Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

You want to send a lightly-armed Sloop to a theater T26 will sink in hours, in an environment a Sloop will be sunk in a minute? Killing 30-40 RN sailers for nothing, because will be sunk in a minute, no time to do any MCM activity.

[Jake1992]

The way I’m looking at things is a lot of the legacy RN vessels in service were designed and built around a fleet that had 30+ escorts to provided that protective cover. What we are going in to now is a time where we’ll have 19 escorts ( if you count T31 14 if you don’t ) that will all be very busy with CASD + CSG.

With the above in mind that there will be NO free escorts to protect anything but what was mentioned then IMO the other vessels need to increase the own defence, not to an escort leave but to have them defenceless is just mind boggling.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...With the above in mind that there will be NO free escorts to protect anything but what was mentioned then IMO the other vessels need to increase the own defence, not to an escort leave but to have them defenceless is just mind boggling.

Then, up-arming will mean the numbers of these low-end assets will also dramatically decrease (because of higher costs). Is this your point?

May be solution such as, temporary adding LMM launcher (small vessel), or 20mm CIWS (larger vessel) will be candidates.

[Tempest414]

Then, up-arming will mean the numbers of these low-end assets will also dramatically decrease (because of higher costs). Is this your point?

NO SPEND MORE F'in MONEY the world has changed it is time to get on board or pack up and go home 2 % GDP is not working and it will never work this is fact and the soon we pull our heads out of our asses the better HMT know this and this is why it has been filling the black hole in defence with one off payments as needed over the past few years

[Jake1992]

...With the above in mind that there will be NO free escorts to protect anything but what was mentioned then IMO the other vessels need to increase the own defence, not to an escort leave but to have them defenceless is just mind boggling.

Then, up-arming will mean the numbers of these low-end assets will also dramatically decrease (because of higher costs). Is this your point?

May be solution such as, temporary adding LMM launcher (small vessel), or 20mm CIWS (larger vessel) will be candidates.

It doesn’t necessarily mean I drop in numbers as we currently don’t know what money is planned for these vessel, we only know the current 10 year plan hasn’t funded them so they’ll come out of the next which is at least what 7 years away.

We keep say there no money for them but like I just said they are not planned for yet so funding won’t be allocated yet.

[abc123]

You want to send a lightly-armed Sloop to a theater T26 will sink in hours, in an environment a Sloop will be sunk in a minute? Killing 30-40 RN sailers for nothing, because will be sunk in a minute, no time to do any MCM activity.

Cheaper is cheaper. In absolute terms, not per ton of course. Otherwise MCMs would have 5-6 000 t, not 500-800.

Hunt/Sandown- 200 mil. pounds and 40-50 members of crew or T26- 1 bln. and 150+ members of crew?
What would you rather sacrifice?

[Repulse]

There are a number of things I disagree with - perhaps the key difference is I believe the following:
- In the future a “Drone Mothership” will be the Torpedo Boat if it’s day, capable of MCM, Survey and defeating (remotely at distance) larger HVUs and expensive escorts / SSNs.
- Such ship will be vulnerable to attack so it needs to have a reasonable level of “onboard” self defence capability plus a reasonable level of stealth.
- It cannot be a HVU or expensive escort itself as it will be too few in number and easier to track.
- The RN can no longer afford to provide a “protection bubble” outside of the UK EEZ or CEPP.
- The platform for MHC is just part of the role for a “Drone Mothership”. It needs to be @£100-150mn per hull to be affordable and to get in numbers.
- The T31 is a design that’s trying to be a traditional frigate on the cheap, there is nothing to suggest it has been designed to operate drones. Unless radically redesigned it is the wrong ship.
- Three Venator style “drone motherships” has more value than a T31 plus 2 PSVs though would cost less.

[Anymous]

Qinetiq & BMT published a paper a couple of years ago on this subject that you might find relevant.

The conference proceedings from 2018 are here https://zenodo.org/record/2530761#.XsVyf2nTXqu

[SW1]

The RN can no longer afford to provide a “protection bubble” outside of the UK EEZ or CEPP.

Well if we’re not doing mcm within the uk eez or to allow passage or movement of the uk carrier group or A NATO group then why on earth are doing mcm for in a hostile environment. It will not be outside of those two protection bubbles.

[Repulse]

Well if we’re not doing mcm within the uk eez or to allow passage or movement of the uk carrier group or A NATO group then why on earth are doing mcm for in a hostile environment. It will not be outside of those two protection bubbles.

Well that’s the end of Operation Kipion then.

[Repulse]

I give you what the T31 could have been, the Vanguard 130.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... very-plan/

Ok, I would have reduced the number of VLS silos and the SSMs... but illustrates what is possible.

[SW1]

Well if we’re not doing mcm within the uk eez or to allow passage or movement of the uk carrier group or A NATO group then why on earth are doing mcm for in a hostile environment. It will not be outside of those two protection bubbles.

Well that’s the end of Operation Kipion then.

One can only hope. The MCMs in the gulf operate under one of the most comprehensive protection bubbles in the world.

[abc123]

There are a number of things I disagree with - perhaps the key difference is I believe the following:
- In the future a “Drone Mothership” will be the Torpedo Boat if it’s day, capable of MCM, Survey and defeating (remotely at distance) larger HVUs and expensive escorts / SSNs.
- Such ship will be vulnerable to attack so it needs to have a reasonable level of “onboard” self defence capability plus a reasonable level of stealth.
- It cannot be a HVU or expensive escort itself as it will be too few in number and easier to track.
- The RN can no longer afford to provide a “protection bubble” outside of the UK EEZ or CEPP.
- The platform for MHC is just part of the role for a “Drone Mothership”. It needs to be @£100-150mn per hull to be affordable and to get in numbers.
- The T31 is a design that’s trying to be a traditional frigate on the cheap, there is nothing to suggest it has been designed to operate drones. Unless radically redesigned it is the wrong ship.
- Three Venator style “drone motherships” has more value than a T31 plus 2 PSVs though would cost less.

Hmm, I think that all current MCMs are built under assumption that they will work after the main fleet units ( CBGs ) and air forces make it's work in softening the opposition enough that you can send them to do it's part. So, they are built to be effective against MINES and nothing else. To do that, they are VERY expensive units, maybe the most expensive per ton of all ships ( or maybe somewhere very near nuclear submarines ). That limits their size and size limits their performances ( speed and range ). And also, I think that neither of these things will not change. You call me a conservative, but I don't see neither a Venator or T31 or T26 being sent into harms way before the main opposition is dealt with. Or it would be a suicide. You can put whatever do you want on them- Phalanx, CAMM..., but to send even Venator/T31/T26 in Hormuz to clear mines while Iranian shore batteries and/or air force aren't mostly (90%) destroyed is a sheer lunacy. Nobody sane wouldn't neither order that or do that. And it will be so never mind manned or unmanned mine cleaning, with drones or not, with few miles or few dozen miles- never mind.
Now, if the unmanned is the way of the future, then obviously, the platform will have to be much larger than current MCMS ( that might help with speed and endurance ) and maybe less optimised to be good against MINES ( so much cheaper ), but unmanned also has it's problems and limits, so I think that the most of my previous remarks are still mostly valid.
So, in conclusion, if you want a drone carrier that will use unmanned sistems to clear mines, then cheap(er) and large(r) is the way. Especially because to do something as dangerous as mine cleaning you have to have numbers, and to have that the ships must be cheap.

[Repulse]

You can put whatever do you want on them- Phalanx, CAMM..., but to send even Venator/T31/T26 in Hormuz to clear mines while Iranian shore batteries and/or air force aren't mostly (90%) destroyed is a sheer lunacy.

Like the use of HMS Alacrity in the Falklands you mean - anyway no that’s not what I mean. Any hot war requires a “protective bubble” from multiple assets - what we are talking about is the constant threat of harassment and boarding from the IRG, and the potential for very short lived flash points.

[Lord Jim]

The USN is looking at an aggressive form of mine clearance using unmanned platforms from vessels such as the LCS. The idea is to rapidly clear multiple mines at the same time using disposable UUVs allowing a taskforce to move through an enemy minefield at far greater speed. Should that be something we should be aiming for as against the more traditional methods of mine clearance.

[Jake1992]

The USN is looking at an aggressive form of mine clearance using unmanned platforms from vessels such as the LCS. The idea is to rapidly clear multiple mines at the same time using disposable UUVs allowing a taskforce to move through an enemy minefield at far greater speed. Should that be something we should be aiming for as against the more traditional methods of mine clearance.

It’s an interesting method be good to see what comes of it.
If it works well it’d be something we should look at but IMO not become the sole method.
Where as it sounds like it’d be a faster and more sensible way in regards to task groups, in day to day peace times it seems like it could be a wasteful method as speed would be as high of a priority.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Then, up-arming will mean the numbers of these low-end assets will also dramatically decrease (because of higher costs). Is this your point?

NO SPEND MORE F'in MONEY the world has changed it is time to get on board or pack up and go home 2 % GDP is not working and it will never work this is fact and the soon we pull our heads out of our asses the better HMT know this and this is why it has been filling the black hole in defence with one off payments as needed over the past few years

Understandable. So, all comes to,
1: what level of armaments/damage controls for this Sloop, with what cost
2: or using that money to increase T26 or T31 or up-armed River B2.
which is better?

Modern 2500t class corvette (like Gowind-2500 or Damen 10514) costs 250-300M GBP (average), when built to OPV-hull standard (not frigate-level). For "C3", we can omit ASW-kit, SSM, and reduce 25kt speed to 20kts. But, in place we need to add a large handling system for USV/UUV. So, a "C3-like" hull will cost 200-250M GBP, I guess.

12 Hunt/Sandown, if considered 200M GBP each in current cost, gives 2.4B GBP. I think (more than) a half (1.2B) is MCM kits's cost. Even if we assume UUV-based MCM kit is "only 20%" expensive than current ones, it is 1.44B. Remaining is only 960M GBP. This means, about 4 "C3" like hulls. If it is a mix of PSV-like and/or OPV-level hulls, 12 is easy.

If with "more money", adding "C3" with 200M average or adding T31 with 400M GBP each (or even less, if with "learning curve" effect), which will be better? This is my point.

[Tempest414]

No as I said way back in the day what is needed is a proper plan with a proper budget and for me this means 1.1 billion per year for the next 30 years for the surface fleet and again as said way back it should look something like this

450 million per year for 30 years to BAE to deliver 15 tier 1 escorts ( avg cost per ship 900 million )
200 million per year for 16 years to Babcock to deliver 8 tier 2 escorts ( avg cost per ship 400 million
200 million per year to CL and HW to deliver 3 FSS , 1 LHD , 3 Bay replacments ( cost per FSS 400 million , LHD 1.2 billion , 3 LSD's 400 million
160 million per year for 30 years to Babcock to deliver 15 Multi mission sloops ( avg cost per MMS 320 million )

Note within this plan Babcocks a hole of 13 years with a budget of 2.6 billion to build what ever else the RN might need

[ArmChairCivvy]

an interesting method be good to see what comes of it.

For ever the same choice: breaching or clearing. Not a difficult choice, though, if you are on the attack - because time is of essence

12 Hunt/Sandown, if considered 200M GBP each in current cost, gives 2.4B GBP. I think (more than) a half (1.2B) is MCM kits's cost. Even if we assume UUV-based MCM kit is "only 20%" expensive than current ones, it is 1.44B. Remaining is only 960M GBP. This means, about 4 "C3" like hulls. If it is a mix of PSV-like and/or OPV-level hulls, 12 is easy.

I seem to remember a programme that followed this logic, until the "P" in its name went AWOL
... anyone seen any of the rest of the ships?

for me this means 1.1 billion per year for the next 30 years

Interestingly surface ships do much better within Equipment Plan2019, as from its £188.4billion planned spending 19.3 bn is thus allocated. Dividing that figure by ten (years)...

[Tempest414]

Interestingly surface ships do much better within Equipment Plan2019, as from its £188.4billion planned spending 19.3 bn is thus allocated. Dividing that figure by ten (years)...

this 19.3 is for new ships and running the fleet so of that say 2 billion a year only 500 to 600 million is for new ships

[ArmChairCivvy]

19.3 is for new ships and running the fleet

True but running the (surface) fleet is very wide... pretty much the whole navy (budget) minus the submarine service which is about 1600 strong.

I would readily accept 50/50 (which seems to be the ratio for the fairly 'focecastable' Fy 20/21.
Anyone with a love for spreadsheets can work out some other ratio from these running costs:
Astute class £9.9 million
Trafalgar class £11.7 million
Vanguard class £18.6 million
Type 23 £11.7 million
Type 45 £14.8 million
Albion class £24 million
River class £3.5 million
Hunt class £2.8 million
Sandown class £3 million
Echo class £5.5 million

The Albions clearly stand out - and the carriers do not have an in-service figure yet
- any guesses how much that figure (emerging, in due course) will swing the equilibrium as the procure+ support total is set at a fairly steady £ 3 bn for many years ahead from today?
- and anyone protesting about this not fitting under the thread header should consider the price that the rest of the surface fleet has paid just to get the carriers

[donald_of_tokyo]

No as I said way back in the day what is needed is a proper plan with a proper budget and for me this means 1.1 billion per year for the next 30 years for the surface fleet and again as said way back it should look something like this

Sorry, yes I do place my number calculation on current budget. But, the point to discuss with you is NOT there.

Two C3 like Sloop, each 200M GBP and one T31 GP frigate 400M GBP, which will you choose? (*1)

This is my point.

*1: Of course, if properly invested (say, adding 50-100M GBP each), T31 can be a good full-fat GP frigate. And, its capability will surely be more than twice higher than "2 C3 Sloops" (well-known scaling effect.)

[Poiuytrewq]

I give you what the T31 could have been, the Vanguard 130.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... very-plan/

Ok, I would have reduced the number of VLS silos and the SSMs... but illustrates what is possible.

What can it do that the A140 can't?

[donald_of_tokyo]

What can it do that the A140 can't?

Many (as A140 cannot handle 12m-class boats)
But it cannot be cheap to buy and operate.
I mean, the design will be much more expensive than T31, for sure. Simply because it is better equipped. It will also be very crowded, and lack future growth margin, and CoG and weight margin.

[Repulse]

What can it do that the A140 can't?

Quite simply it has a big mission bay for larger “drones” than just a 7m Rhib davit - including space for maintenance. A flat working deck like the Venator 90/Venari would be an alternative.

Also at £400mn each, its too expensive to build in numbers (though appreciate probably the Vangard is in the same bracket or more expensive) hence my focus on a “Drone Sloop”.