Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[abc123]

IIRC, French ASW FREMMs use Aster 15, not Aster 30. At least Languedoc is.

[tomuk]

If it’s not good enough why are they suggesting it for the RAN?

Because the Australian commentariat are obsessed with VLS count and the order was placed by the previous government so the current government can make a Uturn with some cover so to save the full programme of ships they've bodged together the AAW version.

[tomuk]

donald_of_tokyo wrote

FDI capable of Aster 30. This is great leap from T31.

But with only 16 VLS it can only carry 8 Aster 30 if it is to have meaningful close air defence with Aster 15

The French would be better getting on with quad packing VL Mica NG then FDI becomes a great little ship for operations in the Med and Gulf regions

If FDI is fighting against high-end enemy, the (up to) 16 Aster 30 (blk1 with 120 km range) can make a big difference because the enemy is likely be using a super/hyper-sonic expensive large ASMs. It will help defending the HVUs. On the other hand, if T31 is with 24 CAMM (with 25 km range), I guess we need salvo fire to increase the CAMM hit capability against such high-end ASM (like ESSM does). So, FDI is
- much better in reach
- and better in stopping power

If the enemy is using cheap drones or elderly subsonic simple ASMs, 24 CAMM can kill 24 of them while 16 Aster can only 16. Then, T31 can be said to be "a bit better than FDI" (while still with significantly shorter range).

With the current action in Red Sea, I think French shall better go with 8 Aster 30 (120 km range) AND 32 VL-MICA-NG (40 km range). The same could be said for T31, for example to add 24 CAMM-ER, in addition to the 24 CAMM. But both is talking about future improvements, and not "as is".

Will the French load the FDI with Aster 30 or just Aster 15 or a mix? Taking out a cheap Iranian drone with a 120km super dooper Aster30 is a bit of a waste.

[SW1]

A question maybe would be does the French navy have trained personnel on FDI to conduct long range intercepts made possible by aster 30 or would they be few in number and kept for the specialist ships in the role? Like why the fremm asw frigate only have aster 15 onboard.

It maybe in theory possible to use certain missiles on such ships but if they don’t have the trained people to do it, it won’t happen.

[new guy]

IIRC, French ASW FREMMs use Aster 15, not Aster 30. At least Languedoc is.

Kind of.
The first 4 FREMM have :
16 A-43 for Mica VL and Aster 15 but not aster 30.
16 A-70, for Aster 15, Aster 30 and MdCN, though however Aster 15 & 30 aren't used in the A-70 cells.

the next 2 FREMM have
16 A-50 for MICA VL, aster 15 & 30
16 A-70 again for MdCN


the last 2 FREMM have 32 all A-50. This is because they are a sub-variant of FREMM, dedicated for a more AAW mission.

[Poiuytrewq]

Another excellent piece from Tom Sharpe in the DT.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/1 ... shootdown/
.

France takes a hand as the battle to keep the Red Sea open goes on
We may need to get organised and start thinking about logistics.

This weekend (there seems to be a pattern emerging here) there was yet another drone engagement in the Red Sea. This time, however, it was the French frigate Languedoc who shot the Houthi drones down rather than the USS Thomas Hudner or the prolific USS Carney.

Since 19 October the Red Sea has seen three separate missile attacks, two acts of piracy – one of which was successful – and many drone attacks. The drone attacks have fallen into three categories; those heading up the Red Sea towards Israel and engaged as crossing targets, those heading towards warships and thus shot down in self-defence (although no nation has yet stated directly that attacks have been made on its warships – that would, of course, be an act of war) and drones heading to conduct damage assessment after some of the missile strikes. It isn’t clear whether the Houthis are doing this under direct or implied orders from the Iranian regime. What is clear is that so far, they have been able to do so without suffering any retaliation.


French reporting into exactly what happened over the weekend has been sparse, suggesting that although still operating under their own national command rather than in any allied command structure, the French have adopted the same posture as the US ships there; to downplay all of this. Nevertheless, inescapable realities are emerging that will need to be addressed if defending international shipping passing through the Bab-el-Mandeb strait is to become an enduring mission. The Bab-el-Mandeb (‘the Gate of Tears’) is the narrow piece of water at the southern end of the Red Sea, through which all shipping to or from the Suez Canal must pass as it leaves or enters the Indian Ocean: it is one of the world’s major maritime chokepoints. Avoiding it would normally mean going all the way south around the Cape at the bottom of Africa.

The things to think about can be put into two buckets: command and control (C2) and logistics.

C2 will become more complex as ships from different countries arrive. So far the US, French, Japanese and Israeli navies have contributed in the Red Sea. It’s possible that HMS Lancaster, the Royal Navy frigate permanently deployed to the Gulf, is already there. HMS Diamond, a British Type 45 destroyer, is en route and currently passing through the Eastern Mediterranean. The US Navy will be pleased with all this support. It adds legitimacy to their presence and provides burden sharing if the task is to endure.

If ships of different countries converge like this on a common mission then the norm is to convene a Combined Task Force (CTF) under which communications, outreach, rules of engagement and operating patterns are shared. The obvious candidate for this is CTF 153, established in 2022 with the Red Sea as its focus. These task force commands are not new; CTF 150 (counter-terrorism), 151 (counter-piracy) and 152 (Gulf security) have been there, among others, for decades now. Most are run from the Combined Maritime Forces headquarters in Bahrain. Operation Sentinel is also there, a UK led combined operation to “ensure the security of seafarers passing through Middle East Waters”. It doesn’t really matter what they use or what it is called, just that a command structure such as this is vital to coordinated maritime operations. If we see one being used, or a new one being set up, it will be a clear sign that this task is set to grow and endure.

The second issue is one of logistics support. This is a complex and essential subject as any maritime logistician will tell you (at length given the chance) so I will just zoom in on two aspects – fuel and ammunition.

Warships are thirsty beasts, particularly ones dashing around at 30 knots intercepting missiles and drones. There are two ways of taking on fuel – alongside in harbour and Replenishment at Sea (RAS) – and there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Fuelling alongside is simple but it often takes time to get there, time that takes you off-task. As an example, if the Languedoc’s reported position for the engagement is correct, then at 18 knots (a reasonable planning speed) it would take her a day and a half to reach Jeddah. Add a day to get in, refuel, and get out then a day and half back then she is away from her patrol sector for four days. Replenish at sea, where the tanker comes to you, and this can be reduced to four hours. Going alongside for short periods is also surprisingly disruptive for ships at high readiness as the crewing requirements are different.


Replenishing at sea is standard procedure for Western navies and they all have specialist fleet support tankers with the necessary equipment, usually belonging to a civilian-manned auxiliary organisation rather than the navy proper. The tanker picks a suitable course and speed and you power your warship into a parallel course with a lateral separation of about 30 yards. Then gear is rigged between the two ships and fuel and/or supplies transferred. In maritime terms the ships are dangerously close together and it’s not something you want to get wrong. Nevertheless, it keeps you at sea, on the move (and therefore harder to target) and if you need to, you can break away quickly (in minutes) to get weapons pointing in the right direction.

However you need enough tankers to support the warships and as mentioned, this number is growing. At present, the USNS Amelia Earhart is in the Red Sea. She is classed as a solid stores support ship but as ever with US ships, she can multi-task and could be supplying fuel at sea to the assorted ships there as described, though she doesn’t have as much as a dedicated tanker. There are also plenty of dedicated tankers in the region: if one heads into the Red Sea, it will be another indicator that this task is set to continue growing.

Being able to get more ammunition if you are ‘shot-out’ is the second logistical challenge. How likely this is depends on how many drones the Houthis send and also what the different ships have in their arsenal to defeat them. If it is something light and replenishable, such as shells for the main gun or close-in weapons systems, then supplies will last for some time: if targets are engaged with missiles, however, there is a danger you could run out quite quickly. We’re not at that level of intensity yet, but planners will have to consider it. The Languedoc only carries 16 anti-air missiles, Aster 15s. And it should be remembered, missiles involve a whole different level of expense. It hasn’t been confirmed if the Languedoc fired Asters at the drones over the weekend but if she did, then that’s a million-dollar missile to destroy a thousand-dollar drone. It’s not rocket science to work out that isn’t sustainable.

HMS Diamond also has Aster missiles, up to 48 of them in her case, and right now getting a reload of those would involve going at least as far as France: it would make popping into Jeddah for fuel look like the blink of an eye. As ever the US is in a better place: the Amelia Earhart probably has missiles aboard, though they can’t be reloaded into launch cells at sea.

There is a broader warfighting point here about the Western navies’ (and militaries in general, come to that) dogged pursuit over recent decades of ‘fewer but more lethal’, ‘exquisite vs functional’. We have ended up with ships which are arguably more powerful, but definitely fewer in number. The land war in Ukraine is proving time and time again that mass has a value all of its own. The Red Sea has the potential to prove this in the maritime domain as well.

The final point is that as these bills start adding up, including insurance premiums for the shipping companies operating there, there comes a point where preemptive action to defeat the threat starts making financial sense.

Comments on this range from “no idea why it hasn’t already happened” to “post Iraq and Afghanistan the US do not want to get involved in another war in the Middle East” and everything in between. But this is an international shipping strait, so like it or not, we are all involved. The US has not been reluctant to act in the past: it happily blew up Houthi-controlled radar stations ashore in 2016. It’s possible that forming and messaging a coalition is the solution that sits in the middle but something needs to be done because eventually, the cost of inaction, either in logistics, insurance premiums, national pride or human life, will outweigh the cost of action.

And we know China, Iran and Russia are watching.

Lots to consider:

• A great example of why the Waves should be forward based at Duqm as part of LRG(S).

• Three T31 forward based EoS looks proportionate to maintain Kipion and react meaningfully to events such as this.

• Should any T31B2 include some or all of the Iver Huitfleidt AAW capabilities?

• Is a mix of CAMM and CAMM ER now essential?

• Is the Mk45 the most efficient way of neutralising cheap drones such as these?

• Another good example of why it would be unwise to concentrate RN’s dedicated AAW capability into 3-4 highly expensive hulls.

[SW1]

Not sure why the French ship would need to go all they way back to France to reload missiles.

I’m sure like ourselves the French air force has the ability to position stocks at an appropriate location if required.

Multi role logistics ship’s supporting fwd deployed assets what’s old is new. We used to call them the rover class. Highlights also the importance of escorts with range and endurance. Not sure LRG(s) is that relevant tbh. Also dislike having to rely on bases in Arab countries what if they decide to withdraw support or civil unrest flares might be a bit further away but BIOT is secure.

Possibly but what we need to do in 5 years time maybe different to today. We are currently hamstrung by a lack of fwd positioned escorts.

I don’t see why it should at this point the current selected radar is a capable medium range radar. Would like to see camm mr develop and see launcher options.

Why the mk45? Don’t know what these drones look like or there cost or where the ship is in relation to what it needed to intercept.

[Tempest414]

I would say a good weapon to have would be 2 x 8 round LMM systems with 4 x reloads stored in the ships mag = 80 missiles a cheap but very effective weapon this along with the 57mm and CAMM

When it comes to these drones I would guess that CAMM could take one down that 40 Km yes it would be losing enage at this point but it should have more than enough to deal with these drone

[donald_of_tokyo]

I hope the current issue will speed up the T45 CAMM program.

I think T45 must start
- remove 4.5 inch gun and place a 57 mm gun in a bit forward location.
- place 16 NSM to replace harpoon (T45 harpoon location is twice as large as that of T23's)
- add 48 (not 24) CAMM between the 57mm gun and the 48-cell Sylver A50 VLSs. Looking at this fictional image (from NavyLookout), we can see "48 CAMM with a 57mm gun" is not difficult.

All these addition will not be costy.
- disbanding 4.5 inch gun earlier (when the last T23 goes) will pay for the 57mm gun vintegration
- 8 NSM will be anyway added, and "8 NSM" vs "16 NSM" has not much difference on cost
- "adding CAMM" does cost, but "24 CAMM" vs "48 CAMM" has no big difference.

[Tempest414]

I hope the current issue will speed up the T45 CAMM program.

I think T45 must start
- remove 4.5 inch gun and place a 57 mm gun in a bit forward location.
- place 16 NSM to replace harpoon (T45 harpoon location is twice as large as that of T23's)
- add 48 (not 24) CAMM between the 57mm gun and the 48-cell Sylver A50 VLSs. Looking at this fictional image (from NavyLookout), we can see "48 CAMM with a 57mm gun" is not difficult.

All these addition will not be costy.
- disbanding 4.5 inch gun earlier (when the last T23 goes) will pay for the 57mm gun vintegration
- 8 NSM will be anyway added, and "8 NSM" vs "16 NSM" has not much difference on cost
- "adding CAMM" does cost, but "24 CAMM" vs "48 CAMM" has no big difference.

It begs the question if the RN are going in for Mk-41 VLS why did they not just fit the 16 Mk-41's in the place made ready for them they could quad packed 64 CAMM into them

[serge750]

Probably cost..... but does sound easier as they were susposedly FFBNW ....

[SW1]

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... -christmas

One crew of HMS Lancaster are home in time for Christmas… and another crew will take charge of the frigate on Middle East patrols over the festive season.

The frigate has completed her latest rotation of crews – 200 sailors at a time – to sustain her operations in the Gulf region.

One crew operates the warship for four months at a time, then trades places (known as a RIP or Roulement in Place) with an entire crew which flies out from the UK and takes charge for the next four months.

It spares Lancaster the lengthy journey home – and need to send out a replacement frigate – and means there’s a frigate on hand to support regional security and protect shipping.

The returning sailors – Port Crew – joined the ship at the height of the Gulf summer since when they have bagged £3m drugs, trained with regional allies and escorted shipping through choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz.

[wargame_insomniac]

This just makes it all the more important that RN firstly hurry up and fit the already announced upgrades on the T45's, and secondly do what they can to get the first few T26 & T31 into service ASAP.

For the T45's the following upgrades have been announced but not yet carried out:
1) Aster Block 1NT missiles for BMD
2) CAMM missiles for short range AAW
(thereby allowing all Aster 15s to be upgraded to Aster 30s)

Add that 11 sets of NSM Canisters have been ordered, presumably to split between T45s and T23s (before the latter get transferred to T31s). Somerset has had her Harpoon canistr removed and was hopeful that she was due to b th first confirmed RN escort with NSM canisters when she visited Norway lasy week. But not yet heard anything further....

We need some rationalisation in guns between 127mm, 114mm, 57mm, 40mm, 30mm abd 20mm. If we could rationalise that to say 127mm and 40mm that should give a couple of options of dealing with various sizes of drones, and dealing with them more cost effectively than even cheaper missiles.

If only we could swap some crew around enough to man one or both Waves, with their mix of fuel and dry stores, it would be ideal to have one based EoS.

In terms of EoS bases available to RN, we have Bahrain (in the Persian Gulf), Oman and presumably Diego Garcia.

[Scimitar54]

Do not forget Singapore!

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would say a good weapon to have would be 2 x 8 round LMM systems with 4 x reloads stored in the ships mag = 80 missiles a cheap but very effective weapon this along with the 57mm and CAMM

May be, but it will be only for self defense, too short range. As T31 has a 57mmgun, even the range may overlap.

But, locating LMM “option” on Bay, OPVs, MHC OSV/LSVs, CVFs, and T45 as of now, will provide big leap in UAV defense capability.

When it comes to these drones I would guess that CAMM could take one down that 40 Km yes it would be losing enage at this point but it should have more than enough to deal with these drone

Agree.

[Poiuytrewq]

The biggest concern is what can a T45 handle today?

A swarm of 50 relatively inexpensive drones would overwhelm the Aster and then it’s down to the Phalanx.

It’s a new reality now.

IMO it’s getting close to UOR time.

• 48x Aster 30
• 48x CAMM (quad packed in 16x Mk41)
•’16x NSM
• 57mm
• 3x 40mm

This would give the T45’s everything required for the next decade.

[shark bait]

So basically the Royal Navy need to "French-it-up" a bit?

[SW1]

The biggest concern is what can a T45 handle today?

A swarm of 50 relatively inexpensive drones would overwhelm the Aster and then it’s down to the Phalanx.

It’s a new reality now.

IMO it’s getting close to UOR time.

• 48x Aster 30
• 48x CAMM (quad packed in 16x Mk41)
•’16x NSM
• 57mm
• 3x 40mm

This would give the T45’s everything required for the next decade.

Type 45 in present form clearly can handle quite a lot when it works.

Don’t think we need to be overly dramatic in what’s going on. Switching the main gun to a 57mm gun would likely replace obsolescence. Do you switch the 30mm to 40mm well if that’s what the navy is Standardising on ok.

But these ships need to be spending significantly less time in dry dock and much more at sea.

[Poiuytrewq]

Type 45 in present form clearly can handle quite a lot when it works.

Don’t think we need to be overly dramatic in what’s going on. Switching the main gun to a 57mm gun would likely replace obsolescence. Do you switch the 30mm to 40mm well if that’s what the navy is Standardising on ok.

But these ships need to be spending significantly less time in dry dock and much more at sea.

Its not an over reaction, it’s simple pragmatism.

The threat clearly exists now and a way must be found to mitigate it reliably and cost effectively. Using Aster 15/30 to shoot done $1000 drones isn’t smart. Due to the low cost involved, swarm attacks are not just a possibility now they are becoming highly likely.

How much time will that T45 spend in the dry dock if a drone carrying an RPG crashes into its radome?

[Caribbean]

Does anyone know if the RN has trialled the 40mm "upgrade kit" for the DS30M? It seems that that might be an interim solution, particularly for vessels where a larger change might require an element of re-design (T45/ T26), or where life is limited (T23). Once the BAE 40mm has been adopted across the fleet, they could be moved over to the RFA, replacing the DS30Bs & the few remaining 20mm GAM-B01s (if they haven't already been removed).

[SW1]

Type 45 in present form clearly can handle quite a lot when it works.

Don’t think we need to be overly dramatic in what’s going on. Switching the main gun to a 57mm gun would likely replace obsolescence. Do you switch the 30mm to 40mm well if that’s what the navy is Standardising on ok.

But these ships need to be spending significantly less time in dry dock and much more at sea.

Its not an over reaction, it’s simple pragmatism.

The threat clearly exists now and a way must be found to mitigate it reliably and cost effectively. Using Aster 15/30 to shoot done $1000 drones isn’t smart. Due to the low cost involved, swarm attacks are not just a possibility now they are becoming highly likely.

How much time will that T45 spend in the dry dock if a drone carrying an RPG crashes into its radome?

The threat of air attack and to an extent drones has been round for a while now.

I don’t really have a problem with what they use to shot anything down they believe threatens them tbh. They used a lot of javelin in Afghanistan and there wasnt many tanks there!

It really depends where and how far away these drones are operating from and what systems the RN are being allowed to use to counter them. Warships have electronic means to defeat things too they may use them if in a war.

The issue here is the protection of civil vessels quite close to land against an enemy using limited numbers of these things. A type 45 has many many layers to counter such things as do most escorts, civil ships not so much.

[Tempest414]

I would say a good weapon to have would be 2 x 8 round LMM systems with 4 x reloads stored in the ships mag = 80 missiles a cheap but very effective weapon this along with the 57mm and CAMM

May be, but it will be only for self defense, too short range. As T31 has a 57mmgun, even the range may overlap.

But, locating LMM “option” on Bay, OPVs, MHC OSV/LSVs, CVFs, and T45 as of now, will provide big leap in UAV defense capability.

When it comes to these drones I would guess that CAMM could take one down that 40 Km yes it would be losing enage at this point but it should have more than enough to deal with these drone

Agree.

what is the speed that a LMM as it hits it targat at 9km if it is still going at mach 1.5 then again even as slows it should take down a drone at say 15km and if using Starstreak which would be going well over March 2 at 9Km so maybe 20km if the guidance system can pick up the drone

[Timmymagic]

Does anyone know if the RN has trialled the 40mm "upgrade kit" for the DS30M? It seems that that might be an interim solution, particularly for vessels where a larger change might require an element of re-design (T45/ T26), or where life is limited (T23). Once the BAE 40mm has been adopted across the fleet, they could be moved over to the RFA, replacing the DS30Bs & the few remaining 20mm GAM-B01s (if they haven't already been removed).

I don't think there has ever been an actual trial of the Bushmaster Super40 on the DS30M, but MSI are confident it will mount, as the Super40 is specifically designed as a drop in replacement for Bushmaster 30mm.

The gun manufacturer is Northrop Grumman now (they purchased Orbital ATK), and its worth noting that the Super40 ammo is not the same as Bofors ammo....

Unfortunately the chance for us to really consolidate on cannons and ammo across the forces was lost with the TMF on T45. If that had gone ahead we could have standardised on 155mm across the Navy and Army. Using 40mm CTA would have made sense on AFV and ships....and we could have used Mauser 27mm on aircraft and ships....(I'd have even gone as far as re-chambering Apache's Chain Gun to 27mm). 4.5 could have retired gracefully with T23, and with CTA 40 we could have ignored 57mm and Bofors 40mm. T31 would have carried TMF as its main gun, which would make sense for the only class of Frigate/Destroyer that the RN would actually want to risk inshore for NGFS.

[mrclark303]

I would say a good weapon to have would be 2 x 8 round LMM systems with 4 x reloads stored in the ships mag = 80 missiles a cheap but very effective weapon this along with the 57mm and CAMM

May be, but it will be only for self defense, too short range. As T31 has a 57mmgun, even the range may overlap.

But, locating LMM “option” on Bay, OPVs, MHC OSV/LSVs, CVFs, and T45 as of now, will provide big leap in UAV defense capability.

When it comes to these drones I would guess that CAMM could take one down that 40 Km yes it would be losing enage at this point but it should have more than enough to deal with these drone

Agree.

what is the speed that a LMM as it hits it targat at 9km if it is still going at mach 1.5 then again even as slows it should take down a drone at say 15km and if using Starstreak which would be going well over March 2 at 9Km so maybe 20km if the guidance system can pick up the drone

As said by others, NGS (as well as traditional Amphibious beach landings) against a well armed enemy will be suicidal in these days of drone swarms.

In the future, such an assault can expect to met by hundreds of networked suicide drones.

That said, the T31 maybe uniquely capable in the RN line up for dealing with drone swarms, it's 40 and 57 mm, plus programmable ammo putting up a football field sized wall of shrapnel, will be very effective.

Should we be looking to fit the same 40mm defensive armament to the QE Class I wonder?

Stick four mounts on each ship.

Certainly more 'bite', range and utility than the Phalanx mounts.

[donald_of_tokyo]

what is the speed that a LMM as it hits it targat at 9km if it is still going at mach 1.5 then again even as slows it should take down a drone at say 15km and if using Starstreak which would be going well over March 2 at 9Km so maybe 20km if the guidance system can pick up the drone

Good comment.

57mm bofors muzzle speed is Mach 3.5. Of course it will slow down. But for near engagement, the high speed helps a lot. Also 57 mm gun provides 220 round per min (including ALaMo already fielded).

I agree there is a room for LMM, but not large room. My impression is like “mounting CAMM on a ship with ESSM-blk2 (active seeker).” But, as Canada is doing the latter, there will be a room for LMM on a 57mm gun equipped ship.

If with MADFires come, LMM will not be needed on 57 mm gun equipped ships.