Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Type 83 really needs to be a straight forward development of type 45 albeit in a new say 170 x 24 meter hull with say 80 to 100 VLS anything other than this will kill it and the RN

First and foremost RN must begin with an absolute conviction to maintain or grow hull numbers with each new class.

If RN decide to replace their destroyers with cruisers then its clear where the blame will lay when the fleet shrinks again.

[andrew98]

The problem is that when the multiple other navies destroyers are 10k+ tonnes mounting 96-128 vls silos, then that becomes the baseline for a Destroyer (Us matching it is not making a gold-plated cruiser, but a hopefully, if we're lucky comparable destroyer that with luck could survive a fight)

[ArmChairCivvy]

main tasks will definitely be AAW and ABM and I can see a case for Land Attack, when operating independently or as LRG escort, i.e., in situations where a CV isn't present

Agree with the 'job description'.

Now, considering how far off the horizon these ships' appearance is, I hope the plans won't be used as an excuse for NOT to give the T45s (or at least 1 in 2) a limited - read NT level - ABM capability, to protect the MTF. If we place so much store on a single TF, then it better be hard as nails.

[Poiuytrewq]

The problem is that when the multiple other navies destroyers are 10k+ tonnes mounting 96-128 vls silos, then that becomes the baseline for a Destroyer (Us matching it is not making a gold-plated cruiser, but a hopefully, if we're lucky comparable destroyer that with luck could survive a fight)

That's a perfectly reasonable point of view but the ultimate destination of that logic is enormous vessels with many hundreds if not thousands of VLS cells until directed energy weapons make them all obsolete overnight.

IMO RN should take a different approach to protect the CSG(s).

If 200 to 250 VLS cells are required to guarantee the safety of the CVF why not just add an extra escort to the CSG to cover it? Three affordable destroyers with 72 or 80 cells each seems plausible and affordable whilst also potentially bringing destroyer numbers back up to 8.

Additional cells could also be added to the T26's if required and a T31 with a fully optimised VLS capacity could add a useful dimension to the layered CSG defence acting as a goalkeeper or arsenal ship.

Based on my logic, updated T45's or enhanced T26's would perform just fine for the next generation of RN AAW vessels and crucially at a price the UK could afford without sacrificing hull numbers.

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across...

The problem is that when the multiple other navies destroyers are 10k+ tonnes mounting 96-128 vls silos, then that becomes the baseline for a Destroyer (Us matching it is not making a gold-plated cruiser, but a hopefully, if we're lucky comparable destroyer that with luck could survive a fight)

That's a perfectly reasonable point of view but the ultimate destination of that logic is enormous vessels with many hundreds if not thousands of VLS cells until directed energy weapons make them all obsolete overnight.

IMO RN should take a different approach to protect the CSG(s).

If 200 to 250 VLS cells are required to guarantee the safety of the CVF why not just add an extra escort to the CSG to cover it? Three affordable destroyers with 72 or 80 cells each seems plausible and affordable whilst also potentially bringing destroyer numbers back up to 8.

Additional cells could also be added to the T26's if required and a T31 with a fully optimised VLS capacity could add a useful dimension to the layered CSG defence acting as a goalkeeper or arsenal ship.

Based on my logic, updated T45's or enhanced T26's would perform just fine for the next generation of RN AAW vessels and crucially at a price the UK could afford without sacrificing hull numbers.

[Tempest414]

I would say the type 83 would be fine with 100 VLS as said we could fit 64 into type 45 plus have say 7 sets of 3 cell EXLS behind the funnel to make it 85 cells allowing for 48 Aster 30 and 148 CAMM or a total of 196 missiles

With 100 VLS type 83 could carry 30 ABM missiles , 30 long range AAW missiles and 160 CAMM

[Ron5]

Based on my logic

But surely your logic is based on an unchanging threat when all the evidence seems to indicate that it's changing rather dramatically.

[Ron5]

I think everyone's reading too much into the T83 designation... I believe this is more of a placeholder designation than anything else, since they won't start defining what the ship will be for another few good years... having said that, and considering the RN will have just finished accepting a specialized (and expensive) ASW asset in the form of the T26, it doesn't make any sense to me that T83 (or whatever it ends up being called) has a ASW focus, even if a secondary one. The main tasks will definitely be AAW and ABM and I can see a case for Land Attack, when operating independently or as LRG escort, i.e., in situations where a CV isn't present. Adding ASW will only increase costs and decrease numbers, as many have pointed out here. Aviation facilities should be plentiful, but not for ASW Merlins, rather for medium and long range UAVs for AEW and long range missile fire control... my two cents...

A very reasonable two cents.

On the other hand, in recent time, the cruiser has been basically a two fold warship performing lead carrier escort as well as independent, long range, deployments either alone or heading a small task force.

To me, by far the most important escort role in the RN is protection of the carriers. Traditionally that would be provided by a cruiser type warship with enough size, habitability, and stores capacity to keep up with the carriers in all sea states for extended periods of time with room for command staffs. Plus, of course, top of the line AAW to go along with high bandwidth communications & sensors. A type 82.

I don't see that role changing even though weapons and sensors will, maybe dramatically.

I don't see any particular need for land attack but these days the addition of anti-boat/UAV swarm capabilities would be a must. As would an extensive flight deck and hangar/mission bay.

That leaves the thorny question of ASW. When away from the carriers and without it, the cruiser itself must be escorted. And as a high value asset that would mean at least one Type 26 which must be subtracted from the carrier group. So better and cheaper to give the cruiser decent ASW and avoid losing a T26? As was given to Bristol.

Yes, my cruiser would be expensive. Two or three units would be fine*. No reason a smaller more affordable Type 46 could not also be built.

(*) HMS Tiger, Lion & Blake

[JohnM]

I think everyone's reading too much into the T83 designation... I believe this is more of a placeholder designation than anything else, since they won't start defining what the ship will be for another few good years... having said that, and considering the RN will have just finished accepting a specialized (and expensive) ASW asset in the form of the T26, it doesn't make any sense to me that T83 (or whatever it ends up being called) has a ASW focus, even if a secondary one. The main tasks will definitely be AAW and ABM and I can see a case for Land Attack, when operating independently or as LRG escort, i.e., in situations where a CV isn't present. Adding ASW will only increase costs and decrease numbers, as many have pointed out here. Aviation facilities should be plentiful, but not for ASW Merlins, rather for medium and long range UAVs for AEW and long range missile fire control... my two cents...

A very reasonable two cents.

On the other hand, in recent time, the cruiser has been basically a two fold warship performing lead carrier escort as well as independent, long range, deployments either alone or heading a small task force.

To me, by far the most important escort role in the RN is protection of the carriers. Traditionally that would be provided by a cruiser type warship with enough size, habitability, and stores capacity to keep up with the carriers in all sea states for extended periods of time with room for command staffs. Plus, of course, top of the line AAW to go along with high bandwidth communications & sensors. A type 82.

I don't see that role changing even though weapons and sensors will, maybe dramatically.

I don't see any particular need for land attack but these days the addition of anti-boat/UAV swarm capabilities would be a must.

That leaves the thorny question of ASW. When away from the carriers and without it, the cruiser itself must be escorted. And as a high value asset that would mean at least one Type 26 which must be subtracted from the carrier group. So better and cheaper to give the cruiser decent ASW and avoid losing a T26? As was given to Bristol.

Good point, although I was referring to the role of T83's UxVs when performing it's main mission of CV/LRG escort. When operating independently, II'm sure the UxVs could be changed from AEW/AAW-oriented to ASW-oriented, even if the hull itself isn't ASW-optimized... that's the beauty of large, flexible mission bays and big helipads... also, I don't think T83 needs to be a cruiser, more of an updated T45-like with Land Attack capability...

[donald_of_tokyo]

And, I do not think neither land attack nor ASW be a priority for T83.

A ship very similar to "a fully kitted T45 of 2040s" will be the best solution, I guess.

Primary AAW, but with 64-80 cells for long-range SAM (because it is NOT a cruiser), and 36-48 CAMM (for self defense).
No need for land attack other than I-SSM.
No need for good ASW, a T2150 is enough.
No need for NGFS at all, 57 mm gun with guided rounds is good.

This will enable T83 to be built in number. At least 6, so we shall start with 8, because cost overrun might cause hull-number cut even though Treasury puts no cut (= pays all the promised money).

[Poiuytrewq]

But surely your logic is based on an unchanging threat when all the evidence seems to indicate that it's changing rather dramatically.

I'm not arguing that the threat isn't changing. It is and that needs to be addressed both by maximising the current T45's and the T83's that will follow.

My main point is that more numerous destroyers would be more use, both in peace time and in a conflict scenario than a smaller number of cruiser sized heavyweights.

[JohnM]

And, I do not think neither land attack nor ASW be a priority for T83.

I would disagree with you on this one Donald-san... adding Land Attack is easy (just need a strike-length Mk41) and when operating independently or as LRG escort, i.e., without a CV nearby, having Land Attack capability is relevant... we can agree to disagree...

[donald_of_tokyo]

As you said, I disagree

If you are proposing to sacrifice significantly on AAW capability to add the land attack capability, it may work.

My serious concern is as follows.

Let's assume RN proposes a £10B GBP program for 4 T83 cruisers.
- £2B GBP for developing new AAW system
- £2B GBP for ship design and its initial "build inefficiency"
- 4 times £1.5B = £6B for 4 hulls

If the AAW system development cost rises by x1.33 (4/3), and hull unit-cost by x1.33 (4/3), what will be the end result hull number?

It is NOT 3 hulls, it is ONLY 2 hulls, RN will have.
- £2.7B GBP for developing new AAW system
- £2.7B GBP for ship design and its initial "build inefficiency"
- 2 times £2B GBP for the 2 hulls.
(EDIT: £0.6B remaining)

Eight hulls for T83 has a good rationale. It was 8 T45 that the RN finally proposed when budgeting T45. It is just because of PAAMS development cost increase, and slight hull cost increase, which resulted in 6 T45s.

"This time, we will not make cost over run for new AAW system development, and will keep the hull technology more conservative (not like T45) so that its unit cost will be controlled". Then, the default AAW hull number RN needs is 8 hulls (because T45 program was originally required to provide 5 "ready" hulls). I think this rationale still remains.

Then, if something happens, we may be able to secure 6 T83, I think.

Note I am not pessimistic by all means here, just realistic.

[JohnM]

I'm not saying AAW/BMD capability should be sacrificed at all, don't get me wrong... that should be the first and foremost capability... all I'm saying is that when not as part of a CVSG, they should have land attack capability... just fill 8-16 of the (hopefully many more) MK-41 strike length cells with land attack missiles, that's all... I don't see where that increases the ship cost...

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm not saying AAW/BMD capability should be sacrificed at all, don't get me wrong... that should be the first and foremost capability... all I'm saying is that when not as part of a CVSG, they should have land attack capability... just fill 8-16 of the (hopefully many more) MK-41 strike length cells with land attack missiles, that's all... I don't see where that increases the ship cost...

Thanks. In that case = no increase in the ship cost, then I am not against.

By the way, if not with CVSG, why you do not use T26 for land attack? Are there a theater with zero ASW threat but significant AAW threat as RN needs to attack an AAW destroyer? Also, why is the I-SSM's limited land attack capability not enough?

I'm saying so, because there are huge overlap in land attack capability within RN, while there are many other fields missing investments and shrinking. RN is spending a lot of money for CVSG. It is for strike = land-attack. Also T26 is designed to carry land-attack missile for strike. I-SSM can do limited land-attack. In view of CVSG, adding SPEAR3 or FC/ASW or LRASM on F35 is much higher priority for me than adding any land attack missile on T83 (because there are already T26s). Also, adding a few P-7, and P-8 will be more important for UK military. Adding CAMM on CV, increasing CAMM number on T26 and T31, will be more important?

As such, I am not saying land attack capability is useless. Just saying, there are many other priorities needing investment... And for me, planning 8 T83 is much more important than adding any land attack capability to it.

[JohnM]

I think a lot will depend on the outcome of the FC/ASW program, for example, will it yield just one missile or two (one subsonic stealth one to replace Tomahawk, apparently the option preferred by the RN, and one high-speed anti-ship one, apparently the option preferred by the MN)? Also, if one looks at the number of cruise missiles spent per target recently in Syria, it's clear that land attack requires many more missiles today and in the future than it did in 1990... therefore, there's a strong case to be made that having that capability in numbers when there isn't a CV at hand, is very important... I don't know the exact future mix of SPEAR 3, LRASM/JASSM, I-SSM and FC/ASW for land attack, but I do know lots of them will be required and they should all fit in Mk-41 cells... if you don't have a CV nearby that capability needs to be delivered by T26, T32 and T83...

[serge750]

And, I do not think neither land attack nor ASW be a priority for T83.

A ship very similar to "a fully kitted T45 of 2040s" will be the best solution, I guess.

Primary AAW, but with 64-80 cells for long-range SAM (because it is NOT a cruiser), and 36-48 CAMM (for self defense).
No need for land attack other than I-SSM.
No need for good ASW, a T2150 is enough.
No need for NGFS at all, 57 mm gun with guided rounds is good.

This will enable T83 to be built in number. At least 6, so we shall start with 8, because cost overrun might cause hull-number cut even though Treasury puts no cut (= pays all the promised money).

Yes, i worry only having 1 T45 or a T83 per carrier group in a high threat zone could be asking for trouble...
so the more we could get the better

Never thought about the land attack ability of the T26 near the CVBG, so thanks for pointing it out, thats maybe 24 missiles if known before hand along with the fire power of the carrier airgroup and maybe a sub launched strike aswell

I would love it if we could also have a all singing kirov style battle criuser as well per battle group but still would rather have 2 X T45 !!! as carrier escort

[ArmChairCivvy]

If 200 to 250 VLS cells are required to guarantee the safety of the CVF why not just add an extra escort to the CSG to cover it? Three affordable destroyers with 72 or 80 cells each seems plausible

Yes, but ... we haven't implemented the sensor-shooter model
- only with that separation can we have ships that are at the top of the game and affordable (by relying on more expensive ships'/ other systems' sensors)

the evidence seems to indicate that it's changing rather dramatically.

ABM. ABM. ABM.
- the model for public speaking: say what u r going to say; say it; then summarise it

[Repulse]

I’ve been looking at the Echo class and can’t help think what a great flexible platform it is, and a perfect basis for an interim mothership/littoral platform. It could equally act as the basis for the new multi-role ocean surveillance ship.

I would lengthen the hull by 10m to allow for a larger work deck, beef up the 2 guns to 30-57mm for a basic level of CIWS/AAW/ASUW and build a small UAV hangar with lift to the front landing pad.

Fantasy of course, but I think half a dozen of these would be a better solution than keeping the Hunts in service for MCM and would still be useful when the T32 arrives. Also, given the roaming role of the current two Echos (which would be replaced), they would be a great addition to give valuable global presence.

[Lord Jim]

Looking at our convoluted plans to finally expand the Royal Navy, with no effort being made to increase the numbers of T-26, instead building first the T-31 and then the T-32, are we accepting that the T-26 is too much of a gold plated design? How can countries with much smaller defence budgets, namely Canada and Australia each be able to afford half as many ships based on the T-26, but with greater capabilities? The failure to produce the T-26 by a "Drumbeat", production line has cost us both in the number of ships wee are building and probably upped the individual price as well.

The Government wants to increase the Navy so instead of the T-32 why not build a third batch of T-26, say three ships, using the lessons learned form the first two and incorporating new technologies. This would then dovetail into the T-45 replacement, the so called T-83 with a drumbeat of at least six, ideally eight, and then possibly the next programme would be the replacement of the batch one T-26 and so on.

If we are going to be a Global naval power, we need far more than a Carrier Group, a number of oversized gunboats and a class of Swiss Army Knife platforms dedicated to unmanned operations. We need warships with the capability to control an area and defeat any opponent who may try to occupy that area. The T-31 is basically a platform to tell the rest of the Navy the Indians are coming as it sail as fast as possible in the opposite direction. If the T-32 is a Drone Mothership then it itself is going to need escorting in any area it maybe threatened. Sure both of these classes are growing the fleet and maybe adding some new capabilities but not increasing the real Warship fleet. If some of these unmanned platforms can operate as loyal wingmen to manned warships providing additional firepower in the form of AAW, ASuW and ASW, then there maybe some hope, but true capabilities like this are not going to mature until the second half of the 2030s.

With a steady drumbeat of a T-26 the T-83 and then T-2X the fleet would gradually grow in mass as well as capability. We would still need a USV mothership for the MCM role, and such construction plans would need guaranteed long term funding, but if the Government truly wants a influential, capable global Navy then it ha to be will to accept the price and also not beggar the other two services to achieve it.

Really sorry I meant to post this in the Current & Future Escorts Thread!!!!

[NickC]

How can countries with much smaller defence budgets, namely Canada and Australia each be able to afford half as many ships based on the T-26, but with greater capabilities? :

Many reasons, one being they don't spend ~£31 billion on a nuclear deterrent, Dreadnought and its very expensive nuclear infrastructure plus aircraft carriers and aircraft, if Scotland leaves the UK expect moving the nuclear infrastructure south will be another big number, £10 billion?

Another is what I think of is RN mismanagement, MoD budgeting £4 billion for the three T26 FFBNW, compared to Spain budgeting ~£3.7 billion for its five F110 frigates which have similar quiet HED propulsion system, same Thales sonars plus much more capable AAW missiles and radar, they are fully equipped not FFBNW ships.

[RichardIC]

they are fully equipped not FFBNW ships

Just what are the Type 26 FFBNW?

[Ron5]

why not build a third batch of T-26, say three ships, using the lessons learned form the first two and incorporating new technologies.

I'm interested in what the Type 26 Batch 2 will look like. We know there will be changes but what? I have no doubt some cross fertilization from the Canadian and Australian designs will occur but again, which ones?

Total guess but I think the RN would wish for a superior radar.

[calculus]

Announcement on the sale of the Aegis Combat System with associated kit (SPY-7 radar, CEC, MK41 VLS, plus a few other bits) to Canada: https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system

[NickC]

they are fully equipped not FFBNW ships

Just what are the Type 26 FFBNW?

Thinking of the following

The T26 Flexible Strike Silo fitted with 24 Mk41 VLS cell launchers for long strike missiles, anti-ship missiles and anti-sub missiles, as far as know as yet no missiles contracted for as yet to launch from its Mk41 cells, in future 2030'ish possible FC/ASW if funded, other possible options Tomahawk and LRASM, have seen no mention of funding for an anti-sub missile.

The driver for the T26 GCS Flexible Mission Bay was sized to accommodate four 12 metre boats for boarding operations for the insertion of Royal Marines or other forces, there are other RHIB's but none of 12 metres envisaged