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: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Apr 2019, 14:29

We should have stuck to the C1/C2/C3 programme, even if the C1 and C2 classification was going to cause issues.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Apr 2019, 15:45

We will have C1 , C2 and C3

C1 = Type 23, 26,45 ( tier 1 fighting ships )
C2 = Type 31 ( global Patrol mid range fighting ships )
C3 = MCM , Echo and River ( MHPC )

As I have said in the past I would like to see at the end of this

6 x T-45 = C1
9 x T-26 = C1
6 x T-31 = C2
6 x Venari 100 meter ( MHPC )= C3
6 x PSV 90 meter ( MHC ) = C3

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Apr 2019, 17:09

Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3


Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some upgrades. C3 are the B1 Rivers, Echos and Commercial design ships which need Escorts.

Ideally something like 16 C1s (T45s and T26s), 10 C2s (inc upgraded B2 Rivers) and 12 C3s.
"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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 22 Apr 2019, 17:28

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3


Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some upgrades. C3 are the B1 Rivers, Echos and Commercial design ships which need Escorts.

Ideally something like 16 C1s (T45s and T26s), 10 C2s (inc upgraded B2 Rivers) and 12 C3s.


The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26 or in today’s terms a decently armed Arrowhead would fit.
Your c2 sound very much what the original c3 which was meant to be based on the black swan design.

For me the C3 should be something like the black swan or Venari 95 discussed on here.

I’d be ok with ( not happy ) 16 C1s ( T45/T26 ) and around 20 C3s as above with 5+ OPVs for EEZ work.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Apr 2019, 19:54

Jake1992 wrote:The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26
And that's were it should have stayed....
Repulse wrote:Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some
I don't think I would be comfortable with designating the RB2's as C2's.
Tempest414 wrote:C2 = Type 31 ( global Patrol mid range fighting ships )
Mid range = Mid budget. They should be £400m plus
Lord Jim wrote:We should have stuck to the C1/C2/C3 programme
Agreed, it amazing how many times initial planning gets it right before a lack of money ruins everything.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jensy » 22 Apr 2019, 20:24

Jake1992 wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3

The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26 or in today’s terms a decently armed Arrowhead would fit.
Your c2 sound very much what the original c3 which was meant to be based on the black swan design.

For me the C3 should be something like the black swan or Venari 95 discussed on here.

I’d be ok with ( not happy ) 16 C1s ( T45/T26 ) and around 20 C3s as above with 5+ OPVs for EEZ work.


C2 was never originally a Type 26 anything (as one programme replaced the other), though the Arrowhead is a really good example of what it could/should have been.

It was always a lot less capable a ship than the C1 (Medium Vehicle Derivative) which was widely expected to be an ASW Type 45, with a tail and no Sampson radar.

From further back in the thread:

Jensy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Contrary to 'folklore' about T31 being a rushed idea, the decision to to split the class in two (8+5) was taken in 2010, but seeing T-26 through the main gate took longer than anyone had expected

[...]

Officially, of course,T-31 only came out of the 2015 SDSR ( by then it was apparent to all that T-26 was going to be too expensive. Despite the fact (!?) that the concept and assessment phases of Type 26 development emphasised cost efficiency).
- what happened in 2010? Britain had just cut its defence budget of 36.9 billion pounds by eight percent in real terms up to 2015.
- but Osborne had promised 'jam' thereafter. 'Better' defence and security reviews were due in 2015 and 2020, which could alter future plans.
- Reuters reported on Nov 29 (, 2010) :



Back in the old days, the escort part of the old FSC (Future Surface Combatant) program was supposed to be made up of:

10 x C1 (Top tier ASW "Combatant")

+

8 x C2 (Medium sized Vessel Derivative - for "stabilisation")

These 18 ships were not of the same baseline, displacement or indeed hull-form. The below 2006 BMT concept, gives a good indication of the scope of the C2. It interestingly looks a lot like Venator 110 from the rear.

Image

This second image is a for a "Thales concept about 135 metres long, which would indicate a full load displacement between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes", defined as a "basic General Purpose frigate".

Image

Medium gun, basic AAW system, lots of room for unmanned systems and potential for specialised upgrades. This does not seem a million miles away from the T31 RFI of last year. The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.

If there was only discussion of 13/13+ Type 26s for a limited time around 2010, whilst before and since it has been intended to have 10 ASW + 8 GP, now reduced to 8 + 5, has it truly been such a massive downgrade? Especially considering the reductions to other sectors of the Royal Navy? e.g. subs, AAW destroyers, fixed and rotary wing aviation.


When it came down to it, the money was no longer there for the old plan, and as the Type 26 grew in size, cost and capability there was still the same combination of C1 and C2 ideas ratio between them.

Leander and Arrowhead seem to offer parts of the old C2 concept, with large mission bays and modular weapon fittings respectively, just not to the same level, on the same ship at present.

Still at least C3/MHPC/MHC is yet tbd.
Jensy

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Apr 2019, 22:57

Jensy wrote: The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.

The biggest change, over so many years
... and even that more so "in philosophy" though palpable in displacement (C2)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Apr 2019, 10:29

When it comes to T-31 the two ships we know the most about are to be built to navel standard i.e Lloyd's navel ship rules. now if they are fitted with the same level of kit as

Artisan radar
BAE CMS
Good level soft kill system
hull mounted sonar
hangar and flight deck for Wildcat / Merlin
1 x main gun , 2 x 30mm , 24 camm , 1 x Phalanx , 8 x Harpoon

These ships become heavy corvettes and to my mind that makes them C-2 and as for not being able to fight any ship with the above speck is not to be freely messed with and could if cornered fight back using its helicopter and harpoon and with a bit of luck put a tier 1 ship out of action

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 23 Apr 2019, 19:13

Tempest414 wrote:8 x Harpoon


This as far as I know is an optional extra not included in the base T31 cost - and is unlikely to be within the £250mn price bracket, or have I missed something?
"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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 23 Apr 2019, 19:51

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:8 x Harpoon


This as far as I know is an optional extra not included in the base T31 cost - and is unlikely to be within the £250mn price bracket, or have I missed something?

However, it might be included in the £13b (IIRC) budget available for guided weapons.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Apr 2019, 08:12

For me this is the key. The UK has a 13 Billion pound budget for missiles so the CAMM and Harpoon for T-31 should come from this budget. All T-23's and 45's going East of Suez are fitted with Harpoon so why would RN not fit them to T-31 when deploying to the same region. For me I see T-31 coming FFBNW Harpoon which will be fitted to ships as needed

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1918
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 24 Apr 2019, 10:50

Tempest414 wrote:For me this is the key. The UK has a 13 Billion pound budget for missiles so the CAMM and Harpoon for T-31 should come from this budget. All T-23's and 45's going East of Suez are fitted with Harpoon so why would RN not fit them to T-31 when deploying to the same region. For me I see T-31 coming FFBNW Harpoon which will be fitted to ships as needed


Presumably the same applies to phalanx, which will come from the pool and be added when required?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Apr 2019, 11:02

Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?

The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Apr 2019, 11:04

Yep that is the way I see it

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Apr 2019, 11:21

Jake1992 wrote:Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?

The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.


If we were to order more I would go for 10 SeaRam to allow both carriers to have 2 each and HMS Albion to have 1 leaving a pool of 5 for RFA ships or the FLSS. This would free up Phalanx units for the Escort fleet

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Apr 2019, 11:48

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?

The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.


If we were to order more I would go for 10 SeaRam to allow both carriers to have 2 each and HMS Albion to have 1 leaving a pool of 5 for RFA ships or the FLSS. This would free up Phalanx units for the Escort fleet


I agree here that seaRam should be introduced, personally I’d sooner see CAMM used on the carriers and LPD replacement but a pool of seaRAM to use on the LPDs for now and across the RFA vessels along with a future multi mission sloop as and when needed would the best way to go.

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 » 24 Apr 2019, 13:34

SeaRAM is completely a different class of weapons compared to Phalanx CIWS. It is somewhere in-between CAMM and CIWS. I'm afraid buying SeaRAM will mean completely omitting CAMM from T31e. So, "5 T31 with only SeaRAM and no CAMM", or "5 T31 with CAMM and CIWS FTR", will be the answer, I guess.

This is surely a valid option, but I prefer to keep CAMM, because it is one of the few "British weapon" good a export these days.

By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.

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 » 24 Apr 2019, 13:41

Yes, SeaRAM is not really a replacement.

Due to CAMM's launch method there is significant overlap between CAMM and SeaRam, with the latter only offering a slightly smaller minimum engagement range than CAMM. Because of this, there is little point equipping the RN with SeaRam. Phalanx + CAMM should be sufficient.
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Apr 2019, 13:48

donald_of_tokyo wrote:SeaRAM is completely a different class of weapons compared to Phalanx CIWS. It is somewhere in-between CAMM and CIWS. I'm afraid buying SeaRAM will mean completely omitting CAMM from T31e. So, "5 T31 with only SeaRAM and no CAMM", or "5 T31 with CAMM and CIWS FTR", will be the answer, I guess.

This is surely a valid option, but I prefer to keep CAMM, because it is one of the few "British weapon" good a export these days.

By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.


I really can’t see the logic in not keeping the canisters, we need 2 set for the T45s just like the first 4 got theirs from the T22s, and why not use as much reusable equipment from the T23s as we can ?

Something like canisters that in a sense are as much plug and play as a phalanx is it’d be just daft not to keep at least 7 sets.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 24 Apr 2019, 14:15

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.


Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Apr 2019, 14:31

Pongoglo wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.


Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?


Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capability

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 » 24 Apr 2019, 14:48

Jake1992 wrote:
Pongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?
Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capability
Sorry for not being clear. I meant "canister" the CAMM tube here.

On the SSM, it is completely independent issue, I think. We know the total cost is only 100-200M GBP (if my memory works), and we do not know what missile, and what number of control electronics, and what number of missile-darts will be procured. It is anyway clear, the current Harpoon system will go away by 2022. Even if RN selects Harpoon Block II+, it is not the same system as the current Harpoon, and it is not clear how many sets will be procured.

I think it will be good to carry ASMs on T31e, than on escorts of CVTFs, on which many F35 can kill any ship approaching the TF.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Apr 2019, 15:03

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?
Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capability
Sorry for not being clear. I meant "canister" the CAMM tube here.


Oh I agree here reusing the CAMM tubes off the T23s would be just pointless, I’m not really happy even using mushroom tubes on the T26 be much better to invest in ExLS to give a much better use of space.

When we look at the T26 design it could pack much more of a punch if invested in properly, we could fit 12-15 ExLS where the current mid ship mushrooms are allowing 48-60 CAMM/CAMM-ER, and as the Canadian variant has shown we could fit up to 48 mk41s forward. Now that would pack a real punch.

ExLS would also allow a nice pick up for the T45s, it’s often said on here that 12 ExLS velds could be fitted between the current Aster cells giving a nice up kick in AAW while still keeping the 16 mk41 space free.

Its a real shame because if money was there these to vessels could pack one hell of a punch

serge750
Member
Posts: 398
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 24 Apr 2019, 18:35

If there was a little bit more money I would definitely add some CAMM for the T45, badly needed to help protect the carriers ! not really that concerned with the T26 yet as compared to the T23 they will be a lot better armed & a lot can happen till they come on line in 8 years but I do agree with the ExLS would be better than the mushrooms in the longer term.

When the harpoon goes would it be better to equip the T45 with CAMM in it's place ? more so if we could get a anti ship missile for the F35?

Jdam
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jdam » 24 Apr 2019, 20:57

I seem to remember CAMM for the T45 was discussed and it was going to replace the Aster 15 for short range defence, I'm guessing nothing came of it.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aisn and 18 guests