


What I would like to see going forward is T45 getting 48 CAMM added first and maybe a fixed carrier group i.e something like

HMS QE , HMS Dragon & Defender , HMS Kent & Portland + a Tide class and a SSS & the same for HMS POW

after this then maybe the remaining 2 T45s fitted with CAPTAS-4CI
A US carrier group typically deploys with at least 4 or 5 escorts made up of a Tico-CCG and Arleigh Burke-DDGs, plus a SSN. The SSN is the primary ASW asset of the group, coupled with the surface escorts and helicopters and P8s.

For the UK, the SSN is not under the direct command of the Carrier Group and would normally be somewhat more detached from the group than US practice. Two T45s will provide the primary AAW cover and two T23/T26s the primary ASW cover. With only two T45s, they MUST always have to be positioned at the optimum location for AAW within the Group's formation. If you were to fit them out for ASW and send them off sub hunting, it would critically weaken the AAW defence. The best locations within the Group formation for AAW and ASW are not compatible.

The UK only has six T45s. It will take ALL SIX to maintain two at very high readiness with the primary carrier group, and two at high readiness with the secondary group. There will be no spare T45s for other duties (unless their role within the group is taken on by a partner nation). The remaining two will be in refit and/or training.

There is very little point in trying to outfit a T45 for anything more than basic ASW (e.g. a HMS and a Wildcat).In addition, the T45s are quite noisy and were never designed to be a quiet ASW ship.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1982
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 18 Feb 2019, 17:52

Aethulwulf wrote:2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.

Yes, and

Aethulwulf wrote:5. Build more T26.

Yes

Plus off board UUV ASW capabilities. Forget trying to turn the T31e into a ASW ship, it will cost more than it gives.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 18 Feb 2019, 18:54

Aethulwulf wrote:To increase the ASW capabilities of the RN fleet, there are a number of possibilities:

1. Purchase more Poseidon P8s, to allow for coverage of multiple, separate areas (e.g. CASD and carrier group)
2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.
3. Increase numbers of ASW Merlins by moving crowsnest capabilities to another platform (UAV?), or purchase alternative platform for CHF freeing Merlin Mk4s for conversion to ASW.
4. Add HMS and Captas 2 to T31 for TAPS role, freeing T26 for other duties.
5. Build more T26.

Adding a tail and torpedoes to T45 would be an almost pointless exercise, given that they will be solely occupied providing AAW defence to carrier groups. If you did want to increase the ASW capabilities of a T45, embark a ASW Merlin.


It rather depends on where & why you want to perform your ASW.

To protect the outer fringes of a carrier group, clearly more T26 (and Merlins to equip them if there aren't enough to go around) and more SSN to ensure 100% coverage. A few more P-8's won't do much good given where a CVG could be expected to operate.

For inner CVG defense, towed arrays are not usable but more decent hull mounted sonars on a platform that can deliver a Stingray would help. Yes, T45's can do this to a limited degree (limited mostly by their horrendous noise). Of course T26's would be great but T31's with HMS & Wildcat could work well as a cheaper substitute. I believe there are already enough ASW Merlins to fully load the carrier.

On the other hand, a few more P-8's would be very helpful keeping UK waters submarine free. As would more SSN.

I have no idea what a Protector could bring to the table. Very little I would have thought. A high resolution radar to detect periscopes maybe? But by the time reinforcements could be called up to actual pursue the contact, it would be well gone.

UUVs in littorals maybe, but for CVG defense, some ways down the line. If ever.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Feb 2019, 19:25

Doesn't the RFI for the T-31e fail to mention any sonar, hull mounted or otherwise? Unless things change its sole contribution to ASW will be whatever helicopter is carries. Moving forward I think the UKs best bet would be to place a follow on order for P-8s as the first order of business. This in fact validates the argument for building the T-31e as cheaply as possible to free up funding that could go some way towards achieving this goal.

It does seem though that at present the MoD/Government seem to want to both create the Carrier Group and still conduct ASW operations in the North Atlantic as it did in the 1980s and 90s. The current planned fleet can only really do one or the other. The new carriers are not really suited to the role of ASW carrier like the Invincibles were. Having VL-ASROC on the T-26s would give them a certain amount of stand off ASW capability that would allow the Merlins to operate further out.

As it stands the T-31e is going to be a less capable replacement for the GP T-23s and so we are going to have to learn to live with only 8 true ASW platforms in the form of the T-26. If we want more ASW assets then we should really look at whether we should build the T-31e at all. £1.25Bn would certainly allow more ASW focused assets to be purchased, and the two LSS would cover some of the forward presence requirements that were to be filled by the T-31e.

Thinking of ASW assets, if we could develop a VTOL ASW UCAV that could be directed by the sensors on a T026 for example, that was able to carry two Stingray and was small enough and three or even four could be carried by a T-26, that would be a force multiplier. Sort of like a DASH drone for the 21st century.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 18 Feb 2019, 20:42

Since 2018 the Arleigh Burkes in the west Pacific have been fitted with the TB-37/U Multi Function Towed Array Sonar System ,this may be a stop gap measure to address the numbers of submarines in that region ,there is no information if an Arleigh Burke is any noisier than a Daring ,or if the deployment of the towed array have been successful
Should a specialised aaw destroyer ever be required to do other roles than as escort to the carrier need further capabilities for asw is the question for the R.N with only a small number of warships

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 18 Feb 2019, 22:15

Lord Jim wrote:Doesn't the RFI for the T-31e fail to mention any sonar, hull mounted or otherwise?


It mentions it in a number of places

It would probably be a good idea if a few people actually read the RFI. To make it easy - here's the latest link

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/645149/T31e_RFI.pdf

The RFI explicitly asks for information on (non-exhaustive list):

"Details of any active/passive sonar to detect submarines, including how an active hull-mounted sonar could be integrated";
"FTR hull mounted sonar";
"Stealthy / self noise limiting speed to allow active sonar usage where fitted.";
"Details on any signature management/reduction features for: .......... iii. Underwater Radiated Noise.............;
"Pragmatic non-acoustic and acoustic signature reduction features and management systems.";
"Use Torpedoes and Depth Charges /Details of helicopter launched and any ship launched systems and numbers";
"Details of proposed above water and below water defensive countermeasure systems ";
"FTR Surface Ship Torpedo Defence";
"Entry-level ASW".

Pretty clear to me that they are interested in both active and passive sonar and ASW features, even if not "optimised for URN".

See also references to "Consort Defence", "Greater MTG Interoperability" and "Land Strike", among others, under the Adaptability heading
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1917
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 18 Feb 2019, 22:49

Caribbean wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Doesn't the RFI for the T-31e fail to mention any sonar, hull mounted or otherwise?


It mentions it in a number of places

It would probably be a good idea if a few people actually read the RFI. To make it easy - here's the latest link

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/645149/T31e_RFI.pdf

The RFI explicitly asks for information on (non-exhaustive list):

"Details of any active/passive sonar to detect submarines, including how an active hull-mounted sonar could be integrated";
"FTR hull mounted sonar";
"Stealthy / self noise limiting speed to allow active sonar usage where fitted.";
"Details on any signature management/reduction features for: .......... iii. Underwater Radiated Noise.............;
"Pragmatic non-acoustic and acoustic signature reduction features and management systems.";
"Use Torpedoes and Depth Charges /Details of helicopter launched and any ship launched systems and numbers";
"Details of proposed above water and below water defensive countermeasure systems ";
"FTR Surface Ship Torpedo Defence";
"Entry-level ASW".

Pretty clear to me that they are interested in both active and passive sonar and ASW features, even if not "optimised for URN".

See also references to "Consort Defence", "Greater MTG Interoperability" and "Land Strike", among others, under the Adaptability heading


What's difference between consort defence and an escort? Where do you draw the line between tje two? Genuine questions.

The problem with the RFI, despite requesting info about possible ASW features, is that it doesn't mandate any ASW features. For example, the minimum spec is FTR hull mounted sonar, rather than actually including a hull mounted sonar.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 18 Feb 2019, 22:51

dmereifield wrote:the minimum spec is FTR hull mounted sonar

It's not a spec - it's a Request For Information, as in "here's the parameters of the project, now what can we get for the money - give us the trade-offs?"
Edit
dmereifield wrote:What's difference between consort defence and an escort?

Any ship can be an "escort", not all can "defend a consort"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 18 Feb 2019, 23:51

For consort defence, the T31 would need Sea Ceptor and Artisan (or better). A ship with only Phalanx or SeaRAM would not be enough. (Remember, the T31 RFI did not mandate Sea Ceptor/Artisan.) While debatable, it is likely that consort defence would required a ship with at least 24 Sea Ceptor missiles.

It could also be argued that consort defence requires at least a basic ASW fit (e.g. a HMS and Wildcat). But this is more debatable.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Feb 2019, 00:22

Well can the T-31e deliver a useable ASW escort for the RN?
If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?
It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 19 Feb 2019, 00:56

Lord Jim wrote:Well can the T-31e deliver a useable ASW escort for the RN?
If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?
It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.
The quick answer is no.

The RN did not/does not require the T31 to be a ASW escort. Unless there is a major change, this will continue to be the case for the RN.

However, to sell this as a ship for export, the message from industry is it will need to be able to be fitted for ASW. All three base designs left in the running are able to be fitted for ASW. So, in theory, the RN's T31 could also be outfitted for ASW. However, such a ASW T31 would still not be good enough to replace a T26 within a carrier group.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 19 Feb 2019, 07:54

Lord Jim wrote:Well can the T-31e deliver a useable ASW escort for the RN?

Depends on what you mean by useable. If all it's features are exploited, it will be as capable, if slightly less quiet, than a T23GP. With a towed array (which it seems most of the proposals have allowed for), probably more capable (though further quietening could no doubt be built into future variants, presumably at greater cost)
Lord Jim wrote:If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?

No - the lesson has been learned from that particular mistake, the T31 will have capacity to grow somewhat. I believe by around 20%, but I can't find where I got that figure from
Lord Jim wrote:It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.

The RN does not have any plans to use this batch as an ASW escort (i.e. to protect others) - that does not necessarily mean that it will have no defensive ASW capabilities (eg SSTD)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 19 Feb 2019, 08:48

Aethulwulf wrote:All three base designs left in the running are able to be fitted for ASW. So, in theory, the RN's T31 could also be outfitted for ASW

But only one option has modern propulsion plant suitable for for ASW. Easy to retrofit sensors, difficult to retrofit propulsion.

Lender is the only option with electric propulsion, making it the only option suitable for ASW.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Feb 2019, 09:26

shark bait wrote:Lender is the only option with electric propulsion, making it the only option suitable for ASW.
The French are taking a very different approach with the FTI and it's CODAD propulsion combined with the CAPTAS 4 Compact.

If it works on the FTI surely there is little reason why it can't be made to work on something like Arrowhead 140.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adnan.ahmed, CameronPerson, Jake1992 and 20 guests