Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[NickC]

Yeah, 30mm rounds totally useless against aircraft. Bounce right off

I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

The 30mm Bushmaster designed to take out Class I (25kg - 70 knots) and Class II (25-150kg - max 200 knots) drones.

[Ron5]

Yeah, 30mm rounds totally useless against aircraft. Bounce right off

I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

The 30mm Bushmaster designed to take out Class I (25kg - 70 knots) and Class II (25-150kg - max 200 knots) drones.

You seem to be unaware that the majority of aircraft guns carried to shoot down other aircraft are 30mm and smaller caliber. Typhoon for an example carries a 27mm Mauser cannon.

[Timmymagic]

I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

No one is talking about using 30mm Bushmaster or 40mm Bushmaster, or even Bofors 40mm for defence against missiles. That is not the role of the system's...they lack the projectile size for guided rounds, rate of fire and tracking systems to engage missiles. Hard kill missile defence on T31 will be the preserve of Sea Ceptor, and only if the RN ever gets a guided projectile, the 57mm Bofors.

[Timmymagic]

BAE Inc 11th October PR another option for C-UAS, successfully tested its APKWS 2.75"/70mm at Yuma.

APKWS uses semi-active laser guidance and recently modified its software for the rocket to strike a target at a steeper angle of attack, increasing max range by 30%, current range 1.1 to 5 km when launched from helicopters, BAe claimed 80% hit probability within 2 m of the center of the laser spot per single shot, has done better in trials. The C-UAS variant uses a new proximity fuze by L3Harris which combines target proximity detection and point detonation capabilities. The very big plus of the APKWS is its cost of ~$22,500 each (its a conversion for Hydra 70 unguided rockets) the new proximity fuze will push cost up, ~$22,000 is the cost of the 57mm ALaMO round. A land launched system developed but as far as know has not been taken up.

Of note somewhat similar in concept to the LMM/Martlet which was trialled on T23 Sutherland back in 2019 and secondly the use of the L3 proximity fuze which speculating same or similar to that used in the 57mm L3 AlaMO round?

Going down the BAe route basically leads to a clone of the RAM systems that is already in service, has e future development path in place and is definitely mature with zero risk. If we by some slim chance went down BAE's route we would end up using a CVR-7 rocket as the base that is actually superior to the Hydra. I actually believe we should adopt a AKPWS type weapon based on the CVR-7, but for the AAC's AH-64E Apache Guardians, not shipborne use.

FYI....MSI Defence work with Arnold Defence who produce the Fletcher, a ground launched APKWS system already in service with USSOCOM...

https://www.arnolddefense.com/arnold-de ... -fletcher/

[donald_of_tokyo]

BAE Inc 11th October PR another option for C-UAS, successfully tested its APKWS 2.75"/70mm at Yuma.

APKWS uses semi-active laser guidance and recently modified its software for the rocket to strike a target at a steeper angle of attack, increasing max range by 30%, current range 1.1 to 5 km when launched from helicopters, BAe claimed 80% hit probability within 2 m of the center of the laser spot per single shot, has done better in trials. The C-UAS variant uses a new proximity fuze by L3Harris which combines target proximity detection and point detonation capabilities. The very big plus of the APKWS is its cost of ~$22,500 each (its a conversion for Hydra 70 unguided rockets) the new proximity fuze will push cost up, ~$22,000 is the cost of the 57mm ALaMO round. A land launched system developed but as far as know has not been taken up.

Of note somewhat similar in concept to the LMM/Martlet which was trialled on T23 Sutherland back in 2019 and secondly the use of the L3 proximity fuze which speculating same or similar to that used in the 57mm L3 AlaMO round?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/b ... al-systems

Thanks. Just a comment.

APKWS cost does not include the rocket itself, as I understand. It is also the cost of the version without proximity fuse. As such, I very much admire the effectiveness of ALaMO round (note ALaMO also does not carry proximity fuses, but it will all depend on how they program the seeker information). So cheap! Of course, for land-attack or anti-boat, APKWS-equiped rocket has larger punch. But, ALaMO can be carried in numbers, say, hundred, in a 57mm turret. Hundred rounds of hydra-70 rocket and its launcher are nightmare.

[NickC]

I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

No one is talking about using 30mm Bushmaster or 40mm Bushmaster, or even Bofors 40mm for defence against missiles. That is not the role of the system's...they lack the projectile size for guided rounds, rate of fire and tracking systems to engage missiles. Hard kill missile defence on T31 will be the preserve of Sea Ceptor, and only if the RN ever gets a guided projectile, the 57mm Bofors.

Totally agree, that was the point I was making, as mentioned in my post the Bushmaster 30mm designed to take out Class I and II drones with max 150 kg / 200 knots.

Would be very surprised even if the 57mm MadFires makes it out of DARPA R&D (as yet not adopted by USN) doubt it will have the mass and explosive firepower to stop an anti-ship missile. Raytheon claim it will be able to hard kill missiles, but as yet no trials to confirm and their video animation shows it side impacting missile which seems an unlikely scenario, thought more likely the anti-ship missile will be head on. The 2015 OTO Melara video shows their trials of the 76mm DART taking out 220 mph Banshee drone, a long way from showing capability to stop an anti-ship missile.

[Ron5]

I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

No one is talking about using 30mm Bushmaster or 40mm Bushmaster, or even Bofors 40mm for defence against missiles. That is not the role of the system's...they lack the projectile size for guided rounds, rate of fire and tracking systems to engage missiles. Hard kill missile defence on T31 will be the preserve of Sea Ceptor, and only if the RN ever gets a guided projectile, the 57mm Bofors.

Totally agree, that was the point I was making, as mentioned in my post the Bushmaster 30mm designed to take out Class I and II drones with max 150 kg / 200 knots.

Would be very surprised even if the 57mm MadFires makes it out of DARPA R&D (as yet not adopted by USN) doubt it will have the mass and explosive firepower to stop an anti-ship missile. Raytheon claim it will be able to hard kill missiles, but as yet no trials to confirm and their video animation shows it side impacting missile which seems an unlikely scenario, thought more likely the anti-ship missile will be head on. The 2015 OTO Melara video shows their trials of the 76mm DART taking out 220 mph Banshee drone, a long way from showing capability to stop an anti-ship missile.

You're going to get quite a shock when you find out about lasers in their anti-aircraft/anti-missile role. Zero projectile mass and momentum. How could they possibly have shot down a kamikaze in WW2????

[Ron5]

.. their video animation shows it side impacting missile which seems an unlikely scenario, thought more likely the anti-ship missile will be head on

In the video, the missiles are seas skimmers following a flat trajectory while the shells are following a curved ballistic course Hence the shell impact from the side or top of the missile.

But I do share your skepticism of whether such an accurate shot can be made. I would have thought that at least a proximity fuse would be mandatory.

[Lord Jim]

I do not think it is one shot one kill with "Mad Fires". Multiple rounds are fired at each target and will continue to be until the threat is neutralised. The cost of the multiple shells will need to be considerably cheaper than a RAM or ESSM to be seen a beneficial to the USN, let alone cheaper than Sea Ceptor in my opinion. I think Canada has made the right decision in choosing Sea Ceptor as its point defence weapon against high speed threats with Phalanx as a last resort against these whilst still being effective against slower threats. This is why I would like one of the 40mm on the T-31 to be replaced by a Phalanx, from the pool the RN already has. This would reduce the number of 40mm needed for the T-31 or allow five to be mounted on the B2 Rivers as an alternative use.

[Tempest414]

lets not forget that type 31 can bring 57mm and 2 x 40mm firing 3P round to bear on a target from 12km with the real hard hitting taking place at 4km with Phalanx only getting down to it at less than a km

As said before the RN has set its stall out as needing 2 x Phalanx fitted to escorts i.e on type 45 & 26 there have been models of type 31 fitted with 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm now for me a Type 31 with

1 x 57mm
2 x 40mm
2 x Phalanx (20mm)
24 x CAMM
8 x NSM
4 x 12.7 HMG
4 x Miniguns
1 x Wildcat with LMM , Venom , Stingray

is a spiky git not to be messed with without proper thinking and in the Littoral is capable of defending its self and hitting targets up to 120 km in land from 40km out to sea

[Repulse]

is a spiky git not to be messed with without proper thinking and in the Littoral is capable of defending its self and hitting targets up to 120 km in land from 40km out to sea

Unless the treat is below the surface...

In seriousness, if the RN got the weapon mix you suggest, and filled in it's ASW blind spot, then I would be ecstatic. However, I would be building 6 and assigning them all to the CBG, freeing up the T26s who could then fulfil their full potential.

The reality is that if they are seen as replacements for the B2 Rivers - primarily in a forward based constabulary role, then the T31 will remain a paper frigate IMO.

Doing this would then allow the T32 to take on the MHPC / UUV+USV mothership role - combined with a level of self defense it could then easily cover standing commitments such as Kipion, TAPs, FRE etc. It could also be the forward based escort for the LRG during peacetime. This would leave the T26s free to be deployed globally as events dictate in areas of higher threat such as the Black Sea, Barents Sea and SCS.

If the RN did as I suggest, then I think the RN would have an appropriate, affordable and credible global navy.

[NickC]

lets not forget that type 31 can bring 57mm and 2 x 40mm firing 3P round to bear on a target from 12km with the real hard hitting taking place at 4km with Phalanx only getting down to it at less than a km

If we take the benchmark of the OTO Melara 76 mm with its DART projectile which is radio controlled via its dedicated FCR gun mounted high frequency/precise Ka-band radar (wavelength 11mm or less), a sub-caliber shell (~40mm?) ballistically shaped for max range with canards able to perform up to 40 maneuvers and and proximity fuzed. DART fired at a high 1,200 m/s (3,900 ft/s), reach 5 km range in 5 seconds.

The 2015 video of the OTO-Melara DART Ammunition Firing Trials shows a 220 mph Banshee drone tracked at 10km, gun fired at 5km and DART projectile hit at 4.5km.

Judging by the video I struggle to see the 6.1 kg 57mm 3P round at only half the weight of a DART round with no precise frequency radar control and no ability to maneuver in flight achieving the same performance. What the 57mm 3P actual range for "the real hard hitting taking place" expect be to be lower than your estimate of 4km, and that's only against a 220 mph target, my view think hit against any high subsonic speed or supersonic anti-ship missile minimal, and due to the massive difference in mass Pk near zero, your view may differ

[Tempest414]

the point is a type 31 can put 320 rounds of 3P ammo in the the path of a missile in 30 seconds starting at say 10km down to 1km

[NickC]

the point is a type 31 can put 320 rounds of 3P ammo in the the path of a missile in 30 seconds starting at say 10km down to 1km

Think that might be overly optimistic, the 40 and 57mm can only fire in short bursts. ~15 rounds? before steel in barrel heats up and if not cooled the barrel expands internally and degrades the projectiles, barrels are not water cooled.

Secondly would expect a BrahMos to cover the ~12 nm from horizon to ship in maybe low 20s,? expect ships' radar/CIC and gun may take 10-15 seconds to react and to get on target, doesn't leave many seconds for the guns to fire many rounds.

Ideally need the the guns to be tested against the QinetiQ Rattler Mach 1.8 to Mach 2.5 supersonic target drone that launched from the Banshee aerial target drone.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Looking at the DARTS movie, I was a bit "depressed". Typical CLOS guidance, which is similar to SeaWolf SAM. Surely good against Harpoon/Excocet and elder ASMs. However, new generation ASM are specifically designed to counter these SAMs (as well as CIWSs). This is the reason why CAMM is with "2-way-datalink + terminal homing" is developed, with so-so range.

As such, these guided-round guns shall be a good counter to mid-level air threats, such as "Harpoon/Excocet and elder ASMs" and/or long range suicide drones. Slow and simple, these missiles are cheap and needed to be handled in number. On the other hand, modern ASMs are expensive and thus worth spending CAMM.

My guess is;
T31 is with CAMM for hi-end ASM, 57mm/40mm 3P (and probably guided rounds on 57mm) for mid/low-end ASMs in number.
T26 is with CAMM for hi-end ASM, 20mm CIWS or mid/low-end ASMs. But, to counter swarm of the latter, 48 CAMMs will be also used.
T45 is with Aster for hi-end ASM, 20mm CIWS or mid/low-end ASMs. As T45 lacks measure to counter swarm of the latter, 24 CAMM is to be added?

[tomuk]

24 CAMM is to be added?

Yes

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... estroyers/

[NickC]

24 CAMM is to be added?

Yes

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... estroyers/

Its not to be forgotten its not just about the number of missiles but the total system, including the CMS/CIC and sensors, flat panel array radars mounted as high as possible to give faster response etc, etc.

Looking at the time it takes for the ship systems to respond to the new generation of very high speed threats and giving the ships missiles and soft kill systems additional seconds to mount successful defence reminds me it was one of the main drivers for Thales Nederland new generation CMS/CIC AWWS, Above Water Warfare System, a follow-on to their popular Tacticos system (to be fitted on T31), so as to achieve faster reaction time and faster threat assessment so as to "protect the ships in a better way".

1:58

[NickC]

Naval News 11th Oct video re the Albatros NG / CAMM-ER at Sea Future 2021 Naval Defence Exhibition, La Spezia, Italy, don't think any new info mentioned.

[Ron5]

A most unimpressive spokesperson.

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting overview but very little new information, simply because there isn’t any.

HMG really needs to stop with the feet dragging and order some ships…..ASAP!

https://www.navylookout.com/a-big-futur ... pbuilding/

[Lord Jim]

Any revised ship building strategy also needs to include both submarines and medium to large Unmanned platforms. We need to ensure to replacement for Astute follows on directly from the Dreadnought class, ideally complementing the Astute to increase the SSN fleet to nine and then maintaining this number with the actual construction of nine replacements. If this could coincide with a joint UK/Australian SSN programme even better. There is also a need to treat medium and large unmanned platforms as warships as that is what they will eventually become.

[Repulse]

The Echo class is due for decommissioning around 2028 I understand, so what is not clear is if they will be scrapped without a dedicated platform replacement or additional MROSS will be purchased (as that is the closest platform on the chart).

[Ron5]

Any revised ship building strategy also needs to include both submarines

Keep that strategy shit well away from the subs

All that's needed is a continuous flow of orders and that looks to be fine with Astutes, then Dreadnoughts, then SSN(R).

Don't forget that "strategy" was just Geo Osbourne's fig leaf to cover his desire to punish Bae for insisting on a realistic price for the Type 26's. Petty little twat is long gone. Should send his "strategy" the same way.

[Scimitar54]

Fine, but delete “a” and substitute “an increased”, between “needed” and “continuous”.

[Ron5]

Fine, but delete “a” and substitute “an increased”, between “needed” and “continuous”.

They're spending a shitload of your hard earned on those Dreadnoughts!!

But more Astutes would be loverly