Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[serge750]

If they are slipped them into the T26 build schedule, could they then speed up the latter ship build to maintain the delivery schedule? probably wouldn't but I spose it would save the MOD a little money short term

[Aethulwulf]

HMS Belfast. There is definitely no room at Govan with Glasgow and Cardiff underway.

TOBA runs until July 2024, so if the pipeline (of work/ capacity) is full until then, TOBA would be history already today.

TOBA is already history. It was cancelled when the contract for the first 3 T26 was signed.

[Poiuytrewq]

Thanks Donald.

Or, BAES Clyde ?

I understand your economic case for such a proposal but I think it would be highly damaging politically unless both programmes could progress concurrently.

As Cammall Laird missed out on the Leander/T31 contact maybe this would be a good test for a BAE & CL collaboration. Even if CL got involved in FSS these two modest craft wouldn't be too much of a distraction.

Barzan-class is of VT design,

It is but I wonder, what are the other options?

If this is a deal to open the door to further T31 exports down the line then what else could Babcock come up with?

Does BMT have anything suitable on the drawing board?

[Tempest414]

I think it will be a upgraded Vita class will be interesting to see what weapons fit it will get maybe a 57mm and 2 x 30mm to start with maybe NSM

[donald_of_tokyo]

Or, BAES Clyde ?

I understand your economic case for such a proposal but I think it would be highly damaging politically unless both programmes could progress concurrently.

Sorry, what do you mean by "both programmes"? T26 and missile crafts? I'm sure, it is doable to build T26 and a missile crafts concurrently, but only if well prepared = not in hurry. There are many examples worldwide.

As you state, BAES+CL team is surely a good candidate, as well.

Barzan-class is of VT design,

It is but I wonder, what are the other options?
If this is a deal to open the door to further T31 exports down the line then what else could Babcock come up with?
Does BMT have anything suitable on the drawing board?

Babcock has zero experience on missile crafts. It is/was the same for escort, but Babcock had a long experience with T23 modification, in collaboration with BAE, for fitting-out complex warship. T31 will be also in collaboration with Thales-NL. So, by teaming with Thales-NL or BAES, Babcock can "license build" the Barzan-class. The same approach with T31. Surely, this will be another strong option, I guess.

BMT has no shipyard nor fitting-out engineers. It is a designing firm, not building. In other words, BMT can collaborate with both CMS provider (BAES/Thales-NL) and ship builders (BAES, Babcock and H&W), if some initial design work is needed.

[Tempest414]

So with 11 patrol boats under 40 meters and 1 frigate these 8 new 56 meter fast attack boats will really be a step change for the Ukraine navy only 1 of the 11 patrol boats has a gun over 25mm so maybe a fit of 2 x 40mm would be a good fit for them 8 x 56 m Vita class boats with say

TACTICOS CMS
N-100 radar
2 x 40mm guns or 1 x 57mm and 2 x 30mm
4 x NSM

Should be doable for the 150 million per boat average

[ArmChairCivvy]

In the next Kerch incident, what will they do about over-flying aircraft - that were present the first time around?

[Poiuytrewq]

what do you mean by "both programmes

Type 26 and the Ukrainian Fast Attack Craft programmes

....teaming with Thales-NL or BAES, Babcock can "license build" the Barzan-class.

A license build for such a mature design shouldn't be a problem but I would suggest a Babcock/BAE alliance is highly unlikely on anything smaller than an aircraft carrier.

BMT has no shipyard nor fitting-out engineers. It is a designing firm, not building. In other words, BMT can collaborate with both CMS provider (BAES/Thales-NL) and ship builders (BAES, Babcock and H&W), if some initial design work is needed.

Thanks, I'm aware of BMT's expertise and lack of shipbuilding facilities

My point was, is Barzan the only game in town or has BMT put any Fast Attack designs into the public domain?

Should be doable for the 150 million per boat average

Maybe RN should add a couple to the order for Gibraltar without all the bells and whistles.

[Ron5]

My point was, is Barzan the only game in town or has BMT put any Fast Attack designs into the public domain?

I would say no. I can't remember any BMT studies in that area at all.

[Tempest414]

Also looking around there is no other boat designs of this size and type that a British yard could plug into the Vita class is a nice boat if not a little long in the tooth however with modern systems and weapons it should work well for Ukraine

The Barzan class already have

Tacticos CMS , MRR Radar , 1 x 76mm , 1 x 30mm Goalkeeper , Exocet , 1 x 6 cell Mistral

[RichardIC]

The Wiki page (which isn't a reliable source) has been updated to say the design offered is the Greek built but British designed Roussen/Super Vita.

Which would make a lot more sense - they're still being delivered.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussen-c ... tack_craft

It's a BAE design but as stated elsewhere, they have no capacity.

[inch]

Propper little armed gun boat ,just add a few torpedoes and senser and probably better armed than half our fleet ...lol,be great for Ukraine tho ,give the Russians something to think about tho , hopefully lead onto t31 sometime down the line with another 1b loan

[inch]

Propper little armed gun boat ,just add a few torpedoes and senser and probably better armed than half our fleet ...lol,be great for Ukraine tho ,give the Russians something to think about tho , hopefully lead onto t31 sometime down the line with another 1b loan

[inch]

Propper little armed gun boat ,just add a few torpedoes and senser and probably better armed than half our fleet ...lol,be great for Ukraine tho ,give the Russians something to think about tho , hopefully lead onto t31 sometime down the line with another 1b loan

[Poiuytrewq]

Clearly the time to act is now, meanwhile our politicians line up another hatchet job of a defence review....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... interests/

China will exploit new sailing routes to the Atlantic and threaten UK interests, warns First Sea Lord
Northern sea passage has opened up to shipping as a result of melting polar ice caps, leaving the UK open to incursions by the Chinese navy

This week the Royal Navy’s complete Carrier Strike Group assembled for the first time in the North Sea. The multi-national group worked up together in preparation for the more demanding exercise Joint Warrior that begins this week
The First Sea Lord has warned that China will exploit new sailing routes to the Atlantic that are being opened up as a result of melting polar ice caps.

In a speech on board the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales Admiral Tony Radakin said the effects of climate change on the northern sea passage would create “new maritime trade routes across the top of the world” which would halve “the transit time between Europe and Asia”.

Admiral Radakin said: “When China sails its growing Navy into the Atlantic, which way will it come, the long route, or the short?”

He cautioned that the free movement of “nations, their navies, and above all their merchant ships” could be put at risk when China starts to use these routes as it would “threaten this concept” of free maritime movement.

“The world is getting more competitive, more contested,” he added. “We will have to play our role in that world. As the High North becomes more open and accessible it’s going to be more contested and competitive as well.”

Jeremy Quin, the Minister for Defence Procurement, added that “climate change is a reality, there is a real risk that it will open up seaways and we should expect that those seaways will be used”.

According to a Pentagon report on the People’s Liberation Army, released in September, Beijing has the world’s largest naval fleet with 350 ships and submarines.

Defence sources warned that the increasing size of China’s navy remained a concern as it was likely to become more active in the Atlantic which is deemed the UK’s “backyard”.

It is understood that defence chiefs fear a situation like the Strait of Hormuz could develop, which saw tensions flare in July last year after British Royal Marines helped seize an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar which was suspected of breaking EU sanctions.

In retaliation a British-flagged oil tanker was seized and anchored for two months after it was accused of allegedly breaking maritime rules.

Admiral Radakin also warned that the High North routes “skirt the coast of that resurgent Russia”.

“A Russia that is now more active in the Atlantic, our backyard, than it has been for over 30 years,” he said.

Last month the Royal Navy demonstrated to the Kremlin that it does not have freedom of the Arctic by leading a multi-national task group of warships and aircraft into the icy corridor:

In the first such operation for 20 years, Type-23 Frigate HMS Sutherland was been joined by American, Danish and Norwegian forces to demonstrate freedom of navigation above the Arctic Circle. Admiral Radakin added: “We are already doing much more in the High North.

“We will be looking in the ‘high’ High North, as we do in the Atlantic and elsewhere in the world, to join with our partners.”

Meanwhile he said that while space and cyber were made the world more transparent, the one place left to hide remained “under the sea”.

He said that 97 percent of data travels on undersea cables and that “our adversaries are already threatening these”. He said the Government was committed to “developing new capabilities to protect those cables, standing up to this threat on behalf of everyone”.

More,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... hange.html
Some interesting background here,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp

[SW1]

Amongst the usual defence review bingo card checklist two point worthy of consideration

“A Russia that is now more active in the Atlantic, our backyard“

Yep so maybe do something about that before banging on about playing in other people’s back yard

“Meanwhile he said that while space and cyber were made the world more transparent, the one place left to hide remained “under the sea“

Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.

[Roders96]

Amongst the usual defence review bingo card checklist two point worthy of consideration

“A Russia that is now more active in the Atlantic, our backyard“

Yep so maybe do something about that before banging on about playing in other people’s back yard

“Meanwhile he said that while space and cyber were made the world more transparent, the one place left to hide remained “under the sea“

Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.

1 - Short of starting a war, what, say, would you suggest he do about that?

2 - If we didn't have an SSBN shaped bottleneck in the pipeline I think he would. Much as the Americans are. At best I think it'll mean more Merlins / USVs.

[SW1]

Amongst the usual defence review bingo card checklist two point worthy of consideration

“A Russia that is now more active in the Atlantic, our backyard“

Yep so maybe do something about that before banging on about playing in other people’s back yard

“Meanwhile he said that while space and cyber were made the world more transparent, the one place left to hide remained “under the sea“

Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.

1 - Short of starting a war, what, say, would you suggest he do about that?

2 - If we didn't have an SSBN shaped bottleneck in the pipeline I think he would. Much as the Americans are. At best I think it'll mean more Merlins / USVs.

Like the Cold War I would suggest patrol it rather than focusing on a vanity project in the South China Sea.

Bottlenecks can always be uncorked at some point

[Poiuytrewq]

Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.

What are you suggesting he do?

Cut what to build what and where?

[RichardIC]

SW1 wrote:
Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.
What are you suggesting he do?

Cut what to build what and where?

I think the point being made is that we're insecure in our own backyard, and don't seem too interested in securing it.

But on the other hand there's still talk of deploying carriers in the South China Sea, a permanent presence in the Pacific, Forward deploying to Singapore, "EoS", littoral dingbats with acronyms that mean nothing.

It's really self-delusional.

[Roders96]

Are carriers in the high north not a better option to fighting in the North sea?

[Tempest414]

SW1 wrote:
Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.
What are you suggesting he do?

Cut what to build what and where?

I think the point being made is that we're insecure in our own backyard, and don't seem too interested in securing it.

But on the other hand there's still talk of deploying carriers in the South China Sea, a permanent presence in the Pacific, Forward deploying to Singapore, "EoS", littoral dingbats with acronyms that mean nothing.

It's really self-delusional.

What is delusional is that the RN a loan can or would stop Russian / China pouring though the Northern gap. This is why I said up thread that NATO Europe needs to get it act together and up the two Escort based standing NATO maritime groups to Littoral ready groups plus use the 3 European fleet carriers plus 1 US carrier group to ensure 1 carrier group at sea all year round allowing at least one LRG to join the CSG to form a Battle group. By doing this it would free up the US to have 8 carrier groups and 8 MEU's in the Pacific this in its self would keep China and the Russian Pacific fleet tied up

[Jake1992]

SW1 wrote:
Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.
What are you suggesting he do?

Cut what to build what and where?

I think the point being made is that we're insecure in our own backyard, and don't seem too interested in securing it.

But on the other hand there's still talk of deploying carriers in the South China Sea, a permanent presence in the Pacific, Forward deploying to Singapore, "EoS", littoral dingbats with acronyms that mean nothing.

It's really self-delusional.

What is delusional is that the RN a loan can or would stop Russian / China pouring though the Northern gap. This is why I said up thread that NATO Europe needs to get it act together and up the two Escort based standing NATO maritime groups to Littoral ready groups plus use the 3 European fleet carriers plus 1 US carrier group to ensure 1 carrier group at sea all year round allowing at least one LRG to join the CSG to form a Battle group. By doing this it would free up the US to have 8 carrier groups and 8 MEU's in the Pacific this in its self would keep China and the Russian Pacific fleet tied up

The problem with the whole Europe nato idea is that it not only limits what we can do on our own with out pulling the core of these groups away but also could be almost impossible in enact in a really hot situation.
What happens if one or two on the nation in a group don’t want to act ? Artical 5 is almost impossible to activate unless the threat truely threatens near all members.

[SW1]

Indeed so will you be proposing moving surface fleet spending to the submarine service.

What are you suggesting he do?

Cut what to build what and where?

You need to look short term and long. Manning of the current fleet, maintenance and support to the current fleet and if extra resources could improve availability. Then as we move fwd will Dreadnought be a purely ssbn as of the past or is there scope to operate a little like a ssgn with more payload flexibility. Is there scope over the next decade to increase build drum beat. It would appear rightly or wrongly a national direction on energy toward hydrogen and battery technology away from fossil and nuclear fuel what will that mean for defence.

[Poiuytrewq]

Are carriers in the high north not a better option to fighting in the North sea?

Fighting in the High North is of course preferable to fighting in the North Sea but not fighting at all is better still. It's weakness combined with miscalculations that lead to wars.

The UK now has the carriers and the escort fleet is being renewed albeit slowly and with insufficient numbers.

If HMG is serious about tackling the threat from the High North then the obvious solution is to DOUBLE the amount of SSN's and P8's and increase the escort fleet to around 24. It's not rocket science, simply a question of priorities.