Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Escort numbers are clearly far too low and a target of around 24 escort/patrol vessels (blue water) looks like an achievable goal.
Whilst my personal sweet spot is also 24, I think the RN should be a little more realistic and focus on getting 19 real escorts. Even with 19 escorts it can still pull together one of the most powerful forces at sea;
  • 19 escorts = 6 at sea = 3 with QE + 1 UK + 2 Overseas.
  • If the RN's latest forward basing experiment works out the programme will be extended, increasing overseas availability further.
  • If MHCP is well designed, it could tow a sonar around the UK, releasing yet another frigate.
If well designed, with suitable man power, the future fleet would work very well with 19 escorts.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Simply bolting all the bells and whistles onto something like Leander or Arrowhead 120/140 isn't going to make a 'Son of T23'. It would need to be based on an acoustically quiet hull with hybrid propulsion to begin with.
How about a new build T23? Same hull form, with a 'stealthy' super structure, and a very similar propulsion system (it's currently being stripped out and rebuilt with new tech).
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six.
It's a solution that doesn't solve the problem. The money for the final city class units its not available until the 30's, but the T31 need's extra in the 20's.

The other build projects active in the same period as the T31 are Dreadnought and Fleet Support Ship, so if more money is requited it has to be robbed from one of these. It's more or less impossible to steel from Dreadnought, but perhaps its possible to take the money from the third FSS?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Whilst my personal sweet spot is also 24, I think the RN should be a little more realistic and focus on getting 19 real escorts. Even with 19 escorts it can still pull together one of the most powerful forces at sea;
19 escorts = 6 at sea = 3 with QE + 1 UK + 2 Overseas.
If the RN's latest forward basing experiment works out the programme will be extended, increasing overseas availability further.
If MHCP is well designed, it could tow a sonar around the UK, releasing yet another frigate.
If well designed, with suitable man power, the future fleet would work very well with 19 escorts.

I agree but for me this why it is important that we get 5 type XX ASW frigates that are for the carrier group ops as there primary role 2 for each carrier the way I see it would be

Carrier group 1) 1 x Carrier , 2 x type 45 AAW , 2 x type XX ASW , 1 x Tide , 1 x FFS
Carrier group 2) as above

this would leave 2 x type 45 , 8 x type 26 and 1 type XX for UK , NATO and global deployments. I would like to see the type 26s used something like

ship 1 deploys for 10 months and sails for the Med with port visit to Gib it spends 2 months in the Med with 1 weeks shore leave in Cyprus at the end of the 2 month ( Family can fly out for a holiday ). The ship then moves into Gulf for 2 months before heading into the Indian ocean for 2 months with 2 weeks shore leave in Singapore at the end of this ( Again family can fly out). The ship then moves into the Asian-Pacific for 2 months before heading home with some port visits this routine is repeated with 4 ships at sea.

This would leave 7 escorts for TAPS , FRE , and NATO / maintenance

All other tasks would be conducted by 14 100 meter MHPC Multi mission sloops

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Why does everyone keep saying that the CBG will have 2 T45 routinely? Surely we don't have enough? Given that the T31 looks like it will bring little value to NATO ops, isn't it more likely that the T45s will be used for NATO ops and contributions to allied CBGs?

I think that routinely we are more likely to see the CBG comprised of:

1 QE
2 T26/23
1 T45
1 SSS
1 Tide
This core will often be supplemented with some of the following, depending on the threat environment and other ships (allied/UK) deployed in the region:

1 x Astute
X number of allied escorts
X number of additional UK escorts

Therefore, 2 T45 and 4 T26/23 Will be tied to the carriers. This leaves 4 T26/23 and 4 T45 left for other deployments. Assuming 2 T26/23 will be on TAPS, there are 6 remaining escorts available (4 T45 and 2 T26/23) generating 2 available at any time for standing deployments. In addition, the 5 T31 will be available (some forward deployed) to help with low threat work, flag waving and to add mass as and when.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We are only going to need one escort group for the Carriers and we are not going to see both operational at the same time regardless of what has been put out by the MoD. I think there will be 2+2 escorts for the available carrier on operational deployments for the T-45 and T-26 respectively with other nations possibly adding to this and hopefully a SSN will be available. Task Force air defence is going to be interesting as if the F-35s are used for Air Defence the strike capability is going to be very limited so assuming they are used as the offensive arm of the Task Force, as the surface ships have few AShMs, then AAW platforms are going to be very important, hence why I think there will be 2 T-45s in the Force.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

dmereifield wrote:Given that the T31 looks like it will bring little value to NATO ops
My point is that by making type 31/ XX a more capable ASW frigate that would with the carrier group it frees up the much more capable T26 for all other tasks big or small

my thinking is When 1 carrier is at sea with it group the other will be in port / refit with its group leaving the remaining

2 x T45
8 x T26
1 x T31

to conducted global operations as I have laid out above if you want to send only 1 T45 out with a given group then that would free up 2 more ships the call is yours but for an extra 1 billion we can have the fleet I have laid out

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Lord Jim wrote:We are only going to need one escort group for the Carriers and we are not going to see both operational at the same time regardless of what has been put out by the MoD. I think there will be 2+2 escorts for the available carrier on operational deployments for the T-45 and T-26 respectively with other nations possibly adding to this and hopefully a SSN will be available. Task Force air defence is going to be interesting as if the F-35s are used for Air Defence the strike capability is going to be very limited so assuming they are used as the offensive arm of the Task Force, as the surface ships have few AShMs, then AAW platforms are going to be very important, hence why I think there will be 2 T-45s in the Force.
I am suggesting that the escorts will be used on a same rotational basis as the carriers, so 1 T45 and 2 T26/23 Will be tied to each carrier, even though only one is likely to be deployed at any given time, this still takes 2 T45 and 4 T26/23 out of the general escort fleet available for other ops

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:We are only going to need one escort group for the Carriers and we are not going to see both operational at the same time regardless of what has been put out by the MoD.
A great wartime leader (of ours) said that the most dangerous thing is if we believe our own propaganda. Now, let's not turn that on its head, but go with the 1.4 carriers (as the avg for availability)?
Lord Jim wrote:Task Force air defence is going to be interesting as if the F-35s are used for Air Defence the strike capability is going to be very limited so assuming they are used as the offensive arm of the Task Force
This is a key point (as 1POINT4 is closer to one than 2).
dmereifield wrote: 2 T45 and 4 T26/23 Will be tied to the carriers. This leaves 4 T26/23 and 4 T45 left for other deployments. Assuming 2 T26/23 will be on TAPS, there are 6 remaining escorts available (4 T45 and 2 T26/23) generating 2 available at any time for standing deployments. In addition, the 5 T31 will be available
- I like this kind of WBS (Work Breakdown Structures; which of course are based on averages, over the longer run than on any snapshot)
- so 4/3 = 1.33 AAW and 2/3 = 0.66 ASW
- where did that go wrong? Well, it did not, as on a standing task ("too hot to handle" for a T31) a swarm of missiles/ aircraft is a much more likely surprise than a stalking submarine. The latter can never be dressed up as a "tragic co-incidence" but would be an outright declaration of war

Of course our two ships total (1.33+0.66) will be much affected by the need to make big holes onto the T45s for their gensets, but on the other hand there will soon be no more T23s going through LEP
- and :o should the next AAW platform be a T26 derivative, they might be more apt in the sub-hunting task than the "purebreds" that we now have in the stables, in the form of the T-45s
- so 'sliding the ruler' over the two ships total (1.33+0.66) would - by then - be less of a concern
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

AS for using a T-26 derivative to eventually replace the T-45, well Sampson Mk2 should be ready about then, keep the 4 MK41 VLS forward (my preferred option for the T-26) and add 6 to 8 Sylver VLS where the Mission bay currently is and in principal you have a possible design, but then again I am no expert.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Lord Jim wrote: Sampson Mk2 should be ready about then
Is any such thing being worked on? After Artisan things seem to have gone silent. (And the MoD wanting to investigate CEAFAR doesn't bode well as to their confidence behind the scenes that something new from the Isles is incoming.)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:AS for using a T-26 derivative to eventually replace the T-45, well Sampson Mk2 should be ready about then, keep the 4 MK41 VLS forward (my preferred option for the T-26) and add 6 to 8 Sylver VLS where the Mission bay currently is and in principal you have a possible design, but then again I am no expert.
Wouldn't a mid ship plug of say 16m be a better option, this would allow the greater number of VLS needed for AAW while still keeping the mission bay for any future needs that are unseen as of yet. It would also bring it to a similar size of the ABs and the new proposed Italian design.

Why add sylver lurnchers ? It just adds a other layer of training and maintainence that could be gotten rid of, surely mk41 across the fleet as the sole hot lurnch VLS is the senible way to go.

The T45 replacement would also need a much greater number of VLS so that it's not limited to AAW only, to allow a capable AAW for saturation attacks, BMD, AShM and maybe a small number of ASW missiles for self defends a VLS load out of around 96 would be needed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: Sampson Mk2 should be ready about then
Is any such thing being worked on? After Artisan things seem to have gone silent. (And the MoD wanting to investigate CEAFAR doesn't bode well as to their confidence behind the scenes that something new from the Isles is incoming.)
This would be very disappointing as it is one area we are world leading in, if CEAFAR is chosen it could spelling the end for indigenous ship born radar in the UK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

I think some of the recent posts on this thread may be better moved to the fantasy area.

The RN has stated the intention that a carrier will deploy with 2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 (plus Tide, FSS, and possibly associated SSN and allied ships). Deployments with fewer escorts will only be into low threat areas, and even then this would limit the ability of the group to be rapidly re-deployed to emerging situations and not allow the UK carrier group to take on the tasks of US carrier groups.

The RN has stated the intention that one carrier will be either deployed or at very high readiness. The other carrier will be at high readiness (20 or 30 days notice to move). This will require all 6 T45s and 6 T23/26:
2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 at R0 to R3 for the lead carrier
2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 at R4 or R5 for the second carrier
2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 at medium or low readiness (training or refit).

The remaining 2 x T23/26 will be taken up by TAPS.

I do not understand why people here want to "free up the T26 for other global task". What are these tasks that would require the world's best ASW frigate? If war fighting against top tier opponents, what would a single T26 ship offer? And if not war fighting against top tier opponents, why not use a T31?

The idea of using the T31 as a ASW carrier escort is ludicrous. The carrier group will be a prime target. Its escorts must over-match the threats. To meet this requirement, what you end up with is something almost exactly like a T26 and certainly not anything significantly less expensive.

You could maybe remove everything non-ASW from the T26 to make a pure ASW escort. But the experience of the RN over the last 70 years is ships are almost never used in combat as originally intended by the designers. Narrow, single role ships have been shown to be a false economy.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Aethulwulf wrote:This would be very disappointing as it is one area we are world leading in, if CEAFAR is chosen it could spelling the end for indigenous ship born radar in the UK
I’d argue that there is a potential for a technology share to build a next generation radar which could be fitted to later versions of the Hunters or a follow in AAW version for the RN to replace the T45.
Aethulwulf wrote:I do not understand why people here want to "free up the T26 for other global task". What are these tasks that would require the world's best ASW frigate? If war fighting against top tier opponents, what would a single T26 ship offer? And if not war fighting against top tier opponents, why not use a T31?
Would agree with the general thrust of this quote, but if you ditch the T31 and buy another ASW T26, then I think there is an argument to forward base in Australia to sail with their task groups - it would give presence in an increasingly important region and also build joint RN / RAN / RNZN capabilities.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A good thing someone introduces some sense/ perspective:
Aethulwulf wrote:some of the recent posts on this thread may be better moved to the fantasy area.
Aethulwulf wrote: I do not understand why people here want to "free up the T26 for other global task".
- a noble thought, if we had plenty of them: like the cruiser sqdrns of "late"
Aethulwulf wrote:escorts must over-match the threats
- the only way you can assure yourself that, whatever the mission overall, it will be delivered
Aethulwulf wrote:ships are almost never used in combat as originally intended by the designers. Narrow, single role ships have been shown to be a false economy
:thumbup:
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

RetroSicotte wrote:s any such thing being worked on? After Artisan things seem to have gone silent. (And the MoD wanting to investigate CEAFAR doesn't bode well as to their confidence behind the scenes that something new from the Isles is incoming.)
Seem to remember that BAE mentioned that there was some upgrade work being planned for Artisan. I suspect it was in relation to a GaN antenna.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Aethulwulf wrote:I do not understand why people here want to "free up the T26 for other global task". What are these tasks that would require the world's best ASW frigate? If war fighting against top tier opponents, what would a single T26 ship offer? And if not war fighting against top tier opponents, why not use a T31?

The idea of using the T31 as a ASW carrier escort is ludicrous. The carrier group will be a prime target. Its escorts must over-match the threats. To meet this requirement, what you end up with is something almost exactly like a T26 and certainly not anything significantly less expensive.
Because the T26 will also be among the worlds best GP Frigates, where as the T31 is shaping up to be little more than a patrol frigate. The T26 offers the biggest gun the RN has had in decades, with the most advanced rounds its ever had. It offers the biggest AAW suite the RN has ever has, and it is the first ship in RN service to have the capacity to launch cruise missiles. Plus it has a mission bay!

The carrier group needs ships to tow a sonar, and direct Merlin from the carrier to investigate contacts. That does not require a 7,000 tonne frigate with a big expensive gun, cruise missiles, or a mission bay.

It is possible to build a very good small ASW Frigate (see T23), it is difficult to build a very good small GP Frigate.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Jake1992 wrote:This would be very disappointing as it is one area we are world leading in, if CEAFAR is chosen it could spelling the end for indigenous ship born radar in the UK
Decent at maintaining ones for the ships, most definitely not world leading.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

If we want to cover the broad front, without being left behind on any, then defence co-operation is the name of the game. E.g.
- they buy our frigate designs and we (?) their radar specs
- as the above is purely speculative, let's add Meteor: Japan buys our missiles and we buy their radars (to put onto them)

This is a different game from buying 'off the shelf' from the US. We have, in the past, tried to get into those value chains. But it is difficult to see the value, if the price of the product is doubled (e.g. the original Apache; the Chinook SF-edition does not even bear mentioning).
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 »

Aethulwulf-san, I think your point is very important and good. But, those of the others, as well.
Aethulwulf wrote:The RN has stated the intention that a carrier will deploy with 2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 (plus Tide, FSS, and possibly associated SSN and allied ships). Deployments with fewer escorts will only be into low threat areas, and even then this would limit the ability of the group to be rapidly re-deployed to emerging situations and not allow the UK carrier group to take on the tasks of US carrier groups.
Why not?
UK CVTF in peace time will be associated with Dutch, French, or other NATO escorts. War time is war time. I do not think CVTF will every time have "2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26".

For example, I can see QNLZ deploys with "1 x T45 and 1 x T23/26", associated with a frigate from Europe, and meet the Persian gulf standing escort (another T26) and another USN DDG to form an escort flotilla made up of 5 escorts: 1 T45, 1 Burk DDG, 2 T26 and another allied frigate. I see no big problem here.
The RN has stated the intention that one carrier will be either deployed or at very high readiness. The other carrier will be at high readiness (20 or 30 days notice to move). This will require all 6 T45s and 6 T23/26:
2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 at R0 to R3 for the lead carrier
2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 at R4 or R5 for the second carrier
2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26 at medium or low readiness (training or refit).
The remaining 2 x T23/26 will be taken up by TAPS.
When T45's number was cut from 8 tp 6, HMG plan was to keep 5 T45 at high readiness with 6 hulls. Similarly, HMG is saying 2 CVFs will be both always at high readiness, which I think is possible only for several years.

In other words, I think even if RN plans "2 x T45 and 2 x T23/26" escort flotilla, assigning "4 x T45 and 4 x T23/26" for the 2 carriers will be fine enough.

This will leave us with at least "2 T45 and 2 T23/26" left, in addition to T31es.
What are these tasks that would require the world's best ASW frigate? If war fighting against top tier opponents, what would a single T26 ship offer? And if not war fighting against top tier opponents, why not use a T31?
If we see how RN is using T23ASW and T23GP, I think that is the answer. No difference to T26. Not always going to ASW high-threat area. Also not always to low threat area. There are variety of tasks.
The idea of using the T31 as a ASW carrier escort is ludicrous. The carrier group will be a prime target. Its escorts must over-match the threats. To meet this requirement, what you end up with is something almost exactly like a T26 and certainly not anything significantly less expensive.
I partly agree here. But, in many cases, the threat is NOT high. If we take a glance on the past USN operations, it is evident. Also note a CVF with 15 Merlin (9 for ASW) is a world-class ASW asset by herself.
I do agree "more T26" is a good option than "T26 and T31 mixed fleet", but small ASW oriented ships, or even small GP oriented ships (current T31e) both has its own rationale. So, even though my favorite is "2 more T26" not 5 T31e, discussions on T31e or ASW small vessels is not meaningless.
You could maybe remove everything non-ASW from the T26 to make a pure ASW escort. But the experience of the RN over the last 70 years is ships are almost never used in combat as originally intended by the designers. Narrow, single role ships have been shown to be a false economy.
This is a good rationale to accept "less than 19 escorts" and just build "2 more T26" not 5 T31e.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:This is a good rationale to accept "less than 19 escorts" and just build "2 more T26" not 5 T31e.
But then how do you cover the gap between Type 23 retiring and Type 26 coming in without an unacceptable loss in escort numbers?

Even if the eventual plan is less than 19, it'll drop far far below the 16 mandated by that plan without something else coming into service before the Type 26s will. Where would that be built? How will it account for the Clyde yards losing out on work on the 3 lost T31s? (and believe me that will be a thing, no matter how illogical it sounds)

To a certain extent I agree, but there are still major issues with the plan owing to that escort gap.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Because the T26 will also be among the worlds best GP Frigates, where as the T31 is shaping up to be little more than a patrol frigate. The T26 offers the biggest gun the RN has had in decades, with the most advanced rounds its ever had. It offers the biggest AAW suite the RN has ever has, and it is the first ship in RN service to have the capacity to launch cruise missiles. Plus it has a mission bay!

The carrier group needs ships to tow a sonar, and direct Merlin from the carrier to investigate contacts. That does not require a 7,000 tonne frigate with a big expensive gun, cruise missiles, or a mission bay.

It is possible to build a very good small ASW Frigate (see T23), it is difficult to build a very good small GP Frigate.
For me freeing up type 26 's is key to making the UK a true global force. As I said up thread it would allow us to have 4 world class frigates in 4 parts of the world at any one time as part of standing groups

There is another reason for freeing up the type 26's now while we have the chance and that is that it offers up a more options i.e if the UK were to replace the Albions in the future with say a Canberra class LHD the UK could deploy in times of war

2 x Carrier groups with 1 x Carrier , 1 x Astute , 2 x type 45 AAW , 2 x type 31/XX ASW , 1 tide , 1 FSS

1 x Ampib group with 1 x Canberra class , 6 x type 26 Global combat ship , 2 x Bay class , 3 x Point class , 1 Tide

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:AS for using a T-26 derivative to eventually replace the T-45, well Sampson Mk2 should be ready about then, keep the 4 MK41 VLS forward (my preferred option for the T-26) and add 6 to 8 Sylver VLS where the Mission bay currently is and in principal you have a possible design, but then again I am no expert.
Wouldn't a mid ship plug of say 16m be a better option, this would allow the greater number of VLS needed for AAW while still keeping the mission bay for any future needs that are unseen as of yet. It would also bring it to a similar size of the ABs and the new proposed Italian design.

Why add sylver lurnchers ? It just adds a other layer of training and maintainence that could be gotten rid of, surely mk41 across the fleet as the sole hot lurnch VLS is the senible way to go.

The T45 replacement would also need a much greater number of VLS so that it's not limited to AAW only, to allow a capable AAW for saturation attacks, BMD, AShM and maybe a small number of ASW missiles for self defends a VLS load out of around 96 would be needed
I was trying to keep thinks relatively simple, at least on paper. This would be a dedicated AAW platform first and foremost, and the idea would be to keep the same hull as the T-26. In this role the Mission Bay is not essential. As for the Sylver VLS, well it is actually a very good area defence system. The Mk41s in the bow would allow a multitude of weapon option in addition to those offered by the Sylver. Having a load out of 64 Aster 30, 32 Sea Ceptor, 16 TLAMs and 8 VL-ASROC would be quiet a formidable missile inventory.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:This is a good rationale to accept "less than 19 escorts" and just build "2 more T26" not 5 T31e.
But then how do you cover the gap between Type 23 retiring and Type 26 coming in without an unacceptable loss in escort numbers?

Even if the eventual plan is less than 19, it'll drop far far below the 16 mandated by that plan without something else coming into service before the Type 26s will. Where would that be built? How will it account for the Clyde yards losing out on work on the 3 lost T31s? (and believe me that will be a thing, no matter how illogical it sounds)

To a certain extent I agree, but there are still major issues with the plan owing to that escort gap.
Yes, it needs speeding up T26 build. The first 3 to go is not problem.
- T23GP-hull1 and 2 shall decommission soon, with no impact on fleet deployment.
- Considering the "delivery" year of 2025, T26-hull1 will be manned by the crew of T23GP-3 (to decommission on 2025), (the crew is needed when the ship is delivered, not when it is commissioned).
- T26-hull-2 will be delivered on 2026, with crew from T23GP-4 (2026). T23GP-5 will decommission on 2027 and the crew will be used elsewhere.
- T26-hull-3 will be delivered on 2028, with crew from T23ASW-1 (2027).

From here, we need to speed up to build program. With improving learning curve, I think "9" is possible. To make it "10", use Camell Laired to build some blocks.

- T26-hull-4 will be delivered on 2029, with crew from T23ASW-2 (2029).
- T26-hull-5 can be delivered on 2030, with crew from T23ASW-3 (2030).
- T26-hull-6 can be delivered on 2031, with crew from T23ASW-4 (2031).
- T26-hull-7 can be delivered on 2033, with crew from T23ASW-5 (2032+1 year extension :36 years old).
- T26-hull-8 can be delivered on 2034, with crew from T23ASW-6 (2033+1 year extension :34 years old).
- T26-hull-9 can be delivered on 2036, with crew from T23ASW-7 (2034+2 year extension :35 years old)).
- T26-hull-10 can be delivered on 2037, with crew from T23ASW-8 (2035+2 year extension :35 years old), and will commission on 2038. :thumbup:

On 2039, T45-hull1 is 30 years old. Not so bad, I think.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:AS for using a T-26 derivative to eventually replace the T-45, well Sampson Mk2 should be ready about then, keep the 4 MK41 VLS forward (my preferred option for the T-26) and add 6 to 8 Sylver VLS where the Mission bay currently is and in principal you have a possible design, but then again I am no expert.
Wouldn't a mid ship plug of say 16m be a better option, this would allow the greater number of VLS needed for AAW while still keeping the mission bay for any future needs that are unseen as of yet. It would also bring it to a similar size of the ABs and the new proposed Italian design.

Why add sylver lurnchers ? It just adds a other layer of training and maintainence that could be gotten rid of, surely mk41 across the fleet as the sole hot lurnch VLS is the senible way to go.

The T45 replacement would also need a much greater number of VLS so that it's not limited to AAW only, to allow a capable AAW for saturation attacks, BMD, AShM and maybe a small number of ASW missiles for self defends a VLS load out of around 96 would be needed
I was trying to keep thinks relatively simple, at least on paper. This would be a dedicated AAW platform first and foremost, and the idea would be to keep the same hull as the T-26. In this role the Mission Bay is not essential. As for the Sylver VLS, well it is actually a very good area defence system. The Mk41s in the bow would allow a multitude of weapon option in addition to those offered by the Sylver. Having a load out of 64 Aster 30, 32 Sea Ceptor, 16 TLAMs and 8 VL-ASROC would be quiet a formidable missile inventory.
I can see where your coming from and I agree it would be a very capable AAW platform, my concern of using an unchanged T26 hull as described above limits its future growth and flexibility ( this is why Italy and the US are going for much larger platforms )

For me I'm thinking with limited numbers and the ever increasing use and capability of off board systems none of our vessels can be limited to just a single role such as AAW only, that why my thinking is a simple 16m plug mid ship would allow the extra VLS needed for AAW while keeping the mission bay and future margins. A simple plug as surgested would be a simple way increasing the hulls capability with minimal redisgn costs.

In regard to sylver lurncher they are that just VLS not and actual AAW system, in the long run it'd be cheaper to pay for aster 30 to be aquifed for use in mk41 and go with a single hot lurncher.

Post Reply