Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Can Sea Venom be a good option for anti-ship role, if combined with said "hyper-sonic ASM"?

1: Overall, I think SeaVenom is a good missile in its guidance. see https://www.mbda-systems.com/wp-content ... asheet.pdf

I understand SeaVenom can aim at gun, CIC, or any other specific location on the target ship. It also has a 2-way datalink, so, man-in-the-loop hit-point selection can be even done. If not, it can do it by itself. Using these options, SeaVenom are stated to have precision land-attack capability, as well.

2: Warhead size
- TLAM 450 kg, StormShadow 450 kg
- Harpoon SSM 221 kg, Exocet 165 kg, Penguin 120kg
- SM-6 64 kg
- Sea Skua 30 kg, Sea Venom 30 kg
- SPEAR3 6-10 kg

I understand Penguin can sink escort. Not sure about SM-6 (it does not have imaging guidance and not good at mission kill. Larger kinetic energy may sink the enemy? Not sure). I think Sea Venom is looking at mission kill. SPEAR3 is also aiming at mission kill, I guess?

3: Range. Its range is vaguely stated as "over 20km class". And I think this is the problem.

But, with relatively small investment, it can be increased dramatically, I guess (by using a small jet like SPEAR3). Sea Skua was 165 kg, while Sea Venom is still 110 kg. There are 35kg weight margins to improve its range, if needed. So, if I-SSGW is to be canceled, can UK develop a long-range SeaVenom-ER by 2027? If so, it will make a good combi with said "hyer-sonic anti-ship missile".

A well guided, 30 kg warhead missile with, say 100 km range. Carried 4 each on a Wildcat, and hopefully 8 each on a Merlin, will make it a "so-so" ASM capability to be carried on all AAW, ASW and GP escorts?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2323
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Pound for pound (kgs) you don't seem to be getting a great deal; perhaps £ for £?
More than likely cost is the major difference. The AWS-10L has slightly shorter detection ranges that the AWS-10 (so it would pick up an MPA at 85km, rather than 100km and a missile at 30km instead of 35km for instance) and by the looks of it, the stabilisation platform is much less bulky, so may not be quite as capable, but that's just a guess.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: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?
It depends how extensively the deck layout is reconfigured but current layout is twin deck cranes and space for eight TEU 20 containers (140sqm). This is a pretty modest amount of space and heavy duty davit deployed XLUUV’s may be the way forward rather heavy lift deck cranes.

Alternatively the Wave could be augmented by a Point which already benefits from a 40t deck crane. A spacious garage could easily be created within the superstructure of a Point. Given the ultra low cost of operating a Point perhaps this is a better option than an expensive reconfiguration of a Wave’s deck layout.

Clearly technological advances are proceeding at pace but thorough testing will be required before new vessels are confidently procured.

Pulling together various groups of existing vessels and allowing the new tech to blaze a new trail, perhaps some interesting results may emerge.

For example:

2x T23GP/T31 embarking up to 4 Wildcat
1x Point embarking multiple XLUUV, USV and UAV
2x RB2 deploying Captas 1 or 2
1x Wave embarking 1 Merlin for Vertrep
Occasional T45 if deemed necessary

It’s a bargain basement group but what could it achieve?

Would the strategic value of such a group far outweigh its component parts?

If the idea is containment rather than conflict, a group such as the above would seem highly qualified to achieve the desired outcome at a very modest cost.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So, if I-SSGW is to be canceled, can UK develop a long-range SeaVenom-ER by 2027?
1SL gave a very reasonable account of why spending up to £500m on I-SSGW was sub-optimal. It’s makes complete sense.

However, retiring Harpoon and creating another decade long gap is foolhardy and clearly unacceptable also.

A long range SeaVenom stopgap seems logical and affordable but in all likelihood it probably won’t happen.

In the end retiring Harpoon without immediate replacement will just be another cut dressed up as progress.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
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?
Can accommodate 8 20ft containers on the deck with power supply.

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-th ... auxiliary/

Should be more than sufficient for a couple of XLUUVs plus kit.

Interestingly, they have a small crane to supply other vessels that are not fitted for RAS like MCMs, OPVs…
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:What utility could the RB2’s have in such a group?
A good question
- Ability to go places where it’s more difficult for other ships to travel: Shallower draft and less likely to be seen as a threat.
- Large work deck: capable of carrying/ operating systems for 6 20ft Containers or 5 Orcs/Ribs plus 50 RMs.
”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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:3 versions of the AWS radar and three versions of Artisan
In which case why on earth is NS110 being fitted to the T31’s.

Penny pinching gone mad.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Pound for pound (kgs) you don't seem to be getting a great deal; perhaps £ for £?
More than likely cost is the major difference. The AWS-10L has slightly shorter detection ranges that the AWS-10 (so it would pick up an MPA at 85km, rather than 100km and a missile at 30km instead of 35km for instance) and by the looks of it, the stabilisation platform is much less bulky, so may not be quite as capable, but that's just a guess.
Looking at the data sheet shown to the right on this web-page (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/a ... aval-radar ), what I noted the most is the maximum elevation coverage difference; >40 deg vs > 25 deg. So, AWS-10L is sacrificing beam size to make it compact, I guess. For me, AWS10 could be used against air-threats but maybe AWS 10L not (except for sea-skimmer).

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2323
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Penny pinching gone mad.
Nail on the head - I suspect that it's the "pennies" that decided that one. Plus the fact that , when that decision was made, I don't think BAE had completed trials on the AWS line and ARTISAN was just one model (despite BAE stating that it was "customisable" for many years). Hopefully the T32 will address some of the supply-chain issues with the T31 project.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved.
Caribbean wrote:Hopefully the T32 will address some of the supply-chain issues with the T31 project.
The argument from HMG is likely that the NS110 and Tacticos is a better fit for export aka T31(e).

By the time T32 comes along the export excuse will have been comprehensively discredited so as said hopefully the T32 will maximise UK content.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Pulling together various groups of existing vessels and allowing the new tech to blaze a new trail, perhaps some interesting results may emerge.

For example:

2x T23GP/T31 embarking up to 4 Wildcat
1x Point embarking multiple XLUUV, USV and UAV
2x RB2 deploying Captas 1 or 2
1x Wave embarking 1 Merlin for Vertrep
Occasional T45 if deemed necessary

It’s a bargain basement group but what could it achieve?
So as of the start of 2022 the RN will have

1 x Frigate
1 x Bay class
2 x River Class
4 x MCM

East of Suez for me if we added another frigate plus a tanker and RFA Argus this could allow 3 good groups EoS

Group 1 ) 1 x frigate , 1 x Bay , 4 x MCM = Gulf
Group 2 ) 1 x frigate , Argus = LRG EoS
group 3 ) 1 x tanker , 2 x OPV's = Patrol group EoS

Group 1 would remain in the gulf at all times and groups 2 & 3 could deploy across the Indo-Pacific and if needed come together to form a LRG+

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

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

Post by ETH »

It’s just Thales pushing for a Thales radar on their Thales outfitted ship with a Thales CMS. It’s who Babcock partnered with (I.e. not BAE) and so it’s them who will outfit with their equipment. The whole idea of the Type 31s is cheap and cheerful so why pay to integrate a BAE Systems radar into a new CMS?

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

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

Post by ETH »

Caribbean wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Pound for pound (kgs) you don't seem to be getting a great deal; perhaps £ for £?
More than likely cost is the major difference. The AWS-10L has slightly shorter detection ranges that the AWS-10 (so it would pick up an MPA at 85km, rather than 100km and a missile at 30km instead of 35km for instance) and by the looks of it, the stabilisation platform is much less bulky, so may not be quite as capable, but that's just a guess.
Well AWS-10L is a slotted waveguide antenna vs the AWS-10’s parabolic dish. You’ll find that AWS-10L’s antenna will be lighter and easier/cheaper to manufacture but will have worse directivity and accuracy due to the nature of the antenna structure.

From BAE’s brochures (AWS-10L vs AWS-10):

Beamwidth - 1.65° vs 1.9°
Elevation - 25° vs 40°
Angular resolution - 3.7° vs 3.25°

Etc.

Also noted AWS-10 has a higher peak power so likely a bulkier transmitter.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

But how dose NS110 stack up against Artisan. Thales say NS110 has a max range of 280 KM and can detected surface targets at 80 km plus track 1000 targets and is it a cheaper option

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

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

Post by ETH »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Pound for pound (kgs) you don't seem to be getting a great deal; perhaps £ for £?
More than likely cost is the major difference. The AWS-10L has slightly shorter detection ranges that the AWS-10 (so it would pick up an MPA at 85km, rather than 100km and a missile at 30km instead of 35km for instance) and by the looks of it, the stabilisation platform is much less bulky, so may not be quite as capable, but that's just a guess.
Looking at the data sheet shown to the right on this web-page (https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/a ... aval-radar ), what I noted the most is the maximum elevation coverage difference; >40 deg vs > 25 deg. So, AWS-10L is sacrificing beam size to make it compact, I guess. For me, AWS10 could be used against air-threats but maybe AWS 10L not (except for sea-skimmer).
Yes, AWS-10L sacrifices beam performance by using a lighter slotted waveguide antenna vs a parabolic dish. As both are 2D radars neither could be used for true aerial surveillance as they would only obtain crude altitude measurements at best (by multipath differences as the target’s echo is received both directly from the target and from the reflection off of the surface of the water at different times).

Sea skimmers would just show up as fast moving surface targets.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:.. the signs are that the RN has now got a bit more money to play with..
I would have thought cancelling I-SSGW demonstrates the opposite :?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The argument from HMG is likely that the NS110 and Tacticos is a better fit for export aka T31(e).
How does that help the UK?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2323
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:I would have thought cancelling I-SSGW demonstrates the opposite
I may do, indeed. But the cancellation, coupled with talk of Mk41 on the T31 makes me think that they are at least considering moving the budget over to equipping the T31 with something not-so-interim, particularly when you consider the time frames involved for both hulls and new missiles.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:How does that help the UK?
Good question, if you find out the answer let me know.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ETH »

Tempest414 wrote:But how dose NS110 stack up against Artisan. Thales say NS110 has a max range of 280 KM and can detected surface targets at 80 km plus track 1000 targets and is it a cheaper option
Tricky to tell. NS110 supposedly uses/used more modern architecture (GaN amplifiers, digital beam forming on an element level) however ARTISAN is more vague on those fronts. Now with the new Artisan 100/200/300 it’s even harder to compare. And then there’s signal processing which is even more difficult, though the UK has a good pedigree and specialises in this area so I wouldn’t be surprised if ARTISAN is ahead.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:So, if I-SSGW is to be canceled, can UK develop a long-range SeaVenom-ER by 2027?
1SL gave a very reasonable account of why spending up to £500m on I-SSGW was sub-optimal. It’s makes complete sense.
Don't agree. It was not convincing enough to justify "capability gap", for me. Of course, he says gap until 2028, but I do not believe on it.
However, retiring Harpoon and creating another decade long gap is foolhardy and clearly unacceptable also.
Agree.
A long range SeaVenom stopgap seems logical and affordable but in all likelihood it probably won’t happen.
Just pretend SeaVenom is good enough, and say ALL RN escort carries it, and say "so it is OK". I think RN is thinking this way.

But, again, if it is NOT SM-6 B1B (which means destroying FC/ASW agreement) and RN need to wait for FC/ASW hyper-sonic something to come, it will likely be a 10-15 years vacancy.

Again, if "something" can be gaped for 10 years, it means it is totally not needed. :thumbdown:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:So as of the start of 2022 the RN will have

1 x Frigate
1 x Bay class
2 x River Class
4 x MCM
Its a starting point but how much time will the Bay, T23 and MCMV’s spend outside the Gulf? Probably not much.

The RB2’s are definitely a new presence but how are they going to be utilised? Maximum utilisation of available assets will be the key to success in the Indo-Pacific.

The group I was describing was really unconnected to the assets in the gulf. Effectively a reorganisation of LRG(S) when the LRG isn’t fully formed and the CSG is elsewhere. I suspect the LRG will not be fully formed as often as people think.

If a Wave or Tide is already EoS adding a Point and 2 escorts periodically for 8 to 12 week deployments seems perfectly plausible. How persistent could this force actually be if escorts could be provided from other Allies operating in the region?

Argus and an Albion could then join the group at any stage and the LRG would be formed. It’s both scaleable, and cost effective whilst adding real strategic support to Allied countries in the Indo-Pacific.

It would also minimise the amount of ASW assets diverted away from the North Atlantic which must remain the primary focus.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:if "something" can be gaped for 10 years, it means it is totally not needed.
Great point but I think it’s the land attack element that RN is relying upon to get it funded when the program matures.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq, If the RN could get a LRG based in Oman with a LPD, Argus and a Wave Class that would be both a realistic and significant regional capability. The only thing that is missing are the extra crew to man the 2nd LPD, which you could argue would come from the retirement on the MCM fleet. It isn't going to be going into a significant conflict / high threat area without a CBG, so using the 2 B2 Rivers as low key escorts when required is appropriate IMO.

As an aside, I' actually thinking that rather then replacing the B1 Rivers with B2s, why not replace them with MLSVs that are being discussed. If you look for example at the design of the OSVs built for Iraq I'm sure a similar ship could do the role (and act as the MCM mothership).

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... ay-trials/
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:only thing that is missing are the extra crew to man the 2nd LPD, which you could argue would come from the retirement on the MCM fleet. It isn't going to be going into a significant conflict / high threat area without a CBG, so using the 2 B2 Rivers as low key escorts when required is appropriate IMO.

As an aside, I' actually thinking that rather then replacing the B1 Rivers with B2s, why not replace them with
...
The RB1s are in use by plugging into the MCM crewing; if we do it many times (over the same years) that might result in 'double counting'?
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder how big a "Hypersonic" FC/ASW will be. If you look at the size of current weapons in that class they are pretty big. Look at the size of the VLS that are going to be needed to hold the weapon the USN intends to install, multiple TLAMS would fit in it! There is going to have to be some sort of breakthrough to have a Hypersonic weapon small enough to fit in a Mk41 VLS with ht eramge and warhead size needed to be of any use. Just a thought.

Post Reply