Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Scimitar54]

If you consider that the UK should be deploying CSGs, then you need three of them (with adequate escort numbers). It is ok to send one to the other side of the world (the “FRONT DOOR’), but it is foolhardy to ignore the need for us to have a commensurate force that is operational in the Atlantic/Mediterranean (the “BACK DOOR”) at the same time.
If the door is now definitely closed on a 3rd QEC (a mistake if ever there was one), then an F35b capable (large) LHD could provide the third “Flat Top” that is needed and if there were more than 1 LHD, this would also provide the means for larger scale RM deployment.

[Repulse]

Scimitar54, Agree and wouldn’t object if the money can be found, a 3rd Cavour sized ASW focused carrier (12 ASW/AWW Merlins plus 8 CAP F35Bs) would be a perfect addition. An LHD would be an option but equally a more simple CVL would be ok also.

Would say with the current two would still give a CSG EoS @4mths a year, the test of the time being in European waters (North Atlantic or Med). What the key bit is though is the ability to deploy a CSG at short notice EoS 100% of the time. One active CVF and one CVF in reserve does not give this.

[Scimitar54]

I was thinking more in terms of the 12 x Merlins and 18 x F35b (a proper Light Carrier air-wing). I was also thinking more of rotational 8 month deployments (from Work-Up, during 4 months in the Atlantic “area” (including Port & Home Port visits), before 4 months in the “East of Suez” area (including Port visits), before being relieved by the “following Carrier“ and returning home. In this way, subject to the necessary escorts being available, 2 x Separate CSG could be fully operational at all times if required (subject of course to any major electrical or mechanical failure).

[Tempest414]

If the RN went down the route you suggest it is a (A) navy.

Firstly as I said above this is not my suggestion it is my fear if HMG are allowed to carry on with there piss poor thinking. I have said time and time again that the RN should replace the only active LPD with a LHA allowing 2 flat tops at anyone time. and again for me the key for RN will be a multi-mission sloop ( MHPC ) as I have said time and again if the RN and the UK wants to keep a real place as a Naval player then buy 2040 it needs to look more like

2 x CVF
1 x LHA
6 x AAW Destroyers ( with SSWG and TAS )
8 x ASW frigates
6 x GP frigates ( with SSWG and TAS )
12 Multi mission Sloops

Add to this its SSBN's and SSN's for me if there was the money I would also look to add 6 SSK's

[Repulse]

not my suggestion it is my fear

Sorry, should have been clearer in my words.

In terms of your fleet, I’d say that the 6 GP frigates would be a stretch - that is why I keep pushing the T31 to be the Multirole Sloop that is needed. I also think a maximum of 30 manned DDs/FFs/Sloops/OPVs (inc MCMs) will be the max the RN can afford, hence the balance is key.

[RichardIC]

Just to clarify, i was only discussing the 5" gun in relation to NGFS, which as you yourself notes, is really the only mission for which it is relevant. Surface to surface/ anti-ship gunfire hasnt been a thing since WW2 and the very few cases since then where the MK45 was used against surface targets, it proved to be an abject failure.
In fact in trying to look up the MK45s "combat record" i have come across numerous reports, documents, analysis' and anecdotes all seemingly agreeing on the general lack of effectiveness of the (single)5" gun in pretty much all roles and missions. But if navies absolutely want to do NGFS there are few if any alternatives to the 127mm at present, hence why i suggested it on the T31, which has the small boat/ uav threat adequately covered by its 40mm's, and thus wont miss the 57mm.

As a counter-uav weapon i agree the 57mm is very effective.......against ANY kind of fastmoving missile its a complete hail-mary weapon......a desperate last ditch attempt that will most likely be in vain.
Its just physics......the 57mm is a relatively small shell fired at a low ROF and exploding into thousands (>8000 iirc)of TINY fragments......which means even IF some of them manage to hit the missile they are unlikely to destroy or disable it. So you have to practically get a direct hit or explode just next to the incoming threat, which is very very difficult to achieve with a gunbased system against such a fast target.

You may or may not be right as far as old-school gunnery is concerned.

But we're at the dawn of an age of extended range and guided munitions which could be a game changer. It's not totally unreasonable to imagine a 5" Mk-45 firing 50 miles inland with terminal guidance provided by an F-35. Sabots may mean reduced explosive yield per shell, but we're in a world where generally speaking accuracy is compensating for sheer kabooooom and weapons are getting smaller.

And 57mm guided shells, which are in development become small (and inexpensive) missiles.

I know we're not there yet, but certainly within the lifetime of both Type 26 and Type 31.

[donald_of_tokyo]

... But if navies absolutely want to do NGFS there are few if any alternatives to the 127mm at present, hence why i suggested it on the T31, which has the small boat/ uav threat adequately covered by its 40mm's, and thus wont miss the 57mm.

Yes and no. NGFS can be safely done by T26 if needed, and T31 can be a "close-in defense" specialist. I think it has its own rationale.

No you really dont. The tacticos on T31 will not be some kind of semi-civilian opv/ coast guard level CMS, but a real frigate combat system integrated with all the sensors, weapons and missiles.

Really? I am not sure. There are ranges of CMS level within TACTICOS even within the "real frigate" level. I understand it is not only "OPV version" vs "frigate" version.

Then lets agree to disagree. In my world losing a £250M frigate with 80-100 sailors is definitely NOT the same as losing a 1 BILLION pound ASW destroyer/cruiser with 120-150 men onboard. But maybe that is just me.

Good. One point. T31 is "£400M with 110-130" crew (including air crew), not a "£250M frigate with 80-100 sailors" anymore.

"£1.25B fixed price contract for 5 T31 including everything" was the top top top priority requirement for T31 to come about. And it failed. It is now a £2B program including everything, as you know. Sigh. This is another reason I am very much against taking anything more off T26. T31 has already stollen big money out of equipment budget of MOD. Why more?

Im sorry but what is this "low-end ASM you are speaking of ?....could you give an example please ?.......Because of all the anti-ship missiles i know, these days the so called "low end" weapons are essentially Harpoon/ Excocet level. And even the cheapest chinese or iranian knock-off ASM is way beyond the capability of any slow firing large caliber naval gun .....whether its 57,76,100,114 or 127mm.

"low-end" ASM here I mean "Harpoon/ Excocet, the cheapest chinese or iranian ASMs". And I understand 57mm (and 40 mm) 3P was designed to counter it (at least Bofors states so). As these missiles are "stupid" and only fly strait forward, it is relatively easy to estimate its course, with modern EO or Radar FCS. Here we differ, as well. (I think no problem). Anyway, 57mm 3P is completely different in its capability compared to 76, 114 or 127mm in AAW, while I agree it might be not as good as Phalanx CIWS.

Its just physics......the 57mm is a relatively small shell fired at a low ROF and exploding into thousands (>8000 iirc)of TINY fragments......which means even IF some of them manage to hit the missile they are unlikely to destroy or disable it. So you have to practically get a direct hit or explode just next to the incoming threat, which is very very difficult to achieve with a gunbased system against such a fast target.

?? I do not agree here it is physics. It will also mean CAMM cannot beat ASMs, if fragments cannot do anything on ASM. (of course large fragment and small fragment differ, but only "relatively". It is NOT physics).

Phanalx are designed to kill the warhead, in very short distance. 57mm 3P is designed for "control kill" at medium distance. This is their aim. Both are not relevant against super-sonic ASM, and less efficient against agile high-subsonic ASM. But, for "Harpoon/ Excocet, the cheapest chinese or iranian ASMs", it will work (to my understanding).

[Aethulwulf]

Yet again MikeKiloPapa demonstrates his detailed professional knowledge, but Donald demonstrates he is an amateur who does know when to stop talking...

...sigh.

[Aethulwulf]

In my experience, I am always a little surprised by how much a navy's own history shapes its thinking. I guess the Danish Navy has not had as much experience/need for NGFS over the last 70 years compared to the Royal Navy. The Falklands still has a large effect on RN thinking and requirements (for good or bad), and other experiences since.

The T26 requirement for NGFS demanded quite a high rate of fire for a prolonged period (I forget the figures). After the carousel is emptied, the rate fire is driven by the loading rate from the magazine. From what I remember, the claimed rate of reload from the fancy BAE system for the MK45 was significantly quicker than the similar system from Oto Melara. Nobody other than the RN thinks that once you have emptied your carousel you're still going to want to keep firing.(*)

For the T31, the 57mm in the A gun position could be replaced with a 127mm and the 57mm moved to the B position. Is this B position supported by its own magazine below decks?

(* Not quite true. The US Navy did, which is why the fancy BAE auto magazine was designed for the Zumwalt class destroyer. They appear to have moved on from that idea.)

Edit: The BAE system has an initial rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute for the 20 rounds held in the carousel, and then a sustained rate of 10 rounds a minute for all the rest of the rounds in the magazine. The Oto Melara system has an initial rate of fire of 32 rounds a minute for the 56 rounds held in the carousel, but then a sustained rate of fire just 1 or 2 rounds a minute (can't remember exact number) for the rest of the magazine.

So, for prolonged firing the BAE system achieves the higher average rate of a fire than either the Oto Melara auto system or a manual 4-man loading crew.

[Poiuytrewq]

2 CVF ( 1 in reserve )
both LPD's gone promise of a LHD later
6 Type 45
8 type 26
8 type 31 (4 with TAS )
5 OPV
8 MCM
3 Survey ( 2 Echo's & Protector )

Where are the Royal Marines going to call home with a fleet structure like that?

Firstly this is what I fear if current HMG thinking is allowed to go on as for your question the QE & Bay class far from ideal. My hope is the LPD's will be replaced in and around 2035

I'm not sure it will be that bad, but it could be. Any cuts will need to be backed up some kind of at least semi plausible strategy to sell it politically. With the fleet structure outlined above any Future Commando Force has virtually nothing to operate from.

For example, if the CVF is in CVF mode and not masquerading as an LPH how are the Marines going to operate from the same platform at the same time in a large scale way? It's not plausible.

If the Bays are going to become the basis of the two LSG's where is the C&C to coordinate such a force?

What vessels are going to take over from what the Bays currently do? Would replacing these vessels cost money or save money? Probably the former rather than the latter.

With Dom pulling the strings it's hard to know where this will end up but here are a few of my predictions for what it's worth.

1. Both LPD's placed in extended readiness.
2. Reduced readiness of second CVF
3. 2x SSS built in UK with option of 3rd at some point...
4. Reduction of F35 numbers (may wait to tell the Americans until after any trade deal is signed)
5. Increase of P8 (1 or 2) or an ASW drone funded
6. Two cheap Littoral Support Ships to be built or converted in UK
7. Three or four T23's decommissioned early
8. Additional small craft for border Patrol and fisheries
9. Current commitment to Frigate numbers maintained (8xT26 & 5xT31)
10. Argus scrapped without direct replacement

One thing that might be worth watching is the emphasis being placed on sub sea threats, particularly around the UK. This could be very interesting if HMG decide to pull the trigger on something radical to divert attention from the loss of big ticket items like the LPD's.

[SW1]

People always seem to like making disparaging remarks about the two danish ship classes. I don’t really know why. When you have to live within a tight budget you have to come up with inventive solutions to get what’s needed, what engineering is all about. The Danes did things differently and good on them for doing it they’ve got it would appear two capable classes of ships.

I think a lot of nations can learn an awful lot from studying such concepts especially real world ones. I think the RN should be congratulated for going the type 31 route it’s a proper frigate and one that should redefine future thinking for what’s possible.

[Repulse]

If the Bays are going to become the basis of the two LSG's where is the C&C to coordinate such a force?

What vessels are going to take over from what the Bays currently do? Would replacing these vessels cost money or save money? Probably the former rather than the latter.

Completely agree. Also, one of the Bays is being used as a MCM support ship in the Gulf, so difficult to use / replace until the future MCM platforms are in place. My view is keep what we have - Bays to move the Army and Albions to act as Ram platforms. I would prioritise the LPDs to be part of the CSG mix, than buy GP Patrol ships.

[RichardIC]

Albions to act as Ram platforms

??

[Repulse]

Albions to act as Ram platforms

??

Typo- “RM” platforms, iPhone autocorrect

[Digger22]

As with Type 82 and CVA01, I would like to see Two 'armed to the teeth' Stretched Type 26 Dedicated CV Escort and Command Ships. This could reduce the CBG Escort Size, freeing up Hulls for other Duties, or enabling Detachable Units from the core group.

[serge750]

As each CSG will have a perminantly attached T45 perhaps we could ( as they will have a major update with their engines soon to ) convert the hanger but keep the helicopter deck to double the load of Aster missiles & maybe some CAMM aswell,

96 Astors + 24 CAMM but no helicopter maintenance facilities but a helipad

Until the T45 replacements come online or a T26/T45 hybrid ?

[Tempest414]

before we go mad with type 45 we could just add the extra 16 VLS that are FFBNW and load them with CAMM plus as said before use the 200 million set out in I-SSWG program to buy NSM giving type 45 a load out of 112 AAW missiles ( 48 Aster & 64 CAMM) and 8 SSWG plus a helicopter capable of carrying 20 LMM or 4 sea venom

[Scimitar54]

Looks like “”The Cruiser” is increasingly likely to make a comeback then!

[serge750]

before we go mad with type 45 we could just add the extra 16 VLS that are FFBNW and load them with CAMM plus as said before use the 200 million set out in I-SSWG program to buy NSM giving type 45 a load out of 112 AAW missiles ( 48 Aster & 64 CAMM) and 8 SSWG plus a helicopter capable of carrying 20 LMM or 4 sea venom

That's certainly would be cheaper it would be good even to have 32 CAMM from 8 x Mk 41 VLS, or even 24 from the tubed version a la T23, would be cheaper still, & 48 aster 30

[Ron5]

People always seem to like making disparaging remarks about the two danish ship classes. I don’t really know why.

I think a lot of it was the Danish world wide campaign to sell these ships. The claims that theyy were sooo cheap to build and by implication everyone else was sooo dumb, really rubbed folks up the wrong way. And then when independent analysis showed they weren't that cheap or wonderful, that just confirm the opinion it was a scam job.

Personally I think if the Danes would have been better advised to claim a smaller cost improvement, say 10-15% rather than the 30+%, and been more open on how such savings could be made. Water under the bridge now.

[Ron5]

Looks like “”The Cruiser” is increasingly likely to make a comeback then!

Now don't go making that sound like a bad thing

[serge750]

Total fantasy for the RN but I always loved the Kirov's...….

[Repulse]

Doesn’t it just sum it up - we are discussing adding a capability to what we have (the T45) that should have been fitted as part of the build but instead FFBNW, at the same time we are discussing how the new T31 should be pimped for all the future promised FFBNW...

Adding a 8 cell MK41 VLS to all of the Daring class should be just a given.

[serge750]

I spose when every penny is spent twice over due to various factors even inflation & the long term budget black hole it must be a difficult choice to spend the money on the right project

But if it was my decision it would be take a 8cell mk41 VLS from the first 3 ordered T26 & put them on three T45 after the harpoons out of service date 2023? if extra money could not be found ( ) obviously 16 would be beter but...

4 x cells for a interim SSM ( if a vertical launched missile selected ) and 4 xcells for quad packed CAMM (16 missiles) or various combination

[Lord Jim]

Looks like “”The Cruiser” is increasingly likely to make a comeback then!

So are they reactivating and modernising HMS Belfast?