Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 15:20 Where is the Area Air Defence for the LRGs and Troop Transports supposed to come from? Oh, I know! Of course, it will be plucked out of the sky! We NEED more than Six T45s. Not ordering hulls 7 & 8 as the irreducible minimum, was another act of sheer folly. :mrgreen:
I would ask the same question as to the ASW cover with only 8 Type 26 with 4 needed for the CSG and 2 for TAPS.

As said right now it comes from the CSG however it could be sorted with type 32 if it was a full IH class fitted with the Palfinger system under the flight deck for 2 or 3 x 11m ASW/MCM USV's plus 2 9.5m ribs from boat bays and armed with 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 48 VLS to allow for 64 CAMM + 64 CAMM ER + 16 cells for other weapons

2 of these ships would be able to give local area air defence over 100 km , NGFS out to 90 km plus littoral ASW and MCM cover
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6424
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 52 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The need to provide escorts for the LRGs is probably one of the main reasons the capability of the T-31s is being looked at including the installation of one or more Mk41 LS systems.

As for lacking AAW platforms, in theory if a CEC was introduced between the T-45 and T-26 the latter could have the often mentioned SM-6 in its Mk41 VLS that could be controlled very effectively by the Sampson radar etc. on the former. As I said though this is just a theory.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Making a general observation (and there is some crossover between this and the missile thread) I think a key plank of what the RN should aspire to achieve (and I think is what they are working towards) is having a common VLS across the escort fleet (ie Mk 41) with a range of missiles that keep opponents guessing as to what the ship can do.

For example, it has been much publicised that the RN wants MK41 on the T31. Whatever is selected I can see a strong argument that a future anti ship or land attack missile is much more likely to be fired from a T31 than a T26 or a T45/83. There is also nuisance value in having potentially 10x T31/32 platforms sailing around having the ability to influence events over a wide area at relatively low cost with such a capability inserted.
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

The downside of the T31 is that currently it is seriously underarmed. The upside of the T31 is that it seems we have contracted to buy a good sized hull for a very low fixed price, with a lot room for adding extra weapons.

I hope that the MoD sees sense once the T31 hulls are completed and before the ships are commissioned. If they can max out VLS tubes and ensure that at least some of them are Mk41, then we should heve a good choice of missiles.

If we could squeeze in 48 VLS tubes we could go for a nice all-round mix befitting their intended use as General Purpose Escorts. Leaving BMD to the T45's, if each T31 had 4 launchers for each of ASROC, NSM and a land attack cruise missile, could still fit in a dozen quad-packed CAMM for short range aircover and two dozen medium range anti-air missiles.

Would still be some way short of larger US / Chinese escorts with around 100 VLS launchers. But would allow the T31's to have some chance against a likely Anti Ship missile barrage from Russian / Chinese foes. Whilst having at least a minimum contribution to Anti Submarine / Ship / Land attack.

If T31's in a specific region are likely to have to deal with more of a specific threat, then can easily rweak that missile split. e.g. if escorting merchant shopping across Atlantic could reduce AAW Missiles and take more ASROC etc.

ButI fear that MOD is still a long way away from maxing out at even 48 VLS launchers....

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 104
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 19:25 The downside of the T31 is that currently it is seriously underarmed. The upside of the T31 is that it seems we have contracted to buy a good sized hull for a very low fixed price, with a lot room for adding extra weapons.

I hope that the MoD sees sense once the T31 hulls are completed and before the ships are commissioned. If they can max out VLS tubes and ensure that at least some of them are Mk41, then we should heve a good choice of missiles.

If we could squeeze in 48 VLS tubes we could go for a nice all-round mix befitting their intended use as General Purpose Escorts. Leaving BMD to the T45's, if each T31 had 4 launchers for each of ASROC, NSM and a land attack cruise missile, could still fit in a dozen quad-packed CAMM for short range aircover and two dozen medium range anti-air missiles.

Would still be some way short of larger US / Chinese escorts with around 100 VLS launchers. But would allow the T31's to have some chance against a likely Anti Ship missile barrage from Russian / Chinese foes. Whilst having at least a minimum contribution to Anti Submarine / Ship / Land attack.

If T31's in a specific region are likely to have to deal with more of a specific threat, then can easily rweak that missile split. e.g. if escorting merchant shopping across Atlantic could reduce AAW Missiles and take more ASROC etc.

ButI fear that MOD is still a long way away from maxing out at even 48 VLS launchers....
The maximum number of VLS cells for the AH140 parent design is 56, 32 Mk-41 cells amidships where the CAMM mushrooms are now and 24 CAMM mushrooms where the forward 40mm gun is now. If one adds up to 8xSSM in box launchers and a 21-cell RAM aft, a HMS, a CAPTAS 4 TAS and a SM-1850 and APAR X radars, it's clear the design has the potential to yield a very powerful ship, if one wants to spend the money...
These users liked the author JohnM for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

JohnM wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 19:33
wargame_insomniac wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 19:25 The downside of the T31 is that currently it is seriously underarmed. The upside of the T31 is that it seems we have contracted to buy a good sized hull for a very low fixed price, with a lot room for adding extra weapons.

I hope that the MoD sees sense once the T31 hulls are completed and before the ships are commissioned. If they can max out VLS tubes and ensure that at least some of them are Mk41, then we should heve a good choice of missiles.

If we could squeeze in 48 VLS tubes we could go for a nice all-round mix befitting their intended use as General Purpose Escorts. Leaving BMD to the T45's, if each T31 had 4 launchers for each of ASROC, NSM and a land attack cruise missile, could still fit in a dozen quad-packed CAMM for short range aircover and two dozen medium range anti-air missiles.

Would still be some way short of larger US / Chinese escorts with around 100 VLS launchers. But would allow the T31's to have some chance against a likely Anti Ship missile barrage from Russian / Chinese foes. Whilst having at least a minimum contribution to Anti Submarine / Ship / Land attack.

If T31's in a specific region are likely to have to deal with more of a specific threat, then can easily rweak that missile split. e.g. if escorting merchant shopping across Atlantic could reduce AAW Missiles and take more ASROC etc.

ButI fear that MOD is still a long way away from maxing out at even 48 VLS launchers....
The maximum number of VLS cells for the AH140 parent design is 56, 32 Mk-41 cells amidships where the CAMM mushrooms are now and 24 CAMM mushrooms where the forward 40mm gun is now. If one adds up to 8xSSM in box launchers and a 21-cell RAM aft, a HMS, a CAPTAS 4 TAS and a SM-1850 and APAR X radars, it's clear the design has the potential to yield a very powerful ship, if one wants to spend the money...
I don’t believe that is entirely correct the danish ships have 32 mk41, 24 mk 56 and the 16 harpoon box launchers are all midships were the RN has the camm launchers and extra boat bays. The ability to swap the fwd 40mm gun for camm would be in addition to this.

Mind you if you put 24 tomahawk on a type 31 it would have more longer range standoff strike capability than the aircraft carrier and that would never do.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 104
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

SW1 wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 19:49
JohnM wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 19:33
wargame_insomniac wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 19:25 The downside of the T31 is that currently it is seriously underarmed. The upside of the T31 is that it seems we have contracted to buy a good sized hull for a very low fixed price, with a lot room for adding extra weapons.

I hope that the MoD sees sense once the T31 hulls are completed and before the ships are commissioned. If they can max out VLS tubes and ensure that at least some of them are Mk41, then we should heve a good choice of missiles.

If we could squeeze in 48 VLS tubes we could go for a nice all-round mix befitting their intended use as General Purpose Escorts. Leaving BMD to the T45's, if each T31 had 4 launchers for each of ASROC, NSM and a land attack cruise missile, could still fit in a dozen quad-packed CAMM for short range aircover and two dozen medium range anti-air missiles.

Would still be some way short of larger US / Chinese escorts with around 100 VLS launchers. But would allow the T31's to have some chance against a likely Anti Ship missile barrage from Russian / Chinese foes. Whilst having at least a minimum contribution to Anti Submarine / Ship / Land attack.

If T31's in a specific region are likely to have to deal with more of a specific threat, then can easily rweak that missile split. e.g. if escorting merchant shopping across Atlantic could reduce AAW Missiles and take more ASROC etc.

ButI fear that MOD is still a long way away from maxing out at even 48 VLS launchers....
The maximum number of VLS cells for the AH140 parent design is 56, 32 Mk-41 cells amidships where the CAMM mushrooms are now and 24 CAMM mushrooms where the forward 40mm gun is now. If one adds up to 8xSSM in box launchers and a 21-cell RAM aft, a HMS, a CAPTAS 4 TAS and a SM-1850 and APAR X radars, it's clear the design has the potential to yield a very powerful ship, if one wants to spend the money...
I don’t believe that is entirely correct the danish ships have 32 mk41, 24 mk 56 and the 16 harpoon box launchers are all midships were the RN has the camm launchers and extra boat bays. The ability to swap the fwd 40mm gun for camm would be in addition to this.

Mind you if you put 24 tomahawk on a type 31 it would have more longer range standoff strike capability than the aircraft carrier and that would never do.
I was going by Babcock’s own AH140 brochure that states 32xMK-41… maybe the two boat bays preclude the MK-56 launchers from being installed due to weight issues? I don’t know…

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

JohnM wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 20:00 [quote=SW1 post_id=135623 time=<a href="tel:1642189790">1642189790</a> user_id=2026]
[quote=JohnM post_id=135622 time=<a href="tel:1642188831">1642188831</a> user_id=2622]
[quote=wargame_insomniac post_id=135621 time=<a href="tel:1642188326">1642188326</a> user_id=2848]
The downside of the T31 is that currently it is seriously underarmed. The upside of the T31 is that it seems we have contracted to buy a good sized hull for a very low fixed price, with a lot room for adding extra weapons.

I hope that the MoD sees sense once the T31 hulls are completed and before the ships are commissioned. If they can max out VLS tubes and ensure that at least some of them are Mk41, then we should heve a good choice of missiles.

If we could squeeze in 48 VLS tubes we could go for a nice all-round mix befitting their intended use as General Purpose Escorts. Leaving BMD to the T45's, if each T31 had 4 launchers for each of ASROC, NSM and a land attack cruise missile, could still fit in a dozen quad-packed CAMM for short range aircover and two dozen medium range anti-air missiles.

Would still be some way short of larger US / Chinese escorts with around 100 VLS launchers. But would allow the T31's to have some chance against a likely Anti Ship missile barrage from Russian / Chinese foes. Whilst having at least a minimum contribution to Anti Submarine / Ship / Land attack.

If T31's in a specific region are likely to have to deal with more of a specific threat, then can easily rweak that missile split. e.g. if escorting merchant shopping across Atlantic could reduce AAW Missiles and take more ASROC etc.

ButI fear that MOD is still a long way away from maxing out at even 48 VLS launchers....
The maximum number of VLS cells for the AH140 parent design is 56, 32 Mk-41 cells amidships where the CAMM mushrooms are now and 24 CAMM mushrooms where the forward 40mm gun is now. If one adds up to 8xSSM in box launchers and a 21-cell RAM aft, a HMS, a CAPTAS 4 TAS and a SM-1850 and APAR X radars, it's clear the design has the potential to yield a very powerful ship, if one wants to spend the money...
[/quote]

I don’t believe that is entirely correct the danish ships have 32 mk41, 24 mk 56 and the 16 harpoon box launchers are all midships were the RN has the camm launchers and extra boat bays. The ability to swap the fwd 40mm gun for camm would be in addition to this.

Mind you if you put 24 tomahawk on a type 31 it would have more longer range standoff strike capability than the aircraft carrier and that would never do.
[/quote]
I was going by Babcock’s own AH140 brochure that states 32xMK-41… maybe the two boat bays preclude the MK-56 launchers from being installed due to weight issues? I don’t know…
[/quote]

Not sure maybe space constraints but here’s a picture of one

https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Danish ... uel-25.jpg

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 104
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

SW1 wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 20:26
JohnM wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 20:00 [quote=SW1 post_id=135623 time=<a href="tel:1642189790">1642189790</a> user_id=2026]
[quote=JohnM post_id=135622 time=<a href="tel:1642188831">1642188831</a> user_id=2622]
[quote=wargame_insomniac post_id=135621 time=<a href="tel:1642188326">1642188326</a> user_id=2848]
The downside of the T31 is that currently it is seriously underarmed. The upside of the T31 is that it seems we have contracted to buy a good sized hull for a very low fixed price, with a lot room for adding extra weapons.

I hope that the MoD sees sense once the T31 hulls are completed and before the ships are commissioned. If they can max out VLS tubes and ensure that at least some of them are Mk41, then we should heve a good choice of missiles.

If we could squeeze in 48 VLS tubes we could go for a nice all-round mix befitting their intended use as General Purpose Escorts. Leaving BMD to the T45's, if each T31 had 4 launchers for each of ASROC, NSM and a land attack cruise missile, could still fit in a dozen quad-packed CAMM for short range aircover and two dozen medium range anti-air missiles.

Would still be some way short of larger US / Chinese escorts with around 100 VLS launchers. But would allow the T31's to have some chance against a likely Anti Ship missile barrage from Russian / Chinese foes. Whilst having at least a minimum contribution to Anti Submarine / Ship / Land attack.

If T31's in a specific region are likely to have to deal with more of a specific threat, then can easily rweak that missile split. e.g. if escorting merchant shopping across Atlantic could reduce AAW Missiles and take more ASROC etc.

ButI fear that MOD is still a long way away from maxing out at even 48 VLS launchers....
The maximum number of VLS cells for the AH140 parent design is 56, 32 Mk-41 cells amidships where the CAMM mushrooms are now and 24 CAMM mushrooms where the forward 40mm gun is now. If one adds up to 8xSSM in box launchers and a 21-cell RAM aft, a HMS, a CAPTAS 4 TAS and a SM-1850 and APAR X radars, it's clear the design has the potential to yield a very powerful ship, if one wants to spend the money...
I don’t believe that is entirely correct the danish ships have 32 mk41, 24 mk 56 and the 16 harpoon box launchers are all midships were the RN has the camm launchers and extra boat bays. The ability to swap the fwd 40mm gun for camm would be in addition to this.

Mind you if you put 24 tomahawk on a type 31 it would have more longer range standoff strike capability than the aircraft carrier and that would never do.
[/quote]
I was going by Babcock’s own AH140 brochure that states 32xMK-41… maybe the two boat bays preclude the MK-56 launchers from being installed due to weight issues? I don’t know…
[/quote]

Not sure maybe space constraints but here’s a picture of one

https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Danish ... uel-25.jpg
[/quote]
That’s one of the Iver Huidfeldts, which don’t have the boat bay under the launchers… my pointers that having the boat bays on the AH140 will make it impossible to hold the weight of the launchers on top… pure speculation, though…

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Quite possibly weight but possibly the depth of space for the launchers is taken up by the extra boat bays. I guess it depends what you want more boat bays or more missiles.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
JohnM

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 78 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 20:57 Quite possibly weight but possibly the depth of space for the launchers is taken up by the extra boat bays. I guess it depends what you want more boat bays or more missiles.
Which missiles require Mk 56 VLS? To save topweight and / or depth of space could always put Mk41 VLS instead.

Or use the deck launcher thatI think BAE US had developed which is not deck penetrating but bolt-on. It can't hold many missiles and can only take shorter missiles. But like the other alternative of US SeaRam it could add some extra point-blank defence.

I would love one or both of the latter options added to carriers. I know we should have four+ escorts to each CSG, but what if they were already sunk by first wave of missile swarm?

Every capital ship should have a couple of layers of defence, more if dedicated AAW like T45.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 22:43 Which missiles require Mk 56 VLS? To save topweight and / or depth of space could always put Mk41 VLS instead.
ESSM (RIM-62). Though the MK.56 is restricted by the need to accommodate a 'hot launch' missile, unlike CAMM which uses compressed gas. As you can see below, the exhausts take up a considerable amount of the system:

Image

The Danish navy uses StanFlex modules of varying sizes (for gun turrets, MK.41, Harpoon and Mk.56). I've seen suggestions that the Iver Huidtfelds can take up to 48 ESSM, which I presume would require swapping out the two Harpoon deck launchers for two more MK.56 VLS.

As SW1 notes above, Babcock have stated that the 'B' turret on Arrowhead 'can' be swapped for a VLS. I'm not sure if this is using the same StanFlex interface as the Danes or not.

Much like the Absalon Class, StanFlex is one of those very clever and unique approaches that demonstrates Danish naval innovation and design expertise. Yet no one else has adopted either...

Purely speculating, but I've wondered if a boat bay has been deleted, whether we could fit 12 (and possibly more) CAMM in that space, leaving the full space for 32 cells of MK.41.... or another similar sized VLS.

Look like another T31 model is coming along nicely. Hopefully the real thing will be close behind!

Image
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1281
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 19 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well at least they both have the “enclosed build facility” in common already ! :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 9 times
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Image
For anyone interested, the exact shade of grey paint used for modern RN surface ship hulls is called "BS381C-676 Light Weatherwork Grey".
RGB: 172,183,187
HEX: #acb7bb

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6424
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 52 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting that the photo of the IH shows it with sixteen Harpoon. This is a good thing as this will be the minimum number of AShMs an Escort should be carrying today and tomorrow.

We may not be building the most capable Escort with the T-31, but it should be relatively easy and not too expensive to incrementally upgrade the five ships as they go through their first major maintenance cycle if the RN wished to do so. Installing a single Mk41 eight cell VLS would allow 32 Sea Ceptor to be carried is the ExLS quad pack wee used. Ideally we should be fitting two in the area the "Mushroom" Sea Septor launchers currently are and replace the rear 40mm with an Phalanx. The now spare 40mm could go onto either one of the B2 Rivers or as the main gun of say a B3 River. This would allow 24 Sea Ceptor to be routinely carried and have ten VLS available for other weapons that are compatible with the Mk41. If there is space remaining between eight and sixteen AShMs could be fitted in canister launchers, as an alternative to the second Mk41 VLS.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

with type 31 we need to keep a balance and I would say we should be looking at a top line type 31 as having

HMS , 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 Mk-41 cells , 8 x NSM

and we should be looking at a top line type 32 as having

HMS , 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 Mk-41 cells , 8 x NSM plus have the Palfinger system fitted under the flight deck for 3 x 11m MCM/ASW USV's

We should also be looking to give the Batch 2 type 26 48 x Mk-41 cells and 8 x NSM doing way with the mushroom system

Type 45 should get its 16 Mk-41 cells plus 8 x NSM again ding away with the mushroom system

NickC
Member
Posts: 999
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

My thoughts to transform the T31 from an OPV constabulary ship to a frigate with appropriate firepower need to look at the Israeli Sa'ar 6 class as a metric, at only 1,900t displacement which is less than a third that of the T31. Sa'ar 6 comes with its 16 Gabriel V AShM, 1x76mm and 2x25 mm guns, VLS cells for 32 Barak-8 AA missiles which can fire either of its the thee variants, MRAD 35 km - LRAD 70 km - ER 150 km plus the C-Dome navy variant of Iron Dome with 40 Tamir CIWS AA missiles and two triple LWT launchers, so would assume T31 should be more than capable of increasing on the Sa'ar 6 firepower.

The T31 does come with the Wildcat but again with only minimalistic firepower, the Martlet with its 2 kg warhead for use against boghammars (as far as know T31 not fitted with magazine capable of storing the Sea Venom with its 30 kg warhead?)

Online
Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

It's highly unlikely if the specification calls for Wildcat that they wouldn't design a magazine capable of employing its main offensive armament

Lucis1019
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 16 Jan 2022, 13:19
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lucis1019 »

Defiance wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 13:00 It's highly unlikely if the specification calls for Wildcat that they wouldn't design a magazine capable of employing its main offensive armament
Also look at Greek FDI or Meko 300A for PL, much smaller ship with greater fire power.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

I think I said further up the thread - there is tactical merit in the T31 (and T32 assuming it is akin to a T31 batch 2) being relatively launch platforms for weapons systems which could influence matters over a wide radius (Tomahawk would be the example from the last 30 years).

There’s obviously a lot more to it than point and click but I assume the T31 can accept targeting data by satellite so should be a useful platform for this role.
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post:
SW1

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

But type 26 is the UK tire 1 global frigate type 31/32 are tire 2 global frigates FDI and Meko-300 are regional tire 2 frigates

Type 31 in its full fat form would be a IH class with 127mm , 2 x40mm , 56 VLS , 16 NSM plus helicopter with its armament

Lucis1019
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 16 Jan 2022, 13:19
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lucis1019 »

Jake1992 wrote: 11 Nov 2021, 06:52
abc123 wrote:How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...
The RAN design has shown that the forward position can have 4 set of 8 wide ( where we currently have 3 ) and the RCN design has shown it can have 2 sets of 8 deep ( forward set where we currently have CAMM ) based on this I would say at least 48 in the forward possition but since Mk41 can now come in 2 cell sets I wouldn’t be surprised if more could fit there.
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 14:54 But type 26 is the UK tire 1 global frigate type 31/32 are tire 2 global frigates FDI and Meko-300 are regional tire 2 frigates

Type 31 in its full fat form would be a IH class with 127mm , 2 x40mm , 56 VLS , 16 NSM plus helicopter with its armament
actually, meko a 300 is a really heavily armed combatant, save only for Project 22350. See the infograph:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 18 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lucis1019 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 15:23
Jake1992 wrote: 11 Nov 2021, 06:52
abc123 wrote:How many Mk41 tubes can be put on T26? If we drop CAMM mushrooms that is...
The RAN design has shown that the forward position can have 4 set of 8 wide ( where we currently have 3 ) and the RCN design has shown it can have 2 sets of 8 deep ( forward set where we currently have CAMM ) based on this I would say at least 48 in the forward possition but since Mk41 can now come in 2 cell sets I wouldn’t be surprised if more could fit there.
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 14:54 But type 26 is the UK tire 1 global frigate type 31/32 are tire 2 global frigates FDI and Meko-300 are regional tire 2 frigates

Type 31 in its full fat form would be a IH class with 127mm , 2 x40mm , 56 VLS , 16 NSM plus helicopter with its armament
actually, meko a 300 is a really heavily armed combatant, save only for Project 22350. See the infograph:
Sorry yes meko-300 is a tire 1 regional frigate however it dose not change that the only limit on type 31 is money and that what the RN want is a tire 2 global patrol frigate and this should have 24 Mk-41 cells and 8 x NSM to allow it to carry 32 or 64 CAMM 8 or 16 other weapons like Tomahawk ( dependant on CAMM carried) 8 NSM plus a Wildcat

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

All that is being re affirmed here is that in the context of Russia/China or an equivalent is that to strike targets against such an enemy it will be done with either unmanned or long range stand off missile systems. If you follow that to its conclusion it raises interesting questions about the defence review.

Online
Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

SW1 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 16:05 All that is being re affirmed here is that in the context of Russia/China or an equivalent is that to strike targets against such an enemy it will be done with either unmanned or long range stand off missile systems. If you follow that to its conclusion it raises interesting questions about the defence review.
The US has a slightly nuanced view around the benefits of stand-off plus stand-in rather then either/or which gets quite interesting, but in general I agree, especially for the UK.

Post Reply