Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

I still have the feeling the T-32 could be what the T-31 may turn out to be after being made more capable during refits, that would give the RN a class of ten Patrol Frigates able to be easily deployed forward, with saving made due to commonality between the two and so on. Having these plus the six T-45s and eight T-26s would make the RN much stronger and able to act globally.

I would like to see Type 32 be a reworked type 31 like so

replace the 57mm with a 127mm
replace the forward 40mm with a 8 cell VLS for up to 32 CAMM
replace the rear 40mm with a Phalanx
move the 2 x 40mm each side of the phalanx

this would free up the centre of the ship for the much needed mission bay and to this say 4 containerized VDS that could be used by both type 31/32 from the space under the flight deck

[NickC]

I still have the feeling the T-32 could be what the T-31 may turn out to be after being made more capable during refits, that would give the RN a class of ten Patrol Frigates able to be easily deployed forward, with saving made due to commonality between the two and so on. Having these plus the six T-45s and eight T-26s would make the RN much stronger and able to act globally.

I would like to see Type 32 be a reworked type 31 like so

replace the 57mm with a 127mm
replace the forward 40mm with a 8 cell VLS for up to 32 CAMM
replace the rear 40mm with a Phalanx
move the 2 x 40mm each side of the phalanx

this would free up the centre of the ship for the much needed mission bay and to this say 4 containerized VDS that could be used by both type 31/32 from the space under the flight deck

Think by far the best option would be an updated Iver Huitfeldt, the Danes got it's capabilities spot on, it should be the benchmark by which T32 specs judged by.

To me a couple of stand out omissions from your list, one is area AA defence that IH has with its SM-2s, you covered CIWS and local area AA with CAMM and CAMM-ER etc. (would stick with the IH's 32 Mk41 VLS cells as think more versatile and much better use of space than a mission bay), secondly you make no mention of anti-ship missiles, IH has its deck launched Harpoons. As always in our fantasy specs it will depend on the future budget and the thoughts of the Navy Board which to me appear unfathomable at times

[Ron5]

I still have the feeling the T-32 could be what the T-31 may turn out to be after being made more capable during refits, that would give the RN a class of ten Patrol Frigates able to be easily deployed forward, with saving made due to commonality between the two and so on. Having these plus the six T-45s and eight T-26s would make the RN much stronger and able to act globally.

The assumption being that the "patrol frigate" role is something worth investing in. In other words, does the capability gap between the Rivers and the ASW T23/T26's really need to be filled?

[Poiuytrewq]

...does the capability gap between the Rivers and the ASW T23/T26's really need to be filled?

Or put in a different way...where are the T31's going to patrol that a RB2 cannot and will the T31's be sufficiently armed to complete such tasks without recklessly endangering the crew.

Working on the presumption that nothing bad will ever happen isn't a coherent strategy. It's just a different way to try and justify excessive cost-cutting which in itself is unjustifiable.

[Tempest414]

Think by far the best option would be an updated Iver Huitfeldt, the Danes got it's capabilities spot on, it should be the benchmark by which T32 specs judged by.

To me a couple of stand out omissions from your list, one is area AA defence that IH has with its SM-2s, you covered CIWS and local area AA with CAMM and CAMM-ER etc. (would stick with the IH's 32 Mk41 VLS cells as think more versatile and much better use of space than a mission bay), secondly you make no mention of anti-ship missiles, IH has its deck launched Harpoons. As always in our fantasy specs it will depend on the future budget and the thoughts of the Navy Board which to me appear unfathomable at times

We don't need a IH class at this time we have type 45

[Tempest414]

...does the capability gap between the Rivers and the ASW T23/T26's really need to be filled?

Or put in a different way...where are the T31's going to patrol that a RB2 cannot and will the T31's be sufficiently armed to complete such tasks without recklessly endangering the crew.

Working on the presumption that nothing bad will ever happen isn't a coherent strategy. It's just a different way to try and justify excessive cost-cutting which in itself is unjustifiable.

yes the gap between the B2's and T-23/26 ASW dose need to be filled and as always it is down to money. A-140 with its low crew , 9000 Nm range 30 knots top speed Merlin capable hangar and flight deck is a good start and we all keep coming back to what is needed to finish it off which is

More CAMM ( 24 to 32 )
A SSGW
A containerized VDS ( say 3 between the 5 ships )

Plus as said before in line with RN thinking of 2 x Phalanx on T-26/45 fit 2 x Phalanx on T-31 one each side of the rear 40mm like on the Babcock model in 2019 . These would in my mind make a nice ship

[NickC]

Think by far the best option would be an updated Iver Huitfeldt, the Danes got it's capabilities spot on, it should be the benchmark by which T32 specs judged by.

To me a couple of stand out omissions from your list, one is area AA defence that IH has with its SM-2s, you covered CIWS and local area AA with CAMM and CAMM-ER etc. (would stick with the IH's 32 Mk41 VLS cells as think more versatile and much better use of space than a mission bay), secondly you make no mention of anti-ship missiles, IH has its deck launched Harpoons. As always in our fantasy specs it will depend on the future budget and the thoughts of the Navy Board which to me appear unfathomable at times

We don't need a IH class at this time we have type 45

We only have six T45, effectively five as one at Cammell Laird permanently having equivalent if open heart surgery for the next few years, do you consider a total fleet of six adequate, the original requirement was for twelve, would not T32 IH capabilities partially make up for the shortfall?

[donald_of_tokyo]

We only have six T45, effectively five as one at Cammell Laird permanently having equivalent if open heart surgery for the next few years, do you consider a total fleet of six adequate, the original requirement was for twelve, would not T32 IH capabilities partially make up for the shortfall?

IH like T31mod for AAW, without SM-2? Not clear for me...

Also, all 6 T45 will be ending their diesel upgrade well before any of T32 hull hit the water.

If more AAW is needed, why not just improve that of T26 (CAMM-ER or even adding Aster?) and/or CVF (CAMM and CAMM-ER), and/or T31 (more CAMM/CAMM-ER). There are many things to do. Even T45 can be easily uparmed to carry more SAMs.

[tomuk]

We only have six T45, effectively five as one at Cammell Laird permanently having equivalent if open heart surgery for the next few years, do you consider a total fleet of six adequate, the original requirement was for twelve, would not T32 IH capabilities partially make up for the shortfall?

IH like T31mod for AAW, without SM-2? Not clear for me...

Also, all 6 T45 will be ending their diesel upgrade well before any of T32 hull hit the water.

If more AAW is needed, why not just improve that of T26 (CAMM-ER or even adding Aster?) and/or CVF (CAMM and CAMM-ER), and/or T31 (more CAMM/CAMM-ER). There are many things to do. Even T45 can be easily uparmed to carry more SAMs.

Completely agree if there is a need for longer range AAW it should be covered firstly by CAMM-ER and then Aster 30 we don't want another missile family like SM2 to support.

[Scimitar54]

Rather than “Increase CAMM”, it would be far better to get CAMM integrated with Strike Length Missile Silo’s and then install an adequate number of those.

[Lord Jim]

If done right a T-31mod and the T-32 would be more capable than the tailless T-23s by some margin, be totally at home within a Carrier Strike Group and be capable of protecting Amphibious and RFA units. Adding two or three standard length Mk41s would give them multiple option for load outs from CAMM to SM-6 to VL ASROC and so on. If the T-31mod are left the interim AShMs in the T-23's will, then a further five sets would set up the T-32, leaving the bigger guns like FCASW to the T-26. With Phalanx fore and aft together with CAMM and the 57mm it would have quite an effective layered anti missile defence. The BAe 40mm could go to the B2 Rivers and/or any UMCV Mothership.

These ships could be as effective if not more so then the Italian PPA or the French FDI, which would if the price is right open up expert possibility far more then the current T-31e does as potential customers will see what the platform can actually become rather then just PowerPoint presentations.

First Building the T-31e, then the major refit and the construction of the T-31 and possible export orders would also give Babcock a secure order book well into the 2030, as well as its supply chain. BAe can then concentrate on the T-83 after completing the T-26 build programme as well as any modification that may happen to the T-26 between the three Batch ones and the remaining five Batch twos.

As for money, if the MoD, Babcock and BAe have learned their lessons and the T-26 and T-31 programmes end up on time and within their current budgets, or near to them, and the desire for Britain to be Global for which it really need an expanded Royal Navy and that the Government has committed "Verbally" to this, in my opinion the money could be found.

[NickC]

We only have six T45, effectively five as one at Cammell Laird permanently having equivalent if open heart surgery for the next few years, do you consider a total fleet of six adequate, the original requirement was for twelve, would not T32 IH capabilities partially make up for the shortfall?

IH like T31mod for AAW, without SM-2? Not clear for me...

Also, all 6 T45 will be ending their diesel upgrade well before any of T32 hull hit the water.

If more AAW is needed, why not just improve that of T26 (CAMM-ER or even adding Aster?) and/or CVF (CAMM and CAMM-ER), and/or T31 (more CAMM/CAMM-ER). There are many things to do. Even T45 can be easily uparmed to carry more SAMs.

What puts me off a full fat multi-mission T26 with new gen radars etc is the cost, the Canadian PBO report in February estimated the build cost of the CSC, excluding development, at £2.3 billion per ship, hopefully would not cost as much in UK but still looks to be a very expensive ship so limiting class buy to a few ships, might be the option chosen due to the industry/politics of keeping the two BAE Clyde shipyards open, will be of interest if we get detailed cost figurers for the other full fat T26, the Australian Hunter.

If we make the big assumption that the RN decides the T32 capabilities include area AA defence, possible as design based on IH with its 32 Mk41 VLS cells, to partially compensate for the cancellation of six of the twelve T45s, and if RN follow the precedent of T31 and equip with off the shelf foreign kit, eg Thales Nederland new gen GaN S and X band radars plus the new gen CMS, AWWS/TACTICOS, developed for the new Dutch/Belgium frigate, the GaN X-band radar and CMS also to be fitted to the Damen designed German MKS 180/F-126. The system designed and integrated to fire the medium range US SM-2 and ESSM AA missiles, the drawback as Lord Jim highlighted incorporating SM-2 into the RN weapon supply chain/training etc

If you were to stick with Aster 30 and Sylver VLS cells, one possible option for the RN might be to buy the French radar and CMS developed for their new frigate, FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate) which use Aster

Another option if the RN were to fund the necessary R&D for a UK new gen GaN radars and upgrade for T26 CMS to operate either Aster of SM-2, sadly seems the least likely option.

Range - Area Coverage
CAMM ~ 25 km ~500 sq km
CAMM-ER ~ 40 km ~1,250 sq km
Aster 30 ~ 120 km ~11,000 sq km
SM-2 ~160 km ~ 20,000 sq km

PS Cost of SM-2 ~$2.3 million, have no figure for Aster 30

[donald_of_tokyo]

What puts me off a full fat multi-mission T26 with new gen radars etc is the cost, the Canadian PBO report in February estimated the build cost of the CSC, excluding development, at £2.3 billion per ship, hopefully would not cost as much in UK but still looks to be a very expensive ship so limiting class buy to a few ships, might be the option chosen due to the industry/politics of keeping the two BAE Clyde shipyards open, will be of interest if we get detailed cost figurers for the other full fat T26, the Australian Hunter.

If we make the big assumption that the RN decides the T32 capabilities include area AA defence, possible as design based on IH with its 32 Mk41 VLS cells, to partially compensate for the cancellation of six of the twelve T45s, and if RN follow the precedent of T31 and equip with off the shelf foreign kit, eg Thales Nederland new gen GaN S and X band radars plus the new gen CMS, AWWS/TACTICOS, developed for the new Dutch/Belgium frigate, the GaN X-band radar and CMS also to be fitted to the Damen designed German MKS 180/F-126. The system designed and integrated to fire the medium range US SM-2 and ESSM AA missiles, the drawback as Lord Jim highlighted incorporating SM-2 into the RN weapon supply chain/training etc

If you were to stick with Aster 30 and Sylver VLS cells, one possible option for the RN might be to buy the French radar and CMS developed for their new frigate, FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate) which use Aster

Another option if the RN were to fund the necessary R&D for a UK new gen GaN radars and upgrade for T26 CMS to operate either Aster of SM-2, sadly seems the least likely option.

Range - Area Coverage
CAMM ~ 25 km ~500 sq km
CAMM-ER ~ 40 km ~1,250 sq km
Aster 30 ~ 120 km ~11,000 sq km
SM-2 ~160 km ~ 20,000 sq km

PS Cost of SM-2 ~$2.3 million, have no figure for Aster 30

There are zero evidence that T26 is expensive compared to its capability. You can see ALL Canadian and Australian ship building project costs very high. I understand it is clearly showing the difference in definition = what is included in the budget, not in the "T26 is too expensive nature".

For example, French FDI is £3.3Bn for 5 hulls. Considering its newly designed (nearly two unit cost equivalent) with decent equipment (Aster-30 capable CMS and CAPTAS4CI (compact version of CAPTAS-4), it is very understandably comparable to £3.6B for 3 hulls of T26 and £2Bn for 5 hulls of T31. Also note how expensive the new German frigate is, which is ordered from Damen with TACTICOS's sun version of CMS adopted.

In short, I see no evidence T26 only is vastly expensive.

As such, I am just thinking it logically. Introducing new AAW system with SM-2/6 and ESSM is surely the most expensive solution, because it means RN needs two lines of training and logistics. If you want SM-2/6 etc., you also need to LIFEX T45 with such systems to unify the AAW kits.

if the RN were to fund the necessary R&D for a UK new gen GaN radars and upgrade for T26 CMS to operate either Aster of SM-2, sadly seems the least likely option.

Surely this is the cheapest option among your list, from logical point of view. In other words, if this cannot happen, introducing IH-based AAW version of T31mod is impossible.

[Scimitar54]

Why would you even think of using the T32 Frigate for Area Air Defence, in addition to it’s Primary Role? when the T83 is being designed (as the T45 Destroyer replacement) for this. Do we have enough T45 Destroyers? Probably not, but that is another matter, as we don’t have enough of “Anything”. Putting AAD on T32 would do one thing only …… Halve the number of hulls.

[Caribbean]

If we need more AAW capacity in a rush, then simply utilise the T31 hull - it can easily handle either more CAMM and an upgraded sensor suite, or even the entire Sea Viper capability, with Sylver cells instead of Mk41, Aster, Sampson and S1850. AAW is what the hull is primarily designed for, so might as well exploit it

I think the T32 is most likely to be a fairly ordinary general-purpose hull that gains specialist abilities through the offboard systems that it carries. Initially, the intention seems to be that will be MCM focused, but I could also see it carrying an ASW system based around a combination of surface and aerial autonomous systems.

[Ron5]

Canadian PBO report in February

What puts me off a full fat multi-mission T26 with new gen radars etc is the cost, the Canadian PBO report in February estimated the build cost of the CSC, excluding development, at £2.3 billion per ship, hopefully would not cost as much in UK but still looks to be a very expensive ship so limiting class buy to a few ships, might be the option chosen due to the industry/politics of keeping the two BAE Clyde shipyards open, will be of interest if we get detailed cost figurers for the other full fat T26, the Australian Hunter.

The same Canadian report concluded that building Type 31's would cost one billion pounds each excluding development or design. There was some absurd verbiage try to explain why their cost estimate is over three times as expensive as the actual UK signed contracts for identical ships.

The whole report is extremely dubious making ridiculous assumptions and loading them up with dodgy logic.

Of course cherry picking one number out of the whole report without any context is totally troll-like behavior. But that goes without saying doesn't it.

[NickC]

What puts me off a full fat multi-mission T26 with new gen radars etc is the cost, the Canadian PBO report in February estimated the build cost of the CSC, excluding development, at £2.3 billion per ship, hopefully would not cost as much in UK but still looks to be a very expensive ship so limiting class buy to a few ships, might be the option chosen due to the industry/politics of keeping the two BAE Clyde shipyards open, will be of interest if we get detailed cost figurers for the other full fat T26, the Australian Hunter.

If we make the big assumption that the RN decides the T32 capabilities include area AA defence, possible as design based on IH with its 32 Mk41 VLS cells, to partially compensate for the cancellation of six of the twelve T45s, and if RN follow the precedent of T31 and equip with off the shelf foreign kit, eg Thales Nederland new gen GaN S and X band radars plus the new gen CMS, AWWS/TACTICOS, developed for the new Dutch/Belgium frigate, the GaN X-band radar and CMS also to be fitted to the Damen designed German MKS 180/F-126. The system designed and integrated to fire the medium range US SM-2 and ESSM AA missiles, the drawback as Lord Jim highlighted incorporating SM-2 into the RN weapon supply chain/training etc

If you were to stick with Aster 30 and Sylver VLS cells, one possible option for the RN might be to buy the French radar and CMS developed for their new frigate, FDI (Defense and Intervention Frigate) which use Aster

Another option if the RN were to fund the necessary R&D for a UK new gen GaN radars and upgrade for T26 CMS to operate either Aster of SM-2, sadly seems the least likely option.

Range - Area Coverage
CAMM ~ 25 km ~500 sq km
CAMM-ER ~ 40 km ~1,250 sq km
Aster 30 ~ 120 km ~11,000 sq km
SM-2 ~160 km ~ 20,000 sq km

PS Cost of SM-2 ~$2.3 million, have no figure for Aster 30

There are zero evidence that T26 is expensive compared to its capability. You can see ALL Canadian and Australian ship building project costs very high. I understand it is clearly showing the difference in definition = what is included in the budget, not in the "T26 is too expensive nature".

For example, French FDI is £3.3Bn for 5 hulls. Considering its newly designed (nearly two unit cost equivalent) with decent equipment (Aster-30 capable CMS and CAPTAS4CI (compact version of CAPTAS-4), it is very understandably comparable to £3.6B for 3 hulls of T26 and £2Bn for 5 hulls of T31. Also note how expensive the new German frigate is, which is ordered from Damen with TACTICOS's sun version of CMS adopted.

In short, I see no evidence T26 only is vastly expensive.

As such, I am just thinking it logically. Introducing new AAW system with SM-2/6 and ESSM is surely the most expensive solution, because it means RN needs two lines of training and logistics. If you want SM-2/6 etc., you also need to LIFEX T45 with such systems to unify the AAW kits.

if the RN were to fund the necessary R&D for a UK new gen GaN radars and upgrade for T26 CMS to operate either Aster of SM-2, sadly seems the least likely option.

Surely this is the cheapest option among your list, from logical point of view. In other words, if this cannot happen, introducing IH-based AAW version of T31mod is impossible.

Donald-san I do not claim T26 is 'vastly' expensive, but I think you will agree its an expensive ship and that was why Cameron in his 2015 presentation of the SDSR announced the cut of the T26 buy from thirteen to eight, he said a new warship would be "more affordable than the Type 26, which will allow us to buy more of them."

The nearest equivalent found to the T26 is the five new Spanish Navantia F110 frigates, contact award April 2019 for €4,317 million/ £3.8 billion/ ~£750 million per ship, near enough the same value as the £3.7 billion BAE contract for the three T26s. The F110 propulsion system is near carbon copy of T26 HED system, as is the Thales CAPTAS 4 sonar, the new GaN SPY-7 radar looks an order magnitude more powerful than the Artisan, Leonardo 127mm main gun, Harpoon deck launchers, LWT launchers, 16 MK41 VLS cells for SM-2 and ESSMs. As always swings and roundabouts but you could make a strong argument that F110s capabilities better than a T26, it depends on how you rate them eg the T26 large mission bay and additional 8 Mk41 VLS cells, but perhaps most importantly for the same money funds an additional two F110 frigates, though must treat the figures with a large grain of salt. An addendum the USN claim the new Fincantieri FFG-62/Constellation class $940 million/£680 million.

I see no logical reason to retrofit T45 with SM-2s if fitted to a future T32, on a smaller scale the RN has no plans to retro fit the T45 with T26 Mk45 5" main gun to replace its 4.5"gun.

[tomuk]

NO NO NO There is no conceivable reason to fit SM2 or SM6 to a Royal Navy Vessel the missiles should be sourced from MBDA.

Nick are you being paid by Raytheon/Lockheed Martin to continually run down UK/European technology? Or are you funded by a semiconductor company with a large GaN foundry?

[Scimitar54]

tomuk

You forgot the third alternative!

[Lord Jim]

I really, really hope the T-32 is not a unmanned vehicle "Mothership",!

[Old RN]

I am intrigued that in the discussion of SM-2 vs. Aster & CAMM(-ER?) does not consider the ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. As I understand it an Arleigh Burke can engage 3 seperate targets at once, T45 can engage 12 and T23 can engage 32! I see this as a an area of debate that is not given enough emphasis. A very long time ago I remember the joy of the RN going from 1 target at a time (Seaslug on County class) to 2 at a time (T42 with Sea Dart).

[Jdam]

That seems a bit low for the Burke class, is that all types of Burke? there must be a difference between Flight blocks and sensor packages.

[Lord Jim]

Hasn't the SM-6 been replacing the SM-2 onboard USN Destroyers and Cruisers?

[NickC]

NO NO NO There is no conceivable reason to fit SM2 or SM6 to a Royal Navy Vessel the missiles should be sourced from MBDA.

Nick are you being paid by Raytheon/Lockheed Martin to continually run down UK/European technology? Or are you funded by a semiconductor company with a large GaN foundry?

Tom i hold no brief for Raytheon's SM-2/6 or MBDA's Aster 30, RN made the decision not to fund UK industry to develop a follow on to Sea Dart, so RN forced to buy foreign, as far as know no UK content in the Aster, its a Franco/Italian missile, the clues in the name AéroSpatiale TERminale pre MBDA.

As consequence think RN with its very limited budget should buy the most cost effective missile on offer, see no earthly reason to favour European over US (noticed recently more UK hardware being sourced from Israel).

I just wish I was being paid by Raytheon/Lockheed Martin , why ref US systems and other countries reflects their investment in military R&D for better military hardware, eg the US proposed FY22 defence R&D budget of $112 billion / ~£81 billion, massive number, a lot not applicable to UK requirements and think a lot wasted, but some is applicable to UK.

The UK 2019/20 total defence budget was £38 billion, R&D 3.5% ~£1.3 billion, a reduction from the 2018/19 figure of £1.6 billion. Not an apples to apples comparison as different years but UK invests less than 2% of US military R&D and so the trend will continue of more and more UK military hardware foreign sourced every year. It seems a deliberate UK Government policy to invest less and less in military R&D as it has been reducing spend year on year, that's why see no likely hood of RN investing in a new gen UK radar, just wish i was wrong.

[SD67]

Donald-san I do not claim T26 is 'vastly' expensive, but I think you will agree its an expensive ship and that was why Cameron in his 2015 presentation of the SDSR announced the cut of the T26 buy from thirteen to eight, he said a new warship would be "more affordable than the Type 26, which will allow us to buy more of them."

Agreed. T26 is expensive whatever way you cut it. FREMM unit cost for Italy averages 600 million EUR. FTI build cost budget is 420 million EUR/unit. There is significant inefficiency baked into the T26 two yard build process.