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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1981
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 23 Jun 2019, 20:34

SW1 wrote:Purely in defence terms each area of the world we operate in, is tri service.


True, and forward Army bases and joint exercises are part of the strategy - the reason why I believe the RN has and should have a special focus is that

a) presence of a ship has a lower footprint/less antagonistic than boots on the ground and can be more mobile
b) there is an increasingly threat in key maritime areas such as the South China Sea, Horn of Africa or the Gulf - all of which impact UK interests.

SW1 wrote:We do have interests outside the Atlantic and Nato area, none off our overseas territories have or will have direct military threats to them, possible exception being Cyprus in so far as it’s right beside a region of the world that seems in constant conflict.


Agree with the sentiment, but would say each have a lower level threat from disputed ownership, illegal fishing, piracy, terrorism and environmental damage where a OPV/Sloop presence is justified. Cyprus should also have Sky Sabre and a RAF flight in combination to the Army and RN units.

SW1 wrote:Many years ago now the navy rightly or wrongly decided it combat power would be solely centred on the carrier group and in having 2 allows to an extent a constant deployable capability. 4 type 23 and 4 type 45 plus 2 tankers and 2 stores shipsare more than enough to support such a group in the highest form of conflict, that is an enemy able to attack simultaneously from air, surface or sub surface.


This is where I differ slightly in that I’d see the need for a CBG and an ARG, deployed or training in regional waters. This needs 3 groups, which is why a third aviation platform is required however limited (each with 2 T45s and 2 T23s/T26s). Combined with the “training” group on stand by, 4 T26s is a solid contribution to NATO.

Lastly, and relating to my comment above, I agree in the future the RN needs more motherships for the new toys and traditional HADR/Amphibious ops, but I would see these as mobile (except for one in the Gulf) with forward based OPV/Sloops at the BOTs plus a couple more strategically positioned, plus a T23/T26 in the Gulf.
"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

SW1
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 23 Jun 2019, 22:26

Repulse wrote:a) presence of a ship has a lower footprint/less antagonistic than boots on the ground and can be more mobile
b) there is an increasingly threat in key maritime areas such as the South China Sea, Horn of Africa or the Gulf - all of which impact UK interests.


On point a, that it not necessarily true, you can be invited to exercise with allies, it’s generally when you stay past your welcome the problems arise.

On point b let’s approach it from the other side, Korea and Japan sell a lot of cars in the uk along with other trade and services the UK is in their interest, with an increased threat from Russia in uk waters are they planning to send warships to protect their interests?

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 24 Jun 2019, 02:56

No they won't, so if we don't do it, nobody will. We who are and will become even more so after Brexit need to ensure that we retain the capability to protect our supply lines (in concert with local allies if possible) wherever they might be threatened. Long supply lines/provision (exporting) lines may need protection at any time. We must have a Navy that is sized to take on a role of this sort in at least a few of those locations (wherever they may be) at the same time as using our CTG and Amphibious Groups as they are/were intended to be used. The current RN is not of sufficient size for this. :mrgreen:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 24 Jun 2019, 07:42

SW1 wrote:Korea and Japan sell a lot of cars in the uk along with other trade and services the UK is in their interest, with an increased threat from Russia in uk waters are they planning to send warships to protect their interests

Probably not, but if someone threatened their import routes for oil and raw materials, then yes, they would act to protect them. Normally import routes are considered more important than export routes, particularly where energy, food and critical industrial raw materials are concerned.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 Jun 2019, 08:01

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:Korea and Japan sell a lot of cars in the uk along with other trade and services the UK is in their interest, with an increased threat from Russia in uk waters are they planning to send warships to protect their interests

Probably not, but if someone threatened their import routes for oil and raw materials, then yes, they would act to protect them. Normally import routes are considered more important than export routes, particularly where energy, food and critical industrial raw materials are concerned.


Ok if imports are the priority then I assume they’ll be arriving in the gulf shortly, all the ships attacked so far been heading that way.

Just 2 sets of charts old I know but it’s get to what I’m saying

Japan imports

https://i2.wp.com/www.eurasiareview.com ... mports.png

Uk imports

http://www.bunkerportsnews.com/News.asp ... b8af1a2a21

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Jun 2019, 11:07

Tempest414 wrote:At this time we don't know what T-31 will look like it has been said that everyone now know it will cost more but as I said if we ended up with a Leander like so

Artisan radar
BAE /CMS
good soft kll system
wildcat capable hangar and Merlin flight deck
24 x CAMM
1 X 76 mm capable of Vulcano rounds
2 x 40 mm with 3P
8 x RBS-15 Mk-3 ( I Know this one will not happen )

She would be a very nice ship able the carry out guided NGFS out to 40 km offer air cover up to 1000 km2 around the the ship ( i.e 25 km's 360 degrees) and strike surface and land targets up to 300 km. And when we look at the list above it now looks like from the new images Leander will get the first 5 items on the list the next 2 could be fitted for not a lot more money than a 57 mm and 30 mm and last one is along shot at best


Given this is what I said yesterday about Leander I was looking at the A-140 walkthrougt video which shows at 1.16 in to the Video what I think would be the best fit for a Type 31 that this point it shows a A-140 fit as so

3D Radar
TACTICOS CMS
good soft kill system
Merlin capable hangar and Chinook flight deck
24 x CAMM
1 x 76 mm
2 x 40 mm Mk-4's

As shown on the model the 76 mm and two 40 mm are in a centre line configuration meaning the ship can bring all 3 gun to bear on a target it also means that this ship in this fit out is able to do every thing I said above

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1981
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Jun 2019, 21:26

SW1 wrote:On point a, that it not necessarily true, you can be invited to exercise with allies, it’s generally when you stay past your welcome the problems arise.


Or you are not welcome in the first place - great place the high seas, no permission required, and no one penalised for giving you permission.
"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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 26 Jun 2019, 10:54

Moving over to here from the T-26 thread

Donald said : 10 T-26 + 3 Floreal type ships + the 4 River B1's would be better than 8 T-26 + 5 T-31 + 5 River B2's

The T-26 's are T-26's and more would be good ( and I think we could fit one more in at the end to make it 9 ) But how the mixes stack up will be down to T-31. When we look at the Floreal and River B1

Floreal ) 93 m x 14 m 88 crew search radar 20 knots Hangar and Flight deck 1 x 100 mm , 2 x 20 mm 2 x Exocet 2 x Simbad

River B1 ) 80 m x 13 m 30 crew no search radar 20 knots no flight deck 1 x 20 mm and small arms

Now with a Little reworking the River B2's could do 95% of the work of a Floreal and over match the B1's . And I think if we had a B2 like so

90 m x 13. m 50 crew , Scanter 4100 radar , BAE CMS , 25 knots , flight deck , 2 x Hero UAV's fitted with I Master radar , 1 x 40 mm with 3P , 2 x 8 round LMM systems fitted with 4 LMM and 4 Starstreak in each

As I said I think this ship could do 90 to 95% of the work a Floreal can do. LMM has also been tested with Camcopter so could work from a Hero maybe

Now for the fleet mix I think that the new mix could be really good if we can first man it and second tweek it like so

8 x T-26 as set to come into service
6 x T-45 refitted with a 76 mm with Vulcano rounds and 48 CAMM added
5 x A-140 T-31 fitted with 1 x 76 mm with Vulcano rounds , 2 x 40 mm with 3P , 24 CAMM as shown by team 31
5 x River B2 fitted as set out above

The icing on the cake would be to give the T-45/ T-31 something like RBS-15 Mk-3 capable of giving the ships a surface / land attack capability out to 300 km plus keeping the River B1's

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 » 26 Jun 2019, 15:42

Tempest414 wrote:Donald said : 10 T-26 + 3 Floreal type ships + the 4 River B1's would be better than 8 T-26 + 5 T-31 + 5 River B2's
...
Now for the fleet mix I think that the new mix could be really good if we can first man it and second tweek it like so
8 x T-26 as set to come into service
6 x T-45 refitted with a 76 mm with Vulcano rounds and 48 CAMM added
5 x A-140 T-31 fitted with 1 x 76 mm with Vulcano rounds , 2 x 40 mm with 3P , 24 CAMM as shown by team 31
5 x River B2 fitted as set out above
Thanks for moving the discussion to escort thread.

For me, a "Floreal-lile OPV-H" is; 107 m Leander (5 m extension amidship and 3 m astern) with 76 mm (or even 114 mm) gun and 2 CIWS, with a Wildcat. Basic CMS with ESA/chaff/flare kit, and Artisan 3D (or Scanter 4000) radar. Built to OPV standard hull (to make it cheap). And a fleet of "6 T45 + 10 T-26 + 3 Floreal type ships + the 4 River B1's " was my "old plan-A."

RN "plan-A" now is for "6 T45 + 8 T-26 + 5 T31e + 5 River B2". Depending on, how T31e comes out, and how the spending review, as well as SDSR 2000, comes out, this could be "so so good fleet". But, if we face the big risk of spending cut and/or economic decline, at least delaying the "key decision point" of T31e AFTER SDSR2020 is MUST.

And, if such risk happen to come true (which I think with ~50% probability), my plan-B will be
- happy to cut T31 to save money
- keep 8 T26 as a top priority, and even try to increase it using part of the T31e's 1.5B GBP
- execute some of the "up arming" plan of River B2, discussed here and in OPV thread, to make a "corvette"
- and mid-life refit the River B1s to be kept as EEZ patrol vessel until 2030s.

As River B2 is small, adding hangar will not be good. Even if added, its usage will be small because of weather condition. Thus, "up-armed" River B2 will never be able to totally fill the gap of 5 T31es (if cut).

But, actually, Holms strait is "as small as Dover strait", which means air-cover can be easily provided and thus a helicopter hanger on ship is NOT needed there. In other words, up-armed River B2 can be a good corvette to be used there. Red sea is the same, and many part of the Med is also the same. So, in a few Choke points, River B2 "corvette" can fill the gap. For global deployment, loosing T31e will degrade its capability. But, that is the whole point of defense spending cut.

Less money, less capability. HOW to incorporate it, is the key point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADD: The whole reason of my comment's diversity is for plan-A and B.

Pushing Leander for T31e (mainly because it is built in England, and also its operating cost shall be small), and not pushing (by default) to up-arm River B2, is for plan-A.

At the same time, discussing Floreal-like OPV-H, and up arming River B2 is for one of the plan-Bs (if T31 see cuts)

As lack of plan-B was one of the root cause of getting 5 River B2, and not "3 T31e-like-OPV" for 630M GBP to save the work-force critical for T26, discussing plan-B is always needed. But, also note it is just for plan-B, not plan-A.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1981
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 26 Jun 2019, 21:40

donald_of_tokyo, my personal view is that an up gunned B2 will never be (and should never be) a Corvette, the T31e will be a Corvette in all but name.

The question is what balance and value should we associate with permanent (or standing commitment) forward presence versus globally deployable CBGs/ARGs/SSNs. Regardless of funding levels my view is that the value of the latter is greater than the former, as if you can’t fight a war don’t go around waving your flag at people, but we do need both.

I’d say with the exception of the Gulf where a T23/T26 is needed, an up gunned B2 combined with MCM/RFA assets is sufficient for all non NATO forward permanent commitments. Medium term (10 years) we should replace the B1s with B2s and ultimately build a B3 (upgunned B2 + Wildcat Hangar) to get the numbers up to 12.

This leaves money free today to buy more war fighting assets to sail with our CBGs/ARGs.
"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

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 01 Jul 2019, 16:33

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but it occurs to me that Mk.41 VLS on T26 or T45 could be a complete waste of time. Granted if we had standardised on it originally and insisted that Aster used it in preference to/or in conjunction with Sylver to keep the French happy it would make some sense, but right now and into the future I think we've missed the boat. What on earth are we going to fire from it?

Looking at the options the UK could realistically consider (money dependent):

- Standard SM3 - For T45.
- VL-ASROC for T26. But like P-8 this ties us in to US torpedoes in place of the superior Stingray of which we have large stocks. A critical UK defence capability could be eroded.
- VL TLAM - Tomahawk is going out of production before T26 arrives anyway....
- Errr....thats it folks.

LRASM and NSM/JSM aren't VL capable yet, and won't be until 2027+ and besides we'll be buying neither of them..(LRASM arrives in surface launch at the same time as FCASW and the RN more likely will get canister launched Harpoon II as an interim missile to bridge the gap to FCASW not NSM for a whole load of reasons)

Instead wouldn't it actually make more sense to forget about Mk.41 and standardise on Sylver? Stick Strike Length A70 Sylver VLS where Mk.41 was supposed to go on T45 and T26? The advantages would be:

- One type of hot launch VLS in service across the RN
- T45 would have the potential to carry more Aster, whether 30NT, 30 or 15. BMD would be handled by 30NT rather than SM-3.
- European solution rather than US. For the numbers involved we could always produce in the UK
- MBDA makes missiles for the UK and France, that isn't going to change. And shouldn't. They are our 'national champion', does it not make sense to support them.
- FCASW will presumably be made for Sylver for the French regardless, might as well tag on and support UK industry. This covers the cruise missile and supersonic anti ship and land attack missile side of things.
- A VL ASW weapon could be easily done by MBDA. God knows ASROC needs replacing with a modern system (remember Sea Lance anyone?) The French have a need for such a weapon as well. We could re-use Stingray and also get far more range than the anaemic RUM-139 (12 miles range in 2019?!?). Perhaps pair the rocket booster up with a winged glide kit like the HAAWC (like the SDB/MLRS lashup) and get Stingray on P-8 in the near future as a bonus.

The more I think of it, the more I think Mk.41 is a waste of time. It could end up empty most of the time, or with inferior weapons onboard that have had to be purchased from the US rather than UK or European industries. The only possible exception is the SM-3, but the cost of them is eye-watering, at $18m a pop we'll never buy more than a tiny number and we're far more likely to get 30NT in the first place.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Jul 2019, 16:51

The thing is how many nations use the Mk41 and how many use Sylver? We would do better to ensure the weapon systems being developed by MDBA were applicable to the Mk41 as that would open up greater export opportunities. If Sylver was that good why haven't more European navies adopted it on their new naval vessels? What is the cost difference between the Mk41 and Sylver? If a multipurpose version of Sylver being developed as at present there is one version capable of firing Aster and another of firing SCALP and so on. Are we certain to adopt FCASW? We invested millions in the European TRIGAT programme and look how many nations actually adopted the end result of that lengthy preprogramme. Stingray is a good weapon but its advantage over the latest US light weight torpedoes is not as great as it once was and they are continuing to carry out R&D where as we have stalled after the last update. Finally just because MBDA develops a weapon in a certain class that has a US equivalent shouldn't mean we automatically disregard the latter simply to retain the capability to manufacture such systems regardless of price and price is becoming a central driver in all things defence more and more.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 01 Jul 2019, 17:32

Lord Jim wrote:We would do better to ensure the weapon systems being developed by MDBA were applicable to the Mk41 as that would open up greater export opportunities.


Agreed. It would make sense for MBDA. But only if there is a market.

Lord Jim wrote:If Sylver was that good why haven't more European navies adopted it on their new naval vessels?


Simple function of them either buying US systems like AEGIS,US weapons before comparable European vessels were available or buying Mk.41 before Sylver existed and being tied to Mk.41 with their current vessels.

Lord Jim wrote:What is the cost difference between the Mk41 and Sylver?


No idea. But its not going to be a huge difference.

Lord Jim wrote: Are we certain to adopt FCASW? We invested millions in the European TRIGAT programme and look how many nations actually adopted the end result of that lengthy preprogramme.


TRIGAT was having some problems working. FCASW if split will happen. We need it to replace Storm Shadow and the French need it for the AShM market which has made them a lot of money over the years with Exocet.

Lord Jim wrote:Stingray is a good weapon but its advantage over the latest US light weight torpedoes is not as great as it once was and they are continuing to carry out R&D where as we have stalled after the last update.


That would seem to me to be an argument that we need to maximise our use of that asset and industrial base. Making torpedoes is a critical national capability. They can't survive on Spearfish alone.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Jul 2019, 20:25

With the exceptions of the French and Italians, all other European navies have either stuck with or adopted the Mk41 on all relevant vessels designed and built since Sylver and Aster were available so they had a choice.

TRIGAT went down the plug hole as by the time it was ready for service it was basically obsolete, being overtaken by systems such as Javelin.

FCASW is supposed t be one system to meet all requirements, if it splits we could end up being the sole user. Yes the French want a system to compliment/replace Exocet but it will need to bring something new to the table as well as being affordable. Many nations are currently purchasing new AShMs now and so will not be looking for a replacement until the early 2030s.

A sovereign manufacturing capability is a valuable thing but it cannot be sustained solely by UK orders. Any UK manufacturer must be able to compete on the world stage with very few exception. IF retaining the ability to manufacture lightweight Torpedoes is vital then the UK Government needs to fund the adaptation of whatever launch system is chosen, if any, to enable it to utilise the weapon. Any theoretical system built by MDBA will probably initially look at what is the most common weapon in service with its most likely markets and aim their developmental efforts in that direction. For such a system to be compatible with Stingray would be a solely UK effort as Norway used the Mk41. This would increase the cost, unless future weapon systems are compatible with the Mk41. In fact it does make more sense for compatibility with the Mk41 to take priority over that with the Sylver system.

As for the cost difference between the Mk41 and Sylver, given the number of Mk41s built compared to the Sylver the difference could be larger then initially thought.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Jul 2019, 08:43

For me there is one priority when it comes to type 45 weapons and that is to get CAMM on to it and MBDA say there are three ways to do this

1 Mushroom ( in service )
2 EXLS ( tested and works )
3 Sylver ( MBDA say it can be done )

after having CAMM fitted next has to be a ASM system as I have said I would like to see this system have Land attack as well maybe it could be fitted to T-31. I would say as far as weapons go I would look to go with 4 main gun types

5 inch fitted to T-26 and future T-45 replacement
76 mm Fitted to T-45 and Type 31
40 mm fitted to all escorts plus the AMphibs , OPV's , MHC's & RFA's
Phalanx fitted as needed to escorts , carriers , Amphibs and RFA's

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 02 Jul 2019, 08:54

It is illogical to change the main gun type for the DDGs twice! It would be far better to change it only once (to 5"), whether this be with the introduction of the T45 replacement, or on the T45s themselves. The removed 4.5's would then be available to be used on any additional T31s that may be ordered. I do not see the 76mm making a return to RN service in the foreseeable future.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Jul 2019, 09:53

The Mk-8 has had its day and is now out classed in both range and accuracy by the 76mm. However as someone said if a 76 mm vulcano round could be adapted to be fire from a 114 mm ( Mk-8) thereby giving it a range of say 50 to 60 km's then the Mk-8 is back in the game meaning that with the Mk-8's we have on the ships and in store we would be well off for guns

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Jul 2019, 13:00

Any further improvements for the Mk8 are going to have to be funded purely by the UK as the only other operators are Brazil, Iran, Chile and Pakistan and I cannot see any of these wanting to follow suit. With the T-26 the RN has made the decision to move to 5" as its future gun but I do not think this is a good match for the T-31e both on cost grounds and the role this platform will possibly undertaking.

The 5" reason for being is basically naval gunfire support, but again I am not sure how viable that will be going forward without additional systems and costs being needed as well as the growing threat of high performance AShMs that are proliferating around the world. I nearly all recent cases it was used because the opponent did not have a capability to effectively return fire or really endanger the platforms carrying out the mission. In future such mission may take the form of a naval "Shoot and Scoot", with a platform coming into range, firing an many rounds as fast as possibly and retiring as fast as possible. For this to happen the ship mounted guns will need greater range to exceed that of shore mounted systems, a high rate for fire and great accuracy. Current and future Warships are too valuable to risk in an engagement with shore based weaponry.

For this last reason, I cannot see, except in the most benign circumstances, the RN utilising its T-45 in the NGFS role. AS a result I cannot see the need to equip the T-45 with a 5" gun. However with the retirement of the T-23 it does not make financial or military sense to retain the mk8 on these six platforms as it leaves them with a weapon with little military use whilst still have to maintain them and the support infrastructure ashore. As to what should replace it, well that relates to what weapon system is installed on the T-31e.

As I stated above I do not think the 5" gun is the right weapon for the T-31e. Neither do I think we should simply fit redundant Mk8 8s to them simply because we have them. We should follow what many other navies around the world have done and fitted a medium calibre weapon system be it 76mm or 57mm. These weapon offer far greater utility, form anti-air to anti-surface to even NGFS in those increasing rare cases it is still viable. Some even offer their use as CIWS, though this is usually limited to those of the highest spec. But it is the ability to match ones specification to ones budget that is one of the most appeal aspects of these systems.

A third area could also affect the choice of new weapon, that being whether it is ever decided to up gun our OPVs and what we arm our next generation of mine warfare platform. This could have an affect on the choice of weapon for the T-31e and possibly the T-45. A 76mm weapon is probably too large for the OPVs etc even though some navies do fit such weapons. The 57mm could however be a match of all being a good compromise. As stated earlier you can fit the specification of the weapon to your budget, so those installed on the OPVs and Mine warfare platforms could be a lower and cheaper version compared to those fitted to the T-31e with the highest specification going into he T-45s. The 57mm is going to be around for a long time and there is continual investment into various weapon systems of this calibre, keeping it in tune with possible and future threats and increasing its utility. We might as well fit weapon systems to out warships that are relevant to their roles, rather than be wedded by tradition to those which are not.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Jul 2019, 14:17

I would agree mostly and this why I think we should dump 114 mm and 30 mm in favour of 76 mm and 40 mm this could allow

Type 45 = 1 x 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 Aster , 48 to 60 CAMM + small arms
Type 26 = 1 x 5", 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 CAMM
Type 31 = 1 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 24 CAMM + small arms
Amphibs & RFA = 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx
River class = 1 x 40 mm + small arms
MHC = 1 x 40 mm plus small arms

this could give every ship in the fleet a base line anti air capability

NickC
Member
Posts: 536
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 02 Jul 2019, 15:15

20th June RID reports Italians it appears finding funding to re-instate development of the CAMM-ER, with nominal €1 million this year, €10 million in 2020 and €15 million in 2021, to be completed by 2024 at total budgeted cost of €95 million.

From <https://www.portaledifesa.it/index~phppag,3_id,3109.html?fbclid=IwAR1CpjSNMp1wBJ63Jk8oag_hbjIPaGxWhLX50JTSv51NCB2PDLiZEnJP_pE>

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jdam » 02 Jul 2019, 20:40

CAMM-ER is interesting but I still don't know a lot about it. Do the Italians take the standard missile and put a boaster on it? If so it will fit in the Type 23/26 silo, can it be quad packed? Is it all made in Italy? Is it a naval missile? the MDBA show land pictures of the launch.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1981
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 02 Jul 2019, 20:56

Tempest414 wrote:I would agree mostly and this why I think we should dump 114 mm and 30 mm in favour of 76 mm and 40 mm this could allow

Type 45 = 1 x 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 Aster , 48 to 60 CAMM + small arms
Type 26 = 1 x 5", 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 CAMM
Type 31 = 1 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 24 CAMM + small arms
Amphibs & RFA = 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx
River class = 1 x 40 mm + small arms
MHC = 1 x 40 mm plus small arms

this could give every ship in the fleet a base line anti air capability


Need the 5” for NGFS, would personally add a 57mm to all minor warships (which do not have a CIWS) and keep the 30mm as secondary gunnery. All first rate (T45 & T26) Escorts, Carriers, Amphibs and RFAs should have a CIWS.
"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

Online
User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pseudo » 02 Jul 2019, 21:03

If a 76mm HVP was feasible then it could make for a very effective air defence weapon.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 03 Jul 2019, 05:57

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I would agree mostly and this why I think we should dump 114 mm and 30 mm in favour of 76 mm and 40 mm this could allow

Type 45 = 1 x 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 Aster , 48 to 60 CAMM + small arms
Type 26 = 1 x 5", 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 CAMM
Type 31 = 1 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 24 CAMM + small arms
Amphibs & RFA = 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx
River class = 1 x 40 mm + small arms
MHC = 1 x 40 mm plus small arms

this could give every ship in the fleet a base line anti air capability


Need the 5” for NGFS, would personally add a 57mm to all minor warships (which do not have a CIWS) and keep the 30mm as secondary gunnery. All first rate (T45 & T26) Escorts, Carriers, Amphibs and RFAs should have a CIWS.


When you look at what I have put forward for Type 45/31 every main weapon has a air defences capability and at the same time both retain the limited ability to give NGFS over a greater range than with the Mk-8. As for fitting 57 mm to all minor warships why would do that when the Mk-4 40mm is smaller lighter cheaper and dose the same job with 3P ammo

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1964
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Gabriele » 03 Jul 2019, 08:30

CAMM-ER is interesting but I still don't know a lot about it. Do the Italians take the standard missile and put a boaster on it? If so it will fit in the Type 23/26 silo, can it be quad packed? Is it all made in Italy? Is it a naval missile? the MDBA show land pictures of the launch.


It is a CAMM missile but with an additional section containing a larger rocket engine by Avio, not a detachable booster. The seeker is the same. The canister, of course, is longer. Quad-packing should still be possible, although there are some doubts on this point. I think there will be parts made in the UK still, possibly, but it will be mostly made in Italy.
Is Type 26 compatible with them? Who knows. Depends on whether the cells are strictly "CAMM sized" or there is some space available beneath to potentially "dig deeper".
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests