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.
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 14 Feb 2020, 16:11

SW1 wrote:Yes because of course mbda isn’t the prime for complex weapons and Italy of course isn’t a partner nation on the next generation fast jet program oh wait a minute... Yet we are on the look out for an interim anti ship missile which so happens there is an option made by mbda which the Italian already have in service integrated on merlin our principle maritime heavy helicopter platform and in the process of being integrated onto our principle fast jet platform as well as being available in ship launched format. So in a cash constrained era we have an option where the expensive bit (platform integration) is already there so possibly affording a simple bridge to the next generation with a weapon built by our two principle partners in our future air weapons space.

Yep silly idea we should buy American instead.



You silly little RAF man, the complex weapons strategy is for investing in the UK's ability to develop and manufacture missiles.

Not Italy's.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Feb 2020, 21:39

Limiting the Interim AShMs to the T-23s is a mistake in my mind. Both they and the T-45s should be capable of carrying them when they enter service, to cover not just singleton deployments, but to allow the Escort Group for the Carrier to have greater throw weight if needed.

NickC
Member
Posts: 618
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 15 Feb 2020, 12:53

February 6th, the Mexican Navy commissioned the 2,570t/107m ARM REFORMADOR, Patrulla Oceánica de Largo Alcance , POLA, Long-Range Ocean Patrol Vessel, a variant of the Damen 10514 OPV, just for interest as fitted out makes an interesting baseline comparison to T31 fit and you can see how far short T31 falls from the ARM REFORMADOR to meet the current world navy standards to be classified even as a full fat OPV or a light frigate as currently specified.


BAE Bofors 57 Mk3
BAE Mk38 Mod 2 25mm
Four mounts for 12.7mm MGs
Mk141 2x2 launchers for Boeing RGM-84L Harpoon Block 2
Raytheon Mk56VLS 8 cells for ESSM missiles
Raytheon Mk 31 with the Mk144 Mod3 launcher for 21 RAM Block 2 missiles
Thales CAPTAS-2 VDS
Mk32 triple tube launchers x2 for 6 Raytheon Mk54 LWTs
Terma C Guard Naval DL-12T 130mm launcher decoys for RF and IR missiles plus torpedo
Thales Tacticos CMS
Thales SMART S Mk2 3D radar
Thales STIR 1.2 EO Mk2 Fire Control Radar
Raytheon Anschütz SYNAPSIS Navigation Radar and Integrated Navigation/Chart system
Indra RIGEL ES & EA Jammer and deception system
Navantia HERMESYS integral communications control system

Helo - MH-60R Seahawk with MTS-FLIR, AN/APS 153 (V) radar, AN/AQS 22 Flash dipping sonar, sonobuoys, Mk54 LWTs & Hellfires, Mexico provisionally ordered 8 in 2018 for ~ $1.2 billion, new President cancelled, now said to be looking at Ka-27M and NH90NFH (India buying package of 24 MH-60Rs for ~$2.6 billion including spares plus 1,000 sonobuoys, 30 LWT, 10 Hellfire and 38 APKWS etc).


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Feb 2020, 14:46

NickC-san, very nice movie. Impressive. Thanks a lot.
NickC wrote:February 6th, the Mexican Navy commissioned the 2,570t/107m ARM REFORMADOR, Patrulla Oceánica de Largo Alcance , POLA, Long-Range Ocean Patrol Vessel, a variant of the Damen 10514 OPV, just for interest as fitted out makes an interesting baseline comparison to T31 fit and you can see how far short T31 falls from the ARM REFORMADOR to meet the current world navy standards to be classified even as a full fat OPV or a light frigate as currently specified...
Typical of a modern heavy corvette. Armament and sensor kits are very similar to that of Egyptian and Malaysian Gowind2500 class vessels, as well.

Compared to T31, what is the MOST important is, the total cost is not much different. Egyptian 4 Gowind2500 costs 1.6B Euro (~1.4B GBP), not much different from 5 T31 with 2B GBP. (As you know, export cost is always cheaper on paper, and T31's cost includes many things, so I think it is safe to say two ship's costs are roughly similar.)

T31's armament and sensor kit is similar, but completely omitting ASW capability and SSMs. On the other hand, T31's hull size (x2.5-3) = sea keeping, endurance, and range is much larger/longer than those heavy corvettes. Also, larger helicopter facility, 4 RHIB alcove and huge growth margin differs.

The difference is exactly the same to what was on French Floreal class = similar armaments to the contemporary corvettes, but omitting ASW, but with twice larger hull. So, T31 is the 21st century "British Floreal-class".

I think two projects are good comparison. T31 invested on hulls (range/endurance) and these heavy corvettes invested on weapon fits.

Personally, I really think "19 escort saga" is doing very bad on RN. The 2B GBP should have been "3 T26". Even now, it should be "4 T31 fully armed". By banning 1 total hull, making the T31's armament completely the same to those heavy corvettes (adding ASW and SSM) will be doable.

By the way, these heavy corvettes has very impressive equipment kits. I rather think they are exactly the successor of "frigates in 1980s". Modern frigate is more a successor of "destroyer/cruiser in 1980s". Worth thinking of using it. In other words, modern corvettes are much more capable than corvette in old days = not in the same league. RN must really think of having a corvette. On this regard, T31 is a good idea. Simply because we call it a frigate, we feel "too less armed". I think RN shall call T31 a "long-range corvette", much better reflecting what it is.

T31 is NOT a frigate.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 15 Feb 2020, 14:52

Bear in mind that these will be the Mexican Navy's top-end combattant. The Damen Sigma is marketed as a corvette/light frigate (depending on length) and it looks as if the Mexican Government has bought/ will be buying itself 8 new light frigates - they will eventually replace the existing (and aging) Knox-class ASW frigates.

They also operate 35 actual OPVs, mostly equipped with a single 57/76mm (some of the older ones with 40mm) assorted light guns and low-end sensors. Impressively 24 of the largest are helicopter capable, with hangar and flight deck. There are another 37 Inshore patrol boats as well (20 with 40mm Bofors).

If the RN was in the corvette game, something like these would be very good candidates.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2419
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 15 Feb 2020, 16:34

donald_of_tokyo wrote: I think RN shall call T31 a "long-range corvette", much better reflecting what it is.

T31 is NOT a frigate.


Long-range patrol ship maybe?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Feb 2020, 17:02

Given the repeated statements that all departments must find 5% of savings and the news of more B2 Rivers being forward deployed (though now retracted), I think it is inevitable that the RN will loose 3 T23s over the next few years.

Outside of CEPP (which requires 6 DDs and 6 ASW FFs) and TAPS (2 ASW FFs) it would allow the remaining two GP FFs to be rotated through being forward based in the Gulf.

It will be termed a manageable gap, where ultimately 5 T31s come online to replace the 2 GP T23s and release 3 of the 5 B2 Rivers to replace the 3 B1s.

The only silver lining in this would be if crew could be found for the 2 LPD to be in active service.
”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
Jensy
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jensy » 15 Feb 2020, 19:08

Repulse wrote:Given the repeated statements that all departments must find 5% of savings and the news of more B2 Rivers being forward deployed (though now retracted), I think it is inevitable that the RN will loose 3 T23s over the next few years.


The driving force behind that policy of widespread cuts was Chancellor Javid. Will be interesting to see if his replacement actually maintains it.

Some suggest he was too careful with money for No.10's liking and that Johnson wants to spend big. Whether the Armed Forces will see a penny of that is anyone's guess.

Also there might yet be an argument for cancelling the LEP for one Type 23 if this rumour is true:


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6128
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 15 Feb 2020, 20:21

HMS Bristol Type 82 thread: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=152

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Feb 2020, 04:09

It is a bit of a mess with these 5% cuts, when we are bound to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence and have a promised yearly increase of 1% above inflation. So surely the MoD might be pressured to cut anything above this, up to 5% but beyond that they are going against their well publicised policy of the past decade.

As for HMS Bristol. isn't she the last surviving member of the Falklands Task Force? wouldn't it be a great idea to turn her into a museum, not just for the Falklands but for the navy since WWII?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Feb 2020, 10:05

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31 is NOT a frigate.



In many ways you are right but Type 31 is based on a well proven frigate hull that has been improved to modern NATO standards there for sits a little bit on her own as a Class so what is Type 31?. It is a class of ship based on a frigate hull which has very long legs good sea keeping and fair sensors fit. Its weapons fit is well up here in terms of self defence and it has a flight deck that can take all UK and NATO helicopters and tilts and a hangar that can take 90% of all NATO helicopters and last of all it has the capability and room to grow sensors and weapons to close that of a Type 45 if need be . So with this being said what I think the RN is looking for from Type 31 is a Global Ocean patrol ship capable of carrying out freedom of Nav rolls and other tasks as seen fit

NickC
Member
Posts: 618
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 16 Feb 2020, 12:01

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31 is NOT a frigate.
Type 31 is a Global Ocean patrol ship capable of carrying out freedom of Nav rolls and other tasks as seen fit

MoD T31 overarching requirement/mission statement per MoD contracting authority Bristol Aug 2018 and as far as know still valid, it is not a warship/frigate, as it's specified a long range OPV with with capability with it's large flight deck to hold presence gin and tonic parties overseas.

"The T31e will carry out maritime security and interdiction tasks, such as security patrols, escort duties, counter drugs and counter piracy. It will also carry out defence engagement activities, such as port visits and official entertainment, demonstrations of military capability and participation in allied training exercises. It must be ready to respond to emergent events, such as natural disasters or evacuation of non-combatants and will routinely carry specialist emergency relief stores in certain operating areas."

"an enduring and continuous worldwide maritime security presence in forward operating areas and releasing other, more complex warships to their primary roles."

From <https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08/14/gb-bristol-shipacq182/>

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1210
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 16 Feb 2020, 12:59

Not sure why there is so much dancing on a pin head trying to define a name for the type 31, though I suspect the reason is to jump up and down in the future and say we don’t have x numbers of escorts.

Type 31 is a proper warship, it’s designed to full warship damage control standards and has a full up combat management system. The fact the design is adaptable to the point where it can (and is in danish service) a high end combat ship but can be configured to also initially provide a relatively cheap ship without compromising its ability to be upgraded later on. Had we been able to do that with type 26 we would have had a longer and arguable quicker build run than what has turned out to be the case which is disappointing.

The narrative also ignores the point of many studies where the best way to avoid risk and generate numbers is to get hulls in the water in relatively simple configuration before adding the more sophisticated systems thereby also avoiding some of the obsolescence issues that allow costs to spiral. Arguably we did. This with type23 the initial ships being very simple, compared to what they are today.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 16 Feb 2020, 14:40

SW1 wrote:Type 31 is a proper warship, it’s designed to full warship damage control standards and has a full up combat management system. The fact the design is adaptable to the point where it can (and is in danish service) a high end combat ship but can be configured to also initially provide a relatively cheap ship without compromising its ability to be upgraded later on. Had we been able to do that with type 26 we would have had a longer and arguable quicker build run than what has turned out to be the case which is disappointing.

Completely agreed. Don't expect to convert any of the "pimped OPV" mob, however - it's an article of faith for them. :roll:

NickC wrote:"The T31e will carry out maritime security and interdiction tasks, such as security patrols, escort duties, counter drugs and counter piracy.

Yup - it's there in the mission statement - one of it's intended purposes is to be an escort. Applying the logic espoused so frequently on this site, that "an OPV cannot be an escort", it then follows that the opposite is therefor also true - "an escort cannot be an OPV". :twisted:

That said, however, "escort" is such a nebulous word. As I've said, many times, ANYTHING can be an "escort" - that is simply a word describing an activity - what is far more important is the CAPABILITY. The T31 is clearly a frigate, being built from an existing NATO Tier 1 frigate hull, to current NATO warship standards of stability, survivability and shock resistance. The donor hull is primarily intended to be used in an Air Defence role, though it is also intended to be adaptable for an Anti-submarine warfare role. In RN use, it will be used as a surface combattant equipped to counter asymmetric warfare using small boats and to provide escorts to merchant ships transitting "troubled waters", amongst a host of other duties.....

.... and, as SW1 says, it already has the physical capacity and topweight margin available to rapidly drop in equipment (VLS, Radar systems, larger main guns, decoys, etc. etc) to adapt it to other roles. Obvious really, since there are variants already in service with those systems fully integrated.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2020, 15:33

SW1 wrote:The narrative also ignores the point of many studies where the best way to avoid risk and generate numbers is to get hulls in the water in relatively simple configuration before adding the more sophisticated systems thereby also avoiding some of the obsolescence issues that allow costs to spiral. Arguably we did. This with type23 the initial ships being very simple, compared to what they are today.

SW1 wrote:Not sure why there is so much dancing on a pin head trying to define a name for the type 31, though I suspect the reason is to jump up and down in the future and say we don’t have x numbers of escorts.

Type 31 is a proper warship, it’s designed to full warship damage control standards and has a full up combat management system. The fact the design is adaptable to the point where it can (and is in danish service) a high end combat ship but can be configured to also initially provide a relatively cheap ship without compromising its ability to be upgraded later on. Had we been able to do that with type 26 we would have had a longer and arguable quicker build run than what has turned out to be the case which is disappointing.

The narrative also ignores the point of many studies where the best way to avoid risk and generate numbers is to get hulls in the water in relatively simple configuration before adding the more sophisticated systems thereby also avoiding some of the obsolescence issues that allow costs to spiral. Arguably we did. This with type23 the initial ships being very simple, compared to what they are today.


So much nonsense in such a short post.

There's no such studies that say it's better to have a ship with little or no capacity enter service just as there are no studies that say it's better for the RAF to have fighters enter service with no guns or missiles or bombers without bombs etc.

It's true that the Type 23's entered service without a CMS but that was not through plan, it just wasn't ready on time. When it was ready, the Type 23's were fully equipped to a very high standard that made them the world's #1 ASW frigate.

The Type 26's increase in costs are due to two factors: their high spec necessary to fulfill their mission of hunting and killing nuclear submarines and secondly, their artificially slow build times imposed by the Treasury. Yes, they would be cheaper if they entered service without some of their expensive systems but what would be the effing point? The Typhoon is a very expensive systmem, 200 million plus each. Why doesn't the UK buy cheaper ones by buying some without radars??

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2020, 15:46

Caribbean wrote:The T31 is clearly a frigate, being built from an existing NATO Tier 1 frigate hull, to current NATO warship standards of stability, survivability and shock resistance.


The RN calls it a frigate so any debate on that is pointless but I would like to point out that over the next year or two, a large team of Babcock's team naval architects will be doing a detailed Type 31 design which will ensure that the ship will meet RN standards for those items. It's no secret that the IH's were largely built to commercial standards in order to contain costs. Many of those will have to be upgraded. I don't want to over emphasize this point. It will be done but they're not there yet. BMT will play a big role in this.

Caribbean wrote:it already has the physical capacity and topweight margin available to rapidly drop in equipment (VLS, Radar systems, larger main guns, decoys, etc. etc) to adapt it to other roles. Obvious really, since there are variants already in service with those systems fully integrated


Once again, I would gently point out that the UK doesn't have a great record of doing this. FFBNW tends to remain that for the life of the ship. I would expect "boring" things like communications equipment & decoys to be improved, the latest pictures show an embarrassingly low number of antenna, but not much more than that.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Feb 2020, 15:51

SW1 wrote:Type 31 is a proper warship, it’s designed to full warship damage control standards and has a full up combat management system. The fact the design is adaptable to the point where it can (and is in danish service) a high end combat ship but can be configured to also initially provide a relatively cheap ship without compromising its ability to be upgraded later on. Had we been able to do that with type 26 we would have had a longer and arguable quicker build run than what has turned out to be the case which is disappointing.
Caribbean wrote:.... and, as SW1 says, it already has the physical capacity and topweight margin available to rapidly drop in equipment (VLS, Radar systems, larger main guns, decoys, etc. etc) to adapt it to other roles. Obvious really, since there are variants already in service with those systems fully integrated.
No objection that T31 AFTER adding equipments shall be called a frigate. But, as now, NO I do not think so. Calling T31 a frigate will cause very big problem later to RN, I'm afraid.

This is mostly just a matter of personal impression, so there will be no "truth".

T31 is less than 1/4 of a T26 in its capability. May be OK because its average cost is ~1/3 of T26.

"T31 vs T26" is much more diverse than "T14 vs T12M" or "T21 vs T22". Nearest example is "FS Floreal-class vs FS Georges Leygues class". If you say Floreal-class is a frigate, then T31 will be a frigate.

Again, if properly equipped, T31 is surely a frigate. Problems are,
- we all know in most of the cases, FFBNW in RN ship does not take shape.
- any up-arming to T31 shall happen only after all 8 T26 are materialized. May be in 2040s, if ever to come.

T31 capable to be upgraded to do AAA and BBB, does not mean T31 can do AAA or BBB with currently planned equipment fit. Yes, T23 has seen many upgrades to date. But, it is in all cases, a 1-by-1 replacement.
- Mk.8 114mm gun tp Mk8.Mod1
- Sea Wolf to Sea Ceptor
- Passive TASS to CAPTAS
- 996 radar to 997 radar.

If we apply the same to T31, we will se
- 12 CAMM to 12 CAMM Mk.2
- NS110 radar to whatever the new one
- 57 mm gun with new turret
- 40 mm gun with new turret
That's it, if we follow the way T23 was "upgraded". This does not change the situation.

Do not take me wrong, I agree T31 can do some jobs. At least, it is "only a little less" armed compared to contemporary heavy corvettes. The CMS brand-name (TACTICOS) is the same, and its level will also be the same to those corvettes, simply judging from the cost and simplicity of the sensor and weapon kits. So, yes T31 can compete with these corvettes, but never overwhelm. It is tie, at most.

As these heavy corvettes are very capable, T31 is also capable, as much as these heavy corvettes are.

But never comparable to any full-fat frigate. Even less than ANZAC frigates (of both RAN and RNZN mods) or less than Halifax-class frigate. Let's face reality. No additional money will come for T31. The money is fully booked with (even short of) 5 more T26 and other assets to come.

Then again, how to call T31 is just a matter of impression. May surely differ person to person. So, if you say Floreal-class is a frigate, then T31 will be a frigate. If not, T31 is NOT a frigate.

Note French navy calles Floreal-class a frigate, but specifically "Surveillance Frigate" and NOT counted in the "15 escorts". Note again, Floreal-class is far from useless. Very useful asset. I love it. But, it is not an escort.

[EDIT] Yes RN calls it a frigate. But, I can see, many un-informed guys saying, "then the 5 more "frigate" can be changed from T26 to T31. It will save billions of money". RN may say, they need T26 for good ASW. But, again many un-informed guys will say, "IH class complies with NATO ASW standard quietness. Where is the problem?".

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2020, 17:47

IHO Things now utterly pointless to discuss:

1. What to call the Type 31's: they are frigates because the RN says so. Type 31 frigates to be precise.

2. Whether to cancel or change the Type 31 contract: it won't be.

3. Whether to change the Type 31 equipment configuration: it won't change, what you see is what the RN will get.

4. River Batch 3's: Not going to happen.

Things that might be worth discussing even though a tad premature:

1. Type 31 Batch 2: number, timing, configuration. Not expected until late 2020's.

2. Type 26 Batch 2: number, timing, configuration. Not expected until mid 2020's.

3. Replacement for Type 45's: Not expected until 2030's.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2020, 20:31

Good post, above, to set the scene. The first 3. and the second 1. are sort of 'married' - meaning that as the first 5 T-31s will be presence ships, that will leave a capability gap in the overall surface combatant mix, which in all likelihood will be addressed by the 2nd batch of the same class.

Ebro
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ebro » 16 Feb 2020, 21:32

We need hulls with capability. End of.
We now have 13 hulls with functioning MFS. As of 31 Jan T45 had MFS decommissioned with 6 hulls in Devonport that leaves 7 in total. Not great

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 16 Feb 2020, 23:04

Ron5 wrote:the IH's were largely built to commercial standards

Well - yes and no. The philosophy was to build those bits that needed it to naval standards and the rest to commercial standards. The end result was a design that survived standard shock testing (perhaps proving that they got the mix right?)
Ron5 wrote:the UK doesn't have a great record of doing this. FFBNW tends to remain that for the life of the ship. I would expect "boring" things like communications equipment & decoys to be improved

Agreed. But the capability remains (though it may be of more use to export customers than the RN - at least in the first batch)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:No objection that T31 AFTER adding equipments shall be called a frigate. But, as now, NO I do not think so. Calling T31 a frigate will cause very big problem later to RN, I'm afraid.

I tend to disagree with both parts of that statement Donald-san. The T31 is designed for a specific role and built to warship standards. If you have to give it a label, then call it a patrol frigate. I don't think keeping the frigate numbers at 13 will be bad for the RN in future at all, quite the contrary.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31 can compete with these corvettes, but never overwhelm

It's unlikely that a T31 would be going up against a heavy corvette, as it's role is primarily to handle asymmetric opponents, however, I think it would be a pretty even fight, particularly once Wildcat, Sea Venom and Martlet are all fully operational (and with the possibility that they are equipped with the interim ASuW missile, whatever that happens to be, when the T23s decommission). There is also the fact that a larger hull is more capable of surviving battle damage than a smaller hull (and below 3000t that capability drops quite rapidly)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But never comparable to any full-fat frigate

No, agreed - and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Not every frigate is equally capable (nor do they need to be)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:French navy calles Floreal-class a frigate, but specifically "Surveillance Frigate"

Indeed - they have called them frigates, but they are a) too slow and b) built completely to commercial standards. They are clearly not intended to go toe-to-toe with a genuine warship. In reality they are an OPV "upgunned" with a couple of Exocets.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Feb 2020, 01:38

Ebro wrote:We now have 13 hulls with functioning MFS. As of 31 Jan T45 had MFS decommissioned with 6 hulls in Devonport that leaves 7 in total. Not great
Sorry, what do you mean by "MFS"? The hull sonar of T45 is named MFS-7000. Do you mean it?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Feb 2020, 02:48

Ron5 wrote:IHO Things now utterly pointless to discuss:
1. What to call the Type 31's: they are frigates because the RN says so. Type 31 frigates to be precise.
2. Whether to cancel or change the Type 31 contract: it won't be.
3. Whether to change the Type 31 equipment configuration: it won't change, what you see is what the RN will get.
4. River Batch 3's: Not going to happen.
No objection. All my argument is related to the latter half.
1. Type 31 Batch 2: number, timing, configuration. Not expected until late 2020's.
2. Type 26 Batch 2: number, timing, configuration. Not expected until mid 2020's.
3. Replacement for Type 45's: Not expected until 2030's.
I see no hope in item-1, and really fear about item-2. Item-3 is far far away.

My arguments on "how to call T31" comes from how to save the 5 T26 from cut in SDSR2020.

Do you think bean counters will understand the difference of "cheap T31 added with CAPTAS4CI" to "T26"?

T31's 2B GBP total cost means, 300-350M GBP unit cost. (Initial costs and lack-of-learning-curve effect will cost at least a single unit cost in general. Here "unit cost" is the cost needed to "add 1 more hull". Always much cheaper than average cost). Adding CAPTAS4CI and ASW analysis subsystems will make it +50M GBP or so --> T31 ASW will be 350-400M GBP, I guess.

Similarly, T26's unit cost will be ~800M GBP (For a completely new design, initial costs will be equivalent to 2 or 3 unit cost).

350-400M GBP (T31 with ASW) vs 800M GBP (T26).

By keeping "19 escort saga" and keeping "8 ASW escorts", Treasury can cut 5 T26 to be replaced with 5 T31ASW, and save 2B GBP easily. We here all know "T31 ASW" is far less capable than "T26". But, do you believe in the bean-counters so much? For example, T31 ASW can carry CAPTAS-4 and Merlin and complies with NATO ASW hull standard.

I think it is very important to identify the clear difference between T31 and T26. Calling T31 a "corvette" or a "patrol frigate" is one of the proposals. (Even if called a "corvette", T31 can have a pennant number of "F", as French A69 "corvette" does). In UK, T26 was originally officially called Global Combat Ship, not a frigate. If my memory works, some Admiral even refused to call it a frigate, back in the 2000s (of course, now they are called frigate).

SDSR2020 is a big big monster. There is not much programs to be able to be cut. Army is miserable. For Air Force, "cut" means cut of F35. For navy, what? LPD-R? SSS? Or, remaining T26?

(but I might stop here) :silent:

Ebro
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ebro » 17 Feb 2020, 08:35

Medium Frequency Sonar

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Feb 2020, 09:09

Ebro wrote:Medium Frequency Sonar
Thanks. So you mean the MFS-7000 hull sonar of T45 are all moved off? Very interesting info.

As you know, 1 T45 is deployed, 2-3 are in long maintenance (one of them going to Camell Laird for diesel-gen replacement soon), and the other is in port, but none of them are decommissioned yet. If MFS-7000 ripping off is true, it is a very important news.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Repulse and 25 guests