Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Silly indeed. There is a Gibraltar thread where this would be more suitable comes under deployments.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Maybe it is time to fit a old 4.5" naval gun on Gib
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Really? I was under the impression the sonar is the same, it is the handling gear that is differentdonald_of_tokyo wrote:CAPTAS-4 and CAPTAS-4CI differs a lot. It is not the same sonar, even sometimes many here forgets.
I don't expect it will. There is a reason why the RN has typically kept ASW and AAW separate because quite simply the same ship would need to be in different places to be effective at each job.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Even so, T45 do not carry MTLS. So clearly, it is NOT a matter of cost, it is just a matter of will. --> So I say SDSR2020, which will define the will.
The T45 is not the solution to the submarine problem, copying the french is the solution.
@LandSharkUK
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I agree the need to fit more AAW missiles like CAMM is what T-45 needs and if we need more ASW then fit CAPTAS-4IC to T-31shark bait wrote:I don't expect it will. There is a reason why the RN has typically kept ASW and AAW separate because quite simply the same ship would need to be in different places to be effective at each job.
The T45 is not the solution to the submarine problem, copying the french is the solution.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
To increase the ASW capabilities of the RN fleet, there are a number of possibilities:
1. Purchase more Poseidon P8s, to allow for coverage of multiple, separate areas (e.g. CASD and carrier group)
2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.
3. Increase numbers of ASW Merlins by moving crowsnest capabilities to another platform (UAV?), or purchase alternative platform for CHF freeing Merlin Mk4s for conversion to ASW.
4. Add HMS and Captas 2 to T31 for TAPS role, freeing T26 for other duties.
5. Build more T26.
Adding a tail and torpedoes to T45 would be an almost pointless exercise, given that they will be solely occupied providing AAW defence to carrier groups. If you did want to increase the ASW capabilities of a T45, embark a ASW Merlin.
1. Purchase more Poseidon P8s, to allow for coverage of multiple, separate areas (e.g. CASD and carrier group)
2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.
3. Increase numbers of ASW Merlins by moving crowsnest capabilities to another platform (UAV?), or purchase alternative platform for CHF freeing Merlin Mk4s for conversion to ASW.
4. Add HMS and Captas 2 to T31 for TAPS role, freeing T26 for other duties.
5. Build more T26.
Adding a tail and torpedoes to T45 would be an almost pointless exercise, given that they will be solely occupied providing AAW defence to carrier groups. If you did want to increase the ASW capabilities of a T45, embark a ASW Merlin.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5585
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thales guy clearly state that;shark bait wrote:Really? I was under the impression the sonar is the same, it is the handling gear that is differentdonald_of_tokyo wrote:CAPTAS-4 and CAPTAS-4CI differs a lot. It is not the same sonar, even sometimes many here forgets.
"... we just slightly reduced the length of the tow-cable, in order to reduce the total weight." 3:30 of this youtube.
He also state, "more or less, keep the performance of CAPTAS-4 ...".
As the active range is proportional to square-root of square-root distance ( (distance)^(0.25) ), I guess he is saying the difference is small. Although this is guess, there is no way getting the same capability with reduced sonar length.
I understand CAPTAS-4CI is NOT replacing CAPTAS-4. It is a parallel product.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5585
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
shark bait wrote:I don't expect it will. There is a reason why the RN has typically kept ASW and AAW separate because quite simply the same ship would need to be in different places to be effective at each job.
The T45 is not the solution to the submarine problem, copying the french is the solution.
No big objection, so I stated it is a matter of WILL.Tempest414 wrote:I agree the need to fit more AAW missiles like CAMM is what T-45 needs and if we need more ASW then fit CAPTAS-4IC to T-31
But, I am not still clear T31 getting CAPTAS-4CI (or CAPTAS-2 or even CAPTAS-1) is a good way to go. We know T23GP sometimes (frequently?) do not even carry ASW crew. In other words, many of the tasks for T31e have zero ASW need.
To say the truth, I really want to see T31e with CAPTAS-4CI, or even CAPTAS-1. But, adding CAPTAS to T31 will cost a lot:
- add ASW system to its CMS, (more computational power and an ASW software kit)
- add torpedo arsenal for Wildcat
- add ASW crew
- in addition to adding a hull-sonar and a CAPTAS1/2/4/4CI.
May be we can add ASW to only 2 (or 3) of the planned 5 hulls? (not sure...)
On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.
In addition, adding CAPTAS to T45 is much cheaper than to T31e:
- CMS has an ASW system, we only need to improve it. Computational power is already very high, so we just need to version-up the ASW software.
- torpedo arsenal is there
- ASW crew is there, we only need to add a few
- a small hull sonar is already there, and we only need to add a CAPTAS1/2/4/4CI.
[EDIT: add] - also, they already have a Merlin capable hangar, with a Chinook-capable huge flight deck.
Clearly, adding CAPTAS-4CI (or 2) to T45 is much cheaper than to T31e. Of course, as Aethulwulf-san says, it will be much more effective to add a few P-8As, but there is a gap P-8A cannot deploy with CVTF.
Still thinking. At least for me, the answer is NOT crystal clear. Worth discussing.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I don't think that is true, just like the T45's the GP's have an under water warfare department and a couple of years back one of the GP's participated in a NATO sub hunting exercise.donald_of_tokyo wrote: We know T23GP sometimes (frequently?) do not even carry ASW crew.
@LandSharkUK
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
What I would like to see going forward is T45 getting 48 CAMM added first and maybe a fixed carrier group i.e something likedonald_of_tokyo wrote: On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.
HMS QE , HMS Dragon & Defender , HMS Kent & Portland + a Tide class and a SSS & the same for HMS POW
after this then maybe the remaining 2 T45s fitted with CAPTAS-4CI
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Maybe it generates too much noise to be a good platform for asw in any form
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
A US carrier group typically deploys with at least 4 or 5 escorts made up of a Tico-CCG and Arleigh Burke-DDGs, plus a SSN. The SSN is the primary ASW asset of the group, coupled with the surface escorts and helicopters and P8s.Tempest414 wrote:What I would like to see going forward is T45 getting 48 CAMM added first and maybe a fixed carrier group i.e something likedonald_of_tokyo wrote: On T45 with ASW or not, we all know Tico-CCG has good ASW sonar. Many of the Arleigh Burke-DDG also have it. I think it means, at least for USN, "tactical restriction" of AAW asset for ASW warfare is not big. Why not T45? I never got good answer.
HMS QE , HMS Dragon & Defender , HMS Kent & Portland + a Tide class and a SSS & the same for HMS POW
after this then maybe the remaining 2 T45s fitted with CAPTAS-4CI
For the UK, the SSN is not under the direct command of the Carrier Group and would normally be somewhat more detached from the group than US practice. Two T45s will provide the primary AAW cover and two T23/T26s the primary ASW cover. With only two T45s, they MUST always have to be positioned at the optimum location for AAW within the Group's formation. If you were to fit them out for ASW and send them off sub hunting, it would critically weaken the AAW defence. The best locations within the Group formation for AAW and ASW are not compatible.
The UK only has six T45s. It will take ALL SIX to maintain two at very high readiness with the primary carrier group, and two at high readiness with the secondary group. There will be no spare T45s for other duties (unless their role within the group is taken on by a partner nation). The remaining two will be in refit and/or training.
There is very little point in trying to outfit a T45 for anything more than basic ASW (e.g. a HMS and a Wildcat).In addition, the T45s are quite noisy and were never designed to be a quiet ASW ship.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Yes, andAethulwulf wrote:2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.
YesAethulwulf wrote:5. Build more T26.
Plus off board UUV ASW capabilities. Forget trying to turn the T31e into a ASW ship, it will cost more than it gives.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It rather depends on where & why you want to perform your ASW.Aethulwulf wrote:To increase the ASW capabilities of the RN fleet, there are a number of possibilities:
1. Purchase more Poseidon P8s, to allow for coverage of multiple, separate areas (e.g. CASD and carrier group)
2. Add to ASW to Protector UAV, as a force multiplier for the P8s.
3. Increase numbers of ASW Merlins by moving crowsnest capabilities to another platform (UAV?), or purchase alternative platform for CHF freeing Merlin Mk4s for conversion to ASW.
4. Add HMS and Captas 2 to T31 for TAPS role, freeing T26 for other duties.
5. Build more T26.
Adding a tail and torpedoes to T45 would be an almost pointless exercise, given that they will be solely occupied providing AAW defence to carrier groups. If you did want to increase the ASW capabilities of a T45, embark a ASW Merlin.
To protect the outer fringes of a carrier group, clearly more T26 (and Merlins to equip them if there aren't enough to go around) and more SSN to ensure 100% coverage. A few more P-8's won't do much good given where a CVG could be expected to operate.
For inner CVG defense, towed arrays are not usable but more decent hull mounted sonars on a platform that can deliver a Stingray would help. Yes, T45's can do this to a limited degree (limited mostly by their horrendous noise). Of course T26's would be great but T31's with HMS & Wildcat could work well as a cheaper substitute. I believe there are already enough ASW Merlins to fully load the carrier.
On the other hand, a few more P-8's would be very helpful keeping UK waters submarine free. As would more SSN.
I have no idea what a Protector could bring to the table. Very little I would have thought. A high resolution radar to detect periscopes maybe? But by the time reinforcements could be called up to actual pursue the contact, it would be well gone.
UUVs in littorals maybe, but for CVG defense, some ways down the line. If ever.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Doesn't the RFI for the T-31e fail to mention any sonar, hull mounted or otherwise? Unless things change its sole contribution to ASW will be whatever helicopter is carries. Moving forward I think the UKs best bet would be to place a follow on order for P-8s as the first order of business. This in fact validates the argument for building the T-31e as cheaply as possible to free up funding that could go some way towards achieving this goal.
It does seem though that at present the MoD/Government seem to want to both create the Carrier Group and still conduct ASW operations in the North Atlantic as it did in the 1980s and 90s. The current planned fleet can only really do one or the other. The new carriers are not really suited to the role of ASW carrier like the Invincibles were. Having VL-ASROC on the T-26s would give them a certain amount of stand off ASW capability that would allow the Merlins to operate further out.
As it stands the T-31e is going to be a less capable replacement for the GP T-23s and so we are going to have to learn to live with only 8 true ASW platforms in the form of the T-26. If we want more ASW assets then we should really look at whether we should build the T-31e at all. £1.25Bn would certainly allow more ASW focused assets to be purchased, and the two LSS would cover some of the forward presence requirements that were to be filled by the T-31e.
Thinking of ASW assets, if we could develop a VTOL ASW UCAV that could be directed by the sensors on a T026 for example, that was able to carry two Stingray and was small enough and three or even four could be carried by a T-26, that would be a force multiplier. Sort of like a DASH drone for the 21st century.
It does seem though that at present the MoD/Government seem to want to both create the Carrier Group and still conduct ASW operations in the North Atlantic as it did in the 1980s and 90s. The current planned fleet can only really do one or the other. The new carriers are not really suited to the role of ASW carrier like the Invincibles were. Having VL-ASROC on the T-26s would give them a certain amount of stand off ASW capability that would allow the Merlins to operate further out.
As it stands the T-31e is going to be a less capable replacement for the GP T-23s and so we are going to have to learn to live with only 8 true ASW platforms in the form of the T-26. If we want more ASW assets then we should really look at whether we should build the T-31e at all. £1.25Bn would certainly allow more ASW focused assets to be purchased, and the two LSS would cover some of the forward presence requirements that were to be filled by the T-31e.
Thinking of ASW assets, if we could develop a VTOL ASW UCAV that could be directed by the sensors on a T026 for example, that was able to carry two Stingray and was small enough and three or even four could be carried by a T-26, that would be a force multiplier. Sort of like a DASH drone for the 21st century.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Since 2018 the Arleigh Burkes in the west Pacific have been fitted with the TB-37/U Multi Function Towed Array Sonar System ,this may be a stop gap measure to address the numbers of submarines in that region ,there is no information if an Arleigh Burke is any noisier than a Daring ,or if the deployment of the towed array have been successful
Should a specialised aaw destroyer ever be required to do other roles than as escort to the carrier need further capabilities for asw is the question for the R.N with only a small number of warships
Should a specialised aaw destroyer ever be required to do other roles than as escort to the carrier need further capabilities for asw is the question for the R.N with only a small number of warships
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It mentions it in a number of placesLord Jim wrote:Doesn't the RFI for the T-31e fail to mention any sonar, hull mounted or otherwise?
It would probably be a good idea if a few people actually read the RFI. To make it easy - here's the latest link
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1e_RFI.pdf
The RFI explicitly asks for information on (non-exhaustive list):
"Details of any active/passive sonar to detect submarines, including how an active hull-mounted sonar could be integrated";
"FTR hull mounted sonar";
"Stealthy / self noise limiting speed to allow active sonar usage where fitted.";
"Details on any signature management/reduction features for: .......... iii. Underwater Radiated Noise.............;
"Pragmatic non-acoustic and acoustic signature reduction features and management systems.";
"Use Torpedoes and Depth Charges /Details of helicopter launched and any ship launched systems and numbers";
"Details of proposed above water and below water defensive countermeasure systems ";
"FTR Surface Ship Torpedo Defence";
"Entry-level ASW".
Pretty clear to me that they are interested in both active and passive sonar and ASW features, even if not "optimised for URN".
See also references to "Consort Defence", "Greater MTG Interoperability" and "Land Strike", among others, under the Adaptability heading
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
What's difference between consort defence and an escort? Where do you draw the line between tje two? Genuine questions.Caribbean wrote:It mentions it in a number of placesLord Jim wrote:Doesn't the RFI for the T-31e fail to mention any sonar, hull mounted or otherwise?
It would probably be a good idea if a few people actually read the RFI. To make it easy - here's the latest link
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1e_RFI.pdf
The RFI explicitly asks for information on (non-exhaustive list):
"Details of any active/passive sonar to detect submarines, including how an active hull-mounted sonar could be integrated";
"FTR hull mounted sonar";
"Stealthy / self noise limiting speed to allow active sonar usage where fitted.";
"Details on any signature management/reduction features for: .......... iii. Underwater Radiated Noise.............;
"Pragmatic non-acoustic and acoustic signature reduction features and management systems.";
"Use Torpedoes and Depth Charges /Details of helicopter launched and any ship launched systems and numbers";
"Details of proposed above water and below water defensive countermeasure systems ";
"FTR Surface Ship Torpedo Defence";
"Entry-level ASW".
Pretty clear to me that they are interested in both active and passive sonar and ASW features, even if not "optimised for URN".
See also references to "Consort Defence", "Greater MTG Interoperability" and "Land Strike", among others, under the Adaptability heading
The problem with the RFI, despite requesting info about possible ASW features, is that it doesn't mandate any ASW features. For example, the minimum spec is FTR hull mounted sonar, rather than actually including a hull mounted sonar.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It's not a spec - it's a Request For Information, as in "here's the parameters of the project, now what can we get for the money - give us the trade-offs?"dmereifield wrote:the minimum spec is FTR hull mounted sonar
Edit
Any ship can be an "escort", not all can "defend a consort"dmereifield wrote:What's difference between consort defence and an escort?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
For consort defence, the T31 would need Sea Ceptor and Artisan (or better). A ship with only Phalanx or SeaRAM would not be enough. (Remember, the T31 RFI did not mandate Sea Ceptor/Artisan.) While debatable, it is likely that consort defence would required a ship with at least 24 Sea Ceptor missiles.
It could also be argued that consort defence requires at least a basic ASW fit (e.g. a HMS and Wildcat). But this is more debatable.
It could also be argued that consort defence requires at least a basic ASW fit (e.g. a HMS and Wildcat). But this is more debatable.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Well can the T-31e deliver a useable ASW escort for the RN?
If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?
It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.
If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?
It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The quick answer is no.Lord Jim wrote:Well can the T-31e deliver a useable ASW escort for the RN?
If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?
It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.
The RN did not/does not require the T31 to be a ASW escort. Unless there is a major change, this will continue to be the case for the RN.
However, to sell this as a ship for export, the message from industry is it will need to be able to be fitted for ASW. All three base designs left in the running are able to be fitted for ASW. So, in theory, the RN's T31 could also be outfitted for ASW. However, such a ASW T31 would still not be good enough to replace a T26 within a carrier group.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Depends on what you mean by useable. If all it's features are exploited, it will be as capable, if slightly less quiet, than a T23GP. With a towed array (which it seems most of the proposals have allowed for), probably more capable (though further quietening could no doubt be built into future variants, presumably at greater cost)Lord Jim wrote:Well can the T-31e deliver a useable ASW escort for the RN?
No - the lesson has been learned from that particular mistake, the T31 will have capacity to grow somewhat. I believe by around 20%, but I can't find where I got that figure fromLord Jim wrote:If it can is it going to be another T-21, where there is no growth left in the design for future development?
The RN does not have any plans to use this batch as an ASW escort (i.e. to protect others) - that does not necessarily mean that it will have no defensive ASW capabilities (eg SSTD)Lord Jim wrote:It is interesting that in the RFI under "Capability Context", there is no mention of ASW whatsoever.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
But only one option has modern propulsion plant suitable for for ASW. Easy to retrofit sensors, difficult to retrofit propulsion.Aethulwulf wrote:All three base designs left in the running are able to be fitted for ASW. So, in theory, the RN's T31 could also be outfitted for ASW
Lender is the only option with electric propulsion, making it the only option suitable for ASW.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4089
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The French are taking a very different approach with the FTI and it's CODAD propulsion combined with the CAPTAS 4 Compact.shark bait wrote:Lender is the only option with electric propulsion, making it the only option suitable for ASW.
If it works on the FTI surely there is little reason why it can't be made to work on something like Arrowhead 140.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Electric propulsion does not automatically mean quiet - as is demonstrated by the T45.shark bait wrote:But only one option has modern propulsion plant suitable for for ASW. Easy to retrofit sensors, difficult to retrofit propulsion.Aethulwulf wrote:All three base designs left in the running are able to be fitted for ASW. So, in theory, the RN's T31 could also be outfitted for ASW
Lender is the only option with electric propulsion, making it the only option suitable for ASW.