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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 Feb 2020, 09:49

Is there anything backing this like statements

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Feb 2020, 09:57

I've seen no such report yet.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby bobp » 17 Feb 2020, 10:13

Does he mean inactive because the ships are in dock?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Feb 2020, 13:03

All three services need more mass, or have their commitments reduced. For the RN this will have to be the singleton deployments such as the NATO standing forces, and possible having a high end escort in the Gulf. As a presence ship the T-31 has the advantage of range and size over other platforms that may have a similar role.

It doesn't matter how the class are clarified, but what they are used for. Finally a clear distinction must be made between the capabilities and roles of the RN's high end platforms, the T-26 and T-45, and its far less capable platforms when discussion about the size of the RN are discussed in an future SDSRs. In simple terms we will have thirteen Tier 1 Escorts and five Tier 2 which cannot carry out the same roles as the former. This needs to be in large bold capital letters on any future review, and I seem to be repeating myself here.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Feb 2020, 14:30

It assuredly won't be. T31s purpose is to be claimed to be a first rate ship by the Government.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 Feb 2020, 15:35

RetroSicotte wrote:It assuredly won't be. T31s purpose is to be claimed to be a first rate ship by the Government.


No it is to allow it to be called a Frigate end of

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Feb 2020, 15:38

We know that but most voters if told we have 19 Frigates and Destroyers will leave it at that, and they are the only people that count.

serge750
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 17 Feb 2020, 18:52

If the gov did try to replace 2 of the second batch of 5 type 26 with a more ASW focused T31 ( hope not :crazy: ) to save money, how would that effect the T45 replacement schedule ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Feb 2020, 04:06

Is there actually a properly planned out T-45 replacement programme or is it still written on the back of a fag packet?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 18 Feb 2020, 08:40

Tempest414 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:It assuredly won't be. T31s purpose is to be claimed to be a first rate ship by the Government.


No it is to allow it to be called a Frigate end of

They could call it a battleship if they wanted. I'm not debating its "right" to be called this or that. I debate its lack of capability.

But it's pretty darn obvious they want to present it as an equal "frigate" to what people perceive as a fighting ship. They want the average person to believe it's a powerful warfighting ship so they can say "We have 19 first rate escorts" and pretend the Royal Navy escort fleet hasn't fallen behind the French and Italians.

Call it a frigate, a destroyer, a submarine, a sloop in terms of its ability, I don't really care. But joe bloggs on the street just hears "13 frigates" and thinks nothing's changed, because it looks big, it has a gun that goes bang and someone said it has missiles. And you better believe that's all the Tories wanted from Day 1 of this project to keep cutting the navy more and more.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2020, 12:39

This was my point I don't think they even care if they can call it a first rate or not as long as they can call it a frigate and it is built in Scotland. However we are close to getting a good ship for global patrol duties as said T-31 has long legs good sea keeping plus the boat and helicopter capability of a frigate with the sensors and weapon fit plus crew numbers of a heavy corvette this allows us to say we are here and watching and if needed we can back it up with a SSN , Carrier group or SSBN

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 18 Feb 2020, 13:40

Tempest414 wrote:However we are close to getting a good ship for global patrol duties as said T-31 has long legs good sea keeping plus the boat and helicopter capability of a frigate with the sensors and weapon fit plus crew numbers of a heavy corvette this allows us to say we are here and watching and if needed we can back it up with a SSN , Carrier group or SSBN

This is the exact same argument people made for the LCS.

"But it can still do this extremely specific task that seems to gain an extra suffix to detail said specific nature every other month so it's fine."

Everything the Type 31 will be restricted to doing, can be done by a vessel half its size and cost. You don't need a near 6,000 ton ship to do flag flying peacetime missions, and it having "a helicopter" is hardly an achievement. That's standard issue on the vast majority of vessels even smaller than it. Having a boat? Same thing, an extremely minor element. The idea of buying such a large ship to transport a RHIB as some special capability is horrendous value for money.

It can't fight, and it's far too big and expensive for only doing random peace/drug patrols.

Meanwhile the navy is desperately in need of more first rate vessels, or at the very least first rate vessels that actually meet their potential.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2020, 16:37

I am at the front of queue when it comes to wanting more but until we stop running round scared we might lose more T-26's if we make T-31 the best it can be then we are dead in the water. Plus weather you like it or not we can 'not afford 5 Type 26's paddling around waving a flag

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6225
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 18 Feb 2020, 16:47

Type 26's have paddles? (!)

SD67
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 18 Feb 2020, 23:03

I don’t know what the fuss is about - T31 is a T21 replacement, but with greater growth margin. Classic global patrol/presence frigate.

The RN have always fielded ships like that. It doesn’t make up for the lack of t26 numbers but then it’s not supposed to. T26 numbers were cut because of cost growth in the design and neither side being willing to invest in the frigate factory. It wasn’t caused by T31.

But the big picture is that 10 yrs time based on current plans the RN will be in so much better a position than where they are now - brand new top end ASW ships that are the size of light cruisers rather than the near 30 year old boats were struggling to keep at sea today. Plus t45s that have been re-engined plus a large patrol frigate with long legs that can be easily upgunned if needed. And if we’re lucky we’re looking towards a second batch of T31 and a low risk T45 replacement.
If we can do all that then frankly I don’t care if FSS is built overseas

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12216
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 19 Feb 2020, 05:55

SD67 wrote: T26 numbers were cut because of cost growth in the design and neither side being willing to invest in the frigate factory. It wasn’t caused by T31.
I know; causality often tends to get reversed
SD67 wrote:If we can do all that then frankly I don’t care if FSS is built overseas

Yeah, I agree, more is better

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 19 Feb 2020, 08:26

Tempest414 wrote:I am at the front of queue when it comes to wanting more but until we stop running round scared we might lose more T-26's if we make T-31 the best it can be then we are dead in the water. Plus weather you like it or not we can 'not afford 5 Type 26's paddling around waving a flag

False argument. No-one's arguing for Type 26s running around doing nothing important.

They are arguing that the RN desperately needs 19 war credible escorts at minimum. Given the Royal Navy also came to this conclusion before being told to cut costs, it stands to reason.

SD67 wrote:I don’t know what the fuss is about - T31 is a T21 replacement

It's a Type 26 replacement. There was to be 5 more T26s, and they got replaced with T31. Thus it must always be compared against that capability, or at the very least to the contextual capability of the T23GP to its own era.

Either way, it's a massive cut to the navy. Let's not try to "argue for cuts" by downplaying it.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3537
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Feb 2020, 08:29

SD67 wrote:I don’t know what the fuss is about - T31 is a T21 replacement, but with greater growth margin. Classic global patrol/presence frigate.
No objection. The whole point is NOT here, but how to save remaining T26s from cuts.
T26 numbers were cut because of cost growth in the design and neither side being willing to invest in the frigate factory. It wasn’t caused by T31.
Yes and no. When the T26 cost increased, RN decided to cut ~1.5B GBP from T26 budget to build 5 T31, to keep "19 escorts saga". My point is, it should have better been 2 T26 and accept 16 escorts. By slowing down the T26 build pace, the T26 build became less efficient, and more higher costs per hull = negative spiral, only to keep the "19 escorts saga". What is worse, current T31 cost is 2B GBP, has significantly increased from the initial estimate. Now it is 3 T26 equivalent, if we include the efficiency improvements of T26 build. Surely the money comes from the same wallet "equipment budget", on which T26 cost is also included.
But the big picture is that 10 yrs time based on current plans the RN will be in so much better a position than where they are now - brand new top end ASW ships that are the size of light cruisers rather than the near 30 year old boats were struggling to keep at sea today. Plus t45s that have been re-engined plus a large patrol frigate with long legs that can be easily upgunned if needed. And if we’re lucky we’re looking towards a second batch of T31 and a low risk T45 replacement.
If we can do all that then frankly I don’t care if FSS is built overseas
Hmm, do you mean Arrowhead as a "low risk T45 replacement"? I'm pretty skeptical if the Babcock Rosyth site survives as an escort builder till T45 replacement comes. How can they? Also, if it happens, it means BAES Clyde will simply die. If you mean T26 hull as T45-R base hull, then may be. In this case, it will be very important how to keep Clyde "alive" until T45 replacement can be materialized.

My big picture is, RN is in big risk of losing the "5 more T26" in SDSR2020 (or will lose something else), Rosyth has no plan to survive (relying on optimistic "export" or more optimistic "T31 Batch 2". And even with it, not sure how can they survive), and all investments on Rosyth/T31 eating up the resources to keep Clyde alive and efficient, until T45 replacement.

Of course, if we be optimistic, everything goes well. But, at least within this decade, ALL optimistic viewpoint in cash/cost/budget eventually failed. ALL. Fact. So, being NOT optimistic is realistic/pragmatic.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 19 Feb 2020, 08:52

I'll still never understand why people keep pushing this "Type 26 are cruisers" narrative.

1) Escorts got larger. That's globally a trend. Nothing special for RN.

2) What your "type" is named doesn't matter a single jot. There is no such thing as a global standard of what counts as a frigate/destroyer/cruiser. They are just "escorts" of various capabilities now, with the classification of what they call it just being broadly meaningless internal preference now for book keeping.

3) Type 26, other than being very good for ASW, is not all that special on the escort capability level worldwide. Certainly not some magical world leading godkiller to be called out as "so much more potent that it's a cruiser!!!!"

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Feb 2020, 10:54

RetroSicotte wrote:False argument. No-one's arguing for Type 26s running around doing nothing important.


but there are people here who say T-31 will be running around doing nothing important and that a OPV can do its job which is bollocks

RetroSicotte wrote:They are arguing that the RN desperately needs 19 war credible escorts at minimum. Given the Royal Navy also came to this conclusion before being told to cut costs, it stands to reason.


what is a credible warship in your eyes ?

The only conclusion the RN came to was that they wanted a one for one replacement for type 23 They then failed to manage the project

NickC
Member
Posts: 642
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 19 Feb 2020, 11:02

RetroSicotte wrote:1) Escorts got larger. That's globally a trend. Nothing special for RN.


Not always, are larger escorts always better?
An example is the Damen 10514 which has been successful ~2,600t, thinking of the commissioning of the Mexican POLA a few days ago.
Larger ships inherently result in bigger signatures which make easier to target for AShMs etc,
Recently USN Assistant Sec of Navy was bemoaning the fact that current USN combat ships averaging $2 billion per ship with fleet of just under 300, whereas in 1980's Reagan era of the 600 ship fleet average cost was just $1 billion per ship (after allowing for inflation).

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Feb 2020, 11:14

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Hmm, do you mean Arrowhead as a "low risk T45 replacement"? I'm pretty skeptical if the Babcock Rosyth site survives as an escort builder till T45 replacement comes. How can they? Also, if it happens, it means BAES Clyde will simply die. If you mean T26 hull as T45-R base hull, then may be. In this case, it will be very important how to keep Clyde "alive" until T45 replacement can be materialized.

My big picture is, RN is in big risk of losing the "5 more T26" in SDSR2020 (or will lose something else), Rosyth has no plan to survive (relying on optimistic "export" or more optimistic "T31 Batch 2". And even with it, not sure how can they survive), and all investments on Rosyth/T31 eating up the resources to keep Clyde alive and efficient, until T45 replacement.

Of course, if we be optimistic, everything goes well. But, at least within this decade, ALL optimistic viewpoint in cash/cost/budget eventually failed. ALL. Fact. So, being NOT optimistic is realistic/pragmatic.


I would say there was enough work over the next 20 years for both yards and I would go with

Order 3 Batch 2 type 26 followed by another 3 in a batch 3 then move straight on to a type 45 replacement based on a type 26 hull and building 8 ships giving the RN 17 tier 1 escorts this would allow with one ship delivered every 1.6 years a 27 year life per ship

next add 2 more type 31 to make the order to make 7 ships and take the work out passed 2030 and move straight into replacement of the Amphib fleet or the MHC program

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2104
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 19 Feb 2020, 11:25

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Hmm, do you mean Arrowhead as a "low risk T45 replacement"? I'm pretty skeptical if the Babcock Rosyth site survives as an escort builder till T45 replacement comes. How can they? Also, if it happens, it means BAES Clyde will simply die. If you mean T26 hull as T45-R base hull, then may be. In this case, it will be very important how to keep Clyde "alive" until T45 replacement can be materialized.

My big picture is, RN is in big risk of losing the "5 more T26" in SDSR2020 (or will lose something else), Rosyth has no plan to survive (relying on optimistic "export" or more optimistic "T31 Batch 2". And even with it, not sure how can they survive), and all investments on Rosyth/T31 eating up the resources to keep Clyde alive and efficient, until T45 replacement.

Of course, if we be optimistic, everything goes well. But, at least within this decade, ALL optimistic viewpoint in cash/cost/budget eventually failed. ALL. Fact. So, being NOT optimistic is realistic/pragmatic.


I would say there was enough work over the next 20 years for both yards and I would go with

Order 3 Batch 2 type 26 followed by another 3 in a batch 3 then move straight on to a type 45 replacement based on a type 26 hull and building 8 ships giving the RN 17 tier 1 escorts this would allow with one ship delivered every 1.6 years a 27 year life per ship

next add 2 more type 31 to make the order to make 7 ships and take the work out passed 2030 and move straight into replacement of the Amphib fleet or the MHC program


Great in theory, but where's the money coming from?

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3537
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Feb 2020, 12:31

RetroSicotte wrote:I'll still never understand why people keep pushing this "Type 26 are cruisers" narrative.

1) Escorts got larger. That's globally a trend. Nothing special for RN.
But, the number of escorts gets smaller, as well. It is also world trend. See USN, see Netherlands, see French navy, see JMSDF. All moving for fewer numbers of larger escorts.

I agree escorts of RN is too few, but WHEN talking about world trend as saying "escorts gets larger", it must be paired with the fact that "AND decrease in number".

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 19 Feb 2020, 13:15

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I agree escorts of RN is too few, but WHEN talking about world trend as saying "escorts gets larger", it must be paired with the fact that "AND decrease in number".

But not anywhere near the rate of the Royal Navy's decreases for any serious navies out there, since they now have fewer planned than even France or Italy.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo and 20 guests