Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[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.

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.

Wouldn't it be rather odd for the RN not to use PAAMS. The UK has spent a fortune developing it, why would they spend more to develop an alternative?

[Ron5]

No such thing as zero cost

So where is the cost? For a ship with CAMM, it merely aims the CAMM at an aircraft flying very slowly at a very low altitude whose location exactly matches an enemy vessel. Whoosh bang.

[wargame_insomniac]

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.

I personally think no because the ExLS that's required is not long enough for CAMM-ER. Diameter-wise, it's fine but not lengthwise.

AFAIK, there's not been a manufacturer statement either yay or nay.

[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…

I don't agree with everything you've said but you have stated your case very well

[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.

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

Not relevant. The cells are square in cross section. The limiting factor for CAMM being the diagonal width of missile with fins. Which is identical for the CAMM and CAMM-ER.

Here's a picture. It's the fins at the rear of the missile that matter. They fold in half to give the same diagonal width as CAMM-ER's body fins. So both missiles have the same limiting cross-section so they both fit the same cross sectioned carrying case/launcher. CAMM-ER's launcher is about one meter longer than CAMM.

[Tempest414]

No such thing as zero cost

So where is the cost? For a ship with CAMM, it merely aims the CAMM at an aircraft flying very slowly at a very low altitude whose location exactly matches an enemy vessel. Whoosh bang.

The Cost is two fold when talking about a weapon like CAMM firstly once fired it can't be replaced until the ship returns to port and second if fired at a boghammer you have one less Air defence weapon now if you are going to use CAMM in this way a ship like type 31 would need say 48 CAMM

[Poiuytrewq]

…..firstly once fired it can't be replaced until the ship returns to port and second if fired at a boghammer you have one less Air defence weapon now if you are going to use CAMM in this way a ship like type 31 would need say 48 CAMM

How might this change with the introduction of PODS?

[donald_of_tokyo]

A very good summary of "everything" related to RN surface fleet. Worth reading (it's not so long).

"commonslibrary.parliament.uk"
Research Briefing
13 December 2022
By Louisa Brooke-Holland

The Royal Navy's surface fleet

https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P-9697.pdf

[Poiuytrewq]

Lots to pick through here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... cture-2022

“But it’s also about thinking big: accelerating the transformation of the Armed Forces to become even more lethal and integrated. Maximising the capabilities that offer a decisive advantage. Being even more global in our outlook.

Might that mean an Army equipped with anti-ship or hypersonic missiles capable of striking the enemy thousands of kilometres away?

Might it mean a British carrier regularly deployed in the Indo-Pacific at the heart of an allied strike group?

Or an ambition to embrace drones on a far greater scale than previously envisaged – perhaps in the order of 10,000 by 2030?”

Lots of big thinking but are the politicians going to fund it?

Forward basing a CVF in Australia and a LRG in Duqm makes a lot of sense but it will be massively expensive. Unrealistic without a very large increase in funding. However, it would be a much more meaningful contribution than a couple of underarmed OPVs bobbing around making friends.

10,000 drones within 7 years? The ambition is impressive but again, funded from where? Even if a lesser target of 5k to 8k is settled upon RN will have to play a large part to get anywhere near that number regardless if the bulk are loitering munitions which must be likely. RN need to be careful about future planning here and I think the penny is dropping in the corridors of power, warfare on both land and at sea is changing rapidly. The fleet will need to change and drone carriers are going to be crucial going forward.

[SW1]

Bend thinking around sacred cows and dress it up as strategy?

[Tempest414]

Lots to pick through here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... cture-2022

“But it’s also about thinking big: accelerating the transformation of the Armed Forces to become even more lethal and integrated. Maximising the capabilities that offer a decisive advantage. Being even more global in our outlook.

Might that mean an Army equipped with anti-ship or hypersonic missiles capable of striking the enemy thousands of kilometres away?

Might it mean a British carrier regularly deployed in the Indo-Pacific at the heart of an allied strike group?

Or an ambition to embrace drones on a far greater scale than previously envisaged – perhaps in the order of 10,000 by 2030?”

Lots of big thinking but are the politicians going to fund it?

Forward basing a CVF in Australia and a LRG in Duqm makes a lot of sense but it will be massively expensive. Unrealistic without a very large increase in funding. However, it would be a much more meaningful contribution than a couple of underarmed OPVs bobbing around making friends.

10,000 drones within 7 years? The ambition is impressive but again, funded from where? Even if a lesser target of 5k to 8k is settled upon RN will have to play a large part to get anywhere near that number regardless if the bulk are loitering munitions which must be likely. RN need to be careful about future planning here and I think the penny is dropping in the corridors of power, warfare on both land and at sea is changing rapidly. The fleet will need to change and drone carriers are going to be crucial going forward.

The big win would be forward basing POW in Australia if we could get the Aussis to buy 10 or so F-35B and divi up 200 crew under AUKUS freeing up enough crew for a LHD

As for UAV's if we could buy 50 Naval Mojave drones 10 per Carrier and 6 per LHD giving the RN Hi and Low naval strike

[donald_of_tokyo]

As a gap after T31 build is foreseen in Babcock Rosyth yard because of T32 postponed, enhancing "build export" (not design export) is more important now. Here I propose a plan to push for RNZN adopting T31 design.

- RNZN Te Kaha class frigate shares many common equipment with T31, like 20 CAMM, SeaSentor ship torpedo defense system and floating radar decoys. The two frigates need to be replaced around 2035.

- NZ has a >150 m long dry-dock near their naval base, which is operated by Babcock-NZ. It did the Te Kaha class "Platform Systems Upgrade (PSU)", replacing the platform integration system, up-power the 2 main diesel gensets, and structural modification. The CMS upgrade including Smart-S 3D radar, CMS330 integration and CAMM installation was done in Canada, but the dock recently replaced the funnels of Te Kaha. The dock also did the modernization work of French Floreal-class frigate. So, Babcock NZ can do some work.

- Looking at the Arrowhead web, I notices the "Arrowyard concept" (https://www.arrowhead140.com/arrowyard/). In option-D, they propose to assemble blocks in the local shipyard, while the blocks be built in Rosyth. I guess it will be "too much" to Babcock NZ, but at least some works can be completed there, in NZ.

Say, shipping the hull with radar and CMS integrated from Rosyth, and do "final-fitout" of the guns and CAMM missiles at Auckland NZ? Even some work on the CMS integration there? Can UK offer such a program to "involve" Babcock NZ on building RNZN's T31 in future? Will it be attractive for NZ government?

[Tempest414]

As said I think it has already been decided that type 31 will get 24 CAMM as part of the build and then be fitted with 8 NSM before first deployment ( this is just my thinking with no proof ) . We all know that T-31 has the space access and power to operate a containerised TAS from under the flight deck

Type 31 being delivered as is with 24 CAMM and then having 8 NSM and a containerised TAS fitted before deployment is all doable

[donald_of_tokyo]

As said I think it has already been decided that type 31 will get 24 CAMM as part of the build and then be fitted with 8 NSM before first deployment ( this is just my thinking with no proof ) . We all know that T-31 has the space access and power to operate a containerised TAS from under the flight deck

Type 31 being delivered as is with 24 CAMM and then having 8 NSM and a containerised TAS fitted before deployment is all doable

Although, "doable" I agree, "by sacrificing what?" is my concern.

- I agree 24 CAMM is possible. As Babcock did not state its number, leaving MOD to decide, the hull presumably are designed with 24-CAMM capable deck space. As all the SeaCeptor software and two data-link antenna is already included in the contract (GFE), it is only 12 canisters and one Launch Management Box more (which could even be retrofitted from HMS Montrose) = not so expensive, and may not need big sacrifice.

- 8 NSM for 5 T31, from where? We know 11-sets are ordered for T45 and T23ASW. But surely it costs more than the original £200M. May be nearly £400M? Increasing it to 16-sets, which is more than enough considering the number of "active" escorts, will cost £100-150M even more? Not sure it can happen. I guess, if 5 T31 come with NSM, T45 will simply lose it.

- "containerised TAS" has never been ordered. The only one tested by French navy uses CAPTAS-1, which is very small. I'm rather pushing for ARCIMS ASW (SEASense) with Atlas LFAPS sonar system. LFAPS can be mounted on frigates (as does with Indian and Korean Navies), so T31 can also be added with it. Less capable than CAPTAS-4 (full) and CAPTAS4-CI, but combined with my hope with ARCIMS ASW (SEASense), it will make logistics not so difficult. It is also already integrated with TACTICOS CMS. But, anyway, no money is there and no plan either. We will need big sacrifice to achieve this.

I think I am NOT being pessimistic here, just realistic. Example of "sacrifices" I remember are,
- keeping Scott (good news) resulted in (I guess) losing Echo.
- keeping Argus (good news) resulted in putting both Waves in extended readiness (sad).
- Montrose is replaced by Argyll in her decommissioning date.
- 2nd MROSS in place of the National Flagship (very good news).

As such, at least to my understanding, good news are in many cases attached with bad news = requiring sacrifice, I'm afraid...

[wargame_insomniac]

Re the 11 sets of NSM, I am assuming that in the medium term they will be fitted to the 6*T45 and 5*T31.

The 8*T26 will have Mk41 strike length VLS cells capable of launching the FC/ASW misiles. Whilst the T45 did have the space to fit Mk41 VLS cells (the "Mk41 Gym") that is now being used to fit 24 CAMM instead.

That split would mean that all 19 RN escorts will eventually have some Anti-Ship / Land Attack capabilities.

[Tempest414]

You have to remember that NSM comes from a different budget i.e the 19 .5 Billion pound missile budget which is apart from the naval budget and if anything would mean a move to the right for FC/ASW

We can get an idea of the cost for NSM as the US paid 14.8 million dollars for a fire control suite box launchers and 12 missiles so 15 x 15 is 225 million pounds today that is 272 million dollars so I would guess 250 million pounds should cover the buying of 15 sets plus training and integration

As for a containerised TAS no we don't have any or any on order however a UOR of say 100 million should buy 3 sets

[Tempest414]

Re the 11 sets of NSM, I am assuming that in the medium term they will be fitted to the 6*T45 and 5*T31.

The 8*T26 will have Mk41 strike length VLS cells capable of launching the FC/ASW misiles. Whilst the T45 did have the space to fit Mk41 VLS cells (the "Mk41 Gym") that is now being used to fit 24 CAMM instead.

That split would mean that all 19 RN escorts will eventually have some Anti-Ship / Land Attack capabilities.

For me this is what should happen however it is more likely to be 6 Type 23 and 5 Type 45

[Tempest414]

As a gap after T31 build is foreseen in Babcock Rosyth yard because of T32 postponed, enhancing "build export" (not design export) is more important now. Here I propose a plan to push for RNZN adopting T31 design.

- RNZN Te Kaha class frigate shares many common equipment with T31, like 20 CAMM, SeaSentor ship torpedo defense system and floating radar decoys. The two frigates need to be replaced around 2035.

- NZ has a >150 m long dry-dock near their naval base, which is operated by Babcock-NZ. It did the Te Kaha class "Platform Systems Upgrade (PSU)", replacing the platform integration system, up-power the 2 main diesel gensets, and structural modification. The CMS upgrade including Smart-S 3D radar, CMS330 integration and CAMM installation was done in Canada, but the dock recently replaced the funnels of Te Kaha. The dock also did the modernization work of French Floreal-class frigate. So, Babcock NZ can do some work.

- Looking at the Arrowhead web, I notices the "Arrowyard concept" (https://www.arrowhead140.com/arrowyard/). In option-D, they propose to assemble blocks in the local shipyard, while the blocks be built in Rosyth. I guess it will be "too much" to Babcock NZ, but at least some works can be completed there, in NZ.

Say, shipping the hull with radar and CMS integrated from Rosyth, and do "final-fitout" of the guns and CAMM missiles at Auckland NZ? Even some work on the CMS integration there? Can UK offer such a program to "involve" Babcock NZ on building RNZN's T31 in future? Will it be attractive for NZ government?

Now if Babcocks were to say they would invest in the Auckland dry dock site to allow a new 143 meter AH-140 and all NZ navy ships to be maintained and upgraded through life and said to the UK that if we buy 3 and NZ 2 a deal could be done

[wargame_insomniac]

Re the 11 sets of NSM, I am assuming that in the medium term they will be fitted to the 6*T45 and 5*T31.

The 8*T26 will have Mk41 strike length VLS cells capable of launching the FC/ASW misiles. Whilst the T45 did have the space to fit Mk41 VLS cells (the "Mk41 Gym") that is now being used to fit 24 CAMM instead.

That split would mean that all 19 RN escorts will eventually have some Anti-Ship / Land Attack capabilities.

For me this is what should happen however it is more likely to be 6 Type 23 and 5 Type 45

I agree with you that is likely in the short term. Which is why I mentioned in the first line that my assumption was in the medium term. I.e. once the T23's start being decomissioned and replaced by T31's, then I can see the NSM sets being transferred over.

That is dependant on the FC/ASW being operational from say 2028 onwards to be fitted to T26's.
However I do accept there is the risk of FC/ASW IOC shifting to the right if project falls behind schedule/

[wargame_insomniac]

As a gap after T31 build is foreseen in Babcock Rosyth yard because of T32 postponed, enhancing "build export" (not design export) is more important now. Here I propose a plan to push for RNZN adopting T31 design.

- RNZN Te Kaha class frigate shares many common equipment with T31, like 20 CAMM, SeaSentor ship torpedo defense system and floating radar decoys. The two frigates need to be replaced around 2035.

- NZ has a >150 m long dry-dock near their naval base, which is operated by Babcock-NZ. It did the Te Kaha class "Platform Systems Upgrade (PSU)", replacing the platform integration system, up-power the 2 main diesel gensets, and structural modification. The CMS upgrade including Smart-S 3D radar, CMS330 integration and CAMM installation was done in Canada, but the dock recently replaced the funnels of Te Kaha. The dock also did the modernization work of French Floreal-class frigate. So, Babcock NZ can do some work.

- Looking at the Arrowhead web, I notices the "Arrowyard concept" (https://www.arrowhead140.com/arrowyard/). In option-D, they propose to assemble blocks in the local shipyard, while the blocks be built in Rosyth. I guess it will be "too much" to Babcock NZ, but at least some works can be completed there, in NZ.

Say, shipping the hull with radar and CMS integrated from Rosyth, and do "final-fitout" of the guns and CAMM missiles at Auckland NZ? Even some work on the CMS integration there? Can UK offer such a program to "involve" Babcock NZ on building RNZN's T31 in future? Will it be attractive for NZ government?

Now if Babcocks were to say they would invest in the Auckland dry dock site to allow a new 143 meter AH-140 and all NZ navy ships to be maintained and upgraded through life and said to the UK that if we buy 3 and NZ 2 a deal could be done

Plus that would add another drydock facility available to RN East of Suez, to add to UK Joint Logistics Support Base (UKJLSB) with port & drydock in Duqm, Oman, together with RN port facilities in Bahrain, Diego Garcia and Singapore (lus any othr Allied naval gacilities e.g. Australia).

Howver I am not caught up on RNZN's plans beyond the NZ MoD's Defence Capability Plan 2019, which intended to replace the Anzac-class frigates by the mid 2030's. So that means RNZN are more likely to acquire after RN's initial batch of 5*T31's completed, rather than purchasing any of the intial 5*T31's (which some posters are advocating).

[Tempest414]

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

[Poiuytrewq]

If the Iver Huitfeldt class was designed with StanFlex in mind, and PODS were based on StanFlex but just upscaled, and the T31 is a revision of the Iver Huitfeldt class, then the T31 should be able to cope with PODS.

How?

On the current design of the AH140 where can TEU/ISO firing CAMM and loitering drones actually be situated? If the answer is the Boat Bays, where are the RHIBs going?

Is the stern mission space configured correctly to accept a containerised TAS?

These are simple things that should be incorporated now if RN really believes the future is PODs.

[BB85]

There are 4 boat bays, so I expect only 2 will be used for ribs with Marines onboard for anti piracy and drug trafficking.

The other two I suspect will be used for unmanned surface of submerged vehicles in the future for mine clearance and goodness knows what else.

I think the T31's will end up with 24 CAAM and 8 NSM.

[donald_of_tokyo]

There are 4 boat bays, so I expect only 2 will be used for ribs with Marines onboard for anti piracy and drug trafficking.

The other two I suspect will be used for unmanned surface of submerged vehicles in the future for mine clearance and goodness knows what else.

I think the T31's will end up with 24 CAAM and 8 NSM.

T31 only has 3 boat bays. Initially 4 were planned, but in some point it was reduced to 3.

[Tempest414]

If the Iver Huitfeldt class was designed with StanFlex in mind, and PODS were based on StanFlex but just upscaled, and the T31 is a revision of the Iver Huitfeldt class, then the T31 should be able to cope with PODS.

How?

On the current design of the AH140 where can TEU/ISO firing CAMM and loitering drones actually be situated? If the answer is the Boat Bays, where are the RHIBs going?

Is the stern mission space configured correctly to accept a containerised TAS?

These are simple things that should be incorporated now if RN really believes the future is PODs.

If type 31 deploys on its first deployment as I think it will fitted with 24 CAMM and 8 NSM plus a wildcat with LMM and Sea Venom it will be a good global patrol frigate if we want more then we can also load 20 or so Hero loitering weapons which can be launched from the ships flight deck or by RM in a OCR some 100 Km's from the ship