Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

[new guy]

I think there is a limit to it becoming less and less crewed until it is just a ship with a emergency/contingency crew / skeleton crew.

I think T83 should be a hull that:
a) Has growth room, both for existing and future technologies. Also means that the hull has
b) Is FFBNW: Now before you get mad at me, I am talking about FFBNW for other areas of capability, a.k.a the ship is suitiple for a TAS or HMS, or an expansion of existing capabilities, linking to the point above. FFBNW for more VLS, expansion of CMS, e.c.t. felicitation of more equipment.
c) Is a great ship to operate: Both for the navy and the sailors. Maintainable like the T31, high availability / days at sea, e.c.t (Yes, days at sea do matter, maybe not as much as say LRG or CSG, which are parcially response task groups, but way more for OPV's, Patrol missions or Kipon). Also, nice crew accomidation, especially in EMF's.
d) Is a modest ship. Keep numbers high.

[new guy]

Procurement history has shown that trying to introduce state-of-the-art technologies en masse into a new complex warship may deliver an exquisite, expensive platform affordable only in small numbers. “What we’re going to do with FADS is not just introduce everything to be brand new at once,” he said: instead, the RN is seeking “to introduce something that will still be the best in the world but won’t end up being an ‘impossible-to-deliver’ portfolio of programmes that will make up FADS.” Here, Rear Adm Parkin continued, recent RN decisions to upgrade the Type 45’s Sampson and Long-Range radars and Sea Viper local area anti-air and missile defence capability, for example, are part of the process that will inform capability thinking and development for FADS.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... apability/

The RN has learned (A little bit)

[tomuk]

Procurement history has shown that trying to introduce state-of-the-art technologies en masse into a new complex warship may deliver an exquisite, expensive platform affordable only in small numbers. “What we’re going to do with FADS is not just introduce everything to be brand new at once,” he said: instead, the RN is seeking “to introduce something that will still be the best in the world but won’t end up being an ‘impossible-to-deliver’ portfolio of programmes that will make up FADS.” Here, Rear Adm Parkin continued, recent RN decisions to upgrade the Type 45’s Sampson and Long-Range radars and Sea Viper local area anti-air and missile defence capability, for example, are part of the process that will inform capability thinking and development for FADS.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... apability/

The RN has learned (A little bit)

Not really learning just repeating the same the exact thing over again.
It was said about T26 that it would be a de-risked design, no new systems, just moving them over from retired T23, propulsion system just like T23 (the system is different).
The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again. Will T83 need a mother ship, like Fort Victoria was meant to look after T23, to look after them too?

A point to consider with T26 AAW version is does it have enough propulsion or generation capacity.

T26 has 12MW of diesel generators to propel the ship at low speed and power radar and weapons systems. It has one MT30 with 36MW for high speed cruise. This power can only be fed to the props and can't be supplemented.

T45 has 12MW of diesel generators and 2xWR21 at 21.6MWe any and all of these power sources can be used to propel the ship, and\or power the radar.

Would a T26 AAW (ones assumes based on the fat aussie version) have enough power particularly electrical to power the ships sensor and weapons systems (future - active ESM, lasers and railguns) and propel it?

[wargame_insomniac]

A point to consider with T26 AAW version is does it have enough propulsion or generation capacity.

T26 has 12MW of diesel generators to propel the ship at low speed and power radar and weapons systems. It has one MT30 with 36MW for high speed cruise. This power can only be fed to the props and can't be supplemented.

T45 has 12MW of diesel generators and 2xWR21 at 21.6MWe any and all of these power sources can be used to propel the ship, and\or power the radar.

Would a T26 AAW (ones assumes based on the fat aussie version) have enough power particularly electrical to power the ships sensor and weapons systems (future - active ESM, lasers and railguns) and propel it?

One benefit the RN has is that it is likely that RAN will be proceeding first with any Hunter Batch 2 AAW Version.

So BAE Govan can just crack on with the exisiting order for T26 ASW, ideally adding at least one more if funds allow, and then can benefit from BAE Australia's design work and maybe practical build experience before deciding of the risks of stretching the T26 to fill the T83 AAW role.

[new guy]

Procurement history has shown that trying to introduce state-of-the-art technologies en masse into a new complex warship may deliver an exquisite, expensive platform affordable only in small numbers. “What we’re going to do with FADS is not just introduce everything to be brand new at once,” he said: instead, the RN is seeking “to introduce something that will still be the best in the world but won’t end up being an ‘impossible-to-deliver’ portfolio of programmes that will make up FADS.” Here, Rear Adm Parkin continued, recent RN decisions to upgrade the Type 45’s Sampson and Long-Range radars and Sea Viper local area anti-air and missile defence capability, for example, are part of the process that will inform capability thinking and development for FADS.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... apability/

The RN has learned (A little bit)

Not really learning just repeating the same the exact thing over again.
It was said about T26 that it would be a de-risked design, no new systems, just moving them over from retired T23, propulsion system just like T23 (the system is different).
The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again. Will T83 need a mother ship, like Fort Victoria was meant to look after T23, to look after them too?

Fair, but then what do you propose in alternative?

[shark bait]

The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again.

It's not.

The old T23 frigate conops was for a squadron of simple independent ships out in the Atlantic optimised for sub hunting. After The Royal Navy took lots of missiles hits in the Falklands, Admiralty put more weight behind missile defense, which broke the original conops.

The FADS concept is looking at an air defence system distributed across the carrier group. It is not specifically a ship, and it is not designed to be independent.

There is no point building an exquisite multirole destroyer to spend it's service life sat next to a carrier with far greater offensive capabilities. It just needs to be the goalkeeper.

[NickC]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

[new guy]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

[new guy]

The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again.

T26 will already have an automated magazine. Both gun types on the T31 will have an automated magazine. The carriers have an automated munitions system. The T23 torpedo system is automated. No nonsense at all.

[Repulse]

FADS for carrier groups makes perfect sense to me - in fact we should be implementing it now by adding Sampson to the two carriers, new AEW assets and CEC technology to the QEs and T31s.

The T45s would then add to the groups depending on the threat level or could operate with allied task groups like now.

Believe it or not but I have no problem in the T31 design being used for the T83 role, we just don’t need more than 6 in total, and no GPs. What should happen though is the next class should be a T26 follow-on that capable of both top tier independent / task group ASW and AAW ops, in the order of 15 units.

[serge750]

Wasn't Sampson proposed in a design for the QEC but rejected on cost grounds & i think they were concerned about making them a bigger electronic target aswell ? when the T45's retire & the QEC are the only ships with Sampson, i would be concered if it didnt work when needed.....with 2 AAW escourts there is back up, there is a lot of deckspace for it to be retro fitted though

[serge750]

Wasn't Sampson proposed in a design for the QEC but rejected on cost grounds & i think they were concerned about making them a bigger electronic target aswell ? when the T45's retire & the QEC are the only ships with Sampson, i would be concered if it didnt work when needed.....with 2 AAW escourts there is back up, there is a lot of deckspace for it to be retro fitted though

It was, haven’t heard the electronic target argument (difficult to see why it would be a bigger target). Understood it was purely costs, which is bonkers when they blew £500mn on the EMALS debacle - could have probably paid for for Sampson and CEC for the fleet and still have money left over.

[tomuk]

The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again.

It's not.

The old T23 frigate conops was for a squadron of simple independent ships out in the Atlantic optimised for sub hunting. After The Royal Navy took lots of missiles hits in the Falklands, Admiralty put more weight behind missile defense, which broke the original conops.

The FADS concept is looking at an air defence system distributed across the carrier group. It is not specifically a ship, and it is not designed to be independent.

There is no point building an exquisite multirole destroyer to spend it's service life sat next to a carrier with far greater offensive capabilities. It just needs to be the goalkeeper.

So there is no similarity between the concept of a simplified dedicated AAW ship and a simple dedicate ASW ship?

In terms of modern air defence of course it would be networked and have data gathered from various offboard sensors. That is just the world we live in.

I'm afraid FADS is just talk covering for a lack of money and investment, throw enough buzzwords at it and hope no-one notices.

Who is suggesting building an exquisite multirole destroyer? I would be more than happy with a modern equivalent\update of T45 ( with a slight tweak up in the level of ASW and ASuW\Land attack capability would be nice. eg a working and manned sonar and fitted with some NSM)

[tomuk]

The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again.

T26 will already have an automated magazine. Both gun types on the T31 will have an automated magazine. The carriers have an automated munitions system. The T23 torpedo system is automated. No nonsense at all.

Um what has an automated gun magazine got to do with FADS?

What I'm talking about is the concept apparently within FADS for a 4000t low\no crew ship with only a big radar and missile silo on it. A glorified barge.

[Repulse]

So there is no similarity between the concept of a simplified dedicated AAW ship and a simple dedicate ASW ship?

There is a danger that there could be, but if designed specifically to be part of an integrated carrier strike group then no. It is the perfect role for an enhanced T31. It would also avoid another over running and delayed programme - just convert the 5 being built and add one, freeing up the T45s which ultimately be replaced by a new common class.

Who is suggesting building an exquisite multirole destroyer? I would be more than happy with a modern equivalent\update of T45 ( with a slight tweak up in the level of ASW and ASuW\Land attack capability would be nice. eg a working and manned sonar and fitted with some NSM)

The current T45 role is primarily to escort the CSGs, this should change IMO as outlined. Going forward a single first tier multirole vessel built in relatively high numbers (12+) is the best way to give the RN a qualitative advantage - I would however base this on the T26 not the T45.

[shark bait]

So there is no similarity between the concept of a simplified dedicated AAW ship and a simple dedicate ASW ship?

It's not about the ship, it's about the operational concept. Alone in the Atlantic is a very different place to the center of a carrier group.

[Tempest414]

As we are talking type 45 with what is being said on the RN website about type 26 getting ExLS in place of the mushrooms this could be a great thing for T-45 12 cells of ExLS would allow T-45 to have 48 Aster 30 and 48 CAMM plus the 8 NSM all that would be needed is a better upto date HMS and they would great ships

[NickC]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

[Tempest414]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

Simply the need to get sailors to sea the RN has been deploying escorts to sea with 200+ crews for some years now they don't need this amount of crew but we know the RN fill ship to max to sea going days up

this also shows there are more sailors than ships right now

[new guy]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

It has accommodation to hold up to 285 people, but a crew of 190. Which do you think is more likely, Channel 5 being given the 'correct' amount while everyone else everywhere else is telling lies, or channel 5 mixing up numbers?

[serge750]

Not sure about how a 4000t ship could replace a T 45 ...would that mean we have ship with a huge son of Sampson radar on it & basic self defence CIWS + a few CAMM, but with less electrical power & conected up to a few multi role T26 with lots of Aster 30 long range missiles & mk41 ?

[Repulse]

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

Max capacity numbers which include up to 60 RMs.

[NickC]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

It has accommodation to hold up to 285 people, but a crew of 190. Which do you think is more likely, Channel 5 being given the 'correct' amount while everyone else everywhere else is telling lies, or channel 5 mixing up numbers?

Mark Tattersall, the executive producer, has made several TV documentaries recording on operational warships and submarines with full RN co-operation. After a rough edit it has to be approved by a panel of up to 40 people from the RN and MoD, and can see no reason he would falsify the numbers so would 100% believe the T45 "home to 280 men and women".

It begs the question what is classified as crew e.g. assuming air component not crew etc., but 90 seems excesive.

https://www.navylookout.com/documenting ... fe-at-sea/

[Tempest414]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

It has accommodation to hold up to 285 people, but a crew of 190. Which do you think is more likely, Channel 5 being given the 'correct' amount while everyone else everywhere else is telling lies, or channel 5 mixing up numbers?

Mark Tattersall, the executive producer, has made several TV documentaries recording on operational warships and submarines with full RN co-operation. After a rough edit it has to be approved by a panel of up to 40 people from the RN and MoD, and can see no reason he would falsify the numbers so would 100% believe the T45 "home to 280 men and women".

It begs the question what is classified as crew e.g. assuming air component not crew etc., but 90 seems excesive.

https://www.navylookout.com/documenting ... fe-at-sea/

The Type 45 core crew plus Helo crew is 190 the ship has Flag command and control plus RM platoon capability each around 45 PAX's = 90 odd which would bring total PAX's to 280

If you check Duncan was acting as flagship with a Commodore and his staff on board plus a RM platoon that is why the ship had 280 souls on board