Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

Trying to read through the current speculation on cuts and future strategy, revolving around light forward deployed forces and UK based but deployable CSGs and LSGs, it feels like the following could be the post SDSR RN position and deployment structure.

Why only two GP Frigates? Or are you just looking at a specific time period, before the last 3 T31 Batch 1 are built?

[Repulse]

A nice layout; would suggest that that you make Patrol Squadrons a main heading with subheaders/ columns for
1. Overseas Patrol Sqdrn
2. Home Waters Sqdrn

I am not suggesting this bcz they (now) exist as org. units, but
- bcz they are clearly functions (to which more or less importance can be attributed, and thus assets/ cost allocated)
- and moreover, the same ships/ boats can easily be shuffled across the two

Thought about that, perhaps adding a column for “Refit/Training” for the Overseas fleet will be better. What I am trying to show what is the expected “deployed” presence norm in peacetime - things will obviously change and be rarely norm, but this would expect baseline planning.

[Repulse]

Is this your hope because the 5 GP frigate are ordered we have one LPD and it is unlikely the second will be operated along side the first also Argus will go without replacement so many things here that are unclear

It’s targeted towards the immediate (@1 yr) post SDSR. RFA Argus is unlikely to be scrapped in that timeframe (and yes I’m hopeful of some form of replacement or two, either in the form of the FLSS or other). I’d say that the jury is out on the LPDs - most likely is that one remains in reserve, especially given the LRG(X) trial.

Why only two GP Frigates? Or are you just looking at a specific time period, before the last 3 T31 Batch 1 are built?

Reading press reports I think the three oldest T23 GP frigates most at risk - keeping the B1 Rivers has freed up the B2s to play a lot of their global role (albeit in a limited way) in the short term till the T31s turn up. Must admit the B2s look like the RNs press departments dream, they seem to be everywhere and what’s more always look good in a photo...

[Tempest414]

It’s targeted towards the immediate (@1 yr) post SDSR. RFA Argus is unlikely to be scrapped in that timeframe (and yes I’m hopeful of some form of replacement or two, either in the form of the FLSS or other). I’d say that the jury is out on the LPDs - most likely is that one remains in reserve, especially given the LRG(X) trial.

I now see what you are trying to get at.

[Poiuytrewq]

...the three oldest T23 GP frigates most at risk...

If the cull stops at 3 it will be a good result.

...keeping the B1 Rivers has freed up the B2s to play a lot of their global role (albeit in a limited way) in the short term till the T31s turn up.

Exactly but when the time comes will HMG really want to replace the OPV's with T31's and incur the added cost? Before the RB1's were retained the plan appeared to involve using 3 of the RB2's to patrol the UK EEZ and deploy one each in the Caribbean and Falklands. After Brexit it is highly likely that more patrol craft will be needed, not less. Possibly many more.

I think there is a strong argument to dedicate all five RB2's to UK EEZ patrol when the RB1's are decommissioned in the mid to late 2020's and build another three 103m to 105m RB3's for overseas deployments to low threat areas.

Must admit the B2s look like the RNs press departments dream, they seem to be everywhere and what’s more always look good in a photo...

They would have looked better with a hanger

[Scimitar54]

So are you saying that HMG would rather use the new T31s as UK EZ police vessels instead???

[Poiuytrewq]

So are you saying that HMG would rather use the new T31s as UK EZ police vessels instead???

No

[Scimitar54]

So we would not have any OPVs in UK waters then?

[Jake1992]

There is the slim possibility of actually seeing an increase in numbers and not cuts.

Hear me on this, most economists are saying the way out of this self made resection is not to cut public spending through austerity but to use the historicity low rates to barrow and spend our way out of it via target investment.
Now if this is followed then one of the best ways to help the manufacturing secort and all that is attached to is would be to increase defence spending and buy from home. Increase ship building, increase aircraft production, increase armour vehicle purchase ( start by cancelling JLTV and buy a home design here ) all this give a 2 fold benefit of giving a shot in the arm to the crippled manufacturing sector while also boosting the military capability and world presence it gives.

It’s all going to depend if Boris listens and Sunak push through with his supposed idea of cut tax and borrow to spend.

[Poiuytrewq]

So we would not have any OPVs in UK waters then?

I really don't understand how you draw that conclusion from what I've written but the point I am trying to make is very simple.

The UK currently has 8 OPV's, 3x RB1's and 5x RB2's.

When the RB1's are decommissioned at least 3 of the RB2's will have to return to patrolling the UK EEZ, after Brexit but it may require all 5 or more.

Whilst the T31's are in build the RB2's will be testing out the validity of forward basing vessels in various locations across the globe. Some of these deployments such patrolling the Falklands is routine as are long term deployments in the Caribbean but forward basing in new locations EoS will be new territory, at least in recent years.

The crunch will come when the RB1's start to be decommissioned and the T31's become active at roughly the same time.

Will HMG really be happy to send a T31 to patrol the Falklands and the Caribbean long term? I don't think that is a realistic option so building more OPV's will likely be the answer.

[J. Tattersall]

Will HMG really be happy to send a T31 to patrol the Falklands and the Caribbean long term? I don't think that is a realistic option so building more OPV's will likely be the answer.

I can see the scenario whereby the UK might want more law enforcement in both its territorial waters and EEZ. However it might not necessarily use the current model as the basis for this. Possibly it might move to a modern that most countries understand as a (non-military) coast guard (such as the German Küstenwache) and thus avoid the high personnel costs associated with military (RN) pay and other terms and conditions. So yes possibly more OPVs but perhaps not RN manned nor armed.

[Caribbean]

Possibly it might move to a modern that most countries understand as a (non-military) coast guard (such as the German Küstenwache) and thus avoid the high personnel costs associated with military (RN) pay and other terms and conditions.

As I understand it, the UK government is actively pursing the creation of local Coast Guard services in a number of the BoTs (in the Caribbean), primarily by splitting off existing Police marine units into separate organisations and granting additional funding

[Poiuytrewq]

So yes possibly more OPVs but perhaps not RN manned nor armed.

A UK coastguard would be a great result but the overlap with the RNLI would be huge.

Adding a few extra OPV's operated by RN with support from RNR would in all likelihood be vastly cheaper than setting up an entire UK coastguard structure from scratch.

[Roders96]

Might it also duplicate with the expanding border force?

[Jake1992]

I think we need to look at conceladating aspects of these agencies in to a new UKCG, take the current coast guard + the water based parts of UKBF + the fisheries agencies and others in to one so all aspects of maritime policing full under one agency.

Something like 24 odd vessels split in to something like
12 x 55m odd cutters, 6 new and 6 to eventually replace the 42m BF cutters.
12 x 20-25m fast cutters something along the line of the MK6 patrol boat.
Based at 4 bases around the UK one base on each coast line for quick response.
12 x AW189 medium helo
4 x HC-144 ocean sentry

All this should be a non militarised force but work closely with the RN OPV force.

[Roders96]

The current arrangements do seem quite disjointed, lots of different outfits with narrow objectives (probably) doing them all adequately but expensively.

Not sure whether any of the roles are so specific as to require very niche systems on the cutters themselves?

What are the crossovers in role say, between a border force cutter and a fisheries protection vessel? Are both able to do the same things, realistically?

[Tempest414]

12 x 20-25m fast cutters something along the line of the MK6 patrol boat.

now that would make a good order book for say Appledore if we added 14 more to replace the 2 Gib boats and the Archer class to make a order of 26

[Jake1992]

12 x 20-25m fast cutters something along the line of the MK6 patrol boat.

now that would make a good order book for say Appledore if we added 14 more to replace the 2 Gib boats and the Archer class to make a order of 26

Iv often said on here that I believe the MK6 patrol boat or similar would be an ideal replacement for all small patrol boats in service.

[Poiuytrewq]

In this case, the "River B1-R" will be made of 3 hulls, and they will need
- a hangar (for Wildcat), with Merlin capable flight deck.
- good range and as low as possible crew size (say 50 onboard x1.5 = 75, as Tempest414-san suggests)
- ~70 additional accommodation for disaster relief team (River B2 already has 50)
- and some level of HADR assets, shall be modest, say, 6-10 20ft-containers, and/or with a small LCVP.

Interesting analysis Donald, I have moved it across to gain a little extra latitude.

To meet the requirements you have specified I don't think any type of River class is the answer as adding 6-10 ISO's and a hanger would result in a vessel around 130m, unless the ISO's were stacked on top of each other resulting in a raised CoG and an unstable vessel. Are you proposing widening the 13.5m beam to compensate or accept the extra length.

I also don't think such a vessel is required for guarding the Falklands. The RB2's will be perfect for this but a hanger would be useful when patrolling South Georgia etc.

If we can agree that it is highly likely that numbers of patrol craft around the UK will have to increase in the next 5-10 years then the RB1's will have to get replaced by something. I think that's a safe bet but what the replacements look like is wide open for debate. I really don't think building extra T31's to cover routine Falklands/Caribbean deployments is likely.

Another consideration is where will they be built? Unless BAE take on extra work at Govan/Scotstoun or Babcock at Rosyth then it has to be H&W, Appledore or Cammell Laird.

Will any RB1 replacements actually be connected to the MHC programme? Maybe, but I think we will be lucky to see any MHC vessels in the water by 2030 at the very earliest and probably more like 2035 so far too late if the RB1's start decommissioning in the next 5 to 8 years.

I have never been a fan of the RB2's as I see them as an expensive missed opportunity but if they end up primarily patrolling the UK EEZ they will be ideal for that task so no complaints. Going forward however, I think any additional OPV's should be much more multi role even if that results in reduced maximum speed.

A multirole vessel along these lines is where we should be heading IMO. https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-313/

A VARD design built at Appledore seems plausible and probably much cheaper than anything with a coat of BAE paint. Could these even form the basis of the two Littoral Response Groups if the LPD's are mothballed or scrapped?

Three such vessels for £600m would seem like good value and when combined with the Bays would cover a lot of bases.

This would provide a pool of 6 MRV/LSD's to carry out the following deployments.

1. Two Multi Role Vessels to form basis of the LRG's.
2. One vessel forward based in Far East.
3. One vessel forward based in the Caribbean.
4. One vessel permanently assigned to Kipion.
5, One vessel providing HADR support to east/west Africa
6. One vessel in refit.

This would allow four RB2's to patrol the UK EEZ and one RB2 forward based to the Falklands.

That would leave the 19 escorts to concentrate on securing the North Atlantic, patrol the global hot spots and assign the flag waving and HADR duties to cheaper, less complicated vessels.

[ArmChairCivvy]

then it has to be H&W, Appledore or Cammell Laird.

Prime the pump with the first two for Ukraine, then intro a new design (of not too different size)

but I think we will be lucky to see any MHC vessels in the water by 2030 at the very earliest

I agree. It is not a majority view here that Rivers and T31s will have to step into that gap until then (mind you: same facilities on the ships can also enhance fleet ASW in a significant way... especially as their 'current' contribution is close to zero)

[Tempest414]

For me after type 26/31 the next ships that need building are the 3 SSS and then the MHPC. I think SSS should be built at CL and should followed by the Amphib replacement program and MHPC should follow type 31 at Babcock.

For me MHPC should be a 105 x 17 meter ship with a 25 meter covered and open working decks a flight deck and hangar for up to SH-60/ NH-90 size helicopter and should be fitted out as so

Scanter 4100 radar
M-Cube CMS
Crew 40 plus berths for up to 100 mission crew
speed 20 kts Max
armament 2 x 40mm plus small arms ( 12.5 mm , minigun's , GPMG )

Off board systems

Unmanned MCM
Unmanned Survey
Unmanned ASW
12 x TEU's
1 x Helicopter
3 x UAV's

[donald_of_tokyo]

In this case, the "River B1-R" will be made of 3 hulls, and they will need
- a hangar (for Wildcat), with Merlin capable flight deck.
- good range and as low as possible crew size (say 50 onboard x1.5 = 75, as Tempest414-san suggests)
- ~70 additional accommodation for disaster relief team (River B2 already has 50)
- and some level of HADR assets, shall be modest, say, 6-10 20ft-containers, and/or with a small LCVP.

Interesting analysis Donald, I have moved it across to gain a little extra latitude.

Thanks. I totally agree a Multi-Role-Vessel like ship (including Damen CrossOver) can be one of the few good candidates for River B1 replacement itself.

By the way, my original point was, on the risk of "delay in T26 batch-2 order". Because Clyde's labour-force is needed, a £220M per year (ref TOBA) investment to BAES shall be there. On 2013, 3-years shift in T26 order resulted in 5 River B2s, forced to adopt existing-design because RN/MOD had no plan-B. No hangar, nor more boats. What if the same thing happens in 2025?. (not saying it will happen).

# Of course, another candidate is "super slowing down" the T26 build. But, in that case, River B1 replacement might be better?

Then, it must be "easier" (technically, politically, and industrially) to be build in BAES Clyde. If it is 2-years shift, it will be £440M, and 3-years £660M.

To meet the requirements you have specified I don't think any type of River class is the answer as adding 6-10 ISO's and a hanger would result in a vessel around 130m, unless the ISO's were stacked on top of each other resulting in a raised CoG and an unstable vessel. Are you proposing widening the 13.5m beam to compensate or accept the extra length.

Not sure. As BAE has 99/103m Corvette ( Khareef or short-Leander) and 117/120m Leander, let's start from it. Just imagine a ship, based on Khareef (edit : 14.6 m wide) with 103m option, and has similar deck arrangement with River B2, from funnel to stern. Lowering the deck at the middle, CoG will be relaxed, although internal space gets smaller (but still larger than River B2).

It will be a "super River B2", 1m wider, 13m longer, with Wildcat hangar and Merlin-capable flight deck, by default. The main engine can be changed from 2x MTU 20V 8000 M91 in Khareef (9100 kW each) to 2x MTU 20V 8000 M70 (8200kW each), to enable smaller funnel, larger fuel tank and logistic commonality with T31.

As the space for 4 Exocet, 2x 30mm gun gets free and the funnel getting slim (with some rearrangements), carrying 8 ISO containers and 2x 10-15t cranes will be doable. But, no vehicle deck nor steel beach. For example, I can imagine,
- 4x ISO-containers between the bridge deckhouse and the funnel
- 2x 12-m boats aside the funnel = can be 4 ISO-container in place.
- 2x 7.5-m RHIBs with davits aside the hangar (as is with Khareef corvettes).
- with 2x 40 mm guns = one on A-position, another on top of the hangar, 2x miniguns, 2x LMM launchers (man-controlled triple launcher?), and several MGs.

[Ron5]

Not sure. As BAE has 99/103m Corvette (presumably Khareef or short-Leander) and 117/120m Leander, let's start from it. Just imagine a ship, based on Khareef (13.6m wide) with 103m option, and has similar deck arrangement with River B2, from funnel to stern. Lowering the deck at the middle, CoG will be relaxed, although internal space gets smaller (but still larger than River B2).

It will be a "super River B2", 1m wider, 13m longer, with Wildcat hangar and Merlin-capable flight deck, by default. The main engine can be changed from 2x MTU 20V 8000 M91 in Khareef (9100 kW each) to 2x MTU 20V 8000 M70 (8200kW each), to enable smaller funnel, larger fuel tank and logistic commonality with T31.

As the space for 4 Exocet, 2x 30mm gun gets free and the funnel getting slim (with some rearrangements), carrying 8 ISO containers and 2x 10-15t cranes will be doable. But, no vehicle deck nor steel beach. For example, I can imagine,
- 4x ISO-containers between the bridge deckhouse and the funnel
- 2x 12-m boats aside the funnel = can be 4 ISO-container in place.
- 2x 7.5-m RHIBs with davits aside the hangar (as is with Khareef corvettes).
- with 2x 40 mm guns = one on A-position, another on top of the hangar, 2x miniguns, 2x LMM launchers (man-controlled triple launcher?), and several MGs.

That does sound attractive Donald-san

[shark bait]

Ahhhhhhhh coulda woulda shoulda!

Pains me every time I see this, if we're paying through the roof for patrol vessels, it should have been on this! Worse Navy procurement decision a very long time...

[donald_of_tokyo]

Ahhhhhhhh coulda woulda shoulda!
Pains me every time I see this, if we're paying through the roof for patrol vessels, it should have been on this! Worse Navy procurement decision a very long time...

Yes. But, this "Ahhhhh" shall also applicable to near future = if T26 batch-2 order delays. We may even "sell" this "River B3 for River B1 replacement" idea to BAES, which is much better than "just simply super-slowing the T26 build".

PS By the way, if (big IF) the Ukraine fast patrol boat leak news comes true (2 crafts in UK, and 6 in Ukraine), building those "2 in UK" at Clyde can save 1 or 2 year delay "for free" ?

Uhhmmm, maybe I am too pessimistic here. May look like pushing T26-delay. No, I'm not. I'm just pushing that there ALWAYS must be a PLAN-B to be considered. The 2013-"tragedy" (or, at least, "missed opportunity") tell us so....