Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

A Sea Ceptor system is being added to the T45's. It has a 48 cell limitation. I do not know what the PAAMS limitation is.

Thanks. This is the point.

A Sea Ceptor system comprises of its air-defense software and hardware (including LMS-boxes, and up to 12 CAMM canisters connected to it, as well as CMS-to-LMS wiring hardware). In T45, PAAMS and Sea Ceptor systems must be surely "integrated" = acting as a single system. So, it must be the PAAMS software system firing CAMM via Sea Ceptor hardware systems. (also it will be firing Aster-30(15) via its PAAMS hardware systems).

If so, a Sea Ceptor software can integrate two "Sea Ceptor hardware systems" to make the maximum CAMM load up to 96, relatively easily. This is even likely because Sea Ceptor software system is largely based on that of PAAMS.

In short, I understand Sea Ceptor "max 48 CAMM" issue (if exists) is not so solid, just a "can be easily fixed" issue.

[wargame_insomniac]

A query. When talking about "48 limit" on missiles, I had understood that as how many LAUNCHED missiles the system could handle and track at the same time. Not how many VLS cells the ship has.

[donald_of_tokyo]

For ref: DE&S reported Sky Sabre using its BMC4I, which understand a version of the Israeli Rafael/Mprest Iron Dome MIC4AD Modular, Integrated C4I Air & Missile Defense System, battle management command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence

can control the flight of 24 [CAMM] missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets.

https://des.mod.uk/des-sky-sabre-britis ... r-defence/

[Little J]

I would imagine that if you found yourself in a situation where you needed to track more than 24 / 48 targets at the exact same time, then you have royally screwed up and nothing is going to save your arse...

[Ron5]

A Sea Ceptor system is being added to the T45's. It has a 48 cell limitation. I do not know what the PAAMS limitation is.

Thanks. This is the point.

A Sea Ceptor system comprises of its air-defense software and hardware (including LMS-boxes, and up to 12 CAMM canisters connected to it, as well as CMS-to-LMS wiring hardware). In T45, PAAMS and Sea Ceptor systems must be surely "integrated" = acting as a single system. So, it must be the PAAMS software system firing CAMM via Sea Ceptor hardware systems. (also it will be firing Aster-30(15) via its PAAMS hardware systems).

If so, a Sea Ceptor software can integrate two "Sea Ceptor hardware systems" to make the maximum CAMM load up to 96, relatively easily. This is even likely because Sea Ceptor software system is largely based on that of PAAMS.

In short, I understand Sea Ceptor "max 48 CAMM" issue (if exists) is not so solid, just a "can be easily fixed" issue.

That's a great deal of guesswork!

I doubt much integration is being done with PAAMS and Ceptor. That's big bucks. A fairly simply hand off would suffice: meet this criteria and it's yours otherwise I'll deal with it. Maybe even the logic used to determine Aster 15 vs Aster 30.

Of course, two Ceptor systems could be installed in one warship. Puts the cost up quite a bit tho because a lot of the expensive bits need to be duplicated and a handoff control would need to be invented.

[Ron5]

A query. When talking about "48 limit" on missiles, I had understood that as how many LAUNCHED missiles the system could handle and track at the same time. Not how many VLS cells the ship has.

Your guess would be incorrect.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks.

I doubt much integration is being done with PAAMS and Ceptor. That's big bucks. A fairly simply hand off would suffice: meet this criteria and it's yours otherwise I'll deal with it.

Very unlikely. AAW task is highly organic operation and needs a good control system. And, SAM's are fired on "future possible location", not just to the enemy. It cannot be as simple as just defining a sector. (fact)

- The main system software (*A) evaluates the enemy track and calculates the future vision, and assign a subsystem to handle it.
- Then, the sub-system (*B) fires missiles via specific wire (and LMS) when the probability to engage it get high enough. The missile is control to the updated midpoint via datalink. As it is 2-way datalink, updated information from the missile itself is fed back into the subsystem. If a missile's probability of engagement gets low, another missile must be fired. (guess, but logical thinking)

I understand PAAMS is handling the task *A, and SeaCeptor system (omitting the assignment-phase program, but with all the tracking and guidance phase program) is handling the task *B. At the same time, "tracking and guidance phase program" of PAAMS will be handling Aster-30.

As you can see, when you want to add more CAMM, you just need
- improve the calculation power of the *A software
- and increase the *B software and increase the VLS cells, their wires and LMS-boxes.
I'm sure the system is open-architecture which means adding modules (software and hardware) are considered from the beginning.

It is the same with AEGIS. They were originally designed with Ticonderoga class cruiser with 122-cell Mk41 VLS, but later updated to be able to handle quad-pack ESSMs. Modular software is designed as such.

Of course, two Ceptor systems could be installed in one warship. Puts the cost up quite a bit tho because a lot of the expensive bits need to be duplicated and a handoff control would need to be invented.

You will not need two full-sets of SeaCeptor system. Phase-A shall be common, but yes phase-B needs "more assets and money". No objection here.

Note, I am just saying it is doable, not difficult. No saying it is already done.

[tomuk]

That's a great deal of guesswork!

I doubt much integration is being done with PAAMS and Ceptor. That's big bucks. A fairly simply hand off would suffice: meet this criteria and it's yours otherwise I'll deal with it. Maybe even the logic used to determine Aster 15 vs Aster 30.

Of course, two Ceptor systems could be installed in one warship. Puts the cost up quite a bit tho because a lot of the expensive bits need to be duplicated and a handoff control would need to be invented.

And that is quite a lot of supposition on your part.

What you describe as a simple handoff would be extremely difficult you would need to synchronise both systems on an ongoing basis. Amongst other things launches would need to be synchronised to stop missiles colliding, you would would need to cope with potential launch and missile failures. It would be much easier to do this all in the same C2 system rather then handing it off.

Just a note the C2 element of PAAMS is UK specific it was one of the issues that led to the breakdown of the Horizon project.

[Ron5]

Thanks.

I doubt much integration is being done with PAAMS and Ceptor. That's big bucks. A fairly simply hand off would suffice: meet this criteria and it's yours otherwise I'll deal with it.

Very unlikely. AAW task is highly organic operation and needs a good control system. And, SAM's are fired on "future possible location", not just to the enemy. It cannot be as simple as just defining a sector. (fact)

- The main system software (*A) evaluates the enemy track and calculates the future vision, and assign a subsystem to handle it.
- Then, the sub-system (*B) fires missiles via specific wire (and LMS) when the probability to engage it get high enough. The missile is control to the updated midpoint via datalink. As it is 2-way datalink, updated information from the missile itself is fed back into the subsystem. If a missile's probability of engagement gets low, another missile must be fired. (guess, but logical thinking)

I understand PAAMS is handling the task *A, and SeaCeptor system (omitting the assignment-phase program, but with all the tracking and guidance phase program) is handling the task *B. At the same time, "tracking and guidance phase program" of PAAMS will be handling Aster-30.

As you can see, when you want to add more CAMM, you just need
- improve the calculation power of the *A software
- and increase the *B software and increase the VLS cells, their wires and LMS-boxes.
I'm sure the system is open-architecture which means adding modules (software and hardware) are considered from the beginning.

It is the same with AEGIS. They were originally designed with Ticonderoga class cruiser with 122-cell Mk41 VLS, but later updated to be able to handle quad-pack ESSMs. Modular software is designed as such.

Of course, two Ceptor systems could be installed in one warship. Puts the cost up quite a bit tho because a lot of the expensive bits need to be duplicated and a handoff control would need to be invented.

You will not need two full-sets of SeaCeptor system. Phase-A shall be common, but yes phase-B needs "more assets and money". No objection here.

Note, I am just saying it is doable, not difficult. No saying it is already done.

A lot more guesswork.

PS Don't think anyone suggested this:

It cannot be as simple as just defining a sector. (fact)

[Ron5]

That's a great deal of guesswork!

I doubt much integration is being done with PAAMS and Ceptor. That's big bucks. A fairly simply hand off would suffice: meet this criteria and it's yours otherwise I'll deal with it. Maybe even the logic used to determine Aster 15 vs Aster 30.

Of course, two Ceptor systems could be installed in one warship. Puts the cost up quite a bit tho because a lot of the expensive bits need to be duplicated and a handoff control would need to be invented.

And that is quite a lot of supposition on your part.

What you describe as a simple handoff would be extremely difficult you would need to synchronise both systems on an ongoing basis. Amongst other things launches would need to be synchronised to stop missiles colliding, you would would need to cope with potential launch and missile failures. It would be much easier to do this all in the same C2 system rather then handing it off.

Just a note the C2 element of PAAMS is UK specific it was one of the issues that led to the breakdown of the Horizon project.

Lots of lovely guesswork.

I'll add a guess of my own to round things out: the T45 Sea Ceptor installation will not have the budget to do the kind of expensive upgrades and testing involved in your ideas. More quick and dirty. Ceptor will be treated like a CIWS (like Phalanx) with none of the fanciful features you have imagined.

With this discussion now a long way away from being factual. I'm done.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A lot more guesswork.

Agreed. But, it will be anyway doable. T45 is to handle 48+24 SAMs in PAAMS system in near future. So, modified T26 (for example) handling 96 CAMM in future will be not a difficult issue at all, because they share many part of the software. This is my point.

[tomuk]

That's a great deal of guesswork!

I doubt much integration is being done with PAAMS and Ceptor. That's big bucks. A fairly simply hand off would suffice: meet this criteria and it's yours otherwise I'll deal with it. Maybe even the logic used to determine Aster 15 vs Aster 30.

Of course, two Ceptor systems could be installed in one warship. Puts the cost up quite a bit tho because a lot of the expensive bits need to be duplicated and a handoff control would need to be invented.

And that is quite a lot of supposition on your part.

What you describe as a simple handoff would be extremely difficult you would need to synchronise both systems on an ongoing basis. Amongst other things launches would need to be synchronised to stop missiles colliding, you would would need to cope with potential launch and missile failures. It would be much easier to do this all in the same C2 system rather then handing it off.

Just a note the C2 element of PAAMS is UK specific it was one of the issues that led to the breakdown of the Horizon project.

Lots of lovely guesswork.

I'll add a guess of my own to round things out: the T45 Sea Ceptor installation will not have the budget to do the kind of expensive upgrades and testing involved in your ideas. More quick and dirty. Ceptor will be treated like a CIWS (like Phalanx) with none of the fanciful features you have imagined.

With this discussion now a long way away from being factual. I'm done.

Well lets see your working out then. Here are the press releases detailing the at least £750m being spent adding CAMM and upgrading Aster, Samson and the Sea Viper systems on the type 45s.

https://des.mod.uk/type-45-destroyers-r ... t-upgrade/
https://des.mod.uk/des-secure-multi-mil ... estroyers/

[Tempest414]

Moved over from the Type 32 thread

Moving forward what I would like to see over time is a push to

8 x Type 83
9 x Type 26
9 x type 32
10 x River B2/B3

[SW1]

Moved over from the Type 32 thread

Moving forward what I would like to see over time is a push to

8 x Type 83
9 x Type 26
9 x type 32
10 x River B2/B3

Ino I’m rather a lone voice I’m this thinking on here but problem is the RN in the 90s had built itself two ships that offered the best cost to capability package going in HMS ocean and the type 23. Instead of continuing that trend and replacing them with similarly spec’s and capable ships it has eviscerated itself and its force structure by chasing the ego filled mantra of a smaller “American navy”. It seems to be in severe danger of continuing the trend.

If they want a ship that can support multiple off board systems and containerised systems then it should look more like a bay type vessel than shoe horning such things into a frigate profile.

[Repulse]

With the possible exception of the HVU escorts with very specific AAW/ASW roles, I think every warship in the navy needs to be seen as a mothership / amphibious platform, but aimed towards different threat levels and operating areas.

I see the need for three levels:
- Mid-High Threat / Globally Deployable: let’s call it the T32
- Low Threat Globally Forward Based: RFAs, Survey Ships and Patrol Sloops
- Low Threat Littoral UK&BOT Based: Patrol PSVs or similar

[wargame_insomniac]

Quoted from the Type 32 thread:

Just avoiding cuts would be a win for the MoD. The General Public have little interest is Defence caring far more for the things that actually affect their li8fe day to day such as the Health Service or Education.

What is worrying is that unlike previous eras, the time it takes to re-arm and bring the Armed Forces up to the job is going to be far greater then time will allow prior to fighting actually starting. Comparing the war tension in the 1930s to today with Russia, we would be increasing the size of our military as well as re equipping them with newer equipment. Present day that would mean cancelling any reductions in service personnel bringing existing kit up to full capability and accelerating what equipment programmes we could, Boxer for example.

As for the T-31, well that programme is still in its earliest stages with a design still to be developed as well as its role and capabilities. Any additional resources will go to programmes that are more advanced such as the T-26 and T-31 and possibly the FSS. The last is a problem as we currently only have one vessel in that class available, without which our Carrier Group will be severely restricted.

With the T-32 I see a conflict of issues regarding its capabilities. With the T-31 being build as a "Patrol" Vessels we need the T-32 tpo be a true combat escort is we wish to increase the size of our Fleets, rather than some new class of vessel to accept technologies that are still under development. I also think the current climate should shine a very bright light on the currently planned capabilities of the T-31, as well as the personnel number in all three Services. For example, as a bare minimum the T-31 should be fitted out to be able to carry at least twenty-four Sea Ceptor as well as some form of canister launched AShM. The last thing should be becoming a much higher priority for the Royal Navy as its current Harpoons are long in the tooth and all its Escorts need to carry a modern AShM sooner rather than later.

Regardless of the "tilt to Indo-Pacific", the UK is an ireland nation. We were dependant on the sea for free global shipping lanes for both import and export before the "tilt", and no doubt we will be dependant on the sea for free global shipping lanes for both import and export well after the "tilt".

Before the tilt we used both T23 GP frigates and River B2 OPV's to both patrol BOT's and take part in multi-national ant-piracy operations such as Operation Kipion in the Persian Gulf, Operation Sea Guardian in the Med, and previously Operation Atalanta off the Horn of Africa and HMS Trent deployed to the Gulf of Guinea on counter-piracy operations.

We previously had 5 T23 GP frigates, currently 4 and soon to be just 3 (Argyll, Lancaster and Iron Duke). We need the T31 GP frigates to do the missions that T23 GP frigates did oreviously and do currently.
If we decide to ignore the "tilt" and abandon patrolling the global shipping lanes in coordination with our allies, then for me that is being an introverted little Englander at it's very worst.

I have said before that RN needs to do away with Fitted for But Not With on ALL ship classes.
- I do agree that means adding some form of Anti Ship Missiles on ALL escorts of frigate size or above.
I am ok with the cheaper NSM on T23 GP/T31 but I would prefer a more capable, longer ranged missile on T45/T23 ASW/T26.
- I do agree that T31 needs CAMM to be able to protect itself.
But if we sell the T31, then we will only need to allocate some of the scarce T45/T23 ASW/T26 to cover these missions, which would take away from our Tier One Warfighting force

I am all for the likely missions / requirement / equipment for the T32's being reviewed and if necessary completely changed. But these ships are just fragments on paper at the moment - as far as we know they have yet to be budgeted for let alone trquirements detailed, let alone even ordered. Personally I am fine if we had to cancel the possible future prospect of 5*T32 to more properly uparm and equip all of the existing/ordered 19 escorts (6*T45, 8*T26, 5*T31).

[SW1]

If you were advising the government about where to place resources would it be to counter say blowing up a gas pipe line in the North Sea or closing the English Channel or blowing up a gas pipeline in sangu gas field off Bangladesh or closing the Singapore strait what do u think has more of a economic impact on the uk and it’s way of life?

Or perhaps in political speak, there is no hostile act that happens in the Asia Pacific that causes a uk government to fall, the same isn’t true about things around the uk.

[zavve]

How is the T31 going to patrol places like the Persian Gulf or the Black Sea without a hull sonar? Not only for ASW detection since Iran has Kilo class but also for mine detection. I honestly don't understand why every escort isn't fitted with a hull sonar at the very least.

[SD67]

If you were advising the government about where to place resources would it be to counter say blowing up a gas pipe line in the North Sea or closing the English Channel or blowing up a gas pipeline in sangu gas field off Bangladesh or closing the Singapore strait what do u think has more of a economic impact on the uk and it’s way of life?

Or perhaps in political speak, there is no hostile act that happens in the Asia Pacific that causes a uk government to fall, the same isn’t true about things around the uk.

Wherever we can add most value to the Western alliance. Hence why we do minesweeping in the Gulf. Afghanistan is not exactly close but we put alot of resources there.. We have assets in Mali right now - arguably protecting French energy assets that have nothing to do with the UK. We are dependent on sea-borne imports for much of our energy, and food which in many cases originate on the other side of the planet.

[Poiuytrewq]

As expected:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... uts-years/

The defence budget faces real-term cuts until 2026, the Telegraph understands, although Treasury sources have insisted it will hit 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade.

The target to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP was made by Liz Truss. However, it had been assumed it would be dropped as Rishi Sunak looks to make savings in the upcoming fiscal statement.

However, Treasury sources said that while only "small increases" to the budget could be expected until 2026, this would then accelerate to hit 3 per cent by 2030.

It is understood that the the increase has been backed by Jeremy Hunt. Before becoming Chancellor Mr Hunt wrote in The Telegraph in March that “other democratic powers, especially in Europe, must commit to matching US defence spending as a proportion of GDP”.

“The UK should lead the way by saying that defence, aid and soft power spend will rise to at least 4 per cent of GDP over the next decade,” he said.

The Prime Minister has previously described the 3 per cent target as "arbitrary" and is expected to stick to the previous spending review.

With regards to the promises of "small increases", Defence experts have pointed out that under the 2020 spending review, a reduction in real terms was already expected owing to the rise in inflation.

No commitment to hit 3pc target

Prof Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, said: “Unless the Autumn Statement provides extra cash for the next two years then there will be real-term reductions in defence.”

The Prime Minister’s spokesman on Wednesday refused to commit to increasing defence spending to the 3 per cent target.

He said: "That is something that would need to be set out by the Chancellor at a future fiscal event.”

Prof Chalmers also cautioned that waiting to accelerate the increase in the defence budget until 2030 only made sense on the assumption that the main threat is a long-term one, likely from China.

“Yet the most dramatic change in the military threat to Europe over the last year has been the increased risk of war with Russia in the near term,” he said.

“Preparing for this needs to have a high priority. Focusing on more money in 2030, but providing nothing extra over the next two years, doesn't address this short-term acute challenge.”

It comes after Estonia called on the UK to boost defence spending to 3 per cent.

British troops
Estonia has said it wants more British troops, not fewer
When asked in a BBC interview if Nato countries should aim to spend 3 per cent, Urmas Reinsalu, the Estonian foreign minister, said: "Absolutely."

Earlier this year it was revealed that hundreds of British soldiers are set to be pulled out of Estonia by Christmas, with no plans to replace the 700 strong battlegroup that has been in place since February.

Mr Reinsalu also addressed this, saying his country did not want the UK to cut troop numbers in Estonia. "We love UK soldiers," he said, adding: "we want more".

Earlier this week senior military figures said they feared that Liz Truss’s 3 per cent pledge was little more than a “mirage”.

Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, cautioned that “it looks as if defence is going to have to make do with 2 per cent”.

He said he felt that “2.5 per cent or 3 per cent was a mirage offered by Johnson and Truss”.

Lord Dannatt added that if last year’s Integrated Review is soon to be refreshed, “the same team will be doing the refreshing so I do not see much change”.

“The Indo-Pacific tilt will remain despite a land war in Europe,” he warned. “And it is the Army which will be starved of investment; however, further cuts in manpower and capability must not happen”.

[Tempest414]

If you were advising the government about where to place resources would it be to counter say blowing up a gas pipe line in the North Sea or closing the English Channel or blowing up a gas pipeline in sangu gas field off Bangladesh or closing the Singapore strait what do u think has more of a economic impact on the uk and it’s way of life?

Or perhaps in political speak, there is no hostile act that happens in the Asia Pacific that causes a uk government to fall, the same isn’t true about things around the uk.

If it were me I would be saying to both HMG and MOD that we need to strike a 5 year deal with allies to share the running costs and manning of the Wave class allowing both ships to deploy to the Indo -Pacific for the next 5 years. This would allow the UK to support allies in the region with much needed real support

I would also look into weather this could be done with the second LPD

I would be looking to do the same with HMS Echo in the Baltic and North sea

I would still be looking to have a LRG ( south ) made up of a MRSS + 1 x Frigate

The point is we have a lot of really good ship doing nothing due to money and man power but with some deal making they could be out supporting UK and allied interests

[donald_of_tokyo]

How is the T31 going to patrol places like the Persian Gulf or the Black Sea without a hull sonar? Not only for ASW detection since Iran has Kilo class but also for mine detection. I honestly don't understand why every escort isn't fitted with a hull sonar at the very least.

No a big problem, there are many assets in Persian Gulf, which can handle ASW. T31 is NOT alone there. And, anyway, hull mounted sonar on T31 will detect enemy subs very long after the SSK detects T31.

[Repulse]

How is the T31 going to patrol places like the Persian Gulf or the Black Sea without a hull sonar? Not only for ASW detection since Iran has Kilo class but also for mine detection. I honestly don't understand why every escort isn't fitted with a hull sonar at the very least.

No a big problem, there are many assets in Persian Gulf, which can handle ASW. T31 is NOT alone there. And, anyway, hull mounted sonar on T31 will detect enemy subs very long after the SSK detects T31.

It just underlines the folly of having paper political frigates. If the T31 was designed as a mothership for the unmanned off board MCM and ASW assets then maybe, but it’s not. A T32 as outlined in the latest design from BAE is multiple times better suited.

[Caribbean]

How is the T31 going to patrol places like the Persian Gulf or the Black Sea without a hull sonar? Not only for ASW detection since Iran has Kilo class but also for mine detection. I honestly don't understand why every escort isn't fitted with a hull sonar at the very least.

If I understand the way that things are moving, then offboard system(s) will be doing the sub-hunting and relaying information to both surface and aerial assets. Nothing is that far away in the Gulf.

It looks as if T31 may well have the SSTD system fitted, so it should be able to defend itself against torpedo attack.

There are, of course, also rumours that it will get the hand-me-down T23 GP HMS, but I will believe that when I see it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

How is the T31 going to patrol places like the Persian Gulf or the Black Sea without a hull sonar? Not only for ASW detection since Iran has Kilo class but also for mine detection. I honestly don't understand why every escort isn't fitted with a hull sonar at the very least.

No a big problem, there are many assets in Persian Gulf, which can handle ASW. T31 is NOT alone there. And, anyway, hull mounted sonar on T31 will detect enemy subs very long after the SSK detects T31.

It just underlines the folly of having paper political frigates. If the T31 was designed as a mothership for the unmanned off board MCM and ASW assets then maybe, but it’s not. A T32 as outlined in the latest design from BAE is multiple times better suited.

Sorry disagree. ASW was a system of systems from the beginning, and the main search and hunt assets was and is, aircrafts. If you have a P-8A in the sky, there is almost no use of a hull mounted sonar on an escort in any sense. Capability is overwhelmingly better in P-8A than a hull sonar. And, in Persian gulf, there can always be a P-8A or alike. In blue water, this is not the case.

A Captas-4 equipped T26 (not a T31 with a hull sonar) may be able to provide non-negligible contribution, but Persian Gulf is too shallow to fully use it.

T31 has SeaSentor torpedo defense system, which is surely the top priority assets in view of ASW. Good. Hull sonar is much less useful, and resides in "better to have" regime, not "must have".