Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

Can anyone explain to me the pennant numbering convention used for the Type 23s?

There are two batches used; F78 to F83 and F229 to F239, in case with gaps mainly to cover the three ships that went to Chile.

It is not to distinguish the ASW variants as there are ASW types in both groups and it doesn't follow the strict chronological order in which the ships were laid down.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Bring Deeps wrote:Can anyone explain to me the pennant numbering convention used for the Type 23s?
Of the total of sixteen T23's, the first ten T23's were numbered from F230 to F239. HMS Norfolk as the lead T23 ship was given pennant number F230 to reflect this.

HMS Lancaster as the third ship in class was originally allocated the pennant number F232 until it was realised that S232 is the Royal Navy report form for groundings and collisions and was therefore considered an unlucky number, so the number was changed to one number preceeding the lead ship HMS Norfolk (F230) to F229.

For the last six T23's, the pennant number F240 and onwards were already in use by the Turkish navy for their Yavuz-class frigates. So the RN used unallocated UK/NATO pennant numbers from F78 to F83 for their last six T23's.

Full list:
1. HMS Norfolk (F230) - later sold to Chile as Almirante Cochrane
2. HMS Argyll (F231)
3. HMS Lancaster (F229 - originally F232, mistakenly given an unlucky number)
4. HMS Marlborough (F233) - later sold to Chile as Almirante Condell
5. HMS Iron Duke (F234)
6. HMS Monmouth (F235)
7. HMS Montrose (F236)
8. HMS Westminster (F237)
9. HMS Northumberland (F238)
10. HMS Richmond (F239)

F240 onwards already in use by Turkish navy.
Yavuz (F240)
Turgutreis (F241)
Fatih (F242)
Yıldırım (F243)


11. HMS Kent (F78)
12. HMS Portland (F79)
13. HMS Grafton (F80) - later sold to Chile as Almirante Lynch
14. HMS Sutherland (F81)
15. HMS Somerset (F82)
16. HMS St Albans (F83)

The F2xx NATO pennant numbers are shared amongst the navies of Germany, Turkey and the UK.

This also means that giving the RN T26's F26x pennant numbers is not possible, as Germany's Braunschweig-class corvettes already use F260 to F264.

The RN's pennant numbers can be chosen from NATO number groups:
Aircraft Carriers: R0x
Destroyers: D0x, D1xx
Frigates: F0x, F1xx, F2xx
Submarines: S0x, S1xx
Minesweepers: M0x, M1xx, M1xxx, M2xxx
Patrol: P1xx, P2xx, P3xx
LPH/LHD: L0x, L1xx, L3xxx, L4xxx
Auxillary: A -any

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

Excellent, thanks.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So a busy week last week with 4 type 23's and 2 B1 Rivers escorting Russian ships in the English channel and North sea

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Keep any trawlers well away (as on their way to Tsusima, the Russian ships opened fire on "Japanese torpedo boats" in these same waters)
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Keep any trawlers well away
A slightly different version of "fishery protection" , eh! :twisted:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

A couple of weeks old, but a good illustration of the pain ahead with a gap of around £8bn per annum appearing by 2024 from what could have been projected versus a possible austerity scenario.

https://www.army-technology.com/comment ... ce-budget/

What does this mean for the RN?

- Cancellation of CASD?, instead more Astute+s with VLS capable of firing tactical nukes
- Early cutting of the 5 GP T23s?, to be replaced by slightly pimped B2 Rivers
- Cutting the T26 numbers?, to be replaced by a few more T31s
- No more F35Bs beyond 48?, to be replaced by investment in future carrier based UAV?
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:A couple of weeks old, but a good illustration of the pain ahead with a gap of around £8bn per annum appearing by 2024 from what could have been projected versus a possible austerity scenario.

https://www.army-technology.com/comment ... ce-budget/

What does this mean for the RN?

- Cancellation of CASD?, instead more Astute+s with VLS capable of firing tactical nukes
- Early cutting of the 5 GP T23s?, to be replaced by slightly pimped B2 Rivers
- Cutting the T26 numbers?, to be replaced by a few more T31s
- No more F35Bs beyond 48?, to be replaced by investment in future carrier based UAV?
I can see all of them being possible bar the CASD one as the design is in place and building already started, to cancel now would not only add cost due to the cancellation but also in the need for a new astute design along with life ex to the V class that would be needed due to massive delays.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I think this is a great debate to have but likely far beyond simply escorts so maybe a thread more appropriate before we get have way thru a discussion then it’s abruptly ended.

How much it’s a one off out of the blue event against were exactly supply lines end up. How much reliance on support to civil power should the military really be doing. To even day to day stuff how many meetings are really that necessary!!!

One pt to note more f35s beyond 48 aren’t in the over budget equipment plan so you can’t actually save anything by saying we aren’t going to order any more!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

But will anyone here be surprised if the Royal Navy struggles to main the escort fleet at nineteen let aloe expand it. The Convod-19 pandemic maybe a one off, but the financial repercussions are going to be massive, with GDP dropping and little or no room to borrow anymore money even if it is cheap.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Not RN but of interest the very big win by Fincantieri yesterday of the USN FFG(X) competition with FREMM-US, a slightly larger variant of FREMM-IT at 7,400t per ship, main driver was the additional 300t of steel added to meet USN survivability standards.

The lead ship $1,281 million/~£1 billion follow-on ships $795 million/~£650 million.

https://news.usni.org/2020/04/30/fincan ... te-program

Magpie64
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Apr 2020, 11:23
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Magpie64 »

Lord Jim wrote:But will anyone here be surprised if the Royal Navy struggles to main the escort fleet at nineteen let aloe expand it. The Convod-19 pandemic maybe a one off, but the financial repercussions are going to be massive, with GDP dropping and little or no room to borrow anymore money even if it is cheap.
With the forecast dates for Type 23 decommissioning I think the plan was for the numbers to go down to as low as 13 before rising back up to 19. I guess the current crisis may make it more likely the numbers don't go back up but hopefully not.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Of interest to those that wish to know component prices. Here is the budget breakdown for FFG(X) :

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pd ... 28_11.pdf

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Magpie64 wrote: With the forecast dates for Type 23 decommissioning I think the plan was for the numbers to go down to as low as 13
How does that relate to the schedules of the other two types?


AS per Ron's find
" With FFG(X), the Navy desires to maximize the small surface combatant capabilities in the anti-surface warfare (SUW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW),electromagnetic maneuver warfare (EMW), air warfare (AW) mission areas, and survivability while keeping the ship affordable and as a part of a "high-low" mix of surface ships."

So they have a "low" to put into that mix at (if 20 units are realised) $1 bn per ship.

Our hi & low are different, but the 6 AAW are there for a £1 bn per ship (might come out as more), and then we have the T31s... but in this context the T26 price (and is it only ASW, or also AAW) will be of interest
- baby-Burke lost out to T26 in Canada... so there is a generation change going on here
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:Of interest to those that wish to know component prices. Here is the budget breakdown for FFG(X) :

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pd ... 28_11.pdf
Very interesting when it comes to the weapons section is the price of the Mk-41 VLS 11.5 million for 8 cells or all 32 cells all so the 8 cell OTH launcher at 3 million

Magpie64
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Apr 2020, 11:23
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Magpie64 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Magpie64 wrote: With the forecast dates for Type 23 decommissioning I think the plan was for the numbers to go down to as low as 13
How does that relate to the schedules of the other two types?
Basically the T23s will start to go out of service before T26 or T31 are in service to keep the total number at 19, this has been made worse by the delay to the in service (rather than in the water) dates of the T31s. There's an animated gif file available that forecasts each individual ship going out and coming in to service until the late 2030s. I'm not sure how to show that on here.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Of interest to those that wish to know component prices. Here is the budget breakdown for FFG(X) :

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pd ... 28_11.pdf
Very interesting when it comes to the weapons section is the price of the Mk-41 VLS 11.5 million for 8 cells or all 32 cells all so the 8 cell OTH launcher at 3 million
Price is for all 32 Mk 41 cells i.e. the same number as on Type 26. It would be interesting to know what the plans are for their missile loads.

Magpie64
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Apr 2020, 11:23
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Magpie64 »

Magpie64 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Magpie64 wrote: With the forecast dates for Type 23 decommissioning I think the plan was for the numbers to go down to as low as 13
How does that relate to the schedules of the other two types?
Basically the T23s will start to go out of service before T26 or T31 are in service to keep the total number at 19, this has been made worse by the delay to the in service (rather than in the water) dates of the T31s. There's an animated gif file available that forecasts each individual ship going out and coming in to service until the late 2030s. I'm not sure how to show that on here.
I'm new to the forum and you may have seen this before but follow this link for a very detailed forecast of RN escort numbers in coming years:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1229 ... 72513.html

And of course possibly subject to even more financial pressure now because of the covid19 crisis.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Of interest to those that wish to know component prices. Here is the budget breakdown for FFG(X) :

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pd ... 28_11.pdf
Very interesting when it comes to the weapons section is the price of the Mk-41 VLS 11.5 million for 8 cells or all 32 cells all so the 8 cell OTH launcher at 3 million
These are probably prices for US Armed Forces.
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…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

So it seems that the USN will also not have torpedo launchers on their FREMMs...
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Magpie64 wrote: follow this link for a very detailed forecast of RN escort numbers in coming years:
Thanks, there was also a nice joke in there, but I'll pick this part for further attention:
"
The main pinch-point in the early 2030s is in the number of anti-submarine ships, as the slower Type 26 build rate fails to keep up with Type 23s leaving service.

(this model assumes the delivery rate for the T26 Batch 2 remains the same as the Batch 1, this may not be the case) "
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

abc123 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Of interest to those that wish to know component prices. Here is the budget breakdown for FFG(X) :

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pd ... 28_11.pdf
Very interesting when it comes to the weapons section is the price of the Mk-41 VLS 11.5 million for 8 cells or all 32 cells all so the 8 cell OTH launcher at 3 million
These are probably prices for US Armed Forces.
agreed however at just 2.9 million dollars for 8 cells if we rounded up to 3 million pounds for 8 cells one has to ask why type 31 is not getting 8 cells as a base line also the OTH launchers am I right in saying these are for the NSM because again if so 3 million dollars for 8 cells. Just because a ship is fitted with these dosn't mean they have to be fully loaded

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:agreed however at just 2.9 million dollars for 8 cells if we rounded up to 3 million pounds for 8 cells one has to ask why type 31 is not getting 8 cells as a base line also the OTH launchers am I right in saying these are for the NSM because again if so 3 million dollars for 8 cells. Just because a ship is fitted with these dosn't mean they have to be fully loaded
But, if it is just a cell and door, it is still useless. You need appropriate front-end-electronics (expensive), dedicated software (license fee is very expensive), and maintenance load (man-power and cost = both are also expensive), in addition to the missile to be procured (of course expensive)?

Rapidly adding them is just a dream. You need to integrate those missiles into the CMS (costy but relatively easy part, if someone in the world has already done this), train your crew to appropriately handle it in war, train your logistic/engineering people to appropriately maintain these assets, and all the logistic chains to support them. Not surprise it take at least 1 year, and nearly 2 years.

I think NOT having a box totally useless is quite reasonable on a cheap vessel as T31 is.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

However Mk-41 is coming to the fleet on type 26 so training and logistics lines will be open and working and weapon will be sought would be interesting to know what you get for the 3 million per 8 cells

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Hmm, looks reasonable, at first sight I agree. But, look like not a priority.

If Mk.41 VLS is so cheap, ExLS for CAMM shall be more cheap. Why not ExLS first? (especially for T26).

Also, if we want 8 or 16 cells of Mk41 on T31, why not increase that of T26 from 24 to 32? With ExLS adopted, this will be easy, I guess.

If Mk41 VLS is so cheap, adding 16 or 24 cells of them to T45 would be of more priority? T45 uses that space for gym, now.

As both T26 and T45 has high level of CMS, adding software will be more easy (no need to improve CPU power, for example).


In summary, I think adding Mk.41 VLS to T31 is NOT a priority, even though it is doable. Note I am NOT against doing it, if someone decide to do it. I just mean not having is also just reasonable.

Post Reply