Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yes I would agree the T-31 could operate as a guard ship in the Gulf as long as it has the "Cavalry", available at very short notice in the form of air cover and "Real" warships. This is what has allowed the US to deploy USCG Cutters in the region. But to be forward deployed without this safety net severely limits where you can safely deploy the T-31, unless you bring along all of its "Escorts".
Again what makes the T31 not a real escort? A few more Sea Ceptor? A bigger main gun? Hull mounted sonar?
In the Gulf would 30mm and 4.5" be beter or worse than 40mm and 57mm with 3P rounds?
Good point, I think.

- For a Sierra Leone like operation, T31 "as is" can escort the LRG, I think.
- For Falklands war like scenario, CVSG will be also deployed. Thinking of "fighting two wars at once, one with CVSG and another with LRG" is totally against doctrine and must never be tried, I think. Just losing the precious lives.

So, it will be an operation, for example, around Somalia, and other minor African nations, and I'm afraid that is all. No chance in east Asia. Oceania is Australia and NZ's coverage (but RN can "join" with T31 and LRG?).

So yes, I also think T31 as is can do many of the LRG escort tasks.

But, I also think a but up arming T31 is not meaningless.

In a bit serious war, even though there will be a CVSG nearby, LRG needs some escorts to escort them. On this regard, 12 CAMM is surely not enough, I think. 24 or 36 will be needed.

Against SSKs in littoral condition, I think a frigate with a hull sonar is still in the "game" side not the "hunt" side. So I think ship torpedo defense system, which can detect torpedo attack, deploy decoy, advice good maneuver and hence increase the possibility of avoiding the attack, will be the first priority. Then, just wait for a Merlin to come from CV, to help them. But in view of LRG escort, a hull sonar will enable looking around a few km around her, keeping the SSK from taking the "best position" to attack the LSD/LPDs. In other words, T31 can sacrifice herself to save the LPD/LSDs.

So, adding a hull sonar and increasing CAMM is not meaningless.

NGFS? Might be good. Not sure. If there are CVSG (not Invincible class, but QNLZ class), I think NGFS will be "better to have" and not critically important. But, yes, it is better to have.

In short, all comes to how much money HMG can afford for it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yes I would agree the T-31 could operate as a guard ship in the Gulf as long as it has the "Cavalry", available at very short notice in the form of air cover and "Real" warships. This is what has allowed the US to deploy USCG Cutters in the region. But to be forward deployed without this safety net severely limits where you can safely deploy the T-31, unless you bring along all of its "Escorts".
Again what makes the T31 not a real escort? A few more Sea Ceptor? A bigger main gun? Hull mounted sonar?
In the Gulf would 30mm and 4.5" be beter or worse than 40mm and 57mm with 3P rounds?
Good point, I think.

- For a Sierra Leone like operation, T31 "as is" can escort the LRG, I think.
- For Falklands war like scenario, CVSG will be also deployed. Thinking of "fighting two wars at once, one with CVSG and another with LRG" is totally against doctrine and must never be tried, I think. Just losing the precious lives.

So, it will be an operation, for example, around Somalia, and other minor African nations, and I'm afraid that is all. No chance in east Asia. Oceania is Australia and NZ's coverage (but RN can "join" with T31 and LRG?).

So yes, I also think T31 as is can do many of the LRG escort tasks.

But, I also think a but up arming T31 is not meaningless.

In a bit serious war, even though there will be a CVSG nearby, LRG needs some escorts to escort them. On this regard, 12 CAMM is surely not enough, I think. 24 or 36 will be needed.

Against SSKs in littoral condition, I think a frigate with a hull sonar is still in the "game" side not the "hunt" side. So I think ship torpedo defense system, which can detect torpedo attack, deploy decoy, advice good maneuver and hence increase the possibility of avoiding the attack, will be the first priority. Then, just wait for a Merlin to come from CV, to help them. But in view of LRG escort, a hull sonar will enable looking around a few km around her, keeping the SSK from taking the "best position" to attack the LSD/LPDs. In other words, T31 can sacrifice herself to save the LPD/LSDs.

So, adding a hull sonar and increasing CAMM is not meaningless.

NGFS? Might be good. Not sure. If there are CVSG (not Invincible class, but QNLZ class), I think NGFS will be "better to have" and not critically important. But, yes, it is better to have.

In short, all comes to how much money HMG can afford for it.
Will the T31 have such a torpedo defence system?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yes I would agree the T-31 could operate as a guard ship in the Gulf as long as it has the "Cavalry", available at very short notice in the form of air cover and "Real" warships. This is what has allowed the US to deploy USCG Cutters in the region. But to be forward deployed without this safety net severely limits where you can safely deploy the T-31, unless you bring along all of its "Escorts".
Again what makes the T31 not a real escort? A few more Sea Ceptor? A bigger main gun? Hull mounted sonar?
In the Gulf would 30mm and 4.5" be beter or worse than 40mm and 57mm with 3P rounds?
Good point, I think.

- For a Sierra Leone like operation, T31 "as is" can escort the LRG, I think.
- For Falklands war like scenario, CVSG will be also deployed. Thinking of "fighting two wars at once, one with CVSG and another with LRG" is totally against doctrine and must never be tried, I think. Just losing the precious lives.

So, it will be an operation, for example, around Somalia, and other minor African nations, and I'm afraid that is all. No chance in east Asia. Oceania is Australia and NZ's coverage (but RN can "join" with T31 and LRG?).

So yes, I also think T31 as is can do many of the LRG escort tasks.

But, I also think a but up arming T31 is not meaningless.

In a bit serious war, even though there will be a CVSG nearby, LRG needs some escorts to escort them. On this regard, 12 CAMM is surely not enough, I think. 24 or 36 will be needed.

Against SSKs in littoral condition, I think a frigate with a hull sonar is still in the "game" side not the "hunt" side. So I think ship torpedo defense system, which can detect torpedo attack, deploy decoy, advice good maneuver and hence increase the possibility of avoiding the attack, will be the first priority. Then, just wait for a Merlin to come from CV, to help them. But in view of LRG escort, a hull sonar will enable looking around a few km around her, keeping the SSK from taking the "best position" to attack the LSD/LPDs. In other words, T31 can sacrifice herself to save the LPD/LSDs.

So, adding a hull sonar and increasing CAMM is not meaningless.

NGFS? Might be good. Not sure. If there are CVSG (not Invincible class, but QNLZ class), I think NGFS will be "better to have" and not critically important. But, yes, it is better to have.

In short, all comes to how much money HMG can afford for it.
I don't disagree with what you saying but my question still remains why isn't the T31 a 'real' escort? Maybe Lord Jim could answer.

Also regarding CAMM T23 has 32 while T31 will have 12. 32 trumps 12.
But the 30mm and 4.5" gun on T23 are not much if any use against aerial targets plus it has no Phalanx.
The 40mm and 57mm on T31 can deal with surface and air threats due to the 3P ammunition.
Therefore the 32c missiles on T23 will be much busier defending against all air threats compared to T31.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok I admit defining a "Real escort", isn't that easy. A Police launch covering a cargo barge could be defined as as escort at one end of the spectrum and an Iowa class Battleship protecting an Essex class CV in WWII at the other. I suppose I used the phrase as I wanted to avoid using "Real warship", as that is also a minefield. Anyhow I shall give it a go.

In my opinion in the modern naval context an Escort must be capable of dealing with threats from any level though at the highest it may have to specialise. Both the T-26 (ASW) and T-45 (AAW) fall into this category with their high end specialisation in brackets. But the T-31 although it can escort another vessel, can only do so where any threat is very low or has considerable back up, and in the latter case is more a trip wire to activate more capable assets whilst the T-31 conducts a valiant stand or more likely bugs out once it has made its report.

Probably the T-31s greatest capabilities are its radar and its communications, followed by its helicopter which will probably be a Wildcat, though this also would be vulnerable without control of the air, or against any sort of effective air defence including advanced shoulder launched MANPADS. The weapons systems of the T-31 are a limiting factor. Yes it has twelve Sea Ceptor, but against any serious threat I would suggest two missile would be fire at each target to maximise the chances of a kill. So that allow for the engagement of say six threats. Its main gun can be matched by may 76mm or similar mount and these abound around the world in very large numbers, the 40mm even more so. Yes the 3P ammunition will bring certain advantages, but if we are honest the T-31 has been designed to defeat the Iranian Republican Guards "Bog hammer", speed boats, in the Gulf under Allied air cover and with other allied more capable naval vessels in support.

It is as if certain events showed that the eight T-26 on order were not enough warships to cover the tasked currently covered mainly by the Thirteen T-23s, no more of these could be really afforded and they decided to draw up a set of design specs. to carry out the duties in the Gulf as a knee jerk reaction, but also decided to build five within the available budget so they could be seen to match the number of T-23s going out of service. Once things had clamed down in the Gulf and the permanent forward presence of a T-23 established, the foot was take off the T-31 gas peddle and some more funds were found to ensure the five ships could be build, and they would look like "Proper", warships to the casual onlooker. These ships were spun as the saviours of UK ship building allow the UK to retain two yards, and much was made of the fact that they would be build quickly to replace the first T-23s as the were retired as per their schedule. Well the first part is up for discussion and the latter has gone out of the window.

So starting in 2027 the Royal Navy will receive five very large Patrol Ships, that have very good endurance but are out gunned by nearly every corvette and FAC, in service worldwide but will have very good facilities for holding receptions when docked in friendly ports. It will also have a very large set of rear view mirrors to keep watch on any meaningful threat as it sails away at full speed.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

NickC wrote:A question even if LRG or carrier escorted by a T26 how many miles distance would it need to be stationed from amphibs/carrier for sonar be effective, 50 or 100 nm? due to the noise generated from amphib/carriers with their noisy low speed diesels, making the T26 isolated and more vulnerable to air attack with only its limited CIWS AAW systems, (QNLZ while docked in Portsmouth had to use its own diesel generators as no land power was available at the time, it kept up half the town all night due to noise created) so would seriously degrade any escort ship sonar capability.
It sounds like you think that sonar hasn't moved on since 1945 (just like the crowd on here that seemed to think that Artisan and Sampson only got one look per revolution, which was 1940s stuff). The T26 could happily sit right next to the carrier (which it could potentially still be able to hear even if it was 150-200nm away, depending on water conditions).

Modern sonars, particularly towed arrays, are far less affected by self-noise than it was even in the Cold War period - electronics have moved on substantially, and the switch from analogue to digital has revolutionised the "art". We know exactly what the carrier sounds like - modern digital signal processing will isolate it's u/w noise signature and eliminate it as a possible threat. Likewise, it will attempt to label any threat that it does recognise. What brings in the skill of the operators is when stuff isn't in the library.

As for escorting merchantmen - I've made the point before that you can carry the same cargo in three or four modern container ships, as you could in a 100 ship convoy of Liberty Ships, and at 20-25kts, rather than 8-10kts (so 7-8 days transit time across the Atlantic, rather than 16-18) . The largest convoy of WW2, HX-300, had 166 ships, with 30 escorts, and was spread over a box of around 10 x 5 miles. It carried approximately 1.6m tonnes of supplies. You could carry the same in 6-8 modern container ships (and that's assuming sub-optimal loading, it would be 4 if every container held 20t), requiring a far smaller escort force, simply because the vessels are not spread out over such a large area (and modern weapons and sensors can defend a far larger area). That's before we start looking at strapping Phalanx to container ships and converting some to Merchant Aircraft Carriers with (probably USMC) F35B or ASW helicopters onboard.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The fact that each modern vessels hold so much cargo means that the loss of a single one can have a very substantial impact which is why such a convoy really need a Carrier Group nearby in addition to any dedicated Convoy Escorts. If escort are not in plentiful supply each needs to be as capable as possible. Each must be as effective prosecuting a target as it is locating one. Ideally all escorts should be networked to each other as well as to the carrier and all air and undersea assets. Remember I did say ideally! :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Sounds to me like we need 3 or so 230 meter LHA's plus 3 more SSN's

The real question is how long would it take to fit say a HMS or VDS , 24 to 36 extra CAMM and NSM to type 31 if the shit hit the fan

Sonar ) As long as there is power and a route out of the under deck mission space for the tail then a containerized VDS system should take no more than a day

Extra CAMM ) There is plenty of space to bolt on stand alone 3 cell EXLS it would be down to power and control but with A-140s service routes maybe this could be done in a week

NSM ) Again plenty of space to fit canisters and it is again down to power and control

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Caribbean wrote:
NickC wrote:A question even if LRG or carrier escorted by a T26 how many miles distance would it need to be stationed from amphibs/carrier for sonar be effective, 50 or 100 nm? due to the noise generated from amphib/carriers with their noisy low speed diesels, making the T26 isolated and more vulnerable to air attack with only its limited CIWS AAW systems, (QNLZ while docked in Portsmouth had to use its own diesel generators as no land power was available at the time, it kept up half the town all night due to noise created) so would seriously degrade any escort ship sonar capability.
It sounds like you think that sonar hasn't moved on since 1945 (just like the crowd on here that seemed to think that Artisan and Sampson only got one look per revolution, which was 1940s stuff). The T26 could happily sit right next to the carrier (which it could potentially still be able to hear even if it was 150-200nm away, depending on water conditions).

Modern sonars, particularly towed arrays, are far less affected by self-noise than it was even in the Cold War period - electronics have moved on substantially, and the switch from analogue to digital has revolutionised the "art". We know exactly what the carrier sounds like - modern digital signal processing will isolate it's u/w noise signature and eliminate it as a possible threat. Likewise, it will attempt to label any threat that it does recognise. What brings in the skill of the operators is when stuff isn't in the library.

As for escorting merchantmen - I've made the point before that you can carry the same cargo in three or four modern container ships, as you could in a 100 ship convoy of Liberty Ships, and at 20-25kts, rather than 8-10kts (so 7-8 days transit time across the Atlantic, rather than 16-18) . The largest convoy of WW2, HX-300, had 166 ships, with 30 escorts, and was spread over a box of around 10 x 5 miles. It carried approximately 1.6m tonnes of supplies. You could carry the same in 6-8 modern container ships (and that's assuming sub-optimal loading, it would be 4 if every container held 20t), requiring a far smaller escort force, simply because the vessels are not spread out over such a large area (and modern weapons and sensors can defend a far larger area). That's before we start looking at strapping Phalanx to container ships and converting some to Merchant Aircraft Carriers with (probably USMC) F35B or ASW helicopters onboard.
Thx for your input on modern day digital sonars and their capabilities, but a question, if modern digital sonars with computer power to be able to filter out non-sub sonar/frequencies and so still track a sub why do navies for their ASW frigates eg T26, need go to the expense of extensive tank testing and specialised computer analysis of hulls and internal structure for the quietest design, plus the higher cost HED propulsion systems, motors designed for low noise, rafted diesels with sound poof enclosures and use propellers optimised for low speed noise/cavitation as opposed to economy or speed, why not save a ton of money and use the simple T31 propulsion system of unsilenced diesels and gears. I wonder if the above would suggest even digital sonars operating in the presence of large ships with their very noisy low speed diesels performance might be degraded.

The need to minimise self generated noise even for the newest digital sonars which operate in the hostile noisy undersea environment to have a chance to find the new generation silenced subs with new gen anechoic tiles and now with much quieter pump jet propulsion to replace propellers. Its why nuclear deterrent is based on subs as nearly impossible to detect. It would appear the pendulum moving in favour of the new subs until it gives its position away by mounting attack with noisy torpedoes.

Re merchantmen was pointing out that RN has too few capable escorts, just 14, 8 T23/T26 and 6 T45, that it would be impossible to escort merchantmen, cover the GIUK and escort CVG or LRG, would not the priority will be escorting merchantmen and covering GIUK.

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: it would be impossible to escort merchantmen, cover the GIUK and escort CVG or LRG, would not the priority will be escorting merchantmen and covering GIUK.
Nah, you don't shoot the arrow but, rather, the archer.
And :o : a wholesale deal in that would be to go after the submarine pens
I am, of course :!: , joking (but that is what logic would say)
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)

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 »

tomuk wrote: Also regarding CAMM T23 has 32 while T31 will have 12. 32 trumps 12.
But the 30mm and 4.5" gun on T23 are not much if any use against aerial targets plus it has no Phalanx.
The 40mm and 57mm on T31 can deal with surface and air threats due to the 3P ammunition.
Therefore the 32c missiles on T23 will be much busier defending against all air threats compared to T31.
I understand 57mm and 40 mm 3P rounds are not powerful enough against supersonic anti-ship missiles. It will also not be effective against new generation agile subsonic ASMs, such as NSM and LRASM.

But, it will work well against 1st and 2nd generation subsonic ASM (as Exocet and Harpoon), and against subsonic drones. Speed is very very expensive, and agility is also expensive. So subsonic and simple means cheap and therefore in number. Also against fast boat swarms, especially with if guided rounds are in use, 3P guns are ideal.

So, in low threat environment, T31 with 12 CAMM and 3 guns of 3P ammunition will work very well, while on high threat environment T23 with 32x CAMMs will be better. This is what I think.
Lord Jim wrote: So starting in 2027 the Royal Navy will receive five very large Patrol Ships, that have very good endurance but are out gunned by nearly every corvette and FAC, in service worldwide but will have very good facilities for holding receptions when docked in friendly ports. It will also have a very large set of rear view mirrors to keep watch on any meaningful threat as it sails away at full speed.
High-end modern ASM is expensive. Not many navies can afford it. Simple suicide drones are cheap and will be more utilized, but its flight capability/agility is even slow/simpler than Exocet/Harpoon, and 57 mm/40mm 3P guns are well suite for such threat. In other words, CAMM will be overkill.

# Actually I think T26/T45 might need 57mm/40mm 3P in near future, to handle such "low cost = in number" threats. Laser? Fingers crossed. :D

On regard of salvo launch of CAMM, I agree it will be salvo launched against super-sonic ASMs. But, against Exocet/Harpoon, may be one at once is enough? Against agile subsonic ones, like NSM or LRASM, not sure. CAMM is characterized by its initial high speed (as a sister of ASRAAM). Against subsonic targets, it may have time left to wait to see if the the 1st CAMM hit or not?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: I understand 57mm and 40 mm 3P rounds are not powerful enough against supersonic anti-ship missiles. It will also not be effective against new generation agile subsonic ASMs, such as NSM and LRASM.

But, it will work well against 1st and 2nd generation subsonic ASM (as Exocet and Harpoon), and against subsonic drones. Speed is very very expensive, and agility is also expensive. So subsonic and simple means cheap and therefore in number. Also against fast boat swarms, especially with if guided rounds are in use, 3P guns are ideal.

So, in low threat environment, T31 with 12 CAMM and 3 guns of 3P ammunition will work very well, while on high threat environment T23 with 32x CAMMs will be better. This is what I think.

During WWII the USN experience in the Pacific was if the target, Kamikaze a/c, even though hit with 20 mm and 40mm shells it didn't need any more flight control and just followed on it's ballistic trajectory and impacted on the ship, so they mainly used their 5"/38 with much heavier shells

The USN and the RN started the joint development of 3" gun and ammunition but with different gun mounts. The RN water cooled 3"/70 barrel Mark 37, mounting was prone to ammunition feed breakdowns and required heavy maintenance to keep in service and replaced by missiles post war.

Do not think the 57mm though a heavier shell compared to a 40mm would be powerful enough to make a material difference to the outcome USN experienced, that's making the assumption that the sub-sonic Exocet missiles and equivalent have near similar kinetic energy to the heavier Kamikaze a/c but with approx twice/three times the speed.

From <http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-70_mk6.php>

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote:ASW, why fit S2087, surely that's best left to the T26 with its quiet and expensive HED propulsion system, T31/T32 diesels/gears are not silenced with rafts and enclosures, quiet hull not necessary for its primary AAW mission, if you do that will drive up costs, fit a HMS as with the T45 or a less costly VDS, eg CAPTAS 1.
Don't forget the RN has 11 sets of 2087. 3 additional sets have been purchased for the first 3 T26. Otherwise they'd have had to cannibalise the 8 x T23 ASW's whilst they were still in service.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Repulse wrote:The best thing would be to build a 5 ship B3 River class - effectively a B2 with a multipurpose Wildcat / UAV hanger which can act as a mission bay instead. This would allow three of the B2s take over from the B1s, and give the RN a core MHPC design. £800mn max.
Thats the BAE Avenger design...
NickC wrote:Do not think the 57mm though a heavier shell compared to a 40mm would be powerful enough to make a material difference to the outcome USN experienced, that's making the assumption that the sub-sonic Exocet missiles and equivalent have near similar kinetic energy to the heavier Kamikaze a/c but with approx twice/three times the speed.
Apples and oranges...a plane up close in a ballistic arc is going to keep travelling down. Hit a sea skimmimg missile with a 20mm, 30mm or 40mm and by default you will hit its sensor, guidance or control surfaces, perhaps even the warhead, at that point its going to lose control and nose in to the sea.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote:Thats the BAE Avenger design..
Or it could be a paired back khareef class

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Timmymagic wrote:
NickC wrote:Do not think the 57mm though a heavier shell compared to a 40mm would be powerful enough to make a material difference to the outcome USN experienced, that's making the assumption that the sub-sonic Exocet missiles and equivalent have near similar kinetic energy to the heavier Kamikaze a/c but with approx twice/three times the speed.
Apples and oranges...a plane up close in a ballistic arc is going to keep travelling down. Hit a sea skimmimg missile with a 20mm, 30mm or 40mm and by default you will hit its sensor, guidance or control surfaces, perhaps even the warhead, at that point its going to lose control and nose in to the sea.
Thoughts on AA gun based on the Oto Melara video, the best detailed info have seen on AA guns.
The 'gold standard' AA guns is the OTO Melara 76mm gun with its DART sub-calibre guided shell and its individual FCR.
Video of 2015 trials shows it shooting a 1.5m sphere fixed to a buoy 5m above surface with 3 individual shoots in a SS 2 to 3, can't see any range mentioned.
Secondly shows a Mach 0.3 Banshee target drone flying at an altitude of 100m, 3 round burst fired, drone tracked at 10km, first round fired at 5km and intercepted at 4.5km, third round intercepted at 4.4km and target destroyed.
Third a second Banshee target drone launched at 10m altitude, 3 round burst fired and drone destroyed, no other details given.

The takeaway from the video if true the effective range of the 76mm-Dart is 4.4-5km against Mach 0.3 target, suggesting effective range would drop to ~3.5km against a Mach 0.9 Exocet, whether system would be as accurate at the higher Mach numbers is an unknown, need new trials with faster target drone.

Very back of the envelope guesstimate if weight of round reflected in range would suggest 57mm effective range approx half that of the 76mm (~13.8 lbs vs ~27.2 lbs), would give 57mm approx max effective range of 2km? To destroy an Exocet at 2km with 57mm shells and <3 seconds from impact do not think would be that easy, the radio altimeter (unlikely to be hit as positioned on bottom of the missile), would be controlling its height above surface, 3m on an Exocet on final approach, need to take out its flight control surfaces.

Would suggest if T31 expended its limited number of 12 Sea Ceptors if coming under sustained attack would be best to use its soft kill decoys and jammers if not already deployed, that would not be an option if an escort as has been suggested in CVG or LRG, if Exocets decoyed the seekers would more than likely lock on the biggest fattest target, the carrier or amphib, T31 would have to depend on its guns (said Exocets decoyed by frigate and then locked on to the SS Atlantic Conveyor, but have never seen if confirmed).

If T31 ever attacked by a supersonic AShM think chance of defending it self with AA guns zero.


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Is it fair to add that elevation can be very important with supersonic and hypersonic missiles plunging directly down

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

15 ships from ten nations, 3 RN (one T45, Dragon and two T23s, Argyll and Lancaster) participating in the NATO Formidable Shield 2021 exercise off the Hebrides and Norway, started on the 15th, testing air and missile defence capabilities with live firing of guns and missiles

Understand the targets will include a SRBM at Mach 16 and sea-skimming drones with some weaving, including a Banshee - Mach 0.3, Firejet - Mach 0.5, Mirach - Mach 0.6 and Coyote - Mach 2.5.

Self defense guns and missiles to be fired 76mm/DART, Aster 15 and 30, ESSM, SM-2 and SM-3

Dragon will be firing an Aster at a Firejet at 20ft height, no mention of the either Argyll or Lancaster firing Sea Ceptor.

I would expect due to the rigorous safety checks and procedures in place to ensure the ranges are safe and the large safety zones enforced around individual ships there will be no head on targeting at ships by the drones to ensure as far as practicable no dangers to the crews, making the exercise only semi-realistic.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across...
tomuk wrote:Where did I say it would be a bad thing?
You didn't. I was just trying to ascertain your opinion.
tomuk wrote:My concern would be how sustainable it would be.
Depends on how successful Infrastrata turns out to be. That is unfathomable at this point.

Economically Belfast is very much like Barrow, if HMG wants to level-up these areas the shipyards are the place to start. The yards can't be ignored or any levelling-up agenda is just flim-flam and destined to fail.
tomuk wrote: After FSS what does the yard do? More Navy work or commercial?
Why not both? Harland and Wolff (Belfast) is currently on life support with a tiny workforce but the yard still has impressive residual infrastructure. Drop a £Bn in Belfast with the FSS contract and Infrastrata might just get the yard off the ground again.

Together with infrastrata's ambitious renewable energy aspirations, the transition to electric and/or hydrogen powered commercial shipping is a massive opportunity for a modest resurgence in UK shipbuilding if HMG supported it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... evolution/

https://www.artemistechnologies.co.uk/e ... ns-vessels

A infrastrata/BMT/Navantia consortium would not necessarily be bad news for Cammell Laird either. Blocks could easily be floated across the Irish Sea from either CL or Appledore spreading the benefit. The secret would be to ensure that Navantia signed up to all metal bashing being done in the UK. If that was a problem then why not work with MHI, Damen, Daewoo/HHI or even BAE. HMG could make it work if it was deemed a priority.

UK shipbuilding would then have a healthy order book as well as good synergy.

- BAE concentrating on T26/T83 at Govan and Scotstoun.

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow.

- Babcock concentrating on T31/T32 at Rosyth

- Harland & Wolff (Belfast) and Cammell Laird concentrating on FSS followed by MRSS

- Harland & Wolff (Appledore) concentrating on patrol craft, OPV's and eventually becoming a centre of excellence for drones and off- board systems.

All other yards could bid for blocks and refit work etc.

A MRSS alliance could even be established around 2030 if required, again spreading the benefit amongst multiple yards.

The ball is firmly in HMG's court.

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:Moved across...
tomuk wrote:Where did I say it would be a bad thing?
You didn't. I was just trying to ascertain your opinion.
tomuk wrote:My concern would be how sustainable it would be.
Depends on how successful Infrastrata turns out to be. That is unfathomable at this point.

Economically Belfast is very much like Barrow, if HMG wants to level-up these areas the shipyards are the place to start. The yards can't be ignored or any levelling-up agenda is just flim-flam and destined to fail.
tomuk wrote: After FSS what does the yard do? More Navy work or commercial?
Why not both? Harland and Wolff (Belfast) is currently on life support with a tiny workforce but the yard still has impressive residual infrastructure. Drop a £Bn in Belfast with the FSS contract and Infrastrata might just get the yard off the ground again.

Together with infrastrata's ambitious renewable energy aspirations, the transition to electric and/or hydrogen powered commercial shipping is a massive opportunity for a modest resurgence in UK shipbuilding if HMG supported it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... evolution/

https://www.artemistechnologies.co.uk/e ... ns-vessels

A infrastrata/BMT/Navantia consortium would not necessarily be bad news for Cammell Laird either. Blocks could easily be floated across the Irish Sea from either CL or Appledore spreading the benefit. The secret would be to ensure that Navantia signed up to all metal bashing being done in the UK. If that was a problem then why not work with MHI, Damen, Daewoo/HHI or even BAE. HMG could make it work if it was deemed a priority.

UK shipbuilding would then have a healthy order book as well as good synergy.

- BAE concentrating on T26/T83 at Govan and Scotstoun.

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow.

- Babcock concentrating on T31/T32 at Rosyth

- Harland & Wolff (Belfast) and Cammell Laird concentrating on FSS followed by MRSS

- Harland & Wolff (Appledore) concentrating on patrol craft, OPV's and eventually becoming a centre of excellence for drones and off- board systems.

All other yards could bid for blocks and refit work etc.

A MRSS alliance could even be established around 2030 if required, again spreading the benefit amongst multiple yards.

The ball is firmly in HMG's court.
Ah yes, exports will com in and save the day when the current round of contracts are done. Been there, done that, went bankrupt, investment totally wasted.

Focus investment on the few yards that could have a future sustained on MoD work. Let the rest go hang.

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:...UK shipbuilding would then have a healthy order book as well as good synergy.

- BAE concentrating on T26/T83 at Govan and Scotstoun.

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow.

- Babcock concentrating on T31/T32 at Rosyth

- Harland & Wolff (Belfast) and Cammell Laird concentrating on FSS followed by MRSS

- Harland & Wolff (Appledore) concentrating on patrol craft, OPV's and eventually becoming a centre of excellence for drones and off- board systems.

All other yards could bid for blocks and refit work etc.

A MRSS alliance could even be established around 2030 if required, again spreading the benefit amongst multiple yards.
Looking at this long list, I was pretty much depressed, because I thought "it is totally impossible to sustain all of them for a few decades". I will rather "hope" that;

- BAE Clyde: going on with T26, T32 and T83 (if T83 be a T45 equivalent-sized ship with 6 hulls, T32 may be able to go elsewhere. If not, without T32, I'm afraid T83 will be the last high-end escort to be built in UK).

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow. (as is)

- Babcock Rosyth: working on T31, and then Echo/Enterprise replacements?, and then (up to) 6 MRSS, and then .... what?

- Cammell Laird: can do FSS (I see no problem there, what is the problem?), and then contributing to MRSS blocks, and then .... what?

- Harland & Wolff (Appledore): build 6 missile boats, and if no further order, just close it.

- Harland & Wolff (Belfast): no idea. very much no idea. Wind business? Oil rig? Or, just let it close...

- Note there are, A&P which are already in risk, and Falmouth which is the rival of Cammell Laird for RFA ship maintenance. Babcock Plymouth is also there for ship maintenance and modification.

Cammell Laird is very important. They are the best-trained shipyard to build a large ship in UK, even better trained than Babcock now. Their very severe "over-budget" in RRS SD Attenborough make them look "weak" in first glance, but I think it is vice-versa. Now they know how to build a ship. They didn't know it before RSS SDA.. With the experience, they will no more bid with impossibly low cost, and as such, will likely do their job. Harland & Wolff? Just a powerpoint company now. They can do the same as Cammell Laird, brilliant low cost bid with blah-blah new approach, and just fail. No reason to think H&W can do better than CL.

For me, finding good job for Rosyth and Cammell Laird on late 2030-2040s is already not easy. Export? All other shipyard world wide is working very very hard to survive. Why can these UK yards succeed? If it works, all of them should have been already done it. They continuously failed and failed, and now the world trend on merchant shipping is going on with far better infrastructure and workforce with more cost-efficient way of building ships.

Drones and off-board systems are very important, but I believe they are going to be built in other places, neither CL nor Appledore. AND, it is GOOD. Competition, innovation, and new technology are only good. Which means, less competitive yard must be closed. This will help the new company to grow. In case the new innovations went right, there could be a UK version of "Damen-like" shipyard, keeping themselves very competitive in some markets. Also, some Norwaian shipyards are interesting.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Also, some Norwaian shipyards are interesting.
Which ones, particularly?

RR tried to sell Bergen Engines to the Ruskies
... but that was blocked on national security grounds
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)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

- Note there are, A&P which are already in risk, and Falmouth which is the rival of Cammell Laird for RFA ship maintenance. Babcock Plymouth is also there for ship maintenance and modification.

Cammell Laird is very important. They are the best-trained shipyard to build a large ship in UK, even better trained than Babcock now. Their very severe "over-budget" in RRS SD Attenborough make them look "weak" in first glance, but I think it is vice-versa. Now they know how to build a ship. They didn't know it before RSS SDA..
Donald

A&P are Cammell Laird they are both owned by Peel Ports (plus other investors). The CEO of A&P replaced John Syvret the former CL CEO who 'retired' after the RRS David Attenborough issues.

Peel are predominantly a property company and are interested in redeveloping the docks that they own. See Salford Quays, Liverpool Waters etc. The ship repair / building is just a sideline. It keeps the more useful parts of the docks under their control and adds a little prestige, there is also probably a bit of nostalgia involved too. I can only see them being involved if a larger partner takes the risk.

Oh an one more thing T32 is Babcock Rosyth (T31 Batch 2).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

tomuk wrote:Oh an one more thing T32 is Babcock Rosyth (T31 Batch 2).
Carthāgō dēlenda est :)
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:

- Note there are, A&P which are already in risk, and Falmouth which is the rival of Cammell Laird for RFA ship maintenance. Babcock Plymouth is also there for ship maintenance and modification.

Cammell Laird is very important. They are the best-trained shipyard to build a large ship in UK, even better trained than Babcock now. Their very severe "over-budget" in RRS SD Attenborough make them look "weak" in first glance, but I think it is vice-versa. Now they know how to build a ship. They didn't know it before RSS SDA..
Donald

A&P are Cammell Laird they are both owned by Peel Ports (plus other investors). The CEO of A&P replaced John Syvret the former CL CEO who 'retired' after the RRS David Attenborough issues.

Peel are predominantly a property company and are interested in redeveloping the docks that they own. See Salford Quays, Liverpool Waters etc. The ship repair / building is just a sideline. It keeps the more useful parts of the docks under their control and adds a little prestige, there is also probably a bit of nostalgia involved too. I can only see them being involved if a larger partner takes the risk.

Oh an one more thing T32 is Babcock Rosyth (T31 Batch 2).
Nonsense. Peel Ports are a predominantly logistics company that operate ports long term. Shipbuilding fits logically within their portfolio.
It involves ports and logistics. They're not a property developer. The idea that swanky waterside apartments are going to go up in Birkenhead or Falmouth is ludicrous.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:...UK shipbuilding would then have a healthy order book as well as good synergy.

- BAE concentrating on T26/T83 at Govan and Scotstoun.

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow.

- Babcock concentrating on T31/T32 at Rosyth

- Harland & Wolff (Belfast) and Cammell Laird concentrating on FSS followed by MRSS

- Harland & Wolff (Appledore) concentrating on patrol craft, OPV's and eventually becoming a centre of excellence for drones and off- board systems.

All other yards could bid for blocks and refit work etc.

A MRSS alliance could even be established around 2030 if required, again spreading the benefit amongst multiple yards.
Looking at this long list, I was pretty much depressed, because I thought "it is totally impossible to sustain all of them for a few decades". I will rather "hope" that;

- BAE Clyde: going on with T26, T32 and T83 (if T83 be a T45 equivalent-sized ship with 6 hulls, T32 may be able to go elsewhere. If not, without T32, I'm afraid T83 will be the last high-end escort to be built in UK).

- BAE maintaining Submarine manufacturing centre of excellence at Barrow. (as is)

- Babcock Rosyth: working on T31, and then Echo/Enterprise replacements?, and then (up to) 6 MRSS, and then .... what?

- Cammell Laird: can do FSS (I see no problem there, what is the problem?), and then contributing to MRSS blocks, and then .... what?

- Harland & Wolff (Appledore): build 6 missile boats, and if no further order, just close it.

- Harland & Wolff (Belfast): no idea. very much no idea. Wind business? Oil rig? Or, just let it close...

- Note there are, A&P which are already in risk, and Falmouth which is the rival of Cammell Laird for RFA ship maintenance. Babcock Plymouth is also there for ship maintenance and modification.



For me, finding good job for Rosyth and Cammell Laird on late 2030-2040s is already not easy. Export? All other shipyard world wide is working very very hard to survive. Why can these UK yards succeed? If it works, all of them should have been already done it. They continuously failed and failed, and now the world trend on merchant shipping is going on with far better infrastructure and workforce with more cost-efficient way of building ships.

Drones and off-board systems are very important, but I believe they are going to be built in other places, neither CL nor Appledore. AND, it is GOOD. Competition, innovation, and new technology are only good. Which means, less competitive yard must be closed. This will help the new company to grow. In case the new innovations went right, there could be a UK version of "Damen-like" shipyard, keeping themselves very competitive in some markets. Also, some Norwaian shipyards are interesting.


IMHO the real flaw in the shipbuilding strategy is the Clyde. Govan is 1 mile from the CBD of the UK's number two city. Building a frigate half at a time then stitching it together before it's been fully fitted out then barging it up river to be fitted out at Scotstoun is not the most efficient way of working. If we really want to solve the 2040s problem then just bite the bullet, shut the Clyde and develop a large, multi user facility at Rosyth based on the Osborne model. Glasgow's future is building Satellites not ships.

Post Reply