Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I think you need to look at type 31 as a highly productionised design that lends itself to quick build and improved thru life maintenance, with the ability to be configured with uk developed systems and complex weapons thru life for any of the roles we need. Rather than the bespoke prototypes we usually attempt to build.

Not sure why you’d go for anything above 57mm for the main gun from here onward.

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: 16 Jan 2022, 19:09 I think you lead to look at type 31 as a highly productionised design that lends itself to quick build and improved thru life maintenance, with the ability to be configured with uk developed systems and complex weapons thru life for any of the roles we need. Rather than the usual bespoke prototypes we usually attempt to build.

Not sure why you’d go for anything above 57mm for the main gun from here onward.
Agree = on the first point - it looks like a good base hull.

Why use only 57mm main gun from here onwards? For the T26 we switched from the 4.5" gun that RN used for years to the 5.0" that USN and most of our allies use.

The Bofors 57mm gun is shown as having a range of 17,000m. Whereas the 5-inch 62 calibre Mark 45 Mod 4 gun is hsown as having arnage of 37,000m. I realise that 57mm has a highre rate of fire. But if you have less than half the range that counts for nothing if you are being outranged?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 23:07
SW1 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 19:09 I think you lead to look at type 31 as a highly productionised design that lends itself to quick build and improved thru life maintenance, with the ability to be configured with uk developed systems and complex weapons thru life for any of the roles we need. Rather than the usual bespoke prototypes we usually attempt to build.

Not sure why you’d go for anything above 57mm for the main gun from here onward.
Agree = on the first point - it looks like a good base hull.

Why use only 57mm main gun from here onwards? For the T26 we switched from the 4.5" gun that RN used for years to the 5.0" that USN and most of our allies use.

The Bofors 57mm gun is shown as having a range of 17,000m. Whereas the 5-inch 62 calibre Mark 45 Mod 4 gun is hsown as having arnage of 37,000m. I realise that 57mm has a highre rate of fire. But if you have less than half the range that counts for nothing if you are being outranged?
No matter what gun they have, they won’t outrange an enemy’s anti ship missile systems on land or sea. The 5in is to big to stop ships you would wish to board. So I’m not sure when you’d use it.

The French have 76mm and the new US frigates all have 57mm.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 18:29 The above discussions on Isreali Sa'ar 6 class Corvettes and the various nations using the MEKO 200 Frigate are interetsing. In pretty much all cases these are being used by Reginal Powers to defend their littoral zone and where speed and firepower was more important than range and duration.

Whereas the RN is looking for the 5*T31 General Purpose Frigates to be able to advance deployed to the other side of the world. For example the T31 has an endurance of 9,000 nm = 17,000 km versus 4,000 nm =7,400 km for Sa'ar 6-class corvette and 6,000 nm =11'000 km for the MEKO 200.

However given the additional size and dsiplacement of T31, as General Purpose Frigates they should be able to be equipped with 1*127mm main gun, couple of secondary 30mm-40mm guns and couple of CIWS, plus 8* Canister ASM and 48 cell Mk41 VLS plus couple of RIB and 1-2 helicopters. Allowing for quad-packing short range AAM, there should be enough space for a vatiety of missiles, including a few land attack cruise missiles, ASROC, medium/long range AAM....

For Canister ASM on type 31, I lean to the Kongsberg NSM (discussed here a few times) on the ground of cost versus say Harppon Block II+, giving them some ASM capability whilst we await what is happening with FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti Ship Weapon).

From the above General Purpose Frigate baseline, it should be easy to specialise future ships (e.g. 5*T32's) to a more sepcialised role. If you want them to be mainly AAW give them more VLS cells and best radar, if mainly ASW then add best sonar and more ASROC missiles, if mainoy ASuW then can easily double the number of ASM's to 16 Cansisters, as some have suggested above.

But if you want them to have more capability in each on AAW/ASW/ASuW/land attack then you are moving away from 139m long & 5,700 tons to something closer to the 160m & 9,700 tons Flight III Arleigh Burke.

We need to start looking more at what T31 could be rather than what they are NOT, assuming that the RN does as soon a possible uparm them from the currently underarmed version proposed by Babcocks....

Yes the Isreali Sa'ar 6 class Corvettes may have more wearpons than the T31 COULD have, but the RN does nt need Isreali Sa'ar 6 class Corvettes, assuming we don't spectacularly fall out with Norway in the immediate future!!
Firstly type 31 can be fitted with a 127mm but we went with the 57mm as it is a better self defence weapon but for me I would say the base line frigate should be type 31 fitted with 1 x57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 Mk-41 cells , 8 x NSM this could allow the ship to carry 32 CAMM and 16 other weapons or 64 CAMM and 8 other weapons plus the 8 NSM. So a normal peace time GP load out could be 32 CAMM and 8 x NSM allowing good defence and surface / land attack out to 185 km or a Carrier escort load out could be 64 CAMM , 8 ASROC and 8 NSM or it could carry 32 CAMM and 16 Tomahawk V plus NSM to give it a regional attack capability all plus its Wildcat

Next form this Base line I would say type 32 based on Type 31 should be a more focused LRG escort and be fitted with 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x Mk-41 , 16 NSM plus be fitted with Palfinger system under the flight deck to allow 3 x 11m MCM/ ASW USV's and 4 x 9.5 mm ribs this could allow the ship to carry 64 CAMM , 32 VL Spear 3 , 16 NSM plus give NGFS using the 127mm out to 90 km

Using the old RN thing of two ships together like the type 22/42 to make a type 64 we could do the same here with type 31/32 to make a type 63 the two ships together could carry 128 CAMM , 64 Spear 3 , 24 NSM , 2 x Wildcats with 40 LMM plus MCM/ASW support
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Digger22

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 08:02 No matter what gun they have, they won’t outrange an enemy’s anti ship missile systems on land or sea. The 5in is to big to stop ships you would wish to board. So I’m not sure when you’d use it.
As a general aside, it will be interesting to see how hypervelocity projectiles (HVPs) evolve this discussion.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... n-failure/
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I understand that many of the heavily armed Corvettes in service today are mainly aimed at protecting their country's littoral EEZ, and sacrifice range etc. to do so where as the T-31 is a Global patrol ship, but that is where the problem lies. What sort of vessels are going to be operating in many of the areas the T-31 is going to be operating in? The answer, the heavily armed Corvettes that have been discussed. If the T-31 is to have any deterrence value it must be able to face down such vessels, otherwise the RN will be a bit of a laughing stock if it has to withdraw every time a T-31 is challenged.

If that is going to be our plan to avoid confrontation, we might as well just continue to use the B2 Rivers or simply not even bother. Things won't be much better if operating with allies as they will see the T-31 as a PR vessel that has little to add to any Task Grouping bar the White Ensign it will be flying. I am starting to believe we should bypass the T-31 and go straight to the T-32, with the Escort fleet not increasing in size until the possible introduction of the T-83, or sooner in the form of a B3 River class or a second batch of T-32s. In exchange the T-31s being built would have a greater capability through the introduction of two or more Mk41 VLS, the ExLS system for Sea Ceptor and an interim AShM that would be canister mounter to begin with. These five improved T-31s would give the RN a decent 2nd Rate Escort, even more so if it was given a tail.

I wonder what the response of the RN would be if they were told that the ship building plan had been changed from five T-31 and five T-31, to 5 more capable T-31 and up to five B3 Rivers more capable and suitable for overseas use and which would replace the B1s and increase the OPV fleet to ten.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
RepulseNickC

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

This why I think type 31 should get 24 Mk-41 cells plus 8 NSM to allow

32 CAMM , 8 NSM
32 CAMM , 64 VL spear , 8 NSM
64 CAMM , 32 VL spear , 8 NSM
32 CAMM , 32 CAMM RE , 32 SPEAR , 8 NSM
64 CAMM , 8 ASROC , 8 NSM
32 CAMM , 16 Tomahawk V , 8 NSM

And on and on all of these load outs would be powerful load outs

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 11:53 What sort of vessels are going to be operating in many of the areas the T-31 is going to be operating in? The answer, the heavily armed Corvettes that have been discussed. If the T-31 is to have any deterrence value it must be able to face down such vessels, otherwise the RN will be a bit of a laughing stock if it has to withdraw every time a T-31 is challenged.

If that is going to be our plan to avoid confrontation, we might as well just continue to use the B2 Rivers or simply not even bother.
It's been my view for a while that given the proliferation of weaponry / capabilities and more complex geopolitics with multiple global and regional players with differing interests, the days of singleton gunship deployments are over. Even when integrated with allied nations, there are few international structures that can now be guaranteed to remain resolute / united in the face of aggression. NATO is one of the best, but even that is showing concerning wobbles when facing Russia.

Probably the most reliable is the UK is integration with US, Australian and Canadian allies, but Afghanistan reminded us that the US will always seek to protect it's interests first.

In a naval sense the real power projection for the Royal Navy will be both CSGs and SSNs, plus in a more limited sense the FCF and LRGs.

There is no point having a tier two T31 trying to flex it's muscles when everyone can see it has no substance, as you say it's just humiliation. In the new world even a T26 will be limited in what it can do and the effect it can have by itself.

Having said that forward presence has value and this is where the Rivers, Protectors and Echoes come into their own. They are not offensive ships, but they can build relationships with local navies and deliver a surveillance capability.
Lord Jim wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 11:53 I am starting to believe we should bypass the T-31 and go straight to the T-32, with the Escort fleet not increasing in size until the possible introduction of the T-83, or sooner in the form of a B3 River class or a second batch of T-32s. In exchange the T-31s being built would have a greater capability through the introduction of two or more Mk41 VLS, the ExLS system for Sea Ceptor and an interim AShM that would be canister mounter to begin with. These five improved T-31s would give the RN a decent 2nd Rate Escort, even more so if it was given a tail.
Asking how the T31 can be configured to support the CSGs, and reduce the reliance of the T26s (some of which are really needed in the North Atlantic) is the right question. Yes, a LRG escort role has some merit, but again would you really want to put a LRG in harms way without the support of a CSG?
Lord Jim wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 11:53 I wonder what the response of the RN would be if they were told that the ship building plan had been changed from five T-31 and five T-31, to 5 more capable T-31 and up to five B3 Rivers more capable and suitable for overseas use and which would replace the B1s and increase the OPV fleet to ten.
I get a sense that this is pretty close to the discussion currently going on internally within the RN.

Being hard nosed, with the surface fleet focus on the two CSGs, sea control of the North Atlantic and low end forward presence I would be focusing on the following core major surface fleet for early 2030s:

2 x Carriers
6 x T45s
8 x T26s
6 x T31s fully kitted with ASW capability
9 x Rivers (a batch of 4 B3s that are evolved B2 platforms with increased self defence)
6 x Ice-strengthened Multi Role Ocean Surveillance Ships (including HMS Protector but replacing the Echoes) able to also operate MCM modules
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

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 »

If you need T31/32 up-armed to counter Russina, why not just add more T26?

How about another 8 of them, to make it a fleet of 16? I'm sure it will not cost £8Bn (in 2022 value), but more like <£6Bn, considering learning curve and scale merit? SSK/SSN threat is non-negligible if Russia/China is considered. Even with CAPTAS4CI added, T31 will not play a good game against modern SSK/SSNs. Actually, this is the reason RN built T26, and Australia and Canada bought them?

T31-like hull is good when the enemy level is LOWER than Russia/China, and I do think this is the case (for example, there is no reason Iran will stop harrassing around the Gulf, when UK/US/NATO happen to confront Russia/China.). In that case, "what kind of enemy?" "what kind of threat?" must be defined before discussing up-arming T31/32, I guess?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 23:07
SW1 wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 19:09 I think you lead to look at type 31 as a highly productionised design that lends itself to quick build and improved thru life maintenance, with the ability to be configured with uk developed systems and complex weapons thru life for any of the roles we need. Rather than the usual bespoke prototypes we usually attempt to build.

Not sure why you’d go for anything above 57mm for the main gun from here onward.
Agree = on the first point - it looks like a good base hull.

Why use only 57mm main gun from here onwards? For the T26 we switched from the 4.5" gun that RN used for years to the 5.0" that USN and most of our allies use.

The Bofors 57mm gun is shown as having a range of 17,000m. Whereas the 5-inch 62 calibre Mark 45 Mod 4 gun is hsown as having arnage of 37,000m. I realise that 57mm has a highre rate of fire. But if you have less than half the range that counts for nothing if you are being outranged?
Would note ranges you quote are the theoretical max ranges, effective max ranges much lower, L3Harris rep mentioned the 57mm ALaMO round range 10,000 m/5.4 nm (source now taken down) and a BAE Inc rep at SAS 2019 quoted 13 nm/24,000m for the Mk 45 Mod 4.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Repulse wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 10:38 As a general aside, it will be interesting to see how hypervelocity projectiles (HVPs) evolve this discussion.
The HVP program was cancelled in 2021

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 14:27 If you need T31/32 up-armed to counter Russina, why not just add more T26?

How about another 8 of them, to make it a fleet of 16? I'm sure it will not cost £8Bn (in 2022 value), but more like <£6Bn, considering learning curve and scale merit? SSK/SSN threat is non-negligible if Russia/China is considered. Even with CAPTAS4CI added, T31 will not play a good game against modern SSK/SSNs. Actually, this is the reason RN built T26, and Australia and Canada bought them?

T31-like hull is good when the enemy level is LOWER than Russia/China, and I do think this is the case (for example, there is no reason Iran will stop harrassing around the Gulf, when UK/US/NATO happen to confront Russia/China.). In that case, "what kind of enemy?" "what kind of threat?" must be defined before discussing up-arming T31/32, I guess?
A fundamental basic that when it comes to war the numbers of ships are of critical importance and the way to achieve that is to keep size and cost to the practical minimum, the T26 is just too big and too expensive even if BAE could bring cost down ~£800 million/£1 billion each
Nothing wrong with the T31 hull compared to the T26, what T26 does bring with it is its quiet hull for ASW, but why oh why does it need to be a near max 10,000t ship twice the size of a T23 and the equivalent to a WWII heavy cruiser.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 14:27 If you need T31/32 up-armed to counter Russina, why not just add more T26? ... Even with CAPTAS4CI added, T31 will not play a good game against modern SSK/SSNs. Actually, this is the reason RN built T26, and Australia and Canada bought them?
I would add more T26s, and maybe there is scope for a couple more, but;
a) it's too late, the T31 contract is already signed
b) we've fallen into the same trap as submarine building, you can't expand the fleet easily without impacting follow on programmes (in this case the T45 replacement).

I agree the T31 + CAPTAS4CI isn't a tier one ASW escort, but in peacetime alongside other relatively noisy platforms and normally a super quiet SSN around does it matter? In wartime, I'd expect a couple of T26s to be added to the group anyway.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 14:27 T31-like hull is good when the enemy level is LOWER than Russia/China...
But this is my problem - most other conflicts are likely to be with either nations directly backed by Russia or China, or with weapons and capabilities supplied by them. We shouldn't be building a fleet for the quickly vanishing space between high end warfighting and low end constabulary and surveillance.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Jensy
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

NickC wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 15:34
Repulse wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 10:38 As a general aside, it will be interesting to see how hypervelocity projectiles (HVPs) evolve this discussion.
The HVP program was cancelled in 2021
Bugger - thanks for the update
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Getting any high end Escort for less then or equal to £1Bn is about the going rate these days, and even then you won't get everything you want. The RN is going to have to work out some tough scenarios in teh near future, like can if afford highly specialist Warships like the T-26 which became a specialist ASW platform with some multi role capabilities added on. The T-45 was designed as a AAWW assets and nothing more, and the removal of its Harpoon only strengthens this argument.

The T-31 and T-32 are going to be Tier 2 multi role assets and the latter at least will be able to operate with the Tier 1 Escorts especially if CEC is purchased and the T-32 is used more as a Missile boat with at least sixteen long ranged AShMs on board. But what of the T-83 or successor to the T-26. We certainly cannot afford the same production gap as exists between the last T-23 being launched and the first T-26 hitting the water. One thing is absolutely certain and that is without an increase in the funding for the RN and shipbuilding the RN will not expand as teh Government constantly go on about. The T-31s as planned are only good for peace time and peace keeping operations, and will be of little value in a Tier 1 conflict and will not do much better against lesser opponents.

WE need to set up a "Drumbeat" of smaller classes to maintain a flow of new escorts entering service at the same time as the eldest serving leave. The RN need to work out how many Escorts it needs to meet all its tasks, the bare minimum to do those only a high end escort an as well as those carried out by Tier 2 vessels and long range OPVs. The production schedule should then be built around these timeframes. THis should also be broken down into classes of four or five vessels, with sometimes being a new design and others an improvement of an existing design.

Turning back to the T-83, can the RN afford to have a bespoke AAW specific vessel moving forward? I think not and this is where the new money will be needed as well as providing upgrades to the T-31/32 and even the T-26. The Rn has a chance to get a "Drumbeat on track if the T-83 turns out to be a T-26 with a greater AAW capability and s a class of four. This is due to the Mk41s installed, allowing the T-26 and T-82 to use any member of the US Standard family. As a result whilst the six T-45 would initally be replaced by only four T-83, the eight T-26 could also be upgraded to act as, arbeit less capable AAW platform in addition to their ASW duties by also carrying SM-6 say. This train of thought could be extended to the T-32 and its Mk41 VLS if the RN procured a fleet wide CEC.

AS a drumbeat would no be in effect the next four Escorts would immediately follow the T-83s and hear we could see an increase in fleet size or these could be a second batch or T-83 replacing the T-32s. Anyhow just a few ideas to get people thinking.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So the US Constellation class will be fitted with 1 x 57mm , 32 VLS , 16 NSM , 22 RAM plus HGM's

With this in mind if type 31 was fitted with 24 Mk-41 and 8 NSM it would have 1 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS , 8 NSM plus HGM's and for me be a good global patrol frigate

For me we need 10 x type 26 and 10 x type 31 as laid out above it is also important that type 83 is kept in check and we end up with 8 ship and I would say that they should end up 165 meters by 22 meters with 80 VLS given that type 45 could and should be fitted with 64 VLS

I also think we will see this with both BAE and Babcock building new escort halls they are gearing up to build more ships

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 21:42 Getting any high end Escort for less then or equal to £1Bn is about the going rate these days, and even then you won't get everything you want. The RN is going to have to work out some tough scenarios in teh near future, like can if afford highly specialist Warships like the T-26 which became a specialist ASW platform with some multi role capabilities added on. The T-45 was designed as a AAWW assets and nothing more, and the removal of its Harpoon only strengthens this argument.
If you don't mind me saying that claiming a high end escort will cost minimum £1 billion is nonsense we need to set our sights higher for lower cost high end escorts, a couple of examples, even in the US the 7,400t Constellation for third ship costed at $1 billion, that's ~£730 million and costs will drop by 5th/6th ship. If you look at Japan which still has a very successful shipbuilding industry the costs even lower, the new 5,500t Mogami class frigates ~$480 million, that's £350 million. Must add figures must be treated with a degree of caution, perhaps Donald-san can confirm Mogami costs.

Both the above frigates are multi-function with AShMs, including medium range AA missiles, not like the T26 with just with its CIWS Sea Ceptors, state of the art GaN radars etc would add that Constellation primarily ASW frigate with its quiet hybrid propulsion as T26.

For AAW ships you have to look no farther than the Iver Huitfeldt class, three ships for $1 billion, ~ £250 million each, understand we would not be able to meet those figures from 10 years ago today, the hulls built in eastern Europe when prices much lower etc, but it does give an indication that you could build tier 1 escorts for substantially less than £1 billion.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

We hear a lot about distributing operations so that taking out one asset doesn’t allow all the cards to fall down. Yet when designing the next ship comes along they are bigger more exquisite, ruinously expensive ordered in ever few numbers as a result. Essential our very own disarmament strategy.

So maybe more constellation class type fits over a wider number of platforms than grouping everything into one big expensive ship. At the very least moving away from specialists to platform agnostic systems..

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 12:19 We hear a lot about distributing operations so that taking out one asset doesn’t allow all the cards to fall down. Yet when designing the next ship comes along they are bigger more exquisite, ruinously expensive ordered in ever few numbers as a result. Essential our very own disarmament strategy.

So maybe more constellation class type fits over a wider number of platforms than grouping everything into one big expensive ship. At the very least moving away from specialists to platform agnostic systems..
So lets take a Type 31 and fit 32 VLS , 8 x NSM and fit a tail will it as good as a type 26 no but lets say we built 12 of them and grouped 3 of them together in a hot spot and filled the VLS with 32 CAMM , 32 CAMM ER , 16 Tomahawk V this could give a squadron of 3 ships an armament of 96 CAMM , 96 CAMM ER , 48 Tomahawk V , 24 NSM plus 3 57mm , 6 40mm and 3 Wildcat plus there weapons. That is a lot of strike power over a great area in anyone's book
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SW1

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 »

Repulse wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 16:32 I would add more T26s, and maybe there is scope for a couple more, but;
a) it's too late, the T31 contract is already signed
b) we've fallen into the same trap as submarine building, you can't expand the fleet easily without impacting follow on programmes (in this case the T45 replacement).

I agree the T31 + CAPTAS4CI isn't a tier one ASW escort, but in peacetime alongside other relatively noisy platforms and normally a super quiet SSN around does it matter? In wartime, I'd expect a couple of T26s to be added to the group anyway.
Thanks.

Why adding T26 is too late? The production is on-going, and adding is very easy. Just a mater of money.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 14:27 T31-like hull is good when the enemy level is LOWER than Russia/China...
But this is my problem - most other conflicts are likely to be with either nations directly backed by Russia or China, or with weapons and capabilities supplied by them. We shouldn't be building a fleet for the quickly vanishing space between high end warfighting and low end constabulary and surveillance.
I do not agree here.

First of all, anti-ship ballistic missile, and hypersonic missiles are really really deadly expensive. Yes, Iran might get some, but in place of sinking a T31, Iran will be hit by several dozens of TLAM, LRASM and others. Iran cannot stop it. And note that Iran is a big nation, much bigger than Argentina in 1981.

Subsonic ASM, or suicide drones are the main threat in the theater, and these can be well handled by T31. Hoiti-Rebels or other militia, which is the main player in the region, cannot handle high-end missiles, because it can be easily "stolen" by special forces of USA, UK and France. And, when UK/US/NATO is fighting with higher threats, Hoiti-Rebels will be there, and keep doing nasty things. Thus, T31 lightly armed as is now, will be needed.

This is my point.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 21:42 ... WE need to set up a "Drumbeat" of smaller classes to maintain a flow of new escorts entering service at the same time as the eldest serving leave. The RN need to work out how many Escorts it needs to meet all its tasks, the bare minimum to do those only a high end escort an as well as those carried out by Tier 2 vessels and long range OPVs. The production schedule should then be built around these timeframes. THis should also be broken down into classes of four or five vessels, with sometimes being a new design and others an improvement of an existing design.
Agree. T31 is a class of drumbeat building line of "something" with £300M a piece price.

Significantly up-arming T31/T32 will make it too near to T26 drumbeat, which is now "£800M-1Bn a piece" and with increased number, can be "£700-800 a piece".

I understand people hoping to up-arm T31, funny to discuss. But when it goes too high, it reminds me there are another drumbeat building line of T26. No doubt, it will be efficient to increase the number of hulls in each building line, than establishing second building line with a similar aim. It is meaningless = huge waste of money.

T30-series build line has its own rationale only when it is a "£300-400M ave" building line, I think.

Of course, I think T31 even with current armament has a good place to live if it is only 5 hulls. Increase of threat in Russia and China does not mean decrease of current low-level treat players. T31 can be there, contribute a lot.

If similar lower-level threat is increasing, UK must buy more T31 or T32 or alike. But, if something high-end is needed, it shall better be T26 or its sisters. This is my thought.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Dobbo

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

it is interesting I reckon if we built 10 type 31's and replaced the CAMM mushroom with 32 Mk-41 cells and 8 x NSM we could could get them for 500 million per ship were I really don't see type 26 falling below 750 to 800 million however as I said with both BAE and Babcock building new escort halls my money is on 2 more T-26's before moving on to T-83 and 5 -8 more T-31/32 with thing really turning hot now both builders will need to turn out ships quicker

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 13:58 Why adding T26 is too late?


Because in the world of finite budgets the money has already been spent (wasted) on the T31.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 13:58 I do not agree here.

First of all, anti-ship ballistic missile, and hypersonic missiles are really really deadly expensive. Yes, Iran might get some, but in place of sinking a T31, Iran will be hit by several dozens of TLAM, LRASM and others. Iran cannot stop it. And note that Iran is a big nation, much bigger than Argentina in 1981.

Subsonic ASM, or suicide drones are the main threat in the theater, and these can be well handled by T31. Hoiti-Rebels or other militia, which is the main player in the region, cannot handle high-end missiles, because it can be easily "stolen" by special forces of USA, UK and France. And, when UK/US/NATO is fighting with higher threats, Hoiti-Rebels will be there, and keep doing nasty things. Thus, T31 lightly armed as is now, will be needed.

This is my point.
Technology is moving at a terrifying rate - a few years ago drones were the trappings of only top tier countries, now even AK47 touting terrorists have them. Also, with a multi-player "warm" (if not "hot") war becoming more of a reality richer / more capable countries will be open to trade these capabilities to extend influence and regional control. Let's face it we've been doing it for centuries - latest is giving the Ukraine the latest in anti-tank weaponry.

Don't get me wrong, not everything needs to be a Rolls-Royce, but everything needs to match a requirement with an associated threat level. I think the days of colonial gunships with an easy technical advantage over the natives is a thing of the past.
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 15:09
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 13:58 Why adding T26 is too late?
Because in the world of finite budgets the money has already been spent (wasted) on the T31.
?? Again, as T26 build line is there, UK can add some anytime. T31 line can do anything other. MRSS, OPV, Point replacement, Wave replacement etc... No loss there?
Technology is moving at a terrifying rate - a few years ago drones were the trappings of only top tier countries, now even AK47 touting terrorists have them. Also, with a multi-player "warm" (if not "hot") war becoming more of a reality richer / more capable countries will be open to trade these capabilities to extend influence and regional control. Let's face it we've been doing it for centuries - latest is giving the Ukraine the latest in anti-tank weaponry.

Don't get me wrong, not everything needs to be a Rolls-Royce, but everything needs to match a requirement with an associated threat level. I think the days of colonial gunships with an easy technical advantage over the natives is a thing of the past.
No objection technology is moving. My point is, T31 is exactly the ship to counter these threats.

First of all, "fast and heavy" is always expensive, regardless of technology, because it is physics and not technology.

Drones are "slow and light-weight, but hence cheap and numerous". And T31's armament is exactly designed to counter them: 57mm 3P+ALaMO, two 40 mm 3P, with some 12 CAMM for high-end ASM.

T31 is far from "colonial gunships".

For me, "(outdated) colonial gunships" is a ship with 127mm gun (useless against these new threats) heavily armed with NSM or even TLAM or alike (almost useless against these new threats). I do agree land attack missile is needed, but why on T31? It is not to counter these "new threats".

Too much up-arming of T31/32 will increase their cost and maintenance-load, and hence reduce its hull number and sea-going days. This move will make T31/32 less capable to handle these "new threats from emerging technologies"?

These "new threats" will be there, at the same time with "Russia and China".

So, "T31 as-is" is needed, at the same time RN need "more T26 or alike".

What's wrong here :?:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 15:21 Again, as T26 build line is there, UK can add some anytime. T31 line can do anything other. MRSS, OPV, Point replacement, Wave replacement etc... No loss there?
Because whilst the build line is there, the money is not.

You could argue that the T32 budget can be repurposed for the late 2020s / early 2030s, so we can swap in 2-3 more T26s but what requirement will not be met. My other point is that the production line has been based on a 20 month drumbeat - slotting in even one more for delivery between 2029 and mid 2038 would mean a drumbeat of 16 months, and three more would be almost an annual drumbeat. Given the lack of investment into a Frigate Factory I can't see this happening - so the alternative is to extend the production window into the late 2030s delaying the T83.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 15:21 ...
My point is, T31 is exactly the ship to counter these threats.
...
These "new threats" will be there, at the same time with "Russia and China".

So, "T31 as-is" is needed, at the same time RN need "more T26 or alike".

What's wrong here :?:
A 57mm (plus potentially other defensive weapons) would allow a B2 River to tackle terrorist level UAVs. I would see this in the constabulary threat level (in hindsight my example wasn't great).

However, my point is different. If the budget was increased then I would have no problem with the T31. But in a time of very limited funds, but a clear and present danger from "superpowers" (either directly or indirectly) then we need to focus as much of our resources on platforms that can fight a hot war - this is both channeling funds into high end capabilities, but also having platforms (e.g. Rivers + MROSSs) to do the low level activities to ensure the high end ones are free when needed.

It's great that the T31 can effectively tackle a fast boat swarm or UAV threat, but what next. For example, the proliferation of submarines is increasing - Myanmar for example has just got it's second from China. Would you be happy to operate a T31 near Myanmar?

I do not see the need for a platform that is somehow in the middle, an expensive constabulary vessel, but a liability in a hot war. Also, I do not think the RN (or any navy) think they can start or participate in a conflict without the real possibility that the enemy will have access to at least some level of tier-one capabilities - you go in with your A-team, in the RN's case the CSG + SSNs.
”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

Post Reply