Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Dobbo]

The power topic is an interesting one - I’m wondering if nuclear is going to come into the discussion.

I had wondered about this - with SMR power being all the rage for civilian use, and we think/hope a greater demand for SSN reactors, might a nuclear option be rational for future proofing?

[SomeoneAh]

As I undrstand it, much of the high cost of T26 was the hull and gearbox designed for quietness with the mission of being a dedicated ASW hunter. Do we meed that on a ship intended to cover a AAW role?

Indeed the noise canceling hull use on the type 26 hull and the fancy gearbox is not require on a AAW version of type 26. But RN can still use the T26 as a basis and extend the hull for AAW just like what you mention, but replace the gearbox with FEP and install two MT30 engine, this design in my point of few is the most cost effective and much safer option.

If T83 design is basis on T26 i believe the RN can actually purchase more number of ship because of the lower unit cost.

I'd just like to point out that after you have extended the width and length of the hull and replaced the powertrain and presumably modified the superstructure to carry the required high powered AAW/ABM radar you aren't basing your T83 on the T26 you have designed a new ship.

Right seems a bit to much changed, I wonder is the T26 have the same modularity like the Arrowhead 140, if yes then the difficulty of change will be greatly reduced.

[Jdam]

Can anywhere else but Barrow-in-Furness built nuke stuff?

[wargame_insomniac]

I would be concerned about extending the T26 if you mean building these batch 2's as longer and thus heavier.

Did we need such large ASW Frigates?

Now if you meant extending the NUMBER of T26, then I apologise for my assumption above. If we are talking about increased number of hulls, then my concern is the cost of T26. As I undrstand it, much of the high cost of T26 was the hull and gearbox designed for quietness with the mission of being a dedicated ASW hunter. Do we meed that on a ship intended to cover a AAW role?

My view is that there isn’t enough ASW frigates so by building an additional four T26s (and pushing the T83 programme back 8 years) fills some of that gap. Yes, the T45/T83 is there to provide AAW capabilities but I see they can do both - hypersonic defence is likely to require AAW warships further from the carrier to provide a wider air defence bubble. Will it cost more, possibly, but the efficiencies from scale (larger T26 fleet) will mitigate the cost increase. Looking at the Hunter and CSC will give us a guide.

I am not arguing that the T83 should be based on the T26 design, it should be a new design that can do both AAW / ASW roles. Before people get over excited ASW warfare in the 2040 is highly likely to be drone based, and as I said the air defence (and surface defence to that matter) bubble needs to be bigger so the whole current argument on positioning AAW and ASW assets differently is mute IMO.

Ideal would be to enlarge the first class fleet to 18 (or more) over the next decade or two, basically having the following before the first T83 comes online:
- 3 ASW T26s
- 9 ASW / AAW T26s
- 6 T45s

When you say "9 ASW / AAW T26s" do you mean on the same sized hull but simply adding more VLS launchers and better AAW sensors and radar, well then fair enough. And at least the latter (and maybe the former) could be added to the initial 3 batch 1 T26 when they have their first major refit to bring all ships up to roughly comparable standard. At least Fitted For But Not With should be a thing of the past.....

Other than additional crew requirement and likely £4bn additional cost, then that sounds ok. But that does need additional spending on Defence - even if cancel all 5*T32 that would "Save" £1.25bn - £1.5 bn so still extra spending required. (And I used save in inverted commas as we are nt sure if these have even been fomally budgeted for yet - just announced).

[wargame_insomniac]

Can anywhere else but Barrow-in-Furness built nuke stuff?

Barrow is the only place we can currently build submarines. I believe that the Rolls Royce Pressured Water Reactors are built in Derby. The last PWR2 reactor was built for the last of the 7 Astute Class SSN's, and the first PWR3 reactor will be built for the new Dreadnought Class SSBN's. I have no idea if either of these reactors would be suitable for a surface ship.

The Dreadnought Class are going to be even bigger than the Vanguard Class, which themselves were over 15,000t. Would even a 10,000t Cruiser sized escort be big enough to contain a PWR3?

The point is that we are looking into the unknown and adding yet more complexities to what is already likely to be a complex design and build. Not even the US still uses nuclear powered escorts. The Russian Navy only has two (and just one currently in active service) of the initial 4 Kirov Class nuclear powered Battlecruisers, and for the Slava class switched back to conventional power.

It is not as if the Queen Elizabeth CV are nuclear powered and that we would need nuclear powered escorts to keep up.

[tomuk]

Can anywhere else but Barrow-in-Furness built nuke stuff?

Barrow, Faslane*, Devonport and Rosyth are licensed as nuclear sites.

Cammell Laird also built nuclear submarines, HMS Conqueror being the last in 1970 but it has continued to contribute to more recent builds. It it is still doing fabrications for the new Dreadnought SSBNs. It is also involved with the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre hosting a R&D hub for the last five years.

[Repulse]

When you say "9 ASW / AAW T26s" do you mean on the same sized hull but simply adding more VLS launchers and better AAW sensors and radar, well then fair enough. And at least the latter (and maybe the former) could be added to the initial 3 batch 1 T26 when they have their first major refit to bring all ships up to roughly comparable standard. At least Fitted For But Not With should be a thing of the past.....

Other than additional crew requirement and likely £4bn additional cost, then that sounds ok. But that does need additional spending on Defence - even if cancel all 5*T32 that would "Save" £1.25bn - £1.5 bn so still extra spending required. (And I used save in inverted commas as we are nt sure if these have even been fomally budgeted for yet - just announced).

When I say 9 ASW / AAW T26s I say the same T26 design. I’m not saying there cannot be any minor refinement of that design, for example the CSCs are expected to be 2m longer so naturally we’d want to learn lessons. I would not upgrade the 3 already ordered.

Basically, I’m saying delay the T82, but instead build another 4 T26s. Yes, it will cost more, but effectively you are using money in particular year for T26s not T82s. The T45 would probably need to soldier on for another @6 years.

The fleet will be larger and yes will cost more, but that is about us as a country putting our money where our mouth is.

[Jdam]

Can anywhere else but Barrow-in-Furness built nuke stuff?

Barrow, Faslane*, Devonport and Rosyth are licensed as nuclear sites.

Cammell Laird also built nuclear submarines, HMS Conqueror being the last in 1970 but it has continued to contribute to more recent builds. It it is still doing fabrications for the new Dreadnought SSBNs. It is also involved with the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre hosting a R&D hub for the last five years.

Interesting, cancel the type 32 and get Rosyth to assemble the a nuke powdered Type 83, then get the Clyde to construct another 5-8 type 26's?

Next would be the trained personal to handle a reactor on a ship, dont we have issues getting enough people for the submarines?

[SW1]

Yeah they didn’t go nuke on carriers due to astronomical costs and ports access overseas, yet let’s make the escorts astronomically expensive and restrict ports access instead!

Equipment purchases need to get cheaper form here not more expensive if exercises and holdings are to increase readiness.

[Jdam]

Yeah they didn’t go nuke on carriers due to astronomical costs and ports access overseas,

Its fun to speculate what could be done with a bit of a shift in thinking and what we would need to overcome but lets be under no illusion, we getting 8 type 26's, 5 type 31's and if we are lucky 6 type 83s. And those 6 type 83s will probably be based on a type 26 stretched hull.

[SW1]

Yeah they didn’t go nuke on carriers due to astronomical costs and ports access overseas,

Its fun to speculate what could be done with a bit of a shift in thinking and what we would need to overcome but lets be under no illusion, we getting 8 type 26's, 5 type 31's and if we are lucky 6 type 83s.

It is but it’s always speculation based on spending even more money. More interesting to speculate achieving the aims in a complete different way.

[Cooper]

Its fun to speculate what could be done with a bit of a shift in thinking and what we would need to overcome but lets be under no illusion, we getting 8 type 26's, 5 type 31's and if we are lucky 6 type 83s. And those 6 type 83s will probably be based on a type 26 stretched hull.

..Don't forget the Type 32's.

[ArmChairCivvy]

More interesting to speculate achieving the aims in a complete different way.

Global cruiser (finally ) with RR minireactors and an MT30 to add oomph for sprinting?

[Jdam]

Its fun to speculate what could be done with a bit of a shift in thinking and what we would need to overcome but lets be under no illusion, we getting 8 type 26's, 5 type 31's and if we are lucky 6 type 83s. And those 6 type 83s will probably be based on a type 26 stretched hull.

..Don't forget the Type 32's.

I listed all the types I thought we would get

[Cooper]

I listed all the types I thought we would get

Type 32s will happen.

..and if they don't, its only because of extra T-26s or Type 83s

[Tempest414]

Maybe the way forward could be to take type 32 and 83 budgets as they come to light and role in together and build

6 x Type 47's based on a 145 meter A-140 with 64 VLS and 1 x 57mm and 2 x 40mm

3 x Type 84 Cruisers at 180 x 24 meters with 140 VLS , 3 x 127mm , 4 x 57mm as A2AD system in it self

[wargame_insomniac]

I listed all the types I thought we would get

Type 32s will happen.

..and if they don't, its only because of extra T-26s or Type 83s

I was glad when they were announced as RN need more escorts. But until they have been actually budgeted for, and preferably ordered, then they are just a mere press conference sound bite, and just as tangible.

Especially given the change in PM in a few weeks and quite possibly a change in governing party in a couple of years.

[tomuk]

Something to note on the nuclear fantasies a single PWR3 or SG9 reactor provides a similar 30MW output to the Rolls Royce MT30 turbine. For a surface ship I'd choose the MT30 every time, the costs of nuclear are just gargantuan. How much cheaper would the Fords be if powered by three or four MT30s?

[S M H]

I part of the crew that did the servalance run on the Russia Cruiser in mid 80s. There was questions about her nuclear power plant at the time By air sampling it was established that they ran on nuclear steam propulsion. But. when high speed running the steam was supper heated by boilers. The cost of installing a pure nuclear was prohibitive. The hybrid nuclear system was adopted but not used for the later carrier A pure nuclear warship is prohibitive cost we would end up with one or two. And they would be prohibited from a lot of ports. The nuclear power for warship is only practical for large aircraft carriers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a single PWR3 or SG9 reactor provides a similar 30MW output to the Rolls Royce MT30 turbine. For a surface ship I'd choose the MT30 every time, the costs of nuclear are just gargantuan.

Of course this is all true. Even if you do all the clever tricks the French have done
- use lower yield fuel so that the nuclear (civil) power generation shares both the upstraem and the downstream with the military
- use only one reactor design (that would mean that the next carrier would need THREE reactors)

Overall, helps to lower life-time costs, but
... I'm still for the RR minireactors (not really, lets see them working first) and a bit of MT30 oomph

[SomeoneAh]

Maybe the way forward could be to take type 32 and 83 budgets as they come to light and role in together and build

6 x Type 47's based on a 145 meter A-140 with 64 VLS and 1 x 57mm and 2 x 40mm

3 x Type 84 Cruisers at 180 x 24 meters with 140 VLS , 3 x 127mm , 4 x 57mm as A2AD system in it self

Arrowhead 140 with 64 Vls will be a very decent AAW/, Multirole warship short building time 18 month per ship, low cost compare to the T26 which can order in greater numbers, require less crew to operate.

But i have another idea of using the T26 get rid of the mission bay and put another 48 VLS on that space and replace the mushrooms with MK41, i believe the Type 26 hull can also be the a very decent AAW/Multirole warship.

I agree that the RN can not only count on the T83 to do all the work, they need a lower end warship to support and boost the escort number.

[SomeoneAh]

But i have another idea of using the T26 get rid of the mission bay and put another 48 VLS on that space and replace the mushrooms with MK41, i believe the Type 26 hull can also be the a very decent AAW/Multirole warship.

Here is the mock up of what i mention, delete the mission bay and lower the deck level same as the forward missile bay ( to reduce top weight), put 48 -72 MK41 vls in that space, which the T26 can get 112 to 120 vls in total.

[SomeoneAh]

But i have another idea of using the T26 get rid of the mission bay and put another 48 VLS on that space and replace the mushrooms with MK41, i believe the Type 26 hull can also be the a very decent AAW/Multirole warship.

Here is the mock up of what i mention, delete the mission bay and lower the deck level same as the forward missile bay ( to reduce top weight), put 48 -72 MK41 vls in that space, which the T26 can get 112 to 120 vls in total.

T46 T83.jpg

[donald_of_tokyo]

But i have another idea of using the T26 get rid of the mission bay and put another 48 VLS on that space and replace the mushrooms with MK41, i believe the Type 26 hull can also be the a very decent AAW/Multirole warship.

Here is the mock up of what i mention, delete the mission bay and lower the deck level same as the forward missile bay ( to reduce top weight), put 48 -72 MK41 vls in that space, which the T26 can get 112 to 120 vls in total.

T46 T83.jpg

Sorry but simply impossible because of top weight. Also, Mk41 in front is too much, it will be 32-max, if it is strike length.

I personally think, 32 in front, and 32 in ex-mission-bay will be the maximum doable. But, not more. In this case, top weight issue will limit the sensor height.

FREDA, an AAW version of FREMM, carries 32 Sylver VLS (I understand 16 tactical, and 16 strike length). T26-multi-role version with 64-cell of Mk.41 VLS is already great, for this "not-so-large", ASW specialist hull.

[SW1]

What are u putting in all these VLS silos your buying considering there’s next to nothing at present that we have to use in them and how much of the budget are you allocating to fill them.