Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

For future.

Stop saying better in future. FCASW is future, now it is NSM.

Stop accepting capability gap, rather accept decline in escort number.

Shortage of escort number is much more alarming to public than a few years gap in ASuM, clear. If, only if, RN need to disband HMS Westminster to save NSM procurement, just do it.

RN must have integrated vintage SeaSqua to Wildcat not to gap Helicopter ASuM capability. SeaKing AEW must have been kept till 2025 to see Merlin AEW in operation. Harpoon must have been kept in service until all 11 escorts gets ASuM added.

To do this, money is needed? Then disband another T23 and loudly claim RN is in danger using the clear fact that the escort number is 20-30% short and RN cannot send escort to KIPION.

Clarity is important

[Fr0sty125]

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.

2028 is only the in service date for the land attack missile. As gov is exploring off the shelf solutions I think this could be an updated MdCN for the Mk41 and an updated storm shadow for air launched. Anti ship is not due to enter service until 2034.

[SW1]

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..

The solution is NSM. It doesn’t need any more.

It doesn’t need more money. They need to get real about there priorities

[wargame_insomniac]

The solution is NSM. It doesn’t need any more.

It doesn’t need more money. They need to get real about there priorities

There will be eight NSMs per warship that are also required for ASuW not just land strike.

The current answer for land strike is supposed to be TLAM from SSNs, and it’s telling that after over a month that one of these haven’t been deployed almost certainly due to lack of numbers that are operational.

Adding the MK41 VLS to the T45 which was always the plan sacrificed at the alter of FFBNW should be a priority.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The solution is NSM. It doesn’t need any more.

It doesn’t need more money. They need to get real about there priorities

There will be eight NSMs per warship that are also required for ASuW not just land strike.

The current answer for land strike is supposed to be TLAM from SSNs, and it’s telling that after over a month that one of these haven’t been deployed almost certainly due to lack of numbers that are operational.

Adding the MK41 VLS to the T45 which was always the plan sacrificed at the alter of FFBNW should be a priority.

Isn’t 16 NSM better? It can be within 2-3 years, for all 6 hulls. Adding Mk41 VLS will need a decade to cover all 6 hulls, I’m afraid?

[Dobbo]

I only have the following points to contribute:

1 - The RN / MoD / HMG was always going to be caught out by a capability gap / FFBNW issue sooner or later. I’m surprised it has taken this long.

2 - If you have an RN with a shrinking number of hulls, justified by their being more capable, they need to cover multiple bases because they can only be in one place at a time.

3 - for these reasons each major RN surface combatant has to have a reasonable ability to: (a) defend from the air (CAAM-MR seems acceptable); (b) sink other surface ships (NSM / FCSAW will probably be fine); (c) deliver long range precision fires on land (this is a major gap, TACTOM would deal with this, perhaps FCASW will); and (d) detect and attack submarines (this is a gap in the T31 as things stand).

There may be other capabilities that emerge from Ukraine - eg related to drones - but the four points above must be addressed in the surface fleet.

[Repulse]

Isn’t 16 NSM better? It can be within 2-3 years, for all 6 hulls. Adding Mk41 VLS will need a decade to cover all 6 hulls, I’m afraid?

Perhaps as a sticky plaster capability, but TLAM has a range almost 10 times further and can deliver 3-4 times the destructive power.

Maybe it will take ten years, but that means in 3 we could get two T45s in service with the capability.

[SW1]

So what if it’s 8 we are a small player in this we do not need to copy America. The missiles on the boat are the very last part of the puzzle. It’s the istar assets and the targeting cells that make these things possible and we’ve binned most of ours.

We should have bought nsm and collaborated on jsm with Norway and got into development with them on a supersonic variant. Instead we’ve bounced around with France and the Norwegians have gone off and started a supersonic variant development with the Germans.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Isn’t 16 NSM better? It can be within 2-3 years, for all 6 hulls. Adding Mk41 VLS will need a decade to cover all 6 hulls, I’m afraid?

Perhaps as a sticky plaster capability, but TLAM has a range almost 10 times further and can deliver 3-4 times the destructive power.

Maybe it will take ten years, but that means in 3 we could get two T45s in service with the capability.

Sorry, I do not think so. Decision, Contract, Detailed designing, Scheduling... All will require 3 years to START modification. Modification will need at least 1 year, and another year for trial (normal training up to FOST + TLAM introduction). I think "the first hull with Mk.41 with TLAM with IOC declared" will be there in 5 years from now, at the earliest.

(Note TLAM on Mk.41 is new for RN).

Similarly, NSM adding will need time, but I understand "Decision, Contract, Detailed designing, Scheduling" has been done for T45, already. Not surprised to see first T45 getting 8 NSM this year, with IOC next year. But, I admit, to make it 16 NSM (not 8), it will take another 2 years or so. But, at least 8 NSM will be already done by then, I guess...

[Repulse]

I only have the following points to contribute:

1 - The RN / MoD / HMG was always going to be caught out by a capability gap / FFBNW issue sooner or later. I’m surprised it has taken this long.

2 - If you have an RN with a shrinking number of hulls, justified by their being more capable, they need to cover multiple bases because they can only be in one place at a time.

3 - for these reasons each major RN surface combatant has to have a reasonable ability to: (a) defend from the air (CAAM-MR seems acceptable); (b) sink other surface ships (NSM / FCSAW will probably be fine); (c) deliver long range precision fires on land (this is a major gap, TACTOM would deal with this, perhaps FCASW will); and (d) detect and attack submarines (this is a gap in the T31 as things stand).

There may be other capabilities that emerge from Ukraine - eg related to drones - but the four points above must be addressed in the surface fleet.

FFBNW is a scam to offer jam tomorrow- change the Not to Never and it would be more accurate.

Someone on Twitter/ X stated the UK armed forces can only have two of Scale, Capability and Reach; it cannot afford all three (and never will in relation to other countries). This perhaps can be applied for each service, but for RN it has to be capability and reach - this is why a single high end warship platform is the right answer.

[Repulse]

Sorry, I do not think so. Decision, Contract, Detailed designing, Scheduling... All will require 3 years to START modification. Modification will need at least 1 year, and another year for trial (normal training up to FOST + TLAM introduction). I think "the first hull with Mk.41 with TLAM with IOC declared" will be there in 5 years from now, at the earliest.

(Note TLAM on Mk.41 is new for RN).

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.

[Tempest414]

I only have the following points to contribute:

1 - The RN / MoD / HMG was always going to be caught out by a capability gap / FFBNW issue sooner or later. I’m surprised it has taken this long.

2 - If you have an RN with a shrinking number of hulls, justified by their being more capable, they need to cover multiple bases because they can only be in one place at a time.

3 - for these reasons each major RN surface combatant has to have a reasonable ability to: (a) defend from the air (CAAM-MR seems acceptable); (b) sink other surface ships (NSM / FCSAW will probably be fine); (c) deliver long range precision fires on land (this is a major gap, TACTOM would deal with this, perhaps FCASW will); and (d) detect and attack submarines (this is a gap in the T31 as things stand).

There may be other capabilities that emerge from Ukraine - eg related to drones - but the four points above must be addressed in the surface fleet.

So A) is covered by CAMM and maybe CAMM-ER (B) is covered by NSM (C) could be covered in the next decade if Type 26 and 31 get Mk-41's with TLAM and then FC-ASW and (D) I would say could be lowered to defend against Sub attack with S2170 SSTD systems

With the above said type 26 will cover all bases
Type 45 will cover A , B , part of C with NSM & D
Type 31 if it gets say 8 Mk-41's and NSM could cover A , B , C & D

Both Type 45 & 31 could be covered in the chock points by a P8 or Sea Guardian conducting MPA

If Type 31 were to only get CAMM and say 16 NSM along with the already fitted SSTD it would still cover A , B , D & some part of C

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry, I do not think so. Decision, Contract, Detailed designing, Scheduling... All will require 3 years to START modification. Modification will need at least 1 year, and another year for trial (normal training up to FOST + TLAM introduction). I think "the first hull with Mk.41 with TLAM with IOC declared" will be there in 5 years from now, at the earliest.

(Note TLAM on Mk.41 is new for RN).

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.

Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.

[Tempest414]

Isn’t 16 NSM better? It can be within 2-3 years, for all 6 hulls. Adding Mk41 VLS will need a decade to cover all 6 hulls, I’m afraid?

Perhaps as a sticky plaster capability, but TLAM has a range almost 10 times further and can deliver 3-4 times the destructive power.

Maybe it will take ten years, but that means in 3 we could get two T45s in service with the capability.

For some time I have been saying that if Type 31 was to get 32 MK-41's it could have a loadout of 32 x CAMM , 24 TLAM and 8 x NSM and that 2 or 3 coming together could give the UK a good land attack option below that needing a CSG. I remember you saying there was no need for this and that you could see no time that this would be used hopefully now you can see there are times when 2 or 3 escorts coming together each with 16 to 24 TLAM's could be of use

[Tempest414]

Sorry, I do not think so. Decision, Contract, Detailed designing, Scheduling... All will require 3 years to START modification. Modification will need at least 1 year, and another year for trial (normal training up to FOST + TLAM introduction). I think "the first hull with Mk.41 with TLAM with IOC declared" will be there in 5 years from now, at the earliest.

(Note TLAM on Mk.41 is new for RN).

That’s probably sadly fair, but for a project that should be low risk for a ship FFBNW the country needs to do better - if we are really so close to war, we need a new mindset.

TLAM on ships maybe new for the RN but is not new with our closest ally.

Thanks, I am NOT AGAINST adding Mk 41 to T45. But I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

First of all, RN need to "modify" CAMM adding contract. The 24 more CAMM is planned to be mounted on the "gym for Mk41" room. The detailed design must have been almost finished, and throwing it away means it will need another few years to find another location/design for the 24 CAMM.

ExLS on Mk.41? Who will do the initial trial? Also, are we happy with using 6-cells for 24 CAMM (3.5m) in a strike-length (7m) Mk.41 VLS, and just leaving 10 cells for TLAM?

The harpoon slot on T45 is about twice as large as that for T23. T23 carries 8 NSM. So, it will be relatively easy to carry 16 NSM there. This idea will NOT interfere with "24 CAMM addition" contract. Actually, it is just a modification in to the NSM contract only, and CAMM contract can go on. In terms of "time", this option will be much more efficient. This is my proposal.

Again, I am not saying this is the only solution. But I'm sure this is the fastest solution with so-so output.

There is another way MBDA say on there site that CAMM can be quad packed in A-50 & 70 cells so we could tell them to get on with it this so type 45 could then have it 16 Mk-41's fitted allowing a loadout of 40 x Aster 30 , 32 x CAMM , 16 x TLAM & 16 x NSM

the next option is to replace 30mm with 40mm and then remove the Phalanx and fit 12 to 16 Adaptable Deck Launching System, between the funnel and rear mast allowing the CAMM and NSM to go in as planned

[donald_of_tokyo]

There is another way MBDA say on there site that CAMM can be quad packed in A-50 & 70 cells so we could tell them to get on with it this so type 45 could then have it 16 Mk-41's fitted allowing a loadout of 40 x Aster 30 , 32 x CAMM , 16 x TLAM & 16 x NSM

Thanks, but I do think it is less efficient in terms of time.

No trial ever done with ANY quad packing on Sylver VLS. Of course, not CAMM trial.
It will need to be developed from scratch, which means it will take 4-5 years, at least.

the next option is to replace 30mm with 40mm and then remove the Phalanx and fit 12 to 16 Adaptable Deck Launching System, between the funnel and rear mast allowing the CAMM and NSM to go in as planned

Exactly. This is one option. As the Adaptable Deck Launching System is a modification of US Army's launcher system, its development is already underway. Very different from "quad-pack CAMM in Sylver". But, the development cost will not be cheap, so we shall wait for the selection by US Navy. After that, I think it will be one of the good options for T45 to get TLAM or alike added.

I myself think 16 NSM for T45 is good enough, and time is more important here. T45 OSD will surely slip for several years, but it's OSD is not so far away. Using them as much as possible now, until all the T31 and T26 comes in, is a priority for me.

[Repulse]

Isn’t 16 NSM better? It can be within 2-3 years, for all 6 hulls. Adding Mk41 VLS will need a decade to cover all 6 hulls, I’m afraid?

Perhaps as a sticky plaster capability, but TLAM has a range almost 10 times further and can deliver 3-4 times the destructive power.

Maybe it will take ten years, but that means in 3 we could get two T45s in service with the capability.

For some time I have been saying that if Type 31 was to get 32 MK-41's it could have a loadout of 32 x CAMM , 24 TLAM and 8 x NSM and that 2 or 3 coming together could give the UK a good land attack option below that needing a CSG. I remember you saying there was no need for this and that you could see no time that this would be used hopefully now you can see there are times when 2 or 3 escorts coming together each with 16 to 24 TLAM's could be of use

And I still don’t see any need in upgrading T31s with TLAMs or anything else (bar perhaps AAW capabilities so they can fulfil a real CSG escort role) ahead of the tier one fleet.

Currently, there isn’t a few frigates coming together firing off a few TLAMs, the UK ships are integrated with the US carrier forces already there. There’s a reason why there’s a T45 on the front line and not a T23 GP, there’s a reason why the USN value the T45. Put TLAMs on the ship that makes a difference, not one that will pitch up at the back and make little impact.

[SD67]

IMHO, given that we are maybe 12 months away from all out war with Russia and/or Iran, we probably need more of everything, yesterday. If TLAM can be bolted to the deck of a T45 where Harpoon used to go, just do it. Bolt Brimstone and/or Starstreak to the deck of the River class. Hell, the USMC still deploy Harriers - a few of those taken out of storage would make decent bomb trucks flying off QE.

Whether it's ideal or not is tomorrow's problem. Flower class Corvettes weren't ideal

[serge750]

By the time we bugger about changing contracts & fitting mk 41 & CAMM to the T45 i think think the 1st T26 will be availiable ! so accelerate NSM fit if we can....

[Tempest414]

Isn’t 16 NSM better? It can be within 2-3 years, for all 6 hulls. Adding Mk41 VLS will need a decade to cover all 6 hulls, I’m afraid?

Perhaps as a sticky plaster capability, but TLAM has a range almost 10 times further and can deliver 3-4 times the destructive power.

Maybe it will take ten years, but that means in 3 we could get two T45s in service with the capability.

For some time I have been saying that if Type 31 was to get 32 MK-41's it could have a loadout of 32 x CAMM , 24 TLAM and 8 x NSM and that 2 or 3 coming together could give the UK a good land attack option below that needing a CSG. I remember you saying there was no need for this and that you could see no time that this would be used hopefully now you can see there are times when 2 or 3 escorts coming together each with 16 to 24 TLAM's could be of use

And I still don’t see any need in upgrading T31s with TLAMs or anything else (bar perhaps AAW capabilities so they can fulfil a real CSG escort role) ahead of the tier one fleet.

Currently, there isn’t a few frigates coming together firing off a few TLAMs, the UK ships are integrated with the US carrier forces already there. There’s a reason why there’s a T45 on the front line and not a T23 GP, there’s a reason why the USN value the T45. Put TLAMs on the ship that makes a difference, not one that will pitch up at the back and make little impact.

Under this thinking there is no need to fit TLAM on type 45 as it is with the US CSG and 16 TLAM on one T-45 is not worth the time and money much better we send 3 F-35b to the USN LHD in the area

I also think its very narrow minded to think of group formed of 1 x Type 45 with say 48 Aster , 24 CAMM & 16 NSM plus 2 x Type 31 with 64 x CAMM , 48 x TLAM and 16 to 32 NSM could be seen by anyone as tuning up at the back and making little impact the ability of this small group to turn up in the Red Sea and hit upto 48 coastal and 48 deep land targets and at the same defend MV shipping from air and surface threats could only be seen as standing very much along side

[NickC]

Think the battle experience in Ukraine has shown that the use of the 1980's sub-sonic Tomahawk against a peer enemy would be of very limited effectiveness.

The first Ukrainian battery of IRIS –T shot down all the 60 targets aimed at including the Russian Kalibr's, the Russian Tomahawk, can see no reason why Tomahawk would fare any better. Whether the stealthy sub-sonic NSM would survive against a modern air defense system, e.g. Sea Ceptor/Sky Sabre, an open question as Russia has not used any sub-sonic stealthy missiles in Ukraine.

From <https://eurasiantimes.com/new60-aerial- ... says-iris/>

[donald_of_tokyo]

Think the battle experience in Ukraine has shown that the use of the 1980's sub-sonic Tomahawk against a peer enemy would be of very limited effectiveness.

Genuine question. How is the Tomahawk in 2020s improved in survivability? Airframe speed and maneuverbility may not see big change, but its control and guidance systems is surely improved by an order of magnitude.

More lower terrain following trajectory is easier now, which make them much more survivable. On-ground radar cannot see over the horizon. So IRIS-T's "40 km range" is not useful against TLAM (because it flies near surface).

Is TLAM really outdated? Or, just the survavability is a bit low compared to, JASSM-ER? If yes, how much?

[SD67]

The Royal Navy has two superb world class assets specifically designed for striking land targets from the sea so there is little need to enable a much, much, much, lower capability on any escorts. An escalation will see the one of them deployed asap. Only the RAF and the feeble politicians will slow them down.

Anti surface ship missiles are a different kettle of fish, there is is an urgent need to get them deployed on escorts. And they are.

By the way, the Rear Admiral calling NSM a sticking plaster is 100% correct and has zero to do with his supposed favoritism for the Israeli missile. "Sticking plaster" is just another way to say "interim" which is the label that everyone is using.

FC/ASW when it arrives will be a quantum leap in capability. It's lateness has more to do with the French dragging their pieds that any other factor. They are shitty industrial partners as you might think the MoD has learned by now.

[Ron5]

Think the battle experience in Ukraine has shown that the use of the 1980's sub-sonic Tomahawk against a peer enemy would be of very limited effectiveness.

Genuine question. How is the Tomahawk in 2020s improved in survivability? Airframe speed and maneuverbility may not see big change, but its control and guidance systems is surely improved by an order of magnitude.

More lower terrain following trajectory is easier now, which make them much more survivable. On-ground radar cannot see over the horizon. So IRIS-T's "40 km range" is not useful against TLAM (because it flies near surface).

Is TLAM really outdated? Or, just the survavability is a bit low compared to, JASSM-ER? If yes, how much?

Just because the Ukrainians can supposedly shoot down a completely different missile says fuck all about Tomahawk.

[wargame_insomniac]

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

But these things need to be done in parallel, simultaneously rather than consecutively.

For example the T45's have the following upgrades due:
*5 to go through PIP (*3 to start & *2 to finish) IIRC.
*6 to have additional MK41 and /or ExLS VLS cells for FCASW, CAMM etc.
*6 to have Sea Viper Evolution update to add Aster 30 Block 1 / Block 1NT.
*6 to have Harpoon launchers removed
*6 to have NSM Canisters added

The last probably needs to be done separtely in Norway but the rest of the upgrades should be worked on in one refit.