UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5857
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 13 Sep 2019, 09:31

Lord Jim wrote:IF Artisan sets are available from the GP T-23s I am pretty sure they will use them

Thales are the system integrator, and Thales are supply their own combat system, so there's a high change they will also supply their own radar.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 497
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Dahedd » 13 Sep 2019, 09:56

If that's the case would the Artisans be better saved for use on the FLSS & replacements for the Forts?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5857
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 13 Sep 2019, 10:05

Or sell the ships? They'll have new engines, missiles, and radars so they might be quite valuable.
@LandSharkUK

inch
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 13 Sep 2019, 10:18

Just a quick one , which is the better radar artisan or this ns100 ?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 13 Sep 2019, 10:27

I think that they are aimed at broadly the same market, but that the S100 is a newer system, so may have some tecnological advantages.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/ns100-3d-naval-air-and-surface-surveillance-radar
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Sep 2019, 21:46

One thing I have been wondering on the A140 design is how come they went for 2 small boat bays side by side and not one larger bay that could can 2 small boats nose to nose or one larger boat ?

cky7
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cky7 » 13 Sep 2019, 23:32

Still not happy myself, these are just a cut in disguise. We should have had 13 type 26s (or 16 ideally) and these should only be looked at after this. They’re not ‘good’ for when things get really hot and don’t bring much to the table in cooler situations that can’t be done with a river type patrol ship. They can try and spin about off board systems they’ll never actually buy all they like, this just ain’t good enough. A legacy of that vile worm Cameron and his total happiness to sell defence down the river. When sailors die cos the RN isn’t as well armed as it could be yet tossers like him have sent them in anyway he won’t even feel guilty.

Silly marketing schemes about crying and praying to allah aren’t gonna get us the numbers of the right types iof people. The thing that’s putting young folks off is that we hear nothing positive about any of the services and they constantly shrink and become smaller than they were. Who wouldn’t worry about being part of an organisation that’s constantly shrinking and has less money relatively every year?

I honestly can’t be positive about our defence anymore. None of the politicians give a shit and will ever have the guts to spend what we should and the guys putting their lives on the line deserve. I just want to do all I can to call them on their spin and bullshit every time I see it. Fed up with people not doing it - they don’t care about our forces in anyway and ought to have the guts to admit other things, including turd world vanity projects to pay for those who’d never help us are a higher priority for them. :(

Yeah, I’m pissed off tonight!!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3484
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Sep 2019, 05:00

Politicians have been selling the Armed Forces down the river so to speak since the end of the World War 2. As soon as a Politician get elected all they are really bothered about is doing whatever is needed to get re elected at the next election and what is in the nation's interest does not appear on their radar very often. Because defence spending does not win votes in most cases and is vulnerable to "Efficiencies", it really needs to be taken out of the hand of these people.

Yes they must still be responsible for when and where the Armed Forces are used, but the size and make up of them should be the result of regular independent reviews which determine what threats exist to the UK and its interests, how likely they are and what is needed to counter these. These results should be combined with the Governments aspirations regarding the use of the country's Armed Forces and an overall funding requirement put before parliament. If Parliament decide the funding level is too high then they are free to adjust the aspirations, but the core spending needs to meet the threat level laid out in the Review would be sacrosanct.

If he threat level has reduced over a period of time then the Review may recommend that less equipment is needed, but these reviews would take the long view and take into account how long it would take to regenerate to the current level is the threat levels rose and err on the size of caution.

The above would prevent gaps in capability and in the placing of orders to replace old or obsolete equipment. In all likelihood this would mean a steady stream of orders for equipment which would have to be good for industry, jobs and skill levels. Would we buy all the equipment to meet our defence needs from UK based companies, no, but the latter would be in a far better position to compete for these orders as a result of the confidence they would have in the availability or actual orders and hence more likely to invest in their infrastructure and manpower.

So finally turning to escorts, how many and what type do people think are needed to cover the six priorities laid down by the Admiral recently? This is not a blank cheque, but rather what is actually needed not nice to have.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 14 Sep 2019, 07:42

Aethulwulf wrote:Up arming OPVs is also pointless speculation, as again it will not happen.


Rear Admiral Paul Halton at DSEI, “We are thinking about how we might enhance the lethality of the Batch II OPVs”.

Now I don’t think he was seriously considering pimping Thai style, and I suspect it’s more larger gun and LMM, but either he is off script or this is very much being considered, and part of the RN strategy to cover non CEPP/TAPS commitments (along with the 5 T31s).

Personally, I would buy and keep HMS Clyde as the Falklands Patrol Ship, but assuming they don’t, how should the 5 T31s and 4 B2s be deployed and configured to support these commitments?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

cky7
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cky7 » 14 Sep 2019, 13:08

Lord Jim wrote:Politicians have been selling the Armed Forces down the river so to speak since the end of the World War 2. As soon as a Politician get elected all they are really bothered about is doing whatever is needed to get re elected at the next election and what is in the nation's interest does not appear on their radar very often. Because defence spending does not win votes in most cases and is vulnerable to "Efficiencies", it really needs to be taken out of the hand of these people.

Yes they must still be responsible for when and where the Armed Forces are used, but the size and make up of them should be the result of regular independent reviews which determine what threats exist to the UK and its interests, how likely they are and what is needed to counter these. These results should be combined with the Governments aspirations regarding the use of the country's Armed Forces and an overall funding requirement put before parliament. If Parliament decide the funding level is too high then they are free to adjust the aspirations, but the core spending needs to meet the threat level laid out in the Review would be sacrosanct.

If he threat level has reduced over a period of time then the Review may recommend that less equipment is needed, but these reviews would take the long view and take into account how long it would take to regenerate to the current level is the threat levels rose and err on the size of caution.

The above would prevent gaps in capability and in the placing of orders to replace old or obsolete equipment. In all likelihood this would mean a steady stream of orders for equipment which would have to be good for industry, jobs and skill levels. Would we buy all the equipment to meet our defence needs from UK based companies, no, but the latter would be in a far better position to compete for these orders as a result of the confidence they would have in the availability or actual orders and hence more likely to invest in their infrastructure and manpower.

So finally turning to escorts, how many and what type do people think are needed to cover the six priorities laid down by the Admiral recently? This is not a blank cheque, but rather what is actually needed not nice to have.



I’d like to see them held accountable if their decisions lead to deaths where they’ve sent troops off to fight having previously cut back or not provided kit that could have saved lives. Tony Blair and Gordon brown along with in the future the worm Cameron are prime examples. It was fully known how vulnerable none MRAP vehicles were to IEDs before Iraq/Afghanistan yet they cut efforts to provide sufficient amounts before hand then sent our people over to die and be crippled in their hundreds a few years later. Lack of sufficient heli air support is another example. This sort of thing ought to lead to criminal convictions with serious sentences for the man at the very top. That or Euan Blair ought to have been in the first snatches on every dangerous mission! Bet either of these would guarantee they’d either start spending what they should or face the embarrassment of having to admit we don’t have the resources to be able to do anything. I know people will say it’s impractical but I really think it should be forced to be this way. Choosing to send someone to give their life shouldn’t be a decision taken at all lightly and should be something you really worry over. At the moment it’s clear they’re too self centred to actually give the slightest bit of a damn despite what they say. Having to face the consequences themselves is the only way the lot we’ve got would ever take it seriously I’m afraid

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 14 Sep 2019, 13:22

Lord Jim wrote:the six priorities laid down by the Admiral recently?


Six, I’ve read five?
    North Atlantic
    Carrier strike
    Future commando force
    Forward presence
    Technology and innovation
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3484
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Sep 2019, 14:39

Ok five then if it makes people happy. :D

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 14 Sep 2019, 15:19

Lord Jim wrote:Ok five then if it makes people happy. :D


I was expecting CASD which is why I asked in case I was going mad...
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 14 Sep 2019, 15:49

Moving over from the T31 News thread re: River B2 Improving lethality
inch wrote:Can't see them arming them too much tho caribbean ,1) have no cash to spare prob with t31 about to kick off 2) and if did would only be very minor leathality increase lmm maybe ?

That was my initial thought - I posted on the River thread that I thought that the uparming would primarily be bolting on infantry/ light vehicle weapons system, such as 50 cal and possibly 40mm AGL (as was done for the MCMVs in the Gulf), as well as the obvious LMM upgrade to the 30mm ASCG, however I am now thinking that the RN may possibly be considering making maximum use of the platform by adding a 76mm and a second 30mm and moving the 30mms to the bridge wings, as the Thais have done. Likewise, decoys and countermeasures would be fairly simple to add and would involve no major surgery to the structure.

An HMS like Bluewatcher could be useful, but might involve some more serious work (though it's specifically designed for retrofitting to existing hulls, I believe, so maybe it wouldn't be as bad as I think).

However, once you start talking about CAMM etc., you need to either start paying for integration with, or replacing, the Scanter 4100 radar, which may drive costs up sharply.

It would be interesting to see how much you could get for an additional £10m per hull (leaving aside support costs for now)
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/thales-bluewatcher-0
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/captas-1-variable-depth-sonar

Poiuytrewq wrote:Good point. I have always said they should have been fitted with a 57mm/76mm and two 30mm's at build, adding LMM even better. A Camcopter S-100 or similar would be a big help but Captas 1 or 2 might be a bit OTT.

Agreed. As noted above, I think an OPV-level HMS might be more appropriate. The T31 is a better candidate for a towed array, if we are thinking of spending that much money
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

tomuk
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 14 Sep 2019, 16:14

cky7 wrote:They’re not ‘good’ for when things get really hot and don’t bring much to the table in cooler situations that can’t be done with a river type patrol ship.

This is complete nonsense. The parent design, the Iver Huitfeldt, is the Danish equivalent of the Type 45 AAW destroyer.

In a 'cool' situation I'm sure a 9000nm range, full aviation facilities with Merlin sized hangar, four large boat bays and 4x TEU mission space are worse capabilities than a B2 River.

In a 'hot' they will be equipped as well as a Type 23 for none ASW roles. Large calibre gun, Sea Ceptor, Tacitis CMS, Ns100 radar, NSM, 30mm etc. Plus they will have the ability to fit both hull mounted and towed sonar (export options).

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 14 Sep 2019, 16:22

tomuk wrote:
cky7 wrote:They’re not ‘good’ for when things get really hot and don’t bring much to the table in cooler situations that can’t be done with a river type patrol ship.

This is complete nonsense. The parent design, the Iver Huitfeldt, is the Danish equivalent of the Type 45 AAW destroyer.

In a 'cool' situation I'm sure a 9000nm range, full aviation facilities with Merlin sized hangar, four large boat bays and 4x TEU mission space are worse capabilities than a B2 River.

In a 'hot' they will be equipped as well as a Type 23 for none ASW roles. Large calibre gun, Sea Ceptor, Tacitis CMS, Ns100 radar, NSM, 30mm etc. Plus they will have the ability to fit both hull mounted and towed sonar (export options).


Where has it been confirmed that they will have NSM? I'd be surprised if they come with ASM, or as many CAMM as a T23.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 14 Sep 2019, 18:56

All CGIs published show them with at least a 24 mushroom cells amidships and adjacent deck space for 8x ASM whatever the Navy buys.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 14 Sep 2019, 23:11

Yes, I think they'll get 24 Camm, and I'm almost certain they'll get the space for the 8 ASM's, but not the actual ASM's (upon commission at least, hopefully they'll get them later down the line)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3484
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Sep 2019, 01:05

For me the biggest need is for a Bow mounted sonar, And I wouldn't be surprised now things are moving forward that they try to find the cash somewhere to have one fitted during construction, either second hand off the T-23s or new optimised for littoral operations. Seeing what results from the finalisation of the contract I going to be interesting and the capability of the ships could exceed the RFI.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 15 Sep 2019, 07:54

dmereifield wrote:Yes, I think they'll get 24 Camm, and I'm almost certain they'll get the space for the 8 ASM's, but not the actual ASM's (upon commission at least, hopefully they'll get them later down the line)


I think we could very well get them with the transfer of equipment from the T23s, we have 13 sets that will in the end be coming from them and the T26 won’t be having any.
13 sets freed up in the end would give us the 5 T31’s and the extra 2 T45s that’s are needed. Why not fit them if you have them left over just like they did with the T22s

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 15 Sep 2019, 08:50

Jake1992 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Yes, I think they'll get 24 Camm, and I'm almost certain they'll get the space for the 8 ASM's, but not the actual ASM's (upon commission at least, hopefully they'll get them later down the line)


I think we could very well get them with the transfer of equipment from the T23s, we have 13 sets that will in the end be coming from them and the T26 won’t be having any.
13 sets freed up in the end would give us the 5 T31’s and the extra 2 T45s that’s are needed. Why not fit them if you have them left over just like they did with the T22s


Makes sense to me, but the interim set of ASM's is for 5 sets, which seems not to tie up well with Harpoons hanging around in the mid 20's, so I doubt they will be on the T31's

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 15 Sep 2019, 09:03

dmereifield wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Yes, I think they'll get 24 Camm, and I'm almost certain they'll get the space for the 8 ASM's, but not the actual ASM's (upon commission at least, hopefully they'll get them later down the line)


I think we could very well get them with the transfer of equipment from the T23s, we have 13 sets that will in the end be coming from them and the T26 won’t be having any.
13 sets freed up in the end would give us the 5 T31’s and the extra 2 T45s that’s are needed. Why not fit them if you have them left over just like they did with the T22s


Makes sense to me, but the interim set of ASM's is for 5 sets, which seems not to tie up well with Harpoons hanging around in the mid 20's, so I doubt they will be on the T31's


Having the missiles and having the equipment fitted to launch them is a very different thing. The T26s will have the ability and equipment to launch any missile that is Mk41 compatible, that doesn’t mean they’ll have all those missiles on board.

If the canisters are fitted it’s very easy and and lot more likely that the extra missile can and will be ordered compared to not having that equipment in place.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3484
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Sep 2019, 09:21

Until we see what is chosen for the RN's interim AShM everything up up for grabs. How such a weapon is launched could have a bearing on this as could how the FCASW evolves. The A140 has plenty of deck space for both canisters and even Mk41s (who knows what the future holds ten plus years down the line). But I can see the T-31e being almost certainly FFBNW for whatever system is chosen, and its CMS and so on modified as a result. This is where the A140 comes up trumps as its design is such it enable an almost plug in and play option for new equipment even though the RN will not be using Stanflex modules like the Danes.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Sep 2019, 10:20

donald_of_tokyo wrote:New details from SafetheRoyalNavy site on T31 Arrowhead. Interesting read.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-d ... te-emerge/

The agreed timeframe will see steel cut in 2021, the first vessel in the water in 2023 and delivery of the five frigates between 2024 – 2028.

Note, it is "delivery" = handing over, not commissioning. I guess it is 1 hull per year. In addition, RN will be handed-over some T26s (here I assume it is 1.5 years drumbeat). Summed up, I can reasonably "guess";

- 2023 T23GP-1 decommission :::: total = -1
- 2024 T23GP-2 decommission, T31-1 delivered :::: total = -1
- 2025 T23GP-3 decommission, T31-2 delivered, T26-1 delivered :::: total = 0
- 2026 T23GP-4 decommission, T31-3 delivered :::: total = 0
- 2027 T23GP-5 decommission, T31-4 delivered, T26-2 delivered :::: total = +1
- 2028 T23ASW-1 decommission, T31-5 delivered, T26-3 delivered :::: total = +2
- 2029 T23ASW-2 decommission, :::: total = +1
- 2030 T23ASW-3 decommission, T26-4 delivered :::: total = +1
- 2031 T23ASW-4 decommission, T26-5 delivered :::: total = +1
- 2032 T23ASW-5 decommission, :::: total = +0
- 2033 T23ASW-6 decommission, T26-6 delivered :::: total = 0
- 2034 T23ASW-7 decommission, T26-7 delivered :::: total = 0
- 2035 T23ASW-8 decommission, :::: total = -1
- 2036 T26-8 delivered :::: total = 0

#I used "decommission" and "hand over/deliver" and not "commission", focusing on man-power resource.

Note this is just guess-work. :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Sep 2019, 12:24

Caribbean wrote:The STRN graphic also notes the Thales UMS 4110 HMS as a possibility - seems like a fairly capable system (used on Horizon and FREMM)
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/ums-4110-hull-mounted-sonar
Shown in the graphic, but none in the document. As HMS is noted as "fit-to-receive" on T31 RFI, anything can happen.

Currently, RN has 3-types of hull-mounted sonar.
- 8 T23 ASW has S2150, a modified version of S2050. I understand electronics are largely replaced.
- 5 T23 GP still carries S2050, not modified.
- 6 T45 has MFS7000 sonar, (I understand it is a modified EDO 610E hull sonar used in Brazil Navy).

If something new is to come, there are many possibilities.
- Thales UMS 4110 HMS is also a derivative of S2050 (as I understand), but largely incorporating Spherion sonar's technology (used in ANZAC frigate).
- KINGKLIP (UMS 4132) Mk.1 and 2. I understand it is developed from UMS 4110.
- BlueWatcher (hull-mounted FLASH sonar)
- Nothing. There still remains a high probability no hull sonar will be adopted.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Heart of oak. and 13 guests