Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 08:34Given the strategy of a larger number of dispersed amphibs with smaller RM units, then I cannot see how dedicated LSG escorts really make sense. Each amphib should be capable of operating at a threat level according to the expected common requirement IMO. I personally see no issue putting a dozen or two CAMM on the amphib itself if it's required, rather than prioritise money on an amphib and escort combination.
Thanks.

CAMM? It is a local-area air defense system, which needs a good situation awareness of ~50 km sphere around the ship (say, double the CAMM range). Thus, you need good 3D radar with good CMS (with good analysis power), which means expensive. It is a modern heavy-Corvette-level armament.

As it is precious, the system must be used in many tasks (to avoid wasting money), so the ship may be even called as a 3rd-tier escort in war time (for example, as an ASM "goalkeeper" in CSG). Of course, you need good damage control on the ship, making the ship "a large T32".

It cannot happen without killing many other assets (including T32 for sure) in budget point of view.

As such, for me the LSG amphibious ship shall be lightly armed (say, up to two 57 mm 3P/ALaMo guns, at most), and a few LMM (if needed). Both are self-defense simplistic weapons, and the "arc of fire" is only several km around the ship. So you do not need good 3D radar nor CMS. Thus, it will be cheap and hence easy to maintain. For higher threat tasks, just call for escort. No problem.

This is my viewpoint.
The key as you point out is still to have the scale and ability to customise a mission group, which would include forward based Rivers up to an escorting CSG. What I have trouble with is identifying the scenario where you need more than a River, but not a CSG - to me that is like kicking a honets nest but expecting to be okay with a fly swatter.
Just call a proper level of escort force. No problem, I see here?

Putting a Marine company on land to "fight" is not a minor task, if any kind of at-sea threat is foreseeable. In that case, doing it "by your own" is not a good idea, and calling an escort is MUST, I think.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 21:24
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 17:53 The reason for picking 110 meters is two fold first BMT carried out study that concluded that a ship needed to be 107 meters or above to conduct meaningful helicopter operation. Second is we are going to need the mission bay to be 20 meters so that it can carry a helicopter plus 2 USV's otherwise we lose the flexibility of the B2 which could carry 2 x 7m ribs , 3 x 9m ribs and a UAV at the same time

Also the reason for having 4 T-31 and 4 RB-3 is to allow 3 of each to be at sea or readiness and 1 of each to be in maintenance meaning the six ships could cover East Africa , Gulf and Indo - Pacific

I would agree that the RB-3 I laid out would be Sloops but that is not a bad thing
Understand the first point. On the second it is a shame that it would take 20m extension to fit in the enclosed hangar - I would thought that could have done this by some redsign and thus need less extra length and thus cheaper price, but never mind.

These proposed River B3's would have more firepower than B2's, and more utility with enclosed hangar for operating helicopters and UAV/USV/USuV. But other than easily adding LMM's to help with anti-horde boat/drone/USV attacks, this 110m vessel would still lack missiles for AAW/ASW/ASuW.

We have discussed on River thread the possible upgrading of River B2's or building new B3's to the OPV+ and/or the OPV Max level, and I do like the idea of an ugraded B3. And I like the idea of either using smaller UK shipyards such as Appledore (and maybe Belfast) to build these smaller, less complicated warships, leaving Clyde and Rosyth to concentrate on T26/T31.

But I worry your proposed 110m River B3 costing £180m apiece, without ANY real AAW/ASW/ASuW, would be past a tipping point of cost versus utility.....
Firstly by just adding a hangar you will lose the ability to operate USV's from the ship this is shown on the Khareef class 99m ships we need to not think of it as a hangar but a full width mission space with three openings one each side 12.5m wide and one on to the flight deck this space needs to be capable of holding and operating 1 wildcat and 2 x 11m MCM / ASW USV or 4 x 9.5m USV / ORC and a Camcopter

Second as said a ship under 107m make helicopter operations limited and the hole idea of the B3 is adding a Helicopter why go to the trouble of building a ship to operate a helicopter and then limit that very capability for the want of a extra 10m

Third a RB-3 armed with 1 x 57mm , 1 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7mm would have very good anti air and anti swam for it task add to this the Wildcat which can carry 20 LMM , 4 Sea-Venom or 2 torpedoes and it would have good OTH capability as well meaning for its size and cost and crew it would have very good AAW , ASW , MCM , ASuW

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 09:33 Just call a proper level of escort force. No problem, I see here?

Putting a Marine company on land to "fight" is not a minor task, if any kind of at-sea threat is foreseeable. In that case, doing it "by your own" is not a good idea, and calling an escort is MUST, I think.
Where I think the root cause of the fundamental difference in our views comes from is our interpretation on how the future FCF will/should work. My understanding of the FCF concept will be that there will be a larger number of specialized amphibious ships (let's say 6) that are capable of acting independently and combined but in a distributed way so not to put all the eggs in one basket when operating in a high risk littoral zone. Gone are the days of the ARG concept, or even thinking that LRGs are mini ARGs.

Part of the reasoning is that they will be harder to detect, so pairing with an escort just offers a bigger target and makes the enemy job easier. If we are talking about a larger operation then the CSG comes into play, not as an "escort" as such but more of a force using air (and missile) assets to neutralize significant threats OTH and provide local air superiority. Having local air defence and ground attack (NGFS) capability would allow the amphib to operate independently and also support ground forces.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 09:33 It cannot happen without killing many other assets (including T32 for sure) in budget point of view.
That may well be what it takes - if these MRSSs are going to be forward based and in harms way then they should be RN rather than RFA ships, so I would be concerned on crew numbers in any case to support 5 T32s and 6 MRSSs. There is still an Army brigade to transport which should be the remit of the RFA logistics ships.

Overlapping with my previous comment, a fleet of 6 ASW T31s and 6 (armed) MRSSs would be a good outcome IMO. We can even call the MRSS a frigate if it helps :lol:
”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: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 12:16 Where I think the root cause of the fundamental difference in our views comes from is our interpretation on how the future FCF will/should work. My understanding of the FCF concept will be that there will be a larger number of specialized amphibious ships (let's say 6) that are capable of acting independently and combined but in a distributed way so not to put all the eggs in one basket when operating in a high risk littoral zone. Gone are the days of the ARG concept, or even thinking that LRGs are mini ARGs.
Thanks, no objection up to here.
Part of the reasoning is that they will be harder to detect, so pairing with an escort just offers a bigger target and makes the enemy job easier. ... Having local air defence and ground attack (NGFS) capability would allow the amphib to operate independently and also support ground forces.
How can that amphibious ship be "not detected"? If enemy has any at-sea defense capability as much as we need CAMM, a scan of radar can detect any ship, easily. Identifying RN ship from other merchant vessels will need some analysis power, but anyway once the ship activates its radar (need to be 3D radar, as it uses CAMM), ESM will easily identify RN ships. We are talking about a military as capable as needing CAMM to protect ourselves?

On the other hand, if the amphibious ship cannot be detected (the enemy lack proper sea surveillance capability), how can the escort (T31) be detected? Surely T31 is more stealthy than the amphibious ship? And I think most of the "independently acting cases" will reside in this level.

Yes, there are small niche like; RN is operating in very busy sea, and enemy cannot identify friend-or-foe. But, that means the amphibious ship is looking like a merchant ship, with huge radar cross section. It will "accumulate" ASM to get hit in real war?
... Overlapping with my previous comment, a fleet of 6 ASW T31s and 6 (armed) MRSSs would be a good outcome IMO. We can even call the MRSS a frigate if it helps :lol:
The MRSS as armed as a T31 with very large internal volume (helicopter hangar and boats, with accommodation for a RM company) cannot be cheaper than T31. Of course, adding CAMM for self-defensing means it is going to be used in harms way. It automatically means the ship needs so-so damage control. And, all these capabilities costs.

With the cost of "6 ASW T31s and 6 (armed) MRSSs ", I'm not surprised RN can buy 9 ASW T31s and 6 Bays. And I think the latter is better.

This is my point.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Thanks @donald-san good points and discussion.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 13:47 How can that amphibious ship be "not detected"? If enemy has any at-sea defense capability as much as we need CAMM, a scan of radar can detect any ship, easily. Identifying RN ship from other merchant vessels will need some analysis power, but anyway once the ship activates its radar (need to be 3D radar, as it uses CAMM), ESM will easily identify RN ships. We are talking about a military as capable as needing CAMM to protect ourselves?

On the other hand, if the amphibious ship cannot be detected (the enemy lack proper sea surveillance capability), how can the escort (T31) be detected? Surely T31 is more stealthy than the amphibious ship? And I think most of the "independently acting cases" will reside in this level.
To effectively escort the MRSS, the T31 would need to be sailing close and in line with it. This is not normal behavior of commercial traffic so would be easy to identify. The problems you outline in terms of ESM detecting radar activity is valid, but would also apply to the T31.

To be effective in it's role (with or without an escort) the MRSS will need to use a combination of stealth techniques (physical and electronic masking) allowing it to be undetected or to blend into other maritime traffic. There are a few options for this, but I would be looking at something more unique, combining a flexible commercial outward looking design with enhanced internal survivability enhancements (like the RN specific B2 River enhancements).

I appreciate I have a vivid mind and this may be too fantasy for some, but I have visions on something similar to the German merchant raiders of WW1/WW2 including the ability to "reconfigure" the ship silhouette and noise / electromagnetic signatures of other commercial shipping. It would be more along the lines of a Think Defence "a frigate that is not a frigate" concept, with containerized (POD) capabilities such as CAMM, NGFS, hangar space, boat storage and other mission specific kit etc. Perhaps the base design being something like a "Feeder" sized container ship or a SD Victoria style Offshore Supply Ship.

The point is that it is about securing entry into and being part of neutralizing a A2AD zone - it is not about HADR or other longer term mothership / logistic roles that require size and endurance - these would be RN ships, not RAF logistical ships.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 13:47 The MRSS as armed as a T31 with very large internal volume (helicopter hangar and boats, with accommodation for a RM company) cannot be cheaper than T31. Of course, adding CAMM for self-defensing means it is going to be used in harms way. It automatically means the ship needs so-so damage control. And, all these capabilities costs.
Yes and no, what I describe above probably isn't cheap, but equally I'm expecting the same level of damage control as a frigate. Also, if you are putting a MRSS in harms way you still have the same damage control requirement, escort or not.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 13:47 With the cost of "6 ASW T31s and 6 (armed) MRSSs ", I'm not surprised RN can buy 9 ASW T31s and 6 Bays. And I think the latter is better.

This is my point.
I see your point, but disagree.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I am hoping we can keep type 32 and MRSS apart in terms of design

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 16:04 I am hoping we can keep type 32 and MRSS apart in terms of design
I would agree, I guess the question is should the T32 be anything more than an extension of the T31 in terms of numbers.
”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: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I probably need to take this thought over to the Amphibious thread, but expanding on my earlier thoughts, perhaps one option would be for the RN to build a “grey fleet” for the FCF based on a variety of converted existing commercial ships - each capable of being kitted out with mission specific Containers/PODs. How many could be bought / converted for the same price as a couple of MRSSs?

In parallel I would then replace the 3 Bays and Argus on a one for one basis to support the deployment of an Army (or Purple) brigade under the RFA.
”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: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 16:13
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 16:04 I am hoping we can keep type 32 and MRSS apart in terms of design
I would agree, I guess the question is should the T32 be anything more than an extension of the T31 in terms of numbers.
if it is a batch 2 type 31 then as said build 3 more and 4 RB-3's or build the batch 2 type 31 with 127mm , HMS & TAS

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

If funding isn't increased I can easily see the T-32 being quietly binned and replaced by the MRSS in the order book. To compensate the T-31s would go through a refit adding what the T-32 may have brought to the party. The MRSS is core to the global stance of the UK's Armed Forces, adding five new Escorts is not. This might even allow a River B3 to make a quiet entrance using the lessons learned from the current deployments of the B2s.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyoserge750wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 08:33 Or maybe the best way to hunt a submarine is with another submarine
But then we will only have 7*SSN, with Barrow due to change focus from Astute to Dreadnought SSBN. i.e. there does nt seem to be enough time to fit in even one additional Astute.

Continuing the High / Medium Intensity warfare discussion, I have wondered whether RN should acquire 4 smaller diesel SSK to back up the Astute? Keep the 7 state of the art Astute SSN focussed on deep ocean long range High Intensity missions against Russian / Chinese and use the 4 smaller basic SSK for initial training and deployment in littoral and shallower waters for Medium Intensity missions.

But might be better to switch this to a separate discussion?
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
serge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 22:43
SW1 wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 08:33 Or maybe the best way to hunt a submarine is with another submarine
But then we will only have 7*SSN, with Barrow due to change focus from Astute to Dreadnought SSBN. i.e. there does nt seem to be enough time to fit in even one additional Astute.

Continuing the High / Medium Intensity warfare discussion, I have wondered whether RN should acquire 4 smaller diesel SSK to back up the Astute? Keep the 7 state of the art Astute SSN focussed on deep ocean long range High Intensity missions against Russian / Chinese and use the 4 smaller basic SSK for initial training and deployment in littoral and shallower waters for Medium Intensity missions.

But might be better to switch this to a separate discussion?
I think it is one or the other. Whatever happens it’s a long term project and that is the ssn (r) and a shift in emphasis of both resources and numbers from the surface to the sub surface for the high end war fighting capability.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 08:53
wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Jan 2022, 23:29 Given the financial constraints we are under, do you want quantity of ASW or quality of ASW, as we can't have both?
Putting aside the thought that the RN can afford virtually anything it wants to prioritise, the answer would still be it needs to be a balance. However, following my view on alot of things regarding the RN, I would go for a hi-low mix rather than trying to balance hi-mid-low. Low for me are simple survey / unmanned vessels

Also we should be careful not to get into the lazy thinking that all ASW platforms are there to do the same job. Are the requirements the same for a ASW platform escorting a relatively noisy CSG whose job it is to keep subs away vs an ASW platform that is actively (silently) hunting subs away from a task group?

I see two affordable but effective options for the surface fleet:
1) Cancel the T31 and T32, taking the left over money to buy at least 4 more T26s. Yes it will result in a smaller fleet, but one that can actually fight rather than look good on a wall chart.
2) Take the planned T32 money and build 6 T31s, adapting the design to be a suitable CSG ASW escort with high end (active) sonar. This leaves the 8 first rate ASW T26s to operate more independently as required in the North Atlantic and further afield.

Reality is that the opportunity for (1) has probably now gone - the money saved would be limited and the industry / political fall-out too great, hence why I've been pushing (2).

Both of these of course needs to be combined with more MPAs (P8s & UAVs), Merlins, XLUUVs / USVs and remote/static surveillance capabilities. I would love more SSNs of course, but rebuilding the capability to have double digit numbers of SSNs will take 10+ years.

The reality is that all the assumptions since 1990 that the Russian subsurface threat is consigned to history have been smashed with the reality that they are back. And what's more, in the next couple of decades they will be joined by the Chinese. Just to be clear however, this doesn't mean we should pillage the CSG (or LSGs) having the ability to project power globally is a key part of the layered defence, keeping potential enemies focusing on their backyard also.
Given that currently the expectation is that T32 is based on the T31, I am confused how we could cancel 5*T32 and buy 6*T31 and then upgrade them too, all for the same cost. It sounds like to me that we might get 4*upgraded T31 for the price of 5*T32.

Other people have suggest replacing T32 with an ASW focussed Leander / Venator 110. Maybe going for a smaller, cheaper hull, that might be a way of getting 6 backup ASW for the cost of 5*T32. I have said before that I am not averse to that.

But if these were to be deployed to give ASW to the CSG, freeing up the acoustically quiet dedicated ASW of the 8*T26 to operate more independantly in a sub hunting role, them my next question would be have we put enough VLS cells in these ASW focussed Leander / Venator 110 for them to be able to survive in a High Intensity coflict versus Russia / China.

In all of these discussions and proposed solutions, we are having to allow for the fact that RN is still severely budget constrained, albeit not as badly as before having seemingly the additional £2bn to afford the 5*T32 that were announced out of thin air. But we can't have everything and we will have to make trade-offs and compromises, and I just hope that the MoD does nt make those compromises at the expense of the ship's weaponry and thus crew safety if being sent in undergunned for the High Intensity missions,

I do enjoy seeing various posters' possible solutions to these constraints.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 23:06 Given that currently the expectation is that T32 is based on the T31, I am confused how we could cancel 5*T32 and buy 6*T31 and then upgrade them too, all for the same cost. It sounds like to me that we might get 4*upgraded T31 for the price of 5*T32.
The approach would be to have 6 T31s rather than 5 lite T31s plus 5 T32s. Part of the savings would be used to ensure that the T31s is fully equipped in terms of CAMM, ASMs and Sonar, so they can act as ASW escorts to the CSGs (to be complimented with T26s during wartime). The Dutch navy are already fitting TAS to their Absalon class.

https://www.mercell.com/en/tender/14145 ... ender.aspx

These ships would be primarily using active sonar to keep submarines away from the CSG, with additional ASW layers being provided by Merlins, T26s and SSNs as required.

This would require 3 additional (modified) B2 Rivers to replace the B1s, as the T26s are too complex to forward base, but it would allow the 8 T26s to cover standing commitments for TAPs/FRE, North Atlantic and EoS with the occasional visit to the Black Sea.
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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If we take the 2 billion we think it will take for the 5 Type 32's and then agree that type 31 would costs about 370 million per ship from ship 6 onward then 3 ships would be 1.1 billion and then we say the 110 m B3 I have laid out would cost 180 million 4 ships would be 720 million = 1.82 billion leaving 170 million.

Now as said before this would allow for 4 type 31 and 4 B3's EoS and 4 type 31 and 5 B2's in the Atlantic now with this being said if we were to cut 1 of the type 31's we would save 370 million if this was added to the 170 million left over before it would = 540 million this could allow for each of the 7 remaining type 31's to be fitted with 12 extra CAMM 8 NSM plus 4 or 5 containerized sonar systems to be used as needed. This could still leave the RN with 3 type 31's and 4 B3's EoS

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On ASW point of view, these XLUUV and ASW-USVs (like ARCIMS-ASW "SEASENSE"), coupled with recovery-gear like PALFINGER will make a good comparison.

XLUUV:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... submarine/

ARCIMS ASW "SEASENSE"


recovery gear "PALFINGER"
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
SW1wargame_insomniac

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 14:00 On ASW point of view, these XLUUV and ASW-USVs (like ARCIMS-ASW "SEASENSE"), coupled with recovery-gear like PALFINGER will make a good comparison.

XLUUV:
ARCIMS ASW "SEASENSE"
recovery gear "PALFINGER"
We can imagine many options there.

1: In the ARCIMS ASW "SEASENSE" movie, you can see Type-26 used as a delivery gear, at around 4:24. Very interesting.

2: RN already has 3-sets of ARCISM system, as a mine sweeping system. Adding SEASENSE option will be a very cheap, practical, and reasonable solution, I guess.

3: In general, I think ARCIMS SEASENSE is better than XLUUV for ASW tasks. It will be cheap, easy to deploy (6t hull with 4t payload), with 18 hrs of endurance. As it is connected by data-link, it will perform "multi-static ASW tactics", which greatly improves the submarine detection capability.
So,
- if the deployment mother ship is located near (only 18 hrs of endurance)
- sea is as calm as sea-state 4 or 5 (I forgot the actual number, but there was a report already, good at North sea)
in these conditions, ARCIMS SEASENSE looks better.

In other words, when
- the sea is very rough (north Atlantic?),
- the mother ship cannot be located near (e.g. under severe air raid),
XLUUV will make a good point. But, it will surely be expensive than ARCIMS. As it must be hidden (if the location is known to enemy, it may be harrassed by a Corvette placing jamming noise or even disabled or captured), it will not be doing multi-static ASW sensing (bad for ASW), but as it is under the water can be in better condition to use its own sonar (good).

So, may be in far north in Barents sea, Baltic sea, and Black sea (three "B"-seas!!), XLUUV will be good. In Gulf, Red sea, Med, Marraca strait, Caribbean, and around Irish sea, I guess ARCIMS SEASENSE is better. In more rough water, I think a larger but still simple USV may come to play (like Sea Hunter).

Also, SkyGuardian UAV can have an ASW option with Sono-buoy dispenser and transducer. Although far less compared to P-8A's capability, it can deploy a network of sonobuoys. Sonobuoy ASW will be less sensitive than low-frequency active-passive sonars (like CAPTAS4, or those onboard ARCIMS Seasense (LFAPTS)), but it can cover larger area, listening for SSK/SSNs in transit (not in silence mode).

Before talking about "adding SSK", or even before "adding CAPTAS-4CI to T31", I think these new ASW capabilities are more promising and flexible.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

With these systems becoming more prevalent it shows how important strategic transport will be for rapidly moving these systems to where there needed.

https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/filead ... ochure.pdf

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 14:21 Before talking about "adding SSK", or even before "adding CAPTAS-4CI to T31", I think these new ASW capabilities are more promising and flexible.
Possibly, and they are exciting, but the discussions on adding ASW capabilities to the T31 is to act as active defence for the CSG, which I think is a different requirement. This is more about hunting subs, and could not keep up with a CSG. What it does enforce IMO is the need to free up the T26s we have planned!
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
serge750Jensy
”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

serge750
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

If the budget for the T32 is £2bn mark i would rather have the RN get two extra T26 ( 3 if possible ) or at least make the T32 into a proper sub hunter with a Quiet hull + total ASW focus ( basic self defence, maybe a 57mm & 24 CAMM ) just to escort the carriers & as said free up the T26
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
Repulse

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 08:55
wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Jan 2022, 23:06 Given that currently the expectation is that T32 is based on the T31, I am confused how we could cancel 5*T32 and buy 6*T31 and then upgrade them too, all for the same cost. It sounds like to me that we might get 4*upgraded T31 for the price of 5*T32.
The approach would be to have 6 T31s rather than 5 lite T31s plus 5 T32s. Part of the savings would be used to ensure that the T31s is fully equipped in terms of CAMM, ASMs and Sonar, so they can act as ASW escorts to the CSGs (to be complimented with T26s during wartime). The Dutch navy are already fitting TAS to their Absalon class.

https://www.mercell.com/en/tender/14145 ... ender.aspx

These ships would be primarily using active sonar to keep submarines away from the CSG, with additional ASW layers being provided by Merlins, T26s and SSNs as required.

This would require 3 additional (modified) B2 Rivers to replace the B1s, as the T26s are too complex to forward base, but it would allow the 8 T26s to cover standing commitments for TAPs/FRE, North Atlantic and EoS with the occasional visit to the Black Sea.
Thanks for clarifying as I had nt understood what you had written first time around. My bad. I do agree that the T31's need to be uparmed and have VLS cells maxed out. It is unclear to me currently what sonar they have but I agree they should have decent sonar.

It sounds like you would want 2*T45 and 2*upgraded T31 for close in defence of each CSG with 1*Astute and 1+T26 to be stealthy hunters, protecting the CSG further out?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 20:38 It sounds like you would want 2*T45 and 2*upgraded T31 for close in defence of each CSG with 1*Astute and 1+T26 to be stealthy hunters, protecting the CSG further out?
If I understand it correctly the standard escort group for a CSG deployed outside of UK waters is two AAW destroyers + two ASW frigates. Given the rule of three, this means 6 T45s + 6 ASW Frigates (T31 IMO). The SSN has also been mentioned as part of a CSG, but whether that will always be the case or if the RN wants people to believe it is is not clear given there are only 6/7 SSNs.

In times of conflict T26s can be additionally allocated to the CSG to give another layer of defence, but normally would be free of the CSG to take up other commitments.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Why should the escorts be on a rule of 3 if the carrier, it’s air wing and the support vessels are not?
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 14:00 On ASW point of view, these XLUUV and ASW-USVs (like ARCIMS-ASW "SEASENSE"), coupled with recovery-gear like PALFINGER will make a good comparison.

XLUUV:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... submarine/

ARCIMS ASW "SEASENSE"


recovery gear "PALFINGER"
Re Palfinger, I have watched Patrol Cutters / Coastal PV use this type of sytem to very quickly deploy RIB.
I don't know how effective they are in practice compared to standard launching of boats from ship's divots.
I guess one advantage is that closer to the water.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Again the RN is looking at technologies that are still very immature when considering the level of autonomy it wishes. Also this level of autonomy would make a large underwater platform very expensive, in fact very very expensive. Defence Chiefs the world over have looked at the impact current UAV have had and are now drawing up wish lists of new capabilities and platforms that are not going to be that much cheaper or smaller than their manned equivalents be it in the air on the ground or on/under the sea. Yet even in the air, the easiest domain to operate unmanned platforms it is going to be quite some time before a fully autonomous platform will be able to engage an manned platform BVR let alone WVR.

Yes an unmanned underwater platform would not need to provide a crew with air, though some sort of system still might be required if the crew is optional. This would allow a far greater battery capacity which is good only if the boat ends up being the size of a conventional SSK or AIP equivalent. The best I think the RN cna look at would be the submarine equivalent of the RAF's Loyal Wingman programme, though even that may end up in trouble if the RAF starts to look at their platform being more than a tethered bomb truck or air to air magazine for a manned platform.

Post Reply