Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[tomuk]

Babcock's claim they totally redesigned a great deal of the IH to create the T31 including all of the superstructure. If you believe that, I would question why a T26 type mission bay was not added. I doubt if top weight was an issue considering the parent used to have a frikkin' big radar up there to go with a Mk 41.

Complete nonsense. Babcock have made no such claim. In fact they have made the opposite i.e. there has been minimal change. There is an interview by Xav from DSEI 2019? where John Howie talks about it. They have straightened the funnels and moved the weapons deck up to fit the extra boat bay(s) in that's it.

[Lord Jim]

For me the Mission Bay is a legacy of the T-26 being a "Global Combat Ship", operating in a multitude of roles often by itself. In reality it has become a specialised ASW platform whose main role is to escort the Carriers with secondary roles like TAPS. For this the Mission Bay and Chinook capable flight deck are not needed, but are now a case of well the ship has them so we might as well use them. The Mission bay will be of great use once unmanned platforms mature, and these should both increase its ASW capability and add new capabilities to the ship.

Would the T-26 have been better without the Mission Bay but with a greater number of MK41s and CAMM Mushrooms, possibly, but at present the Mk41s also do not add much to the ships ASW capabilities. In fact despite the ship impressive quietening and superb sonar suite, the only way the T-26 can, at present, prosecute a submarine contact is through its Merlin or Wildcat, though the latter is far less effective than the former.

Hopefully in the near future we will see signs of the RN looking at a ship borne ASW weapon system, as well as a AShM, which may or may not be the result of the FCASW programme.

[KiwiMuzz]

The large mission bay was driven by the need to fit four 12 metre boats to meet the needs of embarked Joint Forces and Royal Marines forming a preliminary landing force were 'firmly captured' in the T26 KURS high level requirement for SF Operations, as was the large flight deck to take the CH-47 Chinook etc, personally think nonsensical decision to include the SF Operations mission, one of the reasons T26 costs went out of control and resulted in five ships cut from programme, 13 to 8.

This is the subject of much frustration for me in following UK defence matters for forty-odd years now (some very odd indeed). The original requirement (Future Surface Combatant) was for twenty units replacing T22 BIII and T23 one-for-one.
Despite cuts to the frigate and destroyer forces, no explanation has ever been forthcoming as to how, why, and where the requirement for thirty-two escorts as per SDR98 ever changed.
So, as always, it's money. And, as you say, capabilities in the design added cost which reduced numbers to the extent where the capabilities are now (IMO) not viable.

[KiwiMuzz]

The future of ASW is UUV's. Without a means to carry and deploy them, the Type 26's would be fucked, wouldn't they?

You are absolutely correct. I have just re-read the Navy Lookout article on the T26 mission bay from 2019 and, embarrassingly for my previous comments, the ASW configuration is significant to say the least - including space for a second Merlin.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-26 ... -contents/
Certainly more viable than slapping some VLS in there!
I guess I allowed myself to be side-tracked by the ever increasing number of roles being expected from an ever decreasing number of hulls - from twenty to thirteen to eight.

[Lord Jim]

But was the use of unmanned platforms for ASW part of the original specs for the T-26. Sure it is seen as a future option now but in its role as a Global Combat Ship HADR and limited amphibious ops were at the fore I thought?

Just as important as the Mission Bay on the T-26, in my opinion is what goes into the 24 MK41 VLS cells. I don't expect teh RN to be actually ordering systems for installation in the Mk41 just yet but the fact that we have heard next to nothing gives the impression that nothing is funded and the RN is hoping people won't notice they are going to be at present empty when the first T-26 hit the water.

[seaspear]

This could be a type of U.A.V that may be deployed from the mission bay bringing capabilities complementing the asw abilities of the type 26it may of course be slightly larger and heavier than present abilities to handle such craft but such an ability could be handy
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... es-boeing/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ure-186005

[abc123]

A question: Why the RN never bought ASROCs? Lack of money or?

[Timmymagic]

Incorrect. Totally.

Especially the thinking that the mission bay and flight deck were a major source of cost. They are not. Just cheap steel.

The mission bay is absolutely critical for operating unmanned systems, in fact I'd say that T26 is the only escort being designed and built at present that has taken that future into account.

But it did cost a fair bit, the design of such a large void in a warship actually took a lot of time and had serious engineering implications elsewhere regarding strength and survivability. The designers were quoted as saying it was the most challenging aspect of the design. The equipment handling inside is also not cheap..

A question: Why the RN never bought ASROCs? Lack of money or?

RN used to operate Ikara, which was massively superior to ASROC. ASROC was a load of garbage in truth. If a target was moving at any reasonable speed, by the time ASROC had delivered its homing torpedo to the area, the torpedo had been dropped and then activated its seeker head a target could be outside of the (comparatively short) detection range of the sensors on the torp. Ikara, as a concept, recognised this and was guided to the latest target datum before weapons release. It could also drop the torp in the correct attitude to pick up the target and do a successful attack (approaching from behind a sub for example). Different story of course with nuclear depth charges (which both ASROC and Ikara could carry), but they came with their own issues...

As for VL-ASROC, until T26 the UK has never had Mk.41 VLS to launch it from. The RN has always preferred helicopters dropping on targets at range though, makes sense with the main threat being Russian missile carrying boats. A better question is why would the RN even be interested in VL-ASROC? There are better systems out there...MBDA MILAS for example is canister launched, could carry Stingray, made in Europe with twice the range of VL-ASROC...it might have been a different answer if the US hadn't cancelled Sea Lance 25 years ago...

Personally i’d add chinook capable flight deck - why? There was a lot of mission creep during the extended T26 design phase

I think thats one of the most sensible parts of the design for both T45 and T26. The RN's experience in the Falklands was that having decks that were non-standardised and could only handle different helo's was a big drawback. Moving to all aviation capable ships having, as a minimum, Merlin capable decks was a very sensible idea. The next logical step is all UK rotorcraft, which means Chinook, it also means the RN has plenty of space to operate UAV's. Lilly padding becomes possible as well.

[Repulse]

It is true that the ambition of the T26 was supposed to be much more than "just" a ASW CBG Escort.

This is the tragedy of the T31 IMO. What the RN really needs is that the T31/T32 programmes delivery a fleet of 8 ​focused (and hence cheaper) ASW escorts, to take over the current (CBG / TAPS) roles that the T26 is over spec'ed for. This would free up the T26 to support the LRGs and also play more significant global roles on rotation.

Forget forward based "paper frigates", continue to build and evolve the River class towards a multi-role MHPC sloop.

Also, with commonality a T26 or two could be based in Australia giving a real commitment to the region.

Fantasy >=2,000t surface warship fleet:

• 6 T45s
• 8 T26s
• 8 ASW T31/T32
• 12 River MHPC
• Ice Patrol ship

[Poiuytrewq]

What the RN really needs is that the T31/T32 programmes delivery a fleet of 8 ​focused (and hence cheaper) ASW escorts, to take over the current (CBG / TAPS) roles that the T26 is over spec'ed for.

Water under the bridge I’m afraid regardless of the rights and wrongs.

However, the T32 is a massive opportunity for RN and Babcock to really upend the T83 competition and grow the fleet IMO. If Babcock can convince RN/HMG/HMT that a 150m+ class vessel is required for the T32 to allow the USV/UUV’s to be deployed and retrieved in high sea states then the field is wide open for the T83.

By using the T32 hull as a basis for the T83, a costly redesign of the T26 hull could be avoided. This would allow BAE to continue to churn out T26’s and in doing so solve the ASW problem whilst also growing the fleet.

Economies of scale may allow the fleet to grow considerably.

[Repulse]

Water under the bridge I’m afraid regardless of the rights and wrongs.

Short term probably, medium term (early 2030s) the RN could see the T31s to navies such as New Zealand and focus on a larger fleet of ASW T32s.

[abc123]

Water under the bridge I’m afraid regardless of the rights and wrongs.

Short term probably, medium term (early 2030s) the RN could see the T31s to navies such as New Zealand and focus on a larger fleet of ASW T32s.

I think that the T32 will be an unmanned systems mothership.

[abc123]

A question: Why the RN never bought ASROCs? Lack of money or?

RN used to operate Ikara, which was massively superior to ASROC. ASROC was a load of garbage in truth. If a target was moving at any reasonable speed, by the time ASROC had delivered its homing torpedo to the area, the torpedo had been dropped and then activated its seeker head a target could be outside of the (comparatively short) detection range of the sensors on the torp. Ikara, as a concept, recognised this and was guided to the latest target datum before weapons release. It could also drop the torp in the correct attitude to pick up the target and do a successful attack (approaching from behind a sub for example). Different story of course with nuclear depth charges (which both ASROC and Ikara could carry), but they came with their own issues...

As for VL-ASROC, until T26 the UK has never had Mk.41 VLS to launch it from. The RN has always preferred helicopters dropping on targets at range though, makes sense with the main threat being Russian missile carrying boats. A better question is why would the RN even be interested in VL-ASROC? There are better systems out there...MBDA MILAS for example is canister launched, could carry Stingray, made in Europe with twice the range of VL-ASROC...it might have been a different answer if the US hadn't cancelled Sea Lance 25 years ago...

Yes, I know that about Ikara, but why didn't they continue with Ikara on later classes, like Type 22? Or even ASROCs, because I think that even ASROC is better than ordinary torpedo tubes?

[Ron5]

Especially the thinking that the mission bay and flight deck were a major source of cost.

I recall reading that designing in the mission bay caused a substantial delay in the design phase. A great deal of the rigidity in a vessel is down to the superstructure - putting a bloody great hole through the middle of it caused a lot of issues, requiring an innovative solution, which added considerably to the cost.

I don't know where you read this but no. Ships strength is conferred by the hull girder. Superstructure adds little and is usually added in blocks with "bloody great holes" between them. Recently the fashion has been to plate over the holes to make them look sexy (low RCS and all) and to add things like mission bays and big hangars. Yes they add strength but incrementally to the hull. Not the other way round.

And yet again, neither the Chinook flight deck or the mission bay added significant expense. Which is probably why they're still there.

[Ron5]

Given that all the T26s will be tied up on CBG duties or TAPS, then in retrospect having this capability is more a luxury than a requirement.

I doubt this very much. I think we will find the T26 will make many singleton deployments. As they were designed to do.

[Repulse]

I think that the T32 will be an unmanned systems mothership.

If it can be an ASW UUV mothership, with TAS and Merlin (or replacement), that would do the job nicely.

[Repulse]

Given that all the T26s will be tied up on CBG duties or TAPS, then in retrospect having this capability is more a luxury than a requirement.

I doubt this very much. I think we will find the T26 will make many singleton deployments. As they were designed to do.

I do hope so, but the gap left on at least CBG ASW escort needs to be filled to free up six of them to do just this. Given that a peer-on-peer conflict is increasingly likely, or at least via a proxy, then having a global fighting force of 2 CBGs, 2 (or 3) LRGs plus roaming SSNs and T26s looks a lot more attractive than replacing the forward based B2 Rivers with large empty boxes containing 12 CAMM.

[Ron5]

Babcock's claim they totally redesigned a great deal of the IH to create the T31 including all of the superstructure. If you believe that, I would question why a T26 type mission bay was not added. I doubt if top weight was an issue considering the parent used to have a frikkin' big radar up there to go with a Mk 41.

Complete nonsense. Babcock have made no such claim. In fact they have made the opposite i.e. there has been minimal change. There is an interview by Xav from DSEI 2019? where John Howie talks about it. They have straightened the funnels and moved the weapons deck up to fit the extra boat bay(s) in that's it.

I agree that in 2019 when they were trying to win the contract, they placed huge emphasis on the T31 being a "proven" design that required a tiny bit of change. Hence being the low risk option. I wasn't the only one to raise questions about the huge risk inherent in their total lack of any relevant experience in designing and building frigates at a site where they hadn't built a ship from scratch before. They also said that Rosyth would mainly be assembly of blocks built elsewhere i.e. at experienced shipyards. That didn't happen either.

Nowadays (after winning the contract) they say that seeing the design is mostly theirs: a) it's up the RN standards, b) they can easily modify to meet other requirements and c) they're the best folks to advise on local build. Notice how they shouldered out the Danes to get the Indonesia contract.

Let me quote what a RN guy close to the project wrote last month in response to someone saying the T31 is mostly a Danish design:

Incorrect, hull was a preexisting design, but the T31 version, internal & topside arrangements, systems, weapons, etc. are a British design.

[donald_of_tokyo]

When CSG has several NATO escorts, and going into theater with less SSK threats, the UK-element of the CSG could contain only 1 T45 and 1 T26 and a few RFA vessels with no problem. This is what French MN does.

In this case, a T26 in independent operation can happen.

[Ron5]

This could be a type of U.A.V that may be deployed from the mission bay bringing capabilities complementing the asw abilities of the type 26it may of course be slightly larger and heavier than present abilities to handle such craft but such an ability could be handy
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... es-boeing/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ure-186005

Trouble with submarine sized UAVs are that they come with submarine sized price tags.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Babcock's claim they totally redesigned a great deal of the IH to create the T31 including all of the superstructure. If you believe that, I would question why a T26 type mission bay was not added. I doubt if top weight was an issue considering the parent used to have a frikkin' big radar up there to go with a Mk 41.

Complete nonsense. Babcock have made no such claim. In fact they have made the opposite i.e. there has been minimal change. There is an interview by Xav from DSEI 2019? where John Howie talks about it. They have straightened the funnels and moved the weapons deck up to fit the extra boat bay(s) in that's it.

I agree that in 2019 when they were trying to win the contract, they placed huge emphasis on the T31 being a "proven" design that required a tiny bit of change. Hence being the low risk option. I wasn't the only one to raise questions about the huge risk inherent in their total lack of any relevant experience in designing and building frigates at a site where they hadn't built a ship from scratch before. They also said that Rosyth would mainly be assembly of blocks built elsewhere i.e. at experienced shipyards. That didn't happen either.

Nowadays (after winning the contract) they say that seeing the design is mostly theirs: a) it's up the RN standards, b) they can easily modify to meet other requirements and c) they're the best folks to advise on local build. Notice how they shouldered out the Danes to get the Indonesia contract.

Let me quote what a RN guy close to the project wrote last month in response to someone saying the T31 is mostly a Danish design:

Incorrect, hull was a preexisting design, but the T31 version, internal & topside arrangements, systems, weapons, etc. are a British design.

Structural re-design and internal refurbishment is two very different aspects. I understand
1: T31 has almost no structural re-design, other than the bridge and amid-ship weapon bay
2: but has many internal re-arrangement to meet the newest naval standard, also complying to RN standard. This task is significant work, I think.
3: Also, Babcock has good right to modify the hull design, but not yet done, other than those on item-1. Big modification needs re-balancing the buoyancy, top-weight, fire-wall/water-tight compartment arrangement associated with all the re-piping and systems integration. It will cost a lot, but doable.

I see no discrepancy between Babcock saying minimal modification initially (when structural modification was the topic), and many modification now (when actually building the ship and certifying it to the RN escort standard is the topic). Quite natural comments?

[Timmymagic]

Yes, I know that about Ikara, but why didn't they continue with Ikara on later classes, like Type 22? Or even ASROCs, because I think that even ASROC is better than ordinary torpedo tubes?

End of the Cold War, recognition that VL or canister launched 'sealed rounds' was the way forward from 'built up' systems like Ikara, evolution of the threat (Russian missile boats made Ikara fairly redundant), evolution of helicopters (better ability in all weathers, combined hunter-killers like SeaKing and Merlin), sonar capable of detection at far longer ranges. Whole heap of reasons really.

[Lord Jim]

The T-32 needs to be a true multi-role frigate that can ALSO at as a mothership to various unmanned platforms. It needs to have inherent ASW AAW and ASuW capabilities to an reasonable standard as its core capabilities. But I still think a much cheaper Mothership like the Dutch/Belgian Mine warfare vessels that have been orders should be purchased for the RN to cover fixed location like ports and choke points.

[tomuk]

Babcock's claim they totally redesigned a great deal of the IH to create the T31 including all of the superstructure. If you believe that, I would question why a T26 type mission bay was not added. I doubt if top weight was an issue considering the parent used to have a frikkin' big radar up there to go with a Mk 41.

Complete nonsense. Babcock have made no such claim. In fact they have made the opposite i.e. there has been minimal change. There is an interview by Xav from DSEI 2019? where John Howie talks about it. They have straightened the funnels and moved the weapons deck up to fit the extra boat bay(s) in that's it.

I agree that in 2019 when they were trying to win the contract, they placed huge emphasis on the T31 being a "proven" design that required a tiny bit of change. Hence being the low risk option. I wasn't the only one to raise questions about the huge risk inherent in their total lack of any relevant experience in designing and building frigates at a site where they hadn't built a ship from scratch before. They also said that Rosyth would mainly be assembly of blocks built elsewhere i.e. at experienced shipyards. That didn't happen either.

Nowadays (after winning the contract) they say that seeing the design is mostly theirs: a) it's up the RN standards, b) they can easily modify to meet other requirements and c) they're the best folks to advise on local build. Notice how they shouldered out the Danes to get the Indonesia contract.

Let me quote what a RN guy close to the project wrote last month in response to someone saying the T31 is mostly a Danish design:

Incorrect, hull was a preexisting design, but the T31 version, internal & topside arrangements, systems, weapons, etc. are a British design.

The T31 is Iver Huitfeldt with minor modifications. Widened bridge wings, straightened funnels, APAR removed from foremast, aft radar mast reduced to stub, weapons deck moved up a deck to fit boat bay (it is already an empty void on IH). Internally some mods have been made to meet updated/RN standards and replace obsolete equipment. I understand these are extra bulkhead in the workshop between the two engine rooms. Now it does have a completely different CMS\Radar\Weapons fit to the IH but these are Dutch\Swedish design.

Overall I would say the T31 is a British variant of the IH but it is in no way a British design. Now in comparison the Constellation class version of the FREMM is vastly different to both the Italian and French versions.

[Ron5]

The T-32 needs to be a true multi-role frigate that can ALSO at as a mothership to various unmanned platforms. It needs to have inherent ASW AAW and ASuW capabilities to an reasonable standard as its core capabilities. But I still think a much cheaper Mothership like the Dutch/Belgian Mine warfare vessels that have been orders should be purchased for the RN to cover fixed location like ports and choke points.

So a type 26 then?