Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Aethulwulf]

Yes, the two carriers will always be crewed, even the one at R5 readiness.

R5 is 30 days notice. It would take way longer than 30 days to re-crew a carrier.

Of course some of the crew (including nippers) will be away on leave or on training courses, but must still be able to return to the carrier in less than 30 days.

The requirement for the second carrier to be a LPH is now seen as a lower priority, at least until the RM work out their future operating model and requirements.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks!

...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.

On escorts, I understand you mean, 16 high-end and 5 GP escorts will be, in R0-R2 33%, in "better than R5" 33% and else in 33%.

This sums up as:
- Ships in R0-R2 = 1 CV, 5.3 high-end escorts, 1.7 GP frigates
- Ships in "better than R5" = 1 CV, 5.3 high-end escorts, 1.7 GP frigates
If CVTF needs 1 CV and RN 4 escorts, it means there remains
- 2 escorts left in R0-R2 = 1.3 high-end escorts, 1.7 GP frigates
- 2 escorts left in "better than R5" = 1.3 high-end escorts, 1.7 GP frigates

If LMG needs 2 escorts, RN can provide 1 CVTF and 1 LMG "active", and 1 CVTF and 1 LMG "ready", but nothing else. I think this is what you mean?

In this case, the CVTF or LMG shall involve the standing singleton escorts forward deployed. This will allow reduction of 1 escort from CVTF/LMG on start, and "merge" the standing escort in theater, later. In other words, if CVTF/LMG be deployed to places where RN has an escort already assigned, Persian Gulf (always), North Atlantic (frequently), Med (many times), it can have full escorts (4 and 2, respectively). If in other places, UK needs allies' help. Not bad, I think.

As we know, when something "HOT for UK-only" happens (like Falklands war), standing operations will be gapped (or partly covered by OPV or allies). When something "HOT for NATO" happens, there are plenty of escorts.

On paper, this may work. In reality, escorts "33% active" is not easy as Aethulwulf-san pointed out. BUT, CV's "50% active" is also not easy.

A question. As I understand, current CV operation tempo issue is for the first 7 years. How it will be, when averaged for their expected 40-50 years life? Any info?

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

Yes, the "LPH capability enhancing" modification was dropped. But, CVF "as is" has a LPH capability even better than HMS Ocean, as I understand.

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.

It is well known. But, in case such as Mali or Sierra Leone, CV as an LPH can do it. Of course not in Falklands war.

LPH is by nature a stand-off asset. "How far" depends on its helicopters' capability (UK has Chinook and Merlin, both has a long range), and enemy threat. And the latter can differ by a factor of infinity (from zero to impossible).

I suspect CV WILL BE used as LPH (as, there are not enough F35 planned, for a decade or more, and there will not be a dedicated LPH, for more than a decade), but not in harms way.

[J. Tattersall]

CVTF/LMG

,

CVTF/LMG ? Do you mean Carrier Strike Group (CSG)/ Littoral Strike Group (LSG) or something else?

[donald_of_tokyo]

CVTF/LMG

,

CVTF/LMG ? Do you mean Carrier Strike Group (CSG)/ Littoral Strike Group (LSG) or something else?

Thanks, CV task force (old naming) and LSG, just a mistake... (littoral maneuver ??, as I mistook)

[Aethulwulf]

On escorts, I understand you mean, 16 high-end and 5 GP escorts will be, in R0-R2 33%, in "better than R5" 33% and else in 33%.

Not sure from where you get the figure of 16 high escorts. 6 T45s plus 8 T23 ASW / 8 T26 makes 14.

The two carrier groups need 6 T45s and 6 T26. The remaining 2 T26 will be focused on TAPS.

The Littoral groups (lost track of what we are calling them today) will have to rely on the 5 T31s for escorts. If there are 2 Littoral groups then:
A. Only 1 T31 per group would normally be available. This stops the group from being able to operate in hostile waters, unless...
B. Other escorts from partners would be required to conduct ops in disputed waters
C. T45 and/or T26 escorts could be provided, but only by robbing a carrier group or TAPS.

This points to the need for the 5 T31s to be up armed if they are to used as escorts.
Plus the need to buy more of them.
Or buy more T26.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not sure from where you get the figure of 16 high escorts. 6 T45s plus 8 T23 ASW / 8 T26 makes 14.
The two carrier groups need 6 T45s and 6 T26. The remaining 2 T26 will be focused on TAPS.

Thanks! You are right. So, 14 high-end escorts and 5 GP frigates will provide "4.7 high-end escorts and 1.7 GP escorts" for both active/high-rediness and middle readiness. So, no problem for CVTF (or CSG).

The Littoral groups (lost track of what we are calling them today) will have to rely on the 5 T31s for escorts. If there are 2 Littoral groups then:

As there are 1.7 T31 for active/high-readiness Littoral groups and 1.7 T31 for ""better than R5" Littoral groups, it will be 2 T31s in many cases, and sometimes 1 T31.

C. T45 and/or T26 escorts could be provided, but only by robbing a carrier group or TAPS.

Yes. Here "robbing" includes, "when filled with support from allies", as well. Anyway, French CV group does NOT have 4 French escorts in most (all?) cases.

This points to the need for the 5 T31s to be up armed if they are to used as escorts. Plus the need to buy more of them. Or buy more T26.

Not sure how good the Littoral group escort must be armed. Sierra Leone and Mali were both OK with current T31. It depends. It is the same for CV groups, they do not-always need 4 high-end escorts.

By the way, RN being tight on its escort fleet is I totally agree. I am not a fan of LSG. But, looking at current fleet size (which is already stretched because of lack of money), I think it only aims at "Sierra Leone or Mali level". All by all, I "feel" the "2 CV groups each with 4 escorts" and "2 LSG each with 1-2 escorts" arguments look like a position talk to say how RN cannot cut anymore, in the coming review.

As you said, if RN want to do it "properly", "16-18 high-end escorts" and "5 (or 6) up-armed T31" will be needed. As I think this will not happen in the next review, I think "2 CV groups each with 4 escorts" and "2 LSG each with 1-2 escorts" will not be filled properly.

[Repulse]

This points to the need for the 5 T31s to be up armed if they are to used as escorts.
Plus the need to buy more of them.
Or buy more T26.

Assigning a T31 to the “active” LRG would require 3 of the 5, leaving 2. Stretching these two across Kipion and joint covering of the FRE requirement - is probably okay in normal times. But, unless the government gets out its cheque book and buys more everything else will be on the shoulders of the B2 Rivers.

I am fully supportive of the two CSG + two LRG model for the RN - it is an appropriate posture of a globally engaged navy that isn’t trying to be a mini world policeman. However, the resources to support it will be wafer thin with little room for mishaps.

If money can be found another T26 and a few more T31s are a must, not a luxury.

If money cannot be found to extend the already financially ambitious plans, then I think two things are required.
- Reduce the availability of the CSGs slightly or increasing the reliance on allies - going to a 5 T26 + 5 T45 model - assigning the freed up ships to allow an always available T26/T45 FRE, allowing the 5 T31s to cover the LSGs and Kipion.
- Extend the life of the B1 Rivers well into 2030, and look at more Rivers / a new MHPC class.

[Jake1992]

This points to the need for the 5 T31s to be up armed if they are to used as escorts.
Plus the need to buy more of them.
Or buy more T26.

Assigning a T31 to the “active” LRG would require 3 of the 5, leaving 2. Stretching these two across Kipion and joint covering of the FRE requirement - is probably okay in normal times.

Never get why we keep think a frigate or destroyer is really needed for FRE, yes it’s got escort in its name but all the job really is is to follow and monitor other nations vessels as they pass through UK waters.
Does anyone really believe that any vessel whether that be a Chinese destroy or a Russian cruiser would attack the FRE vessel so close to the UK when Typhoons or F35s would be up in minuets to sink them.

With only really being a follow and watch job is anything more than an OPV honestly needed ?

[Caribbean]

I thought the primary task of the FRE was to dash off to potential trouble spots around the world at the drop of a hat. Escorting foreign warships is something to do whilst waiting for that to happen (with an OPV picking up the task when the Frigate/ destroyer is off doing precisely that)

[Jake1992]

I thought the primary task of the FRE was to dash off to potential trouble spots around the world at the drop of a hat. Escorting foreign warships is something to do whilst waiting for that to happen (with an OPV picking up the task when the Frigate/ destroyer is off doing precisely that)

If that’s the case the doesn’t the whole forward basing of vessel get rid of that need as they will be much closer ?

[Repulse]

If that’s the case the doesn’t the whole forward basing of vessel get rid of that need as they will be much closer ?

Not if it’s an OPV which will be the mainstay of the RNs forward deployments. The “ready” LRG / CSG will cover some of this, but in the majority of real life scenarios this is not appropriate or financially viable.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Other escorts from partners would be required to conduct ops in disputed waters

+

a globally engaged navy that isn’t trying to be a mini world policeman

Exactly: pirates and terrorists do not have navies, and for other types of OpFor, why would we go anywhere where we are not aligned with friendly nations (with navies) in the region

to dash off to potential trouble spots around the world at the drop of a hat.

the job of SSNs (sea denial, in the interim); they will also get there much faster

doesn’t the whole forward basing of vessel get rid of that need

they are only a deterrent (Step 1, to be followed by the interim Step 2, as per above)

The “ready” LRG / CSG will cover

the rest, if needed. The Big Stick = Step 3

[RichardIC]

I thought the primary task of the FRE was to dash off to potential trouble spots around the world at the drop of a hat. Escorting foreign warships is something to do whilst waiting for that to happen (with an OPV picking up the task when the Frigate/ destroyer is off doing precisely that)

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the- ... ations.pdf

That seems to be what it meant in 2014. We've had a breakdown in rationale thinking since then however. It probably isn't even a thing anymore.

[Caribbean]

If that’s the case the doesn’t the whole forward basing of vessel get rid of that need as they will be much closer ?

Oh, agreed that that is a possibility, but I think we should reserve judgement until stuff actually gets built. I suspect, however, that we may stilll hold an escort (plus, as @ACC notes, an SSN) in readiness to act as re-inforcement to the T31/ RB2 "on-the-spot" , as they are (as currently envisaged) only really patrol assets, not full-on combat ships and any potential aggressor has to be aware that when you touch the trip-wire, pain follows

[Aethulwulf]

The Fleet Ready Escort (FRE) is a single warship maintained at high readiness for deployment at short notice anywhere in the world. This is in effect the RN contingency force.

However, in recent years the role has been gapped on occasions, or combined with the TAPS role. If one ship is covering TAPS and FRE, then it is pretty much restricted to home waters.

[Jake1992]

If that’s the case the doesn’t the whole forward basing of vessel get rid of that need as they will be much closer ?

Not if it’s an OPV which will be the mainstay of the RNs forward deployments. The “ready” LRG / CSG will cover some of this, but in the majority of real life scenarios this is not appropriate or financially viable.

The RB2 being forward based are only a temporary measure while the T31s are built. So if T31s are forward deployed why would one need to be used in the FRE role since the forward deployed ones would react quicker.


If then suddenly the whole needing to be ready for quick deployment role is taken out of FRE ( as it is better served by other vessels ) then is a frigate destroyer really needed for what’s left of the FRE role ?

If that’s the case the doesn’t the whole forward basing of vessel get rid of that need as they will be much closer ?

Oh, agreed that that is a possibility, but I think we should reserve judgement until stuff actually gets built. I suspect, however, that we may stilll hold an escort (plus, as @ACC notes, an SSN) in readiness to act as re-inforcement to the T31/ RB2 "on-the-spot" , as they are (as currently envisaged) only really patrol assets, not full-on combat ships and any potential aggressor has to be aware that when you touch the trip-wire, pain follows

Oh this whole descution is centred around what’s planned to be and not what we currently have so I agree it is a wait and see for the most part.

As to the second part of your comment, if the T31s are only going be seen as “patrol ships” and will require another properly armed vessel to be on standby for support where is this vessel coming from ? As it stands we will only have enough T45s/T26s to support the CSGs and CASD.
This all brings be back to what’s the point of a T31 being held in UK waters just for FRE ? The forward deployed ones will be quicker responds the FRE one won’t offer anything the other havnt got and it’s over kill just to follow other nations vessels through UK waters.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'm pretty sure that for years to come (when again will the escort numbers hit the rock bottom?) we will have to factor in one in the Gulf and another close-by, ready to 'steam' in

[Jake1992]

The Fleet Ready Escort (FRE) is a single warship maintained at high readiness for deployment at short notice anywhere in the world. This is in effect the RN contingency force.

However, in recent years the role has been gapped on occasions, or combined with the TAPS role. If one ship is covering TAPS and FRE, then it is pretty much restricted to home waters.

But the way the RN are doing things is going to change they will no longer be sending singletons out as a respons, everything will fall in to 2 catorgories being the batter groups ( CSG / LMG ) and the forward deployed “patrol” assets ie the T31s.

TAPS is always going to be needed so 2 T26s will be tied to this but do we really need another vessel in UK water for watching Russians ship going through UK waters ? I ask as the other part of FREs role the quick response will be better served by the forward deployed and battalion groups.

I'm pretty sure that for years to come (when again will the escort numbers hit the rock bottom?) we will have to factor in one in the Gulf and another close-by, ready to 'steam' in

Isn’t the current plan to forward deploy a T23 there as a test to make sure the whole forward deployment works with a frigate ?

[Repulse]

However, in recent years the role has been gapped on occasions, or combined with the TAPS role. If one ship is covering TAPS and FRE, then it is pretty much restricted to home waters.

Spot on, and in the future without Singleton deployments, then there is no longer the option to rob Peter to pay Paul (like recently when we moved a T45 to reinforce our Gulf force).

[Aethulwulf]

This all brings be back to what’s the point of a T31 being held in UK waters just for FRE ? The forward deployed ones will be quicker responds the FRE one won’t offer anything the other havnt got and it’s over kill just to follow other nations vessels through UK waters.

You have to remember that forward based ships are not always available, they go through almost the same readiness cycle as any other ship, its just that they do so while forward based. So don't expect a forward based ship to be at very high readiness for more than one-third of the time. Hence, they often will not be able to quickly respond.

[NickC]

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.

Ron must say you do post some whacky comments

The F-35 uses a new Multifunction Advanced Data Link, MADL, a stealthy system so as not to reveal its position but incompatible with other comms systems, it was only in Nov 2019 that USAF announced that they were planning to test a gateway that could finally allow F-35 MADL to share data with the F-22. So unless a destroyer or frigate has an equivalent comms gateway to allow it to link to F-35 the ship would be unable to download targeting info for its long range AShM. If you know of pointer to use of other 3rd party comms compatible with MADL would appreciate ref.

My understanding the other major problem is F-35 radar needs ability to discriminate enemy warship from say merchant/fishing/ferry vessel etc, that requires synthetic aperture radar upgrade with its ability to create 2D/3D images promised for F-35 Block 4 with the necessary computer processor power to identify enemy warship, from all angles, so as not to waste one of your very limited number and expensive AShMs blowing up a fishing boat. Not disclosed if the F-35 NG SAR radar has this capability at a long stand off range. Not easy.

[Jake1992]

This all brings be back to what’s the point of a T31 being held in UK waters just for FRE ? The forward deployed ones will be quicker responds the FRE one won’t offer anything the other havnt got and it’s over kill just to follow other nations vessels through UK waters.

You have to remember that forward based ships are not always available, they go through almost the same readiness cycle as any other ship, its just that they do so while forward based. So don't expect a forward based ship to be at very high readiness for more than one-third of the time. Hence, they often will not be able to quickly respond.

But so does any FRE so unless 2 ship are put up for FRE then there won’t always be a vessel available there.

What I’m trying to get at at the core of all this is what should be the proper use of our very limited resources going forwards.
The way I take it is that currently all out “high end” escorts ( T45 / T26 ) will be tied the the battal groups and TAPS with the idea of forward deploying at least 2 T31s so is FRE really the best use of one of the remaining 3?
This question becomes even harder when we start to look at what happens when the RB1s go out of service. Here we come to the questions of are they replaced if not what covers SA and Carrebean ? Do we cut back to just 3 OPVs in the EEZ or would the remaining T31s have to cover theses role.

[ArmChairCivvy]

deploy a T23 there

+

recently when we moved a T45 to reinforce our Gulf force

Did the comment from the US Foreign Sec that "the UK will need to protect its own ships" fall in-between these two things happening?

[ArmChairCivvy]

capability at a long stand off range. Not easy.

I guess the point of engagement ranges becoming radically longer is not factored into our escort fleet plans too much... all resting on one card (carrier air)? So WW2