Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

calculus wrote:
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.
But you can fire Vulcano from Mk45 oddly BAE are the US representative for Leonardo.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/v ... -munitions

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

tomuk wrote: But you can fire Vulcano from Mk45 oddly BAE are the US representative for Leonardo.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/v ... -munitions
Probably a business decision to push Vulcano into the US market - BAE Inc is a very large US firm these days and the incumbent in the naval gun arena

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

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
Buying guns by the lb, now there's a thought :D

Here's the reason direct from Leo's press release:
Already chosen by six navies in the last ten years, the OTO 127/64 LW Vulcano is the best performing gun system on the market, equipped with a highly flexible architecture that allows installation on all types of platforms. Its state-of-the-art technology and complete digitalization ensures continuous assistance to operators and constant support to the on-board Combat Management System (CMS) through the calculation of possible shooting solutions during mission planning.

This system is the only one in the world seamlessly integrated with the Vulcano 127mm ammunition, both in the Guided Long Range (GLR) and the Ballistic Extended Range (BER) versions. Additionally, Leonardo’s 4AP fuze for conventional ammunition ensures high operational flexibility based on its mission-specific configuration programmability features. The OTO 127/64 LW Vulcano operates effectively even in the absence of a crew, thanks to Leonardo’s AAHS solution, which guarantees automatic gun reloading by managing both Vulcano long-range precision strike and conventional ammunition simultaneously.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

So in a nut shell if you buy Italian you are good to go straight out of the box for all the pimped up ammo types, whereas if you go American, you make some good friends but may have to pay more for both the weapon system and ensuring it is integrated with all the pimped ammo you wish to fire.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

It would be good to get a full, detailed and costed comparison of both systems.

After all, the Canadians are doing the legwork here so the integration costs will have already been covered.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

In our case BAe(UK) are building the T-26 and BAe(USA) build the Mark 45 so of course that is the gun that is going to be used.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Would have been interesting had Babcock gone for the OTO 127/64 on type 31

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:Would have been interesting had Babcock gone for the OTO 127/64 on type 31
Cost will prohibit it. Also, BAE/Bofors 57mm rapid fire is much better in close-in anti-surface and anti-air missions. 127mm gun is useful "only" for NGFS.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:Would have been interesting had Babcock gone for the OTO 127/64 on type 31
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Would have been interesting had Babcock gone for the OTO 127/64 on type 31
Cost will prohibit it. Also, BAE/Bofors 57mm rapid fire is much better in close-in anti-surface and anti-air missions. 127mm gun is useful "only" for NGFS.
Both 5" guns have a role in anti-surface/anti-ship role. Both can plink the incoming boat swarm but at a far greater range than the 57mm.

IOW, NGFS is not the only reason for having a decent gun.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Would have been interesting had Babcock gone for the OTO 127/64 on type 31
Cost will prohibit it. Also, BAE/Bofors 57mm rapid fire is much better in close-in anti-surface and anti-air missions. 127mm gun is useful "only" for NGFS.
In which case where does this leave the T26 as currently configured? Interesting question.

A T31 or T32 with,
127/64
2x Phalanx
2x 30mm with LMM

This would give the T31 everything needed to be perfectly capable of dealing with a swarm threat even if Phalanx only added in warmer threat areas.

An alternative for the T31 could be,

127/64
57mm
2x 30mm
Phalanx

Again, Phalanx only added where needed.

Giving the T31's a 100km strike range would be a game changer for RN and the FCF.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Cost will prohibit it. Also, BAE/Bofors 57mm rapid fire is much better in close-in anti-surface and anti-air missions. 127mm gun is useful "only" for NGFS.
Both 5" guns have a role in anti-surface/anti-ship role. Both can plink the incoming boat swarm but at a far greater range than the 57mm.
IOW, NGFS is not the only reason for having a decent gun.
Not convinced. 57mm can handle threat as far as 15-20 km. Boat swarm is a threat in "gray zone", which means longer range is not useful. You need to clearly identify your enemy boat from "real" fishery vessel or pleasure boats. So, I think "far greater range than the 57mm" is useless.

On the other hand, 57 mm gun can fire at a rate of 240 rounds per min, 10 times that of these 5in guns.

For large ship, yes, larger gun is needed. I agree I shall add this to "only NGFS". But, not much more. For "close-in anti-surface and anti-air missions", are there any "better point" in 5in guns compared to 57mm gun? I see none (as it is "close-in", longer range is already out of scope).

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 »

For me, T31 fitted with a 57mm gun, two 40 mm gun, and 12 CAMM is "not so bad".

If adding NGFS is important, we can replace the 57 mm with 127 mm. But, I prefer to do it for T45, before T31 (so that 114 mm gun can be disbanded).

If adding CAMM is important, may be T31 will do. I like to add some on T45, but increasing the CAMM on T31 from 12 to 24 or 36 will be surely cheaper than adding 24-36 CAMM on T45.

T26 with a 127mm gun and 4 guns (CIWS and 30mm) is already not bad for close-in anti-surface/air warfare, I think? Its 48 CAMM will also work well. The most missing for me is, more powerful radar, SSM, and any missile to be installed in her Mk.41 (including modern ASROC, such as Japanese super-sonic long-rage version).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

If you want the T31 for NGFS with a 127mm would that mean going closer inshore risking a lightly armed patrol frigate & her crew, Not sure if that was in the remit....

If the T31 was a Full fat version then yes, but for now i would just get them in the water for their initial low cost low threat missions, then concentrate the money on getting the T26 mk41 filled up, then sort the T32 for hopefully a better armed/sensor GP frigate :thumbup:

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

A good article by Navy Lookout on the Type 83 and likely direction of travel.

https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-83 ... combatant/

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Tempest414 wrote:Would have been interesting had Babcock gone for the OTO 127/64 on type 31
When I said this it was in the context of if T-26 and T-31 had different makes of 5" gun what would the cost been given that T-32 and T-83 would have been more likely to also get a 5" gun

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:In our case BAe(UK) are building the T-26 and BAe(USA) build the Mark 45 so of course that is the gun that is going to be used.
There was a competition between Bae & Leonardo for the UK's T26 as well. Adjudicated by the MoD. Judging by the reports after Bae's win was announced, the MoD put great value on commonality with the USN, particularly when it came to new ammunition types. Developing and qualifying new shells is very expensive, I imagine the MoD liked the idea of the US paying for that and just ordering the results off the shelf.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

serge750 wrote:If you want the T31 for NGFS with a 127mm would that mean going closer inshore risking a lightly armed patrol frigate & her crew, Not sure if that was in the remit....

If the T31 was a Full fat version then yes, but for now i would just get them in the water for their initial low cost low threat missions, then concentrate the money on getting the T26 mk41 filled up, then sort the T32 for hopefully a better armed/sensor GP frigate :thumbup:
I've got a schoolboy idea of a converted Point class to carrying say four x 127mms with maximum automation / minimum crew, a modern arsenal ship firing the 100mile extended range munitions.

(I'll duck my head now)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Or have four or more HIMARS on deck. The USN have trailed and proved HIMARS can hit a land target even one moving form a ship off shore at a range of greater then 70Km. All you have to do is drive them onto the ship before she sails. :)

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

I can’t comment on any errors, agree that it adds little by way of offering an opinion on what options should be taken (other than the T26 Hull is the wrong option), but I think it offers a good overview of what the options are and therefore how significant the project is going to be.

Examples of the choices are:

1 - PAAMS or AEGIS? (Domestic industry v off the shelf type trade off).

2 - ABM capability or not? (Affects the choice at 1 above, if not there it’s a credibility issue).

3 - Son of Sampson or SPY?

4 - How many silos?

5 - What other capabilities (eg land attack) aside from AAW?

6 - what aviation facilities?

7 - what weaponry might come onstream by the 2030s and what can be done to future proof?

These choices are going to dictate the type of vessel the RN gets, but it is not going to be cheap and the ground needs to be paved for this to be an expensive system.

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

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote:I can’t comment on any errors, agree that it adds little by way of offering an opinion on what options should be taken (other than the T26 Hull is the wrong option), but I think it offers a good overview of what the options are and therefore how significant the project is going to be.

Examples of the choices are:

1 - PAAMS or AEGIS? (Domestic industry v off the shelf type trade off).

2 - ABM capability or not? (Affects the choice at 1 above, if not there it’s a credibility issue).

3 - Son of Sampson or SPY?

4 - How many silos?

5 - What other capabilities (eg land attack) aside from AAW?

6 - what aviation facilities?

7 - what weaponry might come onstream by the 2030s and what can be done to future proof?

These choices are going to dictate the type of vessel the RN gets, but it is not going to be cheap and the ground needs to be paved for this to be an expensive system.
For fun (mine not yours :D). Good list by the way excuse me for adding..

1. Home grown AA system

2. 100% yes, fitted for and equipped with, ABM

3. Home grown radar(s), but what form or shape? And how many?

4. > t45, Mk 41's, no Sylvers

5. Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack

6. Lots of helo's, manned and unmanned, big flight deck for concurrency

7. Lasers not rail-guns, rail-guns are all but dead.

8. US & UK missiles, not French

9. Home grown laser(s), big one(s)

10. Brand new design not a derivative of anything

11. Extensive use of T26/T31/T32 systems for economy, lower risk

12. Big mission bay/hangar for off-board systems

13. Long range/endurance for keeping up with the carriers

14. Excellent sea-keeping for keeping up with the carriers

15. New standards in habitability for retention

16. Flag facilities

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

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

Dobbo wrote:I can’t comment on any errors, agree that it adds little by way of offering an opinion on what options should be taken (other than the T26 Hull is the wrong option), but I think it offers a good overview of what the options are and therefore how significant the project is going to be.

Examples of the choices are:

1 - PAAMS or AEGIS? (Domestic industry v off the shelf type trade off).

2 - ABM capability or not? (Affects the choice at 1 above, if not there it’s a credibility issue).

3 - Son of Sampson or SPY?

4 - How many silos?

5 - What other capabilities (eg land attack) aside from AAW?

6 - what aviation facilities?

7 - what weaponry might come onstream by the 2030s and what can be done to future proof?

These choices are going to dictate the type of vessel the RN gets, but it is not going to be cheap and the ground needs to be paved for this to be an expensive system.

A few thoughts on T83 choices,

Would note in your above list you didn't mention budget, it will be most likely be one of the main driver/choices if T83 ever sees the light of day, we have seen how the choice of the multi-mission T26 FFBNW and old gen radar costs ballooned to over £1 billion each for the first three ships after the earlier aspirations for a build cost of between £250 and £350 million and as a result numbers cut from thirteen to eight.

Would break out PAAMS or Aegis to missiles/VLS cells, CMS and radars, all the possible missile options are foreign, Franco/Italian, Israeli and US, will be of interest if the RN ever releases the CONOPS of the T83 so as to narrow down possible missile options

The new Mk2 Aster 30 Block I NT, New Tech, capability 1,500 km ballistic missiles, shouldn't be too long before coming into service with France and Italian navies followed by the envisaged future Aster 30 Block II said to be capable of targeting 3,000 km range MRBMs, (Aster 30 Block I fitted to T45 capability limited to 600 km short range ballistic missiles)

David's Sling, capable of targeting tactical ballistic missiles at low level, Rafael was invited to bid for the Swiss $2 billion Air 2030 contract to replace Bloodhound retired in the late '90's against the Eurosam SAMP-T (land version of the Aster) and Raytheon Patriot, US refused Rafael permission to bid with David's Sling as partially funded by US, expect to have been far the lowest cost option.

US options include the new SM-6 1B, a larger missile than the Aster 30 Block II and another possible outsider the new US Army THAAD-ER said to be in development funded by the MDA, THAAD-ER if still fitting current 20" in dia canister would fit a Mk41 VLS cell.

If requirement to target longer range ballistic missiles, ICBMs etc, looking at the USN SM-3 IIA and Israeli Arrow 4, SM-3 IIA at £20 million plus per missile, USAF NORAD General recently testified it was too expensive as backup to the continental US Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, SM-3 IIA strictly an exo-atmospheric missile so would also need to procure SM-6 and SM-2 etc or alternatives to give full coverage.

UK BAE upgraded T45 CMS only looks viable if choice is the Aster, US missile pick would expect to lead to Aegis, though Spain purchased the Lockheed International Aegis Fire Control Loop to integrate with its own CMS, SCOMBA, for its five new F110 frigates, IAFCL cost $104 million per ship, if Israeli missile choice expect an Israeli CMS, eg Rafael’s Modular, Integrated C4I Air & Missile Defense System (MIC4AD) was chosen for the British Army Sky Sabre/CAMM.

Radars, if understand correctly RN has refused to fund BAE development of Sampson GaN Mk2, so left with foreign options, eg USN GaN SPY-6(V)1 ~$170 million per ship system; Lockheed/Indra GaN SPY-7; Thales Nederland GaN SMART-L MM/N, Sea Fire 500, APAR Mk2 etc; Leonardo GaN Naval Kronos radars from the long range Power Shield L band and others developed for PAAMS.

Always think future proofing is a mugs game, it depends on your crystal ball, if you had bet on the USN electromagnetic rail gun you would have lost your money, USN has zeroed out all future R&D funding from FY2022, possibility the future short range lasers result will be the same.

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

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:we have seen how the choice of the multi-mission T26 FFBNW and old gen radar costs ballooned to over £1 billion each for the first three ships after the earlier aspirations for a build cost of between £250 and £350 million and as a result numbers cut from thirteen to eight.

Would break out PAAMS or Aegis
NickC wrote: UK BAE upgraded T45 CMS only looks viable if choice is the Aster, US missile pick would expect to lead to Aegis
That is clear, and therefore
Ron5 wrote:1. Home grown AA system

2. 100% yes, fitted for and equipped with, ABM

3. Home grown radar(s), but what form or shape? And how many?

4. > t45, Mk 41's, no Sylvers

5. Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack

6. Lots of helo's, manned and unmanned, big flight deck for concurrency

7. Lasers not rail-guns, rail-guns are all but dead.

8. US & UK missiles, not French
You will really have to work the list backwards, from Point 8
- and then determine everything else that comes with the design

And, btw, we will need to get ABM on our ships earlier
... so that points 'which way' :?:
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)

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

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack
Could they end up being the same missile? It's at least plausible.

If meaningful ASW is a requirement surely the T26 has got to be the starting point until it is clear the hull dimensions are involved are insufficient?

Personally I think the class of 4 cruiser sized vessels would be a monumental mistake, RN needs more hulls to allow for attrition in a conflict and so further streamlining should be avoided above all else or one lost vessel could result in a conflict lost.

Perhaps the Hunter class will showcase the possibilities and provide a clear route forward but spiral developing the T26 in much the same the way the USN has constantly improved the AB's makes complete sense IMO.

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

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Plus ASW, plus ASuW, minus land attack
Could they end up being the same missile? It's at least plausible.

If meaningful ASW is a requirement surely the T26 has got to be the starting point until it is clear the hull dimensions are involved are insufficient?

Personally I think the class of 4 cruiser sized vessels would be a monumental mistake, RN needs more hulls to allow for attrition in a conflict and so further streamlining should be avoided above all else or one lost vessel could result in a conflict lost.

Perhaps the Hunter class will showcase the possibilities and provide a clear route forward but spiral developing the T26 in much the same the way the USN has constantly improved the AB's makes complete sense IMO.
Yup, if the T83 ends up being high end ASW, ASuW, AAW and ABM as folks are suggesting we'll end up with only 3 or 4. Just make them high end AAW/ABM with loads of silos, ASM and their 2 ASW, then maybe we can afford 6...

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

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Unless we have money to burn, the T-83 needs to be first and foremost an AAW platform with at least double the VLS of the T-45. IF these are Mk41 then we will probably be spoilt for choice as to what goes in them and the Sylver is not far behind. BMD is the next requirement followed by aviation capacity. Anything else will likely add to cost and reduce the number we can afford. With Mk41 though the T-26 could act as additional magazines if we network the fleet.

Post Reply