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 »

Lord Jim wrote: freeing up the T-26 if that was the route chosen and funded.
Let's check in the mid-30s, which of the ones doing the freeing up materialised
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 »

Agreed, now where are my keys to my TARDIS? :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Interesting development project by the USCG for a smallish UAV to be operated by ships with no helo/flight decks with an impressive operational endurance of 6.5 hours, thinking that it would be great ISR capability for the OPV River class especially in Falklands

One major problem with all drones is how to avoid colliding with other a/c, helos etc (one reason given for German cancellation of $2.5 billion contract for MQ-4C Triton UAVs). USCG has its Passive Acoustic Non Cooperative Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (PANCAS), which uses sound rather than radar to detect a/c to 31 nm.

Drones give the great capability of Beyond Visual Line of Sight, BVLOS. A ship with navigation radar at 100' surface horizon search range limited to ~12+nm, coverage ~450 sq nm. if drone only operating at 1,000' the range extended to ~37+ nm - coverage jumps to ~ 4,300 sq nm, for an order of magnitude better ISR capability if sensors good enough.

You could envisage variant of the USCG UAV with its passive PANCAS and fitted with passive ESM and IR sensors would be very useful for EMCON operations on frigates and destroyers operating independently without air cover to give advance warning of enemy warships, ability to target them with your AShM and warning of counter attacks by sea skimming missiles, especially useful for giving extra seconds to counter the supersonic AShM, the drones 6.5 hour endurance much higher than a helo at a fraction of the cost plus advantage of its small RCS.

https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organizat ... y-for-uas/

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 would be a great addition not just to the Rivers but also our Fisheries Protection and Coastguard vessels.

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 »

Also for all escorts.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by AndyC »

The Defence Command Paper says "The paper announces the retirement of the two oldest Type 23 frigates."

The Sun announced the early retirement of two specialist anti-submarine frigates - HMS Monmouth and HMS Montrose.

They are, however, not ant-submarine frigates but general purpose frigates. They are also not the oldest Type 23 frigates.

Can anyone clarify?

Certainly it makes sense for HMS Monmouth to be retired early as it hasn't had its LIFEX or engine upgrade. However, you'd expect the second ship to be retired to be the oldest ship, which also hasn't had its engines upgraded - HMS Argyll.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Bit of a ding-dong going on in the Telegraph's "Letters to the Editor" section.

SIR – The impact of the incident in the Suez Canal illustrates that the free movement of goods on the world’s oceans is more fragile than it seems (“Giant ship blocking Suez Canal threatens global trade”, March 25).

Protecting trade routes has been a key role of the Royal Navy for centuries, as the recent Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper recognises. Sadly, while the rhetoric on frigates is heartening, the reality is not. Having been told that the escort force would never fall below the already disgracefully low level of 19, we find it will fall to 17 next year. Not one ship has been ordered since the Prime Minister’s announcement last year of a shipbuilding bonanza. Three of the Type 26 frigates had been ordered five years ago, the first of which won’t join the Navy until 2027. The much-trumpeted Type 32 frigate is not even on the drawing board.

Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary and shipbuilding tsar, should be aware that it is difficult to have a shipbuilding strategy without ship orders.

Admiral Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
London SW1
In a swift response the 1SL added,

SIR – Admiral Lord West of Spithead (Letters, March 26) is right to highlight the role of the Royal Navy in securing the free movement of trade on the world’s oceans.

This has been affirmed by the Government’s Integrated Review, Defence Command paper and an increase of circa £24 billion in defence spending. Consequently, as First Sea Lord I consider more credit ought to be given to the extraordinary shipbuilding programme that is already under way. The Royal Navy will see an increase to 24 frigates and destroyers by the early 2030s; Type 26 and Type 31 frigates are being built and the Type 32 frigate class is on the drawing board.


Over the next decade at least seven classes of ships and submarines will be built: a feat not seen for nearly 50 years. Between 2015 and 2030, the tonnage of the Royal Navy will increase by approximately 50 per cent. Despite a temporary dip to 17 frigates and destroyers we will provide more ships at sea and available for operations than we did last year and are doing this year. This is not alchemy. Rather, it is a fundamental part of the Integrated Review. It’s about modernisation, autonomy and forward presence; focusing on what can actually be deployed, and taking tough decisions to get ready for tomorrow’s fights. In sum, the Royal Navy is being invested in considerably and this is a good time to be “on watch”.

Admiral Tony Radakin
London SW1
Wouldn't it be nice to see what is on that drawing board!

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: see what is on that drawing board!
Half a dozen blue prints, ranging from 4900 to 7000+ in displacement
- i.e the same ones that were used to reiterate :) T26 to its 'final' from

That was quick as the blue prints were still in a drawer...
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

In Bob’s Desk ? :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:Mr Williamson is working on plans for two new UK bases in Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific region so Britain can project her influence militarily after Brexit.

Britain already has permanent joint operating bases in Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
The emphasis on more forward basing started with this news piece at the end of 2018 and has now been confirmed in the IR ( and the T31 design being suitable for being maintained under such arrangements).

Since, however, further West from our Bahrain, DG, Oman triangle there have been developments. The two land bases - the US and Chinese, overlooking Bab el-Mandeb were there already, but navy-wise
- the UAE has 'taken over' Socotra
- China has a base in Eritrea
and now USN and Russian warships are simultaneously visiting Port Sudan as
"In December, Russia announced signing a 25-year agreement to build a naval base in Port Sudan, part of Moscow’s latest push into Africa as it seeks to renew its geopolitical clout.

Russia’s navy will be allowed to keep up to four ships at a time at the base including nuclear-powered vessels. The base will be manned by up to 300 military and civilian personnel. Russia will have the right to transport via Sudan’s airports and ports “weapons, ammunition, and equipment” needed for the naval base to function.

The Red Sea naval base will be Russia’s first in Africa and only its second on foreign soil, after Tartous in Syria.

The US has its only permanent base in Africa in the port of Djibouti, 1,000 kilometers (625 miles) to the south, which overlooks the narrow strait between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden — a chokepoint for world shipping."

We have just heard that 15% of world's shipping passes through the Suez Canal; so the same is true for all these points dotted along (and at the opening) of the Red Sea.
- getting rather crowded (and not just with freighters and tankers)
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)

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:
Poiuytrewq wrote: see what is on that drawing board!
Half a dozen blue prints, ranging from 4900 to 7000+ in displacement
- i.e the same ones that were used to reiterate :) T26 to its 'final' from

That was quick as the blue prints were still in a drawer...
Blueprints??? Stored next to the quill pens no doubt :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:Interesting development project by the USCG for a smallish UAV to be operated by ships with no helo/flight decks with an impressive operational endurance of 6.5 hours, thinking that it would be great ISR capability for the OPV River class especially in Falklands

One major problem with all drones is how to avoid colliding with other a/c, helos etc (one reason given for German cancellation of $2.5 billion contract for MQ-4C Triton UAVs). USCG has its Passive Acoustic Non Cooperative Aircraft Collision Avoidance System (PANCAS), which uses sound rather than radar to detect a/c to 31 nm.

Drones give the great capability of Beyond Visual Line of Sight, BVLOS. A ship with navigation radar at 100' surface horizon search range limited to ~12+nm, coverage ~450 sq nm. if drone only operating at 1,000' the range extended to ~37+ nm - coverage jumps to ~ 4,300 sq nm, for an order of magnitude better ISR capability if sensors good enough.

You could envisage variant of the USCG UAV with its passive PANCAS and fitted with passive ESM and IR sensors would be very useful for EMCON operations on frigates and destroyers operating independently without air cover to give advance warning of enemy warships, ability to target them with your AShM and warning of counter attacks by sea skimming missiles, especially useful for giving extra seconds to counter the supersonic AShM, the drones 6.5 hour endurance much higher than a helo at a fraction of the cost plus advantage of its small RCS.

https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organizat ... y-for-uas/
Except that isn't what the article says.

It describes the programs the coastguard are running to develop technologies to fit to somebody else's UAV. They are most definitely not developing a new one.

calculus
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 12 Jun 2019, 19:04
Canada

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by calculus »

Canada has chosen a different main gun for their T26 variant: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... bat-ships/

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

calculus wrote:Canada has chosen a different main gun for their T26 variant: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... bat-ships/
That's a big surprise to me.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:That's a big surprise to me.
I did see a price for the 127/64 (albeit from 12 years ago) for the German F-125 and it was vastly cheaper than the Mk.45. Now obviously the RN has plumped for the most expensive one, with fully automated magazine, but the price difference (even if you don't see exactly what was included ) was so vast that you wondered how on earth the Mk.45 had won.

The UK order was 3 full gun systems, 1 trainer, support and ammunition for $245m (at the time £183m) in 2016. The German order was for 5 guns (4 for ships and 1 trainer) for EUR70m (at the time c£55-60m) in 2007. The 127/64 can have an automated magazine as well but don't think this order was for the direct competition for the Mk.45 mod 4. But even if you double the price for the magazines and a support package its a lot cheaper and for more systems...even with inflation taken into account.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... order.html

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

So what will we get that they don't?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

If the 127/64 system is so much cheaper than the Mk45 should RN not be considering it for the T31 or T32 programmes? Retaining 127mm commonality?

I am all for supporting UK PLC but if all of the T26's, T31's and T32's could be fitted with the 127/64 for a similar cost as eight Mk45 mod4 this option should be seriously considered.

I suspect the truth is we are not comparing Apple's for Apple's.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Timmymagic wrote:I did see a price for the 127/64 (albeit from 12 years ago) for the German F-125 and it was vastly cheaper than the Mk.45. Now obviously the RN has plumped for the most expensive one, with fully automated magazine, but the price difference (even if you don't see exactly what was included ) was so vast that you wondered how on earth the Mk.45 had won.

The UK order was 3 full gun systems, 1 trainer, support and ammunition for $245m (at the time £183m) in 2016. The German order was for 5 guns (4 for ships and 1 trainer) for EUR70m (at the time c£55-60m) in 2007. The 127/64 can have an automated magazine as well but don't think this order was for the direct competition for the Mk.45 mod 4. But even if you double the price for the magazines and a support package its a lot cheaper and for more systems...even with inflation taken into account.
Poiuytrewq wrote:If the 127/64 system is so much cheaper than the Mk45 should RN not be considering it for the T31 or T32 programmes? Retaining 127mm commonality?

I am all for supporting UK PLC but if all of the T26's, T31's and T32's could be fitted with the 127/64 for a similar cost as eight Mk45 mod4 this option should be seriously considered.

I suspect the truth is we are not comparing Apple's for Apple's.
I've never bought a 5" gun but I've been involved in plenty of big procurements and you just cannot compare using open source materials like a press release or Wiki, as understandably tempting as it is.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

RichardIC wrote:I've never bought a 5" gun but I've been involved in plenty of big procurements and you just cannot compare using open source materials like a press release or Wiki, as understandably tempting as it is.
Same here. But the price for 5 guns alone is astonishingly cheap. Even compared to smaller calibre weapons like the 57mm and 76mm where prices can also be seen. Usual rule of thumb for defence procurements is when its not mentioned to double the cost of the kit to include maintenance contracts, spare parts, manuals etc.

calculus
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 12 Jun 2019, 19:04
Canada

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by calculus »

Normally a bid in Canada is evaluated as follows: 60% Technical, 20% Cost, and 20% Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) (which is basically how much of the bid value will be spent in Canada). I've seen variations, but Technical has never been below 50%. So, if that same equation was followed, it suggests that there are technical reasons the gun was chosen over the MK45.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil R »

calculus wrote:suggests that there are technical reasons the gun was chosen over the MK45.
Slightly tongue in cheek...
5"/54 caliber Mark 45 mount = 22 tons
127 mm/64 LW mount = 32 tons (45% better)

Phil R

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Perhaps the Cananadians are trying to snip at the costs and/or do not think the advantages of the mk 45 for the RN are worth the added cost over the 127/64

calculus
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 12 Jun 2019, 19:04
Canada

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by calculus »

Phil R[/quote]
Phil R wrote:
calculus wrote:suggests that there are technical reasons the gun was chosen over the MK45.
Slightly tongue in cheek...
5"/54 caliber Mark 45 mount = 22 tons
127 mm/64 LW mount = 32 tons (45% better)

Phil R
Appreciate the humour. There have definitely been some pretty ridiculous decisions made on past procurements by the CF, but the team running the CSC are all top notch, so I'm still leaning towards a technical reason for this decision. Also, FYI, the Mk45 Mod 4 specified for T26 is actually a 62 caliber gun, and, according to BAE, weighs 24,389kg, and that's without fluids and the lower hoist, so there may not be as large a difference in weight between it and the OTO gun as we might believe. I would definitely like to know the reasoning behind this decision.

Glen
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 08 May 2020, 22:58
Canada

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Glen »

calculus wrote:I would definitely like to know the reasoning behind this decision.
Range?

I've seen the range for the Mk45 Mod 4 (127/62) listed as approximately 36 Km, while the range of the OTO 127/64 LW with VULCANO ammunition is listed at up to 100 Km, depending on type.

Ballistic Extended Range - Unguided multipurpose ammunition - Up to 60Km range
Guided Long Range/IR - (Precision anti-ship) - Up to 80Km range
Guided Long Range for NFS - (Autonomous IMU+GPS guidance) Up to 100Km range

Mk 45 Mod 4
OTO 127/64 LW
OTO Vulcano 127

calculus
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 12 Jun 2019, 19:04
Canada

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by calculus »

Glen wrote:
calculus wrote:I would definitely like to know the reasoning behind this decision.
Range?

I've seen the range for the Mk45 Mod 4 (127/62) listed as approximately 36 Km, while the range of the OTO 127/64 LW with VULCANO ammunition is listed at up to 100 Km, depending on type.

Ballistic Extended Range - Unguided multipurpose ammunition - Up to 60Km range
Guided Long Range/IR - (Precision anti-ship) - Up to 80Km range
Guided Long Range for NFS - (Autonomous IMU+GPS guidance) Up to 100Km range

Mk 45 Mod 4
OTO 127/64 LW
OTO Vulcano 127
That's a good one. Or rate of fire? Number of ready rounds? There are a few areas where this gun seems to exceed the "published" specifications of the Mk45, which must be taken with a grain of salt, of course, but still...

It would be interesting to know the life cycle costs of each system, over a typical 30-year life.

Post Reply