UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 13 Nov 2018, 21:15

RN missions been clear for a while carrier group and the casd. The carrier group likely to tend more toward the equivalent of a US expeditionary strike group.


One of the many frigate replacement ideas

The C1 - Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Combatant (formerly Versatile Surface Combatant)- around ten large vessels, of about 6,000 tons displacement, for high-threat environments (probably 6 or 8 thousand tons and about as expensive as a Type 45). It would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group," said Cdre Brunton, "offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force".

C2 - Stabilisation Combatant (formerly Medium Sized Vessel Derivative) - around eight cheaper vessels - generic frigates of about 4 or 5 thousand tons would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort. C1 and C2 would replace the Type 22 and 23 classes and may use the same generic 6,000 ton hull. The most pressing need is the replacement of the four Batch 3 Type 22s from 2015. This C2 requirement (formerly the MSVD) could be met by an "off the shelf" purchase of the Franco-Italian FREMM multi-role frigate, or a version of the Type 45 destroyer optimised for ASW and surface warfare.

C3 - Ocean-Capable Patrol Vessel [formerly the Global Corvette] - around eight smaller ships [approximately 2,000-3,000 tons displacement with a range of 7,000 nautical miles] to replace minesweepers and possibly current patrol ships - they will replace a far greater number of existing vessels across various classes. Eight ships would be primarily roled for MCM as replacements for the current Hunt-class and Sandown-class vessels. Potential longer-term replacements are needed for the three River-class offshore patrol vessels, the Falkland Islands patrol vessel HMS Clyde, and the survey ships HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise.


But our type26 isnt doing mcm or the like or shore bombardment according to those on here and type 31 doesn’t look like a fremm or using the typ 26s generic hull.

I keep coming back to this the problem with type 31 is we don’t really know what we want it to do or what it’s for so it’s hard to decide what it’s like. Type 45 anti air warfare, type 26 anti submarine warfare, type 31 must cost £250m........

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 21:30

SW1 wrote:RN missions been clear for a while carrier group and the casd.

That's two, add another half (an overlay) of LittOps
SW1 wrote:around eight cheaper vessels - generic frigates of about 4 or 5 thousand tons would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort.

T31
SW1 wrote:Eight ships would be primarily roled for MCM as replacements

MHC

Only 5 of the higher end ASW, then proceed (based on the same hull) to AAW replacement

6 (now, and also in the future)+5 +8 +8... what a big number! :clap: Add the OPVs.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Nov 2018, 21:44

shark bait wrote:You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020.
Why not?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:£3bn for 6 hull is £500m average cost. If so, T26's average cost is £1bn. I think "using the same hull" is totally out of scope.
Whats your estimate for a T26 lite?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, £375m unit-cost light frigate will be interesting, I agree.
Around £375m is the sweet spot for the T31. Is Venator a possibility at £375m? Could be close.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Here comes ASW specialized "light-light frigates" (or "long-range corvettes"), built with £1.25bn for 5 or 4 hulls.
Interesting proposal. As you know my main concern with Leander is the lack of space for future growth if it is to be a credible frigate and making it smaller won't help with that.
Digger22 wrote:Like the idea though, but not keen to see anything less than 19 units. A ship can't be in two places at once etc....... We need to get back to 24 hulls somehow.
Let me be clear, I don't want to cut anything but unless funding increases, only so much can be achieved. Getting back to an escort/patrol fleet of 24 hulls will take a significant boost to the current funding model. Unlikely but not impossible.
Lord Jim wrote:Until the MDP is published nothing is set in stone regardless of what the PR departments have been releasing.
I would be amazed if the T31 budget does not increase when the results of the MDP are published. How could HMG claim to be serious about tackling the 'North Atlantic Problem' without changing at least something in the Frigate procurement plan. An increase in MPA numbers is the obvious quick fix but I think it will be politically impossible to ignore the Frigates.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1644
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 13 Nov 2018, 22:34

Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020.
Why not?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:£3bn for 6 hull is £500m average cost. If so, T26's average cost is £1bn. I think "using the same hull" is totally out of scope.
Whats your estimate for a T26 lite?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, £375m unit-cost light frigate will be interesting, I agree.
Around £375m is the sweet spot for the T31. Is Venator a possibility at £375m? Could be close.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Here comes ASW specialized "light-light frigates" (or "long-range corvettes"), built with £1.25bn for 5 or 4 hulls.
Interesting proposal. As you know my main concern with Leander is the lack of space for future growth if it is to be a credible frigate and making it smaller won't help with that.
Digger22 wrote:Like the idea though, but not keen to see anything less than 19 units. A ship can't be in two places at once etc....... We need to get back to 24 hulls somehow.
Let me be clear, I don't want to cut anything but unless funding increases, only so much can be achieved. Getting back to an escort/patrol fleet of 24 hulls will take a significant boost to the current funding model. Unlikely but not impossible.
Lord Jim wrote:Until the MDP is published nothing is set in stone regardless of what the PR departments have been releasing.
I would be amazed if the T31 budget does not increase when the results of the MDP are published. How could HMG claim to be serious about tackling the 'North Atlantic Problem' without changing at least something in the Frigate procurement plan. An increase in MPA numbers is the obvious quick fix but I think it will be politically impossible to ignore the Frigates.


1) how far along the T31 procurement programme are we? When will the order be placed?

2) when will the MDP be published? I think it might be too late to affect the outcome of the T31 process (for the "first" batch of 5, at least)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 Nov 2018, 00:47

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:£3bn for 6 hull is £500m average cost. If so, T26's average cost is £1bn. I think "using the same hull" is totally out of scope.
Whats your estimate for a T26 lite?
I cannot answer because I still cannot understand what you are imaging when writing "T26 lite". If using the same hull = reusing most of the detailed design, and armed solely for ASW (no gun, no TLAM nor SSM, no mission bay, reduced CAMM), it may cost at least 80% of original T26, I guess.
Around £375m is the sweet spot for the T31. Is Venator a possibility at £375m? Could be close.
Agree. But, it will not meet the 2023 1st-of-class schedule. Designing takes time (Reason I proposed delaying T31e = gap 3 frigates, a month ago).
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Here comes ASW specialized "light-light frigates" (or "long-range corvettes"), built with £1.25bn for 5 or 4 hulls.
Interesting proposal. As you know my main concern with Leander is the lack of space for future growth if it is to be a credible frigate and making it smaller won't help with that.
You are right. My proposal is NOT a credible frigate. I am just shifting priorities from patrol to ASW. My proposal do have growth margin, spaces for 1 CIWS, 8 SSM, and even a 3inch gun is left. I cut these armaments to reduce crew size. If in future threat increases and money comes in, I will just add them. For ASW, I have a long list of wish lists; to improve P8A, T26, Merlin fleet, sea-bed based ASW systems (new SOSUS), UUV/USV based ASW systems, improved sonobuoys with UAV-based transceiver, adding CAPTAS-4CI to T45, adding CAPTAS-1 to River OPVs ... Dream continues and not enough money, I guess. :D

Making T31e a "credible frigate" is only one of the many options in future, if it is about ASW. And now there is no money. So, T31e shall focus on Patrol (current T31e RFI) or ASW (my proposal). ASW is much more a system than a single escort.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Nov 2018, 05:31

ASW, ASW, ASW! Yes it is an important role and the RN will have eight T-26 to carry out said role when escorting the Carrier supplemented by the Merlins and possibly the E-8s, but the RN is moving away from its Cold War type ASW mission. AS stated it will be concentrating its forces into one or two groups and little else, as it will not have the platforms or manpower to doing that. A bare bones ASW assets like the original idea behind the T-23 is the last thing the RN needs, what it does is more platforms that can contribute effectively to the task groups it will operate with. This is why the current RFI has not been properly thought through, but rather an idea on the back of some Politicians packet of fags in one of the House of Commons bars. Hopefully the MDP will rectify this and when published at the end of December as currently planned, and a revised RFI will be released with some additional funding and even a reduction in number to four, all to increase the capability of the T-31e and making it more of a team player. The niche I see for it is as a GP vessels that leans more to anti-ship missions. This is an area the RN is seriously deficient in, especially in the density of any strike it can launch against an enemy formation. Adding a few more Sea Ceptor to any Task Group will also help. Both of these do not require expensive hull and machinery quietening, not costly ASW systems. I say this because at present he RN is gong to have an excellent AAW platform (T-45) when fixed and a world class ASW platform (T-26), but will be vulnerable to surface action and cannot rely on its small contingent of F-35s to protect it.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Nov 2018, 05:53

Lord Jim wrote:the MDP [will rectify this and] when published at the end of December as currently planned
Where did you pick up this information? The NAO, when publishing its bit on the 2018 EPP - mainly on its affordability - was already worrying that the 2019 edition will effectively need to be put together without the MDP outcomes (officially) guiding it, i.e. pending publication exc. perhaps at headline level :?

Lord Jim wrote: RN is gong to have an excellent AAW platform (T-45) when fixed and a world class ASW platform (T-26), but will be vulnerable to surface action and cannot rely on its small contingent of F-35s to protect it.

I quite agree. The likelihood of one (at the time) carrier is quite high (as for availability) and so is the slant towards an airwing to support littoral ops
- which means so few F-35s that i tfhey "fly strike" and have two rotating through a constant CAP mission, then anti-ship missions at short notice won't enter "the equation"
- JSM should be made a high priority, being VLS capable and extendable to F-35s (and why not to P-8s, which - if we follow the "100% USN fit" thinking - will get SLAM that is not otherwise used. Nothing wrong with it, in itself).

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Nov 2018, 08:28

dmereifield wrote:1) how far along the T31 procurement programme are we? When will the order be placed?

2) when will the MDP be published? I think it might be too late to affect the outcome of the T31 process
I don't think anything meaningful will be decided with the T31 programme unless it's part of the MDP and the upcoming funding settlement. It may be announced in advance of the MDP and/or the funding settlement but not before they have been finalised.

(for the "first" batch of 5, at least)
If it's Leander do we really want more than five? How many eight or ten?

What is the point of rebuilding the fleet if we do it with just about the least capable frigate in the world?

If we are aiming at building something like ten T31's at £250m each, I would suggest a better plan would be to build five at £500m.

It's worth considering that with a crew allocation of 120 per Leander, three extra Leanders would crew either an LPH or two T26's and one an OPV.

It's all a question of priorities.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5357
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 Nov 2018, 08:32

Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020.
Why not?

Because the money for Ship 7 & 8 does not exist yet.

I trust you understand where the MOD get their money from? It's not one big finite pot they can use however they like. Its an annual budget, so you cant spent 2031's money in 2021.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Nov 2018, 08:37

shark bait wrote: Its an annual budget, so you cant spent 2031's money in 2021.


Following that logic, where is the money for ships 4, 5 and 6?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5357
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 Nov 2018, 08:48

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, when T31s are to be commissioned in mid-to-late 2020s, ASW will be the priority? Or, another Islamic-state like organization might be the major threat on world-trade (sea-lanes)? Not sure.


Even if the Russian submarine threat was removed, global submarine activity is still growing, predominantly driven by China not Russia.

A well designed ASW frigate can easily accommodate global security roles, look at the T23 as the perfect example, and those roles require no bespoke hull features.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2077
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 14 Nov 2018, 09:01

ASW is critical no matter what. Gabe knows more about it, but don't forget even in Libya the presence of one Libyan sub caused some headaches.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5357
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 14 Nov 2018, 09:36

Yes, even that old thing went missing for a while, and there is a much better documented example from the Falklands, resulting in lots of dead whale.

Submarines are in the hands of 40 nations, of which around half are NATO / NATO-aligned.
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 14 Nov 2018, 09:58

Re recent discussion of the T31 and whether to class it as general purpose frigate or in my view an OPV, found the following for reference, though do not think it will change any views, it's a question of nuances, important ones, below opposing views expressed.

House of Commons Defence Committee Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy Third Report of Session 2016–17 - 15 November 2016, re T31, a few excepts, ref below for full text.

Admiral Jones, FSL confirmed to us that the trade-off therefore required the development of a frigate which would be at “a slightly lower end of Royal Navy operations” Within these parameters, Admiral Jones emphasised that the GPFF would be a “complex warship” with the capability to “protect and defend and to exert influence around the world”

A House of Commons Library Paper highlighted, the MoD’s definition of a “complex warship” is open to interpretation " A warship is generally defined as a surface ship or submarine armed and equipped for military use. In the context of warships, the word “complex” is used commonly as a relative rather than an absolute, defined term. It enables us to differentiate between vessels across a broad spectrum of capability depending on their size, form, function and scale of integration between the on-board systems required to fulfil their role."

Speaking to IHS Jane’s in early 2015, Admiral Sir George Zambellas, the then First Sea Lord, was unequivocal in his belief that the high-end capability envisaged for the Type 26 frigates should not be downgraded for the GPFF: One of the siren calls I completely resist is to try and produce something that is not a credible platform, something that is smaller, cheaper, and less effective. He further argued: The other thing is you don’t have less credible platforms trying to protect major assets, nor do you try to put them into partnership with senior alliance partners. So if you’re protecting an American carrier or a French carrier it’s got to be credible. If you’re doing air defence, it’s got to be credible. And if you’re doing anti-submarine warfare, it’s got to be credible.

Neither Lord West nor Sir Mark Stanhope was convinced that the GPFF would deliver the capabilities required by the Royal Navy. Lord West described the GPFF as “jam tomorrow” and saw the development of a less capable ship as being a retrograde step: In the Falklands war, HMS Exeter was doing drug patrols in the Caribbean. She sailed straight to the South Atlantic and killed more Argentinian aircraft with her Sea Dart than any other ship there. That was the high-end capability, and we will have lost that.

Sir Mark Stanhope agreed and highlighted anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and close range sonar as two capabilities which he believed would be absent. He said that: Modern day ASW is about silent platforms. Silent platforms cost and, quite clearly, in cost terms, the general purpose frigate will be nothing like that”.

In response, Admiral Jones asserted that the GPFF frigates would “not only fill in the gaps but do more”.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 21/221.pdf

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2077
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 14 Nov 2018, 10:37

"In response, Admiral Jones asserted that the GPFF frigates would “not only fill in the gaps but do more”."

When their only response to a detailed, researched, expert opinion with examples and specific points is a vague 9 word statement with absolutely no details on exactly what it "does" or "can do", that says everything about how pathetic this entire idea really is.

If it was worthwhile, then they could have countered the point about exactly what it will do. Tell West and Stan why they're wrong, and give examples of the intended capability. But he couldn't.

Said it since the start: it's designed purely around "what is the minimum requirement to give us soundbites we can say when questioned?" as its prime design factor above all else.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Nov 2018, 11:01

For me the way forward is clear when it comes to the surface fleet.

1 ) type 45 remove Aster 15 and convert to CAMM and have a load out of 40 CAMM in 10 cells and 38 Aster 30 in the rest giving type 45 a total load out of 78 AAW missiles covering from 1 km to 120 kms

2 ) make the 5 type 31s ASW platforms capable of supporting carrier group operations for me I would like to see a ship something like

120 meters by 14.4 meters
Artisan radar
BAE CMS
CAPTAS sonar
1 x 57 mm , 2 x 30 mm , 1 x phalanx , 24 cell VLS to carry 32 CAMM and 16 ASROC

3 ) the above two will now release the 8 type 26s from the carrier group to carry out global freedom of navigation patrols and support amphi operations in the form of MCM , local AAW , land attack and NGFS

4 ) we need 12 to 14 Multi mission MHPC sloops capable of carrying out high end MCM , Hyrogaphic , littoral ASW plus be able to conducted patrols in low threat areas and for me I would like it look like

100 meters by 16 meters
speed 20 knots
Scanter 4100 radar
BAE CMS
Hull mount Sonar
hangar for wildcat , UAV
1 x 57 mm , 2 x 30 mm , FFBNW phalanx ( weapon to come from RN Stock if needed)

For me we are fully capable of having this truly global fleet for not a lot more money in real teams of UK GDP l think a 1 billion pound uplift in the type 31 program and proper planing and funding of the MHCP program

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 Nov 2018, 12:29

NickC wrote:...Speaking to IHS Jane’s in early 2015, Admiral Sir George Zambellas, the then First Sea Lord, was unequivocal in his belief that the high-end capability envisaged for the Type 26 frigates should not be downgraded for the GPFF: One of the siren calls I completely resist is to try and produce something that is not a credible platform, something that is smaller, cheaper, and less effective. He further argued: The other thing is you don’t have less credible platforms trying to protect major assets, nor do you try to put them into partnership with senior alliance partners. So if you’re protecting an American carrier or a French carrier it’s got to be credible. If you’re doing air defence, it’s got to be credible. And if you’re doing anti-submarine warfare, it’s got to be credible.
I read this before. Quality and quantity, Sir Zambellas was arguing for BOTH. And simply, he lost the game. That's it. He was completely correct on saying what RN needs, but was not correct in vision to win the game. Anyway, as a fact, MOD did not get that money. In some sense, he was too optimistic.

Although it is not his fault, I really hoped if he sticked to quality first, and then quantity. If so, now we should have had a plan for "10 T26", not "8 T26 and 5 T31e" (As I said, my favorite option is the former).

Actually, RN is now setting aside 2 escort because of lack of man-power, so "10 T26" has virtually no problem.

As I remember, then we were happily (optimistically) discussing about Vanator 110 or Spartan, and saying BAE proposing Cutlass (now Leander) and Avenger (River B3 like) as a bullshit. (Sometimes I push Cutlass as being cheap, but many here said it is tooo low specification). But, it turned out that BAE was correct. The budget is the key, no chance for Venator 110, and Spartan is further miles away than Venator. Actually, it was even cheaper than BAE thought, so that BAE abandoned the bid. Even the pessimistic BAE was optimistic than reality.

# Interestingly Camell Laired stood up in place of BAE, and bid for Cutlass (now named Leander).

....

I might be wrong, but, I "feel" Sir John Parker's report destroyed many things. Surely he was too optimistic. What he said can be regarded as "quantity-first" than quality.



Optimism is very important to make things forward. But, strategy must have a hidden solid basement, covered by optimistic outlook. If there is only the "optimistic outlook", it leads to disaster. I think this is very common sense, but not sure if it is common in RN/MOD.

If we assume at RN's current plan has a hidden solid basement, I think it is "8 T26". Therefore, I strongly propose to shift the key decision point of T31e after SDSR 2020. This is critically important. If not, if SDSR 2020 needs something to cut, there are only three places to go, either cut "8 T26" or put PoW in reserve, or disband both "Albions".

I am more happy to cancel T31e than cutting these three.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Nov 2018, 16:37

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:the MDP [will rectify this and] when published at the end of December as currently planned
Where did you pick up this information? The NAO, when publishing its bit on the 2018 EPP - mainly on its affordability - was already worrying that the 2019 edition will effectively need to be put together without the MDP outcomes (officially) guiding it, i.e. pending publication exc. perhaps at headline level :?

Lord Jim wrote: RN is gong to have an excellent AAW platform (T-45) when fixed and a world class ASW platform (T-26), but will be vulnerable to surface action and cannot rely on its small contingent of F-35s to protect it.

I quite agree. The likelihood of one (at the time) carrier is quite high (as for availability) and so is the slant towards an airwing to support littoral ops
- which means so few F-35s that i tfhey "fly strike" and have two rotating through a constant CAP mission, then anti-ship missions at short notice won't enter "the equation"
- JSM should be made a high priority, being VLS capable and extendable to F-35s (and why not to P-8s, which - if we follow the "100% USN fit" thinking - will get SLAM that is not otherwise used. Nothing wrong with it, in itself).


The MDP timeline was repeatedly stated in sessions of the Defence Select Committee over recent months.

NickC
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 14 Nov 2018, 16:43

Tempest414 wrote: make the 5 type 31s ASW platforms capable of supporting carrier group operations for me I would like to see a ship something like

120 meters by 14.4 meters
Artisan radar
BAE CMS
CAPTAS sonar
1 x 57 mm , 2 x 30 mm , 1 x phalanx , 24 cell VLS to carry 32 CAMM and 16 ASROC

the above two will now release the 8 type 26s from the carrier group to carry out global freedom of navigation patrols and support amphi operations in the form of MCM , local AAW , land attack and NGFS



As Sir Mark Stanhope "Modern day ASW is about silent platforms. Silent platforms cost and, quite clearly, in cost terms, the general purpose frigate will be nothing like that”

So think ASW T31 is a non-starter as far as i know, no mention/hint that it will be built with a silent hull so necessary to have realistic chance of finding a new gen very quiet SSK, the only offensive firepower it brings to the party is a slow helicopter with a short range AShM 110kg Sea Venom with 30kg warhead intended for targeting ships of 50t to 500t at a range ~ 25km, a 2" main gun and 16 short range, ~12 mile, ASROC's for launching LWTs. As a member of a carrier support group it might be used as an advance sacrificial picket, though its low max speed may compromise that role, my view that the ASW capabilities not in the same league as T23/26 necessary to protect the carrier.

So basically looking for role for the very limited capabilities for the T31.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Nov 2018, 16:50

Lord Jim wrote:The MDP timeline was repeatedly stated in sessions of the Defence Select Committee over recent months.


Thx, yes, there will no outcomes (exc. for the money now received), and they will rename it. And it will be back to being a thread, within a x-Whitehall exercise, ie. following the "Fusion Doctrine".

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Nov 2018, 17:25

NickC wrote:As Sir Mark Stanhope "Modern day ASW is about silent platforms. Silent platforms cost and, quite clearly, in cost terms, the general purpose frigate will be nothing like that”

So think ASW T31 is a non-starter as far as i know, no mention/hint that it will be built with a silent hull so necessary to have realistic chance of finding a new gen very quiet SSK, the only offensive firepower it brings to the party is a slow helicopter with a short range AShM 110kg Sea Venom with 30kg warhead intended for targeting ships of 50t to 500t at a range ~ 25km, a 2" main gun and 16 short range, ~12 mile, ASROC's for launching LWTs. As a member of a carrier support group it might be used as an advance sacrificial picket, though its low max speed may compromise that role, my view that the ASW capabilities not in the same league as T23/26 necessary to protect the carrier.

So basically looking for role for the very limited capabilities for the T31.


As type 31 has not yet been picked and is not in final design and there is time to make changes ( all be it this will add to delays in the first ship hitting the water ) I fill there is a opportunity with extra funding ( as said 1 billion pounds ) to make type 31 into a desant ASW . as for its fire power as you put if armed as I would like it would be I feel with a 57mm , phalanx , 32 CAMM and 16 ASROCit would be more than up to the task of defending its self and supporting near by ships when working with the rest of the carrier group and its Merlins. as for its slow helicopter Wildcat is capable of 180 + knots and can carry 2 stingray torpedo's so in my eyes not so slow and brings fight to group

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 14 Nov 2018, 19:08

Wildcat is one of the faster helicopters around. Slightly slower than Chinook, but (just) faster than pretty much everything else (experimental designs aside). And 2 x Stingray or 8 x Sea Venom would seem quite useful in any number of ways. A heavier air-launched missile (more in the Penguin/ AGM119 mould) would be nice as well
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Digger22
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 14 Nov 2018, 19:36

There's a lot to be said about a T26 light. Ability to grow or not, and when a Pesky Enemy Sub Commander takes a peek at her Silhouette through his attack scope, he sees a T26!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Nov 2018, 04:14

Caribbean wrote:Wildcat is one of the faster helicopters around. Slightly slower than Chinook, but (just) faster than pretty much everything else (experimental designs aside). And 2 x Stingray or 8 x Sea Venom would seem quite useful in any number of ways. A heavier air-launched missile (more in the Penguin/ AGM119 mould) would be nice as well


I think you might be mixing you AShMs. The Wildcat can only carry four Sea Venom or twenty Martlet or a combination of the two plus as mentioned it can carry two Stingray. It could also carry eight Hellfire 2/Brimstone 2, whatever the Apache is carrying as an alternative but would need some minor modifications though mainly software.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Nov 2018, 08:12

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020.
Why not?

Because the money for Ship 7 & 8 does not exist yet.

I trust you understand where the MOD get their money from? It's not one big finite pot they can use however they like. Its an annual budget, so you cant spent 2031's money in 2021.
I understand fully where the MOD gets the money from thank you.

Are you suggesting that the MOD budget is now fixed out to 2030? No possible divergence at all?

In that time period it's possible that the UK could have a change of Government a number of times as well as two or three SDSR's. Will that budget structure survive a change of Government or an SDSR?

What would a new Governments priorities be? F35's or ships built in the UK?

What if the strength of the pound increases vs the dollar/euro over the next decade and the cost of the F35's and P8's etc drop substantially? How does that affect the budget in 2030? If the pound recovers to 2008 levels many billions of pounds will in effect be added to the MOD over the next decade.

It's worth bearing in mind that between 2019 and 2030, combined MOD funding will be in the region of £400bn. The idea that £500m to £1bn can't be found in the same time period to ensure that the UK has a sufficient number of ASW Frigates is simply not credible in my view. It's all a question of priorities.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gordon44, Mark, Paf_82 and 5 guests