Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

I'm pretty sure that there was a comment on that program about getting as many on board as possible for training purposes. I distinctly remember comments about them being short of space - two junior officers were on camp beds in a curtained off section of passageway

[new guy]

I'm pretty sure that there was a comment on that program about getting as many on board as possible for training purposes. I distinctly remember comments about them being short of space - two junior officers were on camp beds in a curtained off section of passageway

Personal camp beds, in a sectioned off area? That actually sounds not to bad compared to how tight some beds can get head room wise and are busy, being used as a corridor or just having a lot of bunk goers.

[tomuk]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.

Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

Simply the need to get sailors to sea the RN has been deploying escorts to sea with 200+ crews for some years now they don't need this amount of crew but we know the RN fill ship to max to sea going days up

this also shows there are more sailors than ships right now

I maybe misremembering but wasn't it also the case that the T45 was hosting a Commodore and acting as flagship to the Nato taskgroup. That would push up numbers with his associated staff.

[tomuk]

Not sure about how a 4000t ship could replace a T 45 ...would that mean we have ship with a huge son of Sampson radar on it & basic self defence CIWS + a few CAMM, but with less electrical power & conected up to a few multi role T26 with lots of Aster 30 long range missiles & mk41 ?

No it would by a 4000t ship and basically be all VLS and a radar big enough to target the missiles, long range radar would be covered by off board systems and any BMD requirement would also be passed off to allies.

[tomuk]

So there is no similarity between the concept of a simplified dedicated AAW ship and a simple dedicate ASW ship?

It's not about the ship, it's about the operational concept. Alone in the Atlantic is a very different place to the center of a carrier group.

I'm not sure what your saying. In the 'original' ASW concept a Fort Victoria would act with a group of simple ASW dedicated T23s. The Fort Vic would be armed with Sea Wolf to provide AAW cover, would provide fuel and stores and a base for ASW Helicopters.
That concept sounds very similar to the FADS concept but in the AAW domain to me.

[Repulse]

any BMD requirement would also be passed off to allies.

That definitely cannot be allowed to happen.

[tomuk]

any BMD requirement would also be passed off to allies.

That definitely cannot be allowed to happen.

Well there are no apparent moves to buy SM3 or be involved with the European Twister\Hydis\Hydef programmes.

[Repulse]

any BMD requirement would also be passed off to allies.

That definitely cannot be allowed to happen.

Well there are no apparent moves to buy SM3 or be involved with the European Twister\Hydis\Hydef programmes.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... apability/

[wargame_insomniac]

So there is no similarity between the concept of a simplified dedicated AAW ship and a simple dedicate ASW ship?

There is a danger that there could be, but if designed specifically to be part of an integrated carrier strike group then no. It is the perfect role for an enhanced T31. It would also avoid another over running and delayed programme - just convert the 5 being built and add one, freeing up the T45s which ultimately be replaced by a new common class.

Who is suggesting building an exquisite multirole destroyer? I would be more than happy with a modern equivalent\update of T45 ( with a slight tweak up in the level of ASW and ASuW\Land attack capability would be nice. eg a working and manned sonar and fitted with some NSM)

The current T45 role is primarily to escort the CSGs, this should change IMO as outlined. Going forward a single first tier multirole vessel built in relatively high numbers (12+) is the best way to give the RN a qualitative advantage - I would however base this on the T26 not the T45.

Agreed - the T45 is a much older design, not available in digital form. The only way the RN can get more ships (at a reaonable price with low design costs) than the currently ordered 19 escorts (6*T45, 8*T26, 5*T31) is to have Batch 2 digital redesigns of the T26 / T31, or any of the subsequent overseas versions e.g. BAE Australia's proposed Hunter Class Batch 2 AAW for RAN.

[wargame_insomniac]

any BMD requirement would also be passed off to allies.

That definitely cannot be allowed to happen.

I thought the latest announced intention was for Type 45's to get Aster 30 Block 1NT:

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... apability/

https://www.mbda-systems.com/wp-content ... s.docx.pdf

[tomuk]

any BMD requirement would also be passed off to allies.

That definitely cannot be allowed to happen.

Well there are no apparent moves to buy SM3 or be involved with the European Twister\Hydis\Hydef programmes.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... apability/

That isn't propoer BMD capability

[donald_of_tokyo]

Japanese BMD basics are,
- SM-3 Blk IIA (with enlarged motor) against SRBM and IRBM,
- SM-6 Blk IA (and probably SM-6 Blk 1B enlarged motor) against Hyper-sonic missile, and SRBM in terminal-phase
- and Patriot PAC3 MSE for IRBM in terminal phase on land.
(US operates THAAD in Japan, as well)

I think SM-6 can be replaced with Aster 30 Blk 1 NT. SM-3 is very different system, operational only in space not in the air. As such, what is lacking in UK is SM-3 capability, and Aster 30 Blk 1NT's range is very inferior to SM-6, especially SM-6 Blk 1B with enlarged motor.

Here, what is notable is, SM-3 is to be integrated into Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class frigates. It is NOT AEGIS ship. And, SM-6, especially SM-6 Block Ib is shortly to be fielded on U.S. Army Typhon Weapon System, which is a land-based Mk41 VLS. It does not have AEGIS system, either.

As such, if UK wants, it can operate BOTH SM-3 and SM-6 blk1b from T26, or future T31. If Mk41 VLS added, even T45. Up to here, it is just a fact.

I personally think, the only missing piece is SM-3. There is NO SM-3-like option in Europe now. Japan and US has been investing hugely on SM-3 so far. And, it does NOT need AEGIS. Why not purchase it? [EDIT] Aster 30 has a large overlap with SM-6, and can partly replace it.

My wish will be,
- removing 4.5 inch gun from T45, and located a 57mm gun AND 48 CAMM elsewhere (using the reduced weight)
- locating 16-cell Mk.41 VLS between them and the 48 Sylver A50, to carry 16 SM-3 blk IIA.

Secondary option will be to carry 16 SM-3 blk IIA on either T26 or T31, accompanied by T45. Having a launcher in a location different from the radar it self is NOT so bad. But, this will impose a bit of operational restriction.

[Tempest414]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.
[/quote
Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

Simply the need to get sailors to sea the RN has been deploying escorts to sea with 200+ crews for some years now they don't need this amount of crew but we know the RN fill ship to max to sea going days up

this also shows there are more sailors than ships right now

I maybe misremembering but wasn't it also the case that the T45 was hosting a Commodore and acting as flagship to the Nato taskgroup. That would push up numbers with his associated staff.

Bang on she was carrying a Commodore and his team plus a RM platoon as I said yesterday

[NickC]

I think the truth is in the middle we need to try and get the new destroyers down to a crew of 120 or so from the T-45's 190+

The Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea mentioned crew of approx. 300 if memory not wrong?
The Iver Huitfeldt class run on crew of 120, excluding air component and the newer Japanese Mogami class 90 crew.

T45 doesn't have a crew of 300, it is 190.
[/quote
Checked out the Channel 5 2018 programme “Warship Life at Sea” on HMS Duncan in the Black Sea, said "home to 280 men and women" so the question is what would account for the difference in actual numbers being 90 higher than the claimed crew.

Simply the need to get sailors to sea the RN has been deploying escorts to sea with 200+ crews for some years now they don't need this amount of crew but we know the RN fill ship to max to sea going days up

this also shows there are more sailors than ships right now

I maybe misremembering but wasn't it also the case that the T45 was hosting a Commodore and acting as flagship to the Nato taskgroup. That would push up numbers with his associated staff.

Bang on she was carrying a Commodore and his team plus a RM platoon as I said yesterday

Any knowledge as to what the breakdown of the 280 would be betwen the crew, air component, RM platoon, Commordore and associated staff e.g. if 190 crew, 20 air component, 30 RM platoon, 10 Commordore and staff would total approx. 250, what am i missing or incorrect?

[Poiuytrewq]

My wish will be,
- removing 4.5 inch gun from T45, and located a 57mm gun AND 48 elsewhere (using the reduced weight)
- locating 16-cell Mk.41 VLS between them and the 48 Sylver A50, to carry 16 SM-3 blk IIA.

Secondary option will be to carry 16 SM-3 blk IIA on either T26 or T31, accompanied by T45. Having a launcher in a location different from the radar it self is NOT so bad. But, this will impose a bit of operational restriction.

Quad packing will change everything, especially if it is in an efficient and appropriately sized VLS which is compact and lightweight.

For example,

If the 24x amidship mushrooms on the T26 are replaced by 12x quad packed CAMM cells then the forward silo can retain the 24x Mk41 Strike cells and perhaps add 16x or 24x Mk41 Tactical cells in place of the mushrooms.

This would potentially transform a T26 into one of the most capable Frigates in the world:

• 48x quad packed CAMM
• 48x double packed CAMM MR
• 24x TLAM or FCASW in Strike cells
• 8x NSM in canisters

ASROC or VL Sting Ray could be added making the T26 extremely potent above and below the surface without relying on the helo.

A max load out could look something like this:

• 127mm Mk45
• 2x 30mm
• 2x Phalanx
• 24x FCASW
• 48x CAMM
• 32x CAMM MR or 16x ASTER 30
• 8x ASROC or VL STINGRAY
• 8x NSM
(Ideally 40mm to replace 30mm and Phalanx)

Not sure the budget exists for such a heavily armed RN Frigate but the potential is clear. All unlocked by quad or double packing.

[donald_of_tokyo]

My $5 says it's a mistake on the website. Not the only one. Just a guess.

[JohnM]

The description is too detailed to be a mistake. The questions re: 1) Where do the (presumably) 12 ExLS launchers go? Do they replace the 24 mushrooms amidships or the 24 in front on the MK-41s? If the former, does anything go in front of the MK-41s or will it be FFBNW? The site also clearly states 24xMK-41, so it doesn't look like the RN will go the Canadian and Australian ways of adding an 8-cell MK-41 in front of the base 24...

[tomuk]

The description is too detailed to be a mistake.

Possibly, although the Mk41 description on the T31 page where it lists every weapon ever fitted to Mk41 had the whiff of AI assistance.

The questions re: 1) Where do the (presumably) 12 ExLS launchers go? Do they replace the 24 mushrooms amidships or the 24 in front on the MK-41s? If the former, does anything go in front of the MK-41s or will it be FFBNW? The site also clearly states 24xMK-41, so it doesn't look like the RN will go the Canadian and Australian ways of adding an 8-cell MK-41 in front of the base 24...

They are interesting speculations. The aft funnel location seemed quite a clever solution and added redundancy. Locating the exls there would also be common from a design\qualification perspective with the Canadian version.
T26 has always had 24 Mk41 as far I can remember. I note on the latest Canadian #navy Infographic from 2021 the CSC has 24 Mk41 not 32 of earlier indications.

[Poiuytrewq]

I'd be much happier with a T23GP.

Why? If you sent a T23 is would be seen as an escalation and colonial style interference. If you are not intending to start something don’t raise the stakes, by all means have SSNs / CSG in your back pocket if someone else starts something, but this isn’t about the UK imposing its will, it’s about showing solidarity.

I really can’t follow the logic here.

First response: send virtually unarmed patrol ship to provide situational awareness but with no ability to influence events. Rely on US to solve problem.

Outcome: UK and US provide insufficient deterrent and part of Guyana is occupied and annexed.

Secondary response: UK dispatches full CSG including SSN. US sends CSG and ARG.

Outcome: what exactly? Invade Guyana and expel the invading forces? Bomb the invading troops from the air and use SSN(s) to enforce maritime blockade? Put U.K. and US boots on the ground? Not smart. The delicate political balance in South America would implode.

The best way to deescalate is for the deterrent to be effective without a shot being fired.

Sending a single unarmed patrol ship is a pathetic response to support a Commonwealth country and another sign that the U.K. armed forces are massively stretched and unable to provide the level of global security required to support the rules based order. Too much reliance on overly expensive technology at the expense of mass has resulted in an UK armed forces incapable of responding meaningfully in multiple locations at the same time across an increasingly unstable world.

Solidarity and not starting something is great provided nothing happens. If the political will doesn’t exist to provide a serious deterrent before hostilities then what is the likelihood that the political will exists to swiftly expel the invading forces once part of Guyana has been annexed?

It doesn’t seem likely. The inevitable conclusion must be that the U.K. has no intention of getting substantially involved and is prepared to hide behind UN inaction.

If so the global security landscape will continue to worsen.

[zavve]

They are interesting speculations. The aft funnel location seemed quite a clever solution and added redundancy. Locating the exls there would also be common from a design\qualification perspective with the Canadian version.

The CSC has 6 ExLS cells behind the funnel so if the T26 really will be fitted with ExLS I would think 6 would still be in front of the 24 Mk.41 cells

[Repulse]

I'd be much happier with a T23GP.

Why? If you sent a T23 is would be seen as an escalation and colonial style interference. If you are not intending to start something don’t raise the stakes, by all means have SSNs / CSG in your back pocket if someone else starts something, but this isn’t about the UK imposing its will, it’s about showing solidarity.

I really can’t follow the logic here.

First response: send virtually unarmed patrol ship to provide situational awareness but with no ability to influence events. Rely on US to solve problem.

Outcome: UK and US provide insufficient deterrent and part of Guyana is occupied and annexed.

Secondary response: UK dispatches full CSG including SSN. US sends CSG and ARG.

Outcome: what exactly? Invade Guyana and expel the invading forces? Bomb the invading troops from the air and use SSN(s) to enforce maritime blockade? Put U.K. and US boots on the ground? Not smart. The delicate political balance in South America would implode.

The best way to deescalate is for the deterrent to be effective without a shot being fired.

Sending a single unarmed patrol ship is a pathetic response to support a Commonwealth country and another sign that the U.K. armed forces are massively stretched and unable to provide the level of global security required to support the rules based order. Too much reliance on overly expensive technology at the expense of mass has resulted in an UK armed forces incapable of responding meaningfully in multiple locations at the same time across an increasingly unstable world.

Solidarity and not starting something is great provided nothing happens. If the political will doesn’t exist to provide a serious deterrent before hostilities then what is the likelihood that the political will exists to swiftly expel the invading forces once part of Guyana has been annexed?

It doesn’t seem likely. The inevitable conclusion must be that the U.K. has no intention of getting substantially involved and is prepared to hide behind UN inaction.

If so the global security landscape will continue to worsen.

It’s very simple logic, you show that you care and are and willing to do something about it if the other side kicks off.

Putting a frigate there is exactly the same but it’s you that’s decided to turn the temperature up.

If you aren’t willing to commit your top tier fighting force don’t even bother going in the first place.

[Caribbean]

Well, it looks as if Brazil (officially unaligned, but looking to get a seat on a reformed Security Council, with a reputation as an impartial peacemaker) has closed off the only viable land route between the two countries (a road that runs through Brazilian territory), so making it clear that the sea/ littoral route could also be closed at short notice is quite a valuable message.

[Poiuytrewq]

It’s very simple logic….

Perhaps too simple.

Stopping an incursion is a totally different scale of magnitude to reversing an annexation as recent events have shown.

It’s an interesting test for the strategic logic of the UK’s CSG and the amount of resource that it consumes.

If LRG(N) was properly configured it would seem like a much more appropriate response to place it 1000nm from the coast awaiting developments. The CSG could also spend a bit more time in and around Mayport, Florida which is non confrontational but extremely visible. If required both could be within striking distance in less than 3 days.

Immediate support could be provided to enhance Guyana’s air defence, military planning and logistical resilience. This is exactly what the more globally engaged British Army has been reconfigured to achieve.

Both stabilisation and deterrence working together.

Then it’s time to wait and see what happens.

[abc123]

I'd be much happier with a T23GP.

Why? If you sent a T23 is would be seen as an escalation and colonial style interference. If you are not intending to start something don’t raise the stakes, by all means have SSNs / CSG in your back pocket if someone else starts something, but this isn’t about the UK imposing its will, it’s about showing solidarity.

Outcome: UK
Sending a single unarmed patrol ship is a pathetic response to support a Commonwealth country

Fully agreed.

[SW1]