UK Defence Forum

dmereifield wrote:Is a T31 as you've described really better than the La Fayette? After upgrade?

I think so.
12 CAMM SAM vs 12 Mistral manpads is a huge difference in AAW.
For ASW, La Fayette will carry a hull sonar and AS torpedo. It is good addition. But I think RN is not going to think T31 as an ASW asset. Also, if needed, T31 can do the same later relatively cheaply, as the requirement was “fit to receive” hull sonar, at least when at RFI.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:They are doing what the Danes and the Dutch have already done: build them in a cheap location, fit them out at home

It's an efficient method of procurement and it will be interesting to see how efficient the T31 programme turns out to be in comparison. If we really can build Arrowhead 140's in the UK, on time and on budget for £250m I will be astounded. It might not be as efficient as building them in Romania but it will be efficient enough.

Apologies, way off topic.....

Hurrah!

Beautiful ship, she is.

Notice she is armed with 4 MGs (2 in bridge wing, and 2 on flight deck), in addition to the 30mm gun.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Beautiful ship, she is.

Agree, she could be a stunner with a medium gun and rear CIWS

Interesting when you compare the Amazonas class versus the B2s - the space behind the bridge either side of the mast is empty and large enough for a number of options, perhaps even fitting a port and starboard Phalanx when operating EoS, wouldn’t be that significant a modification.

Amazonas



vs River B2

By far the cheapest option is to fit a 57mm and two 30mm if fitting from new however if taking a Phalanx from the pool then maybe the best way is to fit the Phalanx upfront and fit 2 30mm's on the side

Repulse wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Beautiful ship, she is.

Agree, she could be a stunner with a medium gun and rear CIWS

+

Repulse wrote:resting when you compare the Amazonas class versus the B2s

The much maligned T-21 seems to have had a good gene pool , after all

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Beautiful ship, she is.

Just looks like a massive missed opportunity to me. Should have been three or four 105m Leanders followed by ten T26's.

Unfortunately we can't turn the clock back but RN must learn from this debacle.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Just looks like a massive missed opportunity to me. Should have been three or four 105m Leanders followed by ten T26's.

Unfortunately we can't turn the clock back but RN must learn from this debacle.

Agree on both more T26s and the point on looking forwards. Do not agree though that it is a “debacle”, a debacle would have been to do nothing and lost skills ahead of the T26.

Given the positive choice to keep the B1 Rivers for fisheries, and using one B2 to replace HMS Clyde, the focus should be what to do with the 4 remaining B2s.

My view is that probably the best thing is that they should be reconfigured to act as forward based escorts for the 2 new FLSS ships in lower threat environments. The lack of a hangar is not an issue given the aviation facilities on the FLSS.

Then the T31 can be focused on a low-mid threat forward based Singleton deployments / escorts, though closer to a multirole Sloop/OPV level than pretending to be a Frigate making up the new backbone of the RN as GP/MCM platforms are decommissioned.

Repulse wrote:My view is that probably the best thing is that they should be reconfigured to act as forward based escorts

I think we need to be very careful using the word escort around the B2 Rivers guard ship may be a better term

Tempest414 wrote:around the B2 Rivers guard ship may be a better term

The Peacocks were v impressive, steaming around the HK harbour. Even for HMS Clyde the term fits; but what would these ships be guarding?

Tempest414, agree and an important distinction - perhaps "Consort" would be a better term, so perhaps the role Consort Sloop?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:around the B2 Rivers guard ship may be a better term

The Peacocks were v impressive, steaming around the HK harbour. Even for HMS Clyde the term fits; but what would these ships be guarding?

I'd see the River "Consort Sloop" effectively protecting the Littoral area around the FLSS whilst operating close to shore, or navigating choke points - protecting it from small craft, UAVs, acting as a temporary platform for refueling / rearming air assets (such as the Wildcat) whilst the FLSS is concentrated on air lift operations and investigating suspicious contacts.

What your really saying is you want one of these

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoro ... rol_vessel

Repulse wrote:a debacle would have been to do nothing and lost skills ahead of the T26.

That would just have been a worse debacle

Repulse wrote:Given the positive choice to keep the B1 Rivers for fisheries, and using one B2 to replace HMS Clyde, the focus should be what to do with the 4 remaining B2s.

Ideally I would sell them for inflated prices offset with generous donations of foreign aid but I realise that's a remote prospect.

The next best option in my opinion is to use them as a stop gap to allow any second batch of T31's (or preferably) T26's to hit the water and then retire them to the UK EEZ and/or Gibraltar around 2030. I think this could be roughly in line with current planning (not Gib). I like Tempest414's foward mounted Phalanx, double 30mm proposal. Adding Kingklip and Captas-1 would round the platform off nicely. These modifications could easily be undone to downgrade the RB2's back down to OPV spec for EEZ patrol in the future.

Repulse wrote:My view is that probably the best thing is that they should be reconfigured to act as forward based escorts for the 2 new FLSS ships in lower threat environments. The lack of a hangar is not an issue given the aviation facilities on the FLSS.

I agree the FLSS and RB2 combination looks like an ideal outcome but to form a credible Littoral Strike Group (with a Wave) both the FLSS and RB2's would have to be generously equipped.

It would be interesting to compare the running costs and manning requirements of the FLSS/RB2 combination with a T23. I suspect it could be closer than it would first appear.

SW1 wrote:What your really saying is you want one of these

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoro ... rol_vessel

In many ways the RB2 is a superior vessel to the BAM. Not least in terms of speed, range and sea keeping qualities.

Poiuytrewq wrote:In many ways the RB2 is a superior vessel to the BAM. Not least in terms of speed, range and sea keeping qualities.

Plus for the Consort Sloop role described, I see a hangar as a nice to have.

For the T31e, I’d still go for the Avenger design which is different from BAM.

Poiuytrewq wrote:In many ways the RB2 is a superior vessel to the BAM.

Did the Spanish use pritt stick instead of super glue?

The Spanish could sustain wildcat operations from its patrol vessels, making it a far more effective combat vessel.

shark bait wrote:

Poiuytrewq wrote:In many ways the RB2 is a superior vessel to the BAM.

The Spanish could sustain wildcat operations from its patrol vessels, making it a far more effective combat vessel.

I think both of you are correct. River B2 is intended to work under air-coverage, if any air support is needed. Many theater meets this requirement: Britain-island EEZ, Falkland island EEZ, and even Persian Gulf. With support from fixed-wing air assets, gulf of Aden and even Caribbean ocean is "doable". In these theater, River B2's range and big mission space (with 16t crane) is advantageous. River also has larger "soldier capacity" than BAM.

But if it comes to armament punch and helicopter aviation, BAM with 76 mm gun and a SH60 capable hangar is capable. So, it differs.

Note BAM is expensive than River B2.

Some great shots here,
Just needed a hanger!

Stretched to around 105m and with a hanger added this could be one seriously versatile and cost effective vessel

Poiuytrewq wrote:Some great shots here,

D2mU3qMXgAIlaXp.jpg

D2mU3qNXcAAgxkO.jpg

Just needed a hanger!

Stretched to around 105m and with a hanger added this could be one seriously versyatile and cost effective vessel

If they moved the life rafts forward of the funnel and put in Sea Spear (or surface launched version of Sea Venom) it would be very interesting?

Poiuytrewq wrote:Stretched to around 105m and with a hanger added this could be one seriously versatile and cost effective vessel

100% agreed, and I’d argue with some additional kit and UK/BAE support services, an export winner.

With some evolution and effort, I could honestly see this class becoming the backbone of the non CSG fleet.

Edit: As a reminder this is what Thailand is doing with the design for HMTS Trang:

You mean this ..

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/corvettes

Swap out VL-Mica for Sea Ceptor and MM40 Exocet for whatever the RN chooses to replace its block 1 Harpoons and with a range of 4500 Nm the RN could surely do worse for a platform to operate outside the Carrier Group. Their design spec. seems to exceed that of the T-31e RIF in most areas and we could have around eight for what is in the latter's budget. Why has this design be excluded from consideration for that project? Are the RN really that against operating anything called a "Corvette"?