Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

Will this be a problem for the USN soon once the CCG's go and the carrier groups only have the AB DDG's

Many in and out of the USN think so. Attempts at designing a new cruiser have been rather pathetic as you might expect from a Navy whose last 2 indigenous designs were Zumwalt & LCS. Try googling CG(X).

[Ron5]

My last comment on this, You keep stabbing in the dark there Ron you might get close one day.

If you consider multi statics and the network centric cooperative engagement approach as what the future will be like then every unit contributes to the overall picture. The U.S. navy considers all its escorts as multi role with air search radars and towed sonars.

No depending on the nature of an issue even the simple things can cause multi fleet groundings if you need an example see the recent ejector seat cartridge issues.

That’s good means we don’t need to lengthen type 26 to add more silos what they have will do.

We will see on the radar, obsolescence rectification on Sampson doesn’t necessarily point to a new Radar development I recall as part of AUKUS and selection by Australia of type 26 there was some discussion around RN interest in the ceafar radar and development there off we will see what the future holds.

1. Current configuration: Carrier at the center, T45's close in providing air defense, T23/T26 many miles away up threat hunting SSN's.

2. Let's assume $1 billion cost of T45 & T26. Cost of escort fleet = 8 * $1b + 6 * $1b = $14 billion.

3. Your proposal: build super escort combines capability of T45 & T26. Estimated cost = $1.4 billion.

4. At a fixed escort budget of $14b, you now have 10 escorts. Still split with some close to carrier for AA and some up threat hunting SSN. A reduction in escort fleet size of 30%. A reduction in carrier defense of 30%.

And BTW, your super escort would likely be less efficient at ASW and less efficient at AA because of the compromises fitting two sets of very different major systems onboard.

Great plan Mr RAF.

PS Bae team is working of Sampson successors, that work has been described in the defense media. And the comment on the RN evaluating CEAFAR was from a British politician saying politicianany things. Means Jack.

[Ron5]

When it comes to Type 83 we can either try to rectify this direction by building (I really hate to use the phrase) 'crusiers' that cover all manner of maritime roles.

Minor point but I was using the American definition of a cruiser rather than the British Empire version. So cruiser is the lead ship in the carrier escort fleet not the one going around the world beating the natives into submission.

[Ron5]

It’s worth remembering that the UK has to live within its means. The gradual reduction in escort numbers is a crisis for a global navy.

Reducing the number of Tier1 escorts to build more “patrol frigates” might please the policymakers and bean counters but it isn’t an optimal solution.

It was the policy makes and bean counters that imposed patrol frigates on the navy. Not the other way round.

[Dobbo]

I’d say the T83 absolutely needs to be at the cutting edge of AAW and ABM defence - as well as anti-hypersonic - that is not really something that can be compromised as it’s primary role.

It should also be able to shoot FCASW at other ships or land targets - provided the silos and weapons are compatible this should be a major cost.

The final task should be a degree of ASW - not top of the line, but it needs to be able to creat jeopardy for and SSK / SSN that penetrates the T26 / SSN screen. Whether that is delivered by the embarked helicopters (eg as opposed to deploying a TAS) is for debate but I think the capability would be very helpful.

Finally - they need numbers. No fewer than 6 but ideally 8-10. Finding the budget for that is a major major task. They are unlikely to be cheap.

[BB85]

This question might be very ignorant but when it comes to future ASW capability especially using a toed array sonar unmanned drone ships are bound the be the way to go as the hulls will be significantly quieter and can network into a mothership. Even UAVs for long range patrol and endurance to compliment Poseidon, can't be long until UAVs are capable of Ariel refueling if they are not already.
That would allow T83 to be focused on AA role and carry a mixture of budget long range TLAMs plus this hyper sonic ASM they seem to be working on. They are going to cost a clean fortune but when China is building 2 or 3 of them every year I don't see much other choice. Defense spending is going to need to increase.

[Jensy]

When it comes to Type 83 we can either try to rectify this direction by building (I really hate to use the phrase) 'crusiers' that cover all manner of maritime roles.

Minor point but I was using the American definition of a cruiser rather than the British Empire version. So cruiser is the lead ship in the carrier escort fleet not the one going around the world beating the natives into submission.

Wasn't aimed at you Ron, or anyone else on here!

Frankly I'm rather bored of classifying ships along the lines of the late 19th or early 20th century.

We're past the days when destroyers come in flotillas or frigates lack command facilities. We need ships that can defend the CSGs, and whatever other formations or groups we can afford, in an efficent and capable fashion.

Call them whatever. I think 'global combat ship' was good branding, just not necessarily suitable for an ASW specialist with some local air defence in the UK parlance.

Submarines are terrifying but the skies are equally so in the contemporary peer-peer environment.

The low end seems somewhat easier to define. The Adaptable Strike Frigate being a credible option, if we have the desire and means to build them in double figures.

[Poiuytrewq]

Positive?

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 1-22/93479

[dmereifield]

The "increase" sounds like its brought about by including funds allocated to support Ukraine as "defence spending" and to replenish (at least partially) munition stocks donated to Ukraine. Likely a decrease in reality when you exclude those spends

[Poiuytrewq]

The "increase" sounds like its brought about by including funds allocated to support Ukraine as "defence spending" and to replenish (at least partially) munition stocks donated to Ukraine. Likely a decrease in reality when you exclude those spends

If it is creative accountancy to keep the ball rolling until the updated Integrated Review lands then it must be a positive development IMO.

[Tempest414]

The "increase" sounds like its brought about by including funds allocated to support Ukraine as "defence spending" and to replenish (at least partially) munition stocks donated to Ukraine. Likely a decrease in reality when you exclude those spends

If it is creative accountancy to keep the ball rolling until the updated Integrated Review lands then it must be a positive development IMO.

The Ukraine funding really must be seen as a type of UOR and there for any funds coming to the MOD is a good thing also any extra funding to the SSBN program is also a good thing maybe what we are seeing is a more fund as needed approach rather than saying an increase to 3% we will fund as needed and maybe that is why Wallace has stayed quite happy

[Tempest414]

Will this be a problem for the USN soon once the CCG's go and the carrier groups only have the AB DDG's

Many in and out of the USN think so. Attempts at designing a new cruiser have been rather pathetic as you might expect from a Navy whose last 2 indigenous designs were Zumwalt & LCS. Try googling CG(X).

However is the USN not pushing on with DDG(X) a 13000 ton ships planed for 2030

[zavve]

The idea of an Arleigh Burke Esque class in the royal navy would not fit very well. DDG-51s do everything seemingly well, but they don't excel at anything (apart from land-attack). I think the RN's current destroyer/frigate roles work pretty well with a few tweaks.
For example, I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41. That would allow Type 26 to not only excel at ASW but also provide some area defence for itself. A T26 loadout could be 48 CAMM/CAMM-ER (in EXLS or Mushroom replacement), 8 FC/ASW and 16 ASTER 30. I think it's unlikely that the T26 will carry more than 8 FC/ASW as they will be expensive.
Type 45 or its replacement needs to have a good HMS. That would give it at the very least a self-defence ASW capability. Type 45 replacement should also be fitted with Asters in Mk.41. The Type 45's after their MLU would carry: Type 2150 HMS, 48 CAMM (in EXLS or Mushroom replacement), 8 NSM and 48 ASTER 30.

[Tempest414]

Meanwhile, just for fun.

That was fun. Noted he said Sea Ceptor can be used for surface targets, I thought that was just an aspiration, didn't know it was an operational thing.

Yes, it is now operational - funded as an UCR and one of the reasons why fitting the LMM pod to the 30mm mount was not taken forward.

This is good news that CAMM is now cleared for surface to surface but it must cost 4 or 5 times as much as LMM plus every CAMM missile fired in this role is one less for air defence so I would like to see a 8 round Naval rapid ranger system

[Ron5]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.

And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

[Ron5]

Meanwhile, just for fun.

That was fun. Noted he said Sea Ceptor can be used for surface targets, I thought that was just an aspiration, didn't know it was an operational thing.

Yes, it is now operational - funded as an UCR and one of the reasons why fitting the LMM pod to the 30mm mount was not taken forward.

This is good news that CAMM is now cleared for surface to surface but it must cost 4 or 5 times as much as LMM plus every CAMM missile fired in this role is one less for air defence so I would like to see a 8 round Naval rapid ranger system

If the ships already have CAMM, the cost is zero

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.
And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

Not sure for both of your point.

1. If France want to sell more Aster30, OR more Sylver VLS? If former, integrating Aster-30 into Mk.41 VLS will be a good idea. If latter, sells of Aster30 will be limited to countries accepting "not capable of handling any US missiles", which I think has negative impact. But, as it is not only sells but also a pride, I do agree Aster 30 may not be integrated into Mk41 VLS.

2. Controlling Aster-30 is NOT only limited to PAAMS. At least, FDI and Italian ships do not have it, to my understanding. Maybe FREMM-DA not either. So, there are some way to handle it. But you need datalink antenna to be added, which differs from those for CAMM. I think, SeaCeptor system will need big upgrade, and two more datalink antennas shall be added, if T26 wants to use Aster-30.

So, Aster-30 on T26 looks very attractive, but not likely to happen, I agree.

If you need "a bit longer" range AAW missile, may be T26 shall go with CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR, which may happen. But, they are not long-rage AAW missiles, just medium range.

[Tempest414]

Meanwhile, just for fun.

That was fun. Noted he said Sea Ceptor can be used for surface targets, I thought that was just an aspiration, didn't know it was an operational thing.

Yes, it is now operational - funded as an UCR and one of the reasons why fitting the LMM pod to the 30mm mount was not taken forward.

This is good news that CAMM is now cleared for surface to surface but it must cost 4 or 5 times as much as LMM plus every CAMM missile fired in this role is one less for air defence so I would like to see a 8 round Naval rapid ranger system

If the ships already have CAMM, the cost is zero

No such thing as zero cost, So given the cost of a CAMM missile against a LMM plus the ability to reload a LMM launcher at sea I can only see it as good thing to have LMM lets face it a ship should be carrying around 60 LMM anyway for the Wildcat ( 3 loads of 20)

[wargame_insomniac]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.
And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

Not sure for both of your point.

1. If France want to sell more Aster30, OR more Sylver VLS? If former, integrating Aster-30 into Mk.41 VLS will be a good idea. If latter, sells of Aster30 will be limited to countries accepting "not capable of handling any US missiles", which I think has negative impact. But, as it is not only sells but also a pride, I do agree Aster 30 may not be integrated into Mk41 VLS.

2. Controlling Aster-30 is NOT only limited to PAAMS. At least, FDI and Italian ships do not have it, to my understanding. Maybe FREMM-DA not either. So, there are some way to handle it. But you need datalink antenna to be added, which differs from those for CAMM. I think, SeaCeptor system will need big upgrade, and two more datalink antennas shall be added, if T26 wants to use Aster-30.

So, Aster-30 on T26 looks very attractive, but not likely to happen, I agree.

If you need "a bit longer" range AAW missile, may be T26 shall go with CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR, which may happen. But, they are not long-rage AAW missiles, just medium range.

Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS? I am presuming maybe not, if they are bigger than basic CAMM.

Either way I think that CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR will be a good option for all RN Frigates. It keeps the T45 as the specialist AAW with PAAMS and Aster 30 for long range missiles (and hopefully soon the Block 1NT for BMD) whilst enabling the rest of the escorts to join in providing additional medium and close range cover.

[Tempest414]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.
And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

Not sure for both of your point.

1. If France want to sell more Aster30, OR more Sylver VLS? If former, integrating Aster-30 into Mk.41 VLS will be a good idea. If latter, sells of Aster30 will be limited to countries accepting "not capable of handling any US missiles", which I think has negative impact. But, as it is not only sells but also a pride, I do agree Aster 30 may not be integrated into Mk41 VLS.

2. Controlling Aster-30 is NOT only limited to PAAMS. At least, FDI and Italian ships do not have it, to my understanding. Maybe FREMM-DA not either. So, there are some way to handle it. But you need datalink antenna to be added, which differs from those for CAMM. I think, SeaCeptor system will need big upgrade, and two more datalink antennas shall be added, if T26 wants to use Aster-30.

So, Aster-30 on T26 looks very attractive, but not likely to happen, I agree.

If you need "a bit longer" range AAW missile, may be T26 shall go with CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR, which may happen. But, they are not long-rage AAW missiles, just medium range.

Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS? I am presuming maybe not, if they are bigger than basic CAMM.

Either way I think that CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR will be a good option for all RN Frigates. It keeps the T45 as the specialist AAW with PAAMS and Aster 30 for long range missiles (and hopefully soon the Block 1NT for BMD) whilst enabling the rest of the escorts to join in providing additional medium and close range cover.

Given ESSM can be quad packed in Mk41 and has a diameter of 254mm . CAMM with its 190mm diameter should fit just a question of how to do it

[Poiuytrewq]

Finally - they need numbers. No fewer than 6 but ideally 8-10. Finding the budget for that is a major major task. They are unlikely to be cheap.

I just can’t see 8 or 10 Type83 destroyers being funded. Even 6 might be a stretch.

So how does this compute with a growing Royal Navy?

The policy of shrinking RN whilst simultaneously growing it is clearly an oxymoron full of dead end announcements and disingenuous half truths. It doesn’t help that the UK has had to endure a few political and societal earthquakes in recent years along with economic paralysis and weak governance but regardless, a credible plan for the future needs to be solidified, costed and agreed upon to ensure the future is better than the past. At least Ben Wallace has been a consistent presence with grip and good judgment at a crucial point in time.

The refreshed Integrated Review will hopefully set out how the 24 escort target will be reached but IMO it is unlikely more than fourteen T26/T83 will be funded which clearly is a suboptimal outcome but nevertheless that’s my prediction.

That leaves ten T31/T32 to reach the 24 escort target. IMO, if the T31 ever had a rationale it’s now toast so it’s time to think again and hopefully the IR Mk2 will confirm the decision to upgrade the T31’s up to a T23 GP capability baseline. I would be very very surprised if it doesn’t. Actually a properly armed T31 will be a fantastic addition to the fleet, it was always more of a missed opportunity than a bad idea.

Conversely the T32 may very well be an amalgamation too far. By combining the attributes and capabilities of a MCMV and a frigate a tantalising prospect of a true multi-purpose escort is supposedly within reach. I have always liked the concept but it contains so many compromises that I suspect the capability outcome may also be suboptimal. Hence I am more and more of the view that an amalgamation of the MRSS and a MCMV is the way forward - in numbers. These would leave Escorts to do what they do best, protect the rest of the fleet.

Therefore, all things considered IMO the T32 should be a combined Tier2 AAW/ASW escort in the traditional sense. Basically a modernised, RN refined, Iver Huitfeldt with a tail, probably Captas 4 compact. Aim for £500m per hull and see what Babcock can come up with. It might be surprisingly capable.

This would allow for two independent CSGs if required in extreme circumstances escorted by whatever is available from fourteen T45/T26/T83. It would also allow for two independent LRGs escorted by whatever is available from the five T32s which can combine to form a single combined LSG if required.

The T31s would fulfill all other tasks and fill the gaps where necessary. RN would achieve a level of credible balance once again with a useful margin of redundancy for a hopefully never to materialise attritional war were losses are inevitable.

The smaller, lighter, faster MRSS vessels could conduct MCM and launch recover XLUUVs whilst also performing meaningful HADR and embarking a company of FCF plus equipment and up to 4 medium helicopters.

Just my opinion…

[wargame_insomniac]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.
And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

Not sure for both of your point.

1. If France want to sell more Aster30, OR more Sylver VLS? If former, integrating Aster-30 into Mk.41 VLS will be a good idea. If latter, sells of Aster30 will be limited to countries accepting "not capable of handling any US missiles", which I think has negative impact. But, as it is not only sells but also a pride, I do agree Aster 30 may not be integrated into Mk41 VLS.

2. Controlling Aster-30 is NOT only limited to PAAMS. At least, FDI and Italian ships do not have it, to my understanding. Maybe FREMM-DA not either. So, there are some way to handle it. But you need datalink antenna to be added, which differs from those for CAMM. I think, SeaCeptor system will need big upgrade, and two more datalink antennas shall be added, if T26 wants to use Aster-30.

So, Aster-30 on T26 looks very attractive, but not likely to happen, I agree.

If you need "a bit longer" range AAW missile, may be T26 shall go with CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR, which may happen. But, they are not long-rage AAW missiles, just medium range.

Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS? I am presuming maybe not, if they are bigger than basic CAMM.

Either way I think that CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR will be a good option for all RN Frigates. It keeps the T45 as the specialist AAW with PAAMS and Aster 30 for long range missiles (and hopefully soon the Block 1NT for BMD) whilst enabling the rest of the escorts to join in providing additional medium and close range cover.

Given ESSM can be quad packed in Mk41 and has a diameter of 254mm . CAMM with its 190mm diameter should fit just a question of how to do it

I did nt ask about CAMM. I specifically asked:
"Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS?"

[Jake1992]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.
And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

Not sure for both of your point.

1. If France want to sell more Aster30, OR more Sylver VLS? If former, integrating Aster-30 into Mk.41 VLS will be a good idea. If latter, sells of Aster30 will be limited to countries accepting "not capable of handling any US missiles", which I think has negative impact. But, as it is not only sells but also a pride, I do agree Aster 30 may not be integrated into Mk41 VLS.

2. Controlling Aster-30 is NOT only limited to PAAMS. At least, FDI and Italian ships do not have it, to my understanding. Maybe FREMM-DA not either. So, there are some way to handle it. But you need datalink antenna to be added, which differs from those for CAMM. I think, SeaCeptor system will need big upgrade, and two more datalink antennas shall be added, if T26 wants to use Aster-30.

So, Aster-30 on T26 looks very attractive, but not likely to happen, I agree.

If you need "a bit longer" range AAW missile, may be T26 shall go with CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR, which may happen. But, they are not long-rage AAW missiles, just medium range.

Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS? I am presuming maybe not, if they are bigger than basic CAMM.

Either way I think that CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR will be a good option for all RN Frigates. It keeps the T45 as the specialist AAW with PAAMS and Aster 30 for long range missiles (and hopefully soon the Block 1NT for BMD) whilst enabling the rest of the escorts to join in providing additional medium and close range cover.

Given ESSM can be quad packed in Mk41 and has a diameter of 254mm . CAMM with its 190mm diameter should fit just a question of how to do it

I did nt ask about CAMM. I specifically asked:
"Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS?"

CAMM -
L - 3.2m
D - 166mm

CAMM-ER -
L - 4.2m
D - 190mm

ESSM -
L - 3.66m
D - 254mm

Mk41 comes in - 5.3m, 6.8 and 7.7m length

I havnt been able to find any specifications for CAMM-MR but unless it’s massively larger in both length and diamitor then CAMM-ER it should be quad packable in any Mk41, I havnt been able to find any reliable diemtions for EXcL though so not sure on that.

[Anthony58]

It is ExLS not EXcL launcher

[Tempest414]

I think it's crucial to integrate Aster into Mk.41.

I doubt that the French will allow this and if they did , it would come with an eye watering bill.
And I'm not sure the T26 is up to a full PAAMs integration which would be needed.

Not sure for both of your point.

1. If France want to sell more Aster30, OR more Sylver VLS? If former, integrating Aster-30 into Mk.41 VLS will be a good idea. If latter, sells of Aster30 will be limited to countries accepting "not capable of handling any US missiles", which I think has negative impact. But, as it is not only sells but also a pride, I do agree Aster 30 may not be integrated into Mk41 VLS.

2. Controlling Aster-30 is NOT only limited to PAAMS. At least, FDI and Italian ships do not have it, to my understanding. Maybe FREMM-DA not either. So, there are some way to handle it. But you need datalink antenna to be added, which differs from those for CAMM. I think, SeaCeptor system will need big upgrade, and two more datalink antennas shall be added, if T26 wants to use Aster-30.

So, Aster-30 on T26 looks very attractive, but not likely to happen, I agree.

If you need "a bit longer" range AAW missile, may be T26 shall go with CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR, which may happen. But, they are not long-rage AAW missiles, just medium range.

Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS? I am presuming maybe not, if they are bigger than basic CAMM.

Either way I think that CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR will be a good option for all RN Frigates. It keeps the T45 as the specialist AAW with PAAMS and Aster 30 for long range missiles (and hopefully soon the Block 1NT for BMD) whilst enabling the rest of the escorts to join in providing additional medium and close range cover.

Given ESSM can be quad packed in Mk41 and has a diameter of 254mm . CAMM with its 190mm diameter should fit just a question of how to do it

I did nt ask about CAMM. I specifically asked:
"Can CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS?"

I am sorry I left out the ER bit but a quick look around and you would of seen CAMM ER is 190mm diameter