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 »

This formulation
" Ideally on a Type 45, you might have maybe half of the Aster 15 cells taken up by CAMMs just to give you some extra backup missiles in a prolonged engagement, however keep some for A15 in case of more severe threats at close range. It's only a small point, anyway."
quite well covers the situation when a T-45 in the Black Sea was 'harassed' by a swarm of Russian a/c.

The number caused some discussion (what was the msg?) and the ship's commander then remarked that the number of SAMs carried would easily have neutralised the number
- wrong calculation as you don't always get to take down the archer (this is what the Aster 30s are for) but you would also have to deal with arrows... and I bet the loadout on board was not up for that number
- so that was the 'msg' and the counter is already sketched out above, in the quote
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 »

Let alone a “following wave” of Aircraft! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This formulation
" Ideally on a Type 45, you might have maybe half of the Aster 15 cells taken up by CAMMs just to give you some extra backup missiles in a prolonged engagement, however keep some for A15 in case of more severe threats at close range. It's only a small point, anyway."
quite well covers the situation when a T-45 in the Black Sea was 'harassed' by a swarm of Russian a/c.
I have said many times even with the 48 cells if 8 were given to CAMM = 32 missiles that would allow 20 each of the Aster 15/30 = 72 missiles

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yep, if we compare USN and RN ships, the difference in the depth of missile mags is striking (not taking into account the difference in the absolute size of the navies)
- the Americans will have to do some hard thinking as they are constantly leaning towards decommissioning their cruisers

As per these many posts referred to, we just need to act on "our thinking". Now, not in 10 yrs time.
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 »

Seeing that Sea Ceptor uses modified PAAMS software in the host and a modified Aster seeker in the missile, it is unlikely that Aster/PAAMS has superior tracking ability as stated above (and as fact rather than opinion).

The difference between point and area defense mostly boils down to whether the system can can handle fast crossing targets i.e missiles/aircraft targeted at vessels in consort. A tough challenge that many cannot. The requirement puts heavy demands on both system and missile.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Brazilian navy has selected the Spike-ER to replace the old Sea Skua missiles for its Super Lynx helos, many variants of Spike with over 30,000 manufactured, the LR uses a combination of inertial navigation (no GPS as too easily jammed) and an electro-optical/infrared camera, the helicopter weapons officer steers the missile using missile video camera image in real time using an encrypted data link from missile, maximum range has increased from 6.4nm to 17.3nm. The Anglo-French replacement of the Sea Skua with planned IOC 2021 the Sea Venom/Anti-Navire Léger is said to have a range of 11 nm, a heavier missile with larger warhead. Presume the Brazilian had the choice of Sea Venom to replace Sea Skua with advantage of similar fit and function to Lynx, but went with Spike and guessing strongly influenced by price.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote:The Anglo-French replacement of the Sea Skua with planned IOC 2021 the Sea Venom/Anti-Navire Léger is said to have a range of 11 nm,
I suspect that range is at least 3 times less than reality...

Spike-ER is about a third of the size of Sea Venom, its smaller than Hellfire/Brimstone. Allegedly its cheaper as well. But this points to the Brazilian's looking to a multi-use missile rather than dedicated anti-ship. Given their strategic position it makes more sense to have a missile that can do a few things. Think there is a problem with the ER range figure though, Rafael have the range of the latest ER2 as 16km, which is 9.5 miles. The 17 mile figure I suspect is for the much larger Spike-NLOS (as fitted on South Korea's Wildcat) whose range is 27km (16.7 miles).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:Brazilian navy has selected the Spike-ER to replace the old Sea Skua missiles for its Super Lynx helos, many variants of Spike with over 30,000 manufactured, the LR uses
ER and LR are different missiles - this is not clear in the text. ER is quite a beast... a helicopter does not care, but the Finnish coastal jaegers (called RO 06, coastal defence missile 2006) manhandle them from boats to shore; then again, their Norvegian counterparts do the same with Hellfires... those are not light either (a helicopter jobbie, more like)

EDIT: the above post seems to be matching the given range to a third Spike family member!
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 »

Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats.. :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

abc123 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats.. :think:
How many warships can target a hovering helicopter over the horizon?

Max Jones
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Feb 2020, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Max Jones »

abc123 wrote: You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats.. :think:
Keeping doctrine in mind is pretty important. Nobody is planning to sink the entire Russian navy with a few LMMs, for example. However, if you need an accurate missile against small targets that isn't wasteful - for example in a swarm attack - it is the perfect missile.

Similarly, if you are countering small-medium sized ships like fast attack craft, landing ships and patrol vessels that at best might have basic MANPADS but generally aren't designed for anti-air warfare, sea venom is the ideal missile. Battle of Bubiyan demonstrated the effectiveness of this type of missile in that role as clearly as any other modern naval weapon system has been.

Generally speaking, the surface fleet isn't supposed to go against well defended targets. In the rare event we might ever go after them, air forces or submarines are the go-to for anti-ship warfare. Warship-based AShMs are mostly for defence and helicopter-launched anti-surface weapons are an efficient option for the smaller targets.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats.. :think:
How many warships can target a hovering helicopter over the horizon?
Don't know, but I wouldnt want to find out,
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

abc123 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Sea Venom is "over the horizon" which from a helicopter hovering at about 30m is roughly 20km away. Actual range is probably over 30km.
You need to have quite a lot of intestinal fortitude to use that against anybody more serious than Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats.. :think:
How many warships can target a hovering helicopter over the horizon?
Don't know, but I wouldnt want to find out,
The answer is very few or none without some third party's assistance.

Scenario: Wildcat on patrol at its usual mid altitude height spies bad guy with its excellent radar. Drops down below targets radar horizon to get within Venom range. Pops up to finalize co-ords, fires missile(s), performs final targeting adjustments/IFF via missiles 2 way datalink as Wildcat goes home to mother for tea and cookies.

Morceau de gateau.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“


https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho


I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

R686 wrote:Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“


https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho


I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
That would only make sense if the UK wanted the Type 45 follow on to have tier one ASW capability. Otherwise it would be financial & technical lunacy despite what some dimwits on this board would have you think.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Next generation AAW vessels will probably end up being "Cruiser" (Heavy rather than Light) sized vessels, so trying to design or adapt a hull now, for what may prove to be far too small when the replacement comes to be built is indeed lunacy. Think how long that could cause the T45 replacement to be delayed. Now if it had been intended to provide say 4 x AAW (T46) to supplement the current insufficient 6 x T45 then that might be a different matter. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Ron5 wrote:
R686 wrote:Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“


https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho

I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
That would only make sense if the UK wanted the Type 45 follow on to have tier one ASW capability. Otherwise it would be financial & technical lunacy despite what some dimwits on this board would have you think.
Naval procurement across United States and Britain more and more tends to opt for existing mature designs to mitigate risk. If the project delivery of A140 and FFG(X) vindicates this, it may pave the way for a new shipbuilding model based on the expanded hunter class.

A single single high end AAW/ASW cruiser to escort the carriers, by then an existing and mature design, bought by UK MoD, could pave the way for two competing yards to build the same ship. Brought in to replace the Type 45s, it could then evolve through batches to remain up to date and mitigate programme risk for the replacement of T26.

For a current monopoly in high end combatants, this would be the holy grail in driving unit costs down. Less R+D to leverage Intellectual Property and inflate price per unit and a tangible threat that they will lose billions in business. Two yards competing over 20 years for 5 batches of 3 ships, with the lower tier, low profit A140 replacement to sustain skills given to the losing side for the next run. Winning the Type 31 replacement would not be positive for the share price.

Any issues that arise from the need for a new quiet hull form will be mitigated by unmanned offboard systems doing the leg work.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Next generation AAW vessels will probably end up being "Cruiser" (Heavy rather than Light) sized vessels, so trying to design or adapt a hull now, for what may prove to be far too small when the replacement comes to be built is indeed lunacy. Think how long that could cause the T45 replacement to be delayed. Now if it had been intended to provide say 4 x AAW (T46) to supplement the current insufficient 6 x T45 then that might be a different matter. :mrgreen:
As I understand it the T26 already has a large, very large, growth margin built into the mission bay, midship and forecastle VLS areas. The Hunter class modifications to support CEAFAR will do nothing but add even more growth margin to host a next generation sensor suite.

Do you think this supports my previous post?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I am talking of a next generation AAW “Escort” being in the order of c 12-14,000 Tonnes, if not larger still. If I am correct, then in no way could a 8-9000 Tonne Hull be considered to be suitable. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Roders96 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
R686 wrote:Seems like the RAN’s Hunter class may get a redesign to become larger than the UK’s City class Ships due to weight of the new CEFAR as “ It also uses more power than standard radars. One industry source said the frigates weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.“


https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/si ... 0naPjQcIho

I’m just wondering if the UK could use this as the follow on to Type 45 and any potential upgrade of Sampson
That would only make sense if the UK wanted the Type 45 follow on to have tier one ASW capability. Otherwise it would be financial & technical lunacy despite what some dimwits on this board would have you think.
Naval procurement across United States and Britain more and more tends to opt for existing mature designs to mitigate risk. If the project delivery of A140 and FFG(X) vindicates this, it may pave the way for a new shipbuilding model based on the expanded hunter class.

A single single high end AAW/ASW cruiser to escort the carriers, by then an existing and mature design, bought by UK MoD, could pave the way for two competing yards to build the same ship. Brought in to replace the Type 45s, it could then evolve through batches to remain up to date and mitigate programme risk for the replacement of T26.

For a current monopoly in high end combatants, this would be the holy grail in driving unit costs down. Less R+D to leverage Intellectual Property and inflate price per unit and a tangible threat that they will lose billions in business. Two yards competing over 20 years for 5 batches of 3 ships, with the lower tier, low profit A140 replacement to sustain skills given to the losing side for the next run. Winning the Type 31 replacement would not be positive for the share price.

Any issues that arise from the need for a new quiet hull form will be mitigated by unmanned offboard systems doing the leg work.
You are suggesting that the UK mimic the disastrous US history of building the same escort design (Arleigh Burke) for the past several decades to the point all home grown design skills have atrophied resulting in the awful LCS and Zumwalt designs forcing the USN to go to Fincantieri in order to reuse an obsolete frigate design for their next escort? and to repeatedly shelve plans for a new US cruiser because of their inability to come up with a design?

That's a proven losing turd of a strategy.

A140 design for the Type 31 was purely based on cost. Zilch to do with maturity or any of those fine buzz words.

Holy Grail my ass.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

That's a good point to keep the designer designing, if the RN are getting heavier radars for the T45 replacement then maybe a bigger ship is needed than the T26 hull, with all the T45's undergoing engine work soon what is the likely hood of the replacement being started on time ?

Maybe a T26 hull with 2 outrigger hulls (trimaran) with solid state radar type system would have better stability :D sorry can't get the idea out my head now...would have to redesign boat yards amongst other things !!

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 »

It's not a good point. No company ever chooses their next product based on which one requires the most R&D hours.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: cost. Zilch to do with maturity
+
shark bait wrote:It's not a good point. No company ever chooses their next product based on which one requires the most R&D hours.
Quite.
Maturity= less surprises/ design changes= less risk. Risk is associated with (more) cost... at least so I've heard
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Thoughts on a possible future RN AAW destroyer and Hunter

The driving force behind the 10,000t displacement multi-mission Hunter, a larger Mk2 T26 is the ability to fit the big and top heavy CEFAR2 L&S&X band radar, which from pics of Hunter appears to show AESA GaN six S-band flat panel array antennas high on deck house, the same number in L-band plus more for X-band!

Question is why the CEFAR2 radar so big and heavy, assuming it does not have the range or need the capabilities of the USN SPY-6 BMD radar to counter ICBMs as on the Burke Flight III with its SM-3 Block IIAs, Hunter is only marginally lighter than the 10,600t Burke

The 10,000t Hunter AA biggest missile used is the ~90nm range SM-2, the new Belgium/Dutch v-MFF frigate only 5,500t but will use the latest Thales integrated AESA GaN S&X band flat four panel array antenna radars and would expect have no problems in giving adequate coverage and guidance for the SM-2s, if you wanted longer range for MRBMs could add the L-band the new 2,000km Thales SMART L MM/N

The T31 at IH 6,650t let alone the T26 8,000/8,800t should have more than adequate displacement to take the weight of the equivalent Thales AESA GaN radars and necessary number of VLS cell missiles especially as dedicated AAW destroyers would not include full fat ASW or mission bay as T45

If you move from BMD for MRBM into the BMD for ICBMs as a Burke Flight III there would be an argument that the equivalent of Aegis Ashore would be a much less expensive option for defending UK than fitting to destroyer.

For future RN AA destroyer comes the question how do you defend against the new gen hypersonic missiles, Mach 5-10, which at lower height than BMs give much less time for radar detection, require air surveillance either a/c or LEO sats with near instantaneous comms to alert destroyer, the new Russian hypersonic AShM 1,000km maneuvering, winged Tsirkron/Zircon Mach 9 is under test (3x times faster than BrahMos at Mach 2.8), a scramjet, scramjet tech not easy so not as yet convinced will become viable soon, but expect similar hypersonic missile on future horizon.

Post Reply