Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

And some shape their view around their least favored equipment.

is that meant to be least or latest ?

[Ron5]

And some shape their view around their least favored equipment.

is that meant to be least or latest ?

If you hate the idea of carriers it tends to lead to quite a different RN. As evidenced on this forum.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Very great news. As CAMM will be in mass production, it is a good timing to also order UK CAMM in cheap?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reco ... n-security

[tomuk]

Very great news. As CAMM will be in mass production, it is a good timing to also order UK CAMM in cheap?

More CAMM and related MBDA missiles is a must. But a mention or new on CAMM ER or EX would have been encouraging. Do need something with longer range.

[new guy]

A whole around order of CAMM, CAMM-ER, CAMMEX is needed IMO. CAMM to support courrent uses, CAMM-ER to increase capability and piggy back on reduced costs, CAMM-EX as still in development so more costly but whole new capability.

[Phil Sayers]

Please excuse my ignorance but what is CAAM-EX? Is it a future development designed to have longer range still than CAMM-ER?

[new guy]

Please excuse my ignorance but what is CAAM-EX? Is it a future development designed to have longer range still than CAMM-ER?

Joint UK-Poland programme
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... -together/

[donald_of_tokyo]

Moved across from NavyX thread.

The XV's getting a new 3D surveillance radar to trial.

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-rel ... nce-orders

One of these would be a decent upgrade for the River B2s. People are always talking about upgunning them but giving them a decent radar would probably be as useful.

3D radar to River B2 is an interesting option, I agree. But, I also think some short-range anti-UAS AESA radar shall be added to T26. How about Leonardo TMMR.

https://electronics.leonardo.com/docume ... )+2022.pdf

Four of them as a fixed AESA around the bottom of the T26's mast?
If this system is cheap, also shall be added to 3 of the 5 River B2s, who may confront UAS threats, HMS Tamar, Trent and Spey. (no need for Fourth and Medway). Anti-UAS can be short range but high resolution. A bit different capability from that of Artisan 3D.

[new guy]

1.85M a pop so relatively cheap.

[Tempest414]

So the SAAB contract is for SEK 264 million = 20.5 million pounds this is for 11 systems and support so the cost per radar system is maybe a bit lower maybe 1.5 million

With this being said it could be good to fit them to the RB2's and Bay's

[donald_of_tokyo]

Uhmm. I discussed two independent radars.

1: SAAB SeaGiraffe 1X, 11-sets of which are ordered from SAAB by UK mod. This is, in some sense, "mini-Giraffe AMB" used for SkySabre (land-ceptor) SAM. X-band, 150 kg weight, rotating at 1 second pitch.
- 75 km instrumented range

2: Another one I'm proposing is Leonardo TMMR fixed-plate AESA radar (see ref-1). Each unit is 50 kg in weight, operates in C-band.
- Detection Ranges:
-- ">7 Km" for micro drones
-- ">25 Km" for modern fighters
-- ">20 Km" for vehicle

Both are attractive, but as there are ARTISAN-3D onboard T-26, and its replacement shall come only a decade or more later, I am thinking of "additional" radar. On this regard, the latter has less overlap with ARTISAN-3D, being fixed-panel AESA. Short range means it does NOT need to be put on the top of the mast. So, adding it will not cause top-weight problem for T26.

On the other hand, replacing the Terma Scanter 4100 2D radar with Giraffe 1X 3D radar, of "2 (or 3) of the 5" River B2, looks interesting (HMS Tamar, Spey, and possibly, Trent). Might be coupled with replacing their 30mm gun with 40mm Bofors Mk.4. For the other 3 (or 2), (HMS Forth, Medwey and probably Trent), Scanter 4100 2D is good enough.

*ref-1: https://electronics.leonardo.com/docume ... 9+2022.pdf

[Tempest414]

Uhmm. I discussed two independent radars.

1: SAAB SeaGiraffe 1X, 11-sets of which are ordered from SAAB by UK mod. This is, in some sense, "mini-Giraffe AMB" used for SkySabre (land-ceptor) SAM. X-band, 150 kg weight, rotating at 1 second pitch.
- 75 km instrumented range

2: Another one I'm proposing is Leonardo TMMR fixed-plate AESA radar (see ref-1). Each unit is 50 kg in weight, operates in C-band.
- Detection Ranges:
-- ">7 Km" for micro drones
-- ">25 Km" for modern fighters
-- ">20 Km" for vehicle

Both are attractive, but as there are ARTISAN-3D onboard T-26, and its replacement shall come only a decade or more later, I am thinking of "additional" radar. On this regard, the latter has less overlap with ARTISAN-3D, being fixed-panel AESA. Short range means it does NOT need to be put on the top of the mast. So, adding it will not cause top-weight problem for T26.

On the other hand, replacing the Terma Scanter 4100 2D radar with Giraffe 1X 3D radar, of "2 (or 3) of the 5" River B2, looks interesting (HMS Tamar, Spey, and possibly, Trent). Might be coupled with replacing their 30mm gun with 40mm Bofors Mk.4. For the other 3 (or 2), (HMS Forth, Medwey and probably Trent), Scanter 4100 2D is good enough.

*ref-1: https://electronics.leonardo.com/docume ... 9+2022.pdf

Maybe but logistics and training program for two types of radar might not be worth it if the cost of fitting 5 radars is cheap enough

[donald_of_tokyo]

Uhmm. I discussed two independent radars....

Maybe but logistics and training program for two types of radar might not be worth it if the cost of fitting 5 radars is cheap enough

Thanks. RN frigate typically relies on a single radar for all anti-air search. "The second radar" will provide some redundancy when, for example, ARTISAN 3D is not working.

Also, as a S-band radar, I "guess" ARTISAN 3D is not so good at detecting swarm of small drones, i.e. 10-20 small drones reaching in tight formation. Also, with 2-second refresh rate, ARTISAN 3D might not be so good in very close range (air) defense, say, 100-300 m. The TMMR fixed panel AESA radar will resolve individual drones, point the EO FCS to it, and enable 30 mm guns and 20mm CIWS to attack it. A few seconds later, the system must move to another drone, then another and another. In this case, I "guess" high refresh rate is needed.

Also, TMMR could be also used for RM on-land anti-UAS operations. As being small and (hopefully) cheap, RN/RM or MOD may buy 100-200 systems of them. 8 T26s needs 4 x8 = 32 systems. T45 the same (4 x6 = 24 systems). T31's NS100S radar has a 1-second refresh rate, so may not need TMMR. But, if it is good, adding 4 x5 = 20 systems will be also good. If TMMR can be rotated, a single system can be added to River B2, in addition to the Scanter radar = 5 systems.

32 + 24 + 20 + 5 = 81 systems, may provide good logistic commonality? Of course, this idea is valid only if TMMR is cheap.

By the way, I hope TMMR is using Scotish GaN node (so UK has some share, which is VERY good), but I may be wrong. Looking for more info.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Another radar option, often wondered why CW radar not more popular as much simpler to manufacture and operate and lower cost (used with Bloodhound and Thunderbird). Continuous-wave radar maximize total power on a target because the transmitter is broadcasting continuously (uses two arrays, transmitting and receiving) the big plus with CW waveform uniquely suppresses clutter, limitation the unmodulated continuous wave radar cannot measure distance without frequency modulation (FM), FMCW is often used in LPI radars (Low Probability of Intercept) as the low transmitted output power is additionally divided over a large frequency bandwidth (the modulation of the frequency). FMCW radars are however more susceptible to clutter than the pure CW.

The Danish radar manufacturer Weibel patented a combination of simultaneously transmitting FMCW and CW waveforms in the one radar so able to detect and discriminate/separate targets in both range and velocity and to have the best possible clutter suppression

Chess and Weibel combined to produce the SEA EAGLE FRCO, Fire Control Radar Optical, with its thermal imaging and daylight optronics and X-band (8.5 gigahertz/GHz to 10.68GHz) frequency modulation/continuous wave fire control radar with a low output power of 40W and a range of circa 16.2 nautical miles (30 kilometres). During all-weather tracking trials they were able to follow outbound small calibre round against a drone where the system was able to record the path of the outbound round while maintaining track of the drone which enables the system to track the closest point of approach for automated spotting gun corrections for both surface and air engagements.

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting stuff!
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... o-pacific/

[Poiuytrewq]

An Australian variation on the PODs concept?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... fura-opvs/

[Repulse]

Good to see Australia grasps the potential for scaling through a multi tier navy.

[Tempest414]

An Australian variation on the PODs concept?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... fura-opvs/

of course we could do this on the RB2's with Giraffe 1X mounted on a container and 1 or 2 CAMM pallets/pods plug and play within 4 hours given we now know the cost of a Containerised 1X to be about 1.85 million a buy of 6 for say 10 million plus CAMM could allow CAMM to be deployed on both the RB2's ( and RB1s for that matter ) or the RFA's

[SW1]

Not much use if you need the heli pad.

[Tempest414]

Not much use if you need the heli pad.

I don't this as a problem on the RB2's and RFA's. The RB2's could put the Radar container at the end of the crane housing and a CAMM container on one waist point and a UAV container on the other and still be able to land a Wildcat

[donald_of_tokyo]

A proposal on T45 CAMM modification.

<Preface>
I imagine the last T45 (Duncan) will be there until ~2048 (35 years old), because the first T26 will be replaced 2055 (2025+30) at the earliest and "escort building" must be continuous. This is regardless of T83, because the last T83's crew only comes from the last T45's. T45-PIP is back on track now, so the next thing is "adding CAMM". As the "remaining life" is long, I think it shall be powerful.

<Analysis and proposal>
T45's 48-cell Sylver VLS is surrounded by a "bulwark" (pic-1). "24-CAMM" VLS is said to be located "between the 4.5 inch gun and the VLS". But, can we do it better? How about locating 48 CAMM within the VLS-bulwark, 24 each on both sides?

- (pic-2) VLS-bulwark has a height of 3-3.5m. CAMM is 3.5 m long, so CAMM VLS needs about 4 m height. Only 0.5-1 m addition is needed.
- (pic-3) New Zealand frigate mounts 20-cell CAMM tubes within the area reserved for 16-cell (short) Mk.41 VLS. And, Sylver and Mk.41 has similar size.
- (pic-1) Looking at it, we can easily see that each side of the VLS-bulwark, if widen by about 1.5 m, can accomodate 24-cell CAMM tubes easily. This will provide the T45 with 48 Aster-30 blk1/1NT and 48 CAMM = 96 missiles.

Compared to "adding only 24 CAMM", adding 48 CAMM will not be so expensive. Systems integration is almost the same, just add 2 more LMS box and 24 more launchers. Software integration is the same. Data link antenna is the same. Very cheap addition, I think.

<Optional proposal>
Add 16-cell Sylver VLS between the gun and the VLS. We all know there is a space reserved for it. This will give a missile load of 64 Aster-30 blk1/1NT and 48 CAMM = 112 missiles.

This addition will be relatively cheap. There already are 6-units of 8-cell Sylver A50 VLSs. Adding 2-more-units, preferably the longer version (A-70), is much more easy than adding new system, the Mk.41 VLS. Furthermore, RN must improve BMD/Hypersonic air-defense to escort CVFs, and 16-more Aster 30 is critically important.

Of course, radar and CMS needs upgrade. But here I just talk about VLS loads.

Just as a proposal. But, I think this is much more important than T32.

[Poiuytrewq]

A proposal on T45 CAMM modification.

Interesting proposal.

Really shows the importance for RN to make the most of what is in the water rather than constantly trying to build new platforms.

[serge750]

Gov's short term trying to save money thinking ! FFBNW if they had the mk41 VLS then quad packed CAMM could of been rolled out....dependent on the mission - lets hope they haved learned the lession on the high end ships.....eg T26 looks good from the get go

[SD67]

Yes T45 must have a long life ahead of it given the limited sea time they've had so probably worth investing in,
It's interesting - there's a great deal of "Dead end" equipment (from an RN-use perspective) on T45. Sylver, Mk8 gun, WR-21. Is the gun really going to be supported all the way out to 2048? A couple of BAE / Bofors 57mm would surely make more sense. I've no idea whether this is practical.

[wargame_insomniac]

I’m normally a big fan of the 57mm gun, but it would be better to replace the 30mm guns with 40mms and add the same 5” gun as the T26s.