Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

How about the T-83 plan being replaced by a T-26 B3? Longer so it can be fitted out with more VLS etc, similar to the extension given to the T-42 B3. So the T-26 increases the number of Mk41 VLS to 64, with three eight cell Strike Length Mk41s forward and three Standard length eight cell mk41 amid ship, replacing the "Mushrooms with ExLS. With the B3 the number of eight cell Strike Length Mk41s would be increased to six bringing the number of VLS to 80. The B1 and B2 T-26 would each also carry eight AShMs whilst the B3 would carry sixteen. Other systems would evolve providing greater capability with each batch. Ideally I would like to see eight B3s built to increase the Royal Navy's fleet of Tier one Escorts to sixteen complimented by the five Tier 2 T-31 for a total of twenty one. With having the T-26 evolve rather than a new design of the T-83, costs could be kept down and the timeframe per ship could also be reduced. Instead of the T-32, Babcock would be given the follow on for the B2 Rivers, being a class of five larger OPVs/Corvettes. A batch of smaller OPVs would be built to compliment the B2 Rivers in UK and BOT waters. Babcock would also get the programme for at least part of the MRSS, and having looked at the Damen Crossover, I think that would be a good place to start. I would however like to see it better protected with both hard and soft systems. Of course I still believe that the UK's ship building programme need additional resources, especially as the Royal NAvy will be at the forefront of the Governments Global Britain strategy.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

As much as I'd like to add Tier 1 assets, I believe that ship has sailed until T83 comes online... depending on what it will be, there MAY be an opportunity to get 8 instead of 6, but I wouldn't hold my breath... I believe the RN has made its peace with 14 Tier 1 escorts and intends to raise numbers to 24 with Tier 2 escorts (the former 1st SL has already hinted at adding Mk41 to T31, for example).

In what concerns the Tier 1 escorts, the question remains of whether they are suitable for their tasking. While I would argue that T26 is perfectly suited (even though I'd like to see the forward 24 CAMM cells replaced by 24 CAMM-ER ones and Artisan replaced with a fixed panel AESA radar... maybe in Batch 2?), T45 is dangerously underarmed and unsuited for its role. There is no active missile defense against hypersonics yet (although the US is experimenting with SM-6 Block 1B), so I won't go there for now, but there's a clear, present and urgent ABM need that T45 is not covering right now; it's not just Russia and China that are a problem, non-state actors like the Houthis, for example, already have access to IRBMs, AND they're using them. As much I like the idea of adding 24 CAMMs to T45 for close-in AW and increasing the number of Aster 30 to 48, the RN clearly needs to either get onboard the mythical Aster Block 2 and speed up its development or it needs to add 16 Mk41 for SM-3/SM-6. The former solution would be easier to integrate since the CMS and Sylver cells are already Aster-compatible, but would take longer to implement, because R&D is not even completed yet and deployment would be quite a few years away. The latter would probably be more complex to integrate, because it would involve upgrading the CMS, but would be faster to implement, so it gets my vote. The 24 CAMM could then go where the Harpoon launchers were previously. This would mean T45 would still not have a, significant AShM capability (save for SM-6, which I guess is significant enough...), but I would prioritize AD; a T45 with 16 SM-3/SM-6, 48 Aster Block 1 NT and 24 CAMM would be quite adequate for area AD and CSG protection.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 07:07
JohnM wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 03:47 I think you're being too pessimistic about the £ values (e.g. a low-end HMS is less than £5 million and CAPTAS 1 plus 2 Mk41 8-cell modules don't cost an additional £35 million),
I'm afraid you are totally missing my point.

When arming a frigate, each hardware is NOT the cost driver, their integration cost (wiring, hard-ware connection testing, software integration and testing testing testing...) is the major contributor. (You can easily see, the cost of 96 cell Mk.41 VLS will never pay for the Arleigh Burke class DDG.).

Only listing up the equipment cost means they are just mounted but cannot be used. To use it, you need to integrate them.

Also, there was some report here, that Babcock guy said, to equip T31 with ASW systems (I remember it included CAPTAS2 or CAPTAS4CI) will cost ~£90M per hull. Note that even the full-fat CAPTAS4 is said to cost ~£30-40M only. CAPTAS4CI is cheaper. CAPTAS2 even cheaper. But, the quoted total cost is not surprising for me, it is just reasonable, because its integration and analysis software must cost a lot.
...but even if we agree to disagree and split the difference down the middle and go for £60-70 million per ship, that's only £300-350 million for all five. The cancelation of I-SSGW alone saved £200 million, so coming up with another £100-150 million should be doable... all there needs to be is political will...
No objection, other than the cost estimation.
I'm sorry, but we'll continue to disagree on this one. By the former 1st SL's own admission, T31 is FFBNW Mk41 (Tacticos already has built-in the ability to control whichever missiles the cells may have), which means that adding that capability is essentially plug-and-play. Similarly, each CAMM fire control unit can control up to 24 missiles, therefore the cost of adding the extra 12 cells is also essentially only the hardware and installation costs. Knowing that a basic HMS like the MFS-7000 on T45 costs £5 million, I don't see where you come up with those numbers, I simply don't (the £85 million mentioned by the Babcock rep represented the cost of adding a "full" ASW capability to T31, including HMS, Captas 4 and have everything integrated into the CIC and CMS). In my proposal, the only significant integration cost is that of the HMS... If keeping the cost down is so crucial, then don't install a VDS... I'm totally convinced that the RN could uparm all 5 T31s with a HMS, 8-16 MK41 cells and 24 CAMM for less than the price of the cancelled I-SSGW...
These users liked the author JohnM for the post:
tomuk

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

JohnM wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 17:53 I'm totally convinced that the RN could uparm all 5 T31s with a HMS, 8-16 MK41 cells and 24 CAMM for less than the price of the cancelled I-SSGW...
Good use of the funds if accurate.

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 »

JohnM wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 17:53I'm sorry, but we'll continue to disagree on this one. By the former 1st SL's own admission, T31 is FFBNW Mk41 (Tacticos already has built-in the ability to control whichever missiles the cells may have), which means that adding that capability is essentially plug-and-play. Similarly, each CAMM fire control unit can control up to 24 missiles, therefore the cost of adding the extra 12 cells is also essentially only the hardware and installation costs. Knowing that a basic HMS like the MFS-7000 on T45 costs £5 million, I don't see where you come up with those numbers, I simply don't (the £85 million mentioned by the Babcock rep represented the cost of adding a "full" ASW capability to T31, including HMS, Captas 4 and have everything integrated into the CIC and CMS). In my proposal, the only significant integration cost is that of the HMS... If keeping the cost down is so crucial, then don't install a VDS... I'm totally convinced that the RN could uparm all 5 T31s with a HMS, 8-16 MK41 cells and 24 CAMM for less than the price of the cancelled I-SSGW...
Thanks. Hardware cost summed up cannot explain the system cost. This is fact. I think this is not a point to discuss. (You only need an hour of google search to see it.)

The real debate is on "how much overhead cost be needed for integration?". And, I totally agree this is a good point to discuss.

Of course there are costy addition and cheap addition, case-by-case, because of the ease of systems integration.

1: Adding 5 systems of 8-16 cell Mk.41 VLS to the T31 class, which can carry any of the SSMs you like, is already contradicting with the basic assumption "less than the price of the cancelled I-SSGW". I-SSGW is a program to buy 5-sets of relatively smallish ASM kits (a.k.a NSM) and introduce them to T23ASW.

- I understand you are putting aside the cost of the missile itself, but VLS without a missile is just a box. Anyway it is needed.
- Even putting the missile cost aside, you can find many cases the program cost of introducing an SSM system (say, Harpoon Blk II+) significantly exceeds the cost of the number of missiles they buy multiplied with the unit-cost based on US purchase. This is reasonable. For example, a front-end control electronics is needed to handle TLAM/LRASM in addition to the Mk.41 VLS itself. You also need to install and integrate the dedicated software into your CMS. Of course, software is never for free.

2: On the ASW with HMS, it depends. The sonar itself just provides the sensor output, which is just a flow of digital data. You need an ASW analysis system. The system has a variety of level, and their cost will surely have a wide range of options. If you make it simple, it will be just an ASW crew listening into the headset (but, this is not a solution for RN). I think an ASW system, if added to T31, must integrate the ESM info, sonar info, radar info, SeaSentor STDS systems info, and information from other assets (such as Merlin or P-8). You also need a dedicated desk and console. Many of the system will be already there, but installing it, verifying, and the software IP itself requires cost.

# If you have ever built a computer system with many options added, and asked to maintain the system to work properly for years in 24/7 basis, you can easily see your integration and maintenance cost/fee exceeding the cost of hardwares... And, these computers are much easy to handle than weapon systems.

3: On the other hand, increasing the CAMM number from said 12 to 24 will be relatively cheap. You have already installed the SeaSeptor software system in the CMS. You need to add the (CAMM) Launch Management System box, an electric box which can handle up to 12 missiles each, and wiring the power and network lines. And of course, integrating these wires needs testing/verification. But, it is relatively simple, because most of the systems you need is already installed and integrated, and the SeaSeptor system are originally designed to handle at least 4 LMS at once.


In summary, I think
- adding a 16-cell Mk.41 VLS with ASM missile itself will cost 1.5-2 times the cost of I-SSGW program (if including the missile itself). Depending on the missile level, it will cost much more.
- adding HMS and ASW system will depend on the level of ASW system we want, but surely at least 2-3 times the cost of the HMS hardware.
- while adding "12 more CAMM" will be relatively cheap. Say, £20-40M/unit (if including the missile itself) or £10-30M/unit excluding (I have no idea here, but fabricating the LMS box, wiring everything and testing is not a cheap task, because the system reliability is critical for hundreds of peoples life).

#I hope it is clearer now ...

Finally, please note that, here, we can discuss and/or disagree. The forum is there for this purpose, exchange/share one another's thought, and not to eliminate others'.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 03:00
JohnM wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 17:53I'm sorry, but we'll continue to disagree on this one. By the former 1st SL's own admission, T31 is FFBNW Mk41 (Tacticos already has built-in the ability to control whichever missiles the cells may have), which means that adding that capability is essentially plug-and-play. Similarly, each CAMM fire control unit can control up to 24 missiles, therefore the cost of adding the extra 12 cells is also essentially only the hardware and installation costs. Knowing that a basic HMS like the MFS-7000 on T45 costs £5 million, I don't see where you come up with those numbers, I simply don't (the £85 million mentioned by the Babcock rep represented the cost of adding a "full" ASW capability to T31, including HMS, Captas 4 and have everything integrated into the CIC and CMS). In my proposal, the only significant integration cost is that of the HMS... If keeping the cost down is so crucial, then don't install a VDS... I'm totally convinced that the RN could uparm all 5 T31s with a HMS, 8-16 MK41 cells and 24 CAMM for less than the price of the cancelled I-SSGW...
Thanks. Hardware cost summed up cannot explain the system cost. This is fact. I think this is not a point to discuss. (You only need an hour of google search to see it.)

The real debate is on "how much overhead cost be needed for integration?". And, I totally agree this is a good point to discuss.

Of course there are costy addition and cheap addition, case-by-case, because of the ease of systems integration.

1: Adding 5 systems of 8-16 cell Mk.41 VLS to the T31 class, which can carry any of the SSMs you like, is already contradicting with the basic assumption "less than the price of the cancelled I-SSGW". I-SSGW is a program to buy 5-sets of relatively smallish ASM kits (a.k.a NSM) and introduce them to T23ASW.

- I understand you are putting aside the cost of the missile itself, but VLS without a missile is just a box. Anyway it is needed.
- Even putting the missile cost aside, you can find many cases the program cost of introducing an SSM system (say, Harpoon Blk II+) significantly exceeds the cost of the number of missiles they buy multiplied with the unit-cost based on US purchase. This is reasonable. For example, a front-end control electronics is needed to handle TLAM/LRASM in addition to the Mk.41 VLS itself. You also need to install and integrate the dedicated software into your CMS. Of course, software is never for free.

2: On the ASW with HMS, it depends. The sonar itself just provides the sensor output, which is just a flow of digital data. You need an ASW analysis system. The system has a variety of level, and their cost will surely have a wide range of options. If you make it simple, it will be just an ASW crew listening into the headset (but, this is not a solution for RN). I think an ASW system, if added to T31, must integrate the ESM info, sonar info, radar info, SeaSentor STDS systems info, and information from other assets (such as Merlin or P-8). You also need a dedicated desk and console. Many of the system will be already there, but installing it, verifying, and the software IP itself requires cost.

# If you have ever built a computer system with many options added, and asked to maintain the system to work properly for years in 24/7 basis, you can easily see your integration and maintenance cost/fee exceeding the cost of hardwares... And, these computers are much easy to handle than weapon systems.

3: On the other hand, increasing the CAMM number from said 12 to 24 will be relatively cheap. You have already installed the SeaSeptor software system in the CMS. You need to add the (CAMM) Launch Management System box, an electric box which can handle up to 12 missiles each, and wiring the power and network lines. And of course, integrating these wires needs testing/verification. But, it is relatively simple, because most of the systems you need is already installed and integrated, and the SeaSeptor system are originally designed to handle at least 4 LMS at once.


In summary, I think
- adding a 16-cell Mk.41 VLS with ASM missile itself will cost 1.5-2 times the cost of I-SSGW program (if including the missile itself). Depending on the missile level, it will cost much more.
- adding HMS and ASW system will depend on the level of ASW system we want, but surely at least 2-3 times the cost of the HMS hardware.
- while adding "12 more CAMM" will be relatively cheap. Say, £20-40M/unit (if including the missile itself) or £10-30M/unit excluding (I have no idea here, but fabricating the LMS box, wiring everything and testing is not a cheap task, because the system reliability is critical for hundreds of peoples life).

#I hope it is clearer now ...

Finally, please note that, here, we can discuss and/or disagree. The forum is there for this purpose, exchange/share one another's thought, and not to eliminate others'.
Donald-San, of course we are discussing in a civilized way and that’s what these forae are for.. we all have different points of view and that’s what makes this interesting… I, for one, am having a great time discussing with you 😅

Back to the issue, you’re right I’m not including the cost of the missiles and the reason I do it is because I’m focused on the platform… FC/ASW and CAMM are/will be standard AShM and AW missiles of the entire fleet, so they will be bought in large numbers and some can be taken from that pool for T31 as needed, so those costs are independent of the platform. As to the latter, I totally agree with your analysis, but I really don’t see how you get to those numbers if you don’t include the missile costs… all the missiles and launchers are already integrated into Tacticos, except FC/ASW and that work will have to be done aooner or later because of T32, if it indeed turns out to be some evolution of the AH140 design, as looks likely for now… anyway, I think we can both agree the actual platform-related costs are manageable and would be easy to implement if the will is/was there…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we need to put the cost of missiles aside from the cost of the systems as the UK MOD has a 14 billion pound stand alone missile budget over a 10 year time scale which we are 3 years into

Also as I have said before if we are going to add the cost of missiles to type 31 we need to do the same for Type 26 which is never done

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 »

Uhmmm. But, what RN is missing the most is said to be ammo/missile, and engineering support. Number of escort only comes after them, to my understanding.

We are talking that "a ship without launchers is bad", but it will be just change to "a ship without a missile". And, as we've already used that money for the empty launchers and associated electronics, wiring, and integration cost, as well as its control software cost (which will never be cheap), it will result on even less ammo/missile. Significantly less.

If we cancel I-SSGW, RN is losing a few dozens of ASM. By adding a VLS on T31, we are losing more missiles?

Is it a good way to go?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 11:52 Uhmmm. But, what RN is missing the most is said to be ammo/missile, and engineering support. Number of escort only comes after them, to my understanding.

We are talking that "a ship without launchers is bad", but it will be just change to "a ship without a missile". And, as we've already used that money for the empty launchers and associated electronics, wiring, and integration cost, as well as its control software cost (which will never be cheap), it will result on even less ammo/missile. Significantly less.

If we cancel I-SSGW, RN is losing a few dozens of ASM. By adding a VLS on T31, we are losing more missiles?

Is it a good way to go?
Well there is a 14 billion pound missile budget and the RN needs to get it elbows out

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 12:50 Well there is a 14 billion pound missile budget and the RN needs to get it elbows out
I guess they are saying it is not enough. To double the ammo/missile number, it might mean UK needs yet another £14B. In that case, there is no money to spend on adding empty launchers?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The 14 billion was for a 10 year budget of which we are 3 into it I can't believe it has run out plus at the end of the 10 year budget there will be a new budget which comes into play in 2029

With this being said the first type 26 and 31 come on line in 2027 so if the RN were to spend money now on MK-41 for both ships it would have a better plan going forward about what it wants to fill them with under the new budget in 2029
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
JohnMScimitar54

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 »

But, I cannot agree it will justify cutting the budget to buy BOTH system and ammo (I-SSGW), with only a launcher. Thus, I-SSGW cost comparison is NOT good here. At least, most of the I-SSGW cost (if cancelled) MUST be absorbed into ammo/missile budget, not up-arming T31.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying adding Mk41 VLS to T31 is a bad idea.

I am just saying listing only the launcher cost and leaving the ammo is not justified when we think "I-SSGW cancellation will make up this money". Better way is to "steal" the money from T32 budget (although it is also not accounted yet), because it is a budget NOT including ammo.

Simple.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 13:44 But, I cannot agree it will justify cutting the budget to buy BOTH system and ammo (I-SSGW), with only a launcher. Thus, I-SSGW cost comparison is NOT good here. At least, most of the I-SSGW cost (if cancelled) MUST be absorbed into ammo/missile budget, not up-arming T31.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying adding Mk41 VLS to T31 is a bad idea.

I am just saying listing only the launcher cost and leaving the ammo is not justified when we think "I-SSGW cancellation will make up this money". Better way is to "steal" the money from T32 budget (although it is also not accounted yet), because it is a budget NOT including ammo.

Simple.
The problem with your argument is that modern warfare is not a protracted affair... if the s*@$ hits the fan with a near-peer opponent (looking at you, Russia and China) everything will be over in two weeks one way or another, not two years... therefore, I'd argue it's much more important to have an adequate number of cells you can fill only once or twice and maximize your chances of winning the first one or two clashes than have less cells and a large wartime reserve... without enough cells, there's no point having lots of missiles because 2/3 of your fleet will be at the bottom of the Atlantic or Pacific...
These users liked the author JohnM for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 13:20 The 14 billion was for a 10 year budget of which we are 3 into it I can't believe it has run out plus at the end of the 10 year budget there will be a new budget which comes into play in 2029

With this being said the first type 26 and 31 come on line in 2027 so if the RN were to spend money now on MK-41 for both ships it would have a better plan going forward about what it wants to fill them with under the new budget in 2029
Inspired from your post, I have an alternative idea. (not saying this is the way to go, but as one attractive possibility of how to use the money to make RN more powerful than now).

1: Assume there will be £2Bn for T32. Cancel T32 program and get £2B.
2: use £0.3B to integrate Aster30 Blk1 NT and eventually Blk2 into Mk.41 VLS
3: use £1.2B to buy 300 more Aster30 Blk1 NT and eventually Blk2. (assuming £4M/unit ave.)
4: use the remaining £0.5B to upgrade the 8 T26's radar, add another 8-cell Mk41 VLS, modify CAMM mushroom with ExLS, and integrate Aster30 on them.

This will make a T26 with, 4-face fixed AESA radar, 32-cell Mk.41 VLS with 16 FC/ASW and 16 Aster30, 48 CAMM on ExLS amidship.

This will
- enable T45 to more focus on BMD.
- support buying more Aster30 and adding Mk41 VLS on T31s, and more CAMM with more ExLS

As we discussed we need more missiles on RN assets, it must be accompanied with more ammo/missiles procured.

For example, my proposal two days ago on up-arming T45 and T26, is virtually requiring at least x1.5 times more missile to be carried and thus x1.5 more purchased. If it means increasing the "£14B" budget by x1.5, we need £7B more there, as a natural consequence.

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 »

JohnM wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 14:15... if the s*@$ hits the fan with a near-peer opponent (looking at you, Russia and China) everything will be over in two weeks one way or another, not two years... therefore, I'd argue it's much more important to have an adequate number of cells you can fill only once or twice and maximize your chances of winning the first one or two clashes than have less cells and a large wartime reserve... without enough cells, there's no point having lots of missiles because 2/3 of your fleet will be at the bottom of the Atlantic or Pacific...
But, currently RN assets are steaming with less and less missiles onboard. Not less number of launchers, just the launchers are kept empty. SeaWolf and Harpoon were evident, and who know what is in below the panel of A50 VLS on T45 and mushrooms on T23s.

For example, when RN announces upkeeping its Aster30 ammo, it was associated with the MBDA announcement of "getting up-keep contract from BOTH Italy and UK, for total of 500 missiles." This clearly means UK number of Aster30 missiles is significantly less than 500, possibly even 250. If true, not even enough to fill the current 6 hulls with 48 each.

Save the RN articles warned the very low storage of ammo. A comment to the article said, when he/she served the ship, many of the launchers was empty because of not enough missile. I became more and more cautious about it now, and thus never thinking of cutting the ammo budget to add a launcher on escorts.

Again, I am not saying adding launchers are bad idea. Just saying it will cost.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 14:29
JohnM wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 14:15... if the s*@$ hits the fan with a near-peer opponent (looking at you, Russia and China) everything will be over in two weeks one way or another, not two years... therefore, I'd argue it's much more important to have an adequate number of cells you can fill only once or twice and maximize your chances of winning the first one or two clashes than have less cells and a large wartime reserve... without enough cells, there's no point having lots of missiles because 2/3 of your fleet will be at the bottom of the Atlantic or Pacific...
But, currently RN assets are steaming with less and less missiles onboard. Not less number of launchers, just the launchers are kept empty. SeaWolf and Harpoon were evident, and who know what is in below the panel of A50 VLS on T45 and mushrooms on T23s.

For example, when RN announces upkeeping its Aster30 ammo, it was associated with the MBDA announcement of "getting up-keep contract from BOTH Italy and UK, for total of 500 missiles." This clearly means UK number of Aster30 missiles is significantly less than 500, possibly even 250. If true, not even enough to fill the current 6 hulls with 48 each.

Save the RN articles warned the very low storage of ammo. A comment to the article said, when he/she served the ship, many of the launchers was empty because of not enough missile. I became more and more cautious about it now, and thus never thinking of cutting the ammo budget to add a launcher on escorts.

Again, I am not saying adding launchers are bad idea. Just saying it will cost.
And I agree it will cost money, but without launchers there's no point having missiles. It's common in all navies for ships to sail with reduced missile loads in peacetime, if nothing else to preserve them and extend their shelf life... What I'm arguing is that in an emergency against a peer-opponent, there's no point having large missile reserves, because the whole thing will be over and done with in the first few clashes. Modern high-end warfare is a brutal affair... in the 80s the US Navy estimated the average survival time of a CV Task Force in the North Atlantic to be 2 weeks and the situation has only gotten worse since then with ABMs, hypersonics, quieter SSNs and SSKs, etc. Therefore, I'd argue you need to prioritize a high number of cells and then have just enough missiles to fill them all maybe 1-1.5 times (you have to count for attrition and initial ship unavailability), AT MOST... that's what's going to maximize your chances of surviving and maybe even winning the first clashes. If you're caught up in a long low- or medium-intensity conflict you can always buy more missiles as a UOR, but not in a high-intensity one...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Whilst I am a strong advocate of installing Mk41s on the T-31 and more on the T-26, What will go in them is still way up in the air. Whilst the Rn would like the FC/ASW to fit the Mk41 this is not a firm requirement to be best of my knowledge, more a wish. As for funding, like the other services what the RN wants does in no way tally with the resources currently available under the Equipment Plan, including the additional funding announced last year. And we are not really talking Wish lists here but items and capabilities that are essential for our Armed forces have both the capabilities and the capacity to be viable in a peer level conflict. This is exacerbated by programmes that are funded having extended timescales to make them affordable. With current resources to add anything extra to the current Equipment Programme is going to mean the cancellation of existing programmes. The RN has already all but cancelled the I-SSGW to fund other requirements and in my opinion the T-32 should be next but I am pretty sure this has not been funded so doesn't count. There is no money to be had from the other two Services so that option is dead. So when it comes down to it new money is needed.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1429
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 15:37 Whilst I am a strong advocate of installing Mk41s on the T-31 and more on the T-26, What will go in them is still way up in the air. Whilst the Rn would like the FC/ASW to fit the Mk41 this is not a firm requirement to be best of my knowledge, more a wish. As for funding, like the other services what the RN wants does in no way tally with the resources currently available under the Equipment Plan, including the additional funding announced last year. And we are not really talking Wish lists here but items and capabilities that are essential for our Armed forces have both the capabilities and the capacity to be viable in a peer level conflict. This is exacerbated by programmes that are funded having extended timescales to make them affordable. With current resources to add anything extra to the current Equipment Programme is going to mean the cancellation of existing programmes. The RN has already all but cancelled the I-SSGW to fund other requirements and in my opinion the T-32 should be next but I am pretty sure this has not been funded so doesn't count. There is no money to be had from the other two Services so that option is dead. So when it comes down to it new money is needed.
Is it necessary install Mk41 cells for anti-ship missiles eg the Iver Huitfeldt class fitted with 32 VLS Mk42 VLS cells for SM-2 etc plus 24 Mk56 VLS cells for ESSMs and with 16 deck launch canisters for its anti-ship Harpoons, similarly USN Constellation has 32 Mk41 VLS cells but uses 16 deck launch containers for its NSMs, reserving MK41s for its AAW missiles, ESSM and SM-2s and maybe ASROC and Tomahawk.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
Dahedd

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

NickC wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 17:11
Lord Jim wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 15:37 Whilst I am a strong advocate of installing Mk41s on the T-31 and more on the T-26, What will go in them is still way up in the air. Whilst the Rn would like the FC/ASW to fit the Mk41 this is not a firm requirement to be best of my knowledge, more a wish. As for funding, like the other services what the RN wants does in no way tally with the resources currently available under the Equipment Plan, including the additional funding announced last year. And we are not really talking Wish lists here but items and capabilities that are essential for our Armed forces have both the capabilities and the capacity to be viable in a peer level conflict. This is exacerbated by programmes that are funded having extended timescales to make them affordable. With current resources to add anything extra to the current Equipment Programme is going to mean the cancellation of existing programmes. The RN has already all but cancelled the I-SSGW to fund other requirements and in my opinion the T-32 should be next but I am pretty sure this has not been funded so doesn't count. There is no money to be had from the other two Services so that option is dead. So when it comes down to it new money is needed.
Is it necessary install Mk41 cells for anti-ship missiles eg the Iver Huitfeldt class fitted with 32 VLS Mk42 VLS cells for SM-2 etc plus 24 Mk56 VLS cells for ESSMs and with 16 deck launch canisters for its anti-ship Harpoons, similarly USN Constellation has 32 Mk41 VLS cells but uses 16 deck launch containers for its NSMs, reserving MK41s for its AAW missiles, ESSM and SM-2s and maybe ASROC and Tomahawk.
No, it's not, but by giving up on I-SSGW, which was to be canister-launched, and stating clearly that FC/ASW is Mk41-compatible, I think the writing is on the wall, unless the French can convince the RN otherwise. They have little interest in the Long-Range Land Attack version of FC/ASW because they have just introduced a new cruise missile into service and it won't need replacing soon, and they want a canister-launched version of the AShM to replace the Exocet Block 3. They have very few VLS cells and no ability to quad-pack any of their missiles, so they don't want to "waste" them of a AShM... that's the only way I can see the RN ending up with a canister-launched AShM version of the FC/ASW, but I wouldn't hold my breath... I think it's way more likely that the RN makes both versions of FC/ASW Mk41 compatible...

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 »

From River OPV thread...
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 20:57... Now I did think that by Heavy Corvettes, you might be referring to a current refresh of the WW2 Flower Class Corvettes, ued primarily for ASW. If you were talking about what could otherwise be called a Light Frigate, then I apologies. I can see that RN would need more ASW ships, and given the cost of Tier One T26, I could see the benefits of going for a much smaller Tier Two escort, maybe 110m long, able to provide ASW in low/medium intensity locations.
Although attractive and interesting, small 2nd-tier ASW escort is, I think, not needed anymore. ASW USVs will replace them.

In blue water, it will form a flotilla of ASW assets by combining one or two T26 and such drones. In littoral waters, ASW-USVs operated from land, coupled with ASW-UAVs operated from land, will do a good job.

I think buying more T26 will be the best solution, as more ASW assets in blue water are needed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I must admit, I always believed that the idea of FC/ASW was that it would be one missile that was able to engage both land and sea targets, not two different versions of the same missile. Having separate missiles will increase both cost of purchase and logistics to maintain, something the Royal Navy can ill afford given how tight funding is, that is of course unless the FC/ASW does not require serving and can be treated simple as a round of ammunition like some other missiles can.

The French have stuck with canisters for teh Exocet simply because they existed before the Sylver VLS was brought into service, and they saw now reason to develop a VLS version of Exocet, rather like the USN never developing a VLS launched version of the Harpoon. However With a clean sheet design that the RN already would like to be compatible with the Mk41 VLS there is nothing to say that FC/ASW will not also be compatible with the Sylver VLS, even if existing ships with that system stick to canisters.

On a different track, having just watch season 3, episode 3 of "Warship - Life at sea", it was fascinating to watch HMS Northumberland hunt for a Russian submarine. The programme showed a seriously sanitised version of how both the Warship and its Merlin would carry out such a search. I am pretty sure in reality they would have been able to identify the class of Russian submarine from its acoustic signature but that was not shown. What was shown was the submarine manoeuvring and hitting Northumberland's TASS, damaging it to the extent it would have to be replaced in port., so that was one of our few TASS out of action and we have few if any spares. Another worrying thig was the shortage of Sonar Buoys available to the Merlin. It makes one wonder how many munitions Northumberland was carrying, definitely not a full load, and following on can the Royal Navy actually have all its available warships at sea with full loadouts? If yes then how many would be left in the Bomb Dumps on shore?

The T-23 is still a capable ASW platform and we also have some very skill crew on board these ships. I was surprised that Northumberland actually had a Merlin on board as these are getting rarer now we have the carriers whose Air Wing have first go at the available Merlins. The T-23 is old though, and the T-26 cannot come soon enough. In future it is vital that like with submarines we do not have a decade or more gap between classes. As it is the first T-26 will be older then fifteen years when the last enters service, If we then started the T-83 programme and that was a purely specialist AAW platform it may be a further ten year at least until the first replacement for teh T-26 hits the water or a quarter of a century. That is too long! I believe we need to accept BAe as out high end escort manufacturer, and work with them to expand their facilities to allow a greater number of warships to be built simultaneously, and have a construction programme to keep they workforce busy. Babcock would therefore be responsible for all Tier 2 Warships and below including future OPVs, the MRSS and so on. Barrow would obviously continue working on our nuclear submarines but here again the capacity should be extended with the first SSN(R) on the block before the last Dreadnought class SSBN is launched. RFAs could easily be built overseas and fitted out in the UK. If the three Contractor mentioned above have full order books and are working at capacity, having another yard specialise in fitting out vessels might work. Not having any capacity to build the vessels in the UK would not therefore be a major issue, and I cannot see the construction of RFAs being sufficient to keep another yard working efficiently.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 22:59 I must admit, I always believed that the idea of FC/ASW was that it would be one missile that was able to engage both land and sea targets, not two different versions of the same missile. Having separate missiles will increase both cost of purchase and logistics to maintain,
I think in practice there's little overlap between the two. Land attack needs a 1000 pound warhead and 1000 mile range. Our enemies are big countries. A ship attack missile in practice is limited to 200-300mile range because ships move, and 100-200 kgs will mission kill most ships. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with, maybe there's some clever modular solution

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1429
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Jan 2022, 22:59 The T-23 is still a capable ASW platform and we also have some very skill crew on board these ships. I was surprised that Northumberland actually had a Merlin on board as these are getting rarer now we have the carriers whose Air Wing have first go at the available Merlins. The T-23 is old though, and the T-26 cannot come soon enough. In future it is vital that like with submarines we do not have a decade or more gap between classes. As it is the first T-26 will be older then fifteen years when the last enters service, If we then started the T-83 programme and that was a purely specialist AAW platform it may be a further ten year at least until the first replacement for teh T-26 hits the water or a quarter of a century. That is too long! I believe we need to accept BAe as out high end escort manufacturer, and work with them to expand their facilities to allow a greater number of warships to be built simultaneously, and have a construction programme to keep they workforce busy. Babcock would therefore be responsible for all Tier 2 Warships and below including future OPVs, the MRSS and so on.
Would note agree with your analysis but not your solution, the T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and not the faintest hint RN will be finding the necessary funds to upgrade it to one, the CSC and Hunter will be Tier 1 ships, but for BAE to bring T26 up to CSC/Hunter equivalent capabilities expect looking ~£billion cost per new ship and as V. Adm Gardner Director General Ships at Defence Equipment and Support made quite clear in his interview 3 months ago there will be no more ships based on the T26 as its just too expensive.

RN should have never forgotten when fighting a war the numbers of ships are of critical importance and the way to achieve that is to keep size and cost to the practical minimum and not lose touch with reality as the RN did by over specifying the T26 which ended up twice the size of a T23 and costing £4.7 billion for three ships that are not even Tier 1.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

They will be tier 1 ASW Frigates, surely.....

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JohnM »

NickC wrote: 29 Jan 2022, 15:33 Would note agree with your analysis but not your solution, the T26 is NOT a Tier 1 frigate and not the faintest hint RN will be finding the necessary funds to upgrade it to one, the CSC and Hunter will be Tier 1 ships, but for BAE to bring T26 up to CSC/Hunter equivalent capabilities expect looking ~£billion cost per new ship and as V. Adm Gardner Director General Ships at Defence Equipment and Support made quite clear in his interview 3 months ago there will be no more ships based on the T26 as its just too expensive.

RN should have never forgotten when fighting a war the numbers of ships are of critical importance and the way to achieve that is to keep size and cost to the practical minimum and not lose touch with reality as the RN did by over specifying the T26 which ended up twice the size of a T23 and costing £4.7 billion for three ships that are not even Tier 1.
Ok, that post is borderline trolling and totally disingenuous, but I'll bite...

1. Not to flog that dead horse much more, but why don't we wait to see how much the second batch of 5 T26s costs, hmm? The cost for the first batch includes all the R&D, tooling and start-up costs, so the follow-on ships will be a lot cheaper (maybe less than 800 million, from what's been said by BAE but we'll have to wait and see). So, your figure of over 1.3 billion per ship is not honest...

2. They are Tier 1 ASW ships, which is what HMG wants them to do... if you want them to do something else, that's entirely your problem... I'd also like to have a couple of Aston Martins, but I don't and that's my problem... the Canadians and Australians want their versions to be something else and that's perfectly fine, as well... so, just because you like to play Fantasy Fleets, that doesn't mean they're not Tier 1 ASW vessels.
These users liked the author JohnM for the post (total 4):
CaribbeanDefianceScimitar54wargame_insomniac

Post Reply