Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 Wrote:-

to counter the F-16 threat if it comes we could deploy a Sqn of F-35 which would not need a full runway if things start to heat up

Unfortunately, if you do this, you will not have enough F35’s to put on one carrier, let alone two. AND you will have to transport them there on a carrier anyway.

Let us hope that current and future government ministers and the professional heads of the armed forces do not fall for this one.

Remember that by 2025 we will have 47 F-35's as said under a full effort we could deploy 36 to 40 of them this could mean 12 deployed as things heat up along with 10 more typhoons and still have enough to deploy 24 to 28 on a carrier

Plus they don't need to go by carrier they can go using Tankers

lets hope they don't fall for what

[Jensy]

Timmymagic posted this in another thread.



Future Type 83 Destroyer main missile?

I could see Type 83 having a combination of CAMM, CAMM-MR and a long range missile for ABM defence (be that a member of the US Standard missile family or Aster made compatible for Sylver).

What I personally would really hope for, is this missile being on Type 26 and 31 (if fitted with Mk.41). Would extend the defences bubble that every RN escort could put around itself and other nearby vessels and in a stroke solve the shortage of AAW escorts imposed by cutting Type 45 numbers.

As for quad-packing or not, I'd wait to see verification from MBDA. The mention in that article of a greater diameter isn't cited to any source. Also have no idea how credible or not that website is.

[SW1]

It would be gd to have them across the board but much like sonars, they can only have them if there is people trained to use them and the further the missile range the more training that is required.

[Jensy]

It would be gd to have them across the board but much like sonars, they can only have them if there is people trained to use them and the further the missile range the more training that is required.

True enough. No such thing as a free lunch. Though at least doesn't involvd messing around with the hull and worrying about noise, vibration and aquadynamics. As fitting VDS to Type 45 or any ASW sonar to Type 31.

Still seems like something of a gift that we have a proactive potential partner in Poland for such a missile and alignment on the Arrowhead 140 design.

One fly in the ointment is that, based on current plans, we're going to keep Sylver and Aster on Type 45 for another two decades. Which means some degree of duplication of capabilities. The CAMM integration also takes away the 'Mk.41 gym'.

[new guy]

It would be gd to have them across the board but much like sonars, they can only have them if there is people trained to use them and the further the missile range the more training that is required.

True enough. No such thing as a free lunch. Though at least doesn't involvd messing around with the hull and worrying about noise, vibration and aquadynamics. As fitting VDS to Type 45 or any ASW sonar to Type 31.

Still seems like something of a gift that we have a proactive potential partner in Poland for such a missile and alignment on the Arrowhead 140 design.

One fly in the ointment is that, based on current plans, we're going to keep Sylver and Aster on Type 45 for another two decades. Which means some degree of duplication of capabilities. The CAMM integration also takes away the 'Mk.41 gym'.

The purpose of CAMM on T45 is rep. of aster 15, which capability wise CAMM is likely to match. this means double the amount of aster 30, which will be far more capable than any CAMM-MR for targets such as ballistic missiles.

[Scimitar54]

Tempest414 Wrote:-

Plus they don't need to go by carrier they can go using Tankers

Have a read to see how many tankers were needed to get 1 x Vulcan to Stanley from Ascension in 1982 ……… How many Tankers do you think we have got ? You really think that would be practical for a whole squadron. I do realise, of course that F35B fuel usage is less than a Vulcan, but it would likely still not be practical.

I suppose you would stop all pilot training on F35B as well ! Not very sensible either. (I know we did the same in ‘82 but that was totally different).

[Scimitar54]

Apologies all, as we seem to have inadvertently strayed off-topic here as a cross-over with escorts in the South Atlantic. Probably belongs in F35B, Falkland Islands, QEC Aircraft Carriers equally (as well).

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 Wrote:-

Plus they don't need to go by carrier they can go using Tankers

Have a read to see how many tankers were needed to get 1 x Vulcan to Stanley from Ascension in 1982 ……… How many Tankers do you think we have got ? You really think that would be practical for a whole squadron. I do realise, of course that F35B fuel usage is less than a Vulcan, but it would likely still not be practical.

I suppose you would stop all pilot training on F35B as well ! Not very sensible either. (I know we did the same in ‘82 but that was totally different).

for F sake I am talking about a War type effort as in 82

As for tanking it would be 2 Voyagers for every 4 jets to get them the 4000 mi

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ra ... -djibouti/

https://www.airtanker.co.uk/media/news/ ... -to-the-uk

And in a war time effort we would have 14 tankers

[Scimitar54]

In a war time effort there would likely have been some “unserviceable” AND they would be needed for Maritime Patrol AND they would have to provide themselves with return trip (to Ascension) fuel ………. Remember, according to your scenario, you have lost the use of the runway at Mt. Pleasant.

“Wartime effort”? How could that be the case here, when you are seeking to deter a war. In a time of tension, provision of adequate assets is what prevents escalation. That should be an increase in the number of Typhoons, Army and Naval forces to meet the threat.

It was most inappropriate of you to swear in your response, besides which, it is bad for your blood pressure.

[Poiuytrewq]

Group 1 North Atlantic = 2 x T-31's and 5 x OPV's
Group 2 South Atlantic = 2 x T- 31's , 1 x OPV & Protector
Group 3 Indian Ocean = 3 x T-31's & 2 x OPV's
Group 4 Pacific Ocean = 1 x T-31 & 2 x OPV,s

Is this active or both active/refit?

It’s a bit ambitious for active but if it’s active and refit it’s pretty much spot on provided the South Atlantic group is operating from Gibraltar and also operating around West Africa, Mediterranean etc and 50% of the OPVs are HiCap OPVs.

It’s also a peace time setup but if tensions rise further any extra escort uplift should be channeled towards T26/T83 plus SSN increases.

As the maximum effort scenario should always form the baseline of any nations defence posture should the UK now be planning to be involved in three flashpoints concurrently? The North Atlantic/Baltic, Indo Pacific and South Atlantic.

Clearly three major conflicts in these areas would be unmanageable but should the UK be now looking at retaining or re-establishing capabilities to contain threats in two out of three of these areas so that maximum resources can be fully focused on the third, whichever that may be at the time?

[Tempest414]

In a war time effort there would likely have been some “unserviceable” AND they would be needed for Maritime Patrol AND they would have to provide themselves with return trip (to Ascension) fuel ………. Remember, according to your scenario, you have lost the use of the runway at Mt. Pleasant.

“Wartime effort”? How could that be the case here, when you are seeking to deter a war. In a time of tension, provision of adequate assets is what prevents escalation. That should be an increase in the number of Typhoons, Army and Naval forces to meet the threat.

It was most inappropriate of you to swear in your response, besides which, it is bad for your blood pressure.

To be clear what I am saying is as things start to hot up and intel is saying that a invasion is likely we could move in a Para battalion and F-35s by air and tanking to re-enforce the Island this should put pay to the idea. Given the report to get 12 F-35's to the Falklands would take 7 tankers 6 for the job and one running shotgun

[Tempest414]

Group 1 North Atlantic = 2 x T-31's and 5 x OPV's
Group 2 South Atlantic = 2 x T- 31's , 1 x OPV & Protector
Group 3 Indian Ocean = 3 x T-31's & 2 x OPV's
Group 4 Pacific Ocean = 1 x T-31 & 2 x OPV,s

Is this active or both active/refit?

It’s a bit ambitious for active but if it’s active and refit it’s pretty much spot on provided the South Atlantic group is operating from Gibraltar and also operating around West Africa, Mediterranean etc and 50% of the OPVs are HiCap OPVs.

It’s also a peace time setup but if tensions rise further any extra escort uplift should be channeled towards T26/T83 plus SSN increases.

As the maximum effort scenario should always form the baseline of any nations defence posture should the UK now be planning to be involved in three flashpoints concurrently? The North Atlantic/Baltic, Indo Pacific and South Atlantic.

Clearly three major conflicts in these areas would be unmanageable but should the UK be now looking at retaining or re-establishing capabilities to contain threats in two out of three of these areas so that maximum resources can be fully focused on the third, whichever that may be at the time?

My thinking each of the T-31's would do 3 months on duty and 3 off to allow steady maintenance crew leave and training and in times of refit the 2 crews would share one ship with each ship maintaining 160 to 170 days at sea per year giving each group an escort at sea for around 320 to 340 days a year

[Jensy]

The purpose of CAMM on T45 is rep. of aster 15, which capability wise CAMM is likely to match. this means double the amount of aster 30, which will be far more capable than any CAMM-MR for targets such as ballistic missiles.

At present no member of the Aster Family can hit ballistic missiles so the comparison to CAMM-MR (which is barely in development) and isn't intended to, doesn't make much sense.

Block 1 and Block 1 NT have been in development for well over a decade for the BMD role. The planned, long-range, high altitude Block 2 seems to have gone entirely silent.

We originally were looking at Block 1 NT, which is capable of intercepting MRBMs, however in 2022 we ordered the less capable Block 1 as part of the Type 45 upgrade. This is limited to short range maritime ballistic missiles and likely only in their terminal phase.
MoD Link


Also worth noting the UK industrial value of Aster and Sylver is not far from zero. With forthcoming viable alternatives at the low, medium and high end, getting out of the ecosystem as quickly as possible is, in my opinion, in our best interests for the long term.

[Jensy]

Considered sticking this elsewhere but thought it is better suited to our discussion here:



The cynic in me wonders if this has more to do with the hope for exports (to NZ and perhaps elsewhere) than just Type 26 costs.

Also a very different direction to those gigantic 'cruiser' concepts that BAE Australia leaked some months back.

[tomuk]

The purpose of CAMM on T45 is rep. of aster 15, which capability wise CAMM is likely to match. this means double the amount of aster 30, which will be far more capable than any CAMM-MR for targets such as ballistic missiles.

The planned, long-range, high altitude Block 2 seems to have gone entirely silent.

No it has morphed into Aquila as shown on the stand at the recent Paris Airshow which is tied into the European wide programme for BMD\Hypersonic defence defence HYDIS and the Twister programme.

It seems a sensible arrangement to allow both CAMM and Aster to grow. CAMM for the bread and butter targets and Aster\Aqulia for BMD\Hypersonics.

In terms of getting out of the eco system if we want BMD\Hypersonic defence it is either MBDA European path or Raytheon Standard Missile US path

[Jensy]

In terms of getting out of the eco system if we want BMD\Hypersonic defence it is either MBDA European path or Raytheon Standard Missile US path

Indeed, as I say above:

long range missile for ABM defence (be that a member of the US Standard missile family or Aster made compatible for Sylver).

The 'MBDA path' in this sense is a Franco-Italian pathway going all the way back to Eurosam in 1989.

As you say, we have a choice between two options, but neither of them offer much UK content or economic benefits. Instead you'd have to assess the respective capabilities, commonality with allies and value for money.

I struggle to believe an incredibly high-end boutique programme for the modest numbers needed by France and Italy can compete with the US ecosystem that's already got Japan, RoK and Australia on board for SM-6 plus the first two on SM-3.

[Poiuytrewq]

….better suited to our discussion here:

The Australians seemed to have a clear and coherent plan but a change of administration appears to have shredded it, and not for the better.

IMO the RAN should have procured as many sub hunters (T26) as required and then added more destroyers as required. Trying to overload the T26 to hash together an Aussie Burke now appears foolish.

However reducing the Hunter class to 3 now would seem extremely unwise unless the RAN only require one operational sub hunting Frigate at any one time. Adding a class of fully specified T31 is a good idea especially with the 32x Mk41 cells but what is the optimal fleet balance for the RAN?

6x Destroyers
6x ASW Frigates
6x GP Frigates

Whatever is chosen the Australians really need to make a plan and stick to it now.

I’m surprised the Kiwis are keen to partner with an Australian Frigate program again after the previous experience.

Building NZ optimised Arrowhead140s in Rosyth would seem like a much more sensible and cost effective option especially if the Aussies want to start making radical alterations again.

[serge750]

Perhaps now the submarine AUKUS deal is more in focas they have decided the best way to hunt a sub is with a sub ? & with the "Hunters" getting increasingly more expensive they have decided to go down the tier 2 route much like RN as they still require the hull numbers...

[Poiuytrewq]

Perhaps now the submarine AUKUS deal….

I think the reality of all these ambitious shopping lists is now becoming apparent.

[zavve]

How much would a Hunter-class cancellation hurt the T26 programme/UK industry? Are there cancellation penalties in the contracts?

[serge750]

Doubt they would cancel it !!?
would there be any fees as they basicaly just bought the design ? i can see them still building 5 or 6, then maybe 3 or 4 T31 ( & 3 for NZ ) if they go down that route.....

[Repulse]

12 Corvettes were reported to have a budget of $6bn AUS - halve that order and that would a few.

[Poiuytrewq]

Could the end result be a CANZUK T32 programme?

[new guy]

Could the end result be a CANZUK T32 programme?

Cough cough T31B2 cough cough....

[Poiuytrewq]

Cough cough T31B2 cough cough....

It could be an attempt to get others to fund the design of the next class as the T32 is currently too expensive for the available budget envelope.

If that results in the three NZ vessels being built in Osborne rather than Rosyth its another own goal by HMT.

The T31e was all about export. Any follow on variant also needs to be supported to continue the drumbeats and therefore help to secure the ongoing viability of the yards involved. Clearly the Australians are prioritising their shipyard.

New Zealand cannot build these Frigates and Rosyth should be able to beat the Australian yards on price. HMG need to push hard to make this happen for UK PLC.