Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 18 May 2023, 22:57 That means giving those pilots and thus navy and RAF skills and Capabilities.
Why RAF?

Interoperability is great but it’s time 80-90 F35b were procured and every single one of them handed over to the FAA.

Is it actually cheaper or more expensive to continue with a mixed RAF/FAA model?

When Tempest arrives why would the RAF want to continue flying F35b anyway?

Fly F35b, Fly Navy!
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
abc123Scimitar54

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zeno »

Tempest is likely to launched from conventional runways ,the f35b can under circumstances from austere bases

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 May 2023, 08:08
new guy wrote: 18 May 2023, 22:57 That means giving those pilots and thus navy and RAF skills and Capabilities.
Why RAF?

Interoperability is great but it’s time 80-90 F35b were procured and every single one of them handed over to the FAA.

Is it actually cheaper or more expensive to continue with a mixed RAF/FAA model?

When Tempest arrives why would the RAF want to continue flying F35b anyway?

Fly F35b, Fly Navy!
If you follow your proposal then it is a sure fire way for “carrier strike” to disappear. It’s really not about airframes.

Budget/Manpower/airworthiness holders and more.

I would also suggest just because they have proposed ordering more airframes it in no way means that they will all be available because there has been no statement on how many of the existing purchased fleet will receive the necessary upgrades to continue flying or the cost of that.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote: 18 May 2023, 21:09
Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:53
serge750 wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:43 12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????
Surely by 2025 the target must 24x UK F35s? That would be quite a sight if it could be done.

What is the plan for CSG2024?
That's mine and Ron's target...not sure it's the MoDs....
and I'm getting nervous :(

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 May 2023, 08:08
new guy wrote: 18 May 2023, 22:57 That means giving those pilots and thus navy and RAF skills and Capabilities.
Why RAF?

Interoperability is great but it’s time 80-90 F35b were procured and every single one of them handed over to the FAA.

Is it actually cheaper or more expensive to continue with a mixed RAF/FAA model?

When Tempest arrives why would the RAF want to continue flying F35b anyway?

Fly F35b, Fly Navy!
YEAH BABY!!!!!
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 19 May 2023, 13:45
Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 May 2023, 08:08
new guy wrote: 18 May 2023, 22:57 That means giving those pilots and thus navy and RAF skills and Capabilities.
Why RAF?

Interoperability is great but it’s time 80-90 F35b were procured and every single one of them handed over to the FAA.

Is it actually cheaper or more expensive to continue with a mixed RAF/FAA model?

When Tempest arrives why would the RAF want to continue flying F35b anyway?

Fly F35b, Fly Navy!
If you follow your proposal then it is a sure fire way for “carrier strike” to disappear. It’s really not about airframes.

Budget/Manpower/airworthiness holders and more.

I would also suggest just because they have proposed ordering more airframes it in no way means that they will all be available because there has been no statement on how many of the existing purchased fleet will receive the necessary upgrades to continue flying or the cost of that.
Typical RAF "enthusiasm" about F-35B's. Yet another reason to FLY NAVY.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote: 19 May 2023, 14:25
dmereifield wrote: 18 May 2023, 21:09
Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:53
serge750 wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:43 12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????
Surely by 2025 the target must 24x UK F35s? That would be quite a sight if it could be done.

What is the plan for CSG2024?
That's mine and Ron's target...not sure it's the MoDs....
and I'm getting nervous :(
Me too
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
Ron5

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Timeline slipping or accelerating build schedule?

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov ... esults&p=1

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 19 May 2023, 20:17 Timeline slipping or accelerating build schedule?

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov ... esults&p=1
BAEs Naval Ships are outsourcing a scope of steelwork fabrication to build yards across the UK. These will range from three single units to a consolidated block. Due to the size and weight of these, seaborne transportation will be required. BAEs Naval Ships are looking to hear from any transportation subcontractor's that would be interested in undertaking this scope of work.

The three single units will be transported to a quayside where they will then be required to be loaded out to a suitable vessel prior to onwards shipping to BAEs Naval Ship's Govan site. The units will then be required to be discharged at the Govan site.

The consolidated block will be built in a number of build cradles. It will require transportation to the quayside via SPMTs. The block will be required to be loaded out to a suitably sized barge and then be secured for onwards transportation to BAEs Naval Ship's Govan site. Upon arrival, the block will be required to be loaded in at Govan and transported to its final location within the yard.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:53
serge750 wrote: 18 May 2023, 20:43 12 uk F35 & 12 us marine atleast.... pow this time ?????
Surely by 2025 the target must 24x UK F35s? That would be quite a sight if it could be done.

What is the plan for CSG2024?
For me what would be great would be 10 x FAA , 10 x RAF and 10 x USMC making 30 jets on POW lets push the boat out

The big thing is will we have two T-45's fully fit with the PIP complete and NSM fitted
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Ron5

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 09:09 …lets push the boat out….
I don’t know about pushing the boat out but RFA Fort Victoria may need to be put under tow! It’s 50/50 if Fort Vic will even make it to 2025. Mind the gap….again!

The whole strategy is going to disintegrate if RFA recruitment and retention is not sorted asap.
The big thing is will we have two T-45's fully fit with the PIP complete and NSM fitted
Conversely, the T45 availability going forward will be a big plus. Pity the CAMM were not included in the refit.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
Ron5wargame_insomniac

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 20 May 2023, 10:05
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 09:09 …lets push the boat out….
I don’t know about pushing the boat out but RFA Fort Victoria may need to be put under tow! It’s 50/50 if Fort Vic will even make it to 2025. Mind the gap….again!

The whole strategy is going disintegrate if RFA recruitment and retention is not sorted asap.
The big thing is will we have two T-45's fully fit with the PIP complete and NSM fitted
Conversely, the T45 availability going forward will be a big plus. Pity the CAMM were not included in the refit.
Oh another thing for CSG2030 hype: T45 will have BMD and CAMM and NSM.
Meaning:
Improved T45
T31
T26
FSS
Tides
Carrier with FOC of 24 F-35B + UAV's
Astute
allies
These users liked the author new guy for the post (total 2):
serge750Ron5

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

:clap: Yeh ! that will be a good one for RN all round capability :clap:
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
Ron5

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 »

Some proposal on T31 Mk.41 VLS.

[FACTS]
1: T31 hull-1's production is in good progress, and to be launched next year (2024), and delivered to RN on 2025. The schedule is already very tight. Also, "Mk.41 adding assessment phase" will just start soon.
2: We know there is a reserved space for 32-cell Mk41 VLS. But, its (surface) area is already used by CAMM mushroom tube (at least partly). Where to move/locate CAMM is a big question here.

[THOUGHTS]
3: Re-locating CAMM to somewhere, for example, on the port side of the 32-cell Mk.41 VLS area, is doable. But, the room is not "CAMM Fit-to-Receive", and it must be used for something else. Surely needs time to design, verify and implement. Fire fighting capability, power line, network line, all needs to be modified.
4: Installing CAMM with ExLS into Mk.41 is doable. But, the system is not yet "kicked off". A trial by LM a few years ago does not mean it is integrated. So, UK need to pay for the integration, and wait for a few years for trial and certification.

I dislike the idea-4, because it is VERY inefficient way of using Mk.41. Also, idea-4 will take time as much as idea-3. ...[EDITed]

Anyway, the first few hulls of T31 will come without Mk.41 VLS. As T23GP is already starting to decommission, I think RN cannot wait for the Mk.41 solution implementation. So, at least some initial hulls of T31 will be delivered without Mk.41 VLS. If not, RN escort number will significantly reduce in near future.

NAB-san, in his comment to Navylookout article, also suggested so.

(continue...)
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

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 »

.. continue.

Option-A:
- Take time to implement "24 CAMM" on the port side of the 32-cell Mk.41 VLS. Apply this modification to hull 4 and 5.
- For a moment, build hull-1,2,3 with 24 CAMM using the 32-cell Mk.41 VLS area. As RNZN Te Kaha hosts 20 CAMM in the same surface area reserved for 16-cell Mk.41 VLS (although there were only 8 cells), I think 24-cell needs about 60% of the whole area.

Then RN will have 3 T31 with 24 CAMM (batch-1A1), and 2 T31 with 24 CAMM and 32-cell Mk41 VLS (batch-1A2). Actually, I do not think this is bad. If more punch is important and still the money is there, modify the 3 batch-1A1 to batch-1A2 standard in mid-2030s.

Option-B:
- Another option is to locate 20 CAMM on 16-cell equvalent area (like RNZN Te Kaha) and 16-cell Mk.41 VLS aside. As the design modification is very small, the first 2 hulls (not 3) will be delivered with only 20 CAMMs and no Mk.41 (batch-1B1), and the last 3 hulls with 20 CAMM and 16-cell Mk.41 VLS (batch-1B2).
- As it is relatively with small modification, batch-1B1 will be able to be converted into batch-1B2 standard easily.

This is one choice, but I'm afraid it be inefficient as an arsenal of land attack missiles. One "32-cell version" will be much cheaper than two "16-cell versions".


Modified Option-A:
- In option-A, RN will have 3 batch-1A1 hulls with 24 CAMM and no Mk.41. How about selling this to RNZN? Their two Te Kaha class frigates have crews of 180x2 = 360 (including flight). 3 T31 will need 120x3 = 360 (including flight). Good match.
- RNZN will get the "3rd frigate" they wanted for long and still the manpower will not limit them. Delivery will be held around 2035-36.
- In place, RN can order 3 more batch-1A2 hulls from Babcock, with delivery around 2034-35.

NZ will get 8 to 10-years old hulls, so UK must sell them cheap = without profit, and just at their price. NZ is a good partner, so having a common frigate with them will "pay" for the lack of profit. As T31 can be used for 35-40 years, RNZN has 3 frigates with remaining life of 25-30 years. Not bad, I think?

UK will get brand new hulls. It will cost a bit. But, building 3 hulls in batch-1A1 configuration and later converting them into batch-1A2, will cost much more than building batch-1A2 from scratch.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Option A1a would get my vote if i had a say ! extra work for Rosyth aswell to replace the 3 sold to NZ :thumbup:

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: 20 May 2023, 15:55 .. continue.

Option-A:
- Take time to implement "24 CAMM" on the port side of the 32-cell Mk.41 VLS. Apply this modification to hull 4 and 5.
- For a moment, build hull-1,2,3 with 24 CAMM using the 32-cell Mk.41 VLS area. As RNZN Te Kaha hosts 20 CAMM in the same surface area reserved for 16-cell Mk.41 VLS (although there were only 8 cells), I think 24-cell needs about 60% of the whole area.

Then RN will have 3 T31 with 24 CAMM (batch-1A1), and 2 T31 with 24 CAMM and 32-cell Mk41 VLS (batch-1A2). Actually, I do not think this is bad. If more punch is important and still the money is there, modify the 3 batch-1A1 to batch-1A2 standard in mid-2030s.

Option-B:
- Another option is to locate 20 CAMM on 16-cell equvalent area (like RNZN Te Kaha) and 16-cell Mk.41 VLS aside. As the design modification is very small, the first 2 hulls (not 3) will be delivered with only 20 CAMMs and no Mk.41 (batch-1B1), and the last 3 hulls with 20 CAMM and 16-cell Mk.41 VLS (batch-1B2).
- As it is relatively with small modification, batch-1B1 will be able to be converted into batch-1B2 standard easily.

This is one choice, but I'm afraid it be inefficient as an arsenal of land attack missiles. One "32-cell version" will be much cheaper than two "16-cell versions".


Modified Option-A:
- In option-A, RN will have 3 batch-1A1 hulls with 24 CAMM and no Mk.41. How about selling this to RNZN? Their two Te Kaha class frigates have crews of 180x2 = 360 (including flight). 3 T31 will need 120x3 = 360 (including flight). Good match.
- RNZN will get the "3rd frigate" they wanted for long and still the manpower will not limit them. Delivery will be held around 2035-36.
- In place, RN can order 3 more batch-1A2 hulls from Babcock, with delivery around 2034-35.

NZ will get 8 to 10-years old hulls, so UK must sell them cheap = without profit, and just at their price. NZ is a good partner, so having a common frigate with them will "pay" for the lack of profit. As T31 can be used for 35-40 years, RNZN has 3 frigates with remaining life of 25-30 years. Not bad, I think?

UK will get brand new hulls. It will cost a bit. But, building 3 hulls in batch-1A1 configuration and later converting them into batch-1A2, will cost much more than building batch-1A2 from scratch.
I would like to see New Zealand start taking some nor small steps to imptove their defence. RNZN probably can't afford escorts of the level and price as the T26 / Hunter Class / GCS. So if they could replace their two Anzac frigates with 3*T31 frigates, then that will certainly improve their naval cover. Whilst as you commented, not requiring additional crew to do so. The question is would the Kiwis be interested and at what price?

But the biggest question remains what missiles are the RN to fit in any Mk41 VLS, and at what cost? We know that FCASW is currently intended to be developed ready for the end of this decade (I think I had heard 2028 but I doubt that is as yet a firm delivery date). But this sounds as if could be highly expensive and I doubt the RN would want to or even could afford to fill their Mk41 VLS with FCASW missiles.

Onc we know the answer to those questions, then we would have a clearer idea on whether Mk41 VLS are best suited to the roles of T45, T28 or T31. Then comes down to budget priorities.

RN escorts having Mk41 VLS would certainly help with inter-operatability with pretty much every Allied Navy apart from French and Italian. For that reason I like the idea of the RN getting Mk41 VLS for some / all of escorts, but remain concerned as to what British or even European missiles are certfied for us - see,s very strong bias to US missiles, and I would hate to see companies such as MBDA UK being marginalised.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
serge750

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 15:38 Anyway, the first few hulls of T31 will come without Mk.41 VLS. As T23GP is already starting to decommission, I think RN cannot wait for the Mk.41 solution implementation.
What capability does adding Mk41 to T31 add that will be lost if the T23GP goes out of service? If it is ASuW then just stick NSM on T31.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Ron5

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

tomuk wrote: 20 May 2023, 20:07
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 15:38 Anyway, the first few hulls of T31 will come without Mk.41 VLS. As T23GP is already starting to decommission, I think RN cannot wait for the Mk.41 solution implementation.
What capability does adding Mk41 to T31 add that will be lost if the T23GP goes out of service? If it is ASuW then just stick NSM on T31.
That's widely believed to be the plan regardless due to that being the NSM role. FC/ASW to come in scale only in mid 2030's.

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 »

Can you see the 4th photo of this webpage? I was very much impressed that Iver Huitfeldt class is NOT designed for ASW. The same applies to Absalon class (see the attached photo).

- what a small hull-sonar dome.
- A big side thruster!! It will generate lots of flow noise there.

Iver Hultfeldt class is said to be meeting the NATO ASW frigate standard of quietization. May be it is talking about engine noise and prop-noise reduction. But, at least in the flow-noise, my personal impression is "oh, so the NATO ASW frigate standard of quietization level is SO BASIC, that almost any frigate can meet".

Adding CAPTAS4 or CAPTAS4-CI may work. It is the approach French FDI is taking. In active pinging, the hull noise, especially when it is located 100-200 m away, will not be a big issue. But, it surely is in perfectly different league than FREMM, not to say T26.

https://www.orskov.dk/the-danish-frigat ... rettyPhoto

Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The main picture is of a different ship in a different class: Absalon.

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 »

Ron5 wrote: 21 May 2023, 14:28 The main picture is of a different ship in a different class: Absalon.
Yes, hence I said
... The same applies to Absalon class (see the attached photo).

Just for clarity...

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 02:15 Can you see the 4th photo of this webpage? I was very much impressed that Iver Huitfeldt class is NOT designed for ASW. The same applies to Absalon class (see the attached photo).
Yes both Absalon and IH are so not designed for ASW that the Danish Navy have reclassified the Absalons as frigates and have tendered to have a towed array fitted to both of them by 2026.
Image
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -asw-role/

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 »

tomuk wrote: 21 May 2023, 18:06Yes both Absalon and IH are so not designed for ASW that the Danish Navy have reclassified the Absalons as frigates and have tendered to have a towed array fitted to both of them by 2026.
Yes. It means the 5 “frigates” will not be good at ASW. But as now two Apsalon and three IH are very bad at ASW, it is a great improvement anyway.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 21:34
tomuk wrote: 21 May 2023, 18:06Yes both Absalon and IH are so not designed for ASW that the Danish Navy have reclassified the Absalons as frigates and have tendered to have a towed array fitted to both of them by 2026.
Yes. It means the 5 “frigates” will not be good at ASW. But as now two Apsalon and three IH are very bad at ASW, it is a great improvement anyway.
They might not be a match for an ASW specialist like T26 but I'd like more evidence that they are very bad or unsuitable for ASW than your say so.

Post Reply