Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:2 - the Middle East not only doesn’t seem to being getting more stable but infact getting worse, this is going to require maintain a reasonable land presence there along with increased naval an amphibious presence.
3 - a rising and belligerent China, this is a threat to vital trade along with very close allies, we’ll need a much gear naval presence and air presence whether that be individually ie CSG or as part of working with allies.
The Middle East is more a concern for China than us. Going fwd the Middle East will require less UK engagement not more. Beyond Contributing to upholding international norms of freedom of movement the Mid East is of diminishing strategic importance for the UK.

The vital trade is with China they don’t need military means to disrupt it. Yes the are asserting themselves and ensuring we support allies is important but it will be more through diplomatic and intelligence means than militarily ones we are very much a junior partner in that part of the world .
Until we are energy independent we will be reliant on having a stable and free moving trade from the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is when you are a large importing nation for everything from energy to food it is very easy for an opponent to cripple you if you don’t have a strong protection of the means to receive those imports.

In regard to China I did point out that we wouldn’t be a lead in the Far East region but more that we would have to contribute more than today to enable global norms to continue, the likes of the US and regional nations are very stretched as is.
But it’s not just about protecting our trade or upholding global norms, HMG want the UK to be a global player with global influence and rightly so. The only way this is maintained is though a strong miltary as we can see with other nations, Russia has more influence globally than the likes of japan or Germany even though the laters have much larger economies, this is due to Russia’s large military force and willingness to deploy it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Good news if true.......
I would say the opposite. The sound bits do not really state anything new but rather simply recycle what we have been hearing for years. More worrying is the emphasis on non MoD security issues and whether these will take funding away from the MoD. For example could the Home Office get more money for dealing with the issues raised by recent events, and this money come from the MoD pot as part of the next SDSR. It would certainly be more politically acceptable. With the reduction of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan with regards to UK commitments, welcome as they are, Defence is going to head back out of the public eye and fall further down the priority list for Politicians. IF we can keep what we have and is already locked into procurement contacts I will be happy, but also surprised. I think the T-31 is safe as it is a political project. The second batch of T-26 is more of a worry, and could become a football for any Scottish Referendum.

Playing on the World stage is expensive, if you want to do more than have the odd warship make goodwill visits. To have a navy capable of protecting our trade routes would require a massive investment in warship building and recruitment, with the need to have warships forward deployed at multiple location beyond the two currently mentioned. And having only singletons at these locations will not be enough, we will need to have sufficient assets to be able to readily reinforce each and all of these locations. More than ever the old adage that a warship, no matter how capable it is can only be in one place at a time rings true.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:2 - the Middle East not only doesn’t seem to being getting more stable but infact getting worse, this is going to require maintain a reasonable land presence there along with increased naval an amphibious presence.
3 - a rising and belligerent China, this is a threat to vital trade along with very close allies, we’ll need a much gear naval presence and air presence whether that be individually ie CSG or as part of working with allies.
The Middle East is more a concern for China than us. Going fwd the Middle East will require less UK engagement not more. Beyond Contributing to upholding international norms of freedom of movement the Mid East is of diminishing strategic importance for the UK.

The vital trade is with China they don’t need military means to disrupt it. Yes the are asserting themselves and ensuring we support allies is important but it will be more through diplomatic and intelligence means than militarily ones we are very much a junior partner in that part of the world .
Until we are energy independent we will be reliant on having a stable and free moving trade from the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is when you are a large importing nation for everything from energy to food it is very easy for an opponent to cripple you if you don’t have a strong protection of the means to receive those imports.

In regard to China I did point out that we wouldn’t be a lead in the Far East region but more that we would have to contribute more than today to enable global norms to continue, the likes of the US and regional nations are very stretched as is.
But it’s not just about protecting our trade or upholding global norms, HMG want the UK to be a global player with global influence and rightly so. The only way this is maintained is though a strong miltary as we can see with other nations, Russia has more influence globally than the likes of japan or Germany even though the laters have much larger economies, this is due to Russia’s large military force and willingness to deploy it.
The UK is not dependent on Middle East energy supplies. Energy of course being a global commodity has fluctuating prices but those in Asia are far far more affected by Mid East security than us.

The UK today is a global player with global influence. I’ve seen nothing that suggests a change in anyway other than a happy soundbite from government to distinguish a change to bilateral trade deals with countries instead of having trade deals thru the EU

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I think we’ll find the renaissance in ship building will be the government announcing the contract for the type 31 after the election and perhaps the next 3 type 26 ordered and telling us that because they have Brexit done they can now assemble the RFA solid stores ships in the UK.

I think there has been and will be a continued increased requirement on the MoD/Gov to uses forces tailored to what is now classed the Grey zone. Non sate actors or terrorist groups or people both home and abroad who act across borders. This will likely place more emphasis on special forces and there supporting intelligence assets.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:2 - the Middle East not only doesn’t seem to being getting more stable but infact getting worse, this is going to require maintain a reasonable land presence there along with increased naval an amphibious presence.
3 - a rising and belligerent China, this is a threat to vital trade along with very close allies, we’ll need a much gear naval presence and air presence whether that be individually ie CSG or as part of working with allies.
The Middle East is more a concern for China than us. Going fwd the Middle East will require less UK engagement not more. Beyond Contributing to upholding international norms of freedom of movement the Mid East is of diminishing strategic importance for the UK.

The vital trade is with China they don’t need military means to disrupt it. Yes the are asserting themselves and ensuring we support allies is important but it will be more through diplomatic and intelligence means than militarily ones we are very much a junior partner in that part of the world .
Until we are energy independent we will be reliant on having a stable and free moving trade from the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is when you are a large importing nation for everything from energy to food it is very easy for an opponent to cripple you if you don’t have a strong protection of the means to receive those imports.

In regard to China I did point out that we wouldn’t be a lead in the Far East region but more that we would have to contribute more than today to enable global norms to continue, the likes of the US and regional nations are very stretched as is.
But it’s not just about protecting our trade or upholding global norms, HMG want the UK to be a global player with global influence and rightly so. The only way this is maintained is though a strong miltary as we can see with other nations, Russia has more influence globally than the likes of japan or Germany even though the laters have much larger economies, this is due to Russia’s large military force and willingness to deploy it.
The UK is not dependent on Middle East energy supplies. Energy of course being a global commodity has fluctuating prices but those in Asia are far far more affected by Mid East security than us.

The UK today is a global player with global influence. I’ve seen nothing that suggests a change in anyway other than a happy soundbite from government to distinguish a change to bilateral trade deals with countries instead of having trade deals thru the EU
The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East along with a number of other imports passing through the sues canaille, but it is not just about the region being stable what would really impart the likes of the UK would be those supply lines being interrupted this is what we saw the like of the German and later the soviet try to do.
The only way the UK keeps things going smoothly for ourselves is to have the ability to keep those line safe, which as things stand we don’t have the resources to do.

The reason the UK has maintained global influcence over the last 7 decades is because the west as had a near unquestionable dominance over world affairs but this is starting to shift with the rise of China coupled with a resurgent Russia the norms are changing and will continue to do so over the coming decades.
If the UK wants to stay more than just a regional force over that time it needs to invest more in defence. People often forget that defence shouldn’t be set up to just plod around during the peaceful times it’s there to react and prevent worse cases. For local or regional nations that mean operating and controlling your own back garden but for a nation like the UK that wants to be a global force it mean being able to operate influence and even control area out side of the N.A

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East
It doesn’t it’s in the single digits percentage wise and getting smaller.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East
It doesn’t it’s in the single digits percentage wise and getting smaller.
As of 2015 National Grid estimated that 60% of UK gas consumption is imported and expected to rise to 93% by 2040. Out of this just over two thirds comes via pipe lines from Norway while 29% comes from Qatar.

I’d say nearly 30% of UK gas imports coming from the Middle East is pretty significant let alone that this is expected to rise as North Sea reserves dwindle, couple this with how significant the sues cannel is for UK trade in both directions and the Middle East becomes a very important area for the UK.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East
It doesn’t it’s in the single digits percentage wise and getting smaller.
As of 2015 National Grid estimated that 60% of UK gas consumption is imported and expected to rise to 93% by 2040. Out of this just over two thirds comes via pipe lines from Norway while 29% comes from Qatar.

I’d say nearly 30% of UK gas imports coming from the Middle East is pretty significant let alone that this is expected to rise as North Sea reserves dwindle, couple this with how significant the sues cannel is for UK trade in both directions and the Middle East becomes a very important area for the UK.
You may tell British Gas that

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East
It doesn’t it’s in the single digits percentage wise and getting smaller.
As of 2015 National Grid estimated that 60% of UK gas consumption is imported and expected to rise to 93% by 2040. Out of this just over two thirds comes via pipe lines from Norway while 29% comes from Qatar.

I’d say nearly 30% of UK gas imports coming from the Middle East is pretty significant let alone that this is expected to rise as North Sea reserves dwindle, couple this with how significant the sues cannel is for UK trade in both directions and the Middle East becomes a very important area for the UK.
You may tell British Gas that

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from
This article quoting nation grid says so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... on-imports

But it’s by the by the exact numbers the point is that the Middle East is still going to be an important area for the UK to be active in due the energy and trade that’s passed through the area.

The norms of the last 70 years odd of the west having sway over the world is changing so for the UK to maintain its position of global influence it needs to be a very strong second to the US in the west and at the moment and with way funding is looking we’ll be a very weak second to them at best.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Even though the UK s suppliers may be relatively secure, the UK still pays the world market price for oil + substitutes.

When drones took out half of Saudi's oil plants the world price spiked 20% over night. In the past this sustained has caused global recessions a la 2008.

In peacetime, immediate security of supply is not the -only- important issue. It wouldn't be a stretch to say oil stability trumps it either.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East
It doesn’t it’s in the single digits percentage wise and getting smaller.
As of 2015 National Grid estimated that 60% of UK gas consumption is imported and expected to rise to 93% by 2040. Out of this just over two thirds comes via pipe lines from Norway while 29% comes from Qatar.

I’d say nearly 30% of UK gas imports coming from the Middle East is pretty significant let alone that this is expected to rise as North Sea reserves dwindle, couple this with how significant the sues cannel is for UK trade in both directions and the Middle East becomes a very important area for the UK.
You may tell British Gas that

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from
This article quoting nation grid says so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... on-imports

But it’s by the by the exact numbers the point is that the Middle East is still going to be an important area for the UK to be active in due the energy and trade that’s passed through the area.

The norms of the last 70 years odd of the west having sway over the world is changing so for the UK to maintain its position of global influence it needs to be a very strong second to the US in the west and at the moment and with way funding is looking we’ll be a very weak second to them at best.
You can read and see the trends here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ES_4.5.xls

If uk is looking at defence then it’s reliance is on NATO and ensuring sufficient assets are available to counter the Russian threat to its borders from the high artic to the Mediterranean and long its eastern border. Further to that security of both food and energy supplies primarily for the uk is what happens in the americas and west and North Africa. If your looking strategically about where capital needs to be spent it’s not about past or present but where the requirement is 10 years from now. Given current trends for the uk it is not the Middle East or the Pacific in military terms but the European and African areas of interest.

Once there is deemed sufficient assets escorts or otherwise to ensure that is cover should other tasks be covered either by the temporary deployment of assets assigned to primary task and accepting risk or from further funding being allocated.

The uk is only a small scale player in Asia Pacific unless significant additional funding is allocated for significant uplifts in scale for both strategic air and naval transport/tanker and logistics assets none of which is solved by having an occasional escort vessel sailing into a foreign port. It is often said the US operates a quarter of the worlds fast jets but three quarters of its tanker and transports, the price of global operations at scale.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The UK has large engergy imports from the Middle East
It doesn’t it’s in the single digits percentage wise and getting smaller.
As of 2015 National Grid estimated that 60% of UK gas consumption is imported and expected to rise to 93% by 2040. Out of this just over two thirds comes via pipe lines from Norway while 29% comes from Qatar.

I’d say nearly 30% of UK gas imports coming from the Middle East is pretty significant let alone that this is expected to rise as North Sea reserves dwindle, couple this with how significant the sues cannel is for UK trade in both directions and the Middle East becomes a very important area for the UK.
You may tell British Gas that

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source ... -come-from
This article quoting nation grid says so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... on-imports

But it’s by the by the exact numbers the point is that the Middle East is still going to be an important area for the UK to be active in due the energy and trade that’s passed through the area.

The norms of the last 70 years odd of the west having sway over the world is changing so for the UK to maintain its position of global influence it needs to be a very strong second to the US in the west and at the moment and with way funding is looking we’ll be a very weak second to them at best.
You can read and see the trends here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ES_4.5.xls

If uk is looking at defence then it’s reliance is on NATO and ensuring sufficient assets are available to counter the Russian threat to its borders from the high artic to the Mediterranean and long its eastern border. Further to that security of both food and energy supplies primarily for the uk is what happens in the americas and west and North Africa. If your looking strategically about where capital needs to be spent it’s not about past or present but where the requirement is 10 years from now. Given current trends for the uk it is not the Middle East or the Pacific in military terms but the European and African areas of interest.

Once there is deemed sufficient assets escorts or otherwise to ensure that is cover should other tasks be covered either by the temporary deployment of assets assigned to primary task and accepting risk or from further funding being allocated.

The uk is only a small scale player in Asia Pacific unless significant additional funding is allocated for significant uplifts in scale for both strategic air and naval transport/tanker and logistics assets none of which is solved by having an occasional escort vessel sailing into a foreign port. It is often said the US operates a quarter of the worlds fast jets but three quarters of its tanker and transports, the price of global operations at scale.
The problem I see with the old NATO out look is that it was set around the soviet threats being the only one to western norms around the world, this has changed with numerous threats that in the coming 10-20 years could be to a similar degree of the soviet era ie a resurgent Russia and a rising China.

As long as UK trade both exports and imports flow through the sues cannel and the UK imports oil and gas then the Middle East is going to be an important area for uk concern.
You say that planning for where the UK should focus it’s self should not be based on the past or even the present but the future then go on to state current trends which is exactly that the past and present. IMO there is going to be 3 key areas of concern for the west in the near to medium future they are Easter Europe with Russian, the Far East with China and the Middle East with both of them.

I agree right now we are only a small bit player in the Far East and I agree this won’t be able to change with out investment in to the forces, I have never argued other wise. My argument over this debate has not been about what we can do currently with the current budget but of changing world affairs and how they effect our place as a world power and in turn how HMG seems to of recognised this with there police but not backed it up with the funding that is needed.

To get back on the thread topic I believe one of the key weaknesses to the above is the lack of surface combatants and there potential lack of armourment compared to potential foes.
IMO we need enough tier one combatants to escort 2 CSG and 2 ARG / LSG along with enough tier two combatants to forward base several in each hot zone we’d desire to be with them armed accordingly.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:I agree right now we are only a small bit player in the Far East and I agree this won’t be able to change with out investment in to the forces
So the rest of your argument is mute, none of the parties are calling for increased investment beyond the status quo. The last time aspirations matched budgets was sdsr2010.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I agree right now we are only a small bit player in the Far East and I agree this won’t be able to change with out investment in to the forces
So the rest of your argument is mute, none of the parties are calling for increased investment beyond the status quo. The last time aspirations matched budgets was sdsr2010.
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I agree right now we are only a small bit player in the Far East and I agree this won’t be able to change with out investment in to the forces
So the rest of your argument is mute, none of the parties are calling for increased investment beyond the status quo. The last time aspirations matched budgets was sdsr2010.
It’s not mute as the election is still on going with new polices coming out every couple of days and there’ll be an SRSD next year. Yes we have all got use to being disappointed but brexit changes a lot and how the next government look to deal the UKs place in the world after will have a big impact on defence.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Agreed it should have a big impact on defence, but in a good way? All the promises about spending money here and there, in fact it seems everywhere but defence.

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:Agreed it should have a big impact on defence, but in a good way? All the promises about spending money here and there, in fact it seems everywhere but defence.
It all depends on how HMG see brexit playing out, we’ve seen from leak recordings that May saw it as a damage limitation project, will Boris see it more of an opportunity to re-announce ourselves on the world stage ? It’s all to be seen yet.

Yes we havnt heard much on defence yet but there is still time, or it could very well be that the Tories won’t make any pledges on defence until the next review is had as it’d make them look very foolish if the pledged one thing then only a couple of months later the review said something different is needed.

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: it’d make them look very foolish if the pledged one thing then only a couple of months later the review said something different is needed.
That sort of thing is respectable, at the intention level.

We will see if - this time around - we will get a 'proper' review. As it is for the politicians to say what is 'our place in the world' i.e. vital interests, prioritise the threats to those (with expert assistance) and then work out a parliamentary consensus about the level of funding, like was done with Trident (took a while!)... and it is then that size bucket that the top brass can fill "with wishes", which will take some internal negotiation, but at least the aspirations can be matched against a common yard stick.
- so far 'kit share' in the budget has been heading from 40% towards 50, which is unsustainable
- however, any transformation requires new/ upgraded kit, too. So there's the 'dilemma'.
- readiness has been maintained - for a long time - by forever sharpening the spearhead, whilst there is less and less of spear, to follow it, were some calibrated escalation to be required. So there's the other rebalancing required.
- Deployed warships are, be definition, hi-readiness units, but their reach in different types of contingencies is limited, carriers and amphibs apart.

None of the above will be solved by (what was the bottom line in Boris announcement 'by interview' in which also the intention to do 'an' SDSR was tabled) surface ship build prgrms being intensified and 'brought home' alone as that would retain the on-going static zero-sum game, where maintaining any kind of future keeps eating into 'today's' forces and their readiness.
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:...None of the above will be solved by (what was the bottom line in Boris announcement 'by interview' in which also the intention to do 'an' SDSR was tabled)
anyone got a link to this? havent seen it?

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:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:...None of the above will be solved by (what was the bottom line in Boris announcement 'by interview' in which also the intention to do 'an' SDSR was tabled)
anyone got a link to this? havent seen it?
This one is pay-walled, but there was a link (on one of our 'ships' thread) to a newspaper that gives open access
"The Sunday Times, December 1 2019, 12:01am

Boris Johnson plans to take personal charge of the most wide-ranging review of Britain’s defence capabilities since the Cold War as he puts national security at the heart of the election campaign during this week’s Nato summit in Britain. The prime minister announced last night that Downing Street will run an “integrated defence, security and foreign policy review” next year that will..."
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 »

Considering we have a big trade negotiation with Trump coming up increasing UK Defence spending will give no10 leverage. Elected 2015, Mercer the former Artillery Commando and current Plymouth MP has had a lightning fast rise to the Cabinet Office and positioned early v v close to Boris's leadership campaign. He is close to Boris's team and lobbying will help.

Have no clue why they wouldn't kill two birds with one stone. Boost the Navy (possibly giving more ships to Plymouth) and get a decent trade deal. Fingers crossed.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Roders96 wrote:increasing UK Defence spending will give no10 leverage
He’s already stated what he intends to spend on defence from its present level it will be .5% above inflation rise per year for the life of the next parliament. The other two parties have said 2% gdp.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

SW1 wrote:He’s already stated
Granted but if it's going to translate to any extra boost for the rn it'll probably come out of the next few days.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

On a side note - are there any historic threads in this forum discussing what kind of capabilities would be required to counter Iran's speedboat flotilla?

Anything along the lines of how many escorts with how many Quadpacked VLS Spear Cap 3? I know Sutherland had the martlet 30mm mounts tested but has there been anything else announced / would it be cheaper to service a single munitions pool?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Roders96 wrote:....are there any historic threads in this forum discussing what kind of capabilities would be required to counter Iran's speedboat flotilla?
The A140 setup in the 'gun boat' configuration (57mm, 2x 40mm) would seem ideally suited IMO.

Quad packed VLS Spear3 would be a major boost for the T31's and depending on range, could even give the T31's a limited land attack capability. It could mitigate the lack NGS to a certain extent.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Strangely enough, I don't think the 32 mk41 upgrade is that much of a stretch if there's been 100m GFE per ship. We'll see it when it happens.

The silos don't have to be full, but two Type31's in a class that has previously demonstrated quad packed sp3 strikes against swarming targets would be a large deterrent to what we have seen recently. Each one could have 100 SP3 each and still have enough space for 28 camm each.

Post Reply