Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SD67]

My understanding is the new Dutch / Belgian MCM "motherships" are going to be 2800 tonnes / 81 metres. Surely a suitably configured Batch two T31 could meet this requirement?

The timing would also work, based on a Hunt / Sandown OSD of late 2020s, it would be a logical follow on for Babcock.

[Caribbean]

Am I missing something?

Primarily the fact that HMG initially said that there would be no GFX, apart from CAMM. That's been modified, apparently, but I'm not sure that a definitive list of what is now included has ever been published. I suspect that the DS30M was simply not on the list originally, so Babcocks came up with an alternative, that the customer rather likes.

Adopting the 40/ 57mm guns for the T31 introduces two new gun types, true, but it also has the potential to remove two less-capable gun types, (i.e. the older DS30B and/or Oerlikon GAM-B01 20mm) which are still in use on the T45s, RFA's, Rivers and even the nuclear transports. Transferring the T23GP ASCG mounts, plus a small purchase of new DS30M (automated or otherwise) systems would bring an overall improvement in commonality and an uplift in defensive capability, particularly if/when LMM is also integrated onto the ASCG mount.

[Jake1992]

I don't really understand the post Jake.

MHPC came about in 2006 (then called C3). Since 2006 the T31 and OPV's have satisfied the 'P' part, and the 'MH' part is being satisfied by drones. That doesn't leave enough to justify a new class of warship. There's still possibly scope for an auxiliary to look after the drones.

Once again the RB2s will be needed in the UK EEZ once the RB1 are out of service so they will not be available for patrols.
The T31s are expected to take over the role of the GP T23s.
So if we go back to 2006 as you say then the role pictured for the MHCP that you now say are coved by T31 RB2 really isn’t.

Simply put in 2006 the RB2s and T31s of the day we’re RB1s and T23GP yet a role for a MHCP was still required.

The mcm and survey jobs may be undertake by off board system but they will still need a vessel to take them and the operators where they need to be along with defend them when required.

What we have is -
4 x RB1 replaced by 5 RB2
5 x T23GP replaced by 5 T31
12 odd mcm replaced by ?
3 odd survey vessel replaced by ?
An increased need for extra OPVs in uk EEZ along with current Falklands and Caribbean.

What it seems like your suggesting is that the RB2s + T31s can do the jobs of there predisesuresalong with mcm and survey work and the extra EEZ work. I don’t believe that is possible at all.

[Repulse]

A few year's ago there was a good case for an MHPC type, but that ship has sailed now. The River class and T31 has satisfied parts of the requirement, the large UUWV satisfies more parts., and the other part just needs some simple auxiliary vessels to tend to some drones.

Furthermore (this is a massive if) IF the T31 comes in near the advertised price tag, the effort needs to be on a second batch, not MHPC.

Given that the biggest forward basing need is MCM (Gulf) and Survey Ships (Global) then having a MHC platform is key. The B2 Rivers even with their large flight deck and cranes is sub optimal, the T31 is even further removed with their small boat bays (which is a massive opportunity missed).

Of course these drones can be shore based, operated from RFAs and potentially the T26 - but these are also suboptimal as they are few, not designed specifically for the role. have other roles to fulfil and the annual running costs of an RFA is 2-3 times more than a MCM/River/Echo.

My view is have 4 MHPCs (Venator or Venari style) based EoS along with an RFA Tanker/AOR then the rest can just be regular occasional deployments from the UK.

[abc123]

Does anybody knows what could be the cost of Thales Captas 4 sonar?

[tomuk]

12 odd mcm replaced by ?
3 odd survey vessel replaced by ?

Just buy more Echo class that would surely bbe more appropriate then messing about modifying a RB2.

[Jake1992]

12 odd mcm replaced by ?
3 odd survey vessel replaced by ?

Just buy more Echo class that would surely bbe more appropriate then messing about modifying a RB2.

The problem there is they are not set up to allow armament to defend it’s self or it’s off board system along with the fact they are not designed with the role in mind.

I wasnt suggesting modifying an already built RB2 but to use its design as the starting point to evolve from, like we saw the evolved patrol “frigate” version with the amazon concept at the start of the T31 saga.

[Tempest414]

The problem there is they are not set up to allow armament to defend it’s self or it’s off board system along with the fact they are not designed with the role in mind.

I know it not a 40mm or higher but the Echo's do have 2 x 20mm plus miniguns and GPMG's they are not defenceless

[Repulse]

Just buy more Echo class that would surely bbe more appropriate then messing about modifying a RB2

Buying more Echo type ships is ultimately what is needed, but nowadays they would be closer to the BMT Venari.

[Lord Jim]

I agree that the MHPC requirement has not been met by the T-31/RB2 combo even if the powers that be wish it were so. I see the need for a Modular platform of the MPHC role that can operate as a patrol vessels in one configuration and as a "Drone" mothership in another. I know modular designs for warships have gone out of favour somewhat but a design that has a large Mission Bay/deck at the rear would be a start. Have a 57mm up front as its fixed armament with other option being part of the muddles available for differing missions. Such a platform should be able to replace the Hunts and Sandowns as well as acting as patrols vessels around the Falklands and Caribbean and possibly the gulf.

But until the Navy has more resources, I strongly believe that no assets should be deployed further east than the Gulf on a permanent basis, put infrastructure in place to support a deployment up to the size of the Carrier Group, say in Singapore, and allow other nations such as Australia to freely use them and offer an exchange programme with friendly navies in the region so that officers are acquainted with each other doctrines. Such actions would allow us to deploy naval forces east if the need arose and be more able to operate without allies when such an event happens.

[Jake1992]

The problem there is they are not set up to allow armament to defend it’s self or it’s off board system along with the fact they are not designed with the role in mind.

I know it not a 40mm or higher but the Echo's do have 2 x 20mm plus miniguns and GPMG's they are not defenceless

The problem there is they are not set up to allow armament to defend it’s self or it’s off board system along with the fact they are not designed with the role in mind.

I know it not a 40mm or higher but the Echo's do have 2 x 20mm plus miniguns and GPMG's they are not defenceless

20mm is alright for close in self defence ( still odd we have them in service since the 30mm ) but wouldn’t be much good at defending the off board systems or the vessel it’s self in higher threat areas.

I was thinking something along the lines of -
1 x 57mm
2 x 30mm
Fit to receive SeaRam / Phalanx mount

[Repulse]

I was thinking something along the lines of -
1 x 57mm
2 x 30mm
Fit to receive SeaRam / Phalanx mount

Replace the last part with a CAMM canister and you’d have got to a Venator 90 - what the T31 should have been

[Jake1992]

I was thinking something along the lines of -
1 x 57mm
2 x 30mm
Fit to receive SeaRam / Phalanx mount

Replace the last part with a CAMM canister and you’d have got to a Venator 90 - what the T31 should have been

The reason I’d go with the fit to receive SeaRam / Phalanx mount over CAMM on such a vessel is 2 fold really.
1 - it’s a self contained system that doesn’t need to rely on the vessels radar or need built in VLS’s to accommodate it.
2 - the fit to recieve mount allows for easy which in an out depending on the theatres threat level. It also allows you to untilies a core pool of either SeaRam or Phalanx.


I don’t believe the T31 should even exist in the first places, as Iv said before up thread I believe we should of doubled down on the T26 with 10 units and continued on to a stretched AAW version aiming for 8. Then gone for an MHCP type vessel like the Black Swan / Venari 95 concepts in numbers.

[tomuk]

I don’t believe the T31 should even exist in the first places, as Iv said before up thread I believe we should of doubled down on the T26 with 10 units and continued on to a stretched AAW version aiming for 8. Then gone for an MHCP type vessel like the Black Swan / Venari 95 concepts in numbers.

Ordering two more T26 is not doubling down. We need 13 frigates to stand still not 10.

Also we don't need to replace the T45 yet, so far they have had an easy life and will probably outlast the long T26 build.

There is no MHCP requirement since we ordered the RB2s getting on for 10 years ago now.

RB2s are completed
T26s are in build
T31s are ordered, contracts let, infrastructure being built.

That is the reality.

And can we stop putting the T31 in the same bracket as an OPV. It may be under armed in RN ordered spec but it is a 6500t, 9300nm range frigate.

[ArmChairCivvy]

can we stop putting the T31 in the same bracket as an OPV. It may be under armed in RN ordered spec but it is a 6500t, 9300nm range frigate.

Seconded. onto the next batch we can hang a different radar and do away with the mission bay to have plenty of strike-length silos
- voi la: an ABM capable 'warfighter'

I am not promoting this; just pointing out the potential.

[shark bait]

Just buy more Echo class that would surely bbe more appropriate then messing about modifying a RB2.

Or even more likely is this; (serco badge included)

[Tempest414]

20mm is alright for close in self defence ( still odd we have them in service since the 30mm ) but wouldn’t be much good at defending the off board systems or the vessel it’s self in higher threat areas.

I was thinking something along the lines of -
1 x 57mm
2 x 30mm
Fit to receive SeaRam / Phalanx mount

there is enough room on the Echo's where the 20mm mounts are and at the bow for 30mm with LMM to be fitted which would allow them to have 3 x 30mm and 15 LMM ready rounds

[Jake1992]

20mm is alright for close in self defence ( still odd we have them in service since the 30mm ) but wouldn’t be much good at defending the off board systems or the vessel it’s self in higher threat areas.

I was thinking something along the lines of -
1 x 57mm
2 x 30mm
Fit to receive SeaRam / Phalanx mount

there is enough room on the Echo's where the 20mm mounts are and at the bow for 30mm with LMM to be fitted which would allow them to have 3 x 30mm and 15 LMM ready rounds

Wouldn’t a 30mm on the bow intrude on the forward work deck ?

The Echos could make a good test bed stop gap, but IMO if we’re going down the off board system route for survey, mcm and others along with with need for more patrol style vessels then it’d be best to have a purpose designed class.

The way I look at it is these vessels would be used for the following -
Falkland guard
Caribbean patrol
Counter piracy of East Africa
Mcm in the gulf
Mcm NATO
Mcm Far East ( good way to build links )
Survey where needed
Potential literal ASW

So to me the vessel design would need to keep 2 key things in mind
1 - designed to operate a variety of UUVs, USVs, UAVs to the best it can and not just a make do approach
2 - defence, not just of it self with close in systems or point defence where needed but also so it’s off board systems that could be several miles away in the case of mcm.

With the above in mind and along with systems we already have in service / coming in to service is why I thought a purpose built design and the up thread weapons fit would be better over try to just fiddle about with the Echos.

[Repulse]

We need 13 frigates to stand still not 10.

No we don’t, we need as many frigates and other types of vessels that meets the requirement. The requirement has changed IMO with the focus on CEPP rather than current Singleton focused ops - so is 14 enough for CEPP and CASD? I’d say I’d want a 1-2 more T26s to ensure CASD expands into permanent North Atlantic presence also.

Also we don't need to replace the T45 yet, so far they have had an easy life and will probably outlast the long T26 build.

Agreed- we need to focus some funds on maximising the T45 capabilities.

There is no MHCP requirement since we ordered the RB2s getting on for 10 years ago now.

RB2s are completed
T26s are in build
T31s are ordered, contracts let, infrastructure being built.

Sure there is no “P” gap, but so what, there is a very clear “MHC” platform gap, and if it has the level of required self-defence then it will be able to “P”atrol also.

And can we stop putting the T31 in the same bracket as an OPV. It may be under armed in RN ordered spec but it is a 6500t, 9300nm range frigate.

Sure, let’s call it a “Frigate-“, but again let’s be clear on what we want it for. If it’s to be forward based, range is much less important and size is only useful if you do something with it - at the moment it’s a 12 cell CAMM + Helicopter Platform, which a platform a 1/3 of the size can do.

[Repulse]

there is enough room on the Echo's where the 20mm mounts are and at the bow for 30mm with LMM to be fitted which would allow them to have 3 x 30mm and 15 LMM ready rounds

You are pretty much describing the Venator 90 without the retractable hangar.

[Tempest414]

Wouldn’t a 30mm on the bow intrude on the forward work deck ?

I don't think so a platform built just forward of the working deck could hold a 30mm with LMM without intruding on the working parts here

2 - defence, not just of it self with close in systems or point defence where needed but also so it’s off board systems that could be several miles away in the case of mcm.

so 3 x 30mm/ LMM mounts should work if the forward 30mm had air burst rounds as said before 3 mounts could hold 15 ready rounds of LMM plus the ship could hold 15 more in the magazine

[donald_of_tokyo]

I understand we are discussing about MHC hull part.

1: In the MHC-hull issues, there are a few important points here.

A: there is no budget assigned for MHC hull replacement part, as I understand = no money
B: 99% of the MCM activity is in peace time.
C: a 57mm gun, if with 3P-ammo and good FCS is expensive and need man-power.
D: Echo-class is great because they were of Verd-7 design = a merchant vessel standard hull, very cheap to operate with less man-power
E: T31 is very lightly armed, because of shortage of equipment budget
F: T26 "5 more hull" is in big danger now, because of shortage of equipment budget

Thus, I am strongly against "so-so armed MHC-hull with some capability to fight". No money (A,E,F), little need (B) and not enough man-power (C,D).

Thus, I agree to Sharkbait-san,
- focus on T31 for a moment on anything to fight
- think of using civilian chartered PSV like vessels for HMC-hull part. Even Bay class may work.


B: On Partol taskings

In addition, I think "some part of" MHC-hull requirement can be covered by
- T26 with its mission bay
- River B2 using its waist
And I hope, T31 be re-designed in its midship to handle ~12m class USVs, enabling it to join the above list.

On this regard, if "a better armed" Patrol vessels is needed, it is exactly what the T31 is. It is so-so well-armed, has a good (frigate-level) damage control and good speed = pretty much optimized for "patrol tasks". This also means, patrol ship with a 57mm gun with so-so damage-control will never be cheap (although not as expensive as T31).

If "more" is needed = new requirement arises (not currently needed), there shall be additional money there (because the threat increases). In this case, RN can add T31 (very unlikely). Or, up-arm River B2s = the P part of the original MHCP. It is of OPV standard (better than merchant ship), has a good range and so-so sea keeping.

Anyway, I think there is ZERO need for MHC-hull part with a 57mm gun. Just a total waste of money. There are things with much higher priority. Do not forget, there is a big shortage of equipment budget = FACT.

[Jake1992]

I understand we are discussing about MHC hull part.

1: In the MHC-hull issues, there are a few important points here.

A: there is no budget assigned for MHC hull replacement part, as I understand = no money
B: 99% of the MCM activity is in peace time.
C: a 57mm gun, if with 3P-ammo and good FCS is expensive and need man-power.
D: Echo-class is great because they were of Verd-7 design = a merchant vessel standard hull, very cheap to operate with less man-power
E: T31 is very lightly armed, because of shortage of equipment budget
F: T26 "5 more hull" is in big danger now, because of shortage of equipment budget

Thus, I am strongly against "so-so armed MHC-hull with some capability to fight". No money (A,E,F), little need (B) and not enough man-power (C,D).

Thus, I agree to Sharkbait-san,
- focus on T31 for a moment on anything to fight
- think of using civilian chartered PSV like vessels for HMC-hull part. Even Bay class may work.


B: On Partol taskings

In addition, I think "some part of" MHC-hull requirement can be covered by
- T26 with its mission bay
- River B2 using its waist
And I hope, T31 be re-designed in its midship to handle ~12m class USVs, enabling it to join the above list.

On this regard, if "a better armed" Patrol vessels is needed, it is exactly what the T31 is. It is so-so well-armed, has a good (frigate-level) damage control and good speed = pretty much optimized for "patrol tasks". This also means, patrol ship with a 57mm gun with so-so damage-control will never be cheap (although not as expensive as T31).

If "more" is needed = new requirement arises (not currently needed), there shall be additional money there (because the threat increases). In this case, RN can add T31 (very unlikely). Or, up-arm River B2s = the P part of the original MHCP. It is of OPV standard (better than merchant ship), has a good range and so-so sea keeping.

Anyway, I think there is ZERO need for MHC-hull part with a 57mm gun. Just a total waste of money. There are things with much higher priority. Do not forget, there is a big shortage of equipment budget = FACT.

I’m looking more long term out to 2040 than the near to mid future ( with in the current 10 year budget )

In regard to mcm and survey work being done in most peace times that is true but then again most work by any RN vessel is undertaken in mostly peace times. With the likes of Iran and China becoming more assertive in their respective regions I believe the time of under armed or non armed vessel will soon have to come to an end.
The other point I think needs making is with mcm going unmanned it’d be a lot more enticing to attack the USVs / UUVs knowing that no human life will lost or harmed unlike with current manned vessels, this would increase the need for them to be protected.


On the patrol side of things I agree for now we have the RB2s able to cover the low end patrols but as Iv often mentioned come the retirement of the RB1s the RB2s currently used for patrols will need to come back to UK EEZ. This will leave the jobs such as Falklands, Caribbean and Far East will need something to replace the then gone RB2s, this is where an MHCP would fit in.


A common vessel like the Black Swan design would be better to undertake all low end jobs from mcm to low end patrol IMO and such a vessel will need to be armed.

We have to realise the world is becoming more dangerous not less so the ideal of unarmed commercial vessels is going to either become a fading memory or a death trap for its crew.

[shark bait]

Very low chance of the Navy having enough money for a bespoke mince clearance platform. There's a big list of projects needing funds, so a bespoke MCM ship that only benefits the fringe use cases is going to be low on that list.

99% of MCM work is in a low threat environment, and the mission bays can cover the other 1%.

[Jake1992]

Very low chance of the Navy having enough money for a bespoke mince clearance platform. There's a big list of projects needing funds, so a bespoke MCM ship that only benefits the fringe use cases is going to be low on that list.

99% of MCM work is in a low threat environment, and the mission bays can cover the other 1%.

I don’t believe that, the mcm vessels are going to need replacing at some point yes their systems will be replaced by off board and this will remove the need for the plastic hull but I don’t buy that an unarmed commercial vessel is best by any stretch.

Yes most of the time mcm and survey work is done in peace times but like I said so is most of RN work this doesn’t mean we use unarmed vessel all the time.
The thing I think keeps being missed when descusing this is what defends the off board system when things do heat up ? With there being no risk to human life it increases the chance of these systems being attacked, if the mother ship is an unarmed vessel what’s to stop Iranian speed boats or Chinese missile boats from attacking these systems when things heat up abit ?

If things heat up only bit do we send a frigate to provide cover to these vessels and off board systems when a SeaRam + 57mm would be enough?


The other thing to consider is for now we have the RB2s doing low end patrol jobs but when the RB1s go out of service they will have to be called back to the UK EEZ. So when that time comes what do have use to undertake those roles ( Falklands, Caribbean, Far East ) ?

I completely accept that in the current 10 year budget there is no spare money at all but I’m looking out to the next 10 year cycle with an eye to 2040 odd.