UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2020, 16:26

NickC wrote:so why could not MoD set up similar Government to Government deal
I guess you answered your own question, in a way.

Because there is a political layer in proc decision making that has a 'healthy' infusion of
NickC wrote:myopic little englanders

... may be that will change, but I don't see many (other) European prgrms with the same kind of potential at the sustainment phase. I understand that there are plans with a/c with Norway, but the scope is more limited, and the 'product' mainly originates from another continent.

So the RN is stuck with trying to standardise subsystems across the ever shrinking fleet, like propulsion, CMS...
That has the downside that when (ehmm, due to strides made within other navies, including those that potentially are adversaries) a step change/ improvement needs to be put in train, those same arguments might scupper it even getting started.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4333
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 16:56

Scimitar54 wrote:You should look at the path: Home / Equipment / Royal Navy / Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

The definition of the subject under discussion is quite clear!


Or a new thread could be started: Home / Equipment / Foreign / Warships - General Discussion, where Nigel could post his childish rants on how shitty everything British is.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4333
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 17:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:so why could not MoD set up similar Government to Government deal
I guess you answered your own question, in a way.

Because there is a political layer in proc decision making that has a 'healthy' infusion of
NickC wrote:myopic little englanders

... may be that will change, but I don't see many (other) European prgrms with the same kind of potential at the sustainment phase. I understand that there are plans with a/c with Norway, but the scope is more limited, and the 'product' mainly originates from another continent.

So the RN is stuck with trying to standardise subsystems across the ever shrinking fleet, like propulsion, CMS...
That has the downside that when (ehmm, due to strides made within other navies, including those that potentially are adversaries) a step change/ improvement needs to be put in train, those same arguments might scupper it even getting started.


The only thing I see is a bunch of cranky Europeans gazing at their own navals as their cozy club slowly goes belly up under the strain of undemocratic infighting and illiterate financials.

The RN on the other hand is forging closer links with like minded blue water navies over the Atlantic and into the Pacific. Little Englanders my ass. Check out their new carriers with embarked US F-35 squadrons conducting exercises with Australian Type 26 frigates while the German navy cruises around the Baltic in its gunboats.

Online
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2605
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 15 Jan 2020, 20:21

Posting news no peer warships to offer a contrast and comparison to what is out there is a part of discussion for the Royal Navy, so long as they discussion is considered a point of Royal Navy purpose. Random news about it without anything added is not exactly crashing the rules, but it would be very useful to factor it into a query or direction of topic.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2347
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Jan 2020, 21:39

”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

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1860
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Jan 2020, 22:20

interesting that no one jumped on the fact that unmanned MCM is being released to service this March and this could fit in with Type 26/31

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Jan 2020, 03:58

Tempest414 wrote:this could fit in with Type [ 26/]31


Mainly because on the T31 thread the need has been repeated for years.

But you are right: T31 B2 is a future escort... how many are we getting :D ?

NickC
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 16 Jan 2020, 14:08

14th January press release by MOD "Revolutionary Artificial Intelligence warship contracts announced"

"The Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) has announced the first wave of £4 million funding
The funding aims to revolutionise the way warships make decisions and process thousands of strands of intelligence and data by using Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).
Intelligent Ship is focused on inventive approaches for Human-AI and AI-AI teaming for defence platforms – such as warships, aircraft, and land vehicles – in 2040 and beyond.

Full text
From <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revolutionary-artificial-intelligence-warship-contracts-announced>

Usual puff but talk of 2040 reminds me of Keynes quote "in the long run we are all dead", appearance of R&D to form the foundation of a new CMS, if understanding correctly looks similar in concept to that used as basis of the new gen Thales Nederland AWWS CMS for the Damen Omega Dutch/Belgium frigate and maybe the US Army NG Integrated Air and Missile Defence Battle Command System, IBCS, a command-and-control (C2) system developed to deliver a single, unambiguous view of the battlespace, amongst others.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Jan 2020, 14:26

NickC wrote: talk of 2040 reminds me of Keynes quote "in the long run we are all dead", appearance of R&D to form the foundation of a new CMS, if understanding correctly looks similar in concept to that used as basis of the new gen Thales Nederland AWWS CMS for the Damen Omega Dutch/Belgium frigate and maybe the US Army NG Integrated Air and Missile Defence Battle Command System, IBCS, a command-and-control (C2) system developed to deliver a single, unambiguous view of the battlespace, amongst others.

ArmChairCivvy wrote: when (ehmm, due to strides made within other navies, including those that potentially are adversaries) a step change/ improvement needs to be put in train, those same arguments might scupper it even getting started.

- correction: started at such a low level of funding that to get there by 2030 rather than ten years later we will need to buy somebody else's
- but still: this is better than nothing. By doing "enough" of research, we should be aware of what we will need to buy?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 16 Jan 2020, 23:44

The type 26 being equiped with the vls, is this system capable of using the sm-6 block1b the newer version of the sm-6 with longer range and payload capable of use in anti shipping modeof being guided by other assets using cec and also as it has a ballistic flight characteistic , if partnered at the same time with a launch of conventional shipping missiles being harder to counter as there is not a radar that can be in two modes of anti ballistic and anti air at the same time I understand this misileis also being looked at for other platforms like submarines and aircraft , would be a real capability leap for the R.N

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Jan 2020, 06:21

seaspear wrote: as there is not a radar that can be in two modes of anti ballistic and anti air at the same time
this statement would seem incorrect when bringing in international benchmarks for comparison.

Some of the discussion, in the run up to the T26 being selected for RAN, suggested that they will become (initially, at least) more effective AAW platforms than their specialist RAN brethren exactly due to the fact that they will receive such (a newer version) radar... being able to do both
- there is nothing (exc. money and the decreased availability to the fleet until enough of the new class will have joined service) to prevent an updating of the Hobarts
- for our own T45s there has been software development ongoing so that the overall system, without extensive changes to the radar itself being needed, would not need to be restricted to one of the two modes, at any given time. - How far along that road we've got, I don't know. But there are folks on here who seem to be well versed in these matters...

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 17 Jan 2020, 10:31

I should of added that there is a claim that the soon to be introduced AN/SPY-6 Oon the Arleigh Burkes flight 111 with the Radar Suite controller will be able to simultaneously track and engage ballistic and airborne threats ,there claim that other radars in the Russian and Chinese navies cant do both at the same time , some of the existing flight one and two A/B will get a limited version of this radar not sure aware of the reduced capability though

NickC
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 20 Jan 2020, 14:29

Integrated Air and Missile Defense [IAMD], my limited understanding

The DoD MDA, Missile Defense Agency funds the Ballistic Missile Defense Aegis IAMD CMS and missiles, not the USN, for Ticos, Burkes and Aegis Ashore.

Aegis CMS on a quadrennial upgrade software/hardware cycle eg ACB 12, ACB 16 and latest in development ACB 20/TI-16 for the future Flight III Burkes (ACB, Advanced Capability Build, TI, Technology Insertion, new hardware/computers etc).

IAMD came online with Baseline 9C (BMD 5, ACB 12?), BMD 6.0/ACB 20 upgrade will integrate with the new Raytheon GaN AN/SPY-6 radar.

Missiles, the new ~ $40 million SM-3 Block IIA is an anti-SRBM, MRBM and IRBM exoatmospheric missile, to be tested against an ICBM target for the first time later this year, whereas the new SM-6 Dual I/IIs are only an anti-SRBM endo-atmospheric missile as well as AA and anti-ship.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Jan 2020, 14:44

seaspear wrote:there is a claim that the soon to be introduced AN/SPY-6 [ Oon the Arleigh Burkes flight 111] with the Radar Suite controller will be able to simultaneously track and engage ballistic and airborne threats


During Formidable Shield (NATO) 2019 "US Navy Captain Shanti Sethi directed the exercise from on board the Danish flagship, HDMS Absalon. The latest iteration of the AEGIS system was proven as USS Carney conducted simultaneous SM-2 missile engagement while tracking space and atmospheric targets. USS Roosevelt fired an SM-3 at a Terrier Oriole ARAV missile target while concurrently engaging Firejet targets with an SM-2 missile."

NickC
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 21 Jan 2020, 16:36

The Sate Department cleared possible $1.5 billion sale of kit for both the three Hobart AAW frigates and first three Hunter (T26) class ships, surprised at kit for Hobart buy as first two only commissioned in 2017 and 2018 and final ship currently on pre-commissioning trials, presumably upgrade to incorporate IAMD into its Aegis CMS

Main items
Six shipsets of the AEGIS CMS MK 6 Mod 1
Three shipsets of the MK 41 VLS - Hunter
Three shipsets (2 mounts per ship) CIWS (Phalanx?) - Hunter
Two Australian AEGIS CMS programs (one for Hobart, one for Hunter)
Six shipsets Global Positioning System (GPS), Navigation and Timing Service (GPNTS) Navigation Systems and associated Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) antennas and support equipment
Six shipsets of upgraded Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) equipment of Command and Control Processor (C2P) equipment
Eight shipsets of Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Set (MIDS JTRS)

Three shipsets MK 34 Gun Weapon System (GWS) modification equipment including the Electro Optical Sight System and changes supporting Naval Fires Planner and associated TacLink Control System MK 160 Gun Computing System and the MK 20 Electro Optical Sight System, and the Naval Fires Planner and associated TacLink Control System (for the Mk 45 5" gun, assume RN will be buying same kit for the T26 Mk 45)

Three shipsets of Mode 5/S IFF; Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplexing System (GEDMS); AN/WSN-7 Ring Laser Gyrocompass Inertial Navigation Systems; WSN-9 Digital Hybrid Speed Log systems; Common Data Link Management System (CDLMS); and Global Command and Control System-Maritime (GCCS-M) systems for installation on the Hunter.
Six shipsets of AN/SRQ-4 Hawklink and SQQ-89 Sonobuoy processing equipment.
Defense services for development and integration of a capability upgrade for the installed AEGIS CMS on the Hobart, including Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability and growth capability for Ballistic Missile Defense.

Development, integration and testing support for installation of the AEGIS CMS with the CEAFAR 2 Phased Array Radars (LM IAFCL, International Aegis Fire Control Loop, to control the CEA radars and SM2 & ESSM missiles - had assumed CEAFAR was AESA, active electronically scanned array radar, not a phased array radar ?) including the CEC and integration of selected Australian system components including Undersea Warfare and Ship Self Defense for installation on the Hobart and Hunter.

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby zanahoria » 22 Jan 2020, 11:35

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... aths-fail/

Just saw this on Twitter - main article behind a paywall. If there’s any substance to this, then it is hard to see how the RN would recover in terms of effectiveness & prestige. I certainly won’t relish the RN playing second fiddle to the Marine Nationale.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1700
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 22 Jan 2020, 11:44

zanahoria wrote:Just saw this on Twitter - main article behind a paywall. If there’s any substance to this, then it is hard to see how the RN would recover in terms of effectiveness & prestige. I certainly won’t relish the RN playing second fiddle to the Marine Nationale


Had a read of it and it doesn't seem to make sense (although Shepherds Naval editor commented on it). The gist I got from it is that a temporary decline in escort numbers is inevitable if the T23's GP's aren't extended due to the build rate of T26 and T31.

Given the recent issues in the Persian Gulf I can't imagine anyone in HMG is proposing reducing escort numbers.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Jan 2020, 12:05

Timmymagic wrote:
zanahoria wrote:Just saw this on Twitter - main article behind a paywall. If there’s any substance to this, then it is hard to see how the RN would recover in terms of effectiveness & prestige. I certainly won’t relish the RN playing second fiddle to the Marine Nationale
Had a read of it and it doesn't seem to make sense (although Shepherds Naval editor commented on it). The gist I got from it is that a temporary decline in escort numbers is inevitable if the T23's GP's aren't extended due to the build rate of T26 and T31.

Given the recent issues in the Persian Gulf I can't imagine anyone in HMG is proposing reducing escort numbers.
1: But, cutting the "escort number on paper" by a few, while keeping the "active escort number not reduced" is possible. It is also reasonable, l think. Actually, I prefer to disband "un-usable" escorts (because of man-power shortage) to save money to "up-arm" T31 as much as possible, and operate as many T45 and T23ASW as possible.

2: On the other hand, anyway, even the first T26 will not commission until 2027, it will be handed over to RN in 2025, and its full-crew is needed even earlier. I can see that, by the day of the T26-hull1 hand over, another T23GP will decommission, even though T31 is yet to come. In this case, "number of escorts flying white ensign" does not decrease, but number of escorts "commissioned" will. I see no problem here.

Online
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2605
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Jan 2020, 13:23

Given the Type 31 is an escort on paper only, it's going from 19 to 14 regardless anyway.

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby zanahoria » 22 Jan 2020, 13:39

RetroSicotte wrote:Given the Type 31 is an escort on paper only, it's going from 19 to 14 regardless anyway.

Does joined up thinking exist anywhere in government? My civvy brain doesn’t understand the these gaps in capability when the world is becoming more unpredictable. If Defence is an insurance policy surely we should be increasing our premium to get a bit more than 3rd party? Absolutely nuts (if true) It is like they have no strategy.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 22 Jan 2020, 13:53

RetroSicotte wrote:Given the Type 31 is an escort on paper only, it's going from 19 to 14 regardless anyway.


We don't know the final T31 spec, yet

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 22 Jan 2020, 14:08

From House of Lords this week...

Lord West of Spithead:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the number of Royal Navy frigates in commission will rise above the present total of 13; and whether that number will drop below 13 at any stage in the next ten years.”

Baroness Goldie, Minister of State for Defence:

“The Government remains committed to a surface fleet of at least 19 Frigates and Destroyers, and the Royal Navy will have the ships required to fulfil their Defence and Policy commitments. The intent remains to grow the Destroyer and Frigate force by the 2030s, and the Type 31 Frigates will provide the opportunity to do this. It is not uncommon to have planned, temporary, small fluctuations in overall numbers during the transition from any class of ship or submarine to another.”

serge750
Member
Posts: 572
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 22 Jan 2020, 14:19

Maybe I am optimistic but I do think we will get a second batch of T31 ( mainly because they will be cheaper than the T26 or T45 replacements ) with a slightly better spec, but still will not make up for the loss of the 2010 cuts..T22 etc :oops: :oops:

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 22 Jan 2020, 14:53

serge750 wrote:Maybe I am optimistic but I do think we will get a second batch of T31 ( mainly because they will be cheaper than the T26 or T45 replacements ) with a slightly better spec, but still will not make up for the loss of the 2010 cuts..T22 etc :oops: :oops:


At the expense of the T45 replacements and/or T26's?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Jan 2020, 15:00

RetroSicotte wrote:Given the Type 31 is an escort on paper only, it's going from 19 to 14 regardless anyway.
dmereifield wrote:We don't know the final T31 spec, yet
Agree, but at least, T31 is never intended to be a Tier-1 escort.

It could be as capable as (or less, e.g. "no ASW") the heavy corvettes such as Damen 10514, Gowind2500, and Brazilian MEKO A100 Tamandare Corvette, which cost similar to T31, but never as capable as French FDI (not to say T26 or even FREMM). On the other hand, figure-of-merit of T31 will be on its long range/endurance added with much better sea keeping.

Whether "we can call T31 an escort or cannot", will differ person by person.

For me, if T21 was an escort, T31 is an escort. (complete lack of ASW in T31 vs very limited ASW in T21 is offset enough by a brand new but limited AAW capability (12-24 CAMM on T31) vs completely obsolete ones (small number of out of date (even in 1980 standard) SeaCat SAM on T21)).

But anyway not a Tier-1.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adnan.ahmed, albedo and 21 guests