Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[dmereifield]

Still a shame that it's not a T26 variant....

[calculus]

Latest rendering of the CSC shown here: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca/

The main mast is significantly changed from previous drawings - much taller, which is good for sensor coverage.

I would have posted the drawings directly, but I got a message that the main board image quota had been reached.

[serge750]

All it needs now is the Sampson RADAR on top the mast T4X .....

[Dobbo]

All it needs now is the Sampson RADAR on top the mast T4X .....

I assume (and this is based on reasonably informed - for a layperson - speculation) the RN’s ambition for the T-83 at this stage requires a hull and superstructure that is considerably larger than the T-26 (or any stretch thereof).

[Poiuytrewq]

All it needs now is the Sampson RADAR on top the mast T4X .....

I assume (and this is based on reasonably informed - for a layperson - speculation) the RN’s ambition for the T-83 at this stage requires a hull and superstructure that is considerably larger than the T-26 (or any stretch thereof).

If that happens RN will end up with 3 or 4 cruiser sized destroyers which would be totally unacceptable.

A way must be found to get the destroyer fleet back up to 12 when the T45’s are replaced. Ideally this would be using the T26 hull but perhaps a T31/T32 derivative is also a possibility.

What we don’t know is what form the T32 takes. If the T32 ends up with a substantive and credible AAW capability then perhaps a class of cruiser sized AAW destroyers could be tolerated.

It’s really part of a wider question of achieving a balanced fleet and embarking on a programme to introduce a class of cruisers whilst also trying to hit the 24 escort target within a very limited budget is likely to result in even more cuts down the line.

[Dobbo]

I agree that 6 destroyers/cruisers is too few, but I suspect 12 is likely to be a bridge too far. I’d be satisfied with 8.

Realistically, to be credible top tier AAW assets from the 2030s they need to have a spectrum of capability that includes dealing with subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic SSMs, ABMs, combat aircraft including UCAVs. They may also need or it may be desirable for them to be a platform for land attack and anti-Ship missiles themselves.

All that costs money, requires scale, and for me the question is whether the government can afford and/or is willing to pay to incorporate these systems in such a ship. Absent this, it does rather undermine the point of having a carrier strike capability because ultimately if a U.K. group cannot defend a certain threat and / or if it does not have sufficient vessels to do so, it significantly limits or eliminates what it can credibly do and therefore the power and influence it can exert.

[Tempest414]

For as said in the Fantasy thread I would look to carry on with T-26 and have a follow on AAW type of say 8 making 16 ships of the type 8 x ASW and 8 x AAW I would then build 3 x 5" Cruisers 180 x 24 meters with 3 x 127mm , 4 x 57mm & 100+ VLS role littoral area denial

[Repulse]

If in the medium term ASW is primarily performed by drones which seems highly likely in the T83 timeframe, then I think the case for a single multi-role UK "Arleigh Burke" class will get much stronger. Think Defence once posed the question would 12 first rate ships be actually what the UK should be aiming for.

Personally would say 12 is too low to escort two CBGs and a "Army Landing / Logistical Task Group", but 14-16 is probably about on for the requirement.

The rest of the war fighting navy would then be made up of the Carriers and SSNs (and drones), with forward based (drone carrying) multi-role vessels making up the rest.

Probably something none of us want to think about - but a real prospect IMO.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Land attack is very low priority for T83, I think. CSG is there primarily for strike, and adding cruise missile capability to F35B is much more important than adding that capability to T45 replacement.

AAW such as ballistic missile, hyper-sonic and super-sonic ASM defense, countering low-cost swarm ASM and/or UAVs, will be of much higher priority, because it is the capability needed to defend UK's primary strike asset = CVF.

To counter sneaking UUVs, adding a TASS to be used as a "listening node" in multi-static ASW tactics will be good. Yes, inner layer is noisy, but a TASS listening to the reflection of Merlin HM2's "ping" will be very useful to "clear" that the inner layer is free of sneaking UUVs.

There is a big asset = CV which can be a formidable strike asset if properly invested, while the RN escort fleet is facing lack of hull numbers. Its AAW capability has a capability gap (BMD, hyper-sonic ASM etc). ASW will be also important, and RN is short of such assets. On strike, properly implementing the F35B's long-range strike capability is the first thing to do, and adding land attack capability to AAW escort is nearly at the bottom, I think.

[Repulse]

As discussed elsewhere, ASMs on the CBG escorts should be sufficient to keep enemy ships at a distance and nothing more IMO.

There is perhaps an argument to add ASM / Cruise Missiles to Littoral Warships, but again a navalised version of Sea Venom, medium gun and using Army GMLRS is probably more optimal.

Cruise missiles / ASMs on the F35B and Typhoons, and more investment in the SSNs should be the priority. Just can’t help but think that if the UK wants to be a serious player it’s needs either a medium long range bomber / UAV and / or SSGNs.

[Lord Jim]

The striking power of the CSG is directly linked to the sortie rate the carrier can generate, both a surge and sustained levels. It was this that determined to size of the carriers and the number of F-35Bs that it would need to carry. At present the RN is going to struggle to achieve anything this that which was predicted, and is very unlikely to moving forward. As a result the CSG need to have the capabilities of the F-38s to hit land and sea targets supplemented by both AShMs and Cruise Missile carried by the escorts and any accompanying SSNs.

All of this is going to cost money and there is a funding gap between what is available and what is required. Until this is resolved we are going to have a Navy whose capabilities will be lorded by out Government and senior MoD officials yet will not have the capacity to be truly effective.

[Scimitar54]

I will also repeat what I have posted before. To be a “Two Carrier Navy”, you need at least three x Carriers (and CSGs). Even then, if you are limited to just Three, you will be working them all very hard. With just Two Carriers, One x CSG, on deployment can be maintained “in peacetime”, but if push comes to shove then no contingency arrangement is available. It is making progress towards Three fully supported CSGs that HM Government should be earnestly working towards. I suppose that a “Light Carrier” might do as the 3rd Carrier, but would be far less worthwhile than a 3rd QEC.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The striking power of the CSG is directly linked to the sortie rate the carrier can generate, both a surge and sustained levels. It was this that determined to size of the carriers and the number of F-35Bs that it would need to carry. At present the RN is going to struggle to achieve anything this that which was predicted, and is very unlikely to moving forward. As a result the CSG need to have the capabilities of the F-38s to hit land and sea targets supplemented by both AShMs and Cruise Missile carried by the escorts and any accompanying SSNs.

All of this is going to cost money and there is a funding gap between what is available and what is required. Until this is resolved we are going to have a Navy whose capabilities will be lorded by out Government and senior MoD officials yet will not have the capacity to be truly effective.

Yes, as the cost limit is the driving factor, investment on T83 to carry land-attack missile will always remain in "better to have" range. But it is by far at the bottom of the requirement list.

Land attack missile is heavy and bulky. "Carrying 16 Land Attack Missile" will even dictate the hull size of T83. If the unit cost gets 20% larger, the hull number will be ~30% less. This is because R&D cost amounts to MORE THAN 2 unit cost equivalent (see FDI frigate wiki).

Then, to keep the hull number, literary £Bn of money will be needed. Adding LRASM (or alike) on F35B is better. CV's ammo bay is huge. RN already has 24-cells of strike-length VLS on 8 of its future escort fleet (T26). Overall, if there is £1B, investing on F35B is far more important than adding land attack capability on T83. If there are not enough money to invest on F35B, there is even less money left to add land attack capability on an AAW escort. This is what I meant.

[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. As the 2018 Syrian missile strikes showed, a few Russian submarines can have a significant impact on operations, and the T26s will need to be protecting the task group rather than positioning for an optimal land strike.

With a mindset of CBG escorts are there purely to defend the Carrier, perhaps the RN could focus on what is important. For strike the RN should really be focusing on the F35B and SSNs (or SSGNs ).

[Caribbean]

I think it's fair to say that the real value of having Mk 41 VLS on the T26 is that it provides a strike option when the carrier is not present. Perhaps the real question is "will we have sufficient T26". Another is "should we be adding Mk 41 to the T31" (it won't happen as part of the initial build, but might happen soon afterwards).

It would be interesting to consider what the two vessels would have looked like, had they been designed concurrently, to complement each other, one as the ASW specialist, the other as the "strike" variant, rather than as a jack of all trades, covering both roles. I suspect that we could have had close to one of each for the same price as a single T26.

[KiwiMuzz]

To me, the weakness of the T26 design is the “multi-mission bay”. This area is set aside for equipment designed to perform tasks T26 should not be doing. If there were twenty of them (as there should be), fair enough, but with eight (therefore four active) where will they be available for these other tasks? With two assigned to the active carrier and the other two having to cover LRGs and / or Faslane, that’s your lot. The space should be used for a VLS to take Aster and VL Asroc, and leave the remotey boaty stuff to Type 31 which, ironically, should have a mission bay but apparently doesn’t. I can’t escape the feeling that a “multi mission bay” is just an excuse to have a big, empty and cheap space rather than spend money on weapons for the ship’s primary function – protecting High Value assets.
Thank you Dr, I feel much better now.

[NickC]

To me, the weakness of the T26 design is the “multi-mission bay”. This area is set aside for equipment designed to perform tasks T26 should not be doing. If there were twenty of them (as there should be), fair enough, but with eight (therefore four active) where will they be available for these other tasks? With two assigned to the active carrier and the other two having to cover LRGs and / or Faslane, that’s your lot. The space should be used for a VLS to take Aster and VL Asroc, and leave the remotey boaty stuff to Type 31 which, ironically, should have a mission bay but apparently doesn’t. I can’t escape the feeling that a “multi mission bay” is just an excuse to have a big, empty and cheap space rather than spend money on weapons for the ship’s primary function – protecting High Value assets.
Thank you Dr, I feel much better now.

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.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Understandable. It is a remnant of "13 T26 program".

However, USV/UUV/UAV technology development is so fast, and I'm not surprised to see the mission-bay heavily used in near future. For example,

- NavyPODS program has some idea to carry dozens of UAV and its operation center in ISO containers. Connected with flight deck, the mission bay will be a good place to carry them. Then, T26 will be deploying dozens of sonobuoys and a few AS torpedos from its flight deck via UAVs, to cover short-range ASW. (Long-range will be covered by CAPTAS-4).
- A few pairs of USV, such as BAE "crewless Pacific 24 boat", will be escorting the task force in choke-points, to keep distance from fast boat swarms.
- A few pairs of USV, such as iXBlue, Drix system add with TASS will be deploying from the mission bay for shallow water ASW.

I agree similar mission bays should have been located amidship of T31, but T31 as is has their own role, I think. Overall, T26 with its mission bay is not so bad, depending on its future usage, I think.

Let's wait?

[Ron5]

It would be interesting to consider what the two vessels would have looked like, had they been designed concurrently, to complement each other, one as the ASW specialist, the other as the "strike" variant, rather than as a jack of all trades, covering both roles. I suspect that we could have had close to one of each for the same price as a single T26.

Highly unlikely. The major cost of warships is in the systems they carry and these two hypothetical ships would have some systems duplicated therefore raising their joint price in relationship to a single.

[Ron5]

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?

[Ron5]

To me, the weakness of the T26 design is the “multi-mission bay”. This area is set aside for equipment designed to perform tasks T26 should not be doing. If there were twenty of them (as there should be), fair enough, but with eight (therefore four active) where will they be available for these other tasks? With two assigned to the active carrier and the other two having to cover LRGs and / or Faslane, that’s your lot. The space should be used for a VLS to take Aster and VL Asroc, and leave the remotey boaty stuff to Type 31 which, ironically, should have a mission bay but apparently doesn’t. I can’t escape the feeling that a “multi mission bay” is just an excuse to have a big, empty and cheap space rather than spend money on weapons for the ship’s primary function – protecting High Value assets.
Thank you Dr, I feel much better now.

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.

Incorrect. Totally.

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

[Repulse]

the weakness of the T26 design is the “multi-mission bay”

Completely agree that the T31 should have had a mission bay, but not that the T26 one is a weakness. I see a need to transfer force protection craft when transiting choke points close to shore (normally busy with commercial shipping) and also for ASW UUVs.

[Ron5]

the weakness of the T26 design is the “multi-mission bay”

Completely agree that the T31 should have had a mission bay, but not that the T26 one is a weakness. I see a need to transfer force protection craft when transiting choke points close to shore (normally busy with commercial shipping) and also for ASW UUVs.

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.

[SD67]

To me, the weakness of the T26 design is the “multi-mission bay”. This area is set aside for equipment designed to perform tasks T26 should not be doing. .

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

[Caribbean]

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.