Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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, 18:49
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.
Only ask that question because the precedent set by the US Navy which with the Phalanx 20mm were specified a dedicated X-band search radar and an even higher frequency narrow beam Ku band for the FCR integral to the individual guns and with the Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships with the single 40mm gun comes with a dedicated single X-band SN54 for FCR plus EOS, whereas the T31 with its three guns only use the one S-band NS110 lower definition/ frequency radar with the Miradors (assuming no low power FMCW Ku-band LPI Scout fitted as Thales were on very strict cost cap?)

Raises the question whether Dstl only modelled the T31 guns in "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)" and so were Dstl not asked to model the guns in an AA role, could it be a case where the T31 CIWS AA defence was left for the CAMM's, as see no mention of guns for AA mentioned in the Babcock paper and gun use in that role purely seen as an incidental plus?

TomW
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 05 Dec 2022, 11:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by TomW »

That paper did say this, suggests there was more than one requirement for them that was assessed?

The selected options (BAE Systems Bofors 57 mk3 & 40mk4) were not the cheapest options available; however against the multiple KCs set by the RN they were the options that provided the best combined performance against the full range of air and surface threats, proven by analysis and assessment

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 11:59
tomuk wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 18:49
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.
Only ask that question because the precedent set by the US Navy which with the Phalanx 20mm were specified a dedicated X-band search radar and an even higher frequency narrow beam Ku band for the FCR integral to the individual guns and with the Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships with the single 40mm gun comes with a dedicated single X-band SN54 for FCR plus EOS, whereas the T31 with its three guns only use the one S-band NS110 lower definition/ frequency radar with the Miradors (assuming no low power FMCW Ku-band LPI Scout fitted as Thales were on very strict cost cap?)

Raises the question whether Dstl only modelled the T31 guns in "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)" and so were Dstl not asked to model the guns in an AA role, could it be a case where the T31 CIWS AA defence was left for the CAMM's, as see no mention of guns for AA mentioned in the Babcock paper and gun use in that role purely seen as an incidental plus?
You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that Mirador is equally capable against air and surface threats.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 13:48
NickC wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 11:59
tomuk wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 18:49
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.
Only ask that question because the precedent set by the US Navy which with the Phalanx 20mm were specified a dedicated X-band search radar and an even higher frequency narrow beam Ku band for the FCR integral to the individual guns and with the Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships with the single 40mm gun comes with a dedicated single X-band SN54 for FCR plus EOS, whereas the T31 with its three guns only use the one S-band NS110 lower definition/ frequency radar with the Miradors (assuming no low power FMCW Ku-band LPI Scout fitted as Thales were on very strict cost cap?)

Raises the question whether Dstl only modelled the T31 guns in "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)" and so were Dstl not asked to model the guns in an AA role, could it be a case where the T31 CIWS AA defence was left for the CAMM's, as see no mention of guns for AA mentioned in the Babcock paper and gun use in that role purely seen as an incidental plus?
You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that Mirador is equally capable against air and surface threats.
The question if they are equally capable why do Phlanx 20 and the MCW Bofors 40 go to the expense to use both a high frequency/defination FCR and equivalent Mirador with each individual gun?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 16:18
Ron5 wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 13:48
NickC wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 11:59
tomuk wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 18:49
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.
Only ask that question because the precedent set by the US Navy which with the Phalanx 20mm were specified a dedicated X-band search radar and an even higher frequency narrow beam Ku band for the FCR integral to the individual guns and with the Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships with the single 40mm gun comes with a dedicated single X-band SN54 for FCR plus EOS, whereas the T31 with its three guns only use the one S-band NS110 lower definition/ frequency radar with the Miradors (assuming no low power FMCW Ku-band LPI Scout fitted as Thales were on very strict cost cap?)

Raises the question whether Dstl only modelled the T31 guns in "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)" and so were Dstl not asked to model the guns in an AA role, could it be a case where the T31 CIWS AA defence was left for the CAMM's, as see no mention of guns for AA mentioned in the Babcock paper and gun use in that role purely seen as an incidental plus?
You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that Mirador is equally capable against air and surface threats.
The question if they are equally capable why do Phlanx 20 and the MCW Bofors 40 go to the expense to use both a high frequency/defination FCR and equivalent Mirador with each individual gun?
My comment was ambiguous: I meant that Mirador was equally good against boats and aircraft. Not that it was equal to Phalanx.

EO & radar both have pro's and cons. I agree that having both technologies in one system is a superior solution. But that makes such systems rather expensive. If cost is an issue, EO only is the way to go. And cost was an issue with Type 31's.

BTW, your claim that lack of X-band radar guidance makes the T31 gun systems incapable of AA & ASu is baloney. As is your claim that DSTL is unreliable. It most certainly is not.

Now I feel dirty for responding to a troll. Must shower.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 16:56
NickC wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 16:18
Ron5 wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 13:48
NickC wrote: 13 Jan 2023, 11:59
tomuk wrote: 12 Jan 2023, 18:49
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.
Only ask that question because the precedent set by the US Navy which with the Phalanx 20mm were specified a dedicated X-band search radar and an even higher frequency narrow beam Ku band for the FCR integral to the individual guns and with the Belgium/Dutch/French MCW ships with the single 40mm gun comes with a dedicated single X-band SN54 for FCR plus EOS, whereas the T31 with its three guns only use the one S-band NS110 lower definition/ frequency radar with the Miradors (assuming no low power FMCW Ku-band LPI Scout fitted as Thales were on very strict cost cap?)

Raises the question whether Dstl only modelled the T31 guns in "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)" and so were Dstl not asked to model the guns in an AA role, could it be a case where the T31 CIWS AA defence was left for the CAMM's, as see no mention of guns for AA mentioned in the Babcock paper and gun use in that role purely seen as an incidental plus?
You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that Mirador is equally capable against air and surface threats.
The question if they are equally capable why do Phlanx 20 and the MCW Bofors 40 go to the expense to use both a high frequency/defination FCR and equivalent Mirador with each individual gun?
My comment was ambiguous: I meant that Mirador was equally good against boats and aircraft. Not that it was equal to Phalanx.

EO & radar both have pro's and cons. I agree that having both technologies in one system is a superior solution. But that makes such systems rather expensive. If cost is an issue, EO only is the way to go. And cost was an issue with Type 31's.

BTW, your claim that lack of X-band radar guidance makes the T31 gun systems incapable of AA & ASu is baloney. As is your claim that DSTL is unreliable. It most certainly is not.

Now I feel dirty for responding to a troll. Must shower.
Your very long history as the most infamous troll on site reinforced with latest your obnoxious comment, so piss off.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Naval News reporting Thales saying that Collaborative Engagement Capabilities, CEC, is the future of [AAW/BMD] naval warfare for them, they have upgraded the first of the four Dutch 6,000t AAW De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates with CEC, HNLMS De Ruyter.

If remember there was talk the US Navy/Raytheon CEC AN/USG-2B to be fitted to the T45 but was cut due to cost? Standard fit on the USN Burke destroyers and will be fitted to the new USN Constellation class frigates, ~$6.5 million ea.

Note - Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system provides real time integration of fire control quality sensor data into a single composite data source, which can be used by multiple CEC ships and airborne units for direct and remote missile engagements. CEC significantly improves battle force Air Warfare (AW) capability by coordinating all force AW sensors into a single real time, fire control quality composite track picture.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... or-thales/

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Yes there was an ongoing plan to fit CEC to the T45s, it was even mooted for T23 too as well as T26. The acquisition was never approved. If you look at HMS Duncan you can see the mods to her mast to fit the Planar Arrays. Image
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
NickC

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Shot down by Gordon Brown.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Yes, but GB left the incoming government in 2010 “No money”! :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

GarethDavies1 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 16:03
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown
Brown forced the Navy to cut T45 ships and costs. CEC was a victim of that. Not a lot of point in CEC with only a couple ships at sea to use it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 17:13
GarethDavies1 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 16:03
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown
Brown forced the Navy to cut T45 ships and costs. CEC was a victim of that. Not a lot of point in CEC with only a couple ships at sea to use it.
At the time of the 12 to six cut the New Labour government of which GB was the chancellor bigged up CEC as a way to alleviate the reduced numbers.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by mrclark303 »

tomuk wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 22:00
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 17:13
GarethDavies1 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 16:03
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown
Brown forced the Navy to cut T45 ships and costs. CEC was a victim of that. Not a lot of point in CEC with only a couple ships at sea to use it.
At the time of the 12 to six cut the New Labour government of which GB was the chancellor bigged up CEC as a way to alleviate the reduced numbers.
And promptly cut that too.... Both political parties are exactly the same, both clambering for the middle ground with virtually the same policies, Labour keeping just enough 'looney left' in the agenda to placate the TUC...

As Sir Starmer and his Circus of ( mile wide lead, but an inch thick) nincompoops, will probably swap sides with the Tories relatively soon, does anyone know what their stance on defence is, will they increase defence spending, they seem to making those noises????

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by BB85 »

Who knows, I have a feeling the Tories will go on a defense spending spree just before the election and sign contracts that cant be undone without big penalties. I'm not sure if labour will match the Tory commitment for 2.5% defense spending though.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 22:00
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 17:13
GarethDavies1 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 16:03
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown
Brown forced the Navy to cut T45 ships and costs. CEC was a victim of that. Not a lot of point in CEC with only a couple ships at sea to use it.
At the time of the 12 to six cut the New Labour government of which GB was the chancellor bigged up CEC as a way to alleviate the reduced numbers.
Gordon Brown himself did not participate in that.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 15:18
tomuk wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 22:00
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 17:13
GarethDavies1 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 16:03
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown
Brown forced the Navy to cut T45 ships and costs. CEC was a victim of that. Not a lot of point in CEC with only a couple ships at sea to use it.
At the time of the 12 to six cut the New Labour government of which GB was the chancellor bigged up CEC as a way to alleviate the reduced numbers.
Gordon Brown himself did not participate in that.
In what way didn't he participate?

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 »

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 6/default/

A document referred to from "ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-future-for-scottish-naval-shipbuilding-on-independence/", "Defence in Scotland: military shipbuilding", has a good table in page 20 "Table 1: Projected ‘pipeline’ of work for Scottish shipyards". It is "happily" filled with orders of 5 T32 and 6 T83 coming soon, as promised (just placed as a plan, actually), looking like an "optimistic case".

And it is clear for me there is no order list after T83 until T26 replacement (and T31 replacement), which shall be delivered around 2055 at the earliest. We can clearly see a "~15 years gap" there. This is the real threat, death valley, for UK Shipbuilding industry. Delay of T32 is NOT a threat, it is actually a hope.

Looks like the committee members are also aware of it, but carefully ignoring it (guess, they do not care 20 years later = short term viewer). The only vague mention can be seen here;

item-52 The UK Government should provide greater clarity about the work that will fill the whole of the 30-year shipbuilding pipeline into the 2030s and 2040s. It is of course difficult to calculate precise military needs beyond 2050. However, the UK Government should give Scottish shipbuilders the confidence to continue to invest in the future with a clear commitment that it will strategically use its contracts to sustain the national capacity to design and build warships in Scotland, so long as industry continues to deliver on its own contractual commitments.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

First 3 Batch One T26s were laid down in 2017, 2019 & 2021. If we assume this pattern is followed for 5*Batch Two T26s, they would be laid down from 2023-2031.

If we assume that 6*T81s are ordered (and I still fear that they may yet be reduced to just 4 hulls) then they could be laid down from 2033-2043. Then would need next ships laid down in 2045 & 2047......

I am assuming that if the RN can get into a drumbeat of ordering 15 warfighting escorts every 30 years, and they are laid down every two years and they take roughly two years from being laid down until they are launched, then we would be able to keep BAE shipyard in Govan fully occupied.

This presumes that the RN is NOT too ambitious in the ship size it requires and thus is able to order at least 15 warfighting escorts every 30 years.

That would mean that Babcock shipyard in Rosyth would need to keep busy by building combination of GP Frigates, OPVs, MCM support ships, and contribution to larger ships such as carriers and amphibs.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
The new facility at Govan is an assembly hall, steel will be cut and assembled into blocks in the existing facilities. Work on ship 4 will start once 2 & 3 have moved along the 'production line' this isn't reliant on the new assembly hall.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Yes, and work will be continuing “in the existing facilities” on blocks for both Hulls 2 and 3 !!!
Do you really think that they will have room for Hull 4 and 5 Blocks to be built let alone stored, whilst they are still attempting to build and assemble the same for hulls 2 and 3.
They will need the space in the existing hall currently used for block integration to cope with building and assembling “two hulls” (and their component blocks) simultaneously. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 05:27 Any Batch 2 T26 are highly unlikely to be laid down this year! With plans for these to be built in a major new facility which has yet to be built (possibly not yet even having received planning consent), I would think it more likely to be well into 2024 or even 2025 before hull 4 and/or hull 5 could be laid down.

What the country really needs from BAES, is a capability for an 18 month drumbeat, if the RN is seriously going to regain critical mass. :mrgreen:
So with an 18 month drumbeat, that would mean that 14 escorts would be finished in 21 years. That would extend the gap in the UK 30 year shipbuilding plan mentioned in the previous post to 9 years.

So you would have to fill that gap with building more ships else risk losing experienced shipbuilders. But in todays tight defence Budget, what would you cut??

Thats the problem if looking at a 30 year shipbuilding drumbeat. You want a good rhythm, not fast sections followed by quiet pauses.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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 the way forward is for a new 105-110 meter MHPC class to be designed now with a class of 8 ships to be built. This could allow for Babcocks to build 3 more type 31's and then build 4 of the new MHPC's at the same time BAE would build 1 extra T-26 followed by 4 MHPC and then Type 83.

The new MHPC's would replace the all the Rive Class plus the MCM fleet
The 9th type 26 would replace the 1st type 31

What the new MHPC could allow is a ship we can build for export cheap & flexible

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 23:00
Ron5 wrote: 29 Jan 2023, 15:18
tomuk wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 22:00
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 17:13
GarethDavies1 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 16:03
Ron5 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 14:44 Shot down by Gordon Brown.
Officially cancelled in 2012, after Gordon Brown
Brown forced the Navy to cut T45 ships and costs. CEC was a victim of that. Not a lot of point in CEC with only a couple ships at sea to use it.
At the time of the 12 to six cut the New Labour government of which GB was the chancellor bigged up CEC as a way to alleviate the reduced numbers.
Gordon Brown himself did not participate in that.
In what way didn't he participate?
Didn't mention CEC in his speeches

Post Reply