Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:I read that as meaning an ship that would be fighty enough to be committed to NATO.
That is perfectly possible, because the other explanation would only apply to v small numbers - the benefit of the joint prgrm being cost avoidance in design (shared) while still getting the economic multiplier effects/ benefits from local build.
Ron5 wrote: dismiss the idea that the the RN believe they are short of escorts and would like some more.
ahh... the old difference between want and get.
- takes us back to the mix (that will best fit the most important missions with the money available)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I believe that the T32 will possibly be a somewhat shorter ranged ASW oriented Frigate than the T26. It will probably also have a Mk 45 Gun and be fitted with a reasonable sized CAMM Silo.
What will it be used for? I would say primarily for N. Atlantic & Home Waters Taskings, where a larger ASW presence is badly needed.
Fitting the Mk 45 would also allow the T32 to be used should a requirement to provide NGS arise. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:It is now, they've given it an F number plus ASW gear earmarked for the IH's.
I think that's all the confirmation needed that the support ship concept hasn't worked. But some people just seen to love 'em.
Or just not as high a priority as ASW.

[edited] Posted before I read ACC comment. Though a tad confused what Trump had to do with it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:That is perfectly possible, because the other explanation would only apply to v small numbers - the benefit of the joint prgrm being cost avoidance in design (shared) while still getting the economic multiplier effects/ benefits from local build.
And of course, NATO development programs have worked soooo well (eyes roll).

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Gvmnt has indicated (thru 'intended drum beat', and not allowing for slightly different start times) that for every T26 there will be 1.5 of 'other' surface combatants
- assume we get the full 8 of the former
- then there will be 12 of the other (and the 6 AAW will still be around)
Oops! How do we get from the 26 down to the indicated 24? Where did this widely talked about 24 come from, btw :?:

To pour some water onto the water wheel, to get it properly (indignantly :) ) going
- we will cut the ASW specialists short by two, and move over to AAW replacement earlier, or
- the slow crawl of the ASW specialists will continue towards the full eight, and the AAW replacement is derived from a different hull (and will be built in a different place)

COPIED TO HERE FROM THE T31/32 THREAD as more than just T32 is in the scope
Might it be the idea to have a few export orders on the drumbeat for T31?

I'm thinking Poland, NZ..

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Roders96 wrote:Might it be the idea to have a few export orders on the drumbeat for T31?
Either that or T32s elbowing their way in from somewhere else than the two facilities for which the two (very rough!) drum beats have been indicated
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Might it be the idea to have a few export orders on the drumbeat for T31?
Either that or T32s elbowing their way in from somewhere else than the two facilities for which the two (very rough!) drum beats have been indicated
Interesting indeed - just for my curiosity - have you any sources for those drumbeats?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... lowres.pdf

What is also interesting how narrow the 'job description' given for the T-26 is (in that doc).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Scimitar54 wrote:I believe that the T32 will possibly be a somewhat shorter ranged ASW oriented Frigate than the T26. It will probably also have a Mk 45 Gun and be fitted with a reasonable sized CAMM Silo.
What will it be used for? I would say primarily for N. Atlantic & Home Waters Taskings, where a larger ASW presence is badly needed.
Fitting the Mk 45 would also allow the T32 to be used should a requirement to provide NGS arise. :mrgreen:
Unlikely to be a ASW frigate as:

A. It would more likely have been called a T27, if it were to be ASW.
B. If it were to be an ASW frigate, Ben Wallace would not have called it a General Purpose frigate.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by bobp »

I keep thinking this T32 will be a T31 but with a ASW suite possibly rescued from the T23's as they go out of service. Also fitted with a mine hunting capability using submersibles. My reasons being there are not enough ASW frigates, if the T26 is tied up escorting the Carriers.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

For me when it comes to the T32 I’m split, if it’s solely a frigate then I’d like to see it be a “mini” T26 design keeping that hull form for top rate ASW if required, this would also be attractive for export customers that want a really capable ASW vessel but the T26 is just too much ship.

If it’s going to be taking over some of the mcm work and be used in a small scale amphibious role then I’d like to see it go down either a British absalon route or a UXV based on the T26 hull, the former being the cheaper option and later being more high end more capable but higher cost.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

With 8 ASW frigates, the RN has the minimum number it needs for carrier groups and TAPS.

With 9 P8 Poseidon, the RAF does not have the minimum number it needs to protect the SSBNs and the carriers.

Any investment in additional ASW capability is more likely to be in ASW aircraft than frigates.

Given that Ben Wallace has said that the T32 will be GP frigate, it is entirely possible that the RN doesn't want it for MCM work, or a small scale amphibious role or ASW, but instead wants it to be a GP frigate.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Aethulwulf wrote:Given that Ben Wallace has said that the T32 will be GP frigate, it is entirely possible that the RN doesn't want it for MCM work, or a small scale amphibious role or ASW, but instead wants it to be a GP frigate.
I think, if it's "GP", in the same way that the T23 GP is "GP", then I will be quite happy ;) An ASW-capable GP frigate to match the T31 AAW-capable GP frigate :D
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:An ASW-capable GP frigate to match the T31 AAW-capable GP frigate
A mix of all-rounders - to plug the unavoidable holes caused by the small numbers of specialists we are likely to have
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Caribbean wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Given that Ben Wallace has said that the T32 will be GP frigate, it is entirely possible that the RN doesn't want it for MCM work, or a small scale amphibious role or ASW, but instead wants it to be a GP frigate.
I think, if it's "GP", in the same way that the T23 GP is "GP", then I will be quite happy ;) An ASW-capable GP frigate to match the T31 AAW-capable GP frigate :D
That’d be nice to see, a “mini” T26 for a 2nd tier ASW and an uprgarde to the T31s to make them a 2nd tier AAW

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:a “mini” T26 for a 2nd tier ASW
Could be another design (whereas the other one just needs to be upgraded - some of them - to what the base design is for)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

Looking at MCM USV systems's contract, LPD decommission date confirmation, as well as 13 frigates committed, I feel more and more that the "£16.5B more" is making things normal.

Other than many fancy kits, I think what is to be normal shall include

- interim ASM 5 systems procurement process will re-start
- LMM added on DS30 mounts shall be proceeded. I guess, some T23s, T45s and some (not all) of the River B2 OPVs shall be added with that option. (Option, I think. In other words "detachable" so that the complex system can be "stored" when not needed).
- T45 diesel engine revamp will be more speeded up.

Down the line, it may also include

- another 14 systems of interim ASM, to be equipped on all 19 escorts.
- hull-sonar added to T31 (as well as ASM)
- Aster 30/15 missile system modification on T45 (may include blk1 NT?)

...

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Going off Donald’s comments above about making things “normal” I was wondering what most here thing would be the better system and what has the greater potential for future development out of the 30mm coupled with LLM or the 40mm ?

IMO we should consolidate in to one of them across the fleet instead of running both and this could be the right time to look at choice which is the better option.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Aethulwulf wrote:With 8 ASW frigates, the RN has the minimum number it needs for carrier groups and TAPS.

With 9 P8 Poseidon, the RAF does not have the minimum number it needs to protect the SSBNs and the carriers.

Any investment in additional ASW capability is more likely to be in ASW aircraft than frigates.

Given that Ben Wallace has said that the T32 will be GP frigate, it is entirely possible that the RN doesn't want it for MCM work, or a small scale amphibious role or ASW, but instead wants it to be a GP frigate.
1. The number of 8 T26 is because of historical accident i.e. 8 TAS equipped T23's to be replaced and was decided well before any carriers appeared.

2. P8's do not come out of the Navy's budget so there's not really a trade off.

3. As other have pointed out, the GP T23s have a robust ASW capability. The T31's have none but fitting a sonar is supposed to be first on their unfunded wish list for the class. So not much of a stretch to assume the T32 will require a sonar and ASW capability.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote:An ASW-capable GP frigate to match the T31 AAW-capable GP frigate
A mix of all-rounders - to plug the unavoidable holes caused by the small numbers of specialists we are likely to have
Not a bad way of expressing it. Type 83 it is :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Looking at MCM USV systems's contract, LPD decommission date confirmation, as well as 13 frigates committed, I feel more and more that the "£16.5B more" is making things normal.

Other than many fancy kits, I think what is to be normal shall include

- interim ASM 5 systems procurement process will re-start
- LMM added on DS30 mounts shall be proceeded. I guess, some T23s, T45s and some (not all) of the River B2 OPVs shall be added with that option. (Option, I think. In other words "detachable" so that the complex system can be "stored" when not needed).
- T45 diesel engine revamp will be more speeded up.

Down the line, it may also include

- another 14 systems of interim ASM, to be equipped on all 19 escorts.
- hull-sonar added to T31 (as well as ASM)
- Aster 30/15 missile system modification on T45 (may include blk1 NT?)

...
I sure hope a few pennies will be thrown at MBDA to develop a new compact CAMM launcher so we can say bye bye to those awful mushrooms.

One that can take CAMM-ER.

And Sea Spear 3-ER :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Today MBDA PR today announced Sea Venom completed its qualification firings trials at Ile du Levant on 17 November. "Previous trials have tested the missiles launch envelope, release envelope and engagement modes, such as its low-altitude sea-skimming flight, lock on after launch (LOAL), lock on before launch (LOBL), operator-in-the-loop, and aimpoint refinement."

From <https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... l-missile/>

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

bobp wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Meanwhile China continues to build the equivalent of the Royal Navy's entire tonnage every four years...[/quot

They have lots of "Bobs"
Moved from T26 news

FWIW Chinese new Navy 5 year build plan to 2025 for corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers.

-Type 056A corvettes ~ 1,500t / 90 x 11 m -26x
- Type 054A frigates ~ 4,000t /134 x16 m -20x
- Type 052DLX destroyers ~7,500t / 167 x 17 m -9x
- Type 055 large destroyers ~ 13,000t / 180 x 20 m -8x
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by bobp »

What they lack in quality they sure do make up for it in numbers.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

NickC wrote:
bobp wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Meanwhile China continues to build the equivalent of the Royal Navy's entire tonnage every four years...[/quot

They have lots of "Bobs"
Moved from T26 news

FWIW Chinese new Navy 5 year build plan to 2025 for corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers.

-Type 056A corvettes ~ 1,500t / 90 x 11 m -26x
- Type 054A frigates ~ 4,000t /134 x16 m -20x
- Type 052DLX destroyers ~7,500t / 167 x 17 m -9x
- Type 055 large destroyers ~ 13,000t / 180 x 20 m -8x
So by 2025 they will have 125 escorts and 80 OPVs . NATO Europe have around the same number of escorts I think when I looked last it was about 130 plus 100 odd OPV's / Corvettes this dose not include Canadian and US escorts

Post Reply