Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

mrclark303 wrote: 05 Dec 2023, 19:14I would like to see SDSR 2025 decide on a future fleet of 31

12 X T26
9 X T83
10 X T31 batch 1 & 2
SSN X 12
Increasing SSN numbers is going to be a monumental challenge, and will consume a mountain of cash. Political support is high, so it's feasible, and will see funds from Navy command redirected to the Submarine Delivery Agency.

T83/FADS will be costly, and therefore can only expect a one for one replacement. This meas only opportunity to increase ship numbers is with the T31, and only a couple before AUKUS starts to bite.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

What the logic to build more T31s? To do what?

Given it’s heritage / limitations you could argue that with the right mods the T31 would actually be a better AAW CSG escort, maybe even the starting point of the T83 design - perhaps start by adding CEC to the fleet and adding Sampson to the carriers.

In the interim this would free up the T45s to add real capabilities to support allies in a surge capacity.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The Royal Navy is going to be a Navy with 2 fleets, the 'carrier group' fleet, and the 'everything else' fleet. The T31 fills out the 'everything else' fleet, and more importantly it's cheap, making it the only realistic option for an extra batch.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post (total 4):
Tempest414new guywargame_insomniacdmereifield
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Move the 5 T31s to the CSG and you’ve got six capable T45s in the everything else surge group. Also, build a couple more T26s and you can add to that another 3 T26s - a better balance IMO.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5460
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 09:58 The Royal Navy is going to be a Navy with 2 fleets, the 'carrier group' fleet, and the 'everything else' fleet. The T31 fills out the 'everything else' fleet, and more importantly it's cheap, making it the only realistic option for an extra batch.
The way I see it and have said many times we should add 3 more T-31's to the current order plus a 220 by 40 meter LPH and 4 MRSS and then set the fleet up something like so

1 x CSG = 1 x Carrier , 4 x T-45 , 4 x T-26 , 1 x SSN , 2 x SSS , 2 x Tankers
1 x LRG = 1 x flattop , 2 x MRSS , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26
1 x EoS-G = 3 x T-31 , 1 x MRSS , 1 x Tanker
1 x South Atlantic group = 2 x T-31 , 2 x OPV , 1 x Ice Patrol ship
1 x North Atlantic group = 2 x T-26 , 3 x T-31 , 1 x MRSS , 3 x OPV's

The aim should be to keep a CSG and LRG at high readiness and to be clear the CSG would have 4 escorts , 1 SSS and 1 Tanker at readiness at anytime and the LRG would have 2 escort and 1 MRSS at anytime

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5460
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse
Why have the general purpose frigates in the CSG and have the AAW destroyers carrying out general purpose duties

also we know type 26 will cost twice as much as a type 31 in any matrix
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
new guy

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4487
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 11:05 Repulse
Why have the general purpose frigates in the CSG and have the AAW destroyers carrying out general purpose duties

also we know type 26 will cost twice as much as a type 31 in any matrix
Because we can do better - the heritage of the T31 is the Iver Huitfeldt class an Air defence frigate, which can fit within a task group and it doesn’t matter it’s a bag of shite below the water or operating unmanned vessels.

Having the ability to surge tier one assets to conflict regions adds real value to our allies.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5460
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 11:16
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 11:05 Repulse
Why have the general purpose frigates in the CSG and have the AAW destroyers carrying out general purpose duties

also we know type 26 will cost twice as much as a type 31 in any matrix
Because we can do better - the heritage of the T31 is the Iver Huitfeldt class an Air defence frigate, which can fit within a task group and it doesn’t matter it’s a bag of shite below the water or operating unmanned vessels.

Having the ability to surge tier one assets to conflict regions adds real value to our allies.
Type 31 in its GP role fitted with S2170 is fine below the water line

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 783
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by mrclark303 »

T26 numbers need to rise, they set 8, when the threat level was far below today and it was purely enough to delouse our SSBN's and provide two escorts for a Carrier Strike Group if needed.

We need to order a third batch of 4 to allow for 8 operational T26's.

As also said here, T83 needs to be built on the T26 platform, or the delays and cost overruns of running on T23 will simply happen again.

Build 4 more T26, start a T83 derivative and interleave the build with them, so one T26 is followed by a T83 etc.

We have to ensure we can start replacing T45 before it hits 30 and the costs of ownership begin to sky rocket.

Keep the Frigate factory workforce busy, together and keep the costs under control.

We have to break out of our current toxic procurement model.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5460
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

mrclark303 wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 11:42 T26 numbers need to rise, they set 8, when the threat level was far below today and it was purely enough to delouse our SSBN's and provide two escorts for a Carrier Strike Group if needed.

We need to order a third batch of 4 to allow for 8 operational T26's.

As also said here, T83 needs to be built on the T26 platform, or the delays and cost overruns of running on T23 will simply happen again.

Build 4 more T26, start a T83 derivative and interleave the build with them, so one T26 is followed by a T83 etc.

We have to ensure we can start replacing T45 before it hits 30 and the costs of ownership begin to sky rocket.

Keep the Frigate factory workforce busy, together and keep the costs under control.

We have to break out of our current toxic procurement model.
We would all love to see more type 26's but right now the choice is more Type 26's or more SSN's

the other choice if there is say 2.5 billion to build more escorts then 2 x type 26 and 2 x 31 for the money

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Dec 2023, 23:35 I am confused by your reply.
Probabley my fault for explaining badly as usual.

In short I am suggesting the maximisation of the T26 hull with the expanded dimensions that the Hunter program has unlocked.

The big unknown is how many VLS cells RN actually require on the T83. How many Strike length Mk41 cells can the T26 hull actually contain without major structural alterations?

The current forward VLS silo on the T26 contains 24x Mk41 Strike plus 24x CAMM in mushrooms. The Hunter has 32x Mk41 cells.

The amidships T26 VLS silo contains 24x CAMM in mushrooms.

If the increase in dimensions to the hull allows an upgraded Sampson that is suitable for RN’s requirements then slotting in the additional VLS is the final hurdle.

I am not suggesting it would be easy but a reconfiguration of the forward VLS silo plus the removal of the Mk45 could provide enough space for 72x or 96x Mk41 cells. BAE have already stated that the removal of the Mk45 would enable another 32x Mk41 cells. Combined with Hunters 32x that equates to 64x Mk41 cells in the forward silo without major adaption. Is that enough?
IMG_1413.jpeg
If the amidships silo switched from mushrooms to 24x VLS that would allow 48x CAMM and 24x CAMM MR could be added.
IMG_1412.jpeg

So effectively without too much redesign a T83 based on T26B2 with 64x Mk41 Strike VLS plus 24x amidships VLS (replacing the current mushrooms) could carry:

• 2x 57mm plus 2x 40mm or 4x 40mm
• 48x Aster 30
• 48x CAMM
• 24x CAMM ER/MR
• 16x FCASW
• 16x NSM
• Sampson Mk2
• Full ASW capability
• Full mission area retained

Is this enough for RN? If another 24x or 36x Mk41 cells are required can BAE slot them in? The space is available but only BAE will know if the stability data adds up.

By keeping redesign to a minimum RN may squeeze a few more escorts out of the budget. If the T83 budget is £10bn then this is a massive opportunity to grow the fleet if discipline is maintained.

4x 200m Crusiers - £2.5bn unit
6x 175m Destroyers - £1.6bn unit
8x 150m AAW/ASW Destroyers - £1.25bn

IMO the 8x Destroyer option is worth considering even if individually the escorts are less capable. At £1.25bn it’s effectively a T26 plus 50%.

For example taking the basic 64x strike cell plus 24x CAMM VLS based on the T26B2, four such T83 escorting the CSG could contain:

• 64x FCASW
• 192x Aster 30
• 192x CAMM
• 96x CAMM ER/MR
• 64x NSM
• 4x Sampson Mk2
• 4x 2087

These numbers are so outlandish why would RN need more? Especially considering that 8x T83 removes the fixed escort taskings for the T26 which can carry 24x FCASW and 48x CAMM each.

The fleet balance would be a bit top heavy but much cheaper OPV’s could provide balance if required.

8x T83 AAW/ASW
8x T26
3x T31(Hulls 1&2 sold)
5x T31B2

• 24x escort target achieved
• 8x T83 designated as CSG and ARG escorts
• 8x T26 for TAPS and North Atlantic ASW
• 8x T31 doing everything else

All bases covered and manageable within the headcount limitations.

Hopefully this is clearer this time around.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
mrclark303

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5563
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 12:37
For example taking the basic 64x strike cell plus 24x CAMM VLS based on the T26B2, four such T83 escorting the CSG could contain:

• 64x FCASW
• 192x Aster 30
• 192x CAMM
• 96x CAMM ER/MR
• 64x NSM
• 4x Sampson Mk2
• 4x 2087

These numbers are so outlandish why would RN need more? Especially considering that 8x T83 removes the fixed escort taskings for the T26 which can carry 24x FCASW and 48x CAMM each.

Hopefully this is clearer this time around.
Highlights the huge huge stock costs associated with such decisions. Especially when you consider the fleet as a whole.

I struggle to see the rational for going beyond the 64 cell option. I have heard some attempts to link what is going on in the Red Sea with the rational for more which I find strange.

I would also argue that the option with enhanced AAW should start from hull 6 onward from the current order.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 12:37
wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Dec 2023, 23:35 I am confused by your reply.
Probabley my fault for explaining badly as usual.

In short I am suggesting the maximisation of the T26 hull with the expanded dimensions that the Hunter program has unlocked.

The big unknown is how many VLS cells RN actually require on the T83. How many Strike length Mk41 cells can the T26 hull actually contain without major structural alterations?

The current forward VLS silo on the T26 contains 24x Mk41 Strike plus 24x CAMM in mushrooms. The Hunter has 32x Mk41 cells.

The amidships T26 VLS silo contains 24x CAMM in mushrooms.

If the increase in dimensions to the hull allows an upgraded Sampson that is suitable for RN’s requirements then slotting in the additional VLS is the final hurdle.

I am not suggesting it would be easy but a reconfiguration of the forward VLS silo plus the removal of the Mk45 could provide enough space for 72x or 96x Mk41 cells. BAE have already stated that the removal of the Mk45 would enable another 32x Mk41 cells. Combined with Hunters 32x that equates to 64x Mk41 cells in the forward silo without major adaption. Is that enough? IMG_1413.jpeg

If the amidships silo switched from mushrooms to 24x VLS that would allow 48x CAMM and 24x CAMM MR could be added. IMG_1412.jpeg


So effectively without too much redesign a T83 based on T26B2 with 64x Mk41 Strike VLS plus 24x amidships VLS (replacing the current mushrooms) could carry:

• 2x 57mm plus 2x 40mm or 4x 40mm
• 48x Aster 30
• 48x CAMM
• 24x CAMM ER/MR
• 16x FCASW
• 16x NSM
• Sampson Mk2
• Full ASW capability
• Full mission area retained

Is this enough for RN? If another 24x or 36x Mk41 cells are required can BAE slot them in? The space is available but only BAE will know if the stability data adds up.

By keeping redesign to a minimum RN may squeeze a few more escorts out of the budget. If the T83 budget is £10bn then this is a massive opportunity to grow the fleet if discipline is maintained.

4x 200m Crusiers - £2.5bn unit
6x 175m Destroyers - £1.6bn unit
8x 150m AAW/ASW Destroyers - £1.25bn

IMO the 8x Destroyer option is worth considering even if individually the escorts are less capable. At £1.25bn it’s effectively a T26 plus 50%.

For example taking the basic 64x strike cell plus 24x CAMM VLS based on the T26B2, four such T83 escorting the CSG could contain:

• 64x FCASW
• 192x Aster 30
• 192x CAMM
• 96x CAMM ER/MR
• 64x NSM
• 4x Sampson Mk2
• 4x 2087

These numbers are so outlandish why would RN need more? Especially considering that 8x T83 removes the fixed escort taskings for the T26 which can carry 24x FCASW and 48x CAMM each.

The fleet balance would be a bit top heavy but much cheaper OPV’s could provide balance if required.

8x T83 AAW/ASW
8x T26
3x T31(Hulls 1&2 sold)
5x T31B2

• 24x escort target achieved
• 8x T83 designated as CSG and ARG escorts
• 8x T26 for TAPS and North Atlantic ASW
• 8x T31 doing everything else

All bases covered and manageable within the headcount limitations.

Hopefully this is clearer this time around.
I still think overall you are trying to get all the advantages of proposed design for BAE Australia Hunter Batch 2 AAW, without giving up some of th things that they have had to give up e.g. mission module and ASW ability. The RAN Hunter Batch 1 ASW seemed to have tried to cram in too much (in part due to the demands of swapping out Artisan radar for Aussie Ceafar radar) and encountered problems with top weight and power requirements.

The proposed ntages of proposed design for BAE Australia Hunter Batch 2 AAW was an attempt to give the RAN more VLS by stripping out other items.

So yes you can propose a RN T26 Batch 2 AAW, and swap out Artisan for an updated Sampson radar and add more VLS cells,but you need to realise that this will affect the top weight, thereby probably increasing the beam, and increased electrical power for both improved radar & VLS will require more pwerful generators and engines.

Then we need to think what missile we are going to put in the extra VLS cells? Are we sticking with the European option and going for Sylver A50 VLS and Sea Viper and using Aster 30 and Aster 30 Block 1 NT. Or going wth US option of Mk 41 VLS and presumably missiles from Standard famiiy of missles?

Eiither way it is going to get very pricey very fast. I doubt the RN would need or be abl to afford much more than 48 main VLS (whether Sylver or Mk41)and then if the CAMM Mushrooms can be replaced with double or even quad packed for CAMM / CAMM R CAMM MR then that will boost RN defensive firepower.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5563
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 19:32
Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 12:37
wargame_insomniac wrote: 06 Dec 2023, 23:35 I am confused by your reply.
Probabley my fault for explaining badly as usual.

In short I am suggesting the maximisation of the T26 hull with the expanded dimensions that the Hunter program has unlocked.

The big unknown is how many VLS cells RN actually require on the T83. How many Strike length Mk41 cells can the T26 hull actually contain without major structural alterations?

The current forward VLS silo on the T26 contains 24x Mk41 Strike plus 24x CAMM in mushrooms. The Hunter has 32x Mk41 cells.

The amidships T26 VLS silo contains 24x CAMM in mushrooms.

If the increase in dimensions to the hull allows an upgraded Sampson that is suitable for RN’s requirements then slotting in the additional VLS is the final hurdle.

I am not suggesting it would be easy but a reconfiguration of the forward VLS silo plus the removal of the Mk45 could provide enough space for 72x or 96x Mk41 cells. BAE have already stated that the removal of the Mk45 would enable another 32x Mk41 cells. Combined with Hunters 32x that equates to 64x Mk41 cells in the forward silo without major adaption. Is that enough? IMG_1413.jpeg

If the amidships silo switched from mushrooms to 24x VLS that would allow 48x CAMM and 24x CAMM MR could be added. IMG_1412.jpeg


So effectively without too much redesign a T83 based on T26B2 with 64x Mk41 Strike VLS plus 24x amidships VLS (replacing the current mushrooms) could carry:

• 2x 57mm plus 2x 40mm or 4x 40mm
• 48x Aster 30
• 48x CAMM
• 24x CAMM ER/MR
• 16x FCASW
• 16x NSM
• Sampson Mk2
• Full ASW capability
• Full mission area retained

Is this enough for RN? If another 24x or 36x Mk41 cells are required can BAE slot them in? The space is available but only BAE will know if the stability data adds up.

By keeping redesign to a minimum RN may squeeze a few more escorts out of the budget. If the T83 budget is £10bn then this is a massive opportunity to grow the fleet if discipline is maintained.

4x 200m Crusiers - £2.5bn unit
6x 175m Destroyers - £1.6bn unit
8x 150m AAW/ASW Destroyers - £1.25bn

IMO the 8x Destroyer option is worth considering even if individually the escorts are less capable. At £1.25bn it’s effectively a T26 plus 50%.

For example taking the basic 64x strike cell plus 24x CAMM VLS based on the T26B2, four such T83 escorting the CSG could contain:

• 64x FCASW
• 192x Aster 30
• 192x CAMM
• 96x CAMM ER/MR
• 64x NSM
• 4x Sampson Mk2
• 4x 2087

These numbers are so outlandish why would RN need more? Especially considering that 8x T83 removes the fixed escort taskings for the T26 which can carry 24x FCASW and 48x CAMM each.

The fleet balance would be a bit top heavy but much cheaper OPV’s could provide balance if required.

8x T83 AAW/ASW
8x T26
3x T31(Hulls 1&2 sold)
5x T31B2

• 24x escort target achieved
• 8x T83 designated as CSG and ARG escorts
• 8x T26 for TAPS and North Atlantic ASW
• 8x T31 doing everything else

All bases covered and manageable within the headcount limitations.

Hopefully this is clearer this time around.
I still think overall you are trying to get all the advantages of proposed design for BAE Australia Hunter Batch 2 AAW, without giving up some of th things that they have had to give up e.g. mission module and ASW ability. The RAN Hunter Batch 1 ASW seemed to have tried to cram in too much (in part due to the demands of swapping out Artisan radar for Aussie Ceafar radar) and encountered problems with top weight and power requirements.

The proposed ntages of proposed design for BAE Australia Hunter Batch 2 AAW was an attempt to give the RAN more VLS by stripping out other items.

So yes you can propose a RN T26 Batch 2 AAW, and swap out Artisan for an updated Sampson radar and add more VLS cells,but you need to realise that this will affect the top weight, thereby probably increasing the beam, and increased electrical power for both improved radar & VLS will require more pwerful generators and engines.

Then we need to think what missile we are going to put in the extra VLS cells? Are we sticking with the European option and going for Sylver A50 VLS and Sea Viper and using Aster 30 and Aster 30 Block 1 NT. Or going wth US option of Mk 41 VLS and presumably missiles from Standard famiiy of missles?

Eiither way it is going to get very pricey very fast. I doubt the RN would need or be abl to afford much more than 48 main VLS (whether Sylver or Mk41)and then if the CAMM Mushrooms can be replaced with double or even quad packed for CAMM / CAMM R CAMM MR then that will boost RN defensive firepower.
Not sure that is entirely a fair assessment I think what poiutytrewy is proposing is deleting the 5 inch gun at the front and adding 32 cells in its place and not doing any modifications to mission bay. So no large weight changes.

There are more refined and mature radars on the market for area aaw that could be integrated compared to what Australia is attempting to do.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

shark bait wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 09:58 The Royal Navy is going to be a Navy with 2 fleets, the 'carrier group' fleet, and the 'everything else' fleet. The T31 fills out the 'everything else' fleet, and more importantly it's cheap, making it the only realistic option for an extra batch.
This reality is exactly why I think consideration should be given to splitting T83 into two classes. Firstly, a class of two gold-plated and extremely expensive cruisers as dedicated task group AAW / cruise missile land attack. Secondly, four much cheaper and fairly basic AAW destroyers that also have some limited ASW capability. Could help from an industrial point of view (BAE would definitely get the cruiser contract but the other would be up for grabs) and combine the decision with formally cancelling T32 while adding another T31. A well-balanced fleet of 20 escorts.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 19:32 I still think overall you are trying to get all the advantages of proposed design for BAE Australia Hunter Batch 2 AAW, without giving up some of th things that they have had to give up e.g. mission module and ASW ability.
As it is impossible to say for sure I am not going to argue about it but I am happy to further explain my reasoning.

Firstly, We know that 32x Mk41 cells can be fitted with the full ASW capability retained as per the original proposed Hunter design.

We also know that BAE have clearly stated that removing the Mk45 entirely would allow an extra 32x Mk41 cells to be fitted.

Here is the specification for the Mk45 system. https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/upl ... 937203.pdf

The 32x Mk41 Strike cells would actually weigh less than the Mk45 system. Of course it also depends on what you put in them. Here is the specification.
IMG_1420.jpeg
It’s difficult to see why replacing the Mk45 with the Mk41 cells would affect ASW performance.

Replacing the amidships CAMM mushrooms with quad packed CAMM may increase top weight but then again RN could develop (over the next decade) a lightweight quad, triple and double packed VLS design. The mushrooms are neither efficient or lightweight. The difference in weight between purpose designed lightweight CAMM VLS cells vs 24x mushrooms may not be significant. The difference between 24x CAMM and 48x CAMM plus 24x CAMM ER is about 6t. Again, not enough to remove the ASW capability.

Conversely, the 32x Mk41 Strike cell silo as proposed by BAE to replace the amidship mission area would weigh well in excess of 100t if loaded with TLAM plus the weight of the structural reinforcement required to support it. This would be significant especially as much of the weight is pretty elevated and could be the reason for the removal of the tail.

Adding Samson Mk2 plus next-gen S1850 should be possible with the modified Hunter hull dimensions but there is absolutely no way to say for sure. The energy generation aspect is also an unknown.

A T83 based on the T26 is certainly plausible enough and if successful the positives could be so large that additional hulls could be built. For those reasons it warrants serious consideration IMO.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

@Poiuytrewq
I agree that it warrants serious consideration. We need to stop designing small runs of different craft and adopt more the USN Flight 0/1/2/3 etc philosophy of phased changes to designs to progress the designs over time whilst keeping much of design same / similar so that construction shipyards can maixmise efficiency and keep a tight control over costs.

I also agree with all of your negativ comments on CAMM Mushrooms and their inefficeint use of space compared to double acked or even quad packs alternative VLS. And that is important to give the T83 AAW both a variety of misile types and prices to be able to dea with different targets, but also adding greater durability by having large numbrs of double/quad packed shorter ranger, cheaper missiles to deal with lower end threats, along with a few more advanced, more expensive but more capable missiles to deal with the high end threats.

In your most recent comments it has become clearer to me that you were comparing your proposed RN T26 Batch 2 AAW to the original T26 Batch 1 ASW. If so then apologies as I was focussing more on the comparisons between your proposed RN T26 Batch 2 AAW and BAE Australia's proposed RAN Hunter Batch 2 AAW. And on the later BAE Australia had explictitly stated that they had removed the mission module and the ASW ability to add extra VLS.

It had seemed to me that you wanted the advantages of the RAN Hunter Batch 2 AAW without any of the disadvantages. But we were seemingly comparing different things.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 21:46 If so then apologies…
Absolutely not necessary. The conversations here twist and turn on a regular basis and it’s very easy to get crossed wires.

Back on topic.

If RN can pull off a credible next-gen destroyer capability whilst retaining the T26 ASW and multi mission capability it could prove to be one of the finest escorts in the world.

Perhaps this is the perfect definition of an 80% solution.

If enough hulls can be procured due to enhanced affordability the T83 could easily turn into a 160% or 320% solution. Time to rebuild the mass and strength in depth.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1350
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 21:21 The mushrooms are neither efficient or lightweight.
Why do you say the mushrooms aren't lightweight? They are so much simpler than Mk41 or exls.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 22:47
Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 21:21 The mushrooms are neither efficient or lightweight.
Why do you say the mushrooms aren't lightweight? They are so much simpler than Mk41 or exls.
The mushrooms are not lightweight compared to a lightweight quad packed VLS and they are also a thoroughly inefficient use of space.

I am proposing that RN prioritise a lightweight and densely packed CAMM specific VLS.

CAMM has been an export success. Add a lightweight densely packed VLS and export success will likely expand further.

The mushrooms are a legacy system. To spend the time and money to design the T83 and not address the CAMM VLS issue would be totally bonkers.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1350
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 23:15
tomuk wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 22:47
Poiuytrewq wrote: 07 Dec 2023, 21:21 The mushrooms are neither efficient or lightweight.
Why do you say the mushrooms aren't lightweight? They are so much simpler than Mk41 or exls.
The mushrooms are not lightweight compared to a lightweight quad packed VLS and they are also a thoroughly inefficient use of space.

I am proposing that RN prioritise a lightweight and densely packed CAMM specific VLS.

CAMM has been an export success. Add a lightweight densely packed VLS and export success will likely expand further.

The mushrooms are a legacy system. To spend the time and money to design the T83 and not address the CAMM VLS issue would be totally bonkers.
Are you suggesting a new lightweight VLS. The mushroom launchers are basically the CAMM containers and not much else. And to say they are legacy when the revised more tightly packed six mushroom launchers aren't even in service yet seems odd.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 08 Dec 2023, 02:01 Are you suggesting a new lightweight VLS. The mushroom launchers are basically the CAMM containers and not much else. And to say they are legacy when the revised more tightly packed six mushroom launchers aren't even in service yet seems odd.
Developing a much more efficient VLS for CAMM/ER/MR is a priority IMO.

On the left 24x CAMM in mushrooms. On the right potentially 96x CAMM quad packed in 24x VLS. Virtually the same amount of deck space required.
IMG_1421.jpeg
Building bigger and more costly vessels to hold inefficient CAMM cells is ridiculous.

If Mk41 is fitted to the T31 are the CAMM to be quad packed?

If the CAMM is going in mushrooms then that suggests either:

• 12x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x Mk41 cells

• 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 8x Mk41 cells

Not very inspiring.

If a lightweight quad packed CAMM VLS was developed the T31 silo could contain:

• 32x quad packed CAMM plus 24x Mk41 cells

Much more like it.

Multiple options but ensuring CAMM can be densely installed in lightweight VLS would be well worth the investment.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5460
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 08 Dec 2023, 09:27
tomuk wrote: 08 Dec 2023, 02:01 Are you suggesting a new lightweight VLS. The mushroom launchers are basically the CAMM containers and not much else. And to say they are legacy when the revised more tightly packed six mushroom launchers aren't even in service yet seems odd.
Developing a much more efficient VLS for CAMM/ER/MR is a priority IMO.

On the left 24x CAMM in mushrooms. On the right potentially 96x CAMM quad packed in 24x VLS. Virtually the same amount of deck space required. IMG_1421.jpeg

Building bigger and more costly vessels to hold inefficient CAMM cells is ridiculous.

If Mk41 is fitted to the T31 are the CAMM to be quad packed?

If the CAMM is going in mushrooms then that suggests either:

• 12x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x Mk41 cells

• 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 8x Mk41 cells

Not very inspiring.

If a lightweight quad packed CAMM VLS was developed the T31 silo could contain:

• 32x quad packed CAMM plus 24x Mk41 cells

Much more like it.

Multiple options but ensuring CAMM can be densely installed in lightweight VLS would be well worth the investment.
Looking at the image above one has to wonder why BAE did not design T-26 to have 4 x rows of 16 VLS to give 64 VLS it looks to me by just tuning the rear Mk-41's to be in line with the mushroom and then replace the mushroom for another 8 cell Mk-41 they could of got them in

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The low packing density is because they've opted for a frangible cover vs a mechanical flap. That decision is good because simple is usually best. However it does mean each canister needs a lot of space around it, because squares and circles don't pack neatly together. My suggestion is to place 4 canisters under one frangible dome, which should increase packing density without any complicated mechanisms.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Dec 2023, 09:50 Looking at the image above one has to wonder why BAE did not design T-26 to have 4 x rows of 16 VLS to give 64 VLS it looks to me by just tuning the rear Mk-41's to be in line with the mushroom and then replace the mushroom for another 8 cell Mk-41 they could of got them in
I agree. That’s looks like the obvious solution but why has BAE not proposed it? That omission could possibly suggest that top weight has been an issue from the start.

It’s also worth considering that the T26 has been designed around the entire Mk45 system. By replacing the Mk45 with the 57mm or 2x40mm all kinds of new possibilities may appear.

Only BAE know for sure.

Post Reply