Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

The RN has maintained an escort in the gulf area for as long as I can remember. It has added a second periodically. So it will always contribute with allies to ensure free movement of goods at sea in that area. It will not be doing this on its own.

If it has to maintain more than one escort longer term then given the material state of the escort fleet that maybe more challenging.

Hormuz and Bab-El-Mandeb are 4 days apart for an escort.

The U.K. is becoming expert at defence down to a budget. Constant press releases about partners, allies and international coalitions are just a smokescreen for not having the assets required to do what used to be done without breaking sweat.

The mass has fallen too far, not enough funding is being allocated to secure U.K. interests and the world is becoming more and more dangerous.

Although the current funding level is huge the level of ambition needs to elevate further. The only way for ambition to increase is for funding to rise.

It’s inevitable due to the worsening security picture.

[Poiuytrewq]

However, as a vessel is constantly drifting at sea, this way of targeting ships at sea is usually ineffective.

Thats great but what’s next?

[SW1]

The RN has maintained an escort in the gulf area for as long as I can remember. It has added a second periodically. So it will always contribute with allies to ensure free movement of goods at sea in that area. It will not be doing this on its own.

If it has to maintain more than one escort longer term then given the material state of the escort fleet that maybe more challenging.

Hormuz and Bab-El-Mandeb are 4 days apart for an escort.

The U.K. is becoming expert at defence down to a budget. Constant press releases about partners, allies and international coalitions are just a smokescreen for not having the assets required to do what used to be done without breaking sweat.

The mass has fallen too far, not enough funding is being allocated to secure U.K. interests and the world is becoming more and more dangerous.

Although the current funding level is huge the level of ambition needs to elevate further. The only way for ambition to increase is for funding to rise.

It’s inevitable due to the worsening security picture.

It’s also a statement of fact as has been pointed out the ships being attacked have links to 19 different nations. The route into the Red Sea is more important to us than the route thru Hormuz if you are purely looking at flow of economic goods to and from the uk or European region. We do not need to do this alone but we do need to make a contribution to it.

If the opvs that are in the western Pacific were type 23 general purpose frigates I’m sure they may have been re routed to the western India ocean by now but they aren’t due to several being in such a poor state they had to be scrapped so there no use. The fallacy of covering fwd presence with ships not up to task is being shown up for what it is. Having a maritime patrol aircraft in the region may also of been of help but they can’t crew enough of them to fwd deploy a presence.

This is long in the making it’s not about lack of funding but funding the wrong things and not prioritising your national needs.

[SW1]

However, as a vessel is constantly drifting at sea, this way of targeting ships at sea is usually ineffective.

Thats great but what’s next?

You provide an escort to them rather than leave them to it?

[mrclark303]

...with potential.

Yes a lot more potential then any River Class Batch 1, 1.5, 2 or 3.

Perhaps superficially.

If a RB3 embarked 6x TEU each containing 12x CAMM that’s 72x CAMM with the Wildcat hanger and flight deck still operational. Backed up by the 57/40mm’s.

If the T31 only has 12x CAMM fitted the immediate potential is much lower with nowhere to add the containerised CAMM without disrupting the flight deck operations.

Two or three RB3’s with containerised CAMM would be a big help in the Red Sea or Gulf right now.

If @SW1 is correct and Red Sea convoys are the norm for the foreseeable how is RN going to keep enough escorts in the area to provide a persistent presence?

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

It's become obvious to most people that T31 needs to carry a minimum of 24 Sea Ceptor.

I personally don't think it should be any less than T23, so 32. Otherwise it's a retrograde step regarding air defence.

Absolutely it should receive 16 NSM, it's a big enough hull to distribute the four quad pack launchers afterall.

If we develop the requisite future Mine hunting capability and AUV/ UAV possibilities, then it's potentially a really capable muti role capable asset.

Convoy escort, mine countermeasures, Carribbean patrol, Falklands presence etc

[SW1]

...with potential.

Yes a lot more potential then any River Class Batch 1, 1.5, 2 or 3.

Perhaps superficially.

If a RB3 embarked 6x TEU each containing 12x CAMM that’s 72x CAMM with the Wildcat hanger and flight deck still operational. Backed up by the 57/40mm’s.

If the T31 only has 12x CAMM fitted the immediate potential is much lower with nowhere to add the containerised CAMM without disrupting the flight deck operations.

Two or three RB3’s with containerised CAMM would be a big help in the Red Sea or Gulf right now.

If @SW1 is correct and Red Sea convoys are the norm for the foreseeable how is RN going to keep enough escorts in the area to provide a persistent presence?

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

It's become obvious to most people that T31 needs to carry a minimum of 24 Sea Ceptor.

I personally don't think it should be any less than T23, so 32. Otherwise it's a retrograde step regarding air defence.

Absolutely it should receive 16 NSM, it's a big enough hull to distribute the four quad pack launchers afterall.

If we develop the requisite future Mine hunting capability and AUV/ UAV possibilities, then it's potentially a really capable muti role capable asset.

Convoy escort, mine countermeasures, Carribbean patrol, Falklands presence etc

I think the gun systems on type 31 mean it doesn’t need to use missiles for every air target it can save missiles for the more difficult ones, unlike the likes of type 23 or even 45. So I don’t think it’s quite as black and white of more missiles, it gives those on board options to use whatever they wish.

[Repulse]

I think the gun systems on type 31 mean it doesn’t need to use missiles for every air target it can save missiles for the more difficult ones

The T31 will have a single gun with a range of @9nm - it’s a narrow window here and primarily for self defence.

[new guy]

It brings surface to surface and surface to air gun capability against multiple medium/small craft on the surface and in the air. It adds a capable surface to air local area defence missile capability. It adds an anti ship missile thru its embarked helicopter and a non compliant interception and boarding capability thru its embarked Royal Marines, boarding craft and helicopter.

It comes with an excellent air and surface radar and sensor capability, a command system it is a vessel with all the redundancy of a warship and plenty of range to boot. It’s built for choke point escort and the littoral security task. It is perfectly capable as operating as part of a taskgroup carrier or otherwise. It also won’t be here for a while yet so doesn’t help the current situation.

It adds something that can tackle a limited range of threats within a very small area. It can and should be more - we are paying for them they need to be able to do much more than this to warrant being part of the fleet and taking up valuable crew - this has to be ahead of any dream to build more. We do not have the luxury of the rest of the first tier fleet carrying these ships.

I am baffled by what mcm work the opvs are doing than can’t be don’t from any ship.

I am baffled that you are baffled, but not surprised given your views on minor warships. The B1 with its flat deck and the B2s with its large flight deck and cranes are well ahead of anything the T31 and to that matter T23/T45 can offer in operating USVs.

As for you list in the post above mothball a carrier and free up 750 crew and support for the rest of the fleet would solve a lot of issues.

The Albions have clearly demonstrated that this is not a cheap option, it’s a way to kill capability. You either have carriers or you do not, and regardless of any mythical dream that there are LHDs / LHAs out there that can do it better and cheaper it’s nonsense. If you truly believe it, then scrap both, you may recoup enough money to buy a couple of patrol frigates, but forget doing anything of any value outside of NATO.

I respect you having a different view to me on this, but just be honest. It goes without saying that I believe it’s insane and most stupid and naive thing the UK would have done in a long list of stupid things since it put POW and Repulse in the Far East without carrier support.

[SW1]

I think the gun systems on type 31 mean it doesn’t need to use missiles for every air target it can save missiles for the more difficult ones

The T31 will have a single gun with a range of @9nm - it’s a narrow window here and primarily for self defence.

I’m pretty sure it has 57mm and 40mm guns that give it the ability to defend itself and whatever it is escorting against surface and air threats out to a range roughly equivalent to what the sea wolf equipped frigates provided. They then have the ability to use missiles against more difficult things. I think that’s a good balance.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
It's become obvious to most people that T31 needs to carry a minimum of 24 Sea Ceptor.

I personally don't think it should be any less than T23, so 32. Otherwise it's a retrograde step regarding air defence.

Absolutely it should receive 16 NSM, it's a big enough hull to distribute the four quad pack launchers afterall.

If we develop the requisite future Mine hunting capability and AUV/ UAV possibilities, then it's potentially a really capable muti role capable asset.

Convoy escort, mine countermeasures, Carribbean patrol, Falklands presence etc

I think the gun systems on type 31 mean it doesn’t need to use missiles for every air target it can save missiles for the more difficult ones, unlike the likes of type 23 or even 45. So I don’t think it’s quite as black and white of more missiles, it gives those on board options to use whatever they wish.

I agree T31 having (more than) 24 CAMM is becoming more "demanding".

1: T31 (if) with 24 CAMM and three guns (57x1, 40x2), I agree it is nearly equivalent to T23 with 32 CAMM. T23 has virtually no other armament to counter simple ASMs. I think "8 more" CAMM on T23 is needed for close-in ASM self-defense.

2: We must note that T23GPs needs replacement ASAP. I think at least 3 T31 must come with simple armament for shortened period for "capability insertion". I think it will be 20 or 24 CAMM.
- RNZN Te Kaha class carry 20 CAMM in a deck area equivalent to 16-cell Mk41 VLS. Thus, keeping 16 Mk41 VLS's room for future, and carrying 20 CAMM is one idea. Very low risk option.
- With small extension, 24 CAMM will be also OK. If there is no wall, it is easy. If there is a wall, just small cut-out will be needed.

3: After the first 3 T31 replaces the 3 T23GPs, RN would become able to take time to integrate 32 (or 16) Mk41 on the remaining 2 T31. This is simply because, RN can "double crew" all 3 T31 (6 crew teams for 3 T31 is nearly equivalent to 4 crew teams for 3 T23, in man-power). This will provide x1.5 presence of GP frigates compared to now, even it the man-power issue is not solved.

As T31 is new, its mechanical availability will be high, and "all double crewing" for 4-5 years will be doable.

[Poiuytrewq]

It's become obvious to most people that T31 needs to carry a minimum of 24 Sea Ceptor.

When was 12 CAMM officially confirmed….

Its a question of practicalities.

12x CAMM in mushrooms will take up the equivalent deck deck space as 16x Mk41 cells. Clearly that’s unsustainable but there is no sign of a switch from mushrooms so far.

Therefore the 32x Mk41 silo on the T31 could contain either:

• 12x CAMM in mushrooms plus 16x Mk41 cells
• 18x CAMM in mushrooms plus 8x Mk41 cells.
• 24x CAMM in mushrooms

It is possible to squeeze 12x mushrooms into a 8x Mk41 space but it will take another mushroom redesign.

Alternatively,

The 40mm could be removed from the B position and relocated elsewhere and substituted for 12x CAMM.

This would allow for:
• 18x CAMM amidships plus 12x CAMM in the B position for a total of 30.
• 8x Mk41 Strike cells in the amidships silo
• 57mm in the A position
• Port/Starboard 40mm’s.
• Up to 16x NSM

If RN are set on mushrooms this is probably the best balance.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

What's the problem? The strait is used by dozens of nations. The whole NATO escorts may join. There are literally "dozens of" escorts there.

[donald_of_tokyo]

12x CAMM in mushrooms will take up the equivalent deck deck space as 16x Mk41 cells.

Depends on its arrangement. RNZN Te Kaha class carry 20 CAMM in a deck area equivalent to 16-cell Mk41 VLS.

[Poiuytrewq]

12x CAMM in mushrooms will take up the equivalent deck deck space as 16x Mk41 cells.

Depends on its arrangement. RNZN Te Kaha class carry 20 CAMM in a deck area equivalent to 16-cell Mk41 VLS.

As said I think 12x mushrooms will squeeze into a 8x Mk41 cell slot or 24x mushrooms into 16x Mk41 cells but it will take another redesign.

IMG_1411.jpeg

[Poiuytrewq]

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

What's the problem? The strait is used by dozens of nations. The whole NATO escorts may join. There are literally "dozens of" escorts there.

Why would NATO get involved in the Red Sea?

[donald_of_tokyo]

As said I think 12x mushrooms will squeeze into a 8x Mk41 cell slot or 24x mushrooms into 16x Mk41 cells but it will take another redesign. IMG_1411.jpeg

Agree, 24 in 16-cell Mk.41. But, 20 CAMM in 16-cell Mk41 equivalent area is proven and existing, (almost) zero risk. No need for "redesign" or new development. Just copy it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

What's the problem? The strait is used by dozens of nations. The whole NATO escorts may join. There are literally "dozens of" escorts there.

Why would NATO get involved in the Red Sea?

OK, it does not need to be "NATO". But, many European nations (and US and Canada) use the strait = equivalent to NATO. For example, some of the vessel in danger are of Maersk's, a Danish company. There shall be many other examples.

[SW1]

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

What's the problem? The strait is used by dozens of nations. The whole NATO escorts may join. There are literally "dozens of" escorts there.

Why would NATO get involved in the Red Sea?

It has in the recent past.

https://mc.nato.int/missions/operation-ocean-shield

Though SNMG2 which was involved in ocean shield is busy in the Mediterranean.

[Phil Sayers]

Apparently this is in the works:



I'd guess our contribution will be something like keeping an escort in the Red Sea for the next three months or until the danger passes (whichever is sooner) in addition to the Kipion deployment. I also wonder whether it would be viable to start running Typhoon CAPs down the Red Sea staged out of Akrotiri as they would provide a means to engage drones, gather intelligence or retaliate against Houthi targets if so ordered.

[Tempest414]

Are we relying on allies again to police the rules based order?

What's the problem? The strait is used by dozens of nations. The whole NATO escorts may join. There are literally "dozens of" escorts there.

Why would NATO get involved in the Red Sea?

OK, it does not need to be "NATO". But, many European nations (and US and Canada) use the strait = equivalent to NATO. For example, some of the vessel in danger are of Maersk's, a Danish company. There shall be many other examples.

As said in the past there is some 126 escorts within NATO Europe which don't included the USN and RCN of these there are 95+ capable of local area defence

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think SeaCeptor system (CAMM) is a very good match to the situation. Smallish, cheapish, and capable of local-area air-defense.

A few hopes I have on SeaCeptor improvement:

<Near Future>
1: Denser packaging. Stand alone ExLS is good. Quad-pack in Mk41 is sub-optimal but ok. But, what I want is "modified mushroom with 3 or 4 times density". This will enable to carry ~36 CAMM in a "16-cell Mk41 VLS equivalent surface area, with only 3.5m depth (=1 deck)". Being light weight, this will be a strong figure of merit of soft-launched CAMM.

2: Mass production with thousands of units. Ammo ammo ammo. Mass production can reduce the unit cost by a factor of 2 or 3 (see TLAM). As CAMM is a cheapish missile, mass production will enable it being even cheaper, which can be a killing merit to promote it, and get further export. Coupled with item-1, it will enable RN ships to carry 48 (T31 and T45) or 96 (T26) CAMMs, for example (or even more).

3: Software update (if needed) to counter slow-moving UAVs in longer distance. Although effective range of CAMM is 20-25 km, it is for highly maneuverable targets. I guess CAMM can do ballistic flight out to 40-50 km. Although the kinetic energy and the agility will be lost, it will be OK to hit a slow moving UAV.

4: Software update (if needed) to counter cheap ballistic missile. If the speed of the missile is less than Mach 3, I think CAMM can easily handle it. In other words, CAMM must be significantly better than IronDome missile, at least.

<Next step>
5: I want to see dual-pulse-motor version of CAMM. VL MICA blk2 has more than doubled its range by adopting dual-pulse-motor (but not changing its dimensions). If the 2nd-pulse be ignited at the top of the trajectory, the range will significantly improve. If ignited right before the engagement, the agility will significantly increase, increasing the kill zone.

# CAMM-ER has dual-pulse-motor and adopting CAMM-ER is one idea. But, regardless, I personally think improved range of CAMM is very attractive. At the same time, ASRAMM blk2 "mod" will have the dual-pulse-motor. I favor numerous single type of CAMM, than a mixture of CAMM and CAMM-ER. (not saying CAMM + CAMM-ER is bad)

[Poiuytrewq]

OK, it does not need to be "NATO". But, many European nations (and US and Canada) use the strait = equivalent to NATO. For example, some of the vessel in danger are of Maersk's, a Danish company. There shall be many other examples.

NATO needs to concentrate on the core mission and avoid mission creep.

An international coalition escorting commercial shipping in the Red Sea is fine but the fact that RN can’t contribute more than one single vessel is extremely concerning.

[Tempest414]

I think SeaCeptor system (CAMM) is a very good match to the situation. Smallish, cheapish, and capable of local-area air-defense.

A few hopes I have on SeaCeptor improvement:

<Near Future>
1: Denser packaging. Stand alone ExLS is good. Quad-pack in Mk41 is sub-optimal but ok. But, what I want is "modified mushroom with 3 or 4 times density". This will enable to carry ~36 CAMM in a "16-cell Mk41 VLS equivalent surface area, with only 3.5m depth (=1 deck)". Being light weight, this will be a strong figure of merit of soft-launched CAMM.

2: Mass production with thousands of units. Ammo ammo ammo. Mass production can reduce the unit cost by a factor of 2 or 3 (see TLAM). As CAMM is a cheapish missile, mass production will enable it being even cheaper, which can be a killing merit to promote it, and get further export. Coupled with item-1, it will enable RN ships to carry 48 (T31 and T45) or 96 (T26) CAMMs, for example (or even more).

3: Software update (if needed) to counter slow-moving UAVs in longer distance. Although effective range of CAMM is 20-25 km, it is for highly maneuverable targets. I guess CAMM can do ballistic flight out to 40-50 km. Although the kinetic energy and the agility will be lost, it will be OK to hit a slow moving UAV.

4: Software update (if needed) to counter cheap ballistic missile. If the speed of the missile is less than Mach 3, I think CAMM can easily handle it. In other words, CAMM must be significantly better than IronDome missile, at least.

<Next step>
5: I want to see dual-pulse-motor version of CAMM. VL MICA blk2 has more than doubled its range by adopting dual-pulse-motor (but not changing its dimensions). If the 2nd-pulse be ignited at the top of the trajectory, the range will significantly improve. If ignited right before the engagement, the agility will significantly increase, increasing the kill zone.

# CAMM-ER has dual-pulse-motor and adopting CAMM-ER is one idea. But, regardless, I personally think improved range of CAMM is very attractive. At the same time, ASRAMM blk2 "mod" will have the dual-pulse-motor. I favor numerous single type of CAMM, than a mixture of CAMM and CAMM-ER. (not saying CAMM + CAMM-ER is bad)

CAMM has a proven ballistic range of 60KM so as said 40 to 45km's for slow moving targets should be possible

I also think it would be possible for a Starstreak to take down a slow drone at 16km

[new guy]

CAMM being used not just for Air defence is a interesting idea.


In the future, I would want to see a common ASRAAM & CAMM, maybe even CAMM-ER. One common missile. Add in much bigger production to build up big stocks and used multi-purposely, CAMM will still live with the next generation of missiles that replace aster .

[tomuk]

Yes so stop wasting it on opvs we don’t need. We aren’t buying a patrol frigate we are buying a general purpose warship

That sounds good but the reality is different.

The T31 as announced is far from GP. The entire subsurface domain is off limits beyond self protection.

Nothing beyond 12 CAMM has ever been officially confirmed.

NSM may happen eventually but it’s never been confirmed for T31.

The Mk41 addition would be great but when are they to be fitted? How many cells? What is going in them?

At present the T31 is BARELY a patrol Frigate…..with potential.

When was 12 CAMM officially confirmed as said up thread I don't remember any number of CAMM being officially confirmed we may have seen CGI's with only 12 but as far as I remember there has been nothing official

You are comparing a vessel that is is in build with with at least 12 CAMM but has been suggested will come with more and\or Mk41, based on a parent design with 32 Mk41 and 12 Mk56, to an imaginary vessel.