Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Firstly you will never ever get 3 type 26's for the cost of 5 Type 32 but what you could get is 3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's plus the money to up arm all 8 Type 31's to the standard I have put forward plus Camcopter's for all 8 RB2's

I have no problem with type 26 getting Tomahawk but type 31 also needs Tomahawk as type 31 and not type 26 will be forward deployed now no where have I said that type 31 with NSM and Tomahawk are a replacement for a CSG but having the ability to bring 3 forward deployed ships together to deliver a limited strike is a good option for the RN as said if more is needed then send a SSN or a CSG

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 15:50
Ron5 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 15:23So up-armed T31's are suitable for military operations against folks that have zero maritime capability? Sounds about right.
Yes and No.

Modern Heavy Corvette is equivalent to (light) frigates in the 1990s. It is also costy, like $250-300M (unit cost). Modern fast missile craft costs typically as much as $100M (unit cost) or even more. Actually, number of navies operating fast missile craft is limited. The number actually significantly decreased from those in 1990s. To counter a navy with modern heavy corvette(s) and/or several fast missile crafts, T31 (~£350M in unit cost) in singleton is not a good answer.

On the other hand, number of nations and militia capable of operating sub-sonic anti-ship missile (from land) has increased. With suicide drones coming, it will significantly increase in near future. Iranian fast boat swarm has also been an issue for long, against which Aster SAM nor SeaWolf nor Harpoon nor NSM are of good use. CAMM, may be (with anti-surface mode), but a single CAMM will be expensive than a single fast-boat. 57mm/40mm 3P and/or LMMs are much more suited.

As such, when there is only 5 T31 in the fleet, they can surely find good tasks to handle. But, I'm afraid 5 is enough. Not sure when it comes to 10 hulls (like 5 T31 and 5 T32). As such, I think T32 shall be better equipped, or in place "3 more T26" shall be built, not T3X series.
I was enthusiastic a few months when RN were trialling LMM / Martlett with 4-5 tube launcher attached to the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 automated mount. But that seems to have gone quiet. I have seen speculation that the LMM launcher might have affected the accuracy of the 30mm Bushmaster Cannon, but no definite news. I do hope the RN can find a way to make this work on both this and the Bofors 40mm Mk4 on the T31.

Having a spread of weapon options will be important to dealing with variety of threats from Fast Attack Craft and any types of drones that are likely to proliferate in the near future. If all RN escorts had the choce of CAMM, LMM or 40mm/30mm cannon, they would be able to choose the right option to deal with each threat. The Saudis have already experienced the cost of using expensive AA missiles to deal with cheap Houthi drones.

The one thing I disgaree with you on is the fitting of NSM to T31 in the medium to long term. Compared to many such missils the NSM is on the cheaper end with shorter range, slower speed and smaller warhead than some of its more expensive competitors. That's why I think that long term, more expensive Anti-Ship Missiles are best fitted to T26 with Mk41 VLS launchers, whilst the cheaper NSM are ideal for giving the T31 some threat against both enemy escorts and land targets.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:00
SW1 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 12:41
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
You could of built 8 ships like that positioned 4 fwd in Diego Garcia for operations in west Africa and Asia pacific and 4 fwd in the Gibraltar for operations in the Mediterranean, east Africa and the south Atlantic allowing say 3 in each group available for taskings much like the US navy has done in rota.
I am not sure that the RN would want to concentrate 4 such ships concentrated in Gibralter and Diego Garcia. I think we would be deployed in more dispersed manner.

Assuming that the main RN tier-one warfighting escorts are concentrated in UK, North Sea, North Atlantic, GIUK Gap, Barents Sea etc, that leaves the lower tier two/three escorts covering the Indo-Pacific, Med, South Atlantic and West Alantic + Caribbean, covering either British Overseas Territories and/or global shipping lanes on whuch UK depends for both imports and exports. We have discussed several times on both Future Escorts and OPV threads on exactly what type of ships and how well they should be equipped / armed. I don't want to get too bogged down into precisely how many ships we should have, what systems and armanent equipped with etc.

If we assume that we are looking at 4 ships covering Med, west Africa and South Atlantic, we have RN bases at Gibralter and Falklands. There is a naval base in Cyprus but I wonder if we wanted a ship based in east Med whether we would be better basing a ship at Souda Bay in Crete, sharing the facilities with USN? Ideally we could so with having at least a small RN naval base in Saint Helena (Ruperts Bay) and/or Ascension Island (Georgetown), even if only for OPV

Re Diego Garcia, I am not sure that UK currently has any signifcant forces based there - my understanding is that is used by the US. I know the UK Government is negotitating with Mauritious Government to try to come to an agreement about what happens to Diego Garcia. I hope that UK and US are still able to use as an airbase and port.

But even if Diego Garcia is not available, we still have access to several allied ports in Bahrain, Oman, Singapore and Australia. We do have UK army bases in Kenya and Brunei - it would be great if we could negotitate use of naval facilities there, even if only able to cope with smaller ships such as T31 and especially OPV.

So I think we are (currently) unlikely to have 8*T31 concentrated in just two naval bases you suggested. But conceivably we might have close to such a number of T31 and OPV combined, but advance deployed in a more spread out manner than you were suggesting, using a variety of UK and allied naval bases.
Well if your fwd basing units they need to be based somewhere. The reason for suggesting Diego and Gibraltar is, both are currently Uk sovereign territories and there is adequate ports and airheads in place with support, maintenance and arming facilities. The airheads allows us to fly in and out spares, “pods”, weapons, boats, helicopters and crews to do rotations. Given the range advantage and endurance offered by type 31 those locations allow deployments to and monitoring of key strategic areas of interest without spreading the logistical support too thinly.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
S M H

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: 27 Nov 2022, 17:13 Firstly you will never ever get 3 type 26's for the cost of 5 Type 32 but what you could get is 3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's plus the money to up arm all 8 Type 31's to the standard I have put forward plus Camcopter's for all 8 RB2's

I have no problem with type 26 getting Tomahawk but type 31 also needs Tomahawk as type 31 and not type 26 will be forward deployed now no where have I said that type 31 with NSM and Tomahawk are a replacement for a CSG but having the ability to bring 3 forward deployed ships together to deliver a limited strike is a good option for the RN as said if more is needed then send a SSN or a CSG
The future FCASW is naturally a big unknown at the moment - indeed we have heard gossip that UK wants a larger stealthy subsonic missile whilst the French want emphasis on Supersonic speed. But either way we can assume that FCASW will be considerably more expensive than NSM and thus will be priority for Tier-One warfighting escorts, especially the T26 with their Mk 41 VLS that T45 are (currently) unlikely to get.

So concentrating on Land Attack Missiles, I would be interested to see some comparisions between Tomahawk and NSM. We know that Tomahawk is a dedicated Land Attack Missile whilst I beleive that NSM has SOME use as a Land Attack Missile. But I suspect NSM will be cheapr and shorter ranged, probably smaller warhead, maybe less precise against land targets for which it is not optimised against.

Therefore I beleive that RN would be better putting TLAM and FCASW on T26 and T45, whilst in my opinion the NSM is perfect for T31. Again look at USN as a comparison - they are fitting the NSM to Littoral Combat Ships and Constellation Class-Frigates whilst using more expensive Harpoon and Tomahawk on Arleigh Burke's.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:30
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:00
SW1 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 12:41
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 10:05 Coming back to escorts for a number of the reasons above having the Type 31's dotted around the world fitted and armed with

1 x 57 mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x NSM plus a 8 cell Mk-41 with 8 x Tomahawk Blk-V and one or two helicopters with 20 LMM or 4 Sea Venom or a SF team would give the UK a lot of options when it came to intervention

A squadron of 3 type 31's coming together could bring 24 NSM's , 24 Tomahawks and 6 Wildcats helicopters which is not to be discounted when given the Type 31's long legs
You could of built 8 ships like that positioned 4 fwd in Diego Garcia for operations in west Africa and Asia pacific and 4 fwd in the Gibraltar for operations in the Mediterranean, east Africa and the south Atlantic allowing say 3 in each group available for taskings much like the US navy has done in rota.
I am not sure that the RN would want to concentrate 4 such ships concentrated in Gibralter and Diego Garcia. I think we would be deployed in more dispersed manner.

Assuming that the main RN tier-one warfighting escorts are concentrated in UK, North Sea, North Atlantic, GIUK Gap, Barents Sea etc, that leaves the lower tier two/three escorts covering the Indo-Pacific, Med, South Atlantic and West Alantic + Caribbean, covering either British Overseas Territories and/or global shipping lanes on whuch UK depends for both imports and exports. We have discussed several times on both Future Escorts and OPV threads on exactly what type of ships and how well they should be equipped / armed. I don't want to get too bogged down into precisely how many ships we should have, what systems and armanent equipped with etc.

If we assume that we are looking at 4 ships covering Med, west Africa and South Atlantic, we have RN bases at Gibralter and Falklands. There is a naval base in Cyprus but I wonder if we wanted a ship based in east Med whether we would be better basing a ship at Souda Bay in Crete, sharing the facilities with USN? Ideally we could so with having at least a small RN naval base in Saint Helena (Ruperts Bay) and/or Ascension Island (Georgetown), even if only for OPV

Re Diego Garcia, I am not sure that UK currently has any signifcant forces based there - my understanding is that is used by the US. I know the UK Government is negotitating with Mauritious Government to try to come to an agreement about what happens to Diego Garcia. I hope that UK and US are still able to use as an airbase and port.

But even if Diego Garcia is not available, we still have access to several allied ports in Bahrain, Oman, Singapore and Australia. We do have UK army bases in Kenya and Brunei - it would be great if we could negotitate use of naval facilities there, even if only able to cope with smaller ships such as T31 and especially OPV.

So I think we are (currently) unlikely to have 8*T31 concentrated in just two naval bases you suggested. But conceivably we might have close to such a number of T31 and OPV combined, but advance deployed in a more spread out manner than you were suggesting, using a variety of UK and allied naval bases.
Well if your fwd basing units they need to be based somewhere. The reason for suggesting Diego and Gibraltar is, both are currently Uk sovereign territories and there is adequate ports and airheads in place with support, maintenance and arming facilities. The airheads allows us to fly in and out spares, “pods”, weapons, boats, helicopters and crews to do rotations. Given the range advantage and endurance offered by type 31 those locations allow deployments to and monitoring of key strategic areas of interest without spreading the logistical support too thinly.
If you are talking of Gibralter and Diego Garcia being an adminstrative and logistical hub, then yes I can agree that makes a lot of sense. However I do believe that in practice the RN would want their T31's and OPV's to be more dispersed in practice, with their missions of showing the flag, (re)building relationships with local navies and taking part in multi-national patrol and policing missions with our allies.

Don't forget that Bahrain has got a dock and facilities big enough to take Carrier. I am nots ure what naval facilitis are avalable for example at Diegi Garcia.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:53
If you are talking of Gibralter and Diego Garcia being an adminstrative and logistical hub, then yes I can agree that makes a lot of sense. However I do believe that in practice the RN would want their T31's and OPV's to be more dispersed in practice, with their missions of showing the flag, (re)building relationships with local navies and taking part in multi-national patrol and policing missions with our allies.

Don't forget that Bahrain has got a dock and facilities big enough to take Carrier. I am nots ure what naval facilitis are avalable for example at Diegi Garcia.
Although Gibraltar and Diego Garcia have the advantage of being sovereign territory currently they are both to varying degrees remote and cutoff from any surrounding support. So not only do we have to setup a Naval base we have to continually supply it by air or ship.

That is also dismissing the ongoing diplomatic rows over their actual status. Personally I think were are on more solid ground diplomatically with Gibraltar than Diego Garcia but conversely due to the American use of Diego I think practicality will win the day.

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: 27 Nov 2022, 17:13 Firstly you will never ever get 3 type 26's for the cost of 5 Type 32 but what you could get is 3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's plus the money to up arm all 8 Type 31's to the standard I have put forward plus Camcopter's for all 8 RB2's
Thanks.

I think 5T32 program shall cost 2.5B GBP. Surely it will pay for 3 more T26, I think.

“3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's” will cost 1B GBP and 0.3B GBP, and remaining 1.2B GBP you are talking about to up arm the 8 T31s. It’s 150M GBP per hull. Not a bad idea I agree, while I will prefer improving the top tier assets.
I have no problem with type 26 getting Tomahawk but type 31 also needs Tomahawk as type 31 and not type 26 will be forward deployed now no where have I said that type 31 with NSM and Tomahawk are a replacement for a CSG but having the ability to bring 3 forward deployed ships together to deliver a limited strike is a good option for the RN as said if more is needed then send a SSN or a CSG
Understand your point, but I still just think, again, improving T45 and T26 and F35 and other top tier assets are of much higher priority.

One exception MIGHT be NSM for T31. Using NSM as mini TLAM will be one choice, I agree. TLAM is not bad, but my priority there will be much lower than adding them to T26. This is because I think adding and integrating TLAM control systems will cost a lot, requires more maintenance and man power to T31, and make T31 LESS suited to play their (for me) top priority tasks, BE THERE to cover the peace time gray zone threats.

Not saying your idea is illogical. Just saying I have different priority.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 20:36
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:13 Firstly you will never ever get 3 type 26's for the cost of 5 Type 32 but what you could get is 3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's plus the money to up arm all 8 Type 31's to the standard I have put forward plus Camcopter's for all 8 RB2's
Thanks.

I think 5T32 program shall cost 2.5B GBP. Surely it will pay for 3 more T26, I think.

“3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's” will cost 1B GBP and 0.3B GBP, and remaining 1.2B GBP you are talking about to up arm the 8 T31s. It’s 150M GBP per hull. Not a bad idea I agree, while I will prefer improving the top tier assets.
I have no problem with type 26 getting Tomahawk but type 31 also needs Tomahawk as type 31 and not type 26 will be forward deployed now no where have I said that type 31 with NSM and Tomahawk are a replacement for a CSG but having the ability to bring 3 forward deployed ships together to deliver a limited strike is a good option for the RN as said if more is needed then send a SSN or a CSG
Understand your point, but I still just think, again, improving T45 and T26 and F35 and other top tier assets are of much higher priority.

One exception MIGHT be NSM for T31. Using NSM as mini TLAM will be one choice, I agree. TLAM is not bad, but my priority there will be much lower than adding them to T26. This is because I think adding and integrating TLAM control systems will cost a lot, requires more maintenance and man power to T31, and make T31 LESS suited to play their (for me) top priority tasks, BE THERE to cover the peace time gray zone threats.

Not saying your idea is illogical. Just saying I have different priority.
My problem is two fold firstly that I don't believe we could get type 26 for 800 million at anytime ( this just me and would would like to be proven wrong by BAE building a T-26 for this money ) second even if BAE did build 3 T-26 for 2.5 billion we would then have 11 ships now needing more weapons = more money

However with this being said type 26's long range weapon should be FCASW which has its own budget at this time

For me right now I would fit NSM on type 45 and type 31 this gives the forward deployed ships and the CSG this weapon option

As for have TLAM on type 26 and not type 31 this is all very good however type 26 will spend 90% of it time with the CSG and there for will not be where it is needed to effect intervention where as if they are on the type 31's no matter where the CSG is the UK can call on this option even if this means a type 31 joining the CSG from time to time

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:44 So concentrating on Land Attack Missiles, I would be interested to see some comparisions between Tomahawk and NSM. We know that Tomahawk is a dedicated Land Attack Missile whilst I beleive that NSM has SOME use as a Land Attack Missile. But I suspect NSM will be cheapr and shorter ranged, probably smaller warhead, maybe less precise against land targets for which it is not optimised against.

Therefore I beleive that RN would be better putting TLAM and FCASW on T26 and T45, whilst in my opinion the NSM is perfect for T31. Again look at USN as a comparison - they are fitting the NSM to Littoral Combat Ships and Constellation Class-Frigates whilst using more expensive Harpoon and Tomahawk on Arleigh Burke's.
NSM is more expensive than Harpoon. It's far more modern and more capable.

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: 27 Nov 2022, 17:44
Tempest414 wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:13 Firstly you will never ever get 3 type 26's for the cost of 5 Type 32 but what you could get is 3 more Type 31 plus 3 more RB2's plus the money to up arm all 8 Type 31's to the standard I have put forward plus Camcopter's for all 8 RB2's

I have no problem with type 26 getting Tomahawk but type 31 also needs Tomahawk as type 31 and not type 26 will be forward deployed now no where have I said that type 31 with NSM and Tomahawk are a replacement for a CSG but having the ability to bring 3 forward deployed ships together to deliver a limited strike is a good option for the RN as said if more is needed then send a SSN or a CSG
The future FCASW is naturally a big unknown at the moment - indeed we have heard gossip that UK wants a larger stealthy subsonic missile whilst the French want emphasis on Supersonic speed. But either way we can assume that FCASW will be considerably more expensive than NSM and thus will be priority for Tier-One warfighting escorts, especially the T26 with their Mk 41 VLS that T45 are (currently) unlikely to get.

So concentrating on Land Attack Missiles, I would be interested to see some comparisions between Tomahawk and NSM. We know that Tomahawk is a dedicated Land Attack Missile whilst I beleive that NSM has SOME use as a Land Attack Missile. But I suspect NSM will be cheapr and shorter ranged, probably smaller warhead, maybe less precise against land targets for which it is not optimised against.

Therefore I beleive that RN would be better putting TLAM and FCASW on T26 and T45, whilst in my opinion the NSM is perfect for T31. Again look at USN as a comparison - they are fitting the NSM to Littoral Combat Ships and Constellation Class-Frigates whilst using more expensive Harpoon and Tomahawk on Arleigh Burke's.
NSM has a range of 185 Km's and Tomahawk has a range of 1600+ Km's I would be looking to use NSM mostly in the Anti Ship role however it would have a use in the support of a RM raiding team. Where TLAM could be used against terrorist training camps and the likes

The Constellation class should be able to carry both NSM and TLAM

PS the NSM and Tomahawk Blk-V cost about the same per missile at 2 million dollars
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Question for the experts - what's the practical range of a ship launched anti ship missile? I mean at 200 km the flight time is what, 20 minutes, something like that? In that time hasn't the ship moved beyond the range of the sensors on the missile? So isn't >200km range on an anti ship missile is just a bit of marketing spin? Then there's the ROE. I'm probably missing something obvious

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SD67 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 12:25 Question for the experts - what's the practical range of a ship launched anti ship missile? I mean at 200 km the flight time is what, 20 minutes, something like that? In that time hasn't the ship moved beyond the range of the sensors on the missile? So isn't >200km range on an anti ship missile is just a bit of marketing spin? Then there's the ROE. I'm probably missing something obvious
I am no expert in this field however I would say 100 Km's is about right again however the extra range come in for land attack and also gives the enemy ships a area in which they are at higher risk

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 »

SD67 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 12:25 Question for the experts - what's the practical range of a ship launched anti ship missile? I mean at 200 km the flight time is what, 20 minutes, something like that? In that time hasn't the ship moved beyond the range of the sensors on the missile? So isn't >200km range on an anti ship missile is just a bit of marketing spin? Then there's the ROE. I'm probably missing something obvious
I am also not an expert. This is just my understanding.

- 200 km in high-subsonic = ~10 min.
- target location update is mandatory, therefore these new missiles have data link, in many cases 2-way (the ship can "see" what the missiles "see" and then send command), or at least 1-way (command from the ship).
- in many cases, there are considered to be a surveillance assets "looking" at the theater, say, UAV images, UAV-SAR-based radar view, satellite image directly connected to the launch ship (not now, but will be so in very near future), and special forces deployed near the target.

Anti ship missile long rage is real. Mid-course update is really considered (even if not yet happening, it will happen very soon).

This is my understanding. Nowadays, it is getting more and more difficult for ships to hide behind the horizon.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Nov 2022, 17:44 The future FCASW is naturally a big unknown at the moment - indeed we have heard gossip that UK wants a larger stealthy subsonic missile whilst the French want emphasis on Supersonic speed. But either way we can assume that FCASW will be considerably more expensive than NSM and thus will be priority for Tier-One warfighting escorts, especially the T26 with their Mk 41 VLS that T45 are (currently) unlikely to get.
Both missiles are being proceeded with under the programme. That doesn't mean the UK will buy both though.

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: 28 Nov 2022, 10:01...
As for have TLAM on type 26 and not type 31 this is all very good however type 26 will spend 90% of it time with the CSG and there for will not be where it is needed to effect intervention where as if they are on the type 31's no matter where the CSG is the UK can call on this option even if this means a type 31 joining the CSG from time to time
Thanks. We have different perspective, looks like, which is NOT bad. This is forum, a place to discuss.

I think T31 will be at KIPION and West Pacific, and sometimes Med.
- In KIPION, RAF can do most of the work, so no need to add expensive TLAM system onboard the T31 there. Just "nice to have".
- In West Pacific, it is USA who do most of the job when it gets "hot". T31 will be there to show UK flag, especially in peace time. Again, no need to add expensive TLAM system. Just "nice to have".
- In Med, I think RN CSG and/or SSN and/or T26 will quickly come. T31 shall be good to have TLAM, but not critically needed.

On the other hand, I have another proposal in line with your plan. If 3 more T31 to be built, and you want to add TLAM on T31s, how about mounting 32-cell Mk 41 VLS on those 3 batch2 T31s? (and leave the first 5 T31 as is). In other words, invest a lot on your "3 more T31", to make it a top-tier escort, specialized on land-attack?

Three hull of "T31 batch 2" each with, 1x 127 mm gun, 2x 40mm 3P guns, 24x CAMM, 32x TLAM, and a hull sonar. Adding 32-cell Mk 41 VLS with TLAM on 3 T31 will be cheaper than adding 8-cell systems on 8 T31s. I think this is almost certain, because the TLAM control unit and its integration into CMS is common, and you only need wires and front-end electronics to make it 32, not 8.

This plan will not give you two-sets of 4 T31+4 River B2 fleets, but in place
- 5 T31 to cover low-end tasks distributed world-wide (KIPION, West Pacific, and sometimes Med/FRE)
- and 3 "land-attack T31", providing 1 hull normally deployed to "hot" regions
(sorry in this case, I have no idea what to do with 8 River OPVs).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 14:48 Three hull of "T31 batch 2" each with, 1x 127 mm gun, 2x 40mm 3P guns, 24x CAMM, 32x TLAM, and a hull sonar. Adding 32-cell Mk 41 VLS with TLAM on 3 T31 will be cheaper than adding 8-cell systems on 8 T31s. I think this is almost certain, because the TLAM control unit and its integration into CMS is common, and you only need wires and front-end electronics to make it 32, not 8.
Why?

Adding another three T26’s with 2087 deleted would in all likelihood be the cheaper option.

Better still, just do it properly and increase the T26 build schedule to 11, all with 2087.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
RepulseRon5

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 21:43
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 14:48 Three hull of "T31 batch 2" each with, 1x 127 mm gun, 2x 40mm 3P guns, 24x CAMM, 32x TLAM, and a hull sonar. Adding 32-cell Mk 41 VLS with TLAM on 3 T31 will be cheaper than adding 8-cell systems on 8 T31s. I think this is almost certain, because the TLAM control unit and its integration into CMS is common, and you only need wires and front-end electronics to make it 32, not 8.
Why?

Adding another three T26’s with 2087 deleted would in all likelihood be the cheaper option.

Better still, just do it properly and increase the T26 build schedule to 11, all with 2087.
Cost?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

If you were looking to fit 8 tomahawk to a type 31 why would they need to be in a VL system. They could be canister launched like nsm.

Configure the 8 type 26 like the Canadian or Australian variants and delete type 45/83 and that would free up cash to up arm them.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:03 Cost?
Easy for the T26.

The more efficient the T26 production line becomes, the cheaper each hull will become. Removing the Captas-4 capability would reduce the cost even more plus the associated crew allocation would also reduce accordingly.

Adding a TLAM/Mk41 capability plus 2051 to the T31 is an unknown quantity. Also adding the extra crew allocation to the T31 drastically increases the overall operating costs.

If RN want more anti-submarine Frigates then build more Type 26’s. If RN want more global combat ships with a long range land attack capability then build more Type 26’s. The production line is still hot. Find the money and crack on.

IMO the upgraded T31 fills a different niche. Adding 16 NSM to the T31 (Fitted For But Not Normally Carried) would be a game changing addition in conjunction with one or two embarked Wildcats. Two or three T31s configured in such a way would be a fantastic capability for the price tag of around £1bn. Excellent value. Add a T45,SSN and a couple of P8’s and RN would have a fantastic surface hunting capability for a massively lower cost than the full CSG.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 23:53
wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:03 Cost?
Easy for the T26.

The more efficient the T26 production line becomes, the cheaper each hull will become. Removing the Captas-4 capability would reduce the cost even more plus the associated crew allocation would also reduce accordingly.

Adding a TLAM/Mk41 capability plus 2051 to the T31 is an unknown quantity. Also adding the extra crew allocation to the T31 drastically increases the overall operating costs.
Cost.

Similar to T26, "the more efficient the T31 production line becomes, the cheaper each hull will become". Adding 32-cell Mk.41 VLS design already exists = Iver Huitfeldt class mid-section. So, virtually I am proposing
- a T31
- replacing the mid-section with Iver Huitfeldt class's one
- but replacing the 4 StanFlex container section with 6 cell CAMM each.
- and change nothing else
I can revert from 127mm gun to 57mm gun, and even no hull sonar. Then, it is "a RN T31 just added with 32-cell Mk.42 VLS". Its CMS shall be the same, but just adding TLAM capability (which I do not think is cheap). Simple hull with CODAD propulsion, no 1st-tier ASW capability, "only" 24 CAMM and guns, it will be much cheaper than additional T26. Guess, if additional T26 be £800M (in 2022 price), this TLAM-T31 shall be ~£500M or so.

Remaining £1Bn (if with total £2.5Bn) can go to "9th T26" (£800M), and adding [EDIT] 3x NSM systems and equip all 9 T26 with 8x NSM (~£100M), and increase the T45's CAMM load from 24 to 48. This will give a fleet of
- 6x T45 (with 48 Aster 30, 48 CAMM and 8 NSM)
- 9x T26 (with 24 FC/ASW, 48 CAMM and 8 NSM)
- 3x T31mod (with 32 TLAM and 24 CAMM)
and
- 5x T31GP (with 12 CAMM)

18 top tier escorts (6 AAW, 9 ASW, 3 Land attack) and 5 long-range corvettes ("GP frigate" in RN naming). One option, I think.

However, I'm actually in the "more T26" league, so this is just "another option" for me. As stated, my first choice is always "3 more full fat T26". Just, I feel better with "a few 32TLAM-T31" than with "adding 8-cell TLAM to all T31".

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:12 If you were looking to fit 8 tomahawk to a type 31 why would they need to be in a VL system. They could be canister launched like nsm.
There aren't any current box launched tomahawks, they were only ever fitted to 17 ships which included 5 nuclear cruisers and 4 Iowa Class battleship and have been out of service for years.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 23:53
wargame_insomniac wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:03 Cost?
Easy for the T26.

The more efficient the T26 production line becomes, the cheaper each hull will become. Removing the Captas-4 capability would reduce the cost even more plus the associated crew allocation would also reduce accordingly.
Type 31 is already cheap and a longer production run will male it cheaper too
Adding a TLAM/Mk41 capability plus 2051 to the T31 is an unknown quantity. Also adding the extra crew allocation to the T31 drastically increases the overall operating costs.
Iver Huiitfeldt has Mk41 and Absalon is getting a tail so not so unknown. Still have to integrate TLAM in T26 aswell
If RN want more anti-submarine Frigates then build more Type 26’s. If RN want more global combat ships with a long range land attack capability then build more Type 26’s. The production line is still hot. Find the money and crack on.
The T31 line is hot too and unlike the T26 production line will be empty by 2027 if you want more T26s you wont be getting them before 2035. If you want more frigates before then its T31

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 05:58
SW1 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:12 If you were looking to fit 8 tomahawk to a type 31 why would they need to be in a VL system. They could be canister launched like nsm.
There aren't any current box launched tomahawks, they were only ever fitted to 17 ships which included 5 nuclear cruisers and 4 Iowa Class battleship and have been out of service for years.
Are the US marines not starting to look at such things for land based applications?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 08:26
tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 05:58
SW1 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:12 If you were looking to fit 8 tomahawk to a type 31 why would they need to be in a VL system. They could be canister launched like nsm.
There aren't any current box launched tomahawks, they were only ever fitted to 17 ships which included 5 nuclear cruisers and 4 Iowa Class battleship and have been out of service for years.
Are the US marines not starting to look at such things for land based applications?
Also there is the BAE's ADL which can take all MK-41 inserts
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SW1

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

SW1 wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 08:26
tomuk wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 05:58
SW1 wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 22:12 If you were looking to fit 8 tomahawk to a type 31 why would they need to be in a VL system. They could be canister launched like nsm.
There aren't any current box launched tomahawks, they were only ever fitted to 17 ships which included 5 nuclear cruisers and 4 Iowa Class battleship and have been out of service for years.
Are the US marines not starting to look at such things for land based applications?
BAE Inc offer the Adaptable Deck Launcher, ADL, Capable of launching multiple missile types from multiple platforms for multiple mission scenarios which meets the need for a fixed angle, deck-mounted launching system

These users liked the author NickC for the post (total 2):
SW1wargame_insomniac

Post Reply