Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 07:48 What are u putting in all these VLS silos your buying considering there’s next to nothing at present that we have to use in them and how much of the budget are you allocating to fill them.
It is a good point and as I have said in the past type 45 should of had 64 cells it was built for them and they were not fitted also as I have said in the past had T-45 got its 16 Mk-41's and if the A50 cells could quad pack CAMM as MBDA say they can be then my load out for T-45 would be 32 x Aster 30 , 64 x CAMM & 16 Tomahawk Blk-V.

Now if we were to build a AAW Frigate based on A-140 then I would be looking for the same amount of cells with the same load out

Now also as said I would like to see type 31 get 24 Mk-41 with a load out of 32 CAMM and 16 Tomahawk Blk-V

As for my Fantasy 180 meter cruiser with its 144 cells I would look to fill them with 48 x Aster 30 , , 48 x Tomahawk Blk-V , 96 x CAMM & 64 x Spear

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 10:12 As for my Fantasy 180 meter cruiser with its 144 cells
We are starting to get into the same 'ball park':
ArmChairCivvy wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 10:18
Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 09:54 160 x 22 meters
Not too far off from 149.9 m (492 ft), a beam of 20.8 m (68 ft)... on these AAW ships the crew will soon lose the gym as ABM has been announced to be coming
T83 will go up from just anti-Abm to being capable of dealing with hypersonic threats
- i guess no one has an exact idea of what that would entail
- but a good guess is growing demands on space and power generation
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Yes but if u use open source info then we only have 70 tomahawks in inventory total and enough aster to just about fill the 6 type 45s once. Not to mention arguing about a 1/3 of billion quid to field a handful of sets of interim anti ship missiles.

So would we for example take the 2.5 billion pounds allocated to the extra f35 and say we’ll spend that on missile stocks instead so we can increase the number of tomahawk, aster and anti ship missiles instead?

Just because we add the silos isn’t the end of it that would require extra ISR and extra specialist people for the targets ident and planning. So it as increase in people that would need to be taken from elsewhere and trained.

My view is the centre bit of the a140 should be seen as like on the danish original a offensive payload module with silos numbers much like the danish ship as future numbers are built for different roles and not the type 26. Similar ships in more places with distribution of resources will be a better option. I remain unconvinced by the couple of extra boat bays or covered areas like of type 26 add much that they are right ship configuration/type for deploying unmanned systems in numbers.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 12:42 Yes but if u use open source info then we only have 70 tomahawks in inventory total and enough aster to just about fill the 6 type 45s once. Not to mention arguing about a 1/3 of billion quid to field a handful of sets of interim anti ship missiles.

So would we for example take the 2.5 billion pounds allocated to the extra f35 and say we’ll spend that on missile stocks instead so we can increase the number of tomahawk, aster and anti ship missiles instead?

Just because we add the silos isn’t the end of it that would require extra ISR and extra specialist people for the targets ident and planning. So it as increase in people that would need to be taken from elsewhere and trained.

My view is the centre bit of the a140 should be seen as like on the danish original a offensive payload module with silos numbers much like the danish ship as future numbers are built for different roles and not the type 26. Similar ships in more places with distribution of resources will be a better option. I remain unconvinced by the couple of extra boat bays or covered areas like of type 26 add much that they are right ship configuration/type for deploying unmanned systems in numbers.
There is the split between capital budget and annual operational budget. I beleive that the latter includes both salaries and also munitions. I have argued before that in my opinion the former needs to be increased to either cancel or postpone the cuts in Integrated Review, and the latter needs to be increased firstly to cover what UK has sent to Ukraine, and secondly to boost stocks of munitions. We should nt be robbing one to pay for the other IMO.

Given that contract for Block IV Tomahawks was running down it would have made sense that stocks were nt being renewed in advance of the Block IV out of service date. Now that they are being upgraded to Block V then it makes sense to acquire additional missiles. But we do need to take on board the lessons from both Russian and Ukranian side about having higher stock levels of ALL munitions.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

To me Land Attack and NGFS are secondary roles and should carried out by the second line escorts ie T31/T32. The first line escorts ie T26/T45/T83 should be free to carry out their primary roles of AAW and ASW.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54JohnM

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

I agree, but to me a core capability of every escort of frigate size and above should be the ability to shoot at and sink other ships, and to attack targets on land. As things stand, we don’t really have that capability but there seems to be a belated recognition it is required.

Whether you want your Air Defence Destroyer or ASW frigate undertaking these tasks is by the by, they should be capable of it so the opponent has to account for it.

Thankfully the solution is relatively simple - fit a common VLS that can take a range of inventory munitions and the opponent should never know exactly what mix of weapons you have onboard. This is being done with T26 (albeit too few VLS) but unfortunately so far not with T31, which obviously needs to be rectified, and the best T45 is likely to get is the interim SSM.

For me the end game is for each of T26, T83, T31/32 having sufficient VLS of a common nature to accept and use a large stock of inventory which includes the full suite of SSM, AAW and ASR munitions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 21:37 be increased firstly to cover what UK has sent to Ukraine, and secondly to boost stocks of munitions. We should nt be robbing one to pay for the other IMO.
You are quite right, and we have been doing that for a long time; the share of kit is @ 42% (thereabouts) and rising
- militaries structured on pros (and only small-ish reserves) should deviate from the budgeting 'best practice' borrowed from the civvy street, and instead budget in three categories: kit (icluding support & upgrading), manpower and readiness. The third category means that the small forces are ready - and this category (munitions, major exercices etc) is the one we have been quietly 'robbing' over many years
wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 21:37 we do need to take on board the lessons from both Russian and Ukranian side about having higher stock levels of ALL munitions.
Quite
tomuk wrote: 26 Jul 2022, 22:28 The first line escorts ie T26/T45/T83 should be free to carry out their primary roles of AAW and ASW.
The range of what is likely coming after the 'interim' will not interfere much with that freedom
Dobbo wrote: 27 Jul 2022, 00:35 there seems to be a belated recognition it is required.
Yes. But are we going to spend the 'interim' third of a £ bn on NSM?
- the good: they are applicable to land attack, too
- the bad: there will be few sets (back to what we have been doing with CIWS... now you see it, now you don't. Constatnt switching between ships)
- the ugly: don't they come in box launchers? JSM can be in a VLS
Dobbo wrote: 27 Jul 2022, 00:35 simple - fit a common VLS that can take a range of inventory munitions and the opponent should never know exactly what mix of weapons you have onboard.
Yep. But how much of our sovereign capability in missile design - talking about the future - would be flushed down the toilet with too abrupt a change. We only just signed with France and Italy for an improved ABM missile - sovereignty can be shared... but if you have NONE of it, then ?
Dobbo wrote: 27 Jul 2022, 00:35 the interim SSM.
What's the latest? Been a bit sporadic with my follow up since March. Is there a decision and a time table? (could well be in the comments on the dedicated thread, if so, sorry to be asking)
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post (total 2):
Dobbowargame_insomniac
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Been meaning to post this for a while but keep forgetting....

Interesting article on Chuck Hills Coast Guard Blog. If you've not seen it before its a really good site...

https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2022/04/09 ... /#comments

As Chuck points out the USN is withdrawing its 22 remaining Ticonderoga Class cruisers. This has been happening for a while with the non-VL ships already retired, but the VL ones are also planned to be gone in due course. As a result there could be a bit of an opportunity there...lots (and I mean lots) of Strike Length Mk.41 VLS are going to be going spare, along with a large number of Mk.45 Mod 4 5 inch guns. Now all would be in need of refurbishment, but its a pretty good opportunity to get some kit for T45, T31 and T32 on the cheap....(I've excluded T26 as the Mk.45 in use there is a little more advanced and some Mk.41 have already been ordered, although probably not for 5 of the 8 vessels).

Could be an opportunity to remove 4.5 inch from RN use on T45, get it on T32 and add Mk.41 to T45, T31 and T32 (and perhaps the last 5 T26) for a comparatively low price, even if we don't have the munitions right now it means we're future proofed.

Remember the Tico's have 2 x Mk45 5 inch guns per ship...

Thoughts?
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Would these VLS not go to the Constellation class as the US are building some 20 of them also there are some 20+ AB's to be built so some 40 ships

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not a bad idea.
On the plans on the other side of the Pond, as Chuck says (about the cutters):
"Chuck Hill on April 11, 2022 at 10:19 pm said:

No current plans for any upgrades. Any future decision about how much is needed will depend on what the world situation looks like at the time. My suggestion is mostly about keeping options open "
yes, but on the other hand when their navy was choosing the new frigate (the 'Italiano' Constellation, as it turned out), an upgraded, more war-like cutter version was in the contest. Can't remember what they were suggesting that is should carry in the way of guns/ missiles.
- but you can consider the current long-range cutters as the US flavour of fitted-for, but not with

BTW: Chuck used to participate @TD, but can't remember having seen him over here
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:45 Would these VLS not go to the Constellation class as the US are building some 20 of them also there are some 20+ AB's to be built so some 40 ships
I guess a lot depends on when ships are built and withdrawn from service in terms of timing. 2,816 VL cells though...should be some spare...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes maybe but the 40 ships being built would need 2600 + VL cells and the remaining CCG's have 2684 Cells

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Mk41 VLS modules aren't that expensive to begin with. Is really such a good idea to refurbish ones that have been carried around the world's oceans in the Ticos for 30 odd years?

What are the recovery\refurb costs? It's known in other programmes that the material state of Government Furnished Equipment has caused issues.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoserge750

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 29 Jul 2022, 00:18 Mk41 VLS modules aren't that expensive to begin with. Is really such a good idea to refurbish ones that have been carried around the world's oceans in the Ticos for 30 odd years?

What are the recovery\refurb costs? It's known in other programmes that the material state of Government Furnished Equipment has caused issues.
Agree. What is more valuable is the front-end electronics boxes which is actually interfacing with brand-new weapons. They are relatively new, up-to-date, and expensive. And, I'm sure they will be re-used in US Navy?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Timmymagic wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 11:44

Could be an opportunity to remove 4.5 inch from RN use on T45, get it on T32 and add Mk.41 to T45, T31 and T32 (and perhaps the last 5 T26) for a comparatively low price, even if we don't have the munitions right now it means we're future proofed.

Thoughts?
4.5 inch Mk 8 is totally obsolete and needs to be phased out ASAP.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

RichardIC wrote: 29 Jul 2022, 10:33
Timmymagic wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 11:44

Could be an opportunity to remove 4.5 inch from RN use on T45, get it on T32 and add Mk.41 to T45, T31 and T32 (and perhaps the last 5 T26) for a comparatively low price, even if we don't have the munitions right now it means we're future proofed.

Thoughts?
4.5 inch Mk 8 is totally obsolete and needs to be phased out ASAP.
Agreed. Also from the logistics perspective, it would be great if the RN could condense the number of different calibre weapons.

I personally would have loved if the RN could have standardised on the 5.0 Inch main gun and either 30mm / 40mm secondary guns, but that went out of the window with F31 Frigates having the 57mm main gun and too many 20-30mm secondary guns on older ships.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

I thought the GAM-B01 20mm was being removed from RN service?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Yes, I also saw it. Does it mean Echo and Batch 1 Rivers will lose their armament?

By the way, there remains Phalanx.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given two T23s have or are being decommissioned and numerous MCMs have also gone, a short term solution surely has to be to move the 30mms.
”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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

I would think that the B1 Rivers/ Echo would get recycled DS30B mounts, rather than the DS30Ms off the T23s - they will likely go to the T26s as they come on line (and maybe the T45s will get some). Presumably the Oerlikon-based Bs will eventually go out of service in favour of the Bushmaster-based Ms, but I should think they still have a lot of life in them and would be useful as self-defence weapons on auxiliaries and the like.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The B1's would more than likely be OK with 4 x 12.7mm HMG's and a hand full of Hero-120's . Any 30mm's need to go to the RFA's

What I would like to see the RN end up with is 12.7 mm , 40mm , 57mm & 127mm like so

Type 83 = 1 x 57mm , 4 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm
Type 26 = 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm
type 31 = 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm 4 x 12.7mm
Type 32 = 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 4 x 127mm
RB2's = 1 x 57mm , 4 x 12.7mm
MHC's = 1 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

The RN acquired 72 DS30Bs and (so far) 38 DS30Ms, so we have plenty of the former for use on auxiliaries (2 on each existing vessel would be 22 systems, with maybe another 18-20 reserved for future vessels), with some left over for the B1 OPVs (though they probably don't need much more than a single 12.7 in a stabilised mount).

That would leave us with around 25-30 DS30B systems without a home. As there are some H&S concerns (mainly hearing damage) over the DS30B, they may well be removed from service (or possibly retained as emergency reserve, for bolting onto RFA and STUFT vessels - hopefully the same happens with the GAM-B01 systems and Phalanx, once it is withdrawn from RN service, but I won't hold my breath).

The T26s and carriers will take 24 of the DS30Ms, leaving 12 without a home. Ten could be used to upgrade the T45s to DS30M, leaving a couple of spare systems (presumably guns will occasionally have to be rotated for deep maintenance).

The only concern I have about the DS30M is that maximum range is considerably less than the DS30B (4km vs 10km), but that is compensated by greater accuracy and the ability to upgrade them to 40mm if need be.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Caribbean wrote: 30 Jul 2022, 11:33 The RN acquired 72 DS30Bs and (so far) 38 DS30Ms, so we have plenty of the former for use on auxiliaries (2 on each existing vessel would be 22 systems, with maybe another 18-20 reserved for future vessels), with some left over for the B1 OPVs (though they probably don't need much more than a single 12.7 in a stabilised mount).

That would leave us with around 25-30 DS30B systems without a home. As there are some H&S concerns (mainly hearing damage) over the DS30B, they may well be removed from service (or possibly retained as emergency reserve, for bolting onto RFA and STUFT vessels - hopefully the same happens with the GAM-B01 systems and Phalanx, once it is withdrawn from RN service, but I won't hold my breath).

The T26s and carriers will take 24 of the DS30Ms, leaving 12 without a home. Ten could be used to upgrade the T45s to DS30M, leaving a couple of spare systems (presumably guns will occasionally have to be rotated for deep maintenance).

The only concern I have about the DS30M is that maximum range is considerably less than the DS30B (4km vs 10km), but that is compensated by greater accuracy and the ability to upgrade them to 40mm if need be.
Intrigued by claim of 10 km range for a lightweight 30 x 173 round, at such range would thought need the proverbial luck to hit a barn door, with any breeze or wind plus normal projectile dispersion at its very low resultant terminal velocity at 10k range. The Mk 44 Bushmaster gun has a theoretical rpm of ~200, did see mention once max burst was 18 rounds otherwise you would burn the barrel out very quickly.

The USN picked the 57mm L3Harris AlaMO in preference to the BAE ORCA for their anti-boghammer guided round, L3Harriis rep did quote max effective range of 10 km for the 57 mm round, ref now deleted.

PS 30 mm projectile <1 lbs / 57 mm projectiles 5-6 lbs

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Sorry - should have specified - those were maximum ballistic range. Effective range is said to be 2.75km for the Oerlikon and 2km for the Bushmaster - the Oerlikon was originally an AA gun, so it can supposedly manage 650rpm vs 200 rpm for the Bushmaster. The Bushmaster is however considered more effective against smaller, slower, manoeuvring targets, whereas the effectiveness of a 30mm AA gun against modern fast jets and missiles is questionable, so the target set of the 30mm has changed.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So just been looking at the UVision Hero Multi Launcher system which can take the Hero 400 which has a 120+ km range and 2 hour loiter time. And I thinking this could give both the River B2's & Type 31's a cheap OTH strike capability

Post Reply