Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Looks promising, but still the fact remains that this is the first escort built by Babcock. Many "first" for Babcock. So, anything can happen. This is my standpoint.
Fair enough, but they are not exactly novices at this shipbuilding lark and they also have the co-operation of the original designers. It also wouldn't surprise me if they have head-hunted members of the teams that built the Absolons and IHs to advise and assist on the upcoming build.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Babcock also refit frigates and nuclear submarines. They know all about fitting out complex warships.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by PAUL MARSAY »

could we cap production of type 26 and move to production of the T4X ?

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 »

Caribbean wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Looks promising, but still the fact remains that this is the first escort built by Babcock. Many "first" for Babcock. So, anything can happen. This is my standpoint.
Fair enough, but they are not exactly novices at this shipbuilding lark and they also have the co-operation of the original designers. It also wouldn't surprise me if they have head-hunted members of the teams that built the Absolons and IHs to advise and assist on the upcoming build.
Aethulwulf wrote:Babcock also refit frigates and nuclear submarines. They know all about fitting out complex warships.
No objection. Babcock must try their best to handle this program. They must learn a lot from OMT, for sure, maximizing their capability to handle risk. I hope it works.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

PAUL MARSAY wrote:could we cap production of type 26 and move to production of the T4X ?
Why would you want to ? It’d only mean a cut in tier 1 numbers further weakening the RN.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Does anyone have any information w/ the installation costs of a Mk41 module or could give a rough breakdown? Any historical examples where Mk41 modules have been fitted during refit?

Is the most expensive bit physically fixing it in place or integrating with each vessels CMS?

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 »

Mk.41 is just a launcher. What missile do you have in your mind to carry?

Just having a Mk.41 does now allow you to use every missiles compatible with it. For example, TLAM needs its dedicated electronics box (TTWCS), which is not that cheap. CAMM also needs its own electronics box as well as ExLS canister installed. Not sure about ASROC, which could be relatively easy in the launcher side.

In addition, you need hardware installation cost, electric wiring and CMS integration (including the end-to-end systems integration tests), as you said.

- I understand the launcher cost (typically 2-3 times different in value (no surprise)) from ~8M GBP to ~15M GBP (Finnish bid) each.
- But I do not see CMS integration cost, nor Mk.41 hardware integration cost (including all the wirings) in public sources.
- Electronics for TLAM (TTWCS) was somewhat like 20M GBP or so, if my memory works (sorry for inaccurate number), and not sure it include CMS interface software and its license.

Apparently, Mk.41 launcher hardware cost is significant, but not the majority. This is my understanding.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Mk.41 is just a launcher. What missile do you have in your mind to carry?

Just having a Mk.41 does now allow you to use every missiles compatible with it. For example, TLAM needs its dedicated electronics box (TTWCS), which is not that cheap. CAMM also needs its own electronics box as well as ExLS canister installed. Not sure about ASROC, which could be relatively easy in the launcher side.

In addition, you need hardware installation cost, electric wiring and CMS integration (including the end-to-end systems integration tests), as you said.

- I understand the launcher cost (typically 2-3 times different in value (no surprise)) from ~8M GBP to ~15M GBP (Finnish bid) each.
- But I do not see CMS integration cost, nor Mk.41 hardware integration cost (including all the wirings) in public sources.
- Electronics for TLAM (TTWCS) was somewhat like 20M GBP or so, if my memory works (sorry for inaccurate number), and not sure it include CMS interface software and its license.

Apparently, Mk.41 launcher hardware cost is significant, but not the majority. This is my understanding.
My thought process was essentially that missiles can be bought and loaded onto ships much quicker than ships can have the launcher fitted.

Saw elsewhere that the MK41s were roughly 1-2% of the cost of an Arleigh Burke and that the USN doesn't have enough missiles to fill all the silos in the fleet.

Can't think why we wouldn't transition to a similar model. Closed silos provide can provide a large deterrent if used in the right way. Led to me wondering why T45 / 26 don't have more VLS if they're so cost effective.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

SD67 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Repulse wrote:A bit more info on Appledore - from the comments doesn’t look T31 related.

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/20 ... -shipyard/
Great news but what are they going to build?
I'd like to see them build BMT Venari, of course there's the money thing...
Five more Vigilant Class cutters for the UK Border Force would get my vote, and at £4.3 Million (plus inflation) they are bl**dy cheap too.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Thales Nederland were competing against Saab for the Finnish radar contract for the Pohjanmaa/Squdron 2020 3,900t class 'corvettes', ~£290M per ship. Thales offer was with the Sea Master 400 S-band radar with 'AESA 2', four fixed panel array version of the rotating NS100 to be installed on T31, integrated with STIR 1.2 EO Mk 2 dual-band (X/Ka-band) FCR supporting ESSM Block 2 against for saturation attacks.

As previously mentioned Saab won the contract with their AESA GaN radars, Sea Giraffe 4A four fixed panel S-band for volume search; Sea Giraffe 1X rotating X-Band surface search and Ceros 200 FCR and electro-optical director.

Thales did not include X-band surface search radar in their bid, presume their new APAR Block 2 X-band radar too large/expensive and so one reason they lost contract as Saab included their high definition lightweight Sea Giraffe 1X X-band radar in their bid. (Thales did win their 'home' contract for the new Damen Belgium/Dutch frigate with SM400/APAR Block 2) .

The above radar suite of the Pohjanmaa class compared to the T31 emphasises how its limited budget resulting in the compromises being made limiting its operational capability.

(Thales PR SM400 "'AESA 2 unrestricted flexibility in beam forming and beam steering, thanks to its dual-axis multi-beam scanning and fully digital front end technology.// AESA 2.0, it introduces the very latest in transmission and receive technology with fully digital radar front-ends, based on high bandwidth receivers that deliver digital video on element level for digital beam forming on receive. This unique feature, not offered by regular AESA radars, provides total flexibility in electronic beam forming and beam steering, a key enabler for future growth to match threat developments.//Size, weight and power consumption are significantly reduced when compared to earlier surveillance radars.")

From <https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thales-s ... anel-radar>


Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Not clear that this has any impact on the T31 programme but good news nonetheless.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49889573

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting exchange here but possibly not good news for those hoping for extra Frigates.

Pity the statement about the potency of the River Batch 2 with a Wildcat helicopter was cut short but possibly another signal that some in the MOD believe that the RB2's are capable of a lot more than EEZ patrol.



This is clearly another example of a senior member of HMG signing the praises of the UK's OPV's. If more vessels are to be funded in the future an improved class of OPV's, possibly armed to a corvette level must now be very near the top of the list.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aside from the headline for the thread, quite impressed by the way Ben Wallace tackles matters (no-nonsense)
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

A little messy at best for me it shows a lack of understanding the comment about Australia sending a ship to the gulf and us sending one to Pacific is just silly as we still need two ships to make this happen plus the old chestnut about new ships being able to the job of 2 or 3 still fail to take into account the fact that ship can't be in 2 or 3 places at the same time. This being said at this time we need to get to a place where we have 19 or 20 escorts manned and at sea for between 160 and 200 days a year. As for the OPV's he needs to go away look at a RB2 and be told how limited a wildcat is to this class of ship

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:As for the OPV's he needs to go away look at a RB2 and be told how limited a wildcat is to this class of ship
Agreed but the clear inference is that a River class OPV, with a Wildcat, is a potent asset. It's a reoccurring theme and could be indicating a direction of travel.

However, having a Wildcat either embarked or not doesn't solve the CIWS problem so unless the RB2's are to be fitted with CAMM/Phalanx it's clear that they would have to operate under the umberella of a larger more capable asset. A T45 with 2 embarked Wildcats and 1 or 2 RB2's (with 57mm and 2x 30mm plus LMM) would be more sustainable and much cheaper than what RN are currently deploying.

It also highlights again that the T31 is too much and not enough as currently configured. Maybe it's time for a subtle rethink within SDSR 2020 to upgrade the T31's and RB2's weapons/sensor fit and add a modest number of cost effective corvette's based on the RB2/Leander designs.

It would also be the fastest way to enlarge the fleet apart from retaining the T23's for longer until extra T31's can be built.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

It's almost like terrible procurement decisions have to be twisted into sounding positive for public speaking or something...

The fact they have to rely on Rivers at all for doing any more than what the B1s did is indicative of a failing. This sounds like nothing more than trying to damage control that, and shouldn't be regarded a positive. Rolling Rivers with Wildcats and token last hope air defence is no way to conduct operations within hostile waters, no matter how it's put.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

If you are "Wielding a Big Stick" then Soft Power can be made to work but if you are only "Wielding something more akin to a Toy" then the most likely outcomes will be; either we will end up being totally ignored, or someone will attempt to take us on. Either is dangerous, both for the people involved and also for the credibility of our ability to project power, whether that be Hard or Soft. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Same old performance, bridging the gap between aspiration and resources with hot air.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

No! This is something relatively new. Politicians who like to Talk Big, but only want??? Trident and think that almost every thing else can be dealt with by carrying a stick of Candy Floss.

Proper Politicians would know that would just not be credible.

Funny that the DefSec did not draw the parallel between the 30 x Russsian vessels being vastly more capable and much more difficult to find with our reduced number of assets. More capable our assts may be, but they cannot be in 30 places at once, let alone in the "correct 30 places". Like trying to find 30 x needles in a haystack. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:However, having a Wildcat either embarked or not doesn't solve the CIWS problem so unless the RB2's are to be fitted with CAMM/Phalanx it's clear that they would have to operate under the umberella of a larger more capable asset.
Indeed.

When they are not doing the B1 EEZ duty, they can be an adjunct to a TF (that provides that umbrella) and bcz they can land, refuel and rearm (the mags are there!) Wildcats, the bigger decks can be doing something else (not in ones, but in waves: ASW/ AEW 24/7, lifting off a Coy in one wave that might be concurrent with other waves, hitting other realted objectives and... well, the rest is doctrinal stuff).
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I listened to the clip, and I must say the Minister had the right question of “what is the UK’s ambition” coupled with “currently it is to work with international partners rather than independently”.

I didn’t hear anything to suggest that a B2 River would be retasked to work in high threat areas, but that it is one of the globally deployable platforms.

The UK’s deployable global maritime big stick capable of (limited) independent global action will be the CSG. Of course this can then be linked up with allies for larger “hot” operations.

The T31 will be used to link up with allies to form joint task groups, again globally.

Where I believe the B2s are being positioned, like the Echo class, is lower level presence/patrol ships working in lower threat environments. Whilst they could help protect lines of logistics in war, they will never be front line warships used in high threat environments. In my view they will always be protected where there is a threat above low/low end of mid with other assets - probably land based as much as sea based.

There will not be forward based RN battlegroups, capable of independent action of the 19th and first part of the 20th centuries.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote:If you are "Wielding a Big Stick" then Soft Power can be made to work
It could be fair to say that 4 boomers and 2 Carriers is a pretty big stick but these do need to be backed up by more than just hot air

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 »

Image
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Repulse wrote:Looks like 12 SeaCeptor VLS tubes to me... the let down begins.
Agree, looks like 12 CAMM. Interesting.
Not sure it is "critical" or not, but it does show how limited the resource is (with no surprise).
A corvette armament on a Frigate hull. Pretty consistent with its cost.

But,

I will again propose to make first 2 of the 5 T31 to be without CAMM, while making the other 3 to be 24 CAMM equipped. As omitting the CAMM system as a whole in the first 2, this "2 with 0 and 3 with 24" split buy will be even cheaper than "12 each on all the 5 T31".

Actually, this idea follows the original BMT document of "efficient" escort building.

Basic idea is to
- forward deploy 2 of the 3 "24 CAMM" T31.
- keep active for training and FRE 2 of the 3 remaining T31 (2 "no CAMM" and 1 "24 CAMM"), around British water.
- One always at long maintenance.

The rotating crew training in British water will use the "no CAMM" T31, but train with CAMM simulator, so no problem. The 2 forward deployed T31 with 24 CAMM (enough CAMM) can join the task-force when needed.

Good point of this plan is to clarify, "T31 armament is not fully funded" to the audience. Lack of primary self-defense SAM will be catchy evidence for it. "No CAMM T31" can do Russian fleet escorting, all HADR tasks, and even visit South Atlantic nations. It is not good for NATO escort fleet, but may go join MCM fleet.

[ADD] So, it is virtually making "2 super Floreal-class surveillance Frigates" and "3 super LaFayette-class light frigates". The two "no CAMM version" will carry 2x 20mm CIWS in place as a requirement (ref T31e RFI), so it is well armed than Floreal. French Floreal-class has proven to be efficient and powerful asset in low threat area, a class of asset RN completely lacks. If the money saved by them is large enough, I can even imagine the latter three "24 CAMM version" be added with a hull sonar. It will be much more powerful than modified French LaFayette class.

MarkLachlan
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 14 Apr 2019, 10:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by MarkLachlan »

Could it be EXLS silo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Image
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Repulse wrote:Looks like 12 SeaCeptor VLS tubes to me... the let down begins.
Agree, looks like 12 CAMM. Interesting.
Not sure it is "critical" or not, but it does show how limited the resource is (with no surprise).
A corvette armament on a Frigate hull. Pretty consistent with its cost.

But,

I will again propose to make first 2 of the 5 T31 to be without CAMM, while making the other 3 to be 24 CAMM equipped. As omitting the CAMM system as a whole in the first 2, this "2 with 0 and 3 with 24" split buy will be even cheaper than "12 each on all the 5 T31".

Actually, this idea follows the original BMT document of "efficient" escort building.

Basic idea is to
- forward deploy 2 of the 3 "24 CAMM" T31.
- keep active for training and FRE 2 of the 3 remaining T31 (2 "no CAMM" and 1 "24 CAMM"), around British water.
- One always at long maintenance.

The rotating crew training in British water will use the "no CAMM" T31, but train with CAMM simulator, so no problem. The 2 forward deployed T31 with 24 CAMM (enough CAMM) can join the task-force when needed.

Good point of this plan is to clarify, "T31 armament is not fully funded" to the audience. Lack of primary self-defense SAM will be catchy evidence for it. "No CAMM T31" can do Russian fleet escorting, all HADR tasks, and even visit South Atlantic nations. It is not good for NATO escort fleet, but may go join MCM fleet.

[ADD] So, it is virtually making "2 super Floreal-class surveillance Frigates" and "3 super LaFayette-class light frigates". The two "no CAMM version" will carry 2x 20mm CIWS in place as a requirement (ref T31e RFI), so it is well armed than Floreal. French Floreal-class has proven to be efficient and powerful asset in low threat area, a class of asset RN completely lacks. If the money saved by them is large enough, I can even imagine the latter three "24 CAMM version" be added with a hull sonar. It will be much more powerful than modified French LaFayette class.
I do really like this idea, but I could hear the headlines - NEW RN FRIGATES WITH NO MISSILES !!!

Would it work better the other way round, or the first 2 with 24 x CAMM then 1 x no CAMM, with then without?

I agree 12 x CAMM does seem low for a ship they want to potentially escort the carriers as well, maybe they are ear marking the saved space for some MK 41 VLS at a future date like on the T45....

Post Reply