Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[NickC]

The destroyers would absolutely benefit from a modern, smaller and more usable gun.

What modern, smaller and more modern gun are you thinking of.

As explained in T31 post 12th December the Bofors 57mm has only a fraction of the firepower of the 1946 Vickers 3" Mk.6, with 50 and 70 caliber barrels, at one time HMCS Saskatchewan A turret 3"/70 fired 1,050 rounds (one-thousand-fifty!) in just under six minutes, at 90 rounds per minute per barrel when it was de-ammunitioning through the firing its 15 lbs shells.

The new Bofors gun with its much smaller 57mm 6 lbs shells can only fire approx. 10 per barrel before it has to stop to cool off it barrels, the Vickers 3" could fire continuously as barrels were water cooled.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The destroyers would absolutely benefit from a modern, smaller and more usable gun.

What modern, smaller and more modern gun are you thinking of.

As explained in T31 post 12th December the Bofors 57mm has only a fraction of the firepower of the 1946 Vickers 3" Mk.6, with 50 and 70 caliber barrels, at one time HMCS Saskatchewan A turret 3"/70 fired 1,050 rounds (one-thousand-fifty!) in just under six minutes, at 90 rounds per minute per barrel when it was de-ammunitioning through the firing its 15 lbs shells.

The new Bofors gun with its much smaller 57mm 6 lbs shells can only fire approx. 10 per barrel before it has to stop to cool off it barrels, the Vickers 3" could fire continuously as barrels were water cooled.

But I think that Vickers 3" was firing only "dull" shells, and hence needed so high fire rate? Also the FCS was not so high grade than now?

[NickC]

The destroyers would absolutely benefit from a modern, smaller and more usable gun.

What modern, smaller and more modern gun are you thinking of.

As explained in T31 post 12th December the Bofors 57mm has only a fraction of the firepower of the 1946 Vickers 3" Mk.6, with 50 and 70 caliber barrels, at one time HMCS Saskatchewan A turret 3"/70 fired 1,050 rounds (one-thousand-fifty!) in just under six minutes, at 90 rounds per minute per barrel when it was de-ammunitioning through the firing its 15 lbs shells.

The new Bofors gun with its much smaller 57mm 6 lbs shells can only fire approx. 10 per barrel before it has to stop to cool off it barrels, the Vickers 3" could fire continuously as barrels were water cooled.

But I think that Vickers 3" was firing only "dull" shells, and hence needed so high fire rate? Also the FCS was not so high grade than now?

The USN/RN 3-inch round was chosen because it was the smallest caliber ammunition that could be fitted with a VT radar proximity fuze at that time. As to FCS sure it could have been updated.

[abc123]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

Come on man, the RN is down to about 9 frigates, 5-6 SSNs and just about 1 destroyer in operational service, and you main problem is whether it's armed with 57 or 114 mm gun? Rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic IMHO.

[wargame_insomniac]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

Come on man, the RN is down to about 9 frigates, 5-6 SSNs and just about 1 destroyer in operational service, and you main problem is whether it's armed with 57 or 114 mm gun? Rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic IMHO.

No, not at all, T45 needs new robust gun systems to remain relevant in this new era of mass drone attack.

Mass drone attacks aren't a flash in the pan you know, such attacks will become common place in the years ahead and we better make sure we can handle them...

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the escort power, I think it is worth while to revisit the forthcoming future. And, it is bright, actually.

RN currently mans 10 escorts with 11 crew team, each with 200 souls (including flight). This means, even with this sever man-power condition,
200x11 = 2200 souls
are assigned on escorts.

Around 2031, RN will see 5 T31 and 3 T26 already under the white ensign. And still 5 more T26s to come, replacing old T23ASW one-by-one, yearly. Of course, T45 will be there after PIP, and undergoing CAMM installation.

I think there will be
4 T45 active, 2 in refit
3 T26 active, 0 in refit
2 T23ASW active, 2 in refit/maintenance, 1 "almost decommissioned".
5 T31 active, 0 in refit [*1]

Mechanically, I think this is feasible.

This "active escort fleet" needs a manpower of
200x4 + 160x3 + 200x2 + 120x5 (all including flight) = 2280.
1If we disband 3 River B1 OPVs without replacement, it will give 90 souls, enough to fill the 80 gap. [*2]

This means the active escort number will rise from 10 to 14. "Four more active escorts" is a great improvement, much better than any days after 2010 cut.
- FRE will be always an escort (not OPV).
- TAPS will not be gaped.
- At least one escort will be joining one of the NATO escort fleets.
- If some issue happens in Red Sea (like today), RN can deploy 3 escorts there, in addition to KIPION escort (now there are one escort in Red Sea and one near there from KIPION).

This situation will also contribute on improving retention. I guess, all naval engineers will be more happy to handle new equipment working well, than trying hard to make the 30-40 years old vintage somehow work. Also important is to prepare enough spare parts. When you know what is wrong and how to repair it, but cannot do it for a half a year because of lack of parts, you will be very very depressed and may think resigning.

Overall, escort fleet rebuild is in (so-so) good shape. It is not golden future, but it is surely not black.
MCM force, if with proper (up to) 4 MHC LSV added, and with brand new USV-MCM kits, it is also in (so-so) good shape.
Amphibious and RFA is the problem then. Much more than the escorts.

[*1] To make this happen, T31 must be built simpler. No Mk41 (complex and needing time to integrate and verify), no sonar (refrain) is needed. It is all "future improvements"
[*2] If we replace River B1 OPVs with 3 OPVs, then the active T31 number will become 4, not 5. One option, I agree.

[abc123]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

Come on man, the RN is down to about 9 frigates, 5-6 SSNs and just about 1 destroyer in operational service, and you main problem is whether it's armed with 57 or 114 mm gun? Rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic IMHO.

No, not at all, T45 needs new robust gun systems to remain relevant in this new era of mass drone attack.

Mass drone attacks aren't a flash in the pan you know, such attacks will become common place in the years ahead and we better make sure we can handle them...

Decades of penny-pinching on one side and money-wasting ( on oftenly gold-plated solutions that would be changed by the next Defence Rewiew ) on another have brought the UK and the RN in this situation. 9 old frigates ( T26 was originally planned to start construction in 2015 ), 4 frigates less, as good as having them sunk by waunted drones. Same thing with just 1 destroyer online, other 5 might aswell be on the bottom of the sea, considering how much use of them RN has at the moment. The worst enemy of the UK couldn't do such a good devastation of the RN ( and UKAF in general ), admiral Karl Donitz would be proud...
And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

[RichardIC]

The destroyers would absolutely benefit from a modern, smaller and more usable gun.

As explained in T31 post 12th December the Bofors 57mm has only a fraction of the firepower of the 1946 Vickers 3" Mk.6, with 50 and 70 caliber barrels, at one time HMCS Saskatchewan A turret 3"/70 fired 1,050 rounds (one-thousand-fifty!) in just under six minutes, at 90 rounds per minute per barrel when it was de-ammunitioning through the firing its 15 lbs shells.

So when they were completely happy to wreck the guns and the mount?

[donald_of_tokyo]

...And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

Not sure what is the point of argue. Replacing 4.5inch gun of T45 with a 57mm gun will
1: enable ~10 years early retirement of the vintage, not-so-capable gun from the fleet, when T23 disbands
2: will release a few (per hull) crew from the burden of maitaining a vintage mechatronics systems designed in 1970s, already 50 years ago
3: and will enable better close-in AAW against drones and ASuW against fast boat swarms.
In short, it will save money, save manpower, relax logistics and improve capability. But yes we need a bit of money now, to save money on future (item-1). There is a clear merit doing it now. But, if no money now, just cannot do, and RN will waste another money in future. This is my view.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the escort power, I think it is worth while to revisit the forthcoming future. And, it is bright, actually.

RN currently mans 10 escorts with 11 crew team, each with 200 souls (including flight). This means, even with this sever man-power condition,
200x11 = 2200 souls
are assigned on escorts.

Around 2031, RN will see 5 T31 and 3 T26 already under the white ensign. And still 5 more T26s to come, replacing old T23ASW one-by-one, yearly. Of course, T45 will be there after PIP, and undergoing CAMM installation.

I think there will be
4 T45 active, 2 in refit
3 T26 active, 0 in refit
2 T23ASW active, 2 in refit/maintenance, 1 "almost decommissioned".
5 T31 active, 0 in refit [*1]

Mechanically, I think this is feasible.

This "active escort fleet" needs a manpower of
200x4 + 160x3 + 200x2 + 120x5 (all including flight) = 2280.
1If we disband 3 River B1 OPVs without replacement, it will give 90 souls, enough to fill the 80 gap. [*2]

This means the active escort number will rise from 10 to 14. "Four more active escorts" is a great improvement, much better than any days after 2010 cut.
- FRE will be always an escort (not OPV).
- TAPS will not be gaped.
- At least one escort will be joining one of the NATO escort fleets.
- If some issue happens in Red Sea (like today), RN can deploy 3 escorts there, in addition to KIPION escort (now there are one escort in Red Sea and one near there from KIPION).

This situation will also contribute on improving retention. I guess, all naval engineers will be more happy to handle new equipment working well, than trying hard to make the 30-40 years old vintage somehow work. Also important is to prepare enough spare parts. When you know what is wrong and how to repair it, but cannot do it for a half a year because of lack of parts, you will be very very depressed and may think resigning.

Overall, escort fleet rebuild is in (so-so) good shape. It is not golden future, but it is surely not black.
MCM force, if with proper (up to) 4 MHC LSV added, and with brand new USV-MCM kits, it is also in (so-so) good shape.
Amphibious and RFA is the problem then. Much more than the escorts.

[*1] To make this happen, T31 must be built simpler. No Mk41 (complex and needing time to integrate and verify), no sonar (refrain) is needed. It is all "future improvements"
[*2] If we replace River B1 OPVs with 3 OPVs, then the active T31 number will become 4, not 5. One option, I agree.

So by just allocating 120 crew to each T31 non are planned to be forward based - I’m ok with that but that means that none can free up the RB2s and you haven’t allowed for the additional crew required to replace the forward based T23.

One solution, two T31s in reserve or sold as you can’t cut the ASW fleet further. One of those T31s forward based for Kipion with double crew, leaving the other two UK based. If you can’t free up the RB2s then best keep them where they are along with the RB1s (and replace them with ships requiring the same crew). There fixed it

[abc123]

...And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

Not sure what is the point of argue. Replacing 4.5inch gun of T45 with a 57mm gun will
1: enable ~10 years early retirement of the vintage, not-so-capable gun from the fleet, when T23 disbands
2: will release a few (per hull) crew from the burden of maitaining a vintage mechatronics systems designed in 1970s, already 50 years ago
3: and will enable better close-in AAW against drones and ASuW against fast boat swarms.
In short, it will save money, save manpower, relax logistics and improve capability. But yes we need a bit of money now, to save money on future (item-1). There is a clear merit doing it now. But, if no money now, just cannot do, and RN will waste another money in future. This is my view.

Did you notice that the RN and the rest of the UK Armed Forces are saving the money all the time, and also allways have lack of money. Something's wrong there.
If you want to save money, you simply need to stop spending it.

[mrclark303]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

Come on man, the RN is down to about 9 frigates, 5-6 SSNs and just about 1 destroyer in operational service, and you main problem is whether it's armed with 57 or 114 mm gun? Rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic IMHO.

No, not at all, T45 needs new robust gun systems to remain relevant in this new era of mass drone attack.

Mass drone attacks aren't a flash in the pan you know, such attacks will become common place in the years ahead and we better make sure we can handle them...

Decades of penny-pinching on one side and money-wasting ( on oftenly gold-plated solutions that would be changed by the next Defence Rewiew ) on another have brought the UK and the RN in this situation. 9 old frigates ( T26 was originally planned to start construction in 2015 ), 4 frigates less, as good as having them sunk by waunted drones. Same thing with just 1 destroyer online, other 5 might aswell be on the bottom of the sea, considering how much use of them RN has at the moment. The worst enemy of the UK couldn't do such a good devastation of the RN ( and UKAF in general ), admiral Karl Donitz would be proud...
And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

Blimey ABC, that's a lot of angry ranting!!

I would just refer you back to my previous post, says it all really.

Basically, usable modern gun fits are now essential, looks like we have accidentally pulled off a blinder with the T31...

Bristling with $$$$$$ of missiles, but little in the way of gun systems, then jihadi Derek will just bleed them all away on cheap ( probably donated free) Iranian drones, until you have nothing left......

[donald_of_tokyo]

...And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

Not sure what is the point of argue. Replacing 4.5inch gun of T45 with a 57mm gun will
1: enable ~10 years early retirement of the vintage, not-so-capable gun from the fleet, when T23 disbands
2: will release a few (per hull) crew from the burden of maitaining a vintage mechatronics systems designed in 1970s, already 50 years ago
3: and will enable better close-in AAW against drones and ASuW against fast boat swarms.
In short, it will save money, save manpower, relax logistics and improve capability. But yes we need a bit of money now, to save money on future (item-1). There is a clear merit doing it now. But, if no money now, just cannot do, and RN will waste another money in future. This is my view.

Did you notice that the RN and the rest of the UK Armed Forces are saving the money all the time, and also allways have lack of money. Something's wrong there.
If you want to save money, you simply need to stop spending it.

Therefore you need to disband vintage equipment? I understand your point, but replacing with six 57 mm gun is not so expensive. Much cheaper than 11 NSM, five sets of 32 (16) cell Mk41 (for T31), etc. Just a matter of will.

[Poiuytrewq]

Therefore you need to disband vintage equipment? I understand your point, but replacing with six 57 mm gun is not so expensive. Much cheaper than 11 NSM, five sets of 32 (16) cell Mk41 (for T31), etc. Just a matter of will.

Is the lack of money the paramount consideration?

If the headcount restrictions are the biggest policy driver then maximising the T31s makes complete sense even if it costs an extra £100m per hull to achieve it. The low overhead headcount number within RN will save vast amounts of cash in a relatively short space of time.

Current planning needs to adapt to the new security reality asap as the era of underarming RN vessels to save a bit of cash due to chronic underfunding by successive governments is over.

Procuring a bargain basement class of underarmed Frigates to replace the T23GPs is no longer the priority.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Is the lack of money the paramount consideration?

If the headcount restrictions are the biggest policy driver then maximising the T31s makes complete sense even if it costs an extra £100m per hull to achieve it. The low overhead headcount number within RN will save vast amounts of cash in a relatively short space of time.

Current planning needs to adapt to the new security reality asap as the era of underarming RN vessels to save a bit of cash due to chronic underfunding by successive governments is over.

Procuring a bargain basement class of underarmed Frigates to replace the T23GPs is no longer the priority.

Replacing T23 as soon as possible is a clear priority. Uparming T31 can be done later, when it does not affect the delivery date. T31 with 24 CAMM mushroom is better than T31 with 32-cell Mk41 until the Mk41 is filled with missiles, with ExLS inserted. I guess it will require another year or two.

FC/ASW? When will it come? With what number? It is far away, before we see T31 Mk.41 be filled with FC/ASW. At least 4-5 years, and probably a decade, and maybe even longer.

Yes, doing "Mk.41 addition" on 2033-35 is not bad, I think. But, now "replacing T23 as soon as possible is a clear priority". T31, if with 24 CAMM, is as good as a T23GP on the roles in KIPION.

[abc123]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

Come on man, the RN is down to about 9 frigates, 5-6 SSNs and just about 1 destroyer in operational service, and you main problem is whether it's armed with 57 or 114 mm gun? Rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic IMHO.

No, not at all, T45 needs new robust gun systems to remain relevant in this new era of mass drone attack.

Mass drone attacks aren't a flash in the pan you know, such attacks will become common place in the years ahead and we better make sure we can handle them...

Decades of penny-pinching on one side and money-wasting ( on oftenly gold-plated solutions that would be changed by the next Defence Rewiew ) on another have brought the UK and the RN in this situation. 9 old frigates ( T26 was originally planned to start construction in 2015 ), 4 frigates less, as good as having them sunk by waunted drones. Same thing with just 1 destroyer online, other 5 might aswell be on the bottom of the sea, considering how much use of them RN has at the moment. The worst enemy of the UK couldn't do such a good devastation of the RN ( and UKAF in general ), admiral Karl Donitz would be proud...
And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

Blimey ABC, that's a lot of angry ranting!!

I would just refer you back to my previous post, says it all really.

Basically, usable modern gun fits are now essential, looks like we have accidentally pulled off a blinder with the T31...

Bristling with $$$$$$ of missiles, but little in the way of gun systems, then jihadi Derek will just bleed them all away on cheap ( probably donated free) Iranian drones, until you have nothing left......

Yes, it is, angry ranting because it's sad to see the UK AF sliding down and down year after year.

But, about guns, if the money, people and operational availability weren't the question, I would prefer 76 mm from Oto Melara, good for air defence with specialised ammo, good for anti-surface targets, somewhat useful for NGS.

[Pte. James Frazer]

Progress on Dragonfire..

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8026 ... 38f7bdb149

[mrclark303]

I’m not sure what you mean by additional AAW.

Simply that what RN needs is another six T45 as was originally planned.

Clearly that’s impossible but 6x T31 with the Iver Huitfeldt upgrades is eminently possible.

A mix of CAMM and CAMM MR would give RN a Frigate with perhaps 64x quad packed CAMM and 32x doubled packed CAMM MR if the 32x Mk41 cells are fitted. Together with the 57mm and 2x 40mm they would make excellent choke point escorts with a AAW bubble of over 50nm.

If the T31 end up with 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x (empty) Mk41 cells it’s a huge missed opportunity. Especially with the short range of CAMM at less than 15nm.

The T45 clearly needs the 40mm and 57mm gun fit along with already sanctioned missile systems update.

What the RN needs is to stop wasting money. IMHO, there's no sense to throw good money after bad one. They decided to put the 4,5 in gun on T45 more than 20 years ago, and the choice, while it could have been better one, also wasn't really a bad one, T45 destroyers didn't use the Kryten gun a lot ( or at all, in real operations ) and considering their role, it would be very strange if they really need to use it so much, that 5-in or 57 mm gun should have such important advantage.
So, keep the damn gun in place, the RN has a lot of much more important priorities to pay for.

You are totally overlooking the key capability that gun systems like the 40mm and 57mm offer in anto drone operations.

The old 4.5" Mk8 has limited utility against such targets, but the aforementioned gun systems have enormous capacity to destroy mass drone attacks, particularly when smart munitions are taken into account.

So Sea Dragon / Sea Ceptor and the guns makes for a world class Destroyer and a serious upgrade in capability of the platform.

Also it would mean we no longer have to support a very old gun system.

Looks like an absolutely key value upgrade to me

Come on man, the RN is down to about 9 frigates, 5-6 SSNs and just about 1 destroyer in operational service, and you main problem is whether it's armed with 57 or 114 mm gun? Rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic IMHO.

No, not at all, T45 needs new robust gun systems to remain relevant in this new era of mass drone attack.

Mass drone attacks aren't a flash in the pan you know, such attacks will become common place in the years ahead and we better make sure we can handle them...

Decades of penny-pinching on one side and money-wasting ( on oftenly gold-plated solutions that would be changed by the next Defence Rewiew ) on another have brought the UK and the RN in this situation. 9 old frigates ( T26 was originally planned to start construction in 2015 ), 4 frigates less, as good as having them sunk by waunted drones. Same thing with just 1 destroyer online, other 5 might aswell be on the bottom of the sea, considering how much use of them RN has at the moment. The worst enemy of the UK couldn't do such a good devastation of the RN ( and UKAF in general ), admiral Karl Donitz would be proud...
And now, the biggest priority is 57/40 mm guns? OK, your 2 p.

Blimey ABC, that's a lot of angry ranting!!

I would just refer you back to my previous post, says it all really.

Basically, usable modern gun fits are now essential, looks like we have accidentally pulled off a blinder with the T31...

Bristling with $$$$$$ of missiles, but little in the way of gun systems, then jihadi Derek will just bleed them all away on cheap ( probably donated free) Iranian drones, until you have nothing left......

Yes, it is, angry ranting because it's sad to see the UK AF sliding down and down year after year.

But, about guns, if the money, people and operational availability weren't the question, I would prefer 76 mm from Oto Melara, good for air defence with specialised ammo, good for anti-surface targets, somewhat useful for NGS.

I see your point mate, but I would stick to T31 gun systems, that way you just have the two types to support...

I also totally take point about being angry, trouble is it gets you nowhere, the world is pivoting towards war and the government (and opposition) intend to do absolutely nothing, zitch, bugger all, zip about the current perilous state of defence.

The Tories claim 2.5% ' at some point ' on defence so that actually equates to fu#k all, because 'at some point', will never arrive.

Labour want to borrow an additional 28 billion to drop into the NHS bottomless money pit and achieve the square route of absolutely fu#k all!

That means no extra money for defence in reality, as all those London centric idiots will achieve is to re trigger rampaging inflation and sink us into recession ... Same old Labour...

That's the wonderful choice we have!

I'm voting Reform, because I literally can't stomach the shit show of our two main parties.

[Poiuytrewq]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... i-red-sea/ .

British warships lack firepower to attack Houthi land targets
Former defence chief brands Royal Navy missile limitations ‘a scandal and completely unsatisfactory'

Britain’s warships cannot attack Houthi targets on land because they lack the firepower, in a situation described by former defence chiefs as a “scandal”.

None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.

A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been “directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea”.

This weekend, a British-linked container ship caught fire after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.

One former rear admiral suggested that Britain’s inability to strike the Iran-backed Houthi movement’s bases from warships highlighted how the Navy would be unable to “go toe to toe” with Chinese and Russian warships.

Currently, the only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. While US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, the UK’s only options for such strikes are deploying planes or submarines, five of which were reported to be unavailable at one point in the autumn.

View from RAF Typhoon attack on Houthi military targets

Tobias Ellwood, the former chairman of the Commons defence committee, warned that the situation was unsustainable and urged Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, to conduct an urgent review. “We can’t continue to do this with a surface fleet that’s too small and cannot fire on land at range,” Mr Ellwood said.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, now the head of the Armed Forces, was among navy chiefs warning of a need to “speed up our acquisition processes” for weapons including “land attack missile systems” five years ago, when he was First Sea Lord.

During the first few months of Boris Johnson’s premiership, Sir Tony publicly advocated replacing Harpoon anti-ship missiles with a weapon that could be used to attack land targets.

However, the Harpoon was retired from the Navy last year and its temporary replacement, the Norwegian-made Naval Strike Missile, which can hit land targets, has only been installed on one vessel so far as part of a trial and has yet to be fired. Eventually, it will be rolled out to 11 frigates and destroyers before a new cruise missile system is expected to be introduced in 2028.

A former senior defence chief said that it was scandalous that Navy ships were not currently equipped with surface-to-surface missiles.

The ex-chief said: “It’s clearly a scandal and completely unsatisfactory. This is what happens when the Royal Navy is forced to make crucial decisions which can affect capability. The UK is now having to fly RAF jets thousands of miles to do the job of what a surface-to-surface missile can do.”

The disclosures come after Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, warned that “given the near-term threats to the UK and US”, investments in the Royal Navy were “significantly important”.

MPs said the absence of land attack missiles left UK warships akin to “porcupines” – well-defended vessels with insufficient offensive capabilities.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former senior naval officer, said that the lack of a proper surface-to-surface missile had left the Navy exposed. He said: “The Naval Strike Missile is a fudge. It’s a sticking plaster to show we have some capability.

“The real worry is that we are not going to be able to go toe to toe with our Chinese and Russian opposite numbers in encounter actions and we are going to see more and more of these issues. We, the UK, haven’t thought about the scenarios within which those weapons might be used.

“You need to look at the effect you want to have and that effect should be that when a British frigate or destroyer turns up, the Chinese and the Russians say oh f—, it’s the Brits. That’s what a deterrence is all about.

“Instead they are going to say, it’s got a pop gun on the front, no surface-to-surface missiles and a helicopter which I can shoot down with a drone so why are we worried?

“The point is you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and at the moment we have the knives and they have the guns.”

Mark Francois, the former armed forces minister, said: “The lack of a land attack missile from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet was specifically highlighted in a defence committee report some two years ago. It is encouraging that this missile is now on order but also disappointing that it is still not yet in operational service.”

Mr Francois added that it was “embarrassing” that one of the Navy’s three minesweeper vessels was taken out of action earlier this month when it collided with another British mine hunter in Bahrain. “The most important naval capability that we provide for our American allies are the three mine countermeasures vessels based in Bahrain,”

On Saturday, Mr Shapps said: “It is our duty to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and we remain as committed to that cause as ever.”

A MoD spokesman said: “As with all coalition operations, commanders select the best equipment for the job. HMS Diamond is an air defence destroyer, which has been directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea. Equally, the Royal Air Force has the capability to strike land targets with high precision, which is why Typhoon aircraft strikes have reduced the Houthis ability to conduct these attacks.”

An MoD source added: “We have already shown with our Typhoon capability that we are a leading force among our allies in defending the Red Sea. We are proud of our brave service men and women for all they are doing ... it’s nonsense to suggest anything except that we are playing a key role.”

[SW1]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... i-red-sea/ .

British warships lack firepower to attack Houthi land targets
Former defence chief brands Royal Navy missile limitations ‘a scandal and completely unsatisfactory'

Britain’s warships cannot attack Houthi targets on land because they lack the firepower, in a situation described by former defence chiefs as a “scandal”.

None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.

A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been “directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea”.

This weekend, a British-linked container ship caught fire after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.

One former rear admiral suggested that Britain’s inability to strike the Iran-backed Houthi movement’s bases from warships highlighted how the Navy would be unable to “go toe to toe” with Chinese and Russian warships.

Currently, the only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. While US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, the UK’s only options for such strikes are deploying planes or submarines, five of which were reported to be unavailable at one point in the autumn.

View from RAF Typhoon attack on Houthi military targets

Tobias Ellwood, the former chairman of the Commons defence committee, warned that the situation was unsustainable and urged Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, to conduct an urgent review. “We can’t continue to do this with a surface fleet that’s too small and cannot fire on land at range,” Mr Ellwood said.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, now the head of the Armed Forces, was among navy chiefs warning of a need to “speed up our acquisition processes” for weapons including “land attack missile systems” five years ago, when he was First Sea Lord.

During the first few months of Boris Johnson’s premiership, Sir Tony publicly advocated replacing Harpoon anti-ship missiles with a weapon that could be used to attack land targets.

However, the Harpoon was retired from the Navy last year and its temporary replacement, the Norwegian-made Naval Strike Missile, which can hit land targets, has only been installed on one vessel so far as part of a trial and has yet to be fired. Eventually, it will be rolled out to 11 frigates and destroyers before a new cruise missile system is expected to be introduced in 2028.

A former senior defence chief said that it was scandalous that Navy ships were not currently equipped with surface-to-surface missiles.

The ex-chief said: “It’s clearly a scandal and completely unsatisfactory. This is what happens when the Royal Navy is forced to make crucial decisions which can affect capability. The UK is now having to fly RAF jets thousands of miles to do the job of what a surface-to-surface missile can do.”

The disclosures come after Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, warned that “given the near-term threats to the UK and US”, investments in the Royal Navy were “significantly important”.

MPs said the absence of land attack missiles left UK warships akin to “porcupines” – well-defended vessels with insufficient offensive capabilities.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former senior naval officer, said that the lack of a proper surface-to-surface missile had left the Navy exposed. He said: “The Naval Strike Missile is a fudge. It’s a sticking plaster to show we have some capability.

“The real worry is that we are not going to be able to go toe to toe with our Chinese and Russian opposite numbers in encounter actions and we are going to see more and more of these issues. We, the UK, haven’t thought about the scenarios within which those weapons might be used.

“You need to look at the effect you want to have and that effect should be that when a British frigate or destroyer turns up, the Chinese and the Russians say oh f—, it’s the Brits. That’s what a deterrence is all about.

“Instead they are going to say, it’s got a pop gun on the front, no surface-to-surface missiles and a helicopter which I can shoot down with a drone so why are we worried?

“The point is you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and at the moment we have the knives and they have the guns.”

Mark Francois, the former armed forces minister, said: “The lack of a land attack missile from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet was specifically highlighted in a defence committee report some two years ago. It is encouraging that this missile is now on order but also disappointing that it is still not yet in operational service.”

Mr Francois added that it was “embarrassing” that one of the Navy’s three minesweeper vessels was taken out of action earlier this month when it collided with another British mine hunter in Bahrain. “The most important naval capability that we provide for our American allies are the three mine countermeasures vessels based in Bahrain,”

On Saturday, Mr Shapps said: “It is our duty to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and we remain as committed to that cause as ever.”

A MoD spokesman said: “As with all coalition operations, commanders select the best equipment for the job. HMS Diamond is an air defence destroyer, which has been directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea. Equally, the Royal Air Force has the capability to strike land targets with high precision, which is why Typhoon aircraft strikes have reduced the Houthis ability to conduct these attacks.”

An MoD source added: “We have already shown with our Typhoon capability that we are a leading force among our allies in defending the Red Sea. We are proud of our brave service men and women for all they are doing ... it’s nonsense to suggest anything except that we are playing a key role.”

Well hopefully that sunlight is shone on why land attack capability was not funded for the escort fleet and what was being protected by that decision.

Also interesting reading the good rear admirals somewhat disparaging comments about naval strike missile was that possibly because he was pushing for the Israeli Gabriel V or sea serpent as it was marketed as in the anti ship missile replacement contest?

[Jdam]

What can really be said about all this, any one with a passing knowledge of the Royal Navy knows we don't have a surface ship capable Land attack missile and this has been the case for over 30 years and now its a problem

I just don't know what to say here, we have spent years not making poor choices but making none at all and hoping for the best. The time for this was in 2018 when Harpoon was going out of service, not when Russia invaded Ukraine and the MOD went "oh shit" and went out and bought something off the shelf. Now if we had done it in 2018, canister launched LRASM might have been a better option and it could have been well into integration phase but as an oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, just buy something, the NSM is fine.

In a strange way our fudge has given us a Land attack missile. The thing about the NSM is I read that its got Land attack ability but it always seem to be talked about but never shown

[Poiuytrewq]

Well hopefully that sunlight is shone on why land attack capability was not funded for the escort fleet and what was being protected by that decision.

Also interesting reading the good rear admirals somewhat disparaging comments about naval strike missile was that possibly because he was pushing for the Israeli Gabriel V or sea serpent as it was marketed as in the anti ship missile replacement contest?

Your criticism is well founded but the solutions are the priority now.

Does anyone really believe that FC/ASW will be in service by 2028? It seems very unlikely based on recent performance.

Therefore RN Frigates must endure another decade of dither and delay for a TLAM ranged land attack capability whilst the T45’s wait another 5-10 years for a few CAMM and the pace of the NSM introduction is slower than glacial.

RN have been underarming escorts for years to balance the books but this peacetime mentality has now run its course.

RN is too small as is the Army and RAF.

Unfortunately it’s only more funding that will fix it as 2% is a peacetime luxury that the nation can no longer sensibly afford..

[tomuk]

What can really be said about all this, any one with a passing knowledge of the Royal Navy knows we don't have a surface ship capable Land attack missile and this has been the case for over 30 years and now its a problem

I just don't know what to say here, we have spent years not making poor choices but making none at all and hoping for the best. The time for this was in 2018 when Harpoon was going out of service, not when Russia invaded Ukraine and the MOD went "oh shit" and went out and bought something off the shelf. Now if we had done it in 2018, canister launched LRASM might have been a better option and it could have been well into integration phase but as an oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, just buy something, the NSM is fine.

In a strange way our fudge has given us a Land attack missile. The thing about the NSM is I read that its got Land attack ability but it always seem to be talked about but never shown

There is no surface to surface LRASM only air launched, there have been studies and demonstrators but no orders.

Here is video from the Norwegian MOD of a NSM land attack test from a sjkold corvette.

[tomuk]

Therefore RN Frigates must endure another decade of dither and delay for a TLAM ranged land attack capability

When have they ever had this capability? And has this ever been a requirement?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Just go steadily with NSM. Many to be blamed in the past, many options in future, but what should be done now is clear.