Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[dmereifield]

So in summary you want T31 to have extra Hull Mounted Sonar, 12 CAMM, 8x AShM and a towed array.

I don't think they will be credible without it.

An upgrade at a major refit is virtually inevitable but that would be totally against the concept of the T31.

I'd still say there's a reasonable chance of them coming into service with a HMS and 24 CAMM

[seaspear]

As a discussion topic is it worthwhile for the type 45 to have its 4.5 mark 8 replaced by other guns capable of firing other munitions an example would be the Oto Melara with the SR version , saving the use of Camm missiles and likely being cheaper
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.php

[Jensy]

As a discussion topic is it worthwhile for the type 45 to have its 4.5 mark 8 replaced

Reckon it will all come down to when the T45s bow out (for T83 or whatever comes next for AAW) and whether there's any appetite to re-gun the T23s (which I doubt).

With the last of the T23s serving till at least the mid-30s the Mk.8 is going to require prolonged support and maintenance for another decade and a half. Which would take it close to the T45's out of service date. However, that might well slip to sustain the 'drumbeat' of top tier escort construction and take into consideration the investment of installing Sea Ceptor

If anything, as Donald-san has suggested, the priority should be on replacing the 30mm mounts with the Bofors 40mm. A new medium calibre seems like a lower priority for a class of ships which are increasingly AAW specialists.

Personally, I still think we missed a trick by not upgrading the Mk.8s to 155mm.... But that's history now!

[Tempest414]

I would still like to see type 45 with a triple 57mm gun fit however it great to see them getting CAMM

[Tempest414]

As for type 31 getting a sonar I still think the way ahead is 6 containerized systems spilt between Type 31/32 and the River B2's as needed

[NickC]

From similar standing point, I rather go to different conclusion.

Great summary Donald, I enjoyed reading that.

Your list of priorities is valid and I agree that if money was no object they should all happen but I simply place up-arming the T31 higher up the priority list.

One of the reasons for this is the T32's that we are promised will be proper 'escorts' capable of escorting the LRG's are simply jam tomorrow for now. In any case they won't be commissioned even on current plans within a decade, in effect another capability gap caused by a lack of funding. The T31's will have to fill the gap in the interim and they should be properly armed to do so.

To be clear what I am proposing is not a budget busting rise in capability or cost:

57mm
2x 40mm
24x CAMM
8x AShM
NS110
Hull Mounted Sonar
Captas 1 or 2

Clearly this would raise the cost of the T31's to a higher level but it would also genuinely strengthen and over time grow the size of the escort fleet. Waiting on the T32's is foolhardy and risky IMO.

If extra vessels are required for anti-piracy and anti-narcotic patrols just build more OPV's (with hangers) and if HADR is the priority then build more Bays or fast-track the MRSS programme.

There is now very little left of the original T31 concept as first prescribed. Underarming a class of Frigates to save money whilst risking the crews safety was always a nonsensical idea and it's time that decision is binned also.

So in summary you want T31 to have extra Hull Mounted Sonar, 12 CAMM, 8x AShM and a towed array.

40mm & 57mm guns

The USN through operational experience in the Pacific found that the multiple 20mm Oerlikons and 40mm Bofors were not man enough to protect their ships from the Kamikaze attacks, even though the shells were hitting the aircraft they did not have the explosive power to deflect aircraft/bomb at short range and stop the Kamikaze following its ballistic trajectory and impacting on ship. The USN relied on their 5" guns, had plans with RN to develop a 90/100 rpm 3"/70 gun with its shell 7 to 8 times the weight of a 40mm and a VT fuze, it did not become operational till post war.

Today and in future navies face the equivalent threat as the Kamikaze with anti-ship missiles eg BrahMos with its weight and speed. Consequently would assume the Bofors 40mm and 57mm guns will have a low Pk against anti-ship missiles, would understand installing them on frigates to counter drones and boghammars etc (the new USN 57mm smart L3 Alamo guided projectile, (selected in preference to the BAE ORKA 3P projectile), have seen its max range quoted as only 10 km/5.4 nm).

The Chinese and Russians as with the Phalanx rely on very high rates of fire made possible with the Gatling gun design principle of multiple barrels so they do not burn out their barrels at the high rpm, recently Chinese showed an experimental prototype 30mm with 20 barrels, their current Type 1130's, 11 barrels/30mm round, maximum rate of fire is said to be 10,000+ rpm.

My preference would be more CAMM and CAMM-ER at the expense of the 2 x 40mm, you could even make an argument of for the 4.5" in place of the 57mm, 4.5" with its much heavier shell and longer range gives limited NGFS which 57mm incapable of, 4.5" would need a dedicated modern FCR and EO/IR to be effective.

[seaspear]

I would not dispute the range of the mark 8 compared to an Oto Malera 76ml but the elevation of the mark 8 4.5 inch is stated at plus 45 degrees compared to the Oto Malera 76 ml at plus 84 and minus 19 and certainly the use of the "Volcano "type ammunition may add something
https://www.defenceturkey.com/en/conten ... family-663

[donald_of_tokyo]

From T45 thread:
1: £500M for SeaViper upgrade (analysis power, integration of CAMM), and "refresh of the Aster 30 missiles" for T45.
2: 1.2 billion euros to retrofit about 1000 ASTER missiles. If about 300 Aster 30s are of UK, about "£300M" will be spent there.
3: Adding SeaCeptor software, 2 data link antenna, 1 LMS and 12 launchers to 5 hulls of T31 is £90M. So, T45's "24 CAMM each" shall be less than £90x2 =£180. May be £150?
In this case, items-1,2,3 becomes consistent (as there are many hidden cost, it ought not be consistent, but let's assume all announcements are honest

From these values, we can foresee costs of other options.

- adding CAMM on CVF: each with 24 CAMM, 2 LMS, 2 datalink dome, and SeaCeptor software, 2 sets of them, will cost less than £90M. May be of £60-80M order? = very cheap?

- adding 12 more CAMM on T31, to make it 24 each (adding 12 CAMM launchers and 1 more LMS) on 5 T31s will be less than £90M. May be of £60-80M order? = very cheap?

(- and, among the £500M AAW upgrade of T45, "adding 24 CAMM" is a small fraction, again around £100+/-20.)

Compared, I-SSGW "~£200M for 5 sets" looks so-so expensive. Considering the complex nature of guidance system of NSM, LRASM, or any such new generation ASMs, it is understandable.

[Ron5]

I think we may be surprised by the Type 26 batch II.

But then again, maybe not

We? Your American?

*you're

or y'all

[Ron5]

Is a type 31 capable of performing many of the duties the RN has to fulfill leaving the 45s and 26s to escort the carrier?

Is a Type 31 capable of performing any meaningful duties that cannot be performed by a River?

One has CAMM, the other not. I would say the answer to that is self evident

What's pretty evident is that you're ducking the question

[Ron5]

I am not arguing against building a balanced fleet but the T31's are a pretty substantial downgrade against the T23's in terms of armament.

Short of decision on the next generation of anti ship missile are they? You could argue the gun and missile combination on type 31 is a better balance than that on type 23 particularly in more cluttered littoral environments.

The T31's have zero ASW capability. Zero.

I thought they were to ship a HMS and a Wildcat (Stingray + Depth charges). Plus whatever UxV they can fit in the mission bay.

That would be nice but I'm not sure they have a mission bay that can deploy UxV.

[Ron5]

Apart from the wildcat which is part of the ships offensive capabilities

A Wildcat without mother's sonar to help locate a sub, wouldn't stand much chance of finding one. I doubt the T31's will even carry Stingrays.

[donald_of_tokyo]

..Your list of priorities is valid and I agree that if money was no object they should all happen but I simply place up-arming the T31 higher up the priority list.

One of the reasons for this is the T32's that we are promised will be proper 'escorts' capable of escorting the LRG's are simply jam tomorrow for now. In any case they won't be commissioned even on current plans within a decade, in effect another capability gap caused by a lack of funding. The T31's will have to fill the gap in the interim and they should be properly armed to do so.

To be clear what I am proposing is not a budget busting rise in capability or cost:

57mm
2x 40mm
24x CAMM
8x AShM
NS110
Hull Mounted Sonar
Captas 1 or 2

Clearly this would raise the cost of the T31's to a higher level but it would also genuinely strengthen and over time grow the size of the escort fleet. Waiting on the T32's is foolhardy and risky IMO.

If extra vessels are required for anti-piracy and anti-narcotic patrols just build more OPV's (with hangers) and if HADR is the priority then build more Bays or fast-track the MRSS programme.

There is now very little left of the original T31 concept as first prescribed. Underarming a class of Frigates to save money whilst risking the crews safety was always a nonsensical idea and it's time that decision is binned also.

As noted, I-SSWG and doubling CAMM may happen with £250-300M in total, for the 5 T31s. (If the initial I-SSGW 5 sets is £200M, which are stated as "for 5 of the 8 T23ASWs", adding 5 more sets will be surely cheaper than it.)

But, adding one more P-8A or P-7 will also be much cheaper than just their average cost (as all initial cost is already payed). So, the "£250-300M in total" is NOT a small value, and for me it is not in high priority.

However , if it is only adding 12 more CAMM to all 5 T31s, it will cost only £60-80M. Very cheap. Wwhen considering Wildcat be equipped with SeaVenom, and CAMM cam be (in emergency) used against surface threats, this small addition can be place in higher priority, I agree.

Hull sonar? I do not think it is good. ALL of the reports of Navies using "low frequency active-passive VDS-TASS sonar systems" says, "quantum leap in ASW capability". However, we all know, even with this addition, it is still just equality (at best) against modern SSK. (SSK itself is a VDS+TASS system, and is much more quiet than surface vessels). This tells me that, hull mounted sonar (on not super quiet hulls) is almost useless against modern SSK. It could work against vintage SSKs and vintage SSNs, but not against the most modern ones.

Does hull sonar worth it? The sonar itself is not expensive. But, training ASW specialists member shall be expensive. As an alternative, can RN adopt SeaGuarding UAV with sonobuoy dispensers? If 3 of them can be teamed up, it will be able to provide 24/7 ASW cover on the deployed T31. As an air assets, it can be operated agile. Can patrol Irish sea in the last week, and patrol Persian gulf this week. Very flexible.

Captas 1 or 2 is another story. But, I prefer to add CAPTAS4CI on T45. The ping sound of CAPTAS VDS fish can be detected from hundreds of miles away. But, T26 needs to ping to efficiently perform ASW tasks. T45 will be a close escort to CVF, and pinging there shall be a risk. But, with T26 pinging CAPTAS4, from far away enemy SSK, T45's ping also might be regarded as "T26", as the VDS sonar fish is the same between CAPTAS4 and CAPTAS4-CI.

For T31, not sure. It depends on its cost. As CAPTAS-2 is de-facto standard in many 2nd-class navy, having then on T31 might make it normal. But, I'm not sure adding ASW crew on T31 worths it. Also, when adding equipment onboard T31, it inevitably decreases the sea-going days because of increased maintenance load. Keeping the hull simple has its own merit. For example, I won't be surprised if the 5 T31's total sea-going days shall be x1.5 higher than that of the 5 T23GPs. In other words, it the threat is low and T31-level of armament is acceptable, keeping them simple will be equivalent to increase the hull number?

[Ron5]

Adding SeaCeptor software, 2 data link antenna, 1 LMS and 12 launchers to 5 hulls of T31 is £90M.

Compared, I-SSGW "~£200M for 5 sets"

Doesn't the SSGM budget include missiles and the CAMM budget does not?

[Ron5]

This tells me that, hull mounted sonar (on not super quiet hulls) is almost useless against modern SSK.

That has not been the reported results from Type 23's without tails. They claim the HMS is still a very useful asset which is probably why the RN recently upgraded them.

[Ron5]

T45 will be a close escort to CVF

Towing a VDS is too much of a problem when in close support. Especially if the towing ship has to engage in AA maneuvering. Merlin pingers from the carrier are really the close ASW asset.

[JohnM]

I’m pretty sure the HMS of the non-tail T23s could be moved over to the T31s… besides, even if they’re not, the T31s should have at the very least a mine and obstacle avoidance sonar, a la T45… they’re supposed to be adequate for littoral warfare, right?

[donald_of_tokyo]

This tells me that, hull mounted sonar (on not super quiet hulls) is almost useless against modern SSK.

That has not been the reported results from Type 23's without tails. They claim the HMS is still a very useful asset which is probably why the RN recently upgraded them.

Yes and no. Yes, T23ASW's hull sonars were upgraded, but no, T23GPs were not.

In "bi-static ASW" sonar tactics, hull sonar are used in combination with TASS. This makes sense because TASS = the listener is located far away from the hull.

Of course, simple hull sonar on a normal noise ship can do something in some environment. For example, ping around a relatively shallow water region to clear the region. Good. But, it is only if backed up with other ASW assets. If enemy SSK sinks the T31, the SSK location is revealed and the other assets will kill her. But, the T31 will be sunk. In this case, hull sonar on T31 is really needed? Might be. But not sure.

It is good in such environment, but not much in other cases. Does it worth increasing the crew number, increasing the maintenance load, and thus reducing the sea going days? This is my point.

I'm not saying hull sonar is completely useless. Just saying surely not a high priority. For me, introducing SeaGuarding with Sonobuoy option will be of higher priority.

I’m pretty sure the HMS of the non-tail T23s could be moved over to the T31s… besides, even if they’re not, the T31s should have at the very least a mine and obstacle avoidance sonar, a la T45… they’re supposed to be adequate for littoral warfare, right?

Actually, I can agree here. And mine and obstacle avoidance sonar is much much small and simple, cheap, and man-power friendly.

Japanese FFM has such small sonar, but no ASW hull sonar, BUT does have VDS+TASS. Not sure it is the right choice, but interesting trial.

[Tempest414]

The French have just added a HMS to the La Fayette class in the MLU nice piece as always from Naval news on the French thread

[Enigmatically]

Is a type 31 capable of performing many of the duties the RN has to fulfill leaving the 45s and 26s to escort the carrier?

Is a Type 31 capable of performing any meaningful duties that cannot be performed by a River?

One has CAMM, the other not. I would say the answer to that is self evident

What's pretty evident is that you're ducking the question

Not at all. I thought it was self evident.

Anywhere where there is a significant asymmetric threat that includes up to and including a light AaW threat. For example horn of Africa where (old low tech) shore based anti ship missiles were fired at US warships.
Anywhere where there is a significant threat from FIACs and coastal vessels including short range anti ship missiles or hand held anti tank guided weapons.

Even asymmetric threat of light aircraft or old military aircraft or helicopters.

Quite a lot of scenarios. I believe it specious to think that because China is a significant high capability high volume threat, that we should act as if the lower threats in the rest of the world should be ignored.

We will not fight China alone. But we well may face a lower threat alone. That FIAC threat is a widespread one. I'd rather be on a T31 than an OPV if facing it. And they may have to when the T26s and T45s are guarding the CSG elsewhere

[donald_of_tokyo]

The French have just added a HMS to the La Fayette class in the MLU nice piece as always from Naval news on the French thread

Yes, interesting move. I understand FTI with hull-sonar Kingklip Mark II combined with CAPTAS-4CI is reasonable. For La Fayette class, it is interesting move.

French decided to upgrade 3 of the 5 La Fayette class to make it more multi-purpose (understandable considering FTI build schedule). Its ingredients are
1: torpedo defense system added (I think this is common trend)
2: replacing Crotale CN2 (something less than SeaWolf) with 12 (6x2) Mistral SAM (MANPADS origin)
3: adding Kingklip Mark II (BlueHunter) hull sonar and ASW analysis system in the CMS
with some structural modernization.

Item-3 is interesting. Not sure what kind of threat they are thinking of, or how to operate them. May be Persian gulf or Med, supported with Atlantic ASW aircrafts? If Kingklip II works there, you are right S2105 added with T31 will be also. At the same time, French MN leaves the 6 Floral class surveillance frigates without any sonar. Both the 5 La Fayette and 6 Florals are actively working all around the world. I thought T31 is much more oriented at patrolling, and not sub-hunting. But, yes, combined with other ASW assets, yes I agree hull sonar may work.

# But still do not think T31 needs it.

# Item-2 means, current La Fayette with Crotale (VT1 missile?) is awfully weak against incoming ASMs. They think Mistral SAM is better. Her AAW capability will become far inferior to many of the modern heavy corvettes (like Al Khareef class, with 12 SeaMICA).

[Tempest414]

# Item-2 means, current La Fayette with Crotale (VT1 missile?) is awfully weak against incoming ASMs. They think Mistral SAM is better. Her AAW capability will become far inferior to many of the modern heavy corvettes (like Al Khareef class, with 12 SeaMICA).

These were taken from the decommissioned frigates and seen as a small upgrade

[Tempest414]

Item-3 is interesting. Not sure what kind of threat they are thinking of, or how to operate them. May be Persian gulf or Med, supported with Atlantic ASW aircrafts? If Kingklip II works there, you are right S2105 added with T31 will be also. At the same time, French MN leaves the 6 Floral class surveillance frigates without any sonar. Both the 5 La Fayette and 6 Florals are actively working all around the world. I thought T31 is much more oriented at patrolling, and not sub-hunting. But, yes, combined with other ASW assets, yes I agree hull sonar may work.

# But still do not think T31 needs it.

For me I think the RN should buy 6 or so contaianerized VDS this would allow the type 31's to operate them from the space under flight deck and the River B'2 from the flight / working deck as and when needed. they could also be used by the type 32's

[Ron5]

JohnM wrote:

I’m pretty sure the HMS of the non-tail T23s could be moved over to the T31s… besides, even if they’re not, the T31s should have at the very least a mine and obstacle avoidance sonar, a la T45… they’re supposed to be adequate for littoral warfare, right?

Actually, I can agree here. And mine and obstacle avoidance sonar is much much small and simple, cheap, and man-power friendly.

The T45 sonar is a lot more than just obstacle and mine avoidance.

[Ron5]

Is a type 31 capable of performing many of the duties the RN has to fulfill leaving the 45s and 26s to escort the carrier?

Is a Type 31 capable of performing any meaningful duties that cannot be performed by a River?

One has CAMM, the other not. I would say the answer to that is self evident

What's pretty evident is that you're ducking the question

Not at all. I thought it was self evident.

Anywhere where there is a significant asymmetric threat that includes up to and including a light AaW threat. For example horn of Africa where (old low tech) shore based anti ship missiles were fired at US warships.
Anywhere where there is a significant threat from FIACs and coastal vessels including short range anti ship missiles or hand held anti tank guided weapons.

Even asymmetric threat of light aircraft or old military aircraft or helicopters.

Quite a lot of scenarios. I believe it specious to think that because China is a significant high capability high volume threat, that we should act as if the lower threats in the rest of the world should be ignored.

We will not fight China alone. But we well may face a lower threat alone. That FIAC threat is a widespread one. I'd rather be on a T31 than an OPV if facing it. And they may have to when the T26s and T45s are guarding the CSG elsewhere

Pirates with missiles. OK that's a good reason for a whole new class (eyes roll).

PS Wildcat's deal with FIAC's not warships.