Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
This formulation
" Ideally on a Type 45, you might have maybe half of the Aster 15 cells taken up by CAMMs just to give you some extra backup missiles in a prolonged engagement, however keep some for A15 in case of more severe threats at close range. It's only a small point, anyway."
quite well covers the situation when a T-45 in the Black Sea was 'harassed' by a swarm of Russian a/c.
The number caused some discussion (what was the msg?) and the ship's commander then remarked that the number of SAMs carried would easily have neutralised the number
- wrong calculation as you don't always get to take down the archer (this is what the Aster 30s are for) but you would also have to deal with arrows... and I bet the loadout on board was not up for that number
- so that was the 'msg' and the counter is already sketched out above, in the quote
" Ideally on a Type 45, you might have maybe half of the Aster 15 cells taken up by CAMMs just to give you some extra backup missiles in a prolonged engagement, however keep some for A15 in case of more severe threats at close range. It's only a small point, anyway."
quite well covers the situation when a T-45 in the Black Sea was 'harassed' by a swarm of Russian a/c.
The number caused some discussion (what was the msg?) and the ship's commander then remarked that the number of SAMs carried would easily have neutralised the number
- wrong calculation as you don't always get to take down the archer (this is what the Aster 30s are for) but you would also have to deal with arrows... and I bet the loadout on board was not up for that number
- so that was the 'msg' and the counter is already sketched out above, in the quote
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I have said many times even with the 48 cells if 8 were given to CAMM = 32 missiles that would allow 20 each of the Aster 15/30 = 72 missilesArmChairCivvy wrote:This formulation
" Ideally on a Type 45, you might have maybe half of the Aster 15 cells taken up by CAMMs just to give you some extra backup missiles in a prolonged engagement, however keep some for A15 in case of more severe threats at close range. It's only a small point, anyway."
quite well covers the situation when a T-45 in the Black Sea was 'harassed' by a swarm of Russian a/c.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Yep, if we compare USN and RN ships, the difference in the depth of missile mags is striking (not taking into account the difference in the absolute size of the navies)
- the Americans will have to do some hard thinking as they are constantly leaning towards decommissioning their cruisers
As per these many posts referred to, we just need to act on "our thinking". Now, not in 10 yrs time.
- the Americans will have to do some hard thinking as they are constantly leaning towards decommissioning their cruisers
As per these many posts referred to, we just need to act on "our thinking". Now, not in 10 yrs time.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Seeing that Sea Ceptor uses modified PAAMS software in the host and a modified Aster seeker in the missile, it is unlikely that Aster/PAAMS has superior tracking ability as stated above (and as fact rather than opinion).
The difference between point and area defense mostly boils down to whether the system can can handle fast crossing targets i.e missiles/aircraft targeted at vessels in consort. A tough challenge that many cannot. The requirement puts heavy demands on both system and missile.
The difference between point and area defense mostly boils down to whether the system can can handle fast crossing targets i.e missiles/aircraft targeted at vessels in consort. A tough challenge that many cannot. The requirement puts heavy demands on both system and missile.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Brazilian navy has selected the Spike-ER to replace the old Sea Skua missiles for its Super Lynx helos, many variants of Spike with over 30,000 manufactured, the LR uses a combination of inertial navigation (no GPS as too easily jammed) and an electro-optical/infrared camera, the helicopter weapons officer steers the missile using missile video camera image in real time using an encrypted data link from missile, maximum range has increased from 6.4nm to 17.3nm. The Anglo-French replacement of the Sea Skua with planned IOC 2021 the Sea Venom/Anti-Navire Léger is said to have a range of 11 nm, a heavier missile with larger warhead. Presume the Brazilian had the choice of Sea Venom to replace Sea Skua with advantage of similar fit and function to Lynx, but went with Spike and guessing strongly influenced by price.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I suspect that range is at least 3 times less than reality...NickC wrote:The Anglo-French replacement of the Sea Skua with planned IOC 2021 the Sea Venom/Anti-Navire Léger is said to have a range of 11 nm,
Spike-ER is about a third of the size of Sea Venom, its smaller than Hellfire/Brimstone. Allegedly its cheaper as well. But this points to the Brazilian's looking to a multi-use missile rather than dedicated anti-ship. Given their strategic position it makes more sense to have a missile that can do a few things. Think there is a problem with the ER range figure though, Rafael have the range of the latest ER2 as 16km, which is 9.5 miles. The 17 mile figure I suspect is for the much larger Spike-NLOS (as fitted on South Korea's Wildcat) whose range is 27km (16.7 miles).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
ER and LR are different missiles - this is not clear in the text. ER is quite a beast... a helicopter does not care, but the Finnish coastal jaegers (called RO 06, coastal defence missile 2006) manhandle them from boats to shore; then again, their Norvegian counterparts do the same with Hellfires... those are not light either (a helicopter jobbie, more like)NickC wrote:Brazilian navy has selected the Spike-ER to replace the old Sea Skua missiles for its Super Lynx helos, many variants of Spike with over 30,000 manufactured, the LR uses
EDIT: the above post seems to be matching the given range to a third Spike family member!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats..Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
How many warships can target a hovering helicopter over the horizon?abc123 wrote:You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats..Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Keeping doctrine in mind is pretty important. Nobody is planning to sink the entire Russian navy with a few LMMs, for example. However, if you need an accurate missile against small targets that isn't wasteful - for example in a swarm attack - it is the perfect missile.abc123 wrote: You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats..
Similarly, if you are countering small-medium sized ships like fast attack craft, landing ships and patrol vessels that at best might have basic MANPADS but generally aren't designed for anti-air warfare, sea venom is the ideal missile. Battle of Bubiyan demonstrated the effectiveness of this type of missile in that role as clearly as any other modern naval weapon system has been.
Generally speaking, the surface fleet isn't supposed to go against well defended targets. In the rare event we might ever go after them, air forces or submarines are the go-to for anti-ship warfare. Warship-based AShMs are mostly for defence and helicopter-launched anti-surface weapons are an efficient option for the smaller targets.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Don't know, but I wouldnt want to find out,Ron5 wrote:How many warships can target a hovering helicopter over the horizon?abc123 wrote:You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats..Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The answer is very few or none without some third party's assistance.abc123 wrote:Don't know, but I wouldnt want to find out,Ron5 wrote:How many warships can target a hovering helicopter over the horizon?abc123 wrote:You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats..Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
Scenario: Wildcat on patrol at its usual mid altitude height spies bad guy with its excellent radar. Drops down below targets radar horizon to get within Venom range. Pops up to finalize co-ords, fires missile(s), performs final targeting adjustments/IFF via missiles 2 way datalink as Wildcat goes home to mother for tea and cookies.
Morceau de gateau.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho
I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho
I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
That would only make sense if the UK wanted the Type 45 follow on to have tier one ASW capability. Otherwise it would be financial & technical lunacy despite what some dimwits on this board would have you think.R686 wrote:Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho
I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Next generation AAW vessels will probably end up being "Cruiser" (Heavy rather than Light) sized vessels, so trying to design or adapt a hull now, for what may prove to be far too small when the replacement comes to be built is indeed lunacy. Think how long that could cause the T45 replacement to be delayed. Now if it had been intended to provide say 4 x AAW (T46) to supplement the current insufficient 6 x T45 then that might be a different matter.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Naval procurement across United States and Britain more and more tends to opt for existing mature designs to mitigate risk. If the project delivery of A140 and FFG(X) vindicates this, it may pave the way for a new shipbuilding model based on the expanded hunter class.Ron5 wrote:That would only make sense if the UK wanted the Type 45 follow on to have tier one ASW capability. Otherwise it would be financial & technical lunacy despite what some dimwits on this board would have you think.R686 wrote:Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho
I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
A single single high end AAW/ASW cruiser to escort the carriers, by then an existing and mature design, bought by UK MoD, could pave the way for two competing yards to build the same ship. Brought in to replace the Type 45s, it could then evolve through batches to remain up to date and mitigate programme risk for the replacement of T26.
For a current monopoly in high end combatants, this would be the holy grail in driving unit costs down. Less R+D to leverage Intellectual Property and inflate price per unit and a tangible threat that they will lose billions in business. Two yards competing over 20 years for 5 batches of 3 ships, with the lower tier, low profit A140 replacement to sustain skills given to the losing side for the next run. Winning the Type 31 replacement would not be positive for the share price.
Any issues that arise from the need for a new quiet hull form will be mitigated by unmanned offboard systems doing the leg work.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
As I understand it the T26 already has a large, very large, growth margin built into the mission bay, midship and forecastle VLS areas. The Hunter class modifications to support CEAFAR will do nothing but add even more growth margin to host a next generation sensor suite.Scimitar54 wrote:Next generation AAW vessels will probably end up being "Cruiser" (Heavy rather than Light) sized vessels, so trying to design or adapt a hull now, for what may prove to be far too small when the replacement comes to be built is indeed lunacy. Think how long that could cause the T45 replacement to be delayed. Now if it had been intended to provide say 4 x AAW (T46) to supplement the current insufficient 6 x T45 then that might be a different matter.
Do you think this supports my previous post?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I am talking of a next generation AAW “Escort” being in the order of c 12-14,000 Tonnes, if not larger still. If I am correct, then in no way could a 8-9000 Tonne Hull be considered to be suitable.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
You are suggesting that the UK mimic the disastrous US history of building the same escort design (Arleigh Burke) for the past several decades to the point all home grown design skills have atrophied resulting in the awful LCS and Zumwalt designs forcing the USN to go to Fincantieri in order to reuse an obsolete frigate design for their next escort? and to repeatedly shelve plans for a new US cruiser because of their inability to come up with a design?Roders96 wrote:Naval procurement across United States and Britain more and more tends to opt for existing mature designs to mitigate risk. If the project delivery of A140 and FFG(X) vindicates this, it may pave the way for a new shipbuilding model based on the expanded hunter class.Ron5 wrote:That would only make sense if the UK wanted the Type 45 follow on to have tier one ASW capability. Otherwise it would be financial & technical lunacy despite what some dimwits on this board would have you think.R686 wrote:Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho
I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
A single single high end AAW/ASW cruiser to escort the carriers, by then an existing and mature design, bought by UK MoD, could pave the way for two competing yards to build the same ship. Brought in to replace the Type 45s, it could then evolve through batches to remain up to date and mitigate programme risk for the replacement of T26.
For a current monopoly in high end combatants, this would be the holy grail in driving unit costs down. Less R+D to leverage Intellectual Property and inflate price per unit and a tangible threat that they will lose billions in business. Two yards competing over 20 years for 5 batches of 3 ships, with the lower tier, low profit A140 replacement to sustain skills given to the losing side for the next run. Winning the Type 31 replacement would not be positive for the share price.
Any issues that arise from the need for a new quiet hull form will be mitigated by unmanned offboard systems doing the leg work.
That's a proven losing turd of a strategy.
A140 design for the Type 31 was purely based on cost. Zilch to do with maturity or any of those fine buzz words.
Holy Grail my ass.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
That's a good point to keep the designer designing, if the RN are getting heavier radars for the T45 replacement then maybe a bigger ship is needed than the T26 hull, with all the T45's undergoing engine work soon what is the likely hood of the replacement being started on time ?
Maybe a T26 hull with 2 outrigger hulls (trimaran) with solid state radar type system would have better stability sorry can't get the idea out my head now...would have to redesign boat yards amongst other things !!
Maybe a T26 hull with 2 outrigger hulls (trimaran) with solid state radar type system would have better stability sorry can't get the idea out my head now...would have to redesign boat yards amongst other things !!
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It's not a good point. No company ever chooses their next product based on which one requires the most R&D hours.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
+Ron5 wrote: cost. Zilch to do with maturity
Quite.shark bait wrote:It's not a good point. No company ever chooses their next product based on which one requires the most R&D hours.
Maturity= less surprises/ design changes= less risk. Risk is associated with (more) cost... at least so I've heard
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thoughts on a possible future RN AAW destroyer and Hunter
The driving force behind the 10,000t displacement multi-mission Hunter, a larger Mk2 T26 is the ability to fit the big and top heavy CEFAR2 L&S&X band radar, which from pics of Hunter appears to show AESA GaN six S-band flat panel array antennas high on deck house, the same number in L-band plus more for X-band!
Question is why the CEFAR2 radar so big and heavy, assuming it does not have the range or need the capabilities of the USN SPY-6 BMD radar to counter ICBMs as on the Burke Flight III with its SM-3 Block IIAs, Hunter is only marginally lighter than the 10,600t Burke
The 10,000t Hunter AA biggest missile used is the ~90nm range SM-2, the new Belgium/Dutch v-MFF frigate only 5,500t but will use the latest Thales integrated AESA GaN S&X band flat four panel array antenna radars and would expect have no problems in giving adequate coverage and guidance for the SM-2s, if you wanted longer range for MRBMs could add the L-band the new 2,000km Thales SMART L MM/N
The T31 at IH 6,650t let alone the T26 8,000/8,800t should have more than adequate displacement to take the weight of the equivalent Thales AESA GaN radars and necessary number of VLS cell missiles especially as dedicated AAW destroyers would not include full fat ASW or mission bay as T45
If you move from BMD for MRBM into the BMD for ICBMs as a Burke Flight III there would be an argument that the equivalent of Aegis Ashore would be a much less expensive option for defending UK than fitting to destroyer.
For future RN AA destroyer comes the question how do you defend against the new gen hypersonic missiles, Mach 5-10, which at lower height than BMs give much less time for radar detection, require air surveillance either a/c or LEO sats with near instantaneous comms to alert destroyer, the new Russian hypersonic AShM 1,000km maneuvering, winged Tsirkron/Zircon Mach 9 is under test (3x times faster than BrahMos at Mach 2.8), a scramjet, scramjet tech not easy so not as yet convinced will become viable soon, but expect similar hypersonic missile on future horizon.
The driving force behind the 10,000t displacement multi-mission Hunter, a larger Mk2 T26 is the ability to fit the big and top heavy CEFAR2 L&S&X band radar, which from pics of Hunter appears to show AESA GaN six S-band flat panel array antennas high on deck house, the same number in L-band plus more for X-band!
Question is why the CEFAR2 radar so big and heavy, assuming it does not have the range or need the capabilities of the USN SPY-6 BMD radar to counter ICBMs as on the Burke Flight III with its SM-3 Block IIAs, Hunter is only marginally lighter than the 10,600t Burke
The 10,000t Hunter AA biggest missile used is the ~90nm range SM-2, the new Belgium/Dutch v-MFF frigate only 5,500t but will use the latest Thales integrated AESA GaN S&X band flat four panel array antenna radars and would expect have no problems in giving adequate coverage and guidance for the SM-2s, if you wanted longer range for MRBMs could add the L-band the new 2,000km Thales SMART L MM/N
The T31 at IH 6,650t let alone the T26 8,000/8,800t should have more than adequate displacement to take the weight of the equivalent Thales AESA GaN radars and necessary number of VLS cell missiles especially as dedicated AAW destroyers would not include full fat ASW or mission bay as T45
If you move from BMD for MRBM into the BMD for ICBMs as a Burke Flight III there would be an argument that the equivalent of Aegis Ashore would be a much less expensive option for defending UK than fitting to destroyer.
For future RN AA destroyer comes the question how do you defend against the new gen hypersonic missiles, Mach 5-10, which at lower height than BMs give much less time for radar detection, require air surveillance either a/c or LEO sats with near instantaneous comms to alert destroyer, the new Russian hypersonic AShM 1,000km maneuvering, winged Tsirkron/Zircon Mach 9 is under test (3x times faster than BrahMos at Mach 2.8), a scramjet, scramjet tech not easy so not as yet convinced will become viable soon, but expect similar hypersonic missile on future horizon.