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: 11224
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: 3772
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: 3772
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.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2491
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: 2018
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Jan 2020, 21:39

"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1457
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: 11224
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: 562
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: 11224
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: 1366
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: 11224
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: 1366
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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brad1, topman and 19 guests