Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Aethulwulf wrote: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.
If say we would like to get 120 to 140 at sea days out of a Type 23 a year should we be looking to get say 165 to 185 days out of the newer and in some ways simpler Type 31s

As for the escorts needed for the Carriers I have said for sometime now that maybe POW should head a NATO carrier group this could mean POW gets one T-45 and one T-23/26 and the remaining escorts come from allied members maybe we need to be more realistic and this needs to be done for both carriers it could also free up escorts for the LRG and other duties

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote: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 the T31s are now LRG escorts and used for Kipion, then the B2s maybe doing the forward role on a permanent basis - personally this isn’t a bad thing.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On FRE, I am a bit confused.

To my understanding, FRE is an escort in R0 but not deployed.

2 CSG concept does NOT mean one will be always deployed far away, simply impossible. The 1st-CRG will be "deployed or in very high readiness", and the 2nd in "less than 30days (R5) readiness". I do not expect CSG-1 to deploy far away more than 50% of a year. It will be sitting in the port or training around Britain, within "the other 50%". Then, in the latter period, one of the escorts of CRG-1 can be a FRE, I guess? It will be the same for LSG-1. Thus, if arranged, CRG-1 and LRG-1 can provide most of the FRE, if not all. Combined with TAPS, I think "1 FRE" can be there?

# Of course, low-level tasks of FRE = such as escorting Russian vessels, must be covered by OPVs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Tempest414 wrote:As for the escorts needed for the Carriers I have said for sometime now that maybe POW should head a NATO carrier group this could mean POW gets one T-45 and one T-23/26 and the remaining escorts come from allied members maybe we need to be more realistic and this needs to be done for both carriers it could also free up escorts for the LRG and other duties
Other nations are reluctant to make up for shortfalls in UK defence funding, or cover gaps caused by extravagance like carriers (at least in their eyes) unless there is something in it for them. Forming a permanent NATO carrier group is unlikely, although I expect many nations will want to deploy their ships with a UK carrier group but only on an ad hoc basis.

However, the Littoral groups falls nicely within the construct of Joint Expeditionary Force the UK has formed with Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, or the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force the UK has formed with France. I think it will be much easier to get regular and strong partner support for the Littoral groups with these agreements, for example Ex Baltic Protector or the current deployment in the Mediterranean, than getting any agreement to form a NATO carrier group.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Aethulwulf wrote:The Littoral groups (lost track of what we are calling them today) will have to rely on
Gavin Williamson when DS started the ball rolling with Littoral Strike Ships within Littoral Strike Groups which has now moved onto Littoral Support Ships within Littoral Response Groups. This appears to be subject to change at short notice whist RN/RM explore the direction of travel for the FCF.
Aethulwulf wrote: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.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think "2 CV groups each with 4 escorts" and "2 LSG each with 1-2 escorts" will not be filled properly.
It's hard to see how the 2x CSG, 2x LRG structure is going to operate efficiently with 19 escorts and if some of the T23's are decommissioned early in the upcoming review it looks impossible.

If HMG refuse to fund additional escorts, could the second CVF become in effect a 'coalition carrier' whereby a majority of the aircraft and escorts within the CSG are provided by coalition partners. The USMC could provide the majority of the F35's and allies such as the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc could provide most of the escort screen and helicopters. Not ideal but if this CSG operated mainly in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific coalition partners should not be hard to find. This would allow a second CSG to operate with sufficient UK escorts in the North Atlantic and the Med.

It's difficult to see how two permanent LRG's are going to be affordable long term unless they are so under resourced as to be of negligible use. To do the LRG concept properly it will likely require something approaching two Ocean-like LPH's and that isn't on the cards within the next 15years. If something this ambitious is deemed necessary I am expecting a long gap to achieve it.

Multiple Multi Role RFA Vessels, forward based across the globe would seem like a more affordable route to an effective LRG. These multi role vessels could perform mainly HADR taskings very cost effectively in a designated area of operations but quickly re-role to become the basis of the LRG in a crisis. The FCF and all required equipment could be flown in very rapidly and multiple vessels could combine depending on the size of the LRG required. This would allow an escort(s) from the pool of 5x T31's to escort the active LRG as its very unlikely two LRG's would be involved in separate crises concurrently.

Something along these lines possibly lengthened to around 150m to meet RN/RFA requirements and augment the Bays. https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-313/ The Norwegians are building something similar for around £200m. The tricky part is where the command and control facilities are located. A modular, air transportable setup would be ideal but I suspect it may prove cost prohibitive.

It will be very interesting to see how RN combine the FCF and LRG requirements within the current budget envelope.
Aethulwulf wrote: This points to the need for the 5 T31s to be up armed if they are to used as escorts.
And given a credible ASW capability?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:It's hard to see how the 2x CSG, 2x LRG structure is going to operate efficiently with 19 escorts and if some of the T23's are decommissioned early in the upcoming review it looks impossible.
Lazy answer: they will need to sail together, as the escort number needed won't double
Poiuytrewq wrote:And given a credible ASW capability?
If there weren't (contingency) plans for this, why is the space under the flight deck not better utilised
Another lazy answer: Bcz :lol: the base design came with so many boat bays
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)

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Quick question:

Would it be beneficial for the RN to exchange 2 future T26 for 4 Up gunned T31 (with towed sonar) and another squadron of Merlins during the current review?

Move from a 4 ship to 5 ship escort force for the CBG, and increases redundancy throughout the fleet.

Am I right in thinking that the main benefits from the quiet hulled T26 are incurred when it is hunting subs at range from the CBG? If so, it's not likely both T26s will do this at the same time, and possibly not worth the extra cost.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Roders96 wrote:Would it be beneficial for the RN to exchange 2 future T26 for 4 Up gunned T31 (with towed sonar) and another squadron of Merlins during the current review?
No. Firstly, cutting class sizes will not save the money everyone thinks, secondly we need an ASW platform that is fit for purpose.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

No. The T26 is designed to out perform Russian subs. The T31 never will.

Plus if the carrier group is moving at greater than 15 kts, the pair of T26 will need to conduct "sprint and drift" operations where the drift phase is running ultra quiet at 12-15 kts and then a sprint phase to catch up and over take the group.. Again, not something a T31 could do. Two top flight ASW frigates is the minimum needed.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Roders96 wrote:Would it be beneficial for the RN to exchange 2 future T26 for 4 Up gunned T31 (with towed sonar) and another squadron of Merlins during the current review?
Interesting point. Although I think
- cost of 4 Up gunned T31 (with towed sonar, say T31B2) will amount as much as 2 more T26,
- and thus no more Merlins will come.

Anyway I think the comparison is not meaningless. (but not sure if it is fruitful). It will all depend on what level of ASW will be preferred. As 2 out of the remaining 6 T26 will do TAPS task, a CSG will on-average have only 1.33 T26 and 1.33 T31B2, in addition to 2 T45 (if the 5 original T31 be used for GP roles).

This means, CSG will have 4 escorts in 1 out of 3 deployments, and 5 escorts in 2 out of 3 deployments.
Am I right in thinking that the main benefits from the quiet hulled T26 are incurred when it is hunting subs at range from the CBG? If so, it's not likely both T26s will do this at the same time, and possibly not worth the extra cost.
Not sure, but as the 9 Merlins onboard QNLZ (or POW) themselves are a top-ranked ASW asset, I understand 2 T26 will be forward located, to enjoy quiet environment to hunt subs. The powerful "ping" of S2087 will be detectable from hundreds of miles away, so not locating T26 near the CVs is a better way to go, as well.

Anyway, T31B2 idea itself will be fine if ASW threat is low. But not if ASW is the key = depends on where to deploy.

Another aspect is that, we need BAE Clyde to survive until T45 replacements. Losing 2 T26 means ~4 years of gaps, in turn means Clyde needs ~£880M of investment (in ~2010 money, ref TOBA). "One more T26 unit" (not the average cost) will be less than this cost. So, in this case, the 4 more T31B2, at least 2 of them, must be built in Clyde. If not, Clyde will just disappear...

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

I'd wager that unless more escorts are procured, irrespective of what the RN/MoD/HMG say/plan/hope now, that with the odd exception (I.e. maiden deployment, wartime deployment) the carrier group will not routinely comprise 4 UK escorts. It will typically be three (the fourth or more may come from allies), and one of which might even be the lowly T31, occasionally. Given the escort availability and the number of tasks expected of the RN, how can it be anything other then this?
Likewise, I suspect the LSG (or whatever it's called) will rarely (unless deployed to an active warzone with a realistic threat to the group) have more than one UK escort (routinely a T31, but occasionally a T45), with allies perhaps adding a 2and or 3rd escort.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Agree, If the USMC routinely deploy on a QEC would they not want a US ship there aswell?

On a UK operation with no usmc then 4 x UK escort should be aspired to.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Aspiration, sure, but routinely seems unlikely during peacetime. Perhaps possible occasionally when forward deployed escorts join the group, bringing the escort complement temporarily up to 4 for a period during deployment

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Aethulwulf wrote:Plus if the carrier group is moving at greater than 15 kts
Probably not going to happen a lot. 16 knots I believe is fleet speed. I'd be surprised if the T26 cannot listen at that speed.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

serge750 wrote: If the USMC routinely deploy on a QEC would they not want a US ship there as well?
I suspect the two decisions are not linked in any way i.e USMC on UK Carriers and USN escort.

No one here would give a shyt if the carrier had a US ship escort or not (*).

*one of the many benefits of not having the Daily Mirror/Mail/Express here.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Can anyone more learned than I please recommend reading on the trade-off between American and British asw tactics?

The extent of my knowledge as i've been told, is that helicopters are the best way to hunt a submarine. Generally, American asw seems to be more helicopter focused, which frees up more escorts for the aaw battle.

I've also heard about Scandinavian / European ssks finding their way through the us screen. Anyone have anything in detail?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:It's hard to see how the 2x CSG, 2x LRG structure is going to operate efficiently with 19 escorts and if some of the T23's are decommissioned early in the upcoming review it looks impossible.
Having a 2 CSG + 2 LRG structure is possible with 19 escorts, but it requires a completely different way of operating with the idea of Singleton FF/DD operations a thing of the past, apart from short term engagements when individual units split from a CSG. It also puts a long term over having a frigate assigned to Kipion. In the short term I suspect there to be a period of introducing / embedding the LRG concept so a drop of a few T23s in the short term could be managed.
Poiuytrewq wrote:It's difficult to see how two permanent LRG's are going to be affordable long term unless they are so under resourced as to be of negligible use. To do the LRG concept properly it will likely require something approaching two Ocean-like LPH's and that isn't on the cards within the next 15years.
The LRG is cannot be compared to an ARG of the past - my dream would be a LPD, Argus or similar Aviation Support Ship, an possible LSD plus an escort. Anything more going near a war zone would be joined with a CSG.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Multiple Multi Role RFA Vessels, forward based across the globe would seem like a more affordable route to an effective LRG
The RUSI approach for separate Littoral Strike Groups and Amphibious Strike Groups seem a distant memory. The two LRGs will be the extent of the ambition - combined with smaller RM units on forward based minor warships and RFAs.

I’m quite comfortable with the forward presence being based around OPVs/Sloops, MCMs, Survey ships and RFA Tankers (and future possible MHPCs) - it is an appropriate globally engaged / deployable navy fitting of the UKs size and budget. It allows for a non intrusive presence but with options to increase pressure if needed.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Ron5 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Plus if the carrier group is moving at greater than 15 kts
Probably not going to happen a lot. 16 knots I believe is fleet speed. I'd be surprised if the T26 cannot listen at that speed.
Fleet speed will be 18 knots, but you're right most time will be spent at slower speeds. I think the T23's top quiet speed is about 12 knots and remember reading somewhere that it is predicted to be 15 knots for the T26, but will be keen to see if such predictions come true.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Plus if the carrier group is moving at greater than 15 kts
Probably not going to happen a lot. 16 knots I believe is fleet speed. I'd be surprised if the T26 cannot listen at that speed.
Fleet speed will be 18 knots, but you're right most time will be spent at slower speeds. I think the T23's top quiet speed is about 12 knots and remember reading somewhere that it is predicted to be 15 knots for the T26, but will be keen to see if such predictions come true.
I believe fleet speed was reduced to 16 a few years back which lead to the Tides requirement of 16 knots. Mind you, FSS is supposed to be 18 knots (which lead to the revised BMT hull form on their FSS design) so I could very well be wrong.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Roders96 wrote:Can anyone more learned than I please recommend reading on the trade-off between American and British asw tactics?

The extent of my knowledge as i've been told, is that helicopters are the best way to hunt a submarine. Generally, American asw seems to be more helicopter focused, which frees up more escorts for the aaw battle.

I've also heard about Scandinavian / European ssks finding their way through the us screen. Anyone have anything in detail?
The best way to hunt a submarine is with another which is why the USN has a shit load of subs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:hunt a submarine [is] with [...] a shit load of subs.
Something I've pondered: Friend or Foe mechanism when several are allocated to the same area?
- double the difficulty if they come from several, allied countries
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)

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Ron5 wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Can anyone more learned than I please recommend reading on the trade-off between American and British asw tactics?

The extent of my knowledge as i've been told, is that helicopters are the best way to hunt a submarine. Generally, American asw seems to be more helicopter focused, which frees up more escorts for the aaw battle.

I've also heard about Scandinavian / European ssks finding their way through the us screen. Anyone have anything in detail?
The best way to hunt a submarine is with another which is why the USN has a shit load of subs.
Could neither confirm nor deny.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:hunt a submarine [is] with [...] a shit load of subs.
Something I've pondered: Friend or Foe mechanism when several are allocated to the same area?
- double the difficulty if they come from several, allied countries
Acoustic profiles.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

When you are close enough to be able to make them out
... no parallel then to tank warfare: "see" first, shoot first?
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)

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Defiance »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Something I've pondered: Friend or Foe mechanism when several are allocated to the same area?
- double the difficulty if they come from several, allied countries
Patrol boxes in some occasions too. Stay in this area, do not prosecute targets outside of this area.

Post Reply