Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RichardIC]

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

Just be done with the fish nonsense.

[Caribbean]

Yeah, and nothing else has changed since the Wars of the Roses so why should this?

And our military is, of course, notable for not giving a fig for tradition, isn't it? That was my point. There will likely be much resistance from within the RN on tradition grounds alone. Not that that is really a good reason, but tradition is important within the Armed Forces.

In practical terms, the money for running the Fishery Protection Squadron will move to whoever carries out the task. Thus the RN loses both the money and a good task for training future ship's captains.

So file it in the "too difficult to deal with" draw.

That's what has happened in the past, unfortunately. As I said, with a certain iconoclastic individual looking for targets, maybe now is the time that that particular Gordian Knot is dealt with. It would make sense as there is undoubtedly duplication of personnel and assets across the different Ministries

My personal feeling is that overall control would most likely go to the Home Office, if only because both Police, the Security Service and Immigration already lie there, with obvious links to potential "Law and order" type Coastguard activities, with other Departments providing specialist crew (with the correct legal authority for their tasks) when needed. i.e. Fisheries, Pollution Control and Customs.

I assume we’ll be removing it from there overseas role too in U.K. territories and the like a la US coast guards

We are already encouraging the BoTs to set up their own Coast Guard units, though the smaller ones genuinely don't have the manpower or resources. One also has to consider the fact that only naval officers have the authority to conduct an arrest in international waters. I suspect that we will keep our Coast Guard as a civilian organisation, so their activities would be limited to territorial waters/EEZ.

I can almost certainly see it as being classed as part of the defence and security budget for NATO purposes

Interesting - do the NATO rules allow that? Genuine question - do the other NATO countries (most of which seem to have paramilitary Coast Guards) include it in their NATO spending totals?

[SW1]

Interesting - do the NATO rules allow that? Genuine question - do the other NATO countries (most of which seem to have paramilitary Coast Guards) include it in their NATO spending totals?

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014 ... 123-en.pdf

Page 15

We used to declare the RUC as as part of NATO reserve forces I believe

[RichardIC]

And our military is, of course, notable for not giving a fig for tradition, isn't it? That was my point. There will likely be much resistance from within the RN on tradition grounds alone. Not that that is really a good reason, but tradition is important within the Armed Forces.

Of course tradition's important. But try and find a young person who's thinking of joining the RN and says the prospect of upholding the tradition of measuring nets in the North Sea is a primary motivation.

Just let it go.

[ArmChairCivvy]

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014 ... 123-en.pdf

It is a much wider point than 'how many escorts' will we be able to buy after the IR reapportioning defence expenditure, but the Graph 2 on p. 2 shows that all the other countries save the US and the UK that make it to the 'golden upper RHS quadrant' are those who have left the Warsaw Pact and will ahve to renew their kit in order to have any effective response (with Nato integration) to Russia's improprieties.

[Caribbean]

They might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, gendarmerie, carabinieri, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure should be included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force.

So - maybe, but I doubt a UK Coast Guard would be sufficiently equipped and trained to operate in a military capacity, outside "national territory" - we aren't really talking about more than fisheries, pollution control, smuggling etc, none of which really requires more than standard Police weaponry

We used to declare the RUC as as part of NATO reserve forces I believe

Interesting - all the RUC's military-style tasks were supposedly passed to the UDR in 1969 (the RUC was even disarmed for a while) and Reserve Forces were not part of NATOs remit until 1980. I can see us legitimately declaring the UDR after 1980 (and maybe ex-servicemen in the RUC, who were also reservists), but not the entire RUC (unless they were considered as reserve military police, perhaps?). It would be interesting to find out for definite

Just let it go

Oh dear - started another pointless argument? Your last post contributed nothing to the discussion, so I suggest you follow your own advice

[RichardIC]

Oh dear - started another pointless argument? Your last post contributed nothing to the discussion, so I suggest you follow your own advice

Not understanding it doesn't make it pointless. I don't actually need your suggestions but the conversation is getting dull.

[Caribbean]

Not understanding it

Oh boy are you full of it, or what?

Yes, these "conversations" are dull - they start out discussing a point of interest, but then you can't resist making snarky comments as soon as someone posts a different opinion, or facts that don't support your point of view. I can see that you've taken particular exception to me (no problem, I can take it and give back as good as I get), but I can't make up my mind as to whether you are attempting to troll me (not really working, is it), or whether you are just a cantankerous old sot that doesn't like being disagreed with.

[Scimitar54]

Quite what all this has to do with “Current & Future ESCORTS”, I have no idea except for the mention of a Patrol Sloop.

Fact: To be a Navy and possess critical mass one needs ships. So what the hell do people think they are doing making an argument for less ships for the RN! Today’s RN Fishery Protection Squadron vessels could and should be able to perform more warlike tasks if required. It is a good thing for the RN to influence it’s Procedures and Vessel designs etc.

So much erroneous drivel being spouted, I cannot be bothered to provide corrections. Please stick to the topic!

[Tempest414]

Fact: To be a Navy and possess critical mass one needs ships. So what the hell do people think they are doing making an argument for less ships for the RN! Today’s RN Fishery Protection Squadron vessels could and should be able to perform more warlike tasks if required. It is a good thing for the RN to influence it’s Procedures and Vessel designs etc.

There could be a argument for a smaller more focused Navy. At this time there are some 48 ships above 1500 tons in the fleet however for one reason or another we are using about 80% of them I would like to see a bigger Navy however I would at this time be happy with a more focused one of say 40 ships like so

2 x Carriers
1 x LHA
6 x Type 45
8 x Type 26
6 x type 31
15 x 105 x 16 meter Multi Mission sloops
1 x Ocean survey ship
1 x Ice patrol ship

If these were focused into groups of say 2 x carrier groups of 1 x carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 and a LRG of 1 x LHA , 1 x T-45 , 1 x T -26 and so on and so on

[Scimitar54]

So what do you do when you need to deploy individual (escort type) ships? Rob either the CSGs and/or the LHA/LHD of it’s protection. Would you send an inadequately protected Carrier into harms way, bearing in mind that we only have two of them? No you would not, so at that point you might as well not have Strike Carriers! Now if you called the Type 31s “Sloops” AND increased both their defensive and offensive armaments to an adequate level AND possessed the number of vessels required, say 24 (15 is nowhere near enough) then you might be approaching a balanced fleet. However 2 x Carriers and 1 x LHA/LHD are not enough either ......... You would need another one of each and an increased number of “First Rate” escorts as well.

[Tempest414]

You can't have your cake and eat it with the fleet I have put forward you could have

2 x Carrier groups = 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 plus RFA support
1 x LRG = 1 x LHA , 1 x T-45 , 1 x T-26 plus RFA support
1 x Atlantic fleet = 3 x T-26 , 1 x T 45 , 3 x T-31 , 10 x Multi mission sloops
1 x EoS fleet = 3 x T-31 and 5 Multi mission sloops

So you would have 7 escorts in the Atlantic fleet and 3 in the EoS fleet to deploy as seen fit

[Scimitar54]

When they are not in the Dockyard!

[Aethulwulf]

You can't have your cake and eat it with the fleet I have put forward you could have

2 x Carrier groups = 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 plus RFA support
1 x LRG = 1 x LHA , 1 x T-45 , 1 x T-26 plus RFA support
1 x Atlantic fleet = 3 x T-26 , 1 x T 45 , 3 x T-31 , 10 x Multi mission sloops
1 x EoS fleet = 3 x T-31 and 5 Multi mission sloops

So you would have 7 escorts in the Atlantic fleet and 3 in the EoS fleet to deploy as seen fit

With such an arrangement it would be saying goodbye to a continuous carrier capability. A carrier group would only be available two-thirds of the time.

Also, the LRG would only be available one-third of the time. What millitary tasks can one poorly protect LHA can achieve during such times?

Finally, your Atlantic fleet could maintain a permanent at sea presence of 1 T26, 1 T31 and 3 sloops, occasionally supplemented by a T45. What such a force is going to accomplish is open to question.

[NickC]

An update on earlier posts on need for the near instantaneous targeting info required to make ship launched long range AShM an operationally viable weapon system.

A comment in a piece by Arstechnica on F-35 upgrades "And the [US]Navy will potentially be adding more capabilities to support the F-35 acting as a spotter for shipboard interceptor missiles targeting enemy aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and possibly ballistic missiles."

Presumably partially enabled by NG adding the synthetic aperture capability to the F-35 radar to create two/three dimensional images including ability to identify ships, which originally spec'd for Block 3F but kicked down the road to Block 4.(A strong point in favour of UK not buying F-35 from current production lots, until the Block 4 hardware upgrades built in, recent mention MoD will not be funding $27 million cost per a/c of current buy to upgrade to near Block 4 full capability)

As advocated in original post think priority should be equipping the F-35Bs with AShM's as can make best operational use of its targeting info than the destroyers and frigates, if Block 4 a/c get the USN mod?, but if budget runs to it certainly equip ships with the missiles.

Note - Main thrust of the Ars article was question if the software eng'g needed to replace ALIS with ODIN would be successful, as an enabler to bring the operating costs down to F-16 level to make F-35 an affordable aircraft for the USAF. F-35 operating costs have been said to be approaching nearly double the cost of a F-16, F-16 ~$25K per hr @ ~8,000 hr life ~$200 million, and so USAF with planned buy of 1,760 F-35 its operating costs would add potentional $billions to its costs, which won't be funded, the reason why DoD/USAF insisting LM reduce F-35 operating costs to F-16 level.

From <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... -software/>

[ArmChairCivvy]

the [US]Navy will potentially be adding more capabilities to support the F-35 acting as a spotter for shipboard interceptor missiles targeting enemy aircraft, anti-ship missiles

A mig-31 flying at a high altitude and releasing a Zircon with Mach 3 at launch
... sort of invalidates the 'shoot the archer' main option in air defences and thereby necessarily puts the emphasis on shooting the arrow (perhaps quite a few coming in at the same time).

With the new emphasis on N. Atlantic, making the carriers survivable/ useful in that environment would definitely benefit greatly from the referenced capability
- btw, is there any primary source ref for the MoD decision not to be forking out (for now) the 27 mln extra per a/c?

[Roders96]

the [US]Navy will potentially be adding more capabilities to support the F-35 acting as a spotter for shipboard interceptor missiles targeting enemy aircraft, anti-ship missiles

A mig-31 flying at a high altitude and releasing a Zircon with Mach 3 at launch
... sort of invalidates the 'shoot the archer' main option in air defences and thereby necessarily puts the emphasis on shooting the arrow (perhaps quite a few coming in at the same time).

With the new emphasis on N. Atlantic, making the carriers survivable/ useful in that environment would definitely benefit greatly from the referenced capability
- btw, is there any primary source ref for the MoD decision not to be forking out (for now) the 27 mln extra per a/c?

Probably not, but if there was a source saying they were going to fork out the extra - what with existing demands on the capital procurement budget - the MoD would be acting rather dumb.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As the debate rages, it is not just about what total quantity to shoot for, but also
- should we get to that number on the double ,and accept the upgrade costs to be multiplied by that bigger number
- or do a 'drip feed' and thereby cutting down on the number of retrofit/ rebuilds.

The middle way would be to upgrade a sqdrn's worth to the battle-worthy config (ref: special rqrmnts from naval environment as we are , first and foremost, talking about carrier air)... if we are really lucky these could come from production lots that we will need to tap into anyway

This is a lot of money, and best use should be considered carefully. As mentioned: within the overall budget envelope (err, corset... even though that term well describes the budget situation, it also has the connotation of creating an optical illusion, rather than choosing the most logical path).
- money thus invested can save a lot of investment into upgrades in our (AAW-capable) escorts
- which considering the race between offensive and defensive technologies might not turn out to be fully productive - perhaps simply because they would take so long to arrive in service

[Tempest414]

With such an arrangement it would be saying goodbye to a continuous carrier capability. A carrier group would only be available two-thirds of the time.

What makes you think you can get more than in a different way a Carrier group is made up of a carrier , Carrier air-wing , escorts and RFA support

[donald_of_tokyo]

With such an arrangement it would be saying goodbye to a continuous carrier capability. A carrier group would only be available two-thirds of the time.

I understand that is the RN official current intention. Two-CV fleet means, one will be active/deployed, only two-thirds of the time. At the same time, at least one will be always READY = if something happens, UK can "call for" a carrier strike group in response. May need several days or even 1-2 weeks, but not a month.

Aiming at two Littoral group is basically in the same intention, as I understand.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I understand that is the RN official current intention. Two-CV fleet means, one will be active/deployed, only two-thirds of the time.

And the original one, too. Factoring in refits (over a longer period) 0.7 availability, on average
- just one would have been a disaster
- now we have the pleasant problem of deciding what to do with the 0.4, over the one that is needed in readiness... I can think of many things (even without getting loadsa marines onboard, and sailing in tow of the strike carrier)

Now the escort angle: will there be enough, or, will the two have to stick together at all times, even though their roles would require different distancing from 'hostile shores'

[Ron5]

the [US]Navy will potentially be adding more capabilities to support the F-35 acting as a spotter for shipboard interceptor missiles targeting enemy aircraft, anti-ship missiles

A mig-31 flying at a high altitude and releasing a Zircon with Mach 3 at launch
... sort of invalidates the 'shoot the archer' main option in air defences and thereby necessarily puts the emphasis on shooting the arrow (perhaps quite a few coming in at the same time).

With the new emphasis on N. Atlantic, making the carriers survivable/ useful in that environment would definitely benefit greatly from the referenced capability
- btw, is there any primary source ref for the MoD decision not to be forking out (for now) the 27 mln extra per a/c?

Your first mistake is taking anything that Nick and his whacky websites seriously.

The F-35 has already displayed its ability in real world trials to pass targeting information to 3rd party platforms. This is old news.

The UK has stated that not all of their F-35B's will be upgraded. The older models would be uneconomic to upgrade and given they would not be deployed operationally, the upgrade is not needed. The USMC has taken the same tack.

[Ron5]

Now the escort angle: will there be enough, or, will the two have to stick together at all times, even though their roles would require different distancing from 'hostile shores'

I think the RN has quietly dropped the idea of using the second carrier as an LPH. They certainly cancelled the upgrades to POW that would facilitate the task. I guess someone told them that using one of the countries major military assets a few miles off a hostile coast would be a feckin silly thing to do.

[Aethulwulf]

With such an arrangement it would be saying goodbye to a continuous carrier capability. A carrier group would only be available two-thirds of the time.

I understand that is the RN official current intention. Two-CV fleet means, one will be active/deployed, only two-thirds of the time. At the same time, at least one will be always READY = if something happens, UK can "call for" a carrier strike group in response. May need several days or even 1-2 weeks, but not a month.

Aiming at two Littoral group is basically in the same intention, as I understand.

Wrong. The current RN intention is that one carrier and its escort group will always be at R0 to R2 readiness, while the other is at a maximum of R5. So one group will be deployed/active 100% of the time (if "active" means being able to deploy with 5 days notice).

With a carrier group of 2 T45 and 2 T23/26, the RN believes it will need 6 T45s, 6 T23/26s and 2 carriers to achieve this.

Carrier docking periods and maintenance will be done within the R5 criteria, i.e. breaking the normal rule of three for availability. If people have expectations of a carrier disappearing off for a year long refit, based on the practice of the old Invincible class, then this is not the approach the RN is taking for its new carriers.

The availability of the escorts will still follow the rule of three. Given their recent past record, this will be a significant improvement.

[Ron5]

With such an arrangement it would be saying goodbye to a continuous carrier capability. A carrier group would only be available two-thirds of the time.

I understand that is the RN official current intention. Two-CV fleet means, one will be active/deployed, only two-thirds of the time. At the same time, at least one will be always READY = if something happens, UK can "call for" a carrier strike group in response. May need several days or even 1-2 weeks, but not a month.

Aiming at two Littoral group is basically in the same intention, as I understand.

Wrong. The current RN intention is that one carrier and its escort group will always be at R0 to R2 readiness, while the other is at a maximum of R5. So one group will be deployed/active 100% of the time (if "active" means being able to deploy with 5 days notice).

With a carrier group of 2 T45 and 2 T23/26, the RN believes it will need 6 T45s, 6 T23/26s and 2 carriers to achieve this.

Carrier docking periods and maintenance will be done within the R5 criteria, i.e. breaking the normal rule of three for availability. If people have expectations of a carrier disappearing off for a year long refit, based on the practice of the old Invincible class, then this is not the approach the RN is taking for its new carriers.

The availability of the escorts will still follow the rule of three. Given their recent past record, this will be a significant improvement.

Is the off-duty carrier still crewed?