Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Like a lot of others I think the building of the T31 in parallel to the T26 could be the Gov's way of saying to Bae that there could be future limited competition to their monopoly & maybe a plan B if Scotland wants independence :( hope not.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:If you look at the T-45, T-26, T-31e submissions and the two Queen Elizabeths they all have austere weapon fits, with the T-45 being the best of the bunch. The T-26 is, as currently planned, woefully under armed for a vessel of their size
This is rubbish

With the T26 the RN are getting the biggest gun they've had in years, the most AAW missiles they've ever has on a platform, the only surface combatant to carry cruise missiles, with a capacity grater than the RN has ever discharged in a single conflict, the ability to operate more boats and aircraft than any other escort globally, plus it has inherited sub hunting pedigree from the T23.

In QE the RN are getting their biggest ship ever, filled with some of the most capable aircraft available worldwide, making them one of 2 navies that can sustain stealth aircraft in the fleet in large numbers.

The combat ability of this new generation far exceeds their predecessors.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:The combat ability of this new generation far exceeds their predecessors.
France and Italy have confirmed budgets for the ABM-capable missile; are we still just in testing the radar, for that use, or have there been any noises (amongst this budget crisis cacophony) of next steps?
- the opposition does not sit still, unfortunately
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the T-26 we have I grant you a vessels with more SAMs than before, but then again a T-26 will be doing the job of four earlier escorts so it will need every round it has. Yes it will have a good gun but then again the Mk8 was also a good gun with similar performance. Are the MK41 VLS definitely to be strike length? or will they be more suited to operating weapons like ASROC and LRASM but unable to fire Tomahawks in order to shave a few pennies off the bill. It can carry a merlin but will probably be limited to a Wildcat, if these survive the ongoing SDR. It currently though has no planned AShM or ASW weapons besides that on its helicopter and if carrying a Wildcat, its lack of a data link will hamper operations. AShM and ASW Torpedoes are considered compulsory by about 99% of navies, with many patrol vessels even carrying them, yet our state of the art escort will have top of the line sensors to allow it to see the enemy but do little about him.

As for the Queen Elizabeth's, I agree then are magnificent ships, but will carry most of the time between eight and twelve F-35s. Being optimistic two thirds will be available at any given time. yes it is a fantastic capability, and will be great for flag waving and recruitment but there is a distinct lack of capacity. The Carriers were designed to operate an air wing carrying a minimum of twenty four at all times and a surge of thirty six. More worryingly its self defence capability is lacking and the majority of experts agree. The USN who are the worlds experts in carrier aviation will continue to operate their carriers routinely with more escorts than the RN, linked together unlike the RN and including SSN most of the time. Yet they still see the need despite their far more effective air wings to equip their carrier with a far greater self defence capability.

So this is why I am advocating not building the T-31e and using those funds to equip the above ships more effectively. We got court out in the 1980s by believing certain weapon systems could be done without and lost vessels. Today the RN cannot afford to lose a single vessels even to a mission kill. We either properly arm them or keep them out of harms way and range of the enemy.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Today the RN cannot afford to lose a single vessels even to a mission kill.
A good point; would the T-31s be worthy "pickets"?
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Best bet would be remote vessels deployed from the mission bay of a T-26, with a Giraffe style raise able radar antenna, and data link

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

agree lord Jim but couldn't the carriers be fitted with seaceptor? Alongside the Big RFA's to increase the number of platforms with SAM capability?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

That is sort of what I am aiming at, the Carriers, T-26 and even the T-45 need to realise their full potential, so yes the Carriers would get Sea Ceptor and Sea Ram, The T-26 would get ASROC, LRASM, TLAM, ASW TT and Sea Ram and the T-45 would get increased numbers of Aster 30, quad pack Sea Ceptor, Sea Ram and canister launched LRASM and ASROC, with all platform linked/networked.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:With the T-26 ........ It currently though has no planned AShM or ASW weapons besides that on its helicopter and if carrying a Wildcat
Too right. It's an optimistic 7 years until the first in class will be operational, it would be silly to lock the RN into a contract now. The T26 is being build as a big, capable, solid fighting ship, it has plenty of capability to be unlocked, its exactly what the RN needs.
Lord Jim wrote:As for the Queen Elizabeth's ....... yes it is a fantastic capability, and will be great for flag waving and recruitment but there is a distinct lack of capacity.
Perhaps we should take the short term goggles off.

The RN is going from decades of operating small carriers, then a decade of no carriers, to operating 2 super carriers, that is not something that can be switched on over night, it will take a long time to build. Clearly over the next decade there will be challenges, and the carriers will be around for the next half century, the capacity will come when the time is right.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good point; would the T-31s be worthy "pickets"?
Pickets don't exist anymore. The same effect is achieved with off board systems.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good point; would the T-31s be worthy "pickets"?
Pickets don't exist anymore. The same effect is achieved with off board systems.
It was :) a joke
- so are you saying they are useless then (in a task force context?... or more broadly?)
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

I'm glad it was a joke.

Yes they are useless, more expensive and less effective than aircraft, which is another reason for big carriers with lots of organic ISTAR aircraft.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Not looking at the short term is one of the reasons the MoD's procurement plans have been such a disaster. They have repeated put of actually purchasing equipment as they are afraid it will be obsolete by the time it enters service and they see the next gen as the answer. So they leave things as they are thinking we can save money now and in five years purchase the next generation kit. Five years pass and they look at the latest kit and go , "But this might be obsolete in a few years, so lets hold off buying anything just yet but carry on doing assessments of what may be available in five years."

So we are buying a lovely large platform in the form of the T-26 and the MoD thinks we don't need fit the following because we have plenty of time, what is around now may become obsolete in a few years so lets save money now and when the next generation systems come on line we can buy those. Two years later a T-26 is lost in the gulf, torpedoed by a Iranian diesel submarine whist its Wildcat had been sent to investigate what turned out to be a decoy, and although the submarine was detected by the superb sonar on the T-26 after it had launched its two torpedoes the T-26 could not prosecute it, and the Wildcat was too far away.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dahedd »

Agreed Lord Jim. Asroc should be seriously considered & I'd also look at the South Korean spec dipping sonar for the Wildcat. We won't have enough Merlins or P8s to be everywhere, particularly if the Merlins are to used in large numbers off the carriers.

Tbh its pretty crazy that South Korea can rig their Wildcats with sonar & extended fuel tanks while we won't.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Lord Jim wrote:Two years later a T-26 is lost in the gulf, torpedoed by a Iranian diesel submarine whist its Wildcat had been sent to investigate what turned out to be a decoy, and although the submarine was detected by the superb sonar on the T-26 after it had launched its two torpedoes the T-26 could not prosecute it, and the Wildcat was too far away.
I know the MOD is bad, but I really dont see the type 26 going operational without ASROC. Kind of defeats the whole point of having an anti-submarine frigate.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Just a few issues with your scenario, of course. A T26 in the Gulf will be carrying one of the 9 Merlin assigned to the frigate fleet (the T31 accompanying it will be carrying the Wildcat), the torpedos will be seduced by the SSTD system (or, since this will be in 2023 at the earliest, taken out by the hard-kill upgrade currently in development) and the Iranian submarine will get at most 10-20 seconds warning of the Merlin (which closed the gap at three times the speed of a torpedo) dropping a Stingray right on top of his position. Despite the fact that the sub commander thought he was being clever, launching his wire-guided HWT torpedos from well outside the effective range of the ship-launched LWTs and then running away, he now has mere seconds to deploy his own countermeasures and avoid destruction, while the Merlin waits for them to fizzle and then drops a second torpedo (and potentially a third and a fourth). That's if the ASROC (which he didn't hear coming, until it dropped into the water half a kilometer away) didn't get him first.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Both scenarios work, I was just trying to make the point of the MoD putting things off and/or second guessing what it needs. I was looking towards the worst end of possibilities, the other scenario is more to the optimistic. Hopefully things will end up more towards the latter then the former.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I still think though that the RN should have a programme of building an escort every eighteen months to two years. This would drive down costs as long lead items could be brought in large numbers, skills would be retained, and designs evolved. The initial order for T-26s will keep BAes's ship yard going to the mid to late 2020s. This initial batch could be accelerated after the first one or two are completed reducing the time needed. From 2026, a single T-26 will be ordered every eighteen months, bringing the number in service to twelve by roughly the mid 2030s but which time the first T-26 hull based T-45 replacements would be under construction. Cancelling the modernisation of the remaining GP T-23s and the T-31e programme would allow the acceleration of the programme and front loading long lead items.

Changes to the design could also be made prior to the laying down of he first vessel such as increasing the number of Mk41 VLS to 24 or even 32, with eight being "Strike", version, eight being "Self Defence " length and the remainder "Tactical" version. The Mk57 VLS would be an alternative for some of these, with the advantage it that there is greater flexibility in their placement. This would give a T-26 a load out of possibly, eight TLAMS or successor, thirty two Sea Ceptor, eight LRASM and eight ASROC or successor. Add to this a eleven round Sea RAM launcher, the already planned 5" MK45 gun and two remote 25mm auto cannon mounts and you have a far more capable platform than current envisaged.

To this I would modify the T-45s already in service with sixteen "Tactical" versions of the Mk 57, allowing the vessels to carry a combination of LRASM, Sea Ceptor and even ASROC. I have stipulated the LRASM over say the Harpoon block II as the additional VLS would greatly reduce the deck space to install these launchers, but obviously this and other AShMs would be options at the expense of VLS cell numbers.

Back to the programme, over its duration, things will evolve. When the T-45 replacements enter service, the Aster 30 may no longer be the desired area defence SAM for the RN, which could then be a version of the US Standard missile. This would allow the Air defence version to be far more similar to the ASW T-26 platform and is the size and weight of sensors has reduced the later vessels built could actually be a common design, producing a UK Arleigh Burke equivalent with slightly less air defence capability but far greater ASW.

The above programme is feasible, though it involves a move away form large production contract but the RN gains a steady stream of replacement vessels in a planned manner and industry gains steady orders. As the programme beds in the design would provide export possibility as the bulk of its weapon systems are in common use around the world, and the open art architecture CMS would allow alternative sensor fits to the RN version if desired. The already generous hanger and flight deck allow almost any helicopter in service or planned to be operated off the ship and the mission bay add a level of flexibility many competing classes lack.

The T-31e would not be dead however. Many of the designs produced would form a good basis for the RN's MHC programme, especially those with a mission bay. Whether is would be necessary to retain the flight deck is debateable, but is a design could be found with a telescopic hanger extending the mission bay over the flight deck so depending on the role allocated the vessels would have an expanded mission bay able to operate UAVs, USVs and UUVs or carry a helicopter and reduced mission bay. These boats would be a huge gain for the RN, with between ten and twelve being built alongside the T-26 programme, though at yards other than BAe. They would operate in the support role, but also have a patrol function, but they would not be escorts. Their armament would be at most a 57mm gun backed up by a number of light auto cannons and heavy machine guns. Mounts for Starstreak missiles, similar to the three round post launcher used by the royal Artillery would also be a possibility especially as these would allow the new LMM to be fired. The latter suggestion would be useful in areas such as the Gulf where enhanced self defence measure would be beneficial.

With the above programmes the Royal Navy could end up with a fleet of eighteen to twenty four capable escorts with much commonality and complimenting each other, backed up by a capable fleet of around twelve armed support vessels able to operate independently of is direct support of the fleet. Yes it is fantasy fleet time, but other nations have ongoing programmes, producing constant stream of new vessels year on year, and with smaller budgets then the UK has.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

from T31 thread....
dmereifield wrote:would it be desirable to reduce the second batch of T26s from 5 to 3 and to order a second batch of T31s to increase hull numbers?
There are far too many unknown variables to make that call at the moment. If the T31 is a proper surface combatant with ASW capabilities the argument would be quite strong, however if the T31 is a patrol frigate it's very hard to justify reducing the T26.
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

@LordJim
Only 240 Mk57 VLS cells ever built for the disaster that's the Zumwalt class of three, whereas the Mk41 VLS production is 10,000+ and still in production.

The Mk57 only gives you only an additional 12 inches in height and 3 inches in dia. over a Mk41 Strike length VLS, no missiles are in or on the horizon being developed to take advantage of the small increase in size.

The Mk41 is the de facto standard, the Mk57 is just a footnote in VLS era, can only be viewed as wasted dead-end development.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

@LJ - a couple of observations.

Firstly, please lets not change the design of the T26 any more - that's one of the major reasons for us being in this mess in the first place.

Secondly, to have 24 major ships would mean a 12-month delivery cycle, with capacity to handle the 5-6 year overlap at each end in the changeover from frigate to destroyer etc. I suspect that would mean being able to have four hulls in concurrent build. Possible (it was done for the T45, using all 3 BAE yards), but unlikely with current financial constraints (which is reflected in staffing levels, thus affecting the yards capacity). The best that I can see with current spending plans is 16-18 top-end combattants (once the T45 replacements are built). It does, however, maintain a reasonable base capacity that could be built up over time if needed.

For the T45, I would simply concentrate on BMD and stick with Aster 30 and its upgrades - the whole system (radars, software, VLS etc) is built around them. Maybe add some CAMM in XLS cells, but that is all I would do. Perhaps the replacement could move to using US missiles.

Agreed that the T31 (or a derivative) will be built regardless to fulfil the MHPC role. The design is being used in the short term, however, to fill the gap caused by the T26 build starting later and costing more than planned. It would be nice to get both some ASW-focussed versions at some point as well as a few light patrol versions for the Caribbean and Med as well as 8 configured for carrying offboard systems (MHC). Unfortunately, being built to an annual cycle, with 10-12 years service life indicates that 10-12 is the maximum envisaged at any one time, so 5-6 frigates and 5-6 MHC (though, if offboard systems become a practical reality, all T26 and T31 will probably be able to carry a set, along with a containerised control system). The T31 variant will simply be the specialist, carrying more than one set as well as supporting divers etc.

The NSS aims to bring about sustainable construction as one of its goals. BAE is excluded from the plan, but all the indications are that they are going to get steady and predictable financing for their future builds, with the other yards (which are not solely dependent on Government finance, like BAE) being used to smooth the peaks and troughs and build the minor vessels
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote: The NSS aims to bring about sustainable construction as one of its goals. BAE is excluded from the plan, but all the indications are that they are going to get steady and predictable financing for their future builds, with the other yards (which are not solely dependent on Government finance, like BAE) being used to smooth the peaks and troughs and build the minor vessels
Here we come back to my (most favoured option of the last 7 years): the national , if not necessarily nationalised, military fitting-out yard
- compliments of BAES, once all the blocks have been hauled in!
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)

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

dmereifield wrote:8? Surely not. They are essentially free (just need transferring over from the T23s; although we don't know how they would be valued/costed when included in the project). Are there other schematics available? Maybe it's two banks of 5 behind the gun (with the gun obscuring the middle 2?) or maybe there are more located elsewhere on the ship???
An Khareef class corvette, which the Leander is a stretched version of has 12 × MBDA VL Mica SAM, as seen in the image.
Image
The early Cutlass design seemed to sport the same layout with two square boxes containing 6 each behind the main gun.
Image
The modified design, seemed to show the same layout shown earlier this year.
Image
But if you look at it from this angle, it looks like there are only 4 CAMM silos per square, so a total of 8, although given there could be a row behind so 3 rows of 4. I doubt there are ones in the middle as there is a gap between the two square platforms as shown in the other previous image.
Image
This one for some reason deliberately obscures the CAMM silos.
Image
On this one, there is a possibility that there are silos just behind the harpoon launchers. Not 100% sure that they are, but if they are it could be 4-8 silos. The optimistic in me hopes that they are either CAMM or Strike length VLS for a possible silo based ASM replacement and/or a future ASROC.
Image
All wild speculation, but that is just going of the images they have released so far.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Thanks Benny. I did wonder if those were silos behind the ASM canisters. Whatever they are they don't appear to be the same mushroom shaped silos used for CAMM on the T23s and in the two boxes behind the gun in the other Leander images

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

dmereifield wrote:Thanks Benny. I did wonder if those were silos behind the ASM canisters. Whatever they are they don't appear to be the same mushroom shaped silos used for CAMM on the T23s and in the two boxes behind the gun in the other Leander images
The ones shown on the middle of the type 31 do very much so look like strike length VLS shown on the type 26. You can see the same on the type 26, the CAMM silos have the bubble and the S-VLS have the square doors that opens.

Here is the current version of the type 26.
Image
CAMM in front, S-VLS behind.
Image
CAMM mid ship.
Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The reason I mentioned the MK57 was that there is far more flexibility as the where it can be installed, mainly due the different way it deals with exhaust. The Mk41 dominates by far because 99% of users place their VLS in the same position. The length isn't an issue, as I was suggesting a possible combination of the two systems but solely using the Mk41 would be a good decision as well.

Regarding the drumbeat production of vessels, I am not suggesting it will be a simple task and it will require investment from both Government and Industry, but the result would benefit both. It is the only way, besides have ships built overseas, that we can increase the size of the fleet. It will take a sustained effort into the 2030s to achieve and will require the navy to get a higher percentage of the budget over this period. It could be done with the will to do so, but key would be sustained growth in the Defence budget, something no Treasury/Government will br willing to have their hands tied to.

Post Reply