Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Dec 2022, 10:35 I have said before that I would have preferred the 127mm gun on T31 and I also like the idea of fitting 8*NSM on T31. I think having both weapons would be important as it gives options for dealing with a variety of threats, especially in the Littoral environment where it seems the T31 are most likely to be deployed e.g. in the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden and Persian Gulf etc.

The Ukraine war has shown that we need a variety of munitions - from cheaper unguided shells and bombs through to more expensive precision guided missiles.
127 mm for T31 or T26, both have good rationale.

Basically;
- 5 T31 are for forward-deploy "standing" tasks = patrol. Arming them with 57mm gun, and two 40 mm guns means they are "the best suited assets" to counter fast-boat swarm, and also low-cost drones. Replacing the 57 mm gun with a 127 mm gun will reduce its capbility in this respect.
- T26 is used for expenditure operations. In other words, T26 is there to fight a war = expenditure. As the main war-fighting assets, adding NGFS capability to the high-end escorts is very reasonable. T31 can continue "standing" tasks, or provide secondary escort tasks, such as escorting RFA fleet, and providing "goal keeper" to CVF. Also in this case, 57 mm gun is much better than 127 mm, as it will be used for AAW tasks.

Another point of view is,
- In "small" amphibious operations, like Sierra Leone, if the T31 has a 127 mm gun, it can support the operation with NGFS. In other words, if the threat level is low and T31 is "the queen of the ocean", 127mm gun will be used. However, its anti-fast-boat-swarm capability will decrease (significantly).
- In large amphibious operations, I'm not sure what the T31 will do. In such war, enemy has air-forces and even may have SSK. If air-force is the main threat, T45 shall do the NGFS if needed. If SSK is the main threat, T26 shall do the NGFS if needed. T31 will be just get sunk. If T31 needs a T45 and/or a T26 to escort her, where is the need to mount 127 mm gun to her? Direct fire from T26 makes more sense.

I think, "127 mm for T31" has some rationale, but "57 mm for T31" also has a good rationale. At least, it is not which is good or bad. Just a matter of choice.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 21 Dec 2022, 09:16 NZ have a need for 2032 or so given the latest upgrade of there frigates so what we would be looking at would be a program like type 31 batch 2 a 143 meter ship with 24 to 30 CAMM 1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 8 x NSM plus the mission bay with the ships being built like so

ship 1 2029 for the RN
ship 2 2030 for the RN
ship 3 2031 for the RNZN
ship 4 2032 for the RN
ship 5 2033 for the RNZN
My proposal is simple.

RN
T31 ship-1: first-steel-cut 2019 = deliver 2025
T31 ship-2: first-steel-cut 2020? = deliver 2026
T31 ship-3: deliver to RN 2027
T31 ship-4: deliver to RN 2028
T31 ship-5: deliver to RN late 2028

RNZN
T31mod ship-1: first-steel-cut 2030 = deliver 2035
T31mod ship-2: first-steel-cut 2031 = deliver 2036

This means there will be a gap of welding/building ship from late 2027 to mid-2030. 3 years gap. On delivery time scale, it is 7 years gap. Babcock shall do some Ukrainan job (fast missile boat contract is still alive?), or get the MHC-LSV ordered to "save the day" here.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The most important thing to HMG will be that Babcock's are building escorts at the time T-83 is up for grabs

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I think RN shall just continue with current T31 plan, "as is", which I assume with; 24 CAMM, a 57mm gun, 2x 40mm gun, with SeaSentor torpedo defense system and anti-ASM decoy systems (no NSM, no sonar). I understand, if including the flight crew, a T31 a complement of 125.

RN now operates 3 active T23GPs (Iron Duke to replace Montrose). A T23GP needs a Complement of 185, and RN has 4 crew teams, 3 for the 3 active ones, and 1 for rotation for KIPION. It is 740 in total.

Notably, man-power of 740 can provide 6 crew teams for the 5 T31, not 4. This means the when the 5 T31 be delivered to RN (on 2028) or in service (on 2030), RN can operate 1.5 times more GP frigate hulls in active use.

If we compare 2 T23 VS 3 T31 , it is
- 2 114mm gun + 4x 30mm gun VS 3x 57mm gun + 6x 40 mm
- 32x2 = 64 CAMM VS 24x3 = 72 CAMM
- 2 Hull sonar + 2 SeaSentor + 2 twin-stingrays VS 3 SeaSentor
- 2 Wildcats (I understand T23's hangar cannot accommodate 2 Wildcats) VS (upto) 6 Wildcats.
- 2x8 = 16 Harpoons (seldom carried) VS zero,
(but note that "6 Wildcats" can carry 240 LMM or 24 SeaVenom.)

We all now 1 hull cannot be located in 2 locations. Operating with 4 crew teams will provide "1.2 hulls" at sea on average (30% availability), but operating with 6 crew teams will provide "1.8 hulls" at sea. The latter means, 2 or 3 hulls "deployed".

I think it is a bright future with 5 T31 replacing 3 (4) T23GPs, actually. For example, operating 1 KIPION T31 in the Persian Gulf, and another 1 T31 in Indian Ocean, Red Sea, East coast Africa, and training with FPDA (Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and NZ) continuously looks very nice uplift of UK activity in the region.

Not bad, I think.

Any up-arming will result in reduced number of available hulls. What is more, changing the requirement in the middle of build will cost more than adding something (say, 8 NSM) at the first long-maintenance (~5 years after delivery). So, continue the T31 program "as-is", is very logical way to go, I think.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Addition.

If with 2 Wildcats, a T31 (or T45 or T26) can fire 8 SeaVenom or 40 LMMs in a single sortie.

For any gunboats, missile boats and light corvettes without mid-range SAM (like VL-MICA), 8 SeaVenom is deadly dangerous.

Firing 20 LMM each from a Wildcat will consume 30x 20 = 600 sec = 10 minutes, if used in the longest 7 km range. At the first glance, it looks "not good". But, note, it is 40 LMMs in total. 40 fast boats will come in a single wave of attack? Coordination will be very difficult, so I guess not.

Engaging 10 fast boats with 2 Wildcats for the 1st wave (needs only 2.5 minutes), handle 4 waves, is not a bad story.

Against UAV swarm, LMM can handle it (as Ukrainan war has shown). In this case, a Wildcat with 20 LMM can be a good "interceptor" against these UAVs/drones. Engaging from, say, 1 km distance, it needs only 4-5 seconds each. Not a bad story, again.


Against (light) frigates and heavy corvettes, SeaVenom might be too short in its range. But, not so many navies has such assets. For example, how many countries in east Africa has it? Also, I think there will be SeaVenom blk2 in near future, with its range extended to 40 km or so. In this case, it can be used to neutralize (light) frigates and heavy corvettes. Not bad.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Yes, just getting newer more availiable ships in service will be good for the RN even for lower end tasks! would be good to have the NSM asap on a couple of the T31, always liked the italin navy idea of their PPA light frigates of a light, light+ & full fat versions, maybe a similar add on at refit aproach is being considered for some T31.....especially as the T45 will getting more teeth with the addition of CAMM late this decade onwards

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me what I see happening is Type 31 will be built and delivered with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 6 x Small arms , 24 CAMM the ship will then under go builder sea trials and then RN hand over and basic work up followed by fitting of NSM and FOST before deployment

As said in the past the IH class can be operated by a crew of 100 plus helicopter team but the RDN found after FOST they needed 118 crew plus helicopter team to deal with battle damage and fighting the ship

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 22 Dec 2022, 16:56 For me what I see happening is Type 31 will be built and delivered with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 6 x Small arms , 24 CAMM the ship will then under go builder sea trials and then RN hand over and basic work up followed by fitting of NSM and FOST before deployment

As said in the past the IH class can be operated by a crew of 100 plus helicopter team but the RDN found after FOST they needed 118 crew plus helicopter team to deal with battle damage and fighting the ship
And consistent with that last comment, the USN had similar experience with both classes of LCS. They economised on crew, which meant that they lost a lot of ability to self repair, which eant that they required more time ashore in maintenance, which obviously reduced their at sea availability.

I still think the RN is too tiight on crew at the moment (hence the earlier decomissioning of the T23 GP frigates, MCMV's, and HMS Echo). Hopefully RN will be able to improve crew recuitment and retention by the time the T31's are full operational. Initially the T31's should require less repair and maintenance than the ageing T23's. Therefore it would be great if we can have 4 or maybe even all 5 T31's available for active duty. to supplement the River B2's EoS.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Dec 2022, 17:28
Tempest414 wrote: 22 Dec 2022, 16:56 For me what I see happening is Type 31 will be built and delivered with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 6 x Small arms , 24 CAMM the ship will then under go builder sea trials and then RN hand over and basic work up followed by fitting of NSM and FOST before deployment

As said in the past the IH class can be operated by a crew of 100 plus helicopter team but the RDN found after FOST they needed 118 crew plus helicopter team to deal with battle damage and fighting the ship
And consistent with that last comment, the USN had similar experience with both classes of LCS. They economised on crew, which meant that they lost a lot of ability to self repair, which eant that they required more time ashore in maintenance, which obviously reduced their at sea availability.

I still think the RN is too tiight on crew at the moment (hence the earlier decomissioning of the T23 GP frigates, MCMV's, and HMS Echo). Hopefully RN will be able to improve crew recuitment and retention by the time the T31's are full operational. Initially the T31's should require less repair and maintenance than the ageing T23's. Therefore it would be great if we can have 4 or maybe even all 5 T31's available for active duty. to supplement the River B2's EoS.
Would note that the Danish Navy have for many years operated the Iver Huitfeldt class with a basic ship company of ~120, excludes air component etc. The IH are fully fitted out as frigates whereas T31 is only a OPV so if anything T31 crew numbers should be lower.

The Japanese Mogami class frigates ordered Aug 2017 (T26 production ordered a month earlier July 2017) and sixth Mogami, the Agano launched this Wednesday 21st December (first and only T26 launched to date the Glasgow 3rd December) have seen the Mogami crew quoted at 90, perhaps Donald-san can confirm. Maybe the IJN and RN operate on a different philosophy regarding the crew numbers required for survivability, higher crew numbers greatly aid (though saying that IH Peter Willemoes with her low crew numbers aced her FOST trials, one of the quickest ships to recover after 'events' tested by the 'wreckers'). Other new frigates, the French FDI and the Spanish F110 confirm the trend to lower crew numbers that modern kit allow, did come across mention of a 200,000t container ship with crew of only 23, though Navy ships are totally different animals.


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Dec 2022, 17:28
Tempest414 wrote: 22 Dec 2022, 16:56 For me what I see happening is Type 31 will be built and delivered with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 6 x Small arms , 24 CAMM the ship will then under go builder sea trials and then RN hand over and basic work up followed by fitting of NSM and FOST before deployment

As said in the past the IH class can be operated by a crew of 100 plus helicopter team but the RDN found after FOST they needed 118 crew plus helicopter team to deal with battle damage and fighting the ship
And consistent with that last comment, the USN had similar experience with both classes of LCS. They economised on crew, which meant that they lost a lot of ability to self repair, which eant that they required more time ashore in maintenance, which obviously reduced their at sea availability.

I still think the RN is too tiight on crew at the moment (hence the earlier decomissioning of the T23 GP frigates, MCMV's, and HMS Echo). Hopefully RN will be able to improve crew recuitment and retention by the time the T31's are full operational. Initially the T31's should require less repair and maintenance than the ageing T23's. Therefore it would be great if we can have 4 or maybe even all 5 T31's available for active duty. to supplement the River B2's EoS.
the other reason for decommissioning type 23 and MCMV is there age they are shot now for every day at sea they take 2 days in maintenance

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

The Japanese frigates will be patrolling much closer to home to may not need as many crew for 3/4 month deployments.
Regarding the build rate, they are full scale arms race to keep pace with the Chinese navy. The Japanese navy could end up the same size as the French and Royal navy combined.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
serge750

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Good news!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... n-wallace/

Defence spending to rise by more than a billion in victory for Ben Wallace
Treasury set to acknowledge that military budget cannot be outstripped by inflation at a time when Russia is at war with Ukraine
Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has fought hard for an increase in spending on his department
Defence spending is set to increase by more than a billion pounds to avoid a real term cut over the next two years, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Treasury has accepted the argument that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget should not be falling relative to inflation while war rages in Ukraine.

Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, is expected to announce the increase in his Budget this spring. He did similar uplifts for education and NHS spending in the autumn.

Military experts estimate that to avoid real-term cuts the MoD budget in 2024/25 must rise from £‎48.6 billion to £50.1 billion, meaning an increase of at least around £‎1.5 billion is expected.

The announcement will be seen as something of a victory for Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, who has pushed hard for increased defence spending in the past year.

Decision taken in principle

The specifics of the budget increase are yet to be discussed in detail and signed off, with the exact amount set to be shaped by the financial situation come spring 2023.

But the decision has been taken in principle. “We will avoid a real-term cut in the defence budget,” a senior Government source told The Telegraph.

Boris Johnson announced the biggest programme of investment in British defence since the end of the Cold War in the early period of his premiership.

However, the cash injection for the MoD was front-loaded, meaning most of the money was handed over in the early years of the period ending 2024.

It has created a situation where the MoD budget between 2022 and 2024 is actually forecast to fall in real terms, given the soaring inflation that has emerged over the last year.

On current plans, the MoD budget is due to rise from £‎47.9 billion in the 2022 financial year to £‎48 billion in 2023 and then £‎48.6 billion in 2024. Those rises are set to be outstripped by inflation.

The Treasury's new compromise in part reflects geopolitical changes. War in Europe has returned with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with the conflict's duration hitting the year mark next February.

Spending decisions are expected to be announced alongside publication of the Government’s updated Integrated Review, which will warn of the return of geopolitical clashes.

Mr Hunt has also been a personal supporter of a higher defence budget in the past. In his summer Tory leadership bid he proposed spending 4 per cent of GDP on defence, international aid and foreign office policies - a major increase.

It also reflects pressure from Tory backbenchers and former military chiefs, who have been publicly and privately lobbying for increased defence spending since the Ukraine invasion.

But Liz Truss’s promise of spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, up from above 2 per cent currently, by 2030 has been all but abandoned by Rishi Sunak’s Government.

The promise was not mentioned by Mr Hunt in his Autumn Statement and Downing Street spokesmen have refused to say the policy remains when asked in briefings.

Prof Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, a respected military thinktank, welcomed the news that a defence spending rise was expected.

He estimated that the MoD budget would have to rise from £‎48.6 billion to £50.1 billion in 2024 to achieve the promise of avoiding a real-term cut.

Government urged to go further

He also urged the Government to go further, saying certainty on defence spending beyond the next general election would help the MoD with future planning.

Prof Chalmers told The Telegraph: “It looks as if the Chancellor in his Spring Budget will provide enough money to maintain the core defence budget in real terms over the next two years. And indeed the Government has already committed to doing that next year.

“But this doesn’t address the question of providing the Ministry of Defence [MoD] with medium-term predictability for the defence budget through into the years after the general election, which is expected in 2024.

“It would be both desirable and more efficient if it was possible for the MoD to be provided with a five-year forward budget, taking it through into 2027/28.

“It is hard to sign contracts with defence suppliers or indeed plan for future capabilities more genuinely if you don’t know how much the defence budget is going to be in three years’ time.

“You either have to be excessively cautious in signing contracts that last more than two years or you take risks that end up leaving you with commitments that exceed your budgets."
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
Anthony58wargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyoTempest414

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

BB85 wrote: 23 Dec 2022, 17:39 The Japanese frigates will be patrolling much closer to home to may not need as many crew for 3/4 month deployments.
Regarding the build rate, they are full scale arms race to keep pace with the Chinese navy. The Japanese navy could end up the same size as the French and Royal navy combined.
Would note the German F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigates designed to deploy for up to two years away from homeports with an average sea operation time of more than 5,000 hours per year (208 days), with a standard crew compliment of only 120, which would seem to suggest high crew numbers not a prerequisite for long deployments.

Also of note the Iver Huitfeldts normal deployment 3 months , max 4 months, 120-140 days thou it has been extended it to 160-180 days and with a new crew flow in and the transfer will take place within 24 hours and the original crew fly's home.

"The Japanese navy could end up the same size as the French and Royal navy combined", would not be surprised if already at that level, current talk of a 20,000t AAW/ABM destroyers so able install large enough SPY-7 radar arrays to discriminate the ICBM warheads from decoys and other debris to target its SM-3 IIAs jointly developed with US.

PS US Navy stated that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture, and while improvements can be made to the T/R modules said this is a linear not cubic relationship and only adds marginal capability on the order of +1 or 2 dB

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

It is my Utter belief Type 31 will deploy on its first full deployment fitted with

2170 torpedo defence system 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x CAMM , 8 x NSM plus Wildcat capable of carrying 4 x Sea Venom or 20 LMM

this will be a very good Global Patrol Frigate for the RN and with 3 deployed EoS and 2 in the Atlantic the RN will be in a good place as long as it keeps the B2 Rivers deployed as they are

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 08:19
wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 22:58 Able to take on more routine, low-medium intensity RN missions worldwide leaving more expensive, speciallised high-intensity warfighting escorts to fullfill the missions that THEY were designed for.
Yes, the ship design itself has been selected to meet the requirement to be able to be forward based. However, systems have to be supported also. Every system / capability you add to make these frigates properly equipped costs, requires more crew and makes it harder to maintain (especially outside of the UK).

Heard the same excuses over a decade ago about why u couldn’t fwd deploy and rotate crew
on a type 23 and how you had to have 3 ships to keep the one fwd deployed.

Fast fwd to today and thats been shown to be wrong.

So if you can do it with a type 23 which apparently had the most availability within the fleet because it was being used all the time and according to some better equipped than a type 31. Why would you not be able to do it with a type 31 which has been designed to be more maintenance friendly than a type 23?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 09:56
Repulse wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 08:19
wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 22:58 Able to take on more routine, low-medium intensity RN missions worldwide leaving more expensive, speciallised high-intensity warfighting escorts to fullfill the missions that THEY were designed for.
Yes, the ship design itself has been selected to meet the requirement to be able to be forward based. However, systems have to be supported also. Every system / capability you add to make these frigates properly equipped costs, requires more crew and makes it harder to maintain (especially outside of the UK).

Heard the same excuses over a decade ago about why u couldn’t fwd deploy and rotate crew
on a type 23 and how you had to have 3 ships to keep the one fwd deployed.

Fast fwd to today and thats been shown to be wrong.

So if you can do it with a type 23 which apparently had the most availability within the fleet because it was being used all the time and according to some better equipped than a type 31. Why would you not be able to do it with a type 31 which has been designed to be more maintenance friendly than a type 23?
The T23 model does not prove a forward basing model for the T31. You’ve effectively got ships at the end of their lives being flogged to death before they get scrapped - no upgrades.

Sure you can base a T31 for two years somewhere, but it will be out of service for six months afterwards in a UK yard and then another six months ramping up with probably a few months sailing to and from station. So not a 3:1 ratio, but at best a 5:3. The B2s provide close to a 1:1 ratio.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 19:34
SW1 wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 09:56
Repulse wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 08:19
wargame_insomniac wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 22:58 Able to take on more routine, low-medium intensity RN missions worldwide leaving more expensive, speciallised high-intensity warfighting escorts to fullfill the missions that THEY were designed for.
Yes, the ship design itself has been selected to meet the requirement to be able to be forward based. However, systems have to be supported also. Every system / capability you add to make these frigates properly equipped costs, requires more crew and makes it harder to maintain (especially outside of the UK).

Heard the same excuses over a decade ago about why u couldn’t fwd deploy and rotate crew
on a type 23 and how you had to have 3 ships to keep the one fwd deployed.

Fast fwd to today and thats been shown to be wrong.

So if you can do it with a type 23 which apparently had the most availability within the fleet because it was being used all the time and according to some better equipped than a type 31. Why would you not be able to do it with a type 31 which has been designed to be more maintenance friendly than a type 23?
The T23 model does not prove a forward basing model for the T31. You’ve effectively got ships at the end of their lives being flogged to death before they get scrapped - no upgrades.

Sure you can base a T31 for two years somewhere, but it will be out of service for six months afterwards in a UK yard and then another six months ramping up with probably a few months sailing to and from station. So not a 3:1 ratio, but at best a 5:3. The B2s provide close to a 1:1 ratio.
Montrose was in the gulf since 2018 was she not?

Seems like it proved the model to me. I’m not sure why you think it didn’t

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

April 2019 I believe and straight home to the knackers yard, so no need to think about long term maintenance.
”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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We really are getting mixed up here there is no way we can compare OPV's and frigate's what is need in the Indo-Pacific is both. I think the RN could pull off a blinder with Type 31 and could end up with 4/5 of a type 26 for half the money what we know now is the Type 31 will be FFBNW 32 strike length Mk-41 cells if these were to be fitted it could carry 32 CAMM , 8 NSM and still have 24 Strike length cell

Type 31 is a Global patrol Frigate designed to be forward deployed with a sea going days of say 180 to 200 days it will be much easier to maintain than Type 23 for one type 31 can make 18 knots on one engine it can 24 knots on 2 and 30 knots with all 4 she will spend much of her time knocking about on one or two engines meaning maintenance can be carried out on the other 2 underway

The B2's are proving to be great ships with good sea gong days however they could be better and if we look long and hard at how many days they spend in ports they too have a sea going days of around 200 to 240 and we do not know yet what effect this is or will have on them if we take HMS Clyde as a bench mark she only severed for 14 years fully forward deployed what we also know is the B2's are also under armed for there global patrol duties they should have a 57mm , 2 x 30mm plus a 8 round LMM launcher plus something like a Camcopter S100 for OTH search and track

so in real terms we need to look at all our ship classes in a better light rather than getting our fanboy hats on
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Re the paper published by Babcock , thx TomW

T31 Gun Fire Controls

To meet the KC capabilities required for the T31 " The whole-ship shall engage surface targets at range with small calibre guns.’ This came with (classified) subordinate definitions of what type of surface targets, at what range, and what qualified as a small calibre gun (SCG)"

To provide the SCG Babcock chose the BAE Systems Bofors 1x 57 Mk3 and 2x 40 Mk4 Naval Gun Systems to engage [REDACTED], effective at a maximum range of [REDACTED] - (40mm ~4km/2.2nm and 57mm ~10km/5.4nm with minimum fire power (40mm shell~ 2lbs, 57mm shell ~13lbs, the old T23 4.5 Mk8 shell ~46lbs).

The T31 Gun Fire Controls uses the Thales S-band NS110 radar for FCR mode (plus the assistance of the Gatekeeper for 360 degree EO/IR surveillance) and 2x Mirador EOS for FC with overall control from the Tacticos CMS, to be remembered that the NS110 will also have to act as the FCR for CAMM's

The new Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships with only 1x Bofors 40 Mk4 will use a X-band Thales NS54 for FCR (with same tech as the NS110 with the big advantage of its X-band giving three times the definition of a S-band and Thales have said a weak point of the S-band is that the radar signal bends slightly upwards at the horizon (X-band does the opposite) so that low-incoming targets are not immediately detected) and 2x Chess Dynamics Sea Eagle FCEO (Fire Control Electro Optical).

Noted T31 system was approved by the Dstl, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory which provides the UK Ministry of Defence with science and technology expertise in support of defence outputs, but compared to the Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships FC for its single gun the T31 FC for its three guns looks slightly underwhelming, what am i missing, Tactics?

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... m-vessels/

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Yes it would be better if T31 included an X band FCR like STIR but it is being built to a budget so just EO/IR.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 14:38 Yes it would be better if T31 included an X band FCR like STIR but it is being built to a budget so just EO/IR.
Agree, but that would seem to imply you cannot rely on the Dstl providing realistic science and technology expertise in support of their defence outputs/reports.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
Repulse

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

The NS100 is somewhat more capable than the NS50 (which is only really intended for OPVs and minor vessels).

It has a range of 280km vs 180km (80km surface), and incorporates a Scout Mk3 FMCW radar, an IFF mode 5/S interrogator and transponder, an IR camera, AIS and ADS-B.

The Scout radar is interesting - it's a high-definition X-band radar (actually old-school J-band, which overlaps the top-end of x-band, the whole of the Ku-band and low-end K-band frequencies), very low-probability of intercept (max. 0.3-5 watts power) radar ideal for covert operation and tracking of very small objects in high clutter environments. Antenna is comprised of 3641 extremely compact T/R cells

Range is around 45km. (Isn't that similar to the range of CAMM-ER?)

Also good for low-level air coverage, automatic target detection and tracking, as well as helicopter and UAV approach and guidance and coastal surveillance.

So - longer ranged S-band radar, extremely high definition LPI X-band radar, IFF, EO/IR, AIS and ADS-B in a single unit

Almost as if DSTL knew what they were doing.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 15:56
tomuk wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 14:38 Yes it would be better if T31 included an X band FCR like STIR but it is being built to a budget so just EO/IR.
Agree, but that would seem to imply you cannot rely on the Dstl providing realistic science and technology expertise in support of their defence outputs/reports.
No it wouldn't imply any such thing.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Caribbean wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 17:44 The NS100 is somewhat more capable than the NS50 (which is only really intended for OPVs and minor vessels).

The Scout radar is interesting - it's a high-definition X-band radar (actually old-school J-band, which overlaps the top-end of x-band, the whole of the Ku-band and low-end K-band frequencies), very low-probability of intercept (max. 0.3-5 watts power) radar ideal for covert operation and tracking of very small objects in high clutter environments. Antenna is comprised of 3641 extremely compact T/R cells
The Scout Radar is optional on NS100 are we sure we are getting it ?

Post Reply