Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

[serge750]

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

Not a bad idea really, all T26 & AAW derivatives total commonality ! would there be any downsides ?

[Jake1992]

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

Would 32 Mk41s really be enough it’s less than the current T45s set up

[SW1]

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

Not a bad idea really, all T26 & AAW derivatives total commonality ! would there be any downsides ?

Wouldn’t know but there system will integrate with e7 and p8.

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

Would 32 Mk41s really be enough it’s less than the current T45s set up

Haven’t seen it mentioned officially how many silos The Australia's will have but if it is 32 say 8 quad packed with sea ceptor and 24 aster 30 is there that much difference.

[serge750]

Would it be possible to convert the mission bay for more mk 41 in a modular type add on, as & when the mission dictates ? either that or have a few with no mission bay but more mk 41 for a increased load ? quad packed CAMM aswell. I don't think only having 1 wildcat when on AAW duties would be detrimental to the mission.

[SW1]

Would it be possible to convert the mission bay for more mk 41 in a modular type add on, as & when the mission dictates ? either that or have a few with no mission bay but more mk 41 for a increased load ? quad packed CAMM aswell. I don't think only having 1 wildcat when on AAW duties would be detrimental to the mission.

I would be less concerned by thinking of it as an individual ships. I think 4 type 26 in hunter configuration maybe a better overall configuration than a 2 type 45, 2 type 23 configured task group.

[Jake1992]

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

Not a bad idea really, all T26 & AAW derivatives total commonality ! would there be any downsides ?

Wouldn’t know but there system will integrate with e7 and p8.

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

Would 32 Mk41s really be enough it’s less than the current T45s set up

Haven’t seen it mentioned officially how many silos The Australia's will have but if it is 32 say 8 quad packed with sea ceptor and 24 aster 30 is there that much difference.

Well Yh there is one big factor is that a critique of the current T45 is that it’s struggle with saturation acts, your reduce the number of silos by a third then it’d be very weak in that area ( remember the Hunter class is not a AAW vessel it’s just there to help to compensate for the RANs small number of AAW )

The second problem with such a small number of silos is that we often talk about the T45s getting BMD capabilities by adding the extra 16 Mk41s, once again with only 32 mk41s this won’t be possible.

I know of no AAW vessel that is credible having such a small number of silos. This is why I made the suggestion of a 15m mid ship plug to allow space for extra silos, it’d allow the greatest commonality while providing the size needed for a T45 replacement.

[SW1]

Well Yh there is one big factor is that a critique of the current T45 is that it’s struggle with saturation acts, your reduce the number of silos by a third then it’d be very weak in that area ( remember the Hunter class is not a AAW vessel it’s just there to help to compensate for the RANs small number of AAW )

The second problem with such a small number of silos is that we often talk about the T45s getting BMD capabilities by adding the extra 16 Mk41s, once again with only 32 mk41s this won’t be possible.

A critique by people on the internet but not something I’ve heard mentioned by anyone in the RN. Silo numbers may have gone down but missile numbers would have gone up in comparison. You would balance that with a question is sea ceptor as good as aster.

I didn’t think type 45 and the BMD role had anything to do with adding extra silos, beyond the point that the sylver launcher may not be deep enough to accommodate the aster or standard missile capable of BMD. The talk was always around radar and mission systems software changes to take on the role. The extra mk41 launcher were always associated with wanting to add a tomahawk capability to type 45.

The credibility of the platform I would suggest is not defined by the total number of missiles carried.

[Jake1992]

Well Yh there is one big factor is that a critique of the current T45 is that it’s struggle with saturation acts, your reduce the number of silos by a third then it’d be very weak in that area ( remember the Hunter class is not a AAW vessel it’s just there to help to compensate for the RANs small number of AAW )

The second problem with such a small number of silos is that we often talk about the T45s getting BMD capabilities by adding the extra 16 Mk41s, once again with only 32 mk41s this won’t be possible.

A critique by people on the internet but not something I’ve heard mentioned by anyone in the RN. Silo numbers may have gone down but missile numbers would have gone up in comparison. You would balance that with a question is sea ceptor as good as aster.

I didn’t think type 45 and the BMD role had anything to do with adding extra silos, beyond the point that the sylver launcher may not be deep enough to accommodate the aster or standard missile capable of BMD. The talk was always around radar and mission systems software changes to take on the role. The extra mk41 launcher were always associated with wanting to add a tomahawk capability to type 45.

The credibility of the platform I would suggest is not defined by the total number of missiles carried.

All my serving and ex RN family members see it as a weak point when we’ve been in discussion on the topic of escorts and protecting the QEs.

Missile numbers in comparison to the T45s they replace will depend on whether CAMM in add to the T45s if so then it’ll still be a reduction.

From what Iv read in regards to BMD on the T45s the extra silos have been discussed for 2 reasons, 1 being the consideration to not cut in to the existing numbers required for the standard AAW jobs and 2 being on the undecided nature of what BDM to go with either aster 30NT or its American counterpart.

No numbers are not the sole factor in what makes a good AAW vessel but there is a reason most have large numbers, I just see no benefit in reducing those numbers.
Now I am all for bringing the T26s up to the hunter class standard and all for using the T26 hull as the starting point for T4X but maintain a large hull for greater number of silos will be needed for any T45 replacement especially if BMD and VLS AShM are required.

[Ron5]

Or why not just go with the Australian hunter class configuration from ship 4 onward.

The RN could just take the Tempest budget to pay for it: the 2 billion might just be enough for all the new kit: 2 new radars, 2 new management systems, 2 new missile types etc.

[serge750]

I agree 48 does seem relatively low ( especially when fired in two's ), but comparable to a lot of EU navies & at the time cost was added to the equation, maybe the planned future upgrade of mk 41 was a factor, 48 + if you added 24 CAMM would be better.

[Roders96]

All my serving and ex RN family members see it as a weak point when we’ve been in discussion on the topic of escorts and protecting the QEs.

Ditto

[SW1]

All my serving and ex RN family members see it as a weak point when we’ve been in discussion on the topic of escorts and protecting the QEs.

Missile numbers in comparison to the T45s they replace will depend on whether CAMM in add to the T45s if so then it’ll still be a reduction.

Different perspectives perhaps, but as I say never heard it raised as concern, I have heard them concerned about getting 2 type 45s to sea to form the task group however. Have your contacts ever elaborated on why merlin and type 45 have never been paired.

[SD67]

A naval architect on one of these boards said that the length / hull depth ratio on T26 is already right at the limit and a stretch isn’t possible. Also there may be top weight issues with a top end radar mounted high, as t26s engines are mounted relatively high for ASW quietness

I can’t find the post but he sounded like he knew his stuff.

[dmereifield]

A naval architect on one of these boards said that the length / hull depth ratio on T26 is already right at the limit and a stretch isn’t possible. Also there may be top weight issues with a top end radar mounted high, as t26s engines are mounted relatively high for ASW quietness

I can’t find the post but he sounded like he knew his stuff.

Is a stretch really necessary? Can't they remove the mission bay?

[Jake1992]

All my serving and ex RN family members see it as a weak point when we’ve been in discussion on the topic of escorts and protecting the QEs.

Missile numbers in comparison to the T45s they replace will depend on whether CAMM in add to the T45s if so then it’ll still be a reduction.

Different perspectives perhaps, but as I say never heard it raised as concern, I have heard them concerned about getting 2 type 45s to sea to form the task group however. Have your contacts ever elaborated on why merlin and type 45 have never been paired.

It something we’ve never really discussed my assumption is due to the lack of merlins.

A naval architect on one of these boards said that the length / hull depth ratio on T26 is already right at the limit and a stretch isn’t possible. Also there may be top weight issues with a top end radar mounted high, as t26s engines are mounted relatively high for ASW quietness

I can’t find the post but he sounded like he knew his stuff.

That’s surprising since the beam is only what 0.4m narrower than the current T45s and as wide as many longer vessels, if the T26 is used as the base for T4X I’d expect a different engine set up as ASW wouldn’t be a priority.

A naval architect on one of these boards said that the length / hull depth ratio on T26 is already right at the limit and a stretch isn’t possible. Also there may be top weight issues with a top end radar mounted high, as t26s engines are mounted relatively high for ASW quietness

I can’t find the post but he sounded like he knew his stuff.

Is a stretch really necessary? Can't they remove the mission bay?

I’d saying keeping the mission bay offers flexibility just remember we are talking 15 years down the line so how prolific off board system will be could be quiet high.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the beam is only what 0.4m narrower than the current T45s and as wide as many longer vessels

Anyone ever wondered how, in the long and tortuous evolution of design options for the T-26 that became the driver?

[Tempest414]

for me when it comes to T-45 we should sort the power train problems out. Then drop another 8 A-50 cells in to give the ships 56 cells then quad pack 16 cell with CAMM and split the remaining 40 cell with Asrer 15/30 as seen fit and then last of all replace the out going Harpoon system with NSM allowing the ships a anti ship / land attack capability

[donald_of_tokyo]

You earlier stated "Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate design is lacking "something"", asked you to explain this comment, reading your last post I interpolate your speculation as some how the Iver Huitfeldt class are not 'real' navy ships which can find no justification for.

# Thanks for patiant comment, and sorry for late response. I was ve---ry busy these days....

First of all, I have no big objection to your golden rule, but only differs in its judgement of "efficiency". I hope you understand it.

"Huitfeldt-class frigate design" here I meant, Huitfeldt-class frigate and Arrowhead 140.

Huitfeldt-class frigate was cheap, the reason is because (I guess)
- many part of its combat system integration is done by Danish navy
- its combat system is spiral developed (no SM2 when commissioned, never tested, never integrated. It is only recently = 2 years ago(?) they did it)
- its hull is build in very cost efficient way by using foreign cheap ship yards.

Arrowhead 140 class is, I speculate, cutting the CMS level (=lacking "something"), because
- the shipyard (Babcock) is NOT cheap in the market (they are even building new facility)
- and RN is not integrating the combat system by their own.

In my previous post I thought it was quite clear in explaining how the Danes achieved the low cost and there was no magic involved partially by abiding the two golden rules you must adhere to if you wish to achieve a low cost effective warship, 1) is that the design must be 100% complete before you start build, not 95% and all kit available off the shelf, so NO new unproven tech and 2) a single function ship."

Again, not disagreeing to your "golden rule". Just saying I think it is NOT the main cause of IH being cheap.

Item-1 is well known issue. All shipyards, not only Danes, knows it from decades ago. Actually, IH itself is a modified Absalon design. Similarly, German Sachsen-class is an evolution of Brandenburg-class. The same situation. Both design benefit from the rule-1. So, it does not explain why IH-class was cheaper than Sachsen-class.

And item-2, you mean, if you add CAPTAS to IH design, its cost suddenly rises significantly? I have no idea here, but not convinced. As the news says Danish navy will do it soon, we will see how much it will cost.

Anyway, I never disagree mature design and proven technology, as well as single purpose, will contribute to cost reduction. It is actually why MEKO200 frigate was so popular. We only disagree in its amount, I think. But, I do not think we need to converge here. Having variety of thinking is even healthy, no problem I think.

The other point the Danes avoided was big spend on R&D, all kit was off the shelf eg compare to the new French FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate), note name changed from FTI, ... partially will be the cost of the new gen Thales CMS tech and heavily promoted as an all digital ship, also new gen GaN radar and integrated mast, French can validly claim will support French industry but it costs, a small country like Denmark is not in that game.

Agree here. In FREMM, design and initial cost amounts to 3 unit cost equivalent. Officially stated. Yes it costs a lot. This is the reason why Babcock abandoned their "newly designed" Arrowhead 120 design, and imported the IH-design = Arrowhead 140.

But, without paying this, RN will be building imported escort design, with imported AAW/ASW system, with imported CMS. No SeaViper (but AEGIS?), no SeaCeptor (ESSM?), no CAPTAS-4 (LFAPS?), no Merlin (SH60R?), and no MT30 GT (LM2500?). It is not the way RN shall go. So, yes, "nearly 3 unit-cost equivalent design cost" cannot be avoided in programs such as T45 and T26. Looking at the design export success of T26, they payed well, I think.

By the way, WM21 problem comes AFTER T45 commissioned. So, it is NOT related to T45 building cost (which is even worse, because RN is forced to pay additional money now). In other words, T45 high cost is from its R&D, especially SeaViper system, as I understand. Its unit cost of hull-6 reported to be ~650M GBP also supports this view.

[Repulse]

1SL outlines the ambition for 2020 to double crew another T23 or T45. Would have thought a forward based GP T23 in Singapore, would help tick the boxes of increasing ship availability and playing to the Global Britain theme ahead of the SDSR.

[NickC]

Following on from pre-Christmas discussion with Donald-san on the Iver Huoitfeldt class above a few thoughts on the #2 golden design rule to keep costs down and numbers up is to build smaller, single-function, basic ships. The only way to significantly reduce construction costs is to significantly reduce functions. A single-function design concept is not a task limiter, an optimised single-function ship will beat a multi-function ship every time.

A single-function ship should be designed to do one thing very well and it can have a secondary function as long as it doesn't take away from the primary function.

Future proofing is a mugs game as it’s simply impossible to predict future technologies and their associated requirements so you spend big money to over engineer the ship to a ridiculous degree.

The aim should be to make ships affordable enough to replace on a more frequent basis, by building smaller, much cheaper ships that can be replaced often, every 15 to 20 years, with no expensive mid-life refits so that the RN ships stay current and the technology stays fresh with aim of cost reductions on the order of 50%+ compared with T26. The result the shipyards/industrial base gets stronger as in receipt continuous orders, not stop/ start as now with T26 taking ten years to build before commissioning due to lack of funding.

It should be emphasised this is not a new design policy/thinking it dates back to Fisher who refused to keep old ships in the fleet, the oldest big ship class warships to fight at Jutland was commissioned in 1902, few of the big ships were older than 1908 and the Imperial Japanese Navy around the same period of WWI /1920's followed similar thinking in that new warships would be first rate for eight years and still usable for eight more years, T23 design life was 18 years.

By ignoring the #2 golden rule we see the result of the multi-function ship such as the near 9,000t which T26 cost a fortune and the resultant T31 OPV and the limited number, you might say pathetic numbers of destroyers/frigates in RN fleet, in 1997 post cold war there were 35 in the fleet.

[Ron5]

The sound of one hand clapping.

[serge750]

Maybe they will keep the more expensive T26 in service a long time with upgrades, but as you say keep a steady drum beat of the cheap T31 ( 15-20 yr life cycle ) to keep the build skills up to date & constant.

[Phil Sayers]

1SL outlines the ambition for 2020 to double crew another T23 or T45. Would have thought a forward based GP T23 in Singapore, would help tick the boxes of increasing ship availability and playing to the Global Britain theme ahead of the SDSR.

In the medium term I think that would make sense but with regards the next few years I think basing another vessel in Bahrain would be a better use of resources. Already have the facilities there to do so and more operational need as has been recently demonstrated.

[Lord Jim]

Having two vessels forward deployed in the Gulf would provide excellent training opportunities across the escort fleet. If both a T-23 and T-45 were stations there, rotating crews after a three month tour would give ship crew far greater experience of high temp operations over a prolonged period compared to more routine tours. So rather than just having two dedicated crews per ship for those forward deployed I would use crew form same type to expand the pool to personnel.

As for moving a vessel to Singapore, I would suspend this aspiration until the Royal Navy has greater asses. In the meantime the facility can support operational cruises when they occur giving the Navy a "Home port" away from home.