Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

It's an RAF Luton tweet...but there is something interesting there...a production version of the MSI Seahawk Sigma with 4 LMM/Starstreak tubes....and a seperate, standalone, 4 missile mount...



Image

And something I think that has been missed...this should be interesting the RN, if its not, they're utterly mad....watch the embedded video (see below link, can't provide link from private Vimeo).....counter UAS (and thus counter air) using E/O as the sensor on an MSI 30mm mount. To note: its not the UK's 30mm Seahawk DS30B or M, its actually the smaller MSI Seahawk LW, but with 30mm Bushmaster like the DS30M. This one appears to have twin feed for 2 different natures. 30mm airburst makes mincemeat of drones....that would be a very handy capability for the UK's fleet that uses DS30....you'd hope the RN might reconsider sticking those already purchased DS30M on the QE Class all considered...

And don't forget....the RN's DS30B/M mount could be upgraded to 40mm Bushmaster very easily...the mount will take it...40mm airburst is a massively different beast to 30mm....


http://www.msi-dsl.com/msi-ds-30mm-coun ... ne-trials/

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I don't recognise the small MSI LLM only launcher on the right in the photo. Tasty.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Forgive me if this is the wrong place for this topic - it straddles a number of issues, this feels the most relevant, but happy for it to be moved if a more appropriate location is found.

Given the Oz-U.K.-US pact, to what extent do we believe this opens the door to deeper cooperation between the U.K. and Australia in particular on complex maritime projects such as the SSN(R), Type 83 to enable both nations to share costs and hopefully deliver greater numbers in the water for the RN and RAN (given there is a clear desire for both nations to increase maritime capabilities)?

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

With regards the above IMO much will depend on whether the Hunter frigate programme is a success. Assuming that it is then there are plenty of areas (including T83 / Hobart replacement) where there could be considerable mutual benefit in future joint programmes. That said, there is also plenty of scope for future joint US / Australia projects which might make more sense given weapons commonality.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

Work should already be underway for the UK astute replacement even if we cannot order it yet so timing is actually very good for us. The Virginia will be too large and expensive for Australia, but considering how closely the UK and US working on the ssbn replacements I can see the same thing for future attack subs where the UK and Australia Co design a smaller attack sub with alot of us commonality. It is the only way to justify the R&D costs. The French must be furious

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 Sea Hawk should be a must for the T-26, T-31 and T-32 as well as replacing the existing mounts on the T-45s. Any idea of the cost?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:I don't recognise the small MSI LLM only launcher on the right in the photo. Tasty.
Totally new one on me, not seen a standalone mount for it before (apart from a very large Aselsan mount for 8 missiles a long while ago). It's not even on their website. Basically any ship with an E/O turret with laser marker could have a rather potent missile capability...its interesting that they've seemingly abandoned the 5 cell mount (from Wildcat) used in the trials.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:That Sea Hawk should be a must for the T-26, T-31 and T-32 as well as replacing the existing mounts on the T-45s. Any idea of the cost?
That as ever is the big question, can't imagine that it would be spectacular though. The capability leap is really significant, particularly for the smaller vessels like River Class Batch 2. Add in the Counter UAS capability for the gun (see the video at the link, very interesting stuff...)....

Don't forget there won't be a DS30 on the T31 so it would need to be the standalone 4 missile mount. Also the T45's use the older DS30B mount.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Phil Sayers wrote:With regards the above IMO much will depend on whether the Hunter frigate programme is a success. Assuming that it is then there are plenty of areas (including T83 / Hobart replacement) where there could be considerable mutual benefit in future joint programmes. That said, there is also plenty of scope for future joint US / Australia projects which might make more sense given weapons commonality.
I agree the success / failure of the T26 / Hunter project will have a significant impact on future cooperation.

There are convenient timing synergies between the Aussie SSN requirement and the U.K. requirement for SSN(R) and T83 and Hobart replacement (hence my initial use of these examples).

I wonder if this might lead to the U.K. using more US systems, such as AEGIS instead of a successor to PAAMS on T83, which might also lead to greater commonality with Australian requirements?

Either way, I suspect we’ll see a lot of QEC, T26, T45/T83 and Astute/SSN(R) in the Indio-Pacific region over the coming years - that probably means we need more than 6 T83 and more than 7 SSN(R), and ways need to be found to afford this…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote:
Phil Sayers wrote:With regards the above IMO much will depend on whether the Hunter frigate programme is a success. Assuming that it is then there are plenty of areas (including T83 / Hobart replacement) where there could be considerable mutual benefit in future joint programmes. That said, there is also plenty of scope for future joint US / Australia projects which might make more sense given weapons commonality.
I agree the success / failure of the T26 / Hunter project will have a significant impact on future cooperation.

There are convenient timing synergies between the Aussie SSN requirement and the U.K. requirement for SSN(R) and T83 and Hobart replacement (hence my initial use of these examples).

I wonder if this might lead to the U.K. using more US systems, such as AEGIS instead of a successor to PAAMS on T83, which might also lead to greater commonality with Australian requirements?

Either way, I suspect we’ll see a lot of QEC, T26, T45/T83 and Astute/SSN(R) in the Indio-Pacific region over the coming years - that probably means we need more than 6 T83 and more than 7 SSN(R), and ways need to be found to afford this…
I would be amazed if the US allowed Australia to buy Astutes. And yes, the US controls this entire deal because it owns the nuclear technology.

That's assuming that the Aussies even want to buy British. I wouldn't if I were them. They've selected US combat system, US torpedoes & US missiles. So why have all the hassle of adapting a UK design which, I think, also needs changing because its reactor is no longer available.

The project is rife with extremely expensive risk as it is. They would be nuts to acquire anything that isn't already a well wrung out design.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

Wholeheartedly agree… my money is on a shorter, cheaper Virginia, like the initial blocks, but with theBlock 5 tech.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:That Sea Hawk should be a must for the T-26, T-31 and T-32 as well as replacing the existing mounts on the T-45s. Any idea of the cost?
For me, the "Air Bust 30mm ammo" is the most important addition. I guess it can be added to all RN 30mm turrets with small modification. Cheap drones are small an slow. Therefore, coming back to "bursting gun" will be the best answer to counter it.

LMM can be added to improve the punch. No objection. But, the air-burst ammunition is more important.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:That Sea Hawk should be a must for the T-26, T-31 and T-32 as well as replacing the existing mounts on the T-45s. Any idea of the cost?
For me, the "Air Bust 30mm ammo" is the most important addition. I guess it can be added to all RN 30mm turrets with small modification. Cheap drones are small an slow. Therefore, coming back to "bursting gun" will be the best answer to counter it.

LMM can be added to improve the punch. No objection. But, the air-burst ammunition is more important.
My guess is that you can have one or the other. It seems the LMM mount removes the capability for dual feed which has to be a pre-req for air burst. Those shells will be way too expensive to be the one and only load.

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:For me, the "Air Bust 30mm ammo" is the most important addition.
I agree but why not just standardise around the 40mm?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

What is the size comparison between Sea Hawk and the non penetrating BAe 40mm Bofors planned for the T-31? How many rounds does each carry ready to use? Are we purchasing 3P ammunition s for the 40mm and 57mm on the T-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 »

Lord Jim wrote:What is the size comparison between Sea Hawk and the non penetrating BAe 40mm Bofors planned for the T-31? How many rounds does each carry ready to use?
Mk.4 40mm: 2350x2140x1990 (excluding barrel), Number of rounds available in gun: ≥ 100.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/upl ... 371622.pdf

MSI 30 mm naval gun
No open info. But, apparently is a bit smaller than Mk.4 40mm, see "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 167849.jpg",
Are we purchasing 3P ammunition s for the 40mm and 57mm on the T-31?
At least, Babcock guy mentioned 3P capability. BAE/Bofors mentions "The guns also offer" 3P rounds. Also, I understand 3P rounds are "by default" in mk.4 40mm gun. For 57 mm, there are many options, but as Babcock says, I understand it includes 3p (though not confirmed, I'm afraid).

Ref: https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/b ... te-program

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me upgrade the 30mm mounts we have to 40mm with 3P as the new standard this could allow the B2's to be fitted with 40mm bushmaster and 4 round LMM

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 »

Is MSI system capable of 3P rounds? Integration into Bushmaster 40mm cannon?? Not sure.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Is MSI system capable of 3P rounds? Integration into Bushmaster 40mm cannon?? Not sure.
It isn't. Different gun.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, the "Air Bust 30mm ammo" is the most important addition.
I agree but why not just standardise around the 40mm?
Because it's already standardized on the 30mm ??

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Because it's already standardized on the 30mm ??
Fair point but can RN really justify purchasing smart ammo in multiple calibres, especially if the ballistics/ trajectories overlap?

RN is currently planing to operate 7.62, .50cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 114mm and 127mm.

Time for a spot of rationalisation to ease logistics IMO.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Because it's already standardized on the 30mm ??
Fair point but can RN really justify purchasing smart ammo in multiple calibres, especially if the ballistics/ trajectories overlap?

RN is currently planing to operate 7.62, .50cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 114mm and 127mm.

Time for a spot of rationalisation to ease logistics IMO.
Which could mean, T31's 40mm Mk.4 cannon must be taken off and soled right after the hull completion? Not sure. If T31's 40mm and 57 mm guns are not much different from HongKong squadrons' Peacock class's 76 mm guns, it will be "tolerable".

Currently, RN ammo is not that bad. When in Falklands war. 7.62, .50cal, 20mm, 40mm, 76 mm (Hong Kong), and 114mm. Just adding 30mm and replacing 76 mm with 127mm. I'm a lover of replacing T45's 114mm gun with a 57 mm gun, enabling 12 or 24 more CAMMs to be added with reduced space/weight. It will also enable 114mm OSD at 2036 (the last T23), not the last T45 (OSC of which is very unclear now).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Because it's already standardized on the 30mm ??
Fair point but can RN really justify purchasing smart ammo in multiple calibres, especially if the ballistics/ trajectories overlap?

RN is currently planing to operate 7.62, .50cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 114mm and 127mm.

Time for a spot of rationalisation to ease logistics IMO.
I doubt there is any plan/budget to buy any 30mm or 40mm smart ammo.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Have previously mentioned that the USN found that the Oerlikon 20mm and the Bofors 40mm shells were incapable of stopping Kamikaze after multiple hits impacting ship, USN relied on the 5"/38 gun with its 55 lbs shells, did plan for 3"/70 but did not come into service before end of WWII.

Are we expecting too much from the small calibre guns, 30mm/40mm/57mm etc. limited even with smart projectiles or smart control as Millennium, more than adequate for UAS and boghammars at short range but the WWII experience shows a high probability they will not be powerful enough to stop an anti-ship missile with the kinetic energy equivalent of a Kamikaze, which expect a high proportion are, BrahMos being a prime example.

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 »

I think the point is,
- CAMM (or even Aster) shall be used for enemy high-end (= very expensive) ASMs
- 30/40/57 mm air-burst/3P ammo coupled with EO (better with radar) FCS range-finding for simple slow (=cheap) UAVs/suicide drones
will be the answer.

There can be another layer of
- LMM and/or 57 mm guided rounds (MADFIRES) against sub-sonic middle-class (= so-so expensive) ASMs.

Forcing to wast high-end AAW missiles on cheap = numerous UAVs/ASM is the easiest way to kill a high-end warship. Better to have cheap and numerous AAW assets, combined with high-end ones.

Post Reply