Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

If FADS becomes a reality what would a T83 actually look like?

It may not be what everyone is expecting.

Not sure what you read into FADS seeing that it has not been fully defined or published but this pretty picture makes the T83 look very much like a T45 in capability with the addition of CEC.

Its easy to dismiss FADS as a gimmick but I’m not so sure.

The threat of hypersonics and swarms will require a very different AAW approach going forwards as reaction times reduce and so many more targets will need to be engaged simultaneously. If directed energy weapons are the future then it is plausible that massive energy generation will be required and larger hulls may be necessary to facilitate this energy generation but if that proves not be the case then what is the justification for a small number of highly expensive crusiers?

Could 3 or 4 T83s providing the full CEC capability be augmented by 8 or 10 much cheaper semi autonomous AAW Frigates to provide the mass required, improve reactions times and act as goalkeepers and/or arsenal ships for the rest of the fleet?

Its early days for the T83 and FADS but RN needs additional AAW capability now and should not be unnecessarily preoccupied by programs decades into the future whilst trying to achieve it.

[tomuk]

Moved from River B2 OPV thread...

...As has been announced the first CIP has already been signed.

And, there is no FMS talk of Mk41 order for T31 yet. Also the CIP cost was very cheap. I think the CIP on order does NOT include Mk.41. It is for future. ...

Actually, I think it should not include Mk.41 now. At least the first 3 hulls must come with simple armaments, to be accepted into service as soon as possible. For example, only "adding 24 CAMM mushroom" (in addition to some ECM and communication suites).

SeaCeptor systems integration to TACTICOS has been awarded to MBDA years ago. I think (hope) most of the work is done and tested. If so, we only need to locate 24 mushrooms and 2 Launch Management Boxes (many example exists worldwide), connected to the CMS (TACTICOS). Other than "verifying the SeaCeptor software on TACTICOS with actual launch", there is almost nothing new to do. Simple.

If it is Mk.41, RN first need to buy ExLS (first), integrate it into Mk.41 VLS (first), wiring LMS boxes within them is also another "new" (first). Of course, RN need to buy new Mk41. How long it will take from order to deliver? After every hardware is there, RN need to be the launch customer of "CAMM in ExLS in Mk.41".

RN is in hurry, needs T31 as soon as possible, say, by 2027, into service.

Donald
I said in my previous post that we don't know what was in the CIP. I wasn't saying the Mk41 was in the CIP.

I was pointing out to Ron that a CIP had been agreed, before they've even finished assembling the first ship, as proof that the process of contracting a CIP has been agreed.

As to your further points about how easy or difficult it is. I would say on the one hand CAMM and Tacticos is a new integration, the new compact mushrooms are a new integration, have MBDA fitted them to a ship yet?

On the other as you point out fitting Mk41 with CAMM and Exls to T31 would be a lot of firsts. But these firsts all need to happen at some point and if they are being done and paid for for Poland on Meznick or for the Saudis on their LCS derivatives or pre-existing LM\MBDA work maybe it isn't as difficult as all that. A problem shared is problem halved.

[SW1]

The threat of hypersonics and swarms will require a very different AAW approach going forwards as reaction times reduce and so many more targets will need to be engaged simultaneously. If directed energy weapons are the future then it is plausible that massive energy generation will be required and larger hulls may be necessary to facilitate this energy generation but if that proves not be the case then what is the justification for a small number of highly expensive crusiers?

Could 3 or 4 T83s providing the full CEC capability be augmented by 8 or 10 much cheaper semi autonomous AAW Frigates to provide the mass required, improve reactions times and act as goalkeepers and/or arsenal ships for the rest of the fleet?

Its early days for the T83 and FADS but RN needs additional AAW capability now and should not be unnecessarily preoccupied by programs decades into the future whilst trying to achieve it.

Hypersonics for all the hype are quite away off. Much like hypersonics directed energy weapons are also always just around the corner.

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW. The fleet as a a baseline now has camm as a minimum so it seems pretty well covered below the ballistic missile capability.

I would like to see the camm er and brought in if it can use the same launcher as the normal camm if not it would have to wait for the newer ships to arrive.

[Poiuytrewq]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

[shark bait]

Arguably the T26 with CAMM MR and the upgraded Artisan would fill the same 'gap'

[SW1]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

Purchasing all three camm variants for land and sea forces in general would be worthwhile imo but they don’t need mk41 for that. If we are going to invest more in air defence we need to invest less in something else.

Camm isn’t that short ranged and ships with it are perfectly capable of choke point escort.

[wargame_insomniac]

Arguably the T26 with CAMM MR and the upgraded Artisan would fill the same 'gap'

If only there was another country how was looking for a future AAW platform also…

[Poiuytrewq]

Arguably the T26 with CAMM MR and the upgraded Artisan would fill the same 'gap'

Of course but what ASW gaps would be left elsewhere?

If the T31s aren’t suitable for choke point escort taskings then what are they for?

It’s time to utilise some of that generous growth margin contained within the T31 albeit a bit quicker than expected.

[mrclark303]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

If we are sticking to 19 escorts, (looking likely unfortunately) then I agree we have to squeeze every last drop of capability and capacity out of the the escort fleet.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

T26 needs Sea Ceptor ER/MR to give them additional AAW reach and I would add the 40mm gun systems, dropping the phalanx fit.

T31 needs to be able to load out a quad packed Sea Ceptor ER / MR too.

Current operations show that the 'gun slinging ' is very much back, the US Navy realises they are behind the curve on this and it really looks like the gun fit of T31 is precisely what's needed.

[Tempest414]

If Type 31 were to come on line with 40 CAMM / CAMM ER and 16 NSM they would be every capable of choke point duties if we then wanted to upgrade them later we could give them Sea Fire radar and fit 16 VLS in place of the forward 40mm for 16 Aster 30 or 64 CAMM

[mrclark303]

If Type 31 were to come on line with 40 CAMM / CAMM ER and 16 NSM they would be every capable of choke point duties if we then wanted to upgrade them later we could give them Sea Fire radar and fit 16 VLS in place of the forward 40mm for 16 Aster 30 or 64 CAMM

Thank god we didn't go with the BAE Systems two man Canoe T31 design!

Just for once, someone made the right decision.....

I would say, T31's gun and missile fit ( if fully utilised as described by Tempest), will potentially make it the most useful asset the RN has in years to come.

It will be an extremely potent escort with one hell of a punch.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald
I said in my previous post that we don't know what was in the CIP. I wasn't saying the Mk41 was in the CIP.

I was pointing out to Ron that a CIP had been agreed, before they've even finished assembling the first ship, as proof that the process of contracting a CIP has been agreed.

As to your further points about how easy or difficult it is. I would say on the one hand CAMM and Tacticos is a new integration, the new compact mushrooms are a new integration, have MBDA fitted them to a ship yet?

Thanks. We know Mk41 VLS for T31 is NOT yet ordered from UK. We know that T31-hull1 will be "delivered" to RN in 2026 (originally in late 2025, but delayed). Also, to my understanding, CIP is done AFTER the hull is delivered on 2026 and under the white ensign. This means, T31-hull-1 IOC is, when?

I am just against trying to fit Mk41 on hull-1 (2 and 3) because of this very very tight schedule. We need T31-hull1 as early as possible. If Babcock ends CIP within 1 year, then the ship will be handed back to RN on 2027. Then, RN needs verification and trial (so called "first of class ship trial"). This means T31-hull1 will see "IOC" only at 2028 at the earliest. This means, RN need to continue using T23 for KIPION until 2028.

As the 2nd ship do not need "first of class ship trial", her IOC will be nearly at the same timing as the hull-1 (the same happened to T45), which is good.

I think RN shall not waste any time on Mk.41+ExLS(insert) integration. CAMM mushroom is tested and verified in many cases already working: RN T23 with CMS-1, Chillian T23 with CMS330 (of Canada), NZ Te Kaha with CMS330. Also there are some CG images of 24-CAMM version of Arrowhead 140, which utilizes the normal mushroom tubes. I think this option gives the lowest risk, faster CIP speed, and earliest IOC for T31. And, at least for the first 2-3 T31s, "earliest IOC" is critically important considering the T23 material state, I think.

On the other as you point out fitting Mk41 with CAMM and Exls to T31 would be a lot of firsts. But these firsts all need to happen at some point and if they are being done and paid for for Poland on Meznick or for the Saudis on their LCS derivatives or pre-existing LM\MBDA work maybe it isn't as difficult as all that. A problem shared is problem halved.

If RN wants T31 as planned, the all "firsts" cannot be shared. RN is the first to do it. Maybe the cost could be shared, but the time will not be. After the T31 hull1,2 and 3 are on duty, I think RN can take time to do trial and verification on "Mk.41+ExLS(insert)". 1-2 years of delay on hull 4 and 5 is not a big issue, because RN can simply "double crew" all the first 3 hulls with 600 souls (100x3x2), and man-power shortage will not allow further mass, anyway.

RN need to hurry on T31, I think.

[Ron5]

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

If FADS becomes a reality what would a T83 actually look like?

It may not be what everyone is expecting.

Not sure what you read into FADS seeing that it has not been fully defined or published but this pretty picture makes the T83 look very much like a T45 in capability with the addition of CEC.

The pretty picture could be the US Navy today, all the pieces are currently in service.

The Royal Navy is not a million miles away. No CEC but other datalinks connect the assets. No DEW but Dragonfire in development. FC/ASW for long range land attack. Crowsnest for the ship based ISR.

[serge750]

The T31 reverts back to Iver Huitfeldt base design and 6x are built for around £450 unit or £2.7bn

Unfortunately the Polish order gives an indicator of the price of an upgunned T31 and it's a lot more than 450 mill

[jedibeeftrix]

The T31 reverts back to Iver Huitfeldt base design and 6x are built for around £450 unit or £2.7bn

Unfortunately the Polish order gives an indicator of the price of an upgunned T31 and it's a lot more than 450 mill

I’m shocked I tell you… shocked!

[abc123]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

[donald_of_tokyo]

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

At least for me, I want to replace 4.5' gun with 57mm gun to stop wasting weight and man-power. By doing so, CAMM upgrade to T45 can increase the load from 24 CAMM to 48. Also, it will reduce the man-power, which is very precious these days.

In addition, 57mm gun has much better AAW capability than 4.5' which lost its AAW ammo decade ago. Also, 57mm gun can much better handle fast-boat swarm, a threat T45 in Red Sea can face.

Just why I support replacing 4.5' gun.

[abc123]

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

At least for me, I want to replace 4.5' gun with 57mm gun to stop wasting weight and man-power. By doing so, CAMM upgrade to T45 can increase the load from 24 CAMM to 48. Also, it will reduce the man-power, which is very precious these days.

In addition, 57mm gun has much better AAW capability than 4.5' which lost its AAW ammo decade ago. Also, 57mm gun can much better handle fast-boat swarm, a threat T45 in Red Sea can face.

Just why I support replacing 4.5' gun.

Yes, but.
Putting the 57 mm will increase the time the T45 destroyers will spend in shipyards, and at the time when the UK has only one active out of six, will not exactly help to retain the sailors. It will also cost the money, OK, 57 mm gun isn't exactly expencive, but IMHO adding NSM and CAMM is much more important. If you use a billion pounds destroyer in a way that it could be attacked by a swarm of Houti speedboats- your'e doeing it wrong. Also, while having a few members of a crew less is good to plug the holes, removing them also isn't good for damage control and ship's maintenance.

[Poiuytrewq]

The T31 reverts back to Iver Huitfeldt base design and 6x are built for around £450 unit or £2.7bn

Unfortunately the Polish order gives an indicator of the price of an upgunned T31 and it's a lot more than 450 mill

I feel your pain Ron.

Comparing procurement costs between countries is notoriously inaccurate but thats not important.

If we can agree that currently the T31 is going to cost around £350m unit, what upgrades could be added for an additional £100m unit.

Can enough value be squeezed out of the T31 and enough capability squeezed in to allow the T45’s to concentrate on protecting the CSG.

IMO this is much more important now than securing the funding for the T32 program.

[SW1]

Just like Australia and Canadian programs are indicative off uk type 26 costs…..

[Ron5]

The T31 reverts back to Iver Huitfeldt base design and 6x are built for around £450 unit or £2.7bn

Unfortunately the Polish order gives an indicator of the price of an upgunned T31 and it's a lot more than 450 mill

I feel your pain Ron.

Comparing procurement costs between countries is notoriously inaccurate but thats not important.

If we can agree that currently the T31 is going to cost around £350m unit, what upgrades could be added for an additional £100m unit.

Can enough value be squeezed out of the T31 and enough capability squeezed in to allow the T45’s to concentrate on protecting the CSG.

IMO this is much more important now than securing the funding for the T32 program.

I don't disagree with your fundamental point but I would expect Babcock's to quote a much higher price just to repeat the currently configured T31. Inflation and lack of competitive pressure is a bitch. Well, two bitches to be precise.

[Tempest414]

We now know that 20 CAMM can be fitted in the space of 16 Mk-41 as proven on the NZ frigates so fitting 40 in the space of 32 Mk-41 should be straight forward so upgrading a type 31 to say have 30 CAMM and 10 CAMM ER plus 16 NSM should not cost that much and it would be capable of choke point duties

This would give us a Type 31 with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 40 CAMM , 16 NSM , 1 Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom

[wargame_insomniac]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

[shark bait]

The destroyers would absolutely benefit from a modern, smaller and more usable gun.

However it benefits more from engines that actually work, increased missile capacity, and ABM upgrades. All of these things sound pricey, and it seems unlikely the Navy would prioritise a gun swap above these.

[wargame_insomniac]

The destroyers would absolutely benefit from a modern, smaller and more usable gun.

However it benefits more from engines that actually work, increased missile capacity, and ABM upgrades. All of these things sound pricey, and it seems unlikely the Navy would prioritise a gun swap above these.

For me the key is how many of those things could be carried out sequentially and how many of those things that could be done concurrently.

I.e. if the T45 is in dry docks to have the new engines fitted in rear of ship as part of PIP, why could nt they have additional VLS launchers fitted at the front of the ship?