Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: Image
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...
The consistent claim from both Bae and the MoD is that the River design was the only OTS design ready to build in the very limited time available.

But having said that, a considerable amount of redesign had to be done in order for the ships to meet the latest regulations which is why the B2's are different from the B1's.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

I take two exceptions to their statement.
  • First, don't rush an order out the door last minute. The MOD employ thousands who are suppose to be managing this, it's such a huge failure! (oh, and now doing the same again with AWACS)
  • Second, they did a load of redesign anyway, and a 10m plug in the middle is hardly complex, especially given the price paid.
IMO its almost a bad as Nimrod.

/rant
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: now doing the same again with AWACS
... second time, in fact
shark bait wrote:its almost a bad as Nimrod
all debacles seem to come in two's (this one, too)

But there was redesign under the "surface". E.g. the several mags make uparming a real possibility, unlike in R1s
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3923
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:10m plug in the middle is hardly complex,
They are destined for the UK EEZ in a few years time so the hanger won't be necessary but the whole debacle must be used as the most perfect example of how not to do naval procurement.

If the hanger was omitted to ensure 13 Frigates were retained I suppose you could argue that it worked....

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1063
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

A moot point but maybe they should of done the first 2 or 3 batch 2 as per design then while they were in build RE - design the last 2 or 3 for this design with hanger, still think a couple extended with hanger would of be usefull for the south atlantic & extended patrols

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Question is do we believe the RB1s will be replaced ?
If yes then what with ? Would these replacements be just for EEZ ( so 8 EEZ OPVs ) or for further afield like med, SA, east Africa ?
If the later then do we go for a new design or a modified version of the Khareef class ?

If we don’t replace the RB1s the are we will to accept using a frigate for the afermentioned tasks or drop them over all ? Or do we really believe just 3 OPVs in the EEZ after brexit will be enough ?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Jake1992 wrote: Or do we really believe just 3 OPVs in the EEZ after brexit will be enough ?
If three was enough before Brexit why shouldn't three be enough after Brexit?

(I'm already regretting asking but just couldn't resist)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RichardIC wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: Or do we really believe just 3 OPVs in the EEZ after brexit will be enough ?
If three was enough before Brexit why shouldn't three be enough after Brexit?

(I'm already regretting asking but just couldn't resist)
The simple answer is protection of fishing grounds. Now I know a lot think it shouldn’t be the RNs job to “count fish” as they say but as it stand it is.

With leaving the CFP and the EU wanting to keep the rights as if we were still in that agreement along with the french saying they just ignor the rules and carry on do you or anyone here believe 3 OPVs would be enough to monitor the whole EEZ ?

If we had a “proper” coast guard with the type of vessels needed in numbers needed then it could be rightly argued 3 OPVs will do but since we don’t and are likely not to have such and agency anytime soon more OPVs are need IMO.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Jake1992 wrote:With leaving the CFP and the EU wanting to keep the rights as if we were still in that agreement along with the french saying they just ignor the rules and carry on do you or anyone here believe 3 OPVs would be enough to monitor the whole EEZ ?
So how many do you think are going to be needed?

An actual worked out number would be good rather than "more than three" or as "many as it takes".

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

RichardIC wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:With leaving the CFP and the EU wanting to keep the rights as if we were still in that agreement along with the french saying they just ignor the rules and carry on do you or anyone here believe 3 OPVs would be enough to monitor the whole EEZ ?
So how many do you think are going to be needed?
Personally I’d be happy with 6, but with the need to have them based around the country for quicker response ie like I suggested with a new coast guard having 4 bases around the uk one on each cost line with the OPVs based where needed.

I go for the 2 busier coast lines such as the Chanel and east coast having 2 OPVs each and the west cost and norther horn having 1 each but this is just my opinion.
If 6 were to be you could even look at them picking up the FRE role between then freeing up a T class to go else where.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

The FRE role is not just escorting Russian warships through UK waters. It is a general contingency against a whole range of possible operations.

So although an OPV can be tasked to shadow foreign warships, it can't really be a FRE. (The clue is in the name, an OPV is not an escort ship.)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

FRE is a legacy task, really no point for it in a Carrier Group navy. The Rivers will be fine for picking up whats left.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

RichardIC wrote:So how many do you think are going to be needed?
Zero! It shouldn't be the Navy picking up the tab.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

shark bait wrote:Zero
Is the correct answer. Thank you.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5514
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:Question is do we believe the RB1s will be replaced ?
If yes then what with ? Would these replacements be just for EEZ ( so 8 EEZ OPVs ) or for further afield like med, SA, east Africa ?
If the later then do we go for a new design or a modified version of the Khareef class ?

If we don’t replace the RB1s the are we will to accept using a frigate for the afermentioned tasks or drop them over all ? Or do we really believe just 3 OPVs in the EEZ after brexit will be enough ?
For me we now have the 5 B2's I don't see the B1's being replaced as so down to as the type 31's replace the B2's they will in turn replace the B1's. As I have said in the past I think we need to put the River design to bed and start to shape a new Multi mission sloop that would replace the MCM , Survey and patrol fleets with one class of ship and one set of logistics and training. And as I have said these ships need to be 105 x 17 meters with a max speed of 20 knots

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:
RichardIC wrote:So how many do you think are going to be needed?
Zero! It shouldn't be the Navy picking up the tab.
That maybe what you and many want but like I said with out a proper coast guard then it falls to the RN, since it is their job to do it’s got to be what is needed to do it.

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Question is do we believe the RB1s will be replaced ?
If yes then what with ? Would these replacements be just for EEZ ( so 8 EEZ OPVs ) or for further afield like med, SA, east Africa ?
If the later then do we go for a new design or a modified version of the Khareef class ?

If we don’t replace the RB1s the are we will to accept using a frigate for the afermentioned tasks or drop them over all ? Or do we really believe just 3 OPVs in the EEZ after brexit will be enough ?
For me we now have the 5 B2's I don't see the B1's being replaced as so down to as the type 31's replace the B2's they will in turn replace the B1's. As I have said in the past I think we need to put the River design to bed and start to shape a new Multi mission sloop that would replace the MCM , Survey and patrol fleets with one class of ship and one set of logistics and training. And as I have said these ships need to be 105 x 17 meters with a max speed of 20 knots
I still believe the RB2 family can be evolved in to MHPC type vessel long with a more long range patrol vessel like an improved Khareef vessel. This IMO along with evolving the T26 family could give 2 solid families of vessel covering all areas needed.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5514
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:I still believe the RB2 family can be evolved in to MHPC type vessel long with a more long range patrol vessel like an improved Khareef vessel. This IMO along with evolving the T26 family could give 2 solid families of vessel covering all areas needed.
why do you want a family of ships when one class could do all the low end tasks

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Jake1992 wrote:That maybe what you and many want but like I said with out a proper coast guard then it falls to the RN, since it is their job to do it’s got to be what is needed to do it.
Honestly don't care much who should be doing it but it shouldn't be a military tasking.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I still believe the RB2 family can be evolved in to MHPC type vessel long with a more long range patrol vessel like an improved Khareef vessel. This IMO along with evolving the T26 family could give 2 solid families of vessel covering all areas needed.
why do you want a family of ships when one class could do all the low end tasks
It’s not show much a family for families sake but I believe an MHPC would be over kill in a way and more expensive for OPV EEZ work, in regard to the T26 family IMO it’d need stretching to be able to replace the T45s.
A family of classes at least in design would be nice for exports covering all aspects any nation could want.

RichardIC wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:That maybe what you and many want but like I said with out a proper coast guard then it falls to the RN, since it is their job to do it’s got to be what is needed to do it.
Honestly don't care much who should be doing it but it shouldn't be a military tasking.
I tend to agree but the simple fact it is a military job as it stands so instead of moaning that we don’t want it to be we should accept it is and decide what type vessel would be best and in what numbers.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Mind you we did shift SAR from the RAF to being a wholly Coast Guard task. Given the increased size of the task to patrol our EEZ post Brexit and its increased importance, transforming our Coast Guard into a larger organisation should be a priority of our Government.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1063
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I would like to see that as there would be a lot of pro's to having a dedicated coast guard, I can hear all the bad spin "Royal navy looses 8 warships" :roll: when they transferred the river classes !

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2779
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

The simple fact is that a) fisheries have been a Navy task since 1481 and b) there have been attempts in the past to create a "proper" Coastguard, but they all foundered on the issue of who would get the money in their budget. As the roles are currently spread across a number of different departments, it would involve taking both responsibilities and budget away from some departments and giving it all to a single department - and as we all know size IS important (just to be clear, I'm talking about departments here :? ).

The thought occurs to me though - maybe with "he who shall not be named" weilding his departmental chopper, now would be a good time to rationalise. With the example of DfID fresh in minister's memories, they will be happy just to lose little bits, rather than their whole department.

Who would you want to run it, though - the existing Coastguard Agency and SAR is run by the DoT - once you include the Border Force (Home Office), offshore Customs and Excise (HMRC, technically a Department in it's own right, but without a minister), Fishery Inspection (MAFF, partially subcontracted to the RN), Marine Policing (Home Office), offshore Pollution monitoring and control (DoE) etc. etc, there's a lot of losers and only one big winner.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Caribbean wrote:a) fisheries have been a Navy task since 1481
Yeah, and nothing else has changed since the Wars of the Roses so why should this?
Caribbean wrote:Who would you want to run it, though - the existing Coastguard Agency and SAR is run by the DoT - once you include the Border Force (Home Office), offshore Customs and Excise (HMRC, technically a Department in it's own right, but without a minister), Fishery Inspection (MAFF, partially subcontracted to the RN), Marine Policing (Home Office), offshore Pollution monitoring and control (DoE) etc. etc, there's a lot of losers and only one big winner.
So file it in the "too difficult to deal with" draw.

Which I'm aware isn't a particularly helpful contribution, but now is a good time to remove the military from what is essentially a growing political and economic issue.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5514
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:It’s not show much a family for families sake but I believe an MHPC would be over kill in a way and more expensive for OPV EEZ work, in regard to the T26 family IMO it’d need stretching to be able to replace the T45s.
A family of classes at least in design would be nice for exports covering all aspects any nation could want.
I am more than happy with the idea of Type 26 being made bigger or smaller to fit the need of smaller frigate or a destroyer. As for the RN low end fleet the act of have one class of ship with one training and logistics pipe line would compensate for the cost over having say two or three classes with different training and logistics

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

So I assume as we’re removing the security/police role for navy around the U.K. I assume we’ll be removing it from there overseas role too in U.K. territories and the like a la US coast guards

And if we are creating this gendarmes type force I can almost certainly see it as being classed as part of the defence and security budget for NATO purposes.

Post Reply