Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Depending on missile type they will outrange the gun by 3 to 1. If you are not counting high end conflict will they allow you to use 127mm shells in low end conflict were civilian casualties would be of much more prominent concern. If the commando force you are supposedly providing the naval gun fire support to is now a long range reconnaissance force is relevant to their support?

I think guided round is needed, in any sense.

The point on stockpiles is would you advocate selling two type 45 to pay for increase in missile load on the remaining 4? With a finite budget for these this things that is ultimately the question.

At least, I am happy to "sell" (postpone or cancel) T32s to do this.

A RN with 19 escorts with good ammo stock
VS
A RN with 24 escorts with very thin ammo stock.

Surely the former will win the war. Without ammo, there is no way to win a war.

Are we buying guided rounds for the bae gun?


As type 32 isn’t in the funding profile until the 2030s if it even has funding, sacrificing it mean no new missiles ordered until the 2030s.

[wargame_insomniac]

Sending billion pound plus warships to do naval gun fire with the proliferation of shore based anti ship missile systems that will be entertaining….

As always, it’s about options. Would you send a warship to bombard the enemy with a still functioning A2AD capability, no you wouldn’t, regardless of the how inexpensive a ship is - you know this already however.

Once the enemy’s ability to control / threaten the extremities of the Littoral zone has been neutralised then parts of the ESG will operate closer to shore including T45s. Having the ability to fire 20 shells a minute versus a limited number of missiles per ship will be a significant capability.

Also the US is looking 127mm HVP shells and the ability to destroy swarms of UAVs / USVs at a longer range - again something the RN needs, regardless of how many missiles we can jam onto the platforms.

[SW1]

Sending billion pound plus warships to do naval gun fire with the proliferation of shore based anti ship missile systems that will be entertaining….

As always, it’s about options. Would you send a warship to bombard the enemy with a still functioning A2AD capability, no you wouldn’t, regardless of the how inexpensive a ship is - you know this already however.

Once the enemy’s ability to control / threaten the extremities of the Littoral zone has been neutralised then parts of the ESG will operate closer to shore including T45s. Having the ability to fire 20 shells a minute versus a limited number of missiles per ship will be a significant capability.

Also the US is looking 127mm HVP shells and the ability to destroy swarms of UAVs / USVs at a longer range - again something the RN needs, regardless of how many missiles we can jam onto the platforms.

If you’ve neutralised the littoral what are you shelling better to have the landed force use mortar, hero or invest in himars equivalent and do the job itself with much more accuracy.


The US have cancelled the HVP program.

The 57mm gun is better for UAVs ect than the 127mm.

[Phil Sayers]

A Type 23 carried out NGFS against Libyan artillery pieces and it was also carried out on the Al Faw peninsula in 2003. Yes, anti-shipping missiles have proliferated since then but it is still a relevant and important capability IMO. In fact, much more likely to actually be used than the high-end missiles in the typical service life of an escort I'd wager.

[Poiuytrewq]

Are you sending a type 45 destroyer to shell rebels in a jungle with such big shells?

Why not, what would the RAF drop?

Is it a case of sending the most suitable vessel or just making the best of what is available in the area.

The T31 should be able to do conduct NGS as the T23GPs are but the penny pinching removed another capability.

How much has been saved by replacing the Mk45 on the T31 with the 57mm if the super expensive auto mag system was not fitted?

How much will be saved if very expensive missiles end up being used to provide a NGS capability?

If the T32 has Mk45 fitted as it should that leaves only five 57mm in the entire fleet. That would result in much larger costs over the longer term than fitting the Mk45 to all escorts.

[SW1]

Are you sending a type 45 destroyer to shell rebels in a jungle with such big shells?

Why not, what would the RAF drop?

Is it a case of sending the most suitable vessel or just making the best of what is available in the area.

The T31 should be able to do conduct NGS as the T23GPs are but the penny pinching removed another capability.

How much has been saved by replacing the Mk45 on the T31 with the 57mm if the super expensive auto mag system was not fitted?

How much will be saved if very expensive missiles end up being used to provide a NGS capability?

If the T32 has Mk45 fitted as it should that leaves only five 57mm in the entire fleet. That would result in much larger costs over the longer term than fitting the Mk45 to all escorts.

Is this not why when the harriers turned up in serria leone they were reduced to noise passes as they weren’t allowed to dropped 1000lb bombs too big. Is it not why they asked so started using concrete bombs in iraq until such times as maverick, reaper with hellfire and brimstone, programmable paveway iv became available.

I don’t think it is penny pinching I’m not sure it’s that relevant anymore. Marines are changing role more to stopping ships at sea for boarding defending against swarm boat, not much appetite for brigade interventions in foreign countries. I would say the mk45 is a colossal waste of money.

There has been a long and continuous move to small and precise and ships are being pushed further offshore in conflict for real. Is this not why nearly everyone else is moving to 76 and 57mm guns as main armaments.

[Poiuytrewq]

I would say the mk45 is a colossal waste of money.

In which case why bother spending all that money fitting them to the T26?

[SW1]

I would say the mk45 is a colossal waste of money.

In which case why bother spending all that money fitting them to the T26?

Personally I wouldn’t.

[Poiuytrewq]

I would say the mk45 is a colossal waste of money.

In which case why bother spending all that money fitting them to the T26?

Personally I wouldn’t.

That would pay for the 9th Type 26 hull!

IMO the Mk45 still has a rationale particularly in interventions against non peer adversaries. A Mk45 in the Littoral against static targets is devastating and morale shattering. As munitions get more complex the versatility will continue to improve.

The only issue I have is that if only eight to ten Mk45 systems are affordable it should be on the T31/T32 not T26/T45/T83.

This should be supplemented by NSM and VL Spear3 via PODs.

Ideally put the Mk45 on all escorts and let 40mm, CAMM and Aster 30 take care of everything else.

[Ron5]

CAAM has a system limit of 48 cells. To go to 72 cells requires either expensive development and/or expensive duplication.

Isn't it the channel number of datalink? If so, if you do not fire "more than 48 missiles" at once, there is no problem. Also, having x1.5 more missiles will negate the need for reload. Even if there are some limits, I do not think it is a big limit. (Just "disable" 12 of the 36 at any moment, and after firing 12, then shift the disabled channels to the already fired ones.)

No it is not.

[Poiuytrewq]

Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/

[Ron5]

So you made up the story about an Artisan replacement?

By the way, Artisan is also 4D: targets are identified in 3D space plus velocity vector.

Edited my original statement to better reflect my intended meaning.
There have been suggestions here and elsewhere that artisan is getting relatively old / outdated and may need replacement appropriately if no further updates.
BAE advertises artisan as 3D. Royal Navy says artisan is 3D. Wikipedia says artisan is 3D I don't know what to tell you.
Apologies for confusion,
New guy.

The confusion lies on the use of marketing term 4D used by Thales. Artisan isn't old per say T26 is getting an enhanced version compared to T23 but it is based on 'older' but very refined tech.

An analogy could be normally aspirated vs a turbo engine. You can carefully tune a NA V8 engine to produce high horsepower or more easily you could just slap a big turbo on smaller engine and get similar results.

In Radar it isn't just down to whether you use GaN TRMs or otherwise but the whole associated signal processing and track extraction etc.

The ideal would be the latest TRM tech combined with years of clever radar knowledge, different countries \ companies have varying degrees of this. Unfortunately unless it is has been completely top secret the lack of investment in UK naval radar means we won't achieve the ideal by a long way.

4D is usually denoted to mean the inclusion of doppler technology. Usually but not always. And yes I agree, 4D is a marketing term.

[Tempest414]

CAAM has a system limit of 48 cells. To go to 72 cells requires either expensive development and/or expensive duplication.

Isn't it the channel number of datalink? If so, if you do not fire "more than 48 missiles" at once, there is no problem. Also, having x1.5 more missiles will negate the need for reload. Even if there are some limits, I do not think it is a big limit. (Just "disable" 12 of the 36 at any moment, and after firing 12, then shift the disabled channels to the already fired ones.)

No it is not.

Not saying who right here but were is it said that 48 is the max so I can look it up

[donald_of_tokyo]

CAAM has a system limit of 48 cells. To go to 72 cells requires either expensive development and/or expensive duplication.

Isn't it the channel number of datalink? If so, if you do not fire "more than 48 missiles" at once, there is no problem. Also, having x1.5 more missiles will negate the need for reload. Even if there are some limits, I do not think it is a big limit. (Just "disable" 12 of the 36 at any moment, and after firing 12, then shift the disabled channels to the already fired ones.)

No it is not.

Thanks. Then, modification is relatively easy, because it is all about the systems integration of wired connection of CMS, SeaCeptor software and the LMS boxes (radio channel modification costs a lot). Not for free, but not so much costy, I guess, from my experience on a bit complex electrics systems integration.

At least, as a tentative measure, my proposal for "disabling 24 launchers (2 LMS boxes) out of 72 to have 48 launcher available at any time" and "switching them later (which is equivalent to "launcher reload"), does not look so difficult. (but not for free, I agree).

[Phil Sayers]

Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/

The wording of the final paragraph is interesting / a little concerning. Maybe nothing is meant by it but what leapt off the page for me is that there is no mention of a war-fighting role, carrier escort role or anything of the sort. The last sentence does though imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.

[Poiuytrewq]

….imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.

The potential is apparent but the financials are currently lacking.

Interesting recent comments from the Second Sea Lord regarding the T31 via Harry Lye/Shephard Media.

One subject of contention for the RN has been conflicting reports about the Type 32 frigate programme, announced as part of the 2021 IR and billed as an asset to grow the fleet and support operations of the UK’s Future Commando Force (FCF).
Asked how important it was for the RN to get the platform, Connell said: ‘I don’t particularly worry about different number types, Type 31, Type 32, Type 33; Let’s not worry what we’re calling a class of ship, what I do worry about is getting the capabilities into the navy to meet the demands and expectations of what we’re expected to do.
‘And you probably won’t be surprised to hear that as a Second Sea Lord, I want to get new capabilities and new ships online as quickly as we can.’
He added: ‘That’s why I say to our partners building Type 31, Babcock, that we want you to hit schedule milestones we’ve agreed so that we can get those ships into service operation as quickly as possible. And I say to our partners BAE systems that I want Type 26 to be in service as quickly as possible.’
The UK RN has already retired two Duke-class Type 23 frigates, HMS Montrose and Monmouth in-line with the 2021 IR, with the Second Sea Lord saying the UK had got a good return on investment out of the two vessels during their service lives.
‘Decisions on the specifics of the Type 32 will be made in the fullness of time. I’m focused on the two frigate programmes we’ve got underway and that’s exciting for us as a navy to have two new frigates coming online in the next few years.
‘I think many of my fellow Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs of Navy would be envious of the fact we’ve got two new classes coming online. I’m keen that we get an answer on Type 32 quickly, but that’s a political judgement in some ways.’

The urgency to get the new vessels commissioned is apparent but also a clear sign that the political ambition simply isn’t reflected by the assets that are currently available or perhaps even soon to be available.

If condensed into one sentence, it’s sounds something like this:

The priority is getting as many T26 and T31 in the water as fast as possible, with all the weapons and sensors required to meet the demands and expectations of what we’re expected to do whilst at the same time not getting distracted by the T32 program as currently there is no funding to undertake it.

[new guy]

Just CGI or a sign of things to come?
https://des.mod.uk/type-31-contract-mis ... -facility/

What do you mean specifically? T31 existing at all? It in a CSG role?

[Tempest414]

….imply that they could be easily upgraded for that.

The potential is apparent but the financials are currently lacking.

Interesting recent comments from the Second Sea Lord regarding the T31 via Harry Lye/Shephard Media.

One subject of contention for the RN has been conflicting reports about the Type 32 frigate programme, announced as part of the 2021 IR and billed as an asset to grow the fleet and support operations of the UK’s Future Commando Force (FCF).
Asked how important it was for the RN to get the platform, Connell said: ‘I don’t particularly worry about different number types, Type 31, Type 32, Type 33; Let’s not worry what we’re calling a class of ship, what I do worry about is getting the capabilities into the navy to meet the demands and expectations of what we’re expected to do.
‘And you probably won’t be surprised to hear that as a Second Sea Lord, I want to get new capabilities and new ships online as quickly as we can.’
He added: ‘That’s why I say to our partners building Type 31, Babcock, that we want you to hit schedule milestones we’ve agreed so that we can get those ships into service operation as quickly as possible. And I say to our partners BAE systems that I want Type 26 to be in service as quickly as possible.’
The UK RN has already retired two Duke-class Type 23 frigates, HMS Montrose and Monmouth in-line with the 2021 IR, with the Second Sea Lord saying the UK had got a good return on investment out of the two vessels during their service lives.
‘Decisions on the specifics of the Type 32 will be made in the fullness of time. I’m focused on the two frigate programmes we’ve got underway and that’s exciting for us as a navy to have two new frigates coming online in the next few years.
‘I think many of my fellow Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs of Navy would be envious of the fact we’ve got two new classes coming online. I’m keen that we get an answer on Type 32 quickly, but that’s a political judgement in some ways.’

The urgency to get the new vessels commissioned is apparent but also a clear sign that the political ambition simply isn’t reflected by the assets that are currently available or perhaps even soon to be available.

If condensed into one sentence, it’s sounds something like this:

The priority is getting as many T26 and T31 in the water as fast as possible, with all the weapons and sensors required to meet the demands and expectations of what we’re expected to do whilst at the same time not getting distracted by the T32 program as currently there is no funding to undertake it.

As I have said before Type 31 will deploy on its first deployment with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 NSM and S2170 towed Anti Torp defence

As for Type 32 this will be a Type 31 Batch 2

[abc123]

As for Type 32 this will be a Type 31 Batch 2

And we probably will never see it.

[Tempest414]

As for Type 32 this will be a Type 31 Batch 2

And we probably will never see it.

Maybe we will have to see

[Poiuytrewq]

As I have said before Type 31 will deploy on its first deployment with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 NSM and S2170 towed Anti Torp defence

I hope you are right!

Readjustments to current planning are going to be made in the DCP as the global security picture has changed massively in the last couple of years although how this affects the T31 remains to be seen.

The “Tilt to the Pacific” appears to be even more pronounced now with the UK joining AUKUS, CPTPP and HMG generally engaging more in the Asia Pacific region. Regardless of good intentions, the slow pace of UK Naval Shipbuilding will minimise available assets that can be forward based in the region to operate the T31s and RB2s.

Reactivating the Waves and Bulwark is something tangible that can and should be done ASAP.

If HMG sorts the manpower issues in the DCP a very credible force could be deployed EoS without in any downgrading of the focus on the North Atlantic or the CSG.

1x Bay
Bulwark
Argus
1x T23
2x RB2
2x Waves
1x PSV

That’s would allow LRG(S) to operate Bulwark, Argus and the Bay supported by the two Waves. A massive boost of UK presence in the region. As distributed assets these vessels could provide a highly effective HADR capability in the Red Sea, East Africa, Indian Ocean and into the Asia Pacific.

The T23GP and the PSV could maintain Kipion

The RB2s can continue the flag waving before being replaced by the first two T31s around 2027.

Rather than constantly aiming for jam tomorrow RN and RFA could have such a force operating in 18 months if HMG increase the headcount in the DCP to allow it to happen.

[new guy]

As for Type 32 this will be a Type 31 Batch 2

And we probably will never see it.

Maybe we will have to see

I know one of you has £2.5bn stashed away somewhere, hand it back.

How I got to a total of £2.5bn
£2bn: £350m per ship +£50m for T31 upgrades, 5 hulls
£500m: Additional programme costs, I believe it is the same on T31

See what I did there? Turned a joke about funds into a fantasy fleet, the ultimate obsession!
That aside, I believe that T32 will just be
A. delayed until funds arrive, so 5-8 years
B. Delayed till there is no hope for it and it is discarded
C. Initial concept of what it is but out soon, but slight delay of competition, or pull a FSS / T31 / I-SSGW.

[Repulse]

Reactivating the Waves and Bulwark is something tangible that can and should be done ASAP.

Agree regarding Bulwark, less so regarding the Waves unless they are modified perhaps to act as mobile offshore bases.

Focusing on Bulwark, if it’s a choice I’d would personally drop a T31/T32 or two to get it back in service.

[Tempest414]

Reactivating the Waves and Bulwark is something tangible that can and should be done ASAP.

Agree regarding Bulwark, less so regarding the Waves unless they are modified perhaps to act as mobile offshore bases.

Focusing on Bulwark, if it’s a choice I’d would personally drop a T31/T32 or two to get it back in service.

For me the two Waves are more important than Bulwark EoS as they could support the T-31's and regional Allied navies

The ability of the Waves to support a Escort group similar to SNMG-1 to get about the Indo-Pacific is of great use and to my mind greater use than having Bulwark out there as much as I would love to have her there

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Focusing on Bulwark, if it’s a choice I’d would personally drop a T31/T32 or two to get it back in service.

But, from crew-wise, 1 Bulwark needs 325 souls = 3 T31 equivalent.
Yes there is a house keeping crew on Bulwark, but I guess it is 20-50? AND, a T31's crew, even though states as "about 100", will surely increase to 110 or so (excluding flight). So, it is NOT a T31, it is three T31.

For me the two Waves are more important than Bulwark EoS as they could support the T-31's and regional Allied navies
The ability of the Waves to support a Escort group similar to SNMG-1 to get about the Indo-Pacific is of great use and to my mind greater use than having Bulwark out there as much as I would love to have her there

Anyway, RFA is getting 3 FSSS, and their crew is coming from just one "Fort Victoria". RFA already lacks "2 FSSS equivalent crew" members. I'm afraid RFA Argus will go, and always one "Tide or Bay or FSSS" will be always in extended readiness.

Personally I think there is no hope to reactivate the two Waves (without 10-20% increase in salary for existing RN and RFA members, in addition to 5-10% increase in actual manpower = 15-30% increase in man-power costs). I think it will be better to sell them to "friendly" nations, to keep/improve UK influence in the region.