Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote:
BB85 wrote:Rosyth would certainly make sense as the best place to build the SSS and MRSS if space is not an issue but I think politics will still play the decoding factor even if it is the riskier option and the contract will be awarded to H&W as part of this UK wide ship building strategy. I doubt any locals will even work on the ships it will all be contractors from Spain and Scotland which is why building them in Rosyth makes much more sense.
How many Eastern Europe contractors are in the Clyde or Rosyth shipyards I wonder..
There was a story / rumour a little while back about 700 Romanians on short term contracts supporting the carrier build...mind you they probably speak better English than the Scousers ;-)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

There we are then keep the Eastern Europeans on and find some more and build Type 31 in the frigate shed and the SSS out side in the Carrier dock this will mean the carriers will need to go to H&W for dry docking

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The word "Exquisite", leaves me thinking the idea will be to make the T-83 the best AAW/ABM platform it can be, whilst building no fewer then six to avoid reducing the escort fleet.
When type 45 leaves service it will have 48 VLS and 24 CAMM and it will have to be capable of ABM. If the Radar / Missile system is not capable of ABM at the point type 45 goes then type 83 will need the off the shelf US system

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

I could see that being the way to go, and there could be an AUKUS synergy if the Aussies feel they need a top of the line AAW destroyer.

The issue will be how to get work share and tech transfer if the U.K. go down the AEGIS route…

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ETH »

Tempest414 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The word "Exquisite", leaves me thinking the idea will be to make the T-83 the best AAW/ABM platform it can be, whilst building no fewer then six to avoid reducing the escort fleet.
When type 45 leaves service it will have 48 VLS and 24 CAMM and it will have to be capable of ABM. If the Radar / Missile system is not capable of ABM at the point type 45 goes then type 83 will need the off the shelf US system
The radars will be adequate. That much is certain. In fact, you could argue they already are. Lack of Aster investment is holding the Type 45s back, although there are options.

Regardless, BMD or not, Sampson and S1850M in their current states will be outdated by the time the Type 83 needs a radar. They’re already old as it is.

Not to mention going for US radars would kill the British industry.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Leonardo up in Scotland will probably be able to develop something. We could even team up with the Australians for the T-83 radar as they will be developing one for their Hobart replacement around the same time. The SPY-6 is going to be around for quite a while so it will be there as a backstop is our programme goes off the rails.

BB85
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by BB85 »

Isn't ABM a bit of a fantasy capability. If a nuclear war goes hot Russia have stated they will be launching hundreds of ballistic missiles with goodness knows how many warheads. We won't be intercepting them.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:Leonardo up in Scotland will probably be able to develop something.
Naval radar production and design is still alive, just, at BAE in Cowes on the Isle of Wight. Although it does seem to be on nearly a care and maintenance status, just refurbing Sampson and building few extra Artisans.

News on any development work is very limited, partly I suppose due to its secret nature, but more likely due to little progress due to lack of funding.

They were were working on various technologies for a Sampson replacement including, using a single cylindrical array which could be still mounted up on the mast and a X band capability.

Here is a link to a picture of a Japanese Cylindrical Array Radar made by NEC

http://alert5.com/2016/03/19/jgsdf-rada ... on-mar-28/


In retrospect it would have made more sense to keep all the radar air, land and naval activities together in one company when Finmeccanica and BAE dissolved Alenia Marconi Systems - a radar version of MBDA (Matra BAE Dynamics Aerospatiale)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

moved over from the T-31 thread

For me the T-31 is filling the capability gap between the B2's and T-26

I agree the B2's sea going days and ability to use most ports are pluses but having to use ports to replenish can be a down side to as we saw when Clyde was turned away from Brazil

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Moved also over from the "Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]" thread.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Repulse-san. T31 requirement is written in T31 RFI. It is vague, but written. Operation Research / plan of T31 is not known, I agree. Nether that of River B2 was known, until we see the two ships deployed to Indo-Pacific. Let's see.
I agree there is something in the RFI and it is vague. Nor do I expect operational requirements to be defined in detail when the obviously cannot. However, when I read the sentence in bold below and match it to a £400mn per unit budget and ongoing costs probably similar to the T23 GPs, then I really do question why. I would argue that a Wave / B2 River type combination like in the Caribbean would be a better, and cheaper, solution to the requirement.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1e_RFI.pdf
6.1 Capability Context

The T31e will be a general purpose light frigate, providing an enduring and continuous
worldwide maritime security presence in several forward operating areas, releasing other,
more complex warships to their primary roles.

The T31e will carry out various maritime interdiction tasks, such as counter drugs and
counter piracy. It will also carry out defence engagement activities, such as port visits and
official entertainment, demonstrations of military capability and participation in allied training
exercises. It must be ready to respond to emergent events, such as natural disasters or
evacuation of non-combatants and will routinely carry specialist emergency relief stores in
certain operating areas.


The T31e will usually operate as a singleton, but will often be supported by, and interoperate
with other assets from the UK and its allies, particularly NATO. However, the T31e will
maintain the UK’s freedom of action to operate independently when it chooses. The T31e
will routinely operate with civil vessels and authorities, such as the US Coastguard, HM
Border Agency and HM Revenues and Customs. On occasion it will operate with nongovernmental organisations, such as specialist disaster relief organisations.

To accomplish its tasks, the T31e will depend on organic sensors as well as deployable
assets; such as sea boats and organic aviation system(s). It will operate predominantly in
low threat conditions but will require credible offensive and defensive capabilities to deter
aggression, survive attacks and provide reassurance.

The T31e will operate year round, requiring good seakeeping for ocean transits and to allow
its helicopter and boats to operate in a wide range of sea states and conditions. It will also
operate in a variety of climates (hot, cold and humid). However, relaxation of functionality
and performance is acceptable in extremes of climate that would otherwise drive significant
additional design and cost, provided that personnel are afforded a safe working environment
at all times. Operation in the vicinity of the marginal ice zone is not required.

The T31e design will need to be adaptable, providing evolution paths for future capability to
enable growth of the destroyer and frigate numbers into the 2030s, and to address export
customers’ needs. Adaptability may include any combination of reconfigurable flexible
design (including fit-to-receive), allowance for in-life upgrades or growth through follow onbatches.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of more frigates. The problem is when the primary requirement is so wooly then it really is unclear on what is needed and therefore it is easier to fudge things like FFBNW capabilities. I would argue are real detailed requirements like "CSG Escort with active ASW capabilities" or "A forward based singleton platform capable of operating globally in potential high threat environments for extended durations". That way we can judge whether the ship can actually meet the requirement, and what's more how many we need. The discussion so far seems "we need more frigates" and "we chosen a design that must be good as a allied tier two navy uses it".
”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: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:I agree the B2's sea going days and ability to use most ports are pluses but having to use ports to replenish can be a down side to as we saw when Clyde was turned away from Brazil
True, the real value of RAS is to be able to keep a ship on station for extended periods. I would say though that is not a priority requirement especially as the B2 has an endurance of 35 days already, which could probably be extended to a degree via VERTREP. Also, I would say that the supply ships would need somewhere to restock in any case, so in the example of Brazil example I wouldn't personally see RAS as a particular benefit.
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

When the RFI came out it was clear the RN wanted more frigates but there was no money ( = Hammond in HMT ) so they took the biggest ship they could = A-140 thing have got a little better for the RN and so we are starting to see talk of Mk-41 fitted to T-31 and so on I think we will see T-31's role grow in the same way we have seen the B2's which are now starting to show promise

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I agree the B2's sea going days and ability to use most ports are pluses but having to use ports to replenish can be a down side to as we saw when Clyde was turned away from Brazil
True, the real value of RAS is to be able to keep a ship on station for extended periods. I would say though that is not a priority requirement especially as the B2 has an endurance of 35 days already, which could probably be extended to a degree via VERTREP. Also, I would say that the supply ships would need somewhere to restock in any case, so in the example of Brazil example I wouldn't personally see RAS as a particular benefit.
What we are seeing now from the likes of Canada , Australia and New Zealand is 1 or 2 frigates with a tanker deployed in the Indo- Pacific and the RN has used a B2 and Wave class in AP-N now 1 or 2 T-31 and a Wave class would be able to roam the Indo - Pacific at will

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Tempest414 wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I agree the B2's sea going days and ability to use most ports are pluses but having to use ports to replenish can be a down side to as we saw when Clyde was turned away from Brazil
True, the real value of RAS is to be able to keep a ship on station for extended periods. I would say though that is not a priority requirement especially as the B2 has an endurance of 35 days already, which could probably be extended to a degree via VERTREP. Also, I would say that the supply ships would need somewhere to restock in any case, so in the example of Brazil example I wouldn't personally see RAS as a particular benefit.
What we are seeing now from the likes of Canada , Australia and New Zealand is 1 or 2 frigates with a tanker deployed in the Indo- Pacific and the RN has used a B2 and Wave class in AP-N now 1 or 2 T-31 and a Wave class would be able to roam the Indo - Pacific at will
Quite - and one or two T31 (or T32) with MK41 and a future SSM (which could be hypersonic and have a range of 1,000km) could be quite problematic for any potential adversary…

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

BB85 wrote:Isn't ABM a bit of a fantasy capability. If a nuclear war goes hot Russia have stated they will be launching hundreds of ballistic missiles with goodness knows how many warheads. We won't be intercepting them.
ABM is aimed at anti ship ballistic missiles, and possibly the odd rogue launch (say from North Korea).

The defence to the scenario you set out is provided by Trident via mutually assured destruction.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes there is talk now of the T-31 being FFBNW one or more MK41 VLS, but like with the T-26 the only thing that appears to be going into them is the FC/ASW but how safe is that programme, and it won't deliver anything until the 2030s. We ween to have disregarded the ExLS system in preference of the less dense 2x3 Mushroom launchers so we won't be quad packing any CAMM into any of those MK41 cells either. With the T-31 we have spent £4M per hull on a platform that can chase pirates or wave the flag. How much should the B2s have cost? Yes the T-31 has a greater capability in more larger guns and twelve CAMM, but operating as a singleton its ROE vs anything above a Pirate or IRG motorboat will, like the B3 River, have it redeploying in the opposite direction repeatedly calling for help in the process.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:redeploying in the opposite direction repeatedly calling for help in the process.
Well, if their opponents think the same, they are probably in for a bit of a shock :shock:

Seriously, we don't know what the final armaments and sensors will be, we have a decent idea of what is planned for the initial build, but the signs are that the RN has now got a bit more money to play with, so Mk 41 and VL systems seem to have edged out an interim tube-launched ASuW missile with land-attack capabilities (£250m saved on the Interim missile seems like an adequate budget for quite a few 8-tube VLS modules (say 20 modules at $4-5m each?) and integration costs (with the stuff to put in them coming out of future budgets, once the ships are in the water).

Might even be enough in there for a 5 x 5" guns ($15-20m each, maybe), which would leave us with either five 40mm or five 57mm without a home.

RB2s, mutter, NGFS, mutter, upgunning, mutter, mutter
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ETH »

tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Leonardo up in Scotland will probably be able to develop something.
Although it does seem to be on nearly a care and maintenance status, just refurbing Sampson and building few extra Artisans.

News on any development work is very limited, partly I suppose due to its secret nature, but more likely due to little progress due to lack of funding.
Work at Cowes isn't just refurbishment. Upgrades for Sampson and Artisan have been in the works for years, as has their experimental pet project ARTIST.

And there's also the new Commander they're working on there, of which naval applications are being explored.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote: the signs are that the RN has now got a bit more money to play with, so Mk 41 and VL systems seem to have edged out an interim tube-launched ASuW missile with land-attack capabilities
I hope you are right and we are starting the head away from a adding a patch... on the previous patch
- rather, heading towards some sustainable path that also includes standardisation
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)

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

ETH wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Leonardo up in Scotland will probably be able to develop something.
Although it does seem to be on nearly a care and maintenance status, just refurbing Sampson and building few extra Artisans.

News on any development work is very limited, partly I suppose due to its secret nature, but more likely due to little progress due to lack of funding.
Work at Cowes isn't just refurbishment. Upgrades for Sampson and Artisan have been in the works for years, as has their experimental pet project ARTIST.

And there's also the new Commander they're working on there, of which naval applications are being explored.
Well that's good to hear I suppose, they were experimenting with ARTIST 10 years ago, it would be nice to see some solid progress with new radars or upgrades in production.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:1 or 2 T-31 and a Wave class would be able to roam the Indo - Pacific at will
It would but with a little more investment it could provide a pretty major strategic headache for any unfriendly aggressor.

Two T31’s embarking up to 4 Wildcats adds up to a very potent surface strike force.

If the Wave had a 50t deck crane fitted then deploying XLUUV’s becomes a possibility.

What utility could the RB2’s have in such a group?

Lots of options for a poor-man’s strike group in the Indo-Pacific whilst the CSG is elsewhere.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

I just had a look at the BAE website, to see if they were up to anything new and interestingly, sometime in the last few months, they have added publicity material for 3 versions of the AWS radar and three versions of Artisan

It looks as if the AWS is aimed at gun-equipped boats and Artisan, as we know, is for missile-equipped boats. The AWS radars use Artisan/ Sampson technology. Weights are for antenna, turning unit and stabilisation platform

AWS-10L is for smaller OPVs, MCMs etc - 2D, weighs 250 kg, 180km range, up to 800 tracks
AWS-10 is for larger OPV - 2D, weighs 800 Kg, 180km range, up to 800 tracks
AWS-30 for larger auxiliaries, same as AWS-10, but 3D. Currently fitted to Argus (until recently, it carried AWS-10)

All capable of giving tracks for missiles aircraft and helicopters (they seem to be primarily navigation/ surface search/ helicopter control radars, but with FPGA-based DSP), but at shorter range than the ARTISANs, by about 10-15%

Artisan 100 - 3D, detect missile at 35km and MPA at 110km, aimed at OPVs, MCM and Auxiliaries
Artisan 200 - 3D, detect missile at 45km and MPA at 135km, aimed at AD frigates (graphic looks like the T23)
Artisan 300 - 3D, detect missile at 55km and MPA at 200km, aimed at AAW frigates (graphic looks like the T26)

All have a max range of > 200km and can handle > 1000 tracks.

Their "Future Radar" page states that they are currently working on new signal-generation hardware, improved clutter reduction and "Cognitive Radar" - using AI and Machine learning to handle radar in "completely new ways"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ETH »

Good to see the Type 26s are lined up for an improved Artisan from the get go but it still looks like the same core radar. At heart a small single face rotating array compared to modern contemporaries' 4 face fixed GaN AESAs.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the Wave had a 50t deck crane fitted then deploying XLUUV’s becomes a possibility.
On such an extended tour, the submersible would need to have some kind of 'shed' for servicing... is there space for the crane AND the structure as they would obviously be quite close together?
Poiuytrewq wrote:What utility could the RB2’s have in such a group?
A good question
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:AWS-10L is for smaller OPVs, MCMs etc - 2D, weighs 250 kg, 180km range, up to 800 tracks
AWS-10 is for larger OPV - 2D, weighs 800 Kg, 180km range, up to 800 tracks
Pound for pound (kgs) you don't seem to be getting a great deal; perhaps £ for £?
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)

Post Reply