Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Halidon]

Is there any merit in using cheap drones to destroy cheap drones? I suppose the defence drones would need a guidance system so that would up the cost but still cheaper than a traditional AAW missile. Deployed in a standard sized container onto a mission bay for extra flexibility.

Sure, Coyote is an "anti-drone drone" and they've landed a large production order.

[Ron5]

Disagree. WW-II figthers are much more agile than these drones. But, the drones looks "more agile" than the WW-II fighters, why? Simply because they are small.

We clearly have a different idea as to which type of drones. Not surprising, there's hundreds of different types these days.

Of course, "direct hit" to these small drones are difficult. But, even from the WW-II era, it was not the direct hit, it was the proxy-fused blast which kill those fighters.

The much vaunted "smart" 3P ammunition is really just a proximity fuse albeit a tad fancier. And back in WWII, ships were festooned with dozens and dozens of small caliber guns yet failed to shoot down all attackers. The Type 31 has two.

I'm pretty sure the Type 31 gun fit is much more about anti-surface. Based an an article by Richard Scott, I think the main radar will only provide surface target queuing to the guns. For AA they'll be limited to the EO directors.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Disagree. WW-II figthers are much more agile than these drones. But, the drones looks "more agile" than the WW-II fighters, why? Simply because they are small.

We clearly have a different idea as to which type of drones. Not surprising, there's hundreds of different types these days.

Of course, "direct hit" to these small drones are difficult. But, even from the WW-II era, it was not the direct hit, it was the proxy-fused blast which kill those fighters.

The much vaunted "smart" 3P ammunition is really just a proximity fuse albeit a tad fancier. And back in WWII, ships were festooned with dozens and dozens of small caliber guns yet failed to shoot down all attackers. The Type 31 has two.

I'm pretty sure the Type 31 gun fit is much more about anti-surface. Based an an article by Richard Scott, I think the main radar will only provide surface target queuing to the guns. For AA they'll be limited to the EO directors.

Thanks, I have no objection to your proxyfuse discussion. Not new. But as I said

Compared to WW-II AAW guns, modern guns are much much superior because;
- recent FCS has laser range finder
- real-time trajectory calculation
- and stabilizer
These 3 make the capability of guns much much better.

Nether of these 3 innovations were there in WW-II. Very very different they are.

For AA they'll be limited to the EO directors.

Yes. And the EO directors has laser range finder.

By the way, what type of agile drones are you thinking of? Just for quriocity. Are they cheap? If not cheap, we can happily used CAMM to negate them. I am talking about cheap drones...

[EDIT] By the way, what are we arguing? I never said these 3P guns can hit sub-sonic air-crafts nor sub-sonic drones efficiently (they will, but not efficient). But, they are very efficient against slow moving drones, say 200-300 km/hr or less. They are slow and hence cheap.

In my view, sub-sonic moving UAV with good sensor is called "a missile". They are expensive and hence worth using CAMM.

[serge750]

100 AA guns on USS Texas:

[Ron5]

[EDIT] By the way, what are we arguing? I never said these 3P guns can hit sub-sonic air-crafts nor sub-sonic drones efficiently (they will, but not efficient). But, they are very efficient against slow moving drones, say 200-300 km/hr or less. They are slow and hence cheap.

I don't think 2 Bofors and a six pounder will be much good against any airborne threat. I think they are primarily to deal with surface threats. You and others disagree. That's fine, there's no real evidence either way.

Personally, if I thought these Amazon drones were a realistic threat, I would ditch the Bofors and get a couple Phalanx instead.

[donald_of_tokyo]

[EDIT] By the way, what are we arguing? I never said these 3P guns can hit sub-sonic air-crafts nor sub-sonic drones efficiently (they will, but not efficient). But, they are very efficient against slow moving drones, say 200-300 km/hr or less. They are slow and hence cheap.

I don't think 2 Bofors and a six pounder will be much good against any airborne threat. I think they are primarily to deal with surface threats. You and others disagree. That's fine, there's no real evidence either way.

Personally, if I thought these Amazon drones were a realistic threat, I would ditch the Bofors and get a couple Phalanx instead.

I guess bofors is much better than phalanx for those slow drones because of proxy fuse with modern fire control.

WW-II battle ships carry so many AAW guns because of lack of good FCS nor stabilizer. Eye ball aiming vs FCS computed tragectory aim differs hugely in its effectiveness.

By the way, no arguing against Better against fast boat swarm.

[tomuk]

[EDIT] By the way, what are we arguing? I never said these 3P guns can hit sub-sonic air-crafts nor sub-sonic drones efficiently (they will, but not efficient). But, they are very efficient against slow moving drones, say 200-300 km/hr or less. They are slow and hence cheap.

I don't think 2 Bofors and a six pounder will be much good against any airborne threat. I think they are primarily to deal with surface threats. You and others disagree. That's fine, there's no real evidence either way.

Personally, if I thought these Amazon drones were a realistic threat, I would ditch the Bofors and get a couple Phalanx instead.

The rounds aren't just proximity fused, they are timed and impact fused too with each round being programmed as it leaves the barrel. That is vastly superior to their WWII antecedents.

Why would you want a Phalanx it just hasn't got the range?

[new guy]

[EDIT] By the way, what are we arguing? I never said these 3P guns can hit sub-sonic air-crafts nor sub-sonic drones efficiently (they will, but not efficient). But, they are very efficient against slow moving drones, say 200-300 km/hr or less. They are slow and hence cheap.

I don't think 2 Bofors and a six pounder will be much good against any airborne threat. I think they are primarily to deal with surface threats. You and others disagree. That's fine, there's no real evidence either way.

Personally, if I thought these Amazon drones were a realistic threat, I would ditch the Bofors and get a couple Phalanx instead.

Phalanx also has its own cries of obselesense.

[Tempest414]

I still think having 2 x 8 round Starstreak mounts is the best thing with 3 reloads

With its mach 4 speed and 8+ km range not much will be safe

[tomuk]

I still think having 2 x 8 round Starstreak mounts is the best thing with 3 reloads

With its mach 4 speed and 8+ km range not much will be safe

Rather than Starstreak do you mean LMM\Martlet. The frigate would already be carrying them to arm the Wildcat.

[Tempest414]

I still think having 2 x 8 round Starstreak mounts is the best thing with 3 reloads

With its mach 4 speed and 8+ km range not much will be safe

Rather than Starstreak do you mean LMM\Martlet. The frigate would already be carrying them to arm the Wildcat.

No I do mean Starstreak which can also be used by Wildcat if needed but the reason for Starstreak on the ship based mount is its speed as it will cover the same 8+ km range to target in half the time and with its kinetic energy it could maybe take down slow moving drones at 12+ Kms

[SD67]

A bit of a random thought - is there any role for USVs in the mix? Glorified decoy, draw the drones away, maybe a remotely operated starstreak or two? Or is this a dumb idea

[Poiuytrewq]

Strange article of cobbled together threads but it does raise one interesting question. It now appears that no matter how many Frigates are decommissioned RN always has enough escorts to perform operational commitments. If so, why is 24 the target and how few would the number need to drop to for the MoD to admit that RN is now dangerously under equipped?

The real crunch in escort numbers is coming between 2027-2031. It hasn’t even started yet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... -frigates/

[shark bait]

Let's not pretend the RN has a list of requirements and then builds a fleet to deliver. It the other way round, the requirements are derived by what's available.

[wargame_insomniac]

Strange article of cobbled together threads but it does raise one interesting question. It now appears that no matter how many Frigates are decommissioned RN always has enough escorts to perform operational commitments. If so, why is 24 the target and how few would the number need to drop to for the MoD to admit that RN is now dangerously under equipped?

The real crunch in escort numbers is coming between 2027-2031. It hasn’t even started yet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... -frigates/

Would you mind quoting the article as behind paywall.

Thanks

[new guy]

Strange article of cobbled together threads but it does raise one interesting question. It now appears that no matter how many Frigates are decommissioned RN always has enough escorts to perform operational commitments. If so, why is 24 the target and how few would the number need to drop to for the MoD to admit that RN is now dangerously under equipped?

The real crunch in escort numbers is coming between 2027-2031. It hasn’t even started yet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... -frigates/

Would you mind quoting the article as behind paywall.

Thanks

Half the article here:

[Poiuytrewq]

Would you mind quoting the article…

Here:

Navy has so few sailors it has to decommission ships
New frigates unable to be manned unless two existing warships are taken out of service

HMS Westminster, recently refurbished at huge expense to the taxpayer, and HMS Argyll will be decommissioned this year
The Royal Navy has so few sailors that it has to decommission two warships to staff its new class of frigates, The Telegraph can reveal.

HMS Westminster, which was recently refurbished at huge expense to the taxpayer, and HMS Argyll will be decommissioned this year.

The crews will be sent to work across the new fleet of Type 26 frigates as they come into service.

It comes as the Armed Forces experience a significant recruitment crisis, with the Navy having suffered a collapse in the flow of new recruits into the service.

A defence source told The Telegraph: “We will have to take manpower from one area of the Navy in order to put into a new area of the force.”

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has ordered eight Type 26 frigates, which will be the Navy’s most advanced submarine-hunting warships to date.


However, HMS Glasgow, the first of the new Type 26s, will not be operational until 2028 at the earliest, followed by HMS Cardiff, expected by the end of the decade.

The move will bring the number of frigates in Britain’s surface fleet down to just nine until the two new ships arrive.

The MoD has ordered six more Type 26 frigates, but they are not expected to start arriving until the 2030s.


It comes as Britain considers military action against Houthi rebels over their attacks on cargo ships in the Red Sea.

One option being considered is moving HMS Lancaster, a Type 23 frigate, to support HMS Diamond in the Red Sea as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian to safeguard shipping.

Critics have suggested Britain would have more capacity to protect cargo in the Red Sea if frigate numbers were not being reduced.

A Whitehall source justified the move and said the decision allowed the military to focus on “updating the Navy into a modern, hi-tech fighting force”.

The source said: “It is always emotive when ships that have a long history of service come to the end of their working life. They and the sailors who crewed them have done the country proud. But decommissioning them is the right decision. The new Type 26 frigates will be in service before those ships can be refitted.”


In the 12 months to March, MoD figures showed that the Navy, which has 29,000 full-time recruits, performed the worst out of the three services for recruitment.

Intake for the Navy and Royal Marines dropped 22.1 per cent compared with the previous year, while the RAF dropped by almost 17 per cent and the Army by nearly 15 per cent. Although the Government is planning to reduce the size of the Armed Forces, recruitment figures are still far below target.

Lord West, the former first sea lord, questioned why the Navy was decommissioning warships without having a new fleet ready to take over and warned that the UK’s warships were “dropping like flies”.

“We are losing operational ships – which is all very well as long as there’s no war in the next few years,” he said.

Lord West cited the 1982 Falklands War, in which the UK lost two destroyers and two frigates, and a further 12 were damaged, as an example of needing a larger surface fleet.

“With the number we’ve got, if we get involved in any action we are really poorly placed,” he warned. “If the Government had taken seriously the issue of frigate numbers over the last 10 years, there would be sufficient to meet the requirements of trade protection in the Red Sea.”


HMS Westminster, which featured in the James Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies, is described on the Navy’s website as having “recently returned to service after one of the longest, most comprehensive and complex revamps in her lifetime” following a 2017 refurbishment, and was set to undergo another £100 million refit.

Around the same time, HMS Argyll, the longest serving Type 23 frigate in the Navy, underwent a multi-million pound refit to return her to the front line.

After being decommissioned, the ships will either be scrapped or sold to an ally.


Last year, James Cartlidge, the defence procurement minister, insisted that HMS Westminster was “part of a modernisation programme being implemented to all Type 23s that are in upkeep”, when asked in Parliament if there were plans to scrap it.

John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, accused the Government of failing to get a grip on problems within the MoD, saying: “That the Royal Navy is forced by a lack of sailors to mothball ships shortly after refits that cost millions of taxpayers’ money is further evidence of ministers failing to get to grips with deep problems in defence.

“MoD mismanagement has wasted at least £15 billion of public money since 2010, and satisfaction with service life has plunged to new lows.”

Tobias Ellwood, a former chairman of the defence select committee, said it was “baffling” to decommission two frigates at a time where the UK’s surface fleet was “massively overstretched”.

“During the Gulf War the Royal Navy boasted 51 frigates and destroyers,” Mr Ellwood said. “That number will soon fall to just 16. Yet our world is more dangerous than any time since 1945.

“The strength of today’s Royal Navy is simply inadequate to handle the ever-complex threat picture that is harming our economy.”

A Navy spokesman said: “The operational requirements of the Royal Navy are kept under constant review. The Ministry of Defence is committed to ensuring the Royal Navy has the capabilities it needs to meet current and future operational requirements.”

[new guy]

The article looks bad in the first two paragraphs:
it says that HMS west mister has already been refit when she was set to be refit.

Then it says that the crew will be moved to T26, despite there still being a long period until T26 service, And even if this was true then it would go against the article title of the ships being decommissioned for a lack of crew as it just the crew being moved along
It also neglects the frigates material state. It also states that the RN has ordered an additional 6 T26 (wth, I wish). And I have only read half of the article.

[new guy]

The article looks bad in the first two paragraphs:
it says that HMS west mister has already been refit when she was set to be refit.

Then it says that the crew will be moved to T26, despite there still being a long period until T26 service, And even if this was true then it would go against the article title of the ships being decommissioned for a lack of crew as it just the crew being moved along
It also neglects the frigates material state. It also states that the RN has ordered an additional 6 T26 (wth, I wish). And I have only read half of the article.

The whole article feels like it was a rush job with bits and bobs taken from a mix of online sources.

I'd wager 50p the writer has gotten previous statements about Type 83 ISD confused, maybe even taken a glance at NL's piece on the Aussie AAW Hunter Class. Then decided it's "six more Type 26".

Suspect we've got cuts coming either way, particularly if the budget is before the election. Not many votes in defence.

[new guy]

The article looks bad in the first two paragraphs:
it says that HMS west mister has already been refit when she was set to be refit.

Then it says that the crew will be moved to T26, despite there still being a long period until T26 service, And even if this was true then it would go against the article title of the ships being decommissioned for a lack of crew as it just the crew being moved along
It also neglects the frigates material state. It also states that the RN has ordered an additional 6 T26 (wth, I wish). And I have only read half of the article.

The whole article feels like it was a rush job with bits and bobs taken from a mix of online sources.

I'd wager 50p the writer has gotten previous statements about Type 83 ISD confused, maybe even taken a glance at NL's piece on the Aussie AAW Hunter Class. Then decided it's "six more Type 26".

Suspect we've got cuts coming either way, particularly if the budget is before the election. Not many votes in defence.

So sadding compared to our real requirements for hulls and Capabilities.

[Poiuytrewq]

Former DS Ben Wallace MP speaking on LBC this morning suggesting that RN were actually petitioning the MoD to decommission additional T23 to ease pressure. He repeatedly refused.

Unbelievable.

[Tempest414]

Former DS Ben Wallace MP speaking on LBC this morning suggesting that RN were actually petitioning the MoD to decommission additional T23 to ease pressure. He repeatedly refused.

Unbelievable.

The type 23's even after life Ex are in such a bad state they are a pain to keep going and a drain on the RN and have been for a decade and the useable number of T-23's for some time now has been 9 with 4 in or waiting life ex

the article above also completely misses the fact that the first two type 31's will come on line at the same time if not before of which the first one has part of its crew already

Also the Types 45's are coming out of PIP so actual useable escort number will remain about the same

It is my guess that the RN are now thinking that with both T-26 and T-31 being so close they can move money from keeping worn out old T-23's going to other much need things

[SW1]

Big fat chickens coming home to roost been fattening up since the early 00s just as the era of economic warfare reasserts itself. Lack of priorities and incoherent strategic decision making has lead to drift for decades now no one to blame but themselves.

[Tempest414]

Big fat chickens coming home to roost been fattening up since the early 00s just as the era of economic warfare reasserts itself. Lack of priorities and incoherent strategic decision making has lead to drift for decades now no one to blame but themselves.

Well the 2010 SDR was a kick in the bollocks for the whole MOD from which it is only now coming up for air. Had Type 31 come in to replace the 4 type 22's in say 2018 we would not be in this hole as it is what we got was 5 RB2's to replace the 4 T-22's in real terms

[SW1]

Big fat chickens coming home to roost been fattening up since the early 00s just as the era of economic warfare reasserts itself. Lack of priorities and incoherent strategic decision making has lead to drift for decades now no one to blame but themselves.

Well the 2010 SDR was a kick in the bollocks for the whole MOD from which it is only now coming up for air. Had Type 31 come in to replace the 4 type 22's in say 2018 we would not be in this hole as it is what we got was 5 RB2's to replace the 4 T-22's in real terms

Way before that!