Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:seeing that another 3 TAS sets were bought for the T26
We know that an order has been placed, but has it been stated anywhere that it is for complete sets?
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 »

I still think the RN should adopt the ExLS for both the T-26 and T-31e, and not use the damn "Mushrooms". You can get 12 Sea Ceptor into the same space as 6 Mushrooms using the stand alone 3 cell launcher. This has probably been posted before but is does explain things well.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Good explanation, such a good idea as well, but I suspose it all depends how much the ExLS costs compared to the mushroom launchers, would it be viable to use these launchers on later batches of the T26 when we run out of mushroom launchers to carry over from the T23 ?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

serge750 wrote:Good explanation, such a good idea as well, but I suspose it all depends how much the ExLS costs compared to the mushroom launchers, would it be viable to use these launchers on later batches of the T26 when we run out of mushroom launchers to carry over from the T23 ?
I'd rather see the ExLs on the space constrained Type 31's :-)

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 would like the T-31e to have one three cell launcher as standard with room (FFBNW) for a second as an alternative to using the Mushrooms. On the T-26 I would prefer an extra Mk41 (bringing it to 4x 8 cell) and then use the four round inserts to load as many Sea Ceptor as required with 32 in a single Mk41. That would free up the mid ship space as a good location for whatever AShM we chose to replace Harpoon. This would bring our T-26 design more in line with those chosen for Canada and Australia.

I wonder is we could fit a couple of the three cell standalones in the gap between the Sylver launchers at the front of the T-45 giving it 24 Sea Ceptor to supplement the 48 Aster 30s and reducing the need for the smaller Aster 15.

I think the ExLS really should be the default launcher for the Sea Ceptor and this could improve the chances of other nations adopting it to as a cheaper alternative to the ESSM for the Mk41 and the Barak and VL-Mica when using the stand alone. It would be interesting to see he cost comparison between a stand alone 3 cell ExLS and 12 Mushroom launchers.

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: the ExLS really should be the default launcher for the Sea Ceptor and this could improve the chances of other nations adopting it to as a cheaper alternative to the ESSM for the Mk41 and the Barak and VL-Mica when using the stand alone.
Taken across ship types, putting the CAMM box inside an ExLS box does away with some of the cost advantage. As for ESSM and CAMM-ER (still in development, and has not :) been killed off by Italian budget woes) indicated ranges of ~50+ km are comparable between the two.However, for low flying targets, one of the primary issues is the limited radar horizon - especially if you are escorting several other ships. Having the option to cue and launch missiles at a target further away, detected by other assets would seem to give the advantage to Block II ESSM as it can receive such mid-range guidance direct e.g. from CROWSNEST. Whereas for CAMM (-ER) you would have the loop through the launching vessel's CMS and then onto the separate guidance emitters on the ship's superstructure.
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 »

Lord Jim wrote:That would free up the mid ship space as a good location for whatever AShM we chose to replace Harpoon.
Poor choice. Distributing the silos around the platform is a great feature, it means a failed launch and fire at one silo does not ground the entire air defence system.
Lord Jim wrote:I think the ExLS really should be the default launcher for the Sea Ceptor and this could improve the chances of other nations adopting it to as a cheaper alternative
For the lowest cost just use the Army's launcher, the one that already comes with every CAMM missile.
@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 »

shark bait wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:That would free up the mid ship space as a good location for whatever AShM we chose to replace Harpoon.
Poor choice. Distributing the silos around the platform is a great feature, it means a failed launch and fire at one silo does not ground the entire air defence system.
Lord Jim wrote:I think the ExLS really should be the default launcher for the Sea Ceptor and this could improve the chances of other nations adopting it to as a cheaper alternative
For the lowest cost just use the Army's launcher, the one that already comes with every CAMM missile.
So nearly every Naval AAW platform in the world has been badly designed. Very few have more than one battery of silos or only have a single rail launcher.
If they are protected enough to be used a sea, not just on the local boating lake then fine.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:For the lowest cost just use the Army's launcher, the one that already comes with every CAMM missile.
I would agree as a 12 missile land based CAMM takes up 2.5 by 1.2 meters when in the upright and as said before the tubs on Leander look to be 3 x 1.5 meters so for me we must be able to get 15 missiles in a tub

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:If they are protected enough to be used a sea, not just on the local boating lake then fine.
What about 100% reliability when covered in frozen sea spray or even ice in the South Atlantic or the high north?

They have to work EVERY time.

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:So nearly every Naval AAW platform in the world has been badly designed. Very few have more than one battery of silos or only have a single rail launcher.
The single rail launcher is a bad design.
A single battery of silos is an improvement on that.
Distributed silos are an improvement again.
Poiuytrewq wrote:What about 100% reliability when covered in frozen sea spray or even ice in the South Atlantic or the high north?
Do you think the Army have different requirements? I'm sure they also like an air defense system that works in the rain and cold, especially since its permanently in the Falklands.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:
poiuytrewq wrote: What about 100% reliability when covered in frozen sea spray or even ice in the South Atlantic or the high north
Do you think the Army have different requirements? I'm sure they also like an air defense system that works in the rain and cold, especially since its permanently in the Falklands.
Im not suggesting it won't work, I'm simply pointing out that it would need to be thoroughly tested before being adopted across a whole class or the entire fleet.

Life at sea in the South Atlantic and the high north can be pretty brutal.
26698989028_df4e9f9ab1_o.jpg

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Now http://ukdefenceforum.net/download/file.php?id=2029
I can see why Antarctica has been demilitarised
- try to fire the one pictured
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)


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:For the lowest cost just use the Army's launcher, the one that already comes with every CAMM missile.
You propose this many times. I think, if possible, it is a good idea. But, it is not happening. Why?

There should be a reason. I guess it is "impossible". I guess ExLS is the answer.

We know Army CAMM launcher lays in its side for most of the time, keeping the outlet opening "protected". At sea, this is not the case. May be CAMM needs a door (such as on ExLS) or rubber top.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... -Sheet.pdf

It looks like ExLS itself is fairly simple. Only difference is, it has a door.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

shark bait wrote:For the lowest cost just use the Army’s launcher, the one that already comes with every CAMM missile.
ExLS is pretty much a marinised by design equivalent of the Army’s CAMM launcher. However, to start with the existing army launcher and then secondarily marinise it might be a much more expensive prospect than completing development of ExLS. The 155 mm AS-90 gun presumably works in wet and muddy conditions, but plans to fit it to the Type 45 ran into difficulties. Similarly German plans to simply waterproof the GMLRS rocket system for use on the Baden-Württemberg Class frigates also ran into economically insurmountable difficulties.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

MOD offers Appledore Shipyard £60m lifeline.

Defence Secretary has offered to bring forward £60m package of work for Babcock at Devonport to provide more work for Appledore workers. But says has “received no assurances from Babcock” that it would keep Appledore open.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:So instead of sending a 1 billion $ destroyer for patrolling the oceans to hunt submarines, you can send a 250 million $ corvette to do the same job, just as effectively.
"just as effectively"?

Would like to see that proven on a winter's night in the North Atlantic.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

I wonder what that might have been for.

Samuel Beckett cost much more than that. So harbour ships? Advancement on the Gibraltar squadron? Trainers? Ship-to-shore transports for home ports? Can't think what else the RN really would even look for from Appledore on such short notice.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Having the option to cue and launch missiles at a target further away, detected by other assets would seem to give the advantage to Block II ESSM as it can receive such mid-range guidance direct e.g. from CROWSNEST. Whereas for CAMM (-ER) you would have the loop through the launching vessel's CMS and then onto the separate guidance emitters on the ship's superstructure.
I assume you mean: if the Crowsnest was fitted do do so. In which case, I would add that Crowsnest could also be fitted to give mid-course guidance to CAMM.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:You propose this many times. I think, if possible, it is a good idea. But, it is not happening. Why?
My assumption is that it's cheaper to reuse mushrooms. Money rules.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It looks like ExLS itself is fairly simple. Only difference is, it has a door.
Presumably ExLs has to handle a hot launch, in which case it would be quite a lot different than just the door.

By the way, since the Falklands, the RN is adverse to doors.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Simon82 wrote:The 155 mm AS-90 gun presumably works in wet and muddy conditions, but plans to fit it to the Type 45 ran into difficulties.
Not really. Bae took the gun barrel and fitted it into a Mk 8 turret using the existing Mk 8 mechanism. It was the cost of proofing the gun and getting/developing Naval 155mm ammo that killed the proposal.

But your point is valid, the German attempt to put their Army 155mm on a ship failed. They took the complete Army turret and plonked it down. Couldn't handle the ship vibration & weather.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:
shark bait wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:That would free up the mid ship space as a good location for whatever AShM we chose to replace Harpoon.
Poor choice. Distributing the silos around the platform is a great feature, it means a failed launch and fire at one silo does not ground the entire air defence system.
Lord Jim wrote:I think the ExLS really should be the default launcher for the Sea Ceptor and this could improve the chances of other nations adopting it to as a cheaper alternative
For the lowest cost just use the Army's launcher, the one that already comes with every CAMM missile.
So nearly every Naval AAW platform in the world has been badly designed. Very few have more than one battery of silos or only have a single rail launcher.
If they are protected enough to be used a sea, not just on the local boating lake then fine.
It's more to do with survivability, you really don't want one shell hit to take out all your missiles. So the idea is to split and locate apart according to the survivability mantra: concentrate, duplicate, separate.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RetroSicotte wrote:I wonder what that might have been for.

Samuel Beckett cost much more than that. So harbour ships? Advancement on the Gibraltar squadron? Trainers? Ship-to-shore transports for home ports? Can't think what else the RN really would even look for from Appledore on such short notice.
Refit?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Ron5 wrote:Refit?
Possible. Some of the minesweepers, perhaps?

Post Reply