UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Mar 2019, 17:36

But what happened to the idea that the designs submitted were to be based on an existing mature hull design? After all this was why the T-26 was a non runner.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Mar 2019, 19:51

shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Surface waterjets like this one are incredibly noisy and can be detected hundreds of miles away.

Depending on the speed they may still out perform a traditional prop because they feature lots of ducting to condition the flow.

To put it simply a waterjet is likely to out perform a prop on efficiency and noise when operating at high speeds, but across the operational range that is used 90% of the time propellers are preferable.


No. Surface waterjets are a lot noisier than props.

Efficiency at propelling the ship is a different matter.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Mar 2019, 19:52

shark bait wrote:correct, and to be clear I'm not advocating the above for the T31, merely discussing the details because that's what nerdy engineers like me do!

The T31 needs to use a commercial diesel electric system, its modern, capable and affordable.


Rules out babcock's & the germans then.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Mar 2019, 19:57

Lord Jim wrote:I knew they were much bigger but wanted confirmation on the propulsion change. Does make you think when the sales Reps for both companies state that there submission are an evolution of their respective LCS designs how much that is aimed at those who want to save money and also pushing the interpretation of being based on an existing hull design.


LCS had a requirement for >40 knots speed. That pretty much mandated waterjets.

FFG(X) has a requirement for approx 30 knot speed which means propellors are the prime choice.

Neither choice is "right" or "wrong", just the best fit for what is being asked for. In the same way a jet engine is best for Typhoon but not for the A400.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Mar 2019, 20:02

ArmChairCivvy wrote:In the USN case it
NickC wrote: looks like the Austal will be by far the lowest displacement contender for the USN frigate contract, the LCS Independence Naval architectural displacement limit is 3,188t, the frigate is not that much larger, the FREMM displacement quoted as 6,900t and with USN specs will be 7,000t ship, BIW/Navantia F100/Hobart 7,000t and Ingalls have released no info on their frigate design based on the USCG NSC 4,600t.

which is 'go big, or go home'.

I posed the question whether that is, or should be our case, too?


Type 26 not big enough for you?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Mar 2019, 20:12

Lord Jim wrote:But what happened to the idea that the designs submitted were to be based on an existing mature hull design? After all this was why the T-26 was a non runner.


It's still there for now. All of the contestants are based on existing ships.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Mar 2019, 20:57

A good try :) ... not big enough, Ron :lol:

I was going 'Lower' but pegging that to the Operating Concept (do we have one, as of yet?)

This is a good (fun) story as in the original Streetfighter Conceptual USN study the Swedish Visby was considered as one of the best alternatives for a forward-based littoral ship

88 meters LOA, with 1 500 tonnes displacement. Its prime functions will be anti-submarine warfare, surface attack, air defence, training, and patrol. According to preliminary calculations, when compared to a conventional propeller-driven steel vessel, with an aluminium superstructure, funnel exhausts, and non-stealth weapons and sensors, the new design will have the following considerable gains:

A lower profile for a reduced visual signature
A lighter, more shock-resistant structure
A lower displacement and draft, requiring less engine power
Reduced fuel consumption, hull maintenance, and operating costs
Lower hydro-acoustic, magnetic, infrared, and radar signatures.

berths for 71 crew, a helipad and hangar, two universal cranes and two ship’s boats. The propulsion will be four diesel engines of about 7 400 kW driving four waterjets. The engine room will be set aft, to leave appreciable volume amidships for operations.


ArmChairCivvy wrote:is it that it has to be "globally deployable" as well as being - some of them at any given time - forward based... and is that actually a bad compromise?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5712
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 08 Mar 2019, 08:46

Ron5 wrote:Rules out babcock's & the germans then.

It would if the MOD had any interest in specifying a modern ship, instead the specification allows a worse equipped ship than its predecessor designed 40 years ago!

It is a shame only one team is proposing a modern propulsion system, get the hull and plant right and the rest will follow, I think the T23 demonstrates that.
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 08 Mar 2019, 12:02

shark bait wrote:It is a shame only one team is proposing a modern propulsion system, get the hull and plant right and the rest will follow, I think the T23 demonstrates that.



My impression is that suggesting that the Leander uses a modern diesel electric propulsion system might not be accurate from the little information released on its propulsion system, it might be adequate though, and unless diesel gensets and drives silenced will not be a quiet ship.

Some examples of more modern diesel electric propulsion systems are the Damen 10514 LRP with its two 1325 kW motors and its Bakker Sliedrecht frequency drives which are connected to the vessel’s power grid without the need of a transformer, to save weight, space and cost (the Leander though ~1,000t larger ship only uses 800 kW? motors).

New generation of electric motors, permanent magnet motors, which are compact and high power for weight, DRS supply the 3,600t Daegu frigates with two shaft mounted 1.7 MW PMMs.

An example nearer to home of a modern electric propulsion system is that of research ship RRS Sir David Attenborough designed for very low levels of underwater radiated noise, diesel electric motors and for near total silent operation motors can be powered by li-ion batteries with a combined 1450 kWh, claimed 5 MW peak effect battery capacity.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Mar 2019, 13:15

Leander design uses two 700 kW motors to cover upto 12 knots. Al Khareef corvette has two 250 kW motors for up to 7.2 knots.

Nowadays it is normal option for deisel drive, with one deisel per shaft. For example, ferries are using it (as well as RNZN Canterbury). Called CODOE.

It is a fuel efficient option. Not a tool to make it quiet. But I think making the “E” mode in the CODAE/CODOE propulsion quiet is much easier than making a CODAD option quiet.

In CODAD case, with 2 deisel per shaft, option to use only one deisel among the four is considered to be good enough, which is why they seldom carry motors. Propulsion of Arrowhead 140 is, therefore, normal, not out of date.

There’s MTU documents on these options.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Mar 2019, 17:40

NickC wrote:New generation of electric motors, permanent magnet motors, which are compact and high power for weight
Those interested in naval applications should look at USN "external engine room" projects and RIMJETs (podded and using such magnetic motors... I wonder how battle hardened any podded solution might be; whereas they can be made v quiet)
- I try to avoid looking under the bonnet in my car, if there's no warning light on. So I'll also have to leave my contribution at this v general level

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 08 Mar 2019, 17:59

The focus these days is more on reducing size, weight & cost of all the electrical management systems (e.g. frequency & voltage changers) in hybrid & all electric systems. The Leander motors are small and efficient (made by Rolls Royce I think) because they are high speed & low torque and therefore require a gearbox.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 09 Mar 2019, 12:46

Electric Motors, if info correct :angel:

3,677t Leander; 2x 700= 1,400 kW = 12 knots (thanks Donald-san)

2,575t Damen 10514LRP; 2x 1,325=2,650 kW = 14/15 knots, 2/3 knots faster with 90% more power and a 1,000+t lighter ship.

3,600t Daegu; 2x 1,700=3,400 kW =17/18 knots per DRS who supply motors, 5/6 knots faster with 240% more power.

Looking at these figures if the max speed of 12 knots quoted for Leander which has low power in comparison to with the others was wondering if Leander motors in continuous cruise rating mode speed would be more likely give 10 knots?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 09 Mar 2019, 18:31

NickC wrote:Electric Motors, if info correct :angel:

3,677t Leander; 2x 700= 1,400 kW = 12 knots (thanks Donald-san)

2,575t Damen 10514LRP; 2x 1,325=2,650 kW = 14/15 knots, 2/3 knots faster with 90% more power and a 1,000+t lighter ship.

3,600t Daegu; 2x 1,700=3,400 kW =17/18 knots per DRS who supply motors, 5/6 knots faster with 240% more power.

Looking at these figures if the max speed of 12 knots quoted for Leander which has low power in comparison to with the others was wondering if Leander motors in continuous cruise rating mode speed would be more likely give 10 knots?


Quotes German, Korean and UK brochure numbers, questions UK number. Typical.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 09 Mar 2019, 20:49

Ron5 wrote:Quotes German, Korean and UK brochure numbers, questions UK number. Typical.


To be correct Dutch, US and UK brochure numbers :angel:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Mar 2019, 12:03

RichardIC wrote:And some sort-of T31 related news.

Indonesia leans towards Iver Huitfeldt class for frigate acquisition

Image

https://www.janes.com/article/87175/indonesia-leans-towards-iver-huitfeldt-class-for-frigate-acquisition
From the Janes article:
... Iver Huitfeldt class as one that features "reliable combat capabilities, and can operate in the extremities of Indonesia's exclusive economic zone".

Indonesia looks like stopped the Damen 10514 light frigates with only 2 hulls, and considering a larger hull as an alternative. The comment looks like needing more good sea keeping, I guess. In other words, the 105m long ~2500t Damen 10514 design might not have good enough sea keeping capability for their tasks.

Regardless of Indonesian Navy selects what design, is this showing a trend that these navies are now more looking for "good sea keeping"? I mean, more blue water? In that case, the heavy Corvette market is going to shift for more larger hull?

In that case, Type-31 program will be in the right position? :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Mar 2019, 13:21

Royal Navy now has enough crew for both carriers and their escorts
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... r-escorts/
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8849850

1: A great and positive news :thumbup:

2: But, what number is the 1st Sea Load looking at, in the http://www.portsmouth.co.uk article?
"The total combined strength of the navy and Royal Marines currently stands at 38,550 compared to 38,140 in 2016."

Let's see "UK Armed Forces Quarterly Service Personnel Statistics 1 January 2019"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1-_SPS.pdf
Yes, it was 32,540 on 1 Oct 2018, we all remember it as a good news then. But, now its again the same, RN/RM regular forces
- was 32,400 on 1 Jan 2016,
- and now 32,380 on 1 Jan 2019.
As clearly seen, it is reduction of 20 persons, and no indication of ~400 increase?
number.jpg
But I think 1st Sea Load is saying something. A commentator on UKDJ article suggests

Daniele Mandelli .... I read somewhere that converting 42 Commando to Maritime Ops released many posts which could be filled by Seamen, and a number of officer posts were also reduced and replaced by extra other ranks.


Is this the main "resource" for the crews?

3: What is more, I think 1st Sea Load is carefully saying
- "2 CVF active is not going to cut more escorts"
- "increase in man power will re-activate .. a couple of our frigates and destroyers as harbour training ships and adaptive force ships, running with a smaller ship’s companies.
as a separate issue? I might be wrong...

4: By the way, I think it is the first time (?), officially agreed that "man-power shortage caused a couple of escorts to be "harbour training ships and adaptive force ships". This fact is pretty well known issue, but I remember that MOD answer was simply "it is of routine/normal cycle of ship maintenance". All such argument came from congress men, but never from official. So, this is the first "honest" confirmation ? (correct me if I'm wrong).

/ TO BE REPOSTED TO QE CVS thread./
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Mar 2019, 15:00

So from all the info released over the last few weeks it is looking like we might end up with a fleet like so

14 x C-1 Escorts ( 6 x T45 & 8 T-26 )
5 x C-2 Global patrol ships ( 5 x T-31 )
8 x C- 3 OPVs ( 3 B1 and 5 B2 Rivers)

could be a good mix depending on what ship is picked for T-31 and how they and the B2 Rivers are deployed

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Mar 2019, 15:37

Tempest414 wrote:So from all the info released over the last few weeks it is looking like we might end up with a fleet like so

14 x C-1 Escorts ( 6 x T45 & 8 T-26 )
5 x C-2 Global patrol ships ( 5 x T-31 )
8 x C- 3 OPVs ( 3 B1 and 5 B2 Rivers)

could be a good mix depending on what ship is picked for T-31 and how they and the B2 Rivers are deployed
I'm afraid I am going to agree and gently disagree here.

I think a lot depends on how capable the T31 turns out but the above mix looks to me to be an attempt to mould the Royal Navy into the world's coastguard. The RB2's and the T31 are too much of a duplication in my opinion. Sending OPV's with nothing more than a 30mm to the other side of the world with no embarked helo is madness. This is the reason why I maintain that the RB2's are un-balancing the fleet and should either be adapted or sold.

If Leander is chosen and it ends up with a Mk8, and 12 CAMM we are basically swapping frigates for OPV's and long range OPV's. Too much low end and too many floating targets IMO.

But it might be better than it appears at first glance.

Could this arrangement just be a temporary sticking plaster to provide the global coverage required? I think it might and the longer term plan could be much better.

If we assume that retaining the RB1's is just temporary (10yrs to 15yrs) and the RB2's are going to take over EEZ/fisheries patrol around 2030 then it makes more sense.

This would mean the first batch of T31's with their austere weapons fit would slot into the RB2's global patrol role around 2030.

This then paves the way for either a second batch of more capable T31's or an increased number of escorts based on the T26 hull.

If that's the case then I can see the logic in current planning but it is another worrying case of jam tomorrow.

The encouraging part is that it could be affordable and easily adaptable if defence spending were to increase in the future.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Mar 2019, 17:34

Poiuytrewq wrote:The RB2's and the T31 are too much of a duplication in my opinion. Sending OPV's with nothing more than a 30mm to the other side of the world with no embarked helo is madness.


I agree there is a significant overlap between the B2 OPVs and T31e Frigates; the danger though is not really sending the B2s, it’s sending the half-arsed T31s and pretending that they can do more than a B2.

I’d like to see the B2 OPVs and any future T31s (or equivalents) to be called Patrol Sloops, falling under similar operating models to RFAs who have additional kit fitted when they sail EoS. This will make it clear in terms of their designation and role.

My view remains, if we want more Frigates, buy more T26s. In parallel, I do not have any issues with buying more Sloops following a B3 River derivation like the Avenger.

A future fleet similar to the following is still well within grasp:

- 6 T45s
- 9 T26s
- 10 B2/B3 River Sloops
- 10 MHCs
"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

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Mar 2019, 18:49

I think we are going to need more frigates.....

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Mar 2019, 19:37

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think we are going to need more frigates.....


Or buy some cheap ships and call them Frigates...
"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

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Mar 2019, 22:25

Repulse wrote:My view remains, if we want more Frigates, buy more T26s
100% Agreed. We need at least 12 but not all necessarily kitted out as Cruisers.

The RB2/RB3/Avenger mix is interesting. Personally I think if something like an RB3 was to be procured for RN now, it would probably now be Leander based. I can see no reason why Leander couldn't be configured like an Avenger, in fact in many ways it would probably be preferable. Very similar to the Italian PPA's amidship configuration.

It's a great pity BAE didn't look to supersize the Khareef design up to something like 130mX16.5m when creating Leander. Retaining the same basic design only with a much greater growth margin built in. It might have been a budget buster but it could have been a real game changer. Second batch of Leanders with a broad beam? Sounds familiar :think:

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Mar 2019, 09:40

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think we are going to need more frigates.....


I don't understand having a T-31 in India I would say it would be better to have one in the Gulf and one out of Singapore. Also with all the talk of ships being forward deployed East of Suez we will need a EoS command latest count is

1 x FLSS
2 x T-31
1 x B2 River
4 x MCM

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Mar 2019, 09:45

Are these forward bases going to have full maintenance facilities in order to allow the maximum availability of the units deployed, negating the need to return to the UK for such work? Just mentioning this as we will only have two FLSS and five T-31e, so that currently suggested availability goes against all current operating schedules and so on. For example having two T-31e EoS means there would be a maximum of one available for everywhere else.

If we are talking about extra units and therefore extra funding (from somewhere) then the preferred option would be to scrap the idea of the T-31e and simply buy two or three full more fat T-26, or possibly four of a low calorie variant.

I am still uncomfortable about stationing any escorts away form the UK on a permanent basis. Until we can meet all our current NATO commitments including those gapped, anything else should be put on the nice to do list. One off cruises should go ahead but not on an annual basis.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests