Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1430
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 12 May 2022, 01:33
NickC wrote: 11 May 2022, 14:14

IIRC MoD has funded research for DC grid with GE Marine, presume very unlikely but possible for future T26 batches.
Lots of research has been done by MOD, GE and Rolls Royce. DC or at least a a hybrid DC/AC configuration was considered for T45 but the technology wasn't mature. Unfortunately due to the problems with T45 the MOD has gone back to basics with T26 and we have ended up with a simplified T23 arrangement.

It would be highly unlikely for such a large change to made to any future T26 batches. Now T83 would be a different matter and it would fitting for the T45 replacement to have a DC IEP system as postulated in concepts years prior to T45.

In the case of the F126 frigates I don't believe it is a full IEP system anyway and they will retain a gearbox with direct drive for high speed cruising.
Think IEP would be totally over the top for T83 as expect the cost premium may easily be 100% for the IEP propulsion kit over cost of conventional propulsion with mechanical drive, IEP/Hybrid propulsion can be easily justified for an ASW frigate for its ability to silence the ship. Also with IEP/Hybrid expect you loose approx 10% from converting the power from the engine via the generators, drives and motors to the propeller, whereas with mechanical propulsion losses from gearbox only approx 1.5% . That gives the option to the T83 designers for numerous trade offs, to increase range or ability to install better sensors/weapons eg more powerful/heavier radars/fit more Mk41 VLS cells for more missiles etc. Not to say IEP/Hybrid propulsion brings advantages but not needed for an AAW destroyer.

Re the German F126 is a multi-function frigate including ASW with towed array system for anti-submarine warfare, so requires the extra cost of a silent Hybrid propulsion system, whereas if the T83 is a dedicated AAW destroyer as the T45 the ASW requirement near non-existent and ASW is left to the T26.

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 »

From T31 NEWS thread, to escort discussion thread.
JohnM wrote: 19 May 2022, 12:28
leonard wrote: 19 May 2022, 00:12 And for the series "What could have been " I found the design configuration that was proposed to the Hellenic Navy .I don't know if this was posted before but you can clearly see the fact that Royal Navy Type 31 is very very light armed. Again my compliments to the artists .
I don’t think that’s what was proposed, They still have €2B to spend on corvettes/frigates after buying the 3 FDI and this was just speculation on the part of the author on what could be the configuration IF the weapons from the old Kortnaers they still have were reused in the AH140 design to reduce cost and allow frigates to be bought instead of corvettes. For example, notice the ESSM launchers are not VLS, but the ones currently on the Kortnaers, albeit updated.
1: I agree none of this image are official ones.

2: But, I agree these images are interesting to see.

My personal feeling when looking at T31 always starts from the fact that, T31 program cost has increased by a factor of 1.6 (ref NAO report), eating up £750M precious money. With this money, T45 could have had BMD system already fielded. At least, more Aster30 missiles would have been purchased, and Aster-30 Blk1 NT must be nearly there. Lost opportunity.

Even with this added money, T31 has this light armaments. This is my baseline feeling.

Not saying T31 is too expensive compared to its cost, average £400M per hull. It is much cheaper than the 5 FDI frigate program which is average £660M per hull. T31 compared to FDI, has much larger hull, with only 60% of the cost, hence being much less armed is very reasonable.

RN already spent plenty of extra money on T31, the very precious money which would have been spent on improving SSN, up-arming T45, I-SSGW, increasing F35B, P-8, and so on.

I was always proposing to decrease T31 number, to improve its armaments. Selling 1 or 2 of them will earn adding more CAMM, add NSM launcher, and even adding a small hull mounted sonar. Another idea is, biasing the weapons: 2 T31 without CAMM, and 3 T31 with doubling CAMM, will cost the same (because the first two hulls do not need SeaCeptor software and system, which will be not cheap).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I am always surprised by people saying that we don't need 5 T31's.

For years I have read articles saying that RN had insufficent escorts to properly full fill all our global commitments. Since I have joined this forum I don't think I have seen anyone arguing for a smaller Navy - we pretty much all have expressed opinions that RN needs to improve the quantity and quality of our escorts - the differences are usually based on how much government funding is assumed and what order the various priorities are deemed.

We previously had 13 T23 frigates, 8*T23 ASW and 5*T23 GP, (until Monmouth was retired).
We currently expect to have 13 frigates, 8*T26 ASW and 5*T31 GP.
So the T31 GP are simply replacing T23 GP frigates one-for-one.

So whilst I agree that T31 should be upgraded (although IMO first priority is to upgrade both T45 & T26), we needed 5 GP frigates before and I believe nothing has changed on that front. We have had too few frigates over the last few years and given the chnage in global secutity situation following Russian invasion of Ukraine, I feel that the need for escorts has increaed still further.

Now I feel that all escorts should be able to defend themselves against eneny missiles, aircraft and drones. Now the 40mm secodary guns should help versus the latter but they still need missiles versus the former. CAMM would be fine, especially if quadpacked to optimise the space required versus the old style mushrooms. Ideally if the RN did go ahead and fit Mk41 VLS that would allow for a greater variety of missiles to cover different tasks.

And ideally I think all frigates should have at least secondary ASW capability. Even if T26 are the primary ASW escort, used for CASD, TAPS, CSG and covering GIUK Gap, I still think the T31 should be abl to contribute to ASW even if they are not as optimised for it like the T26.

So for me the RN need to proceed with the full 5*T31 ordered, (albeit with some upgrades), with potential order for 5*T32 being reviewed. If w need to cut any planned escort numbers, then I believe that T32 is the time to do that, given that their requirements have not yet been fully clarified, let alone ordered. Others have previously suggested cutting two of the T32 hulls, treating them as T31 Batch 2, to give an overall total of 8*T31, which I am not averse to.

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 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 15:58 I am always surprised by people saying that we don't need 5 T31's.
Thanks. Yes and no.

All your comment is valid. But, simply RN lacks money and man-power, while has many "gaps" to be filled. So, I'm talking about "Either/Or", not both, sadly.

Up-arming needs money and man-power. As you said, T45 and T26 needs up-arming, much more than T31 needs it. Thus, with "Either/Or", I'm forced to say "if you want to up-arm T31, just reduce its number" (or bias its armament). Just it.

Notably, RN recently ALWAYS has several assets in extended readiness. So, to improve "available assets", building a ship only has negative impact, better to use that money to improve retention and recruit.

Also, gap in escort number is a clear message for gap. People do not care much about it if it is in long maintenance and/or extended readiness, and hence tend to more "forget" about the real gap = not enough ACTIVE assets.

If there is a gap, make it clearer, not hidden. More ammo, more spare parts, more skilled engineers. Even though these numbers are not apparent to public, these are what RN needs the most. On the other hand, lack of escort number is "apparent". As a propaganda, "less number of hull" and/or "apparently too lightly armed assets in photo" will be more appealing.

This is my whole point.

[edit] By the way, on "people saying that we don't need 5 T31's", I am a minority here... Many says "more". Actually, I think I am also saying "more". But, my "more" is more active assets, not assets in paper. So, I am also in the "more" side, in some sense.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Thanks for clarification - makes sense.

My concern at the moment is that all five T31 have been ordered but only the first batch of 3 T26, albeit they have recently begun advance ordering some of the long lead components for the 2nd batch of fibe T26. Thus if they wanted to save money on ships it would be easier for MOD to reduce the number of batch 2 T26 that have not yet been ordered, rather than trying to cancel ay of the fixed price contract T31.

Hence my view is that I would rather they reduce or cut compltely the T32 which have yet to have had the design finalised let alone ordered. If they cut / reduce T32 then the RN can do some /more of the following:
1) Increase RN personnel recruitemnt / improve retention
2) Purchase more stocks of exisiting munitions
3) Add CAMM and land attack cruise / anti ship missiles to T45 (ideally when undergoing PIP to minimise time out of water)
4) Add Mk41 VLS to T26 with anti sub / land attack cruise / anti ship missiles
5) (once all above done) add CAMM and sonar to T31.

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 »

Thanks. As I keep my realistic (or "pessimistic") stand point, I am happy to see you putting forward a bit more "optimistic" proposal. :thumbup:

Cancelling 1 or 2 T31 is not an option. Its a fixed contract.

very-unlikely-option-1: So, if up-arm remaining 4 hulls by reducing the hull number by 1 (saving ~£300M), it is only when other country purchase the 5th hull in hurry.

Unfortunately, RNZN two ANZAC frigates are just coming out of "LIFEX" (FSU, they call) and no replacement plan by 2035-36. Other candidates? Who knows?

very-unlikely-option-2: Increasing the CAMM load-out is relatively cheap (all systems are already there, just need to add a LMS box and 12 canister holder in set), so, NOT equipping 2 (or even 1) of the T31 with SeaCeptor will enable the other 3 (or 4) T31s to be doubled in CAMM load-out. (The "no-CAMM" ship can be a "Training Frigate", replacing both HMS Severn (River B1) and HMS Bristol?)

Default option: All five T31s coming as lightly armed as now planned. Not surprised to see only 12 CAMM onboard. No up-arming, because I (or We) prefer up-arming of T45 and T26 (even ASW SkyGuardian UAV etc...) with higher priority.

On the other hand, money will come more easily than man-power. So, definitely, something needed with money but without impact on man-power is the BETTER option to pursuit now. Other than increasing ammo store and spare parts (which is surely the top priority), I can imagine
- better ESM/ECM and decoy-kits (replacing existing kits, not addition)
- add Sea Sentor torpedo defense towed body, now rotating among RN and RFA ships equipped with bolts (reduced "moving/re-installing" work vs added maintenance?).
- replacing T45's 114mm gun with 57 mm Bofors. This will add space, weight and man-power margins to T45, to increase CAMM and/or add Mk.41 VLS onboard.
- buying Aster-30 NT blk1 NOW.
- replacing CAMM mushroom tubes on future RN escorts with quad-packed ExLS, following Canada, and at least double the CAMM load (or even 4-times more).

More?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 15:58 I am always surprised by people saying that we don't need 5 T31's.

For years I have read articles saying that RN had insufficent escorts to properly full fill all our global commitments. Since I have joined this forum I don't think I have seen anyone arguing for a smaller Navy - we pretty much all have expressed opinions that RN needs to improve the quantity and quality of our escorts - the differences are usually based on how much government funding is assumed and what order the various priorities are deemed.
It depends on what “smaller navy” means. I and a few others have argued in the past for a hi-low mix of platforms rather than the hi-mid-low mix.

Given the decision and a time machine I would still be going for 10 fully armed T26 (giving 16 traditional escorts) plus MHPC Sloop mix than what we have planned now.

The original BMT Venator design (with CAMM) was for me what the T31 should have been, the RN is retiring or mothballing minor warships at an increasing rate with no sight of replacements. If Babcock had its production line up and running building Venator’s I think we would be in a much better place. What’s more they would have a role in the FCF also.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixJensy
”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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 May 2022, 19:51 It all stems from a conscious decision to keep both CVF’s active and reduce other assets. If PWLS entered low readiness crew availability would soar.

The calculation that has been made is that other NATO members can fill the escort gap.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 May 2022, 02:56 Uhmm, I think the opposite.

If considering confronting 1st-tier enemy (like Russia and/or China), UK acting alone is NOT an option. NATO must. Then, RN must focus on assets "strong" in RN, which will be SSBN, SSN, CV, T45, and T26. All the other 2nd-tier tasks can be covered by other NATO nations. Of course, LRG-east in not an option. Let USA do it, and focus on Norway operation.
Repulse wrote: 08 May 2022, 06:24 For a navy planning to operate its surface war fighting capabilities around CBGs, then keeping both carriers active is essential.
I agree with @Repulse and @Donald, with the exception of let the US do 'it'. Trump was going to 'pay' for the Pivot by withdrawing from the ME, so we should consider the line from Hormuz to Diego to be the delineation to the West of which we need to do our share (however that becomes to be defined)... and let's not forget the French, either.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 08 May 2022, 18:34 I am envisaging LRG(N) and RN CBG to be operating more or less in parallel.
Me too.
SW1 wrote: 09 May 2022, 19:16 Between aircraft carrier, type 45 and type26, 23 billion quid will of been spent just buying the 16 ships.
Ships should not be costed w/o their main weapon system... so add the cost of the first 60 F-35s to that
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)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 22 May 2022, 12:50 I agree with @Repulse and @Donald, with the exception of let the US do 'it'. Trump was going to 'pay' for the Pivot by withdrawing from the ME, so we should consider the line from Hormuz to Diego to be the delineation to the West of which we need to do our share (however that becomes to be defined)... and let's not forget the French, either.
i agree too, though i'd take that back to cyprus to diego.
The Indo Pacific 'tilt' should be read as: Guardian of the western SLOC's.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Repulse wrote: 22 May 2022, 07:36 The original BMT Venator design (with CAMM) was for me what the T31 should have been, the RN is retiring or mothballing minor warships at an increasing rate with no sight of replacements. If Babcock had its production line up and running building Venator’s I think we would be in a much better place. What’s more they would have a role in the FCF also.
I very much agree with this. Perhaps if BAE had the capability I'd chuck the Avenger and Leander concepts in there too, considering the relative success of the Rivers.

I'm curious though, what was it in the Venator 110 that went too far up the 'fightiness scale' or what was lost on the design? Both had a similar hull, albeit stretched, and mission space.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 22 May 2022, 03:13 Thanks. As I keep my realistic (or "pessimistic") stand point, I am happy to see you putting forward a bit more "optimistic" proposal. :thumbup:

Cancelling 1 or 2 T31 is not an option. Its a fixed contract.

very-unlikely-option-1: So, if up-arm remaining 4 hulls by reducing the hull number by 1 (saving ~£300M), it is only when other country purchase the 5th hull in hurry.

Unfortunately, RNZN two ANZAC frigates are just coming out of "LIFEX" (FSU, they call) and no replacement plan by 2035-36. Other candidates? Who knows?

very-unlikely-option-2: Increasing the CAMM load-out is relatively cheap (all systems are already there, just need to add a LMS box and 12 canister holder in set), so, NOT equipping 2 (or even 1) of the T31 with SeaCeptor will enable the other 3 (or 4) T31s to be doubled in CAMM load-out. (The "no-CAMM" ship can be a "Training Frigate", replacing both HMS Severn (River B1) and HMS Bristol?)

Default option: All five T31s coming as lightly armed as now planned. Not surprised to see only 12 CAMM onboard. No up-arming, because I (or We) prefer up-arming of T45 and T26 (even ASW SkyGuardian UAV etc...) with higher priority.

On the other hand, money will come more easily than man-power. So, definitely, something needed with money but without impact on man-power is the BETTER option to pursuit now. Other than increasing ammo store and spare parts (which is surely the top priority), I can imagine
- better ESM/ECM and decoy-kits (replacing existing kits, not addition)
- add Sea Sentor torpedo defense towed body, now rotating among RN and RFA ships equipped with bolts (reduced "moving/re-installing" work vs added maintenance?).
- replacing T45's 114mm gun with 57 mm Bofors. This will add space, weight and man-power margins to T45, to increase CAMM and/or add Mk.41 VLS onboard.
- buying Aster-30 NT blk1 NOW.
- replacing CAMM mushroom tubes on future RN escorts with quad-packed ExLS, following Canada, and at least double the CAMM load (or even 4-times more).

More?
Thanks for the discussion. It is good to have reasoned discussion - we may agree on many points but it is interesting to see a counter viewpoint on the few points we disagree.

So your last two points above I can 100% agree with. All RN frigates and above should have 24 CAMM with quad-packed ExLS to be able to defend themselves and other ships in the group from missile attack which would be inevitable if we get involved in warfighting vs Russia or China.

I had nt considered selling the 5th T31. So far Indonesia, Poland and previously Ukraine had expressed interest in buying T31. From memory I think it was to be built locally but they might agree to 1 purchased prebuilt in UK. We have a bit longer for RN to make that decision as it will take a while before the 5th hull is ready to be launched.

I still hope that there will be some reversal of the 30 year peace dividend as the UK Government reacts to the new security situation. So my preferred solution to uparming the 5*T31 as we have been discussing is either higher defence spending or a reallocation of future spending from the announced T32 as I mentioned before. That might ake me an optimist. I can fully understand othrs such as yourself having a more-pessimistic opinion.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 22 May 2022, 07:36
wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 May 2022, 15:58 I am always surprised by people saying that we don't need 5 T31's.

For years I have read articles saying that RN had insufficent escorts to properly full fill all our global commitments. Since I have joined this forum I don't think I have seen anyone arguing for a smaller Navy - we pretty much all have expressed opinions that RN needs to improve the quantity and quality of our escorts - the differences are usually based on how much government funding is assumed and what order the various priorities are deemed.
It depends on what “smaller navy” means. I and a few others have argued in the past for a hi-low mix of platforms rather than the hi-mid-low mix.

Given the decision and a time machine I would still be going for 10 fully armed T26 (giving 16 traditional escorts) plus MHPC Sloop mix than what we have planned now.

The original BMT Venator design (with CAMM) was for me what the T31 should have been, the RN is retiring or mothballing minor warships at an increasing rate with no sight of replacements. If Babcock had its production line up and running building Venator’s I think we would be in a much better place. What’s more they would have a role in the FCF also.
The T31 design ended up being just shy of 140m and 5700t. I am not sure why it needed to be quite so large - I can understand the RN giving itself some leeway in both space and power to be able to requip the T31 as new technology weapons and sensors become available ober the 30 year service life. But I have always felt that the T31 feels especially underequipped for it's size - I hate the phrase "Fitted For But Not With" (as I imagine most do).

I find discussion of the Venator 110 interesting. I belive their General Purpose Light
Frigate was only 4,000t, considerably smaller and lighter than T31. Yet from what I can gather the Venator 110 GP was still well equipped for it's size. The technical brief below was talking about 127mm main gun, couple of 30-40mm secondary guns, up to 24 CAMM with quad packed ExLS, potentially an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS or 8 Exocet canisters, plus flight deck and hangar for a Wildcat. That is a pretty well rounded escort to my mind.

(And if the RN wished to save money or go for lower specs they had a Patrol Frigate option).

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... -Brief.pdf

So if we were back in summer of 2019, I personally would have been fine with what I have read of the BMT Venator 110 as opposed to the Arrowhead 140. It would have still been built by Babcock and thus offered some (IMO) needed comptetion to BAE. But being smaller would have hopefully been quicker to build.

But as three years later Venator 110 is no longer an option then I guess it is back to thinking how best to get the maximum value at minimal extra cost (whether upfront purchase price, annual maintenance and serving cost or even crewing requirements) out of the T31.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

It was always Venator 90 for me…

Image
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 22 May 2022, 18:37 It was always Venator 90 for me…

Image
Forgive my ignorance but how did Venator 90 compare suzewise to the Ventor 110?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

BMT took down the details for the Venator 90, but a good video remains on YouTube. From memory it was about 3,000t and 90m in length.

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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Rather than the Venator, I think the RN has placed itself quite handily with the T-31 and T-32. If the latter ends up being a better equipped and more capable version of the former, by the nature of the A140 design it should be relatively simple to bring the T-31 up to the same standard, if both the MoD and Babcock think in the long run and see how the RN needs to became more spiky (love that phrase).

The RN would then end up with ten capable GP Platforms able to work with small and medium unmanned platforms, fitting very nicely into any Task Force or forward deployed as is planned for the T-31. The use of unmanned platforms could give them a reasonable ASW capability without the need to fit a TASS to the actual vessel, and using the Wildcat as the delivery platform to prosecute any targets. Not in the same league as the T-26, but then if CMC was also introduced across teh fleet its overall effectiveness would be greater.

The additions to the T-31 to make a T-32 would involve modifying hte Boat Bays to handle unmanned platforms of the appropriate size if needed.
The number of Sea Ceptors missile would vary but a baseline of twenty four in two, three cell ExLS Stand Alone modules and then a single eight Cell MK41 VLS. One of the key requirement I see for the T-31/32 is a containerised AShM such as NSM to be fitted as standard and FC/ASW in the Mk41 only when it is decided it is needed over other weapon systems.

I strongly believe that like with its Escorts the RN needs a Hi-Lo mix, figuratively speaking for its AShM. FC/ASW is going to be a very high end weapon and I doubt we can afford for it to become the standard AShM for the RN's Escort force. I would go far as to suggest that the T-26 should also carry at least eight AShMs such as NSM, as the RAN intend to do. The cell in the Mk41 are going to become very valuable going forward as more and more uses are found for them. Not having to reserve between four and eight of a ships only AShM would be a useful addition.

Of course, like so many ideas, all this will require additional funding for the RN, which I believe should happen given the changes happening in the world as we speak.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 22 May 2022, 19:48 BMT took down the details for the Venator 90, but a good video remains on YouTube. From memory it was about 3,000t and 90m in length.

Thanks for the link. I think I have heard before that ideal ship length for regular helicopter operations is 105mm, so the Venator 90 would have been a bit short for that. I could have seen advantages to RN in having smaller cheaper ships for lower instensity missions, which presumably would have also required less crew, back before the decision was actually made. I am guessing that Venator 90 might well have similar dimensions and specs to the BAE proposed Avenger class (given that was based on River B2).

Have said on the OPV thread that with the current / upcoming retirement of the RN's MCMV and hydrographic survey ships, that the RN will need some smaller ships, even if only to act as motherships to the forthcoming UAV / USV / USuV. I don't know whether these would need to be OPV sized, smaller or maybe larger. If the RN is investing in the T31 & T32 then I am sure if there is unlikely to be also requirements for the likes of either Venator 110 or Venator 90. But until we have further confirmation of what they intend for the T32, and how they will be specced up, then there remains a (admittedly small) chance that Venator 110/90 might make a comeback for the RN.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 22 May 2022, 13:28 i agree too, though i'd take that back to cyprus to diego.
The Indo Pacific 'tilt' should be read as: Guardian of the western SLOC's.
Well said, for the latter.

But how do you draw a line (in Navy terms!) from Cyprus (not a navy base, but that is beside the point) to Diego?

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 May 2022, 17:03 The T31 design ended up being just shy of 140m and 5700t. I am not sure why it needed to be quite so large - I can understand the RN giving itself some leeway in both space and power to be able to requip the T31 as new technology weapons and sensors become available ober the 30 year service life.
It is not abt re-equipping (Mid-life and all that) over 30 yrs; it s abt going from 3rd tier to 2nd in "nano-seconds" with hulls in the water and trained crews in them
- now, for the 101st time (while @TD counted in) I am calling for a national(ed) fitting out yard
- those who don't like it can 'jog on' ... and jog back again when the plans meet 'with reality'
[/quote]
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 May 2022, 17:03 Venator 110 GP was still well equipped for it's size. The technical brief below was talking about 127mm main gun
Yeah, how many RN warships are having that? The T45s will retire without... quite rightly so as the gun has no relevance to their primary tasking

Repulse wrote: 22 May 2022, 19:48 From memory it was about 3,000t and 90m in length.
Yes, for the MCM version, still able to cross the oceans at the speed of the "TF"... whatever that (the TF) was deemed to be , at that time
- the take-away = to self deploy
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 May 2022, 22:06 Thanks for the link. I think I have heard before that ideal ship length for regular helicopter operations is 105mm, so the Venator 90 would have been a bit short for that.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 May 2022, 22:06 I don't know whether these would need to be OPV sized, smaller or maybe larger.
90 as per above
103 as per a separate study by BMT (base on ocean waves, esp. S Ocean) for seakeeping and crew comfort
110 for your preferred heavily armed + helicoptered versin
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
jedibeeftrix
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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Apologies to all about te MacAir not having a deep enough travel of the keys (to give proper feedback)
... and you will have letters missing (here & there) frequently.

I try to read back as for chnge of/ impact on meaning... but otherwise I will just let 'it' go
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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder if we could see the T-45s having their current Mk8 gun replaced by the same BAe 57mm as will wquip the T-31 and possibly the T-32.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
serge750

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Slightly off T45 topic hence the post here, but I wonder if the decision to invest in a European BMD system is indicative of the likely direction of travel for the T83?

(I.e. the T83 is likely to be based around a new U.K./European system rather than Aegis)
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

A European BMD system is being developed, with one option being able to be fired from both naval Sylver VLS and from the lauch vehicles of the land based SAMP-T system.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Dobbo

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

A beakdown of what is publicly known on the upcoming RN Frigates in today's UK defence journal based apparently on MOD responses to written questions or press releases from industry:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-guide ... ate-types/

A couple of snippets in the article I found particularly interesting:

Apparently T26 are due to have 48 cell VLS with Sea Ceptor and 24 cell strike-length Mk 41 VLS. That is more than I was hoping. But in service are currently expeted to be between 2027 and 2035 - let's hope that rumored gearbox problems don't get any worse.....

And I noticed that for first time that T31 don't appear to fitted with Phalanx CIWS. Yes they have 2*40mm secondary guns but that is instead of 2*30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns. So great at dealing with drones and small fast boats, but not so great versus missiles.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 26 May 2022, 22:14 A beakdown of what is publicly known on the upcoming RN Frigates in today's UK defence journal based apparently on MOD responses to written questions or press releases from industry:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-guide ... ate-types/

A couple of snippets in the article I found particularly interesting:

Apparently T26 are due to have 48 cell VLS with Sea Ceptor and 24 cell strike-length Mk 41 VLS. That is more than I was hoping. But in service are currently expeted to be between 2027 and 2035 - let's hope that rumored gearbox problems don't get any worse.....

And I noticed that for first time that T31 don't appear to fitted with Phalanx CIWS. Yes they have 2*40mm secondary guns but that is instead of 2*30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns. So great at dealing with drones and small fast boats, but not so great versus missiles.
I am a little shocked that you were unsure of the Frigate armaments as this is were most of the talking is around

Yes Type 26 is to get 48 CAMM plus 24 Mk-41 and 1 x 127mm , 2 x 30mm , 2 x Phalanx however what most of us here would like to see is the 4 x 6 mushroom VLS replaced with 2 x 8 cell Mk-41 to make 32 Mk-41 on the forward missile deck and the 4 x 6 midships mushroom VLS replaced by 2 x Mk-41 allowing T-26 to carry 64 CAMM and 32 other weapons. I would also replace the 2 x 30mm and 2 x Phalanx with 4 x 40mm as the 64 CAMM would deal with missile threats and the 40mm is better suited to deal with UAV and fast boat threats but still gives good protection against missiles

As for Type 31 back in the day there was a model of a T-31 with 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm mount however again if type 31 was to do away with the mushroom VLS and get 32 Mk-41 VLS it could carry 32 CAMM and 24 other weapon or half the weapons load out of a T-26 which would be about right for half the money

As I have said before a T-31 with 32 Mk-41 could carry 32 CAMM , 32 x VL Spear 3 & 16 Tomahawk Blk-V

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 »

I propose more modest up-arming, considering the FACT that RN lacks crew, and possibly even lacking money (because added money looks like, I'm afraid, mostly spend on rapid inflation).

T26:
- replace 48 mushrooms with 24 ExLS quad packed (12 in front, 12 amidship), giving 96 CAMM.
- add 8 NSM (or alike) amidship, which will enable the expensive FC/ASW to sink high-end escorts and HVU, not the fast boats/corvettes/light-frigates. Note Russia, China and Iran has numbers of such low/mid-end ships. Thus, I think this is "almost" equivalent to adding 8 more cells of VLS.
- not sure about 40mm gun (*1; see below)

T31:
- with 12 CAMM (better be with 24), and the 3 guns, I think its armament is actually "so-so good" for their tasks
- adding 8 NSM might be an option to counter Iranian boats/corvettes.
- adding any ASW capability is not attractive for me. Several SeaGuarding UAVs (ASW) will be much efficient.
T31 has already eaten up £750M of extra money (which amounts to ~1 T26, OR full BMD capability on 6 T45 BY NOW, OR ~4 more P-8A OR ~10 more Merlin HM2). I understand the money was needed for T31, and anyway it will never come back. So, it's OK. But, let's stop spending more money nor crew on Hormuz strait patrol frigate. Adding more equipment on a patrol frigate will REDUCE their figure of merit = cheap and lean-manned to operate = providing longer sea going days.

Note, "lack of crew and money", is the start point of my discussion. I'm proposing to achieve the maximum, not reducing anything.

*1: I am not sure if 30 mm or 40 mm which is better. 40mm 3P is clearly the better choice for countering fast-boat swarm, UAVs, and may also against sub-sonic ASMs. But, the gun will also be used in day-by-day works, say, used against pirates, and its "dull" ammo is much much cheaper than that of 40mm. Also, now a proximity fused rounds are available for 30mm gun, good to handle UAVs. What is more, USN is moving to 30 mm guns, which secures cheap ammo and investments in sophisticated ammo. I think we shall just wait for a decade or so.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

Post Reply