Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5687
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 11 Jun 2024, 23:49 UK has “European Patrol Frigate”, 3 AAW combat variant in Denmark, 5 GP (patrol) variant for UK, and 3 multi-purpose (not GP) variant for Poland :D

Anyway, the heavily armed variant of EPC has too much overlap with T31 and thus out of the scope.

For something “in between” T31 and River B2 OPV? Uhmm… I am not positive here. The only case I can imagine is, to replace 3 River B1 with 3 simple OPVs and 5 River B2 with 3 EPC patrol variant for FIGS and WIGS (and one for rotation). Here I assume “no increase in total crew size”. Also sea going days of EPC-Patrol will be less than that of River B2 and thus we will need 3 hulls to support 2 deployments (currently RN is handling 4 deployments with 5 River B2). Not sure what can this plan provide anything better than current fleet.
I would agree if the man power allows build 3 more type 31's and replace the B1's with cheap 75 meter OPV fitted with 4 x 12.7mm
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
tomuk

Markam
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Markam »

With Babcock signing an agreement with Saab over the Visby replacement (Luleå), which is set to be a 3k ton corvette/light frigate (in UK nomenclature), so I would suggest we work on that as our Tier 3 combatant and River replacement.

Sweden is also said to be looking at their first blue water frigate, and perhaps we can do a deal where they build our first Luleå, and we can build them a T31.

As for numbers, it depends on the price and crew requirements, but perhaps we could work it like this;

1. Reduce RN T31s from 5 to 4, with the planned 5th being sold to Sweden (the order depending on time frame),
2. Build 4x jointly developed Lulea (call it Type 16 or something), with the first two being built in Sweden as part of their initial batch (they want 2x by 2030),
3. 4x T32 as Batch 2 T31, with options for Sweden to add to their T31 with a T32.
4. 2nd batch of Lulea another 4x for UK (replacing River B1), 2x for Sweden (they aim for 4 total), joint development with upgrades/fixes to the initial batch.

End result is we have;
8x Type 26
8x Type 31/32
8x Type 16
With 8x Type 83,
(Also we still have the River B2 for a while yet)

We have 16 Tier 1 combatants, 8x Tier 2, and 8 Tier 3, for 32 escorts of varying quality.

Type 16 armament is a big issue for budgetary reasons, but if it is Visby+ then it can have CAMM+Bofors with some NSM and a sonar; buying the Thales CAPTAS-4/2087 (compact version) they use on the FDI.

Or not, I am just fantasy fleeting.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7452
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 12 Jun 2024, 08:47
Caribbean wrote: 12 Jun 2024, 08:26 We seem to be developing a reasonable portfolio of designs in the UK, with the T26 & T31 - do we need an export-focussed design aimed at the high-end OPV/ corvette market as well?
Absolutely and the BMT Venator 110 hull should be the starting point.

Much of the work has been done already.
Not hardly dude. Unless you count the CGI department :D
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyonew guy

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

MMPC / EPC would be an equal if not greater resource drain in both Crewing and CapEx compared to T31.
Want it as an alternative design should funding for T32 ever materialise? fair enough. Will that ever happen? I don't think so.

Even if it does, I would rather put that money forward to more T83 (of a more numerous nature than T45) Then diverge in designs.
An EPC for T32 in the RN would have to compete against many other designs which are far more logical in both cost and actually fitting the RN's requirements and needs.


If enough budget arrises so that it fills all the other much higher priorities in not only the RN but also the MoD as a whole, than:
AH140: Most logical
Babcock-saab light frigate: 2nd most logical as shouldn't be too hard to transfer to babcock
More T83: Have what is needed for RN and use Economics of scale to make FADS more viable.
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5687
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The biggest problem I see with MMPC is the French have Godwind the Italians have PPA and both Spain and Denmark are working on home grown OPV's and Light frigates

The UK has RB2 and Leander in the bank if we want more OPV's or a 107 meter Corvette

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jun 2024, 15:08 The biggest problem I see with MMPC is the French have Godwind the Italians have PPA and both Spain and Denmark are working on home grown OPV's and Light frigates

The UK has RB2 and Leander in the bank if we want more OPV's or a 107 meter Corvette
Leander would be more expensive than AH140.
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
Ron5donald_of_tokyo

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5687
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

new guy wrote: 13 Jun 2024, 15:47
Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jun 2024, 15:08 The biggest problem I see with MMPC is the French have Godwind the Italians have PPA and both Spain and Denmark are working on home grown OPV's and Light frigates

The UK has RB2 and Leander in the bank if we want more OPV's or a 107 meter Corvette
Leander would be more expensive than AH140.
Yes that maybe the case but it is in the bank if we want a 107 meter Corvette ( which we don't) the bigger point is all the main players have their own projects that meet their needs that means MMPC is a dead duck
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
new guy

luckner
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 06 May 2015, 08:35
Germany

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by luckner »

Recently, NavyLookout published some articles on the need of the RN to have more of everything: destroyers, frigates, submarines, logistic ships and all else, proposing an increase of about 60 % in each and every category.

To evaluate this, it is necessary to know for which purpose these ships are needed.
- To go back to Pax Britannica with the two power standard – NONSENS
- To achieve parity with the US Navy – unachievable.

If we set the standards lower and look at the main area of operation of NATO, the North Atlantic, then we have to look at the Russian navy, especially the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy.

If we compare the paper strength of the ships of the russian Northern Fleet with the ships of the Royal Navy, assuming that the availability of the Russian ships is not better than the availability of the British ships, the result is quite surprising.

A, Aircraft carriers
1 Kusnetsov class ( 35 years old ) against 2 quite new Queen Elizabeth class carriers

B. AA and ASuW ships
2 Kirov class battle cruisers ( 25 and 35 years ), 1 Slava class cruiser ( 35 years ) and 1 Sovremenny class destroyer ( 30 years ) against 6 much newer Daring class destroyers

C. ASW ships
3 Udaloy destroyers ( 35 years ), 1 Udaloy II destroyer ( 25 years ) and 3 fairly new Gorshkov class frigates against 7 ageing type 23 frigates which are in the process of being replaced by the type 26 frigates in build

D. GP frigates
No such frigates in the Northern Fleet, so no problem if the remaining 2 GP type 23s stay in the Gulf representing Global Britain. The same applies for the 5 type 31 frigates in build.

E. Corvettes
6 obsolete Grisha III and 1 obsolete Nanuchka III against 3 River I

F. Landing ships
2 fairly new Ivan Gran LSDs ( 1 / 3 the size of Albion ) are working together with 4 more than 40 years old Rapucha LSTs . With 2 Albion class LPDs and 3 Bay class LSD(A)s the RN has a much higher capacity

G. Strategic submarines SSBN and SSGN
The Northern Feet has 5 Delta III class SSBNs, 2 Borey class SSBNs, 2 Oscar II class SSGNs and 2 Yasen class SSGNS, so significantly more ships than the 4 british Vanguard slass SSBNs.

H. SSNs and SSs
The Northern Fleet has 2 SIerrs II ( 30 years ), 2 Victor II ( 30 years ) and 6 Akula ( 25 years and older ). These stand against 1 old Trafalgar class and 5 new Astute class SSNs. Considering the age of the Russian sips, the chances of the RN are not so bad her.
4 old Kilos ( 35 to40 years ) and 1 new Lada have no British pendant

Summary : Considering the age of most of the russian ships and the fact that nearly all russian money goes into the land war, I can´t see any improvement for the russian navy. Models of new aircraft carriers, nuclear super destroyers and all else exist, but orders are not really forthcoming. The RN alone should be powerful enough the keep the Northern Fleet in check

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Some interesting news out of Japan. They are putting forward proposals for a new Destroyer Class - 13DDX. This appears to be seprae from their AEGIS afloat plans based on more homegrown design and tech like the Mogamis. There is talk of a New Ship to Air Missile and it is proposed the ship has IEP. You could almost say it is a updated take on a T45. Is this another area of cooperation with Japan, a basis for T83, with a BAE\Mitsubishi Electric grandchild\mago of SAMPSON Radar.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cn ... destroyer/

Image
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 6):
jedibeeftrixdonald_of_tokyoSD67Jensynew guyzanahoria

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

In regards to the possibility of the UK going down the Aegis route for T83,
Canada's purchase of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets,

infers a £2bn cost to equip 6 T83 with an ageis system,
or £350m per ship.

Can the UK develop and fit a future CMS, Radar, CEC-equivalent, that is equivalent, greater, fit to our needs, for less?
Could the dev costs be subsidised by Army joint GBAD purchase?




https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to- ... destroyers
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1521
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

new guy wrote: 05 Jul 2024, 19:41 In regards to the possibility of the UK going down the Aegis route for T83,
Canada's purchase of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets,

infers a £2bn cost to equip 6 T83 with an ageis system,
or £350m per ship.

Can the UK develop and fit a future CMS, Radar, CEC-equivalent, that is equivalent, greater, fit to our needs, for less?
Could the dev costs be subsidised by Army joint GBAD purchase?

https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to- ... destroyers
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos.

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... r-contract
These users liked the author NickC for the post (total 2):
new guyRon5

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4842
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given Labour is now in power and will remain by a large part through its support of Scottish votes, then now would be a really good time time announce a few orders for Govan and Rosyth - everyone is expecting the Army to benefit from the new government, but politics wise the RN can play a clever game.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

They could try to pursuade Norway to order the T26 soon....maybe decide if they want the T32 ? Could they build the MRSS in Rosyth if no T32 ?

Jdam
Senior Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

What would you build?

The one thing I think the Navy needs is more dedicated Anti Air escorts, how available are the Type 45's going to be with all the upgrade planned for them over the next few years?

The issue is right now Govan and Rosyth (A&P/CM are starting to get draw into the Type 26) is trying to replace the current crop of frigates that are currently dropping like fly's, the gap between the carriers and Type 26s are coming home to roast and I don't know if Labour is good enough to sort it out.

I think the Navy might be in the most difficult position, I don't see any easy answers here and it doesn't matter what side of the isle they come from, politicians like easy answers.

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Fr0sty125 »

NickC wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 14:29
new guy wrote: 05 Jul 2024, 19:41 In regards to the possibility of the UK going down the Aegis route for T83,
Canada's purchase of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets,

infers a £2bn cost to equip 6 T83 with an ageis system,
or £350m per ship.

Can the UK develop and fit a future CMS, Radar, CEC-equivalent, that is equivalent, greater, fit to our needs, for less?
Could the dev costs be subsidised by Army joint GBAD purchase?

https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to- ... destroyers
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos.

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... r-contract
Between BAE, Leonardo, Thales and MBDA there is the capability.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 14:29
new guy wrote: 05 Jul 2024, 19:41 In regards to the possibility of the UK going down the Aegis route for T83,
Canada's purchase of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets,

infers a £2bn cost to equip 6 T83 with an ageis system,
or £350m per ship.

Can the UK develop and fit a future CMS, Radar, CEC-equivalent, that is equivalent, greater, fit to our needs, for less?
Could the dev costs be subsidised by Army joint GBAD purchase?

https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to- ... destroyers
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos.

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... r-contract
APAR Block II? For an AAW destroyer? As an equivalent to SPY-7. Surely Thales France Sea Fire or Leonardo Kornos would be a better bet.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Jdam wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 18:51 What would you build?

The one thing I think the Navy needs is more dedicated Anti Air escorts, how available are the Type 45's going to be with all the upgrade planned for them over the next few years?

The issue is right now Govan and Rosyth (A&P/CM are starting to get draw into the Type 26) is trying to replace the current crop of frigates that are currently dropping like fly's, the gap between the carriers and Type 26s are coming home to roast and I don't know if Labour is good enough to sort it out.

I think the Navy might be in the most difficult position, I don't see any easy answers here and it doesn't matter what side of the isle they come from, politicians like easy answers.
🇳🇱 Dutch Low Manning Vessel

. Modular
. The purpose is to cover the capacity gap as a flexible solution before the next gen air defence ship arrive - very much a barge to carry additional missiles.
. TRIFFIC / Low Manned Surface Vessel / MICAN: Modular Integrated Capability ADCF and North Sea ( ADCF= Air Defecne Command Frigate)
. Modular weapons systems
. Purpose to increase firepower.
. Commercial Off The Shelf / Modified Off The Shelf.
. Commercial vessels
. Slaved to land or frigate
. Remotely operated from frigate
. FOC 2027
. To plug low availability and also to lessen the pain of the 10 year wait for new Air Defence Ship's.


> Similar solution for RN, to cover availability issues, fire power in either CSG or the LRG's (Pre and post MRSS) , or act as TAPS ship?





NickC
Donator
Posts: 1521
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 23:50
NickC wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 14:29
new guy wrote: 05 Jul 2024, 19:41 In regards to the possibility of the UK going down the Aegis route for T83,
Canada's purchase of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets,

infers a £2bn cost to equip 6 T83 with an ageis system,
or £350m per ship.

Can the UK develop and fit a future CMS, Radar, CEC-equivalent, that is equivalent, greater, fit to our needs, for less?
Could the dev costs be subsidised by Army joint GBAD purchase?

https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to- ... destroyers
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos.

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... r-contract
APAR Block II? For an AAW destroyer? As an equivalent to SPY-7. Surely Thales France Sea Fire or Leonardo Kornos would be a better bet.
Numerous naval radar options if buying foreign in radar bands from X, C, S & L, Chinese and Russian navy radars use even longer wavebands e.g. UHF due to ability to track stealth aircraft e.g. F-35, as did Lockheed with the MEADS radar plus a complimentary X-band radar.

The longer L-band e.g. SMART-L MM/N, brings the built-in advantages of resistance to clutter and long range for tracking for BMD though with less definition than the shorter wavebands, but also comes with its better capability of tracking stealth aircraft than the shorter wavebands, relatively recently Lockheed won the USAF contract with its L-band 3D Expeditionary Long Range Radar against competition from Northrop Grumman and Raytheon with their S-band and C-band radars respectively.

X-band radars are a popular fit on destroyers as a complimentary fit to their longer range radars e.g. USN Burkes , X-band bring the advantages of great precision and accuracy for tracking and wide bandwidth for discrimination due to the shortish waveband and the ability to stick to the surface beyond the optical horizon whereas lower wavebands e.g. S-band, do the opposite according to Thales.

The T26 fitted with both the S-band Artisan and the 2D X-band Scanter, Scanter is relatively cheap radar and limited in range ~15nm, 2,000 ' height with its ability to track drones but limited in tracking sea skimming missiles due to its max speed detection of 500 m/s ~Mach 1.5, so unable to track a BrahMos or hypersonic Zircon or Kinzhal, whereas the X-band APAR II is a much more sophisticated and capable radar though more expensive with its four fixed arrays.

As always a trade-off on what considered operational capabilities required against the cost.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7452
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

I'm pretty sure the Scanter is for navigation.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
new guyRepulse

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2901
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

NickC wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 12:42 Scanter is relatively cheap radar and limited in range ~15nm, 2,000 ' height with its ability to track drones but limited in tracking sea skimming missiles due to its max speed detection of 500 m/s ~Mach 1.5, so unable to track a BrahMos or hypersonic Zircon or Kinzhal, whereas the X-band APAR II is a much more sophisticated and capable radar though more expensive with its four fixed arrays.
The Scanter 6000 has a maximum range of 96NM for surface targets and is designed to track air targets up to 6000 feet & 15nm range, travelling at up to 500m/s (Mach 1.5). It's intended as a multi-function radar (navigation, small surface target, SAR & helicopter control).

It's not a combat radar. I don't believe it is capable of interfacing to a CMS/FCS, unlike the Scanter 4100, which is used on the RB2s. They are commonly used in shore-based installations for coastal surveillance, harbour traffic control and similar tasks

Terma now do a drone-detection package based on the Scanter 5/6000 range, coupled with long range EO/IR sensors & "AI" detection software
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 12:42
tomuk wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 23:50
NickC wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 14:29
new guy wrote: 05 Jul 2024, 19:41 In regards to the possibility of the UK going down the Aegis route for T83,
Canada's purchase of 4 AEGIS System shipsets, 4 x AN/SPY-7 radars, along with 4 shipsets of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) hardware; and 3 Mk 41 VLS shipsets,

infers a £2bn cost to equip 6 T83 with an ageis system,
or £350m per ship.

Can the UK develop and fit a future CMS, Radar, CEC-equivalent, that is equivalent, greater, fit to our needs, for less?
Could the dev costs be subsidised by Army joint GBAD purchase?

https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to- ... destroyers
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... bat-system
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos.

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... r-contract
APAR Block II? For an AAW destroyer? As an equivalent to SPY-7. Surely Thales France Sea Fire or Leonardo Kornos would be a better bet.
Numerous naval radar options if buying foreign in radar bands from X, C, S & L, Chinese and Russian navy radars use even longer wavebands e.g. UHF due to ability to track stealth aircraft e.g. F-35, as did Lockheed with the MEADS radar plus a complimentary X-band radar.

The longer L-band e.g. SMART-L MM/N, brings the built-in advantages of resistance to clutter and long range for tracking for BMD though with less definition than the shorter wavebands, but also comes with its better capability of tracking stealth aircraft than the shorter wavebands, relatively recently Lockheed won the USAF contract with its L-band 3D Expeditionary Long Range Radar against competition from Northrop Grumman and Raytheon with their S-band and C-band radars respectively.

X-band radars are a popular fit on destroyers as a complimentary fit to their longer range radars e.g. USN Burkes , X-band bring the advantages of great precision and accuracy for tracking and wide bandwidth for discrimination due to the shortish waveband and the ability to stick to the surface beyond the optical horizon whereas lower wavebands e.g. S-band, do the opposite according to Thales.

The T26 fitted with both the S-band Artisan and the 2D X-band Scanter, Scanter is relatively cheap radar and limited in range ~15nm, 2,000 ' height with its ability to track drones but limited in tracking sea skimming missiles due to its max speed detection of 500 m/s ~Mach 1.5, so unable to track a BrahMos or hypersonic Zircon or Kinzhal, whereas the X-band APAR II is a much more sophisticated and capable radar though more expensive with its four fixed arrays.

As always a trade-off on what considered operational capabilities required against the cost.
Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.

Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1734
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 13:24 I'm pretty sure the Scanter is for navigation.
The Scanter is primarily for ships navigation and feeds into the IBNS with the Sharpeye radar. Feeds are also taken into the CMS to aid situational awareness particularly of the surface. They are also used for helicopter air traffic control.

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Fr0sty125 »

new guy wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 09:51
Jdam wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 18:51 What would you build?

The one thing I think the Navy needs is more dedicated Anti Air escorts, how available are the Type 45's going to be with all the upgrade planned for them over the next few years?

The issue is right now Govan and Rosyth (A&P/CM are starting to get draw into the Type 26) is trying to replace the current crop of frigates that are currently dropping like fly's, the gap between the carriers and Type 26s are coming home to roast and I don't know if Labour is good enough to sort it out.

I think the Navy might be in the most difficult position, I don't see any easy answers here and it doesn't matter what side of the isle they come from, politicians like easy answers.
🇳🇱 Dutch Low Manning Vessel

. Modular
. The purpose is to cover the capacity gap as a flexible solution before the next gen air defence ship arrive - very much a barge to carry additional missiles.
. TRIFFIC / Low Manned Surface Vessel / MICAN: Modular Integrated Capability ADCF and North Sea ( ADCF= Air Defecne Command Frigate)
. Modular weapons systems
. Purpose to increase firepower.
. Commercial Off The Shelf / Modified Off The Shelf.
. Commercial vessels
. Slaved to land or frigate
. Remotely operated from frigate
. FOC 2027
. To plug low availability and also to lessen the pain of the 10 year wait for new Air Defence Ship's.


> Similar solution for RN, to cover availability issues, fire power in either CSG or the LRG's (Pre and post MRSS) , or act as TAPS ship?




Not sure this is quite the right direction. Strategically you want to be distributing weapon and sensor system across the fleet making use of sensor fusion. Probably to both auxiliary/support ships and going forward also large displacement USV for different reasons.

To achieve this the cost of both weapons and sensors need to be driven down. To some extent this is already happening look at Artisan quite capable not massively expensive but more so with Girrafe series, Thales NS series.

The other side of this is the missiles but MBDA seem to be doing a good job of this with CAMM and a VL Spear 3 would be helpful.

Ultimately we need greater scale than what we could get away for the last 30 years.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1521
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.
I must say you come across as totally self-centered with your snide remarks, do you suffer from paranoia, you do understand you are not the only person who reads the forum and it would help if you could add to the debate with appropriate additional knowledge
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.
You appear to have forgotten it was you asked the question why take the possible option to fit an X-band radar, the highly capable APAR Blk II, on the T83 and the T26 fit came in as background.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5644
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Fr0sty125 wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 22:15
new guy wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 09:51
Jdam wrote: 06 Jul 2024, 18:51 What would you build?

The one thing I think the Navy needs is more dedicated Anti Air escorts, how available are the Type 45's going to be with all the upgrade planned for them over the next few years?

The issue is right now Govan and Rosyth (A&P/CM are starting to get draw into the Type 26) is trying to replace the current crop of frigates that are currently dropping like fly's, the gap between the carriers and Type 26s are coming home to roast and I don't know if Labour is good enough to sort it out.

I think the Navy might be in the most difficult position, I don't see any easy answers here and it doesn't matter what side of the isle they come from, politicians like easy answers.
🇳🇱 Dutch Low Manning Vessel

. Modular
. The purpose is to cover the capacity gap as a flexible solution before the next gen air defence ship arrive - very much a barge to carry additional missiles.
. TRIFFIC / Low Manned Surface Vessel / MICAN: Modular Integrated Capability ADCF and North Sea ( ADCF= Air Defecne Command Frigate)
. Modular weapons systems
. Purpose to increase firepower.
. Commercial Off The Shelf / Modified Off The Shelf.
. Commercial vessels
. Slaved to land or frigate
. Remotely operated from frigate
. FOC 2027
. To plug low availability and also to lessen the pain of the 10 year wait for new Air Defence Ship's.


> Similar solution for RN, to cover availability issues, fire power in either CSG or the LRG's (Pre and post MRSS) , or act as TAPS ship?




Not sure this is quite the right direction. Strategically you want to be distributing weapon and sensor system across the fleet making use of sensor fusion. Probably to both auxiliary/support ships and going forward also large displacement USV for different reasons.

To achieve this the cost of both weapons and sensors need to be driven down. To some extent this is already happening look at Artisan quite capable not massively expensive but more so with Girrafe series, Thales NS series.

The other side of this is the missiles but MBDA seem to be doing a good job of this with CAMM and a VL Spear 3 would be helpful.

Ultimately we need greater scale than what we could get away for the last 30 years.
One clear merit of distribution launcher is, how to handle hyper-sonic and ballistic missiles.

- War results showed that hyper-sonic missiles can be neutralized by Patriot (PAC2 or 3) missiles, but only in short rage.
- The hyper-sonic and ballistic missiles can be detected if the defensive side has a good radar systems. Even the "low level" hypersonic-missiles must fly as high as 20-30 km altitude, to reduce air-drag, and therefore comes into horizon in so-so distance, say, 200-400 km.
- Aster darts (either 15 or 30), SM-6, and/or PAC3 MSE darts are considered to be agile enough the counter these threats, but the defense side need to deliver these darts between the enemy missile and its targets. This is not easy, it takes 120 seconds to deliver a Mach 5 missile 200km away.

An AEGIS DDG (or T45) can defend themself and vessls in its close vicinity, but not easy to defend the distributed fleet (even though she can detect it). But, what if each assets of the fleet has a remotely controlled missile launcher with Patriot PAC3 MSE missiles (in quad pack)? The 120 seconds to travel 200 km is not needed, and the AEGIS DDG (or T45) counter these hyper-sonic and ballistic missiles easily. Also, the AAW missile can be smaller, and hence can be carried in number.

I'm not sure this assessment is true, but I think this is possible.

Post Reply