Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[mrclark303]

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability and should not be replicated for the flagship capability.

Both carriers need to be operational so one is always at very high availability. Without this, the billions of pounds and sacrifices made elsewhere in the fleet are wasted.

We will see, I'm not saying I agree with it, but as the Navy is currently organised, we can deploy one carrier.

If you have two 'quasi' operational,you can't time the refits to guarantee availability.

So right back at you, the billions is wasted, if you can't have Carrier Strike available 24/7.

If both are operational moving forward, how do you gaurantee availability??

[new guy]

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability and should not be replicated for the flagship capability.

Both carriers need to be operational so one is always at very high availability. Without this, the billions of pounds and sacrifices made elsewhere in the fleet are wasted.

We will see, I'm not saying I agree with it, but as the Navy is currently organised, we can deploy one carrier.

If you have two 'quasi' operational,you can't time the refits to guarantee availability.

So right back at you, the billions is wasted, if you can't have Carrier Strike available 24/7.

If both are operational moving forward, how do you gaurantee availability??

So how do the frigates and the destroyers do it?
The 2 carrier for 1 CSG model is essentially rule-of-3 but pushing with 2.
just like how all the escorts not in multi-year refit get their own crew
Just like the ships, sailors need their time off the waves.

[tomuk]

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability and should not be replicated for the flagship capability.

Both carriers need to be operational so one is always at very high availability. Without this, the billions of pounds and sacrifices made elsewhere in the fleet are wasted.

If you have two 'quasi' operational,you can't time the refits to guarantee availability.

Yes you can both ships don't need to be at highest readiness all the time. As currently PWLS is on trials work with no accompanying CSG, QE is on exercises.
The two ships can move up and down in readiness in sync so one is always available. Just need to not go down the lengthy lay up\refit\reactivation of the LPDs.

[Poiuytrewq]

Detailed and comprehensive overview. Mojave trails confirmed before the end of November.

https://www.navylookout.com/portrait-of ... eet-today/

[donald_of_tokyo]

Only 10 escorts are active/deployed.
And, no LPD is active. Good to see both CVs are active, but this simply means both will be at port for the coming few months.

[Tempest414]

Only 10 escorts are active/deployed.
And, no LPD is active. Good to see both CVs are active, but this simply means both will be at port for the coming few months.

Given the problems with Type 45 and the age of type 23 I think 10 out 17 escorts is not that bad given that 7 out of the 8 OPV's are active

the LPD's I am not too worried about as I think we will see Bulwark coming on line about the time QE goes in for her first dry docking period with the RN's aim of having 2 x carriers or 1 carrier and 1 LPD active at any time

My main concern is the SSN and Tanker fleets 2 out of 6 SSN's and 3 out 6 tankers

[wargame_insomniac]

Naval News: BAE Offers Evolved, Up-Armed Hunter For Australia
The proposal adds 64 additional VLS cells and eight more anti-ship missiles to the design.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... australia/

If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers.

Something that's been proposed here many times. Giving up the mission bay for additional VLS.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Naval News: BAE Offers Evolved, Up-Armed Hunter For Australia
The proposal adds 64 additional VLS cells and eight more anti-ship missiles to the design.
...
If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers.


This looks like a perfect 'Type 83' to me.

Partly agree, but, a bit more "weight margine", please (extension of hull by 5-10 m).

But, one candidate, I agree. If the cost is an issue, we can "degrade" the propulsion quietness level. Even so, it will be still rated among the silent Frigates/Destroyers, "next to" T26.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Naval News: BAE Offers Evolved, Up-Armed Hunter For Australia
The proposal adds 64 additional VLS cells and eight more anti-ship missiles to the design.
...
If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers.

This looks like a perfect 'Type 83' to me.

Partly agree, but, a bit more "weight margine", please (extension of hull by 5-10 m).

But, one candidate, I agree. If the cost is an issue, we can "degrade" the propulsion quietness level. Even so, it will be still rated among the silent Frigates/Destroyers, "next to" T26.

You caught me before I'd edited the above! Had only just spotted the following line:

According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.

Without the towed array, I'm not sure I see the point of retaining the same hull if high-end ASW is no longer one of its capabilities.

Also agree on the need for a stretch (if that's possible). In a perfect world I'd want to retain the mission bay, and the ASW systems as well, for an 'ideal type 83'. Effectively adding on the AAW capability of a Type 45 to a Type 26 (so.. 'Type 71' )

[SW1]

Naval News: BAE Offers Evolved, Up-Armed Hunter For Australia
The proposal adds 64 additional VLS cells and eight more anti-ship missiles to the design.
...
If the RAN elected to remove the 5 inch Mk 45 gun, Lockhart said, it would enable the VLS count to grow even more to 128 cells – which surpasses even the United States Navy’s (USN) Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruisers.

This looks like a perfect 'Type 83' to me.

Partly agree, but, a bit more "weight margine", please (extension of hull by 5-10 m).

But, one candidate, I agree. If the cost is an issue, we can "degrade" the propulsion quietness level. Even so, it will be still rated among the silent Frigates/Destroyers, "next to" T26.

You caught me before I'd edited the above! Had only just spotted the following line:

According to BAE the up-armed, Batch II Hunter, maintains 85% commonality with the existing ships that are under construction at Osborne, South Australia. The most significant difference is the removal of the Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and various other unspecified Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) systems.

Without the towed array, I'm not sure I see the point of retaining the same hull if high-end ASW is no longer one of its capabilities.

Also agree on the need for a stretch (if that's possible). In an ideal world I'd want to retain the mission bay, and the ASW systems as well, for an 'ideal type 83'. Effectively adding on the AAW capability of a Type 45 to a Type 26 (so.. 'Type 71' )

You can retain the mission bay though I think it is pointless and the towed sonar, simply have 64 vls at the front for the RN it could even retain the aft camm launchers. The missile load cost will be astronomical.

[wargame_insomniac]

You can retain the mission bay though I think it is pointless and the towed sonar, simply have 64 vls at the front for the RN it could even retain the aft camm launchers. The missile load cost will be astronomical.

A good point. I'd personally rather ditch the MK.45 than the mission bay, and in turn rather retain the ASW fit than the mission bay.

Regarding the missile load cost, I'd be more concerned if I felt we ever had escorts floating around with more than 50% of their VLS full. The upper limit is for when the proverbial hits the fan.

BAE Australia appear to be offering a variety of different options to the RAN. Both this, which has been hinted at for a while, and the rather larger 'cruiser' looking ship that was included in a PowerPoint back in the spring:

viewtopic.php?p=152423#p152423

The competition obviously smell blood in the water, as they're proposing 'tier2' options for the lower end:

Navantia:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... ed-at-ran/

Gibbs & Cox:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... t-frigate/

Interesting that, so far, BAE haven't seemed to be trying to shift anything smaller than a Type 26. Maybe they understand the issues with integrating RAN requirements better than the firms, and platforms, that failed to win the initial contest...

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Tasman sea, Babcock are upping the PR/stakeholder engagement efforts:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... rettyPhoto

[SW1]

You can retain the mission bay though I think it is pointless and the towed sonar, simply have 64 vls at the front for the RN it could even retain the aft camm launchers. The missile load cost will be astronomical.

A good point. I'd personally rather ditch the MK.45 than the mission bay, and in turn rather retain the ASW fit than the mission bay.

Regarding the missile load cost, I'd be more concerned if I felt we ever had escorts floating around with more than 50% of their VLS full. The upper limit is for when the proverbial hits the fan.

BAE Australia appear to be offering a variety of different options to the RAN. Both this, which has been hinted at for a while, and the rather larger 'cruiser' looking ship that was included in a PowerPoint back in the spring:

viewtopic.php?p=152423#p152423

The competition obviously smell blood in the water, as they're proposing 'tier2' options for the lower end:

Navantia:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... ed-at-ran/

Gibbs & Cox:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... t-frigate/

For the RN though the entire surface fleet going fwd will be able to launch equivalent missile types and in numbers especially if ( and we should) we jump all over the camm options being developed. Less cost developing ships and more spend loading them. It doesn’t need “arsenal ships” if things are distributed and sensors linked.

As for Australia yes if they put say a c1/c2 configuration on the table the wolves will circle. I don’t know why they didn’t continue with Navantia once they started dwn that route now they jumped to bae it will cost them a fortune to jump again.

[shark bait]

8ac625bbe4f906407be4bf8a83b7585e.jpeg

That's a very angry looking T26!

The Royal Navy has two good options for a future destroyer, and the time to study them. The improved Hunter is a great option with high commonality and industrial continuity. The more radical approaches sound more appealing if they can get the crew count down to around 50.

[wargame_insomniac]

8ac625bbe4f906407be4bf8a83b7585e.jpeg

That's a very angry looking T26!

The Royal Navy has two good options for a future destroyer, and the time to study them. The improved Hunter is a great option with high commonality and industrial continuity. The more radical approaches sound more appealing if they can get the crew count down to around 50.

I assume that when BAE Australia are quoting 85% commonality, that they mean between their original Hunter Batch One's already being built and their new proposed Hunter Batch Two's that they were pitching?

So for RN perspective, would need to know how much commonality there was between the RN's T26 and the RAN's original Hunter Batch One's.

But it does give us an early indication of what BAE UK"s pitch for T83 could be. We need costs to be kept down if we hope that MOD can order 6 hulls rather than just 4.

My worry though is that BAE UK's proposal would be a stretch of the already stretched RAN Hunter Batch One design.

[tomuk]

8ac625bbe4f906407be4bf8a83b7585e.jpeg

That's a very angry looking T26!

Yes it needs some ointment for that sore looking carbuncle of a radar.

[mrclark303]

8ac625bbe4f906407be4bf8a83b7585e.jpeg

That's a very angry looking T26!

The Royal Navy has two good options for a future destroyer, and the time to study them. The improved Hunter is a great option with high commonality and industrial continuity. The more radical approaches sound more appealing if they can get the crew count down to around 50.

I assume that when BAE Australia are quoting 85% commonality, that they mean between their original Hunter Batch One's already being built and their new proposed Hunter Batch Two's that they were pitching?

So for RN perspective, would need to know how much commonality there was between the RN's T26 and the RAN's original Hunter Batch One's.

But it does give us an early indication of what BAE UK"s pitch for T83 could be. We need costs to be kept down if we hope that MOD can order 6 hulls rather than just 4.

My worry though is that BAE UK's proposal would be a stretch of the already stretched RAN Hunter Batch One design.

I would say the RN requirments should be for at least 8, hopefully 9 T83's.

The actual operational requirement for T45 was 8 hulls, only dropped to 6 to move funds to kickstart the T26 programme.

A ship as closely based on the T26 as possible is absolutely the way to go, keeping costs as low as possible.

That way the first of the T83's would start build straight after the T26's to prevent any production gap.

I would say, since we set the post Cold War ASW frigate numbers at 8, the level of potential submarine threat has steadily increased.

We need at least 12 T26's

[SW1]

When type 82 was to be built to support the cva-01 carriers it was to be a class of 4 vessels, why would that change now.

[Caribbean]

When type 82 was to be built to support the cva-01 carriers it was to be a class of 4 vessels, why would that change now.

It was originally a class of 8

Each deployed carrier would have had 4 T82 as outer defence & 4 T12i Leander as the inner defence (all ASW capable)

[SW1]

When type 82 was to be built to support the cva-01 carriers it was to be a class of 4 vessels, why would that change now.

It was originally a class of 8

To support 4 carriers then 4 to,support 2 carriers and ended at 1 a lesson there.

[SW1]

Just for those interested the documentary on HMS Brilliant is on the iPlayer for the next month.

[Caribbean]

To support 4 carriers then 4 to,support 2 carriers and ended at 1 a lesson there.

The lesson being that we didn't have enough money for 4 large carriers

Apologies - tried to edit my original post to include this, but too slow

Each deployed carrier would have had 4 T82 as outer defence & 4 T12i Leander as the inner defence (all ASW capable)

[SW1]

To support 4 carriers then 4 to,support 2 carriers and ended at 1 a lesson there.

The lesson being that we didn't have enough money for 4 large carriers

Yep don’t over reach. A lesson still not learned.

[SKB]

When type 82 was to be built to support the cva-01 carriers it was to be a class of 4 vessels, why would that change now.

It was originally a class of 8

Each deployed carrier would have had 4 T82 as outer defence & 4 T12i Leander as the inner defence (all ASW capable)

Correct. Four per carrier.

When Dennis Healey defended the cancellation, he quoted a sum of £500m. Which included:

- 2 X CVA-01 carriers
- 8 x Type 82
- Phantoms for their airgroups
- A new dry dock for Portsmouth

Which with hindsight was a bargain.

There was also to be a class of 180m, 11,500t helicopter cruisers (which eventually evolved into the Invincible Class) to carry the brand spanking new Sea Kings. Allowing the carrier to focus on fixed wing aviation.

[Tempest414]

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 7.jpg.webp

For me when I look at this and it is what we should be aiming for we should be looking to build this ship and spend every penny of the design money on a new radar set up for this ship

[Poiuytrewq]

https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 7.jpg.webp

For me when I look at this and it is what we should be aiming for we should be looking to build this ship and spend every penny of the design money on a new radar set up for this ship

Before jumping in with both feet.

• Why is the tail to be deleted?

• Does the UK need that many Mk41 cells and if not could an amidships silo of CAMM-ER/MR be installed and the tail be retained?

• Is 32x Aster30 and 128x CAMM ER/MR plus 16x NSM enough for the UK’s next-gen AAW Destroyer?

• Should the Mk45 be deleted and replaced by 4x 40mm and 64x Mk41 cells plus 128x CAMM ER/MR in the amidships silo?

• If the tail has to go can the propulsion and quietening enhancements be downgraded to save more cash?

A UK version will have different priorities than the RAN’s seemingly insatiable appetite for Mk41 cells but a UK version with the potential for 64x Mk41 plus 128x CAMM ER/MR combined next-gen Sampson and 2087 looks more than good enough.

A super cruiser capability without the super cruiser budget blowout?