Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Is there scope over the next decade to increase build drum beat.

Hopefully but only if funding matches ambition.

It will be interesting to see what the emphasis on subsea results in as part of the Integrated Review. The threat to National Security has been identified but the cost to properly counter that threat in a conventional way will be eye watering.

A solution must be found and IMO HMG needs to start funding UK PLC to find innovative and more cost effective platforms in order to counter the threat at a price the budget will withstand.

For example, what is the submarine equivalent of a T31?

[Tempest414]

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.

As said one has wonder what we can do on our own as it is anyway however if we were to join a NATO rotation system we would need to ensure in the case of the carrier group that the second carrier was at 30 days notice and in the case of of the LRG's that only one of our 4 Amphib ships was away on NATO duties meaning we could if pushed form a battle group in 30 days. Also if the UK needed to pull its ships from the NATO duty it the case of the carrier group this mean a small gap before the next group stepped in and in the case of a NATO LRG one ship leaving a group of 5 or 6 ships. As for the back bone of other member states that is always the problem of alliance

[Roders96]

It's delusional to think an island, however special it may be, of 68 million can go toe to toe with China 1.44bn and Russia 144.4m unilaterally.

Our economy is wealthier per capita yes, but our manufacturing sectors are far far smaller. Europe and rCANZUK has a surplus of escorts, so we built carriers, it's a partnership that works and we have to hope they'll be there if it hits the fan because otherwise we're royally buggered.

We don't have the option to go it alone.

[SW1]

Is there scope over the next decade to increase build drum beat.

Hopefully but only if funding matches ambition.

It will be interesting to see what the emphasis on subsea results in as part of the Integrated Review. The threat to National Security has been identified but the cost to properly counter that threat in a conventional way will be eye watering.

A solution must be found and IMO HMG needs to start funding UK PLC to find innovative and more cost effective platforms in order to counter the threat at a price the budget will withstand.

For example, what is the submarine equivalent of a T31?

It definitely will. Defence has its funding pretty much known and its off a level that has now tracked along with inflation for nearly a decade. That budget is roughly in line with comparable sized countries in France and Japan. Can defence buy into technology that is being developed thru other government R&D and local job development funding in different sectors and areas well if it wants too but that funding is not found in buy America land.

The ink was barely dry when the NAO published is warning on sdsr 2015 that defence had returned to its bad old ways of ordering stuff without a budget for it, at best on highly questionable efficiency savings or optimistic program estimates that would mean in year spend would skyrocket and programs would need to be delayed or reduced in scope. They were told they were talking nonsense and defence had learned from past mistakes. Turns out they were correct.

And so I go back to an original point if you prioritise one area you don’t do another it’s that simple. Is there a submarine equivalent to a type 31? who knows but it’s definitely none nuclear.

[Ron5]

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?

The RAF are institutionally anti-carrier so any strategy that diminishes their need automatically gets RAF support.

However with the UK disconnecting from Europe and looking toward making and strengthening far East relationships, the UK need for a global military is blindingly obvious. And of course this is the main driver behind next years QE deployment.

[Ron5]

The ink was barely dry when the NAO published is warning on sdsr 2015 that defence had returned to its bad old ways of ordering stuff without a budget for it

That does not happen ever. Not ever. The infamous black hole(s) are gaps between desired or planned spending and budgets. NOT between contracts and budgets.

Is there a submarine equivalent to a type 31? who knows but it’s definitely none nuclear.

The Type 31 is a global frigate with long range and endurance for maintaining a UK military presence around the world. There is no non-nuclear submarine with those characteristics. The closest will probably be the future Australian Attack class but even they will not venture out of the Pacific and Indian oceans so long ranged but not global. Oh yes, and check their price. Astutes look cheap by comparison.

[ArmChairCivvy]

with the UK disconnecting from Europe

Surely the plan is to decouple...we always ape the Big Guys, no?

[Jake1992]

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.

As said one has wonder what we can do on our own as it is anyway however if we were to join a NATO rotation system we would need to ensure in the case of the carrier group that the second carrier was at 30 days notice and in the case of of the LRG's that only one of our 4 Amphib ships was away on NATO duties meaning we could if pushed form a battle group in 30 days. Also if the UK needed to pull its ships from the NATO duty it the case of the carrier group this mean a small gap before the next group stepped in and in the case of a NATO LRG one ship leaving a group of 5 or 6 ships. As for the back bone of other member states that is always the problem of alliance

Right now not a great deal with out great effort but the problem I see with forming these permanent / semi permanent multi national groups is that it gives the politicians a get out a jail card in that they don’t even need to face the fact of our own lackings as they are filled by others.
The problem with this approach is what happens when ours and our “allies” interest or political desires no longer aline ?

With us pulling away from Europe and looking more to the anglosphere and global and the US looking far more to the Far East both we and Europe need to look to be able to stand more on our own feet.

For me if we are going to look to build closer military ties with others we should be looking at the other CANZUK nations and start to build off of the start the T26 has giving. Looking towards these nations over Europe suits better our political aims going forward more than focusing on Europe.
Before it is said yes we still need to look at our own back yard but naval wise one of the CANZUK nations also has a large interest in keeping the North Atlantic and far north safe in Canada.

[SW1]

If there moving the the land mass of the UK away from the continent no wonder it’s taking so long hopefully it ends up somewhere warmer.


I don’t see anything from anyone discussing anything other than NATO being the bedrock off our national security. There appears a real disconnect for some about the difference between withdrawing from a political organisation and from the countries and businesses in the region we live.

The global Britain mantra seems to me at least as nothing more than a catchy phrase for rolling over trade agreements with various countries that already existed within the EU only now there specifically with the UK.

[Ron5]

with the UK disconnecting from Europe

Surely the plan is to decouple...we always ape the Big Guys, no?

It's not "we" and in my language there's no real difference between decouple and disconnect

Not sure either what is being "aped".

[Ron5]

If there moving the the land mass of the UK away from the continent no wonder it’s taking so long hopefully it ends up somewhere warmer.


I don’t see anything from anyone discussing anything other than NATO being the bedrock off our national security. There appears a real disconnect for some about the difference between withdrawing from a political organisation and from the countries and businesses in the region we live.

The global Britain mantra seems to me at least as nothing more than a catchy phrase for rolling over trade agreements with various countries that already existed within the EU only now there specifically with the UK.

In its entire life, the RAF has just the one real battle honor, the Battle of Britain. That's bright and wonderful and saved Europe.

But nothing else that stands comparison with the Army and Navy achievements post war. So it's natural that the RAF hanker for BoB II.

But the other services know very well that the UK's security and well being is no longer just based on defending against the weakened Russian Bear. Countries such as Korea and Japan will not be much interested in a Britain that merely focuses its defense against cross channel threats.

[Caribbean]

In its entire life, the RAF has just the one real battle honor, the Battle of Britain

There was Pink's War. The only war won entirely by air power

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's not "we"

It is, Ron.
The US has a policy of decoupling (from China).
We are only doing a mild version with Europe.
We here is simply for we (the UK) and it is not the usual "us and them"
- Or the US and us, either

[Ron5]

It's not "we"

It is, Ron.
The US has a policy of decoupling (from China).
We are only doing a mild version with Europe.
We here is simply for we (the UK) and it is not the usual "us and them"
- Or the US and us, either

Your posts make much more sense when they're explained. Have you thought of footnotes??

[Ron5]

In its entire life, the RAF has just the one real battle honor, the Battle of Britain

There was Pink's War. The only war won entirely by air power

Had to google that of course. Well worth the read

[Ron5]

If there moving the the land mass of the UK away from the continent no wonder it’s taking so long hopefully it ends up somewhere warmer.


I don’t see anything from anyone discussing anything other than NATO being the bedrock off our national security. There appears a real disconnect for some about the difference between withdrawing from a political organisation and from the countries and businesses in the region we live.

The global Britain mantra seems to me at least as nothing more than a catchy phrase for rolling over trade agreements with various countries that already existed within the EU only now there specifically with the UK.

In its entire life, the RAF has just the one real battle honor, the Battle of Britain. That's bright and wonderful and saved Europe.

But nothing else that stands comparison with the Army and Navy achievements post war. So it's natural that the RAF hanker for BoB II.

But the other services know very well that the UK's security and well being is no longer just based on defending against the weakened Russian Bear. Countries such as Korea and Japan will not be much interested in a Britain that merely focuses its defense against cross channel threats.

And of course the last person of influence who thought Britain should put all its eggs in the NATO, anti-Russia, basket was certain Mr John Nott. That view got him the sack and if his policies had been fully implemented, would have cost Maggie her job and the UK, the Falklands. I doubt very much if anyone outside the RAF would want to follow in his footsteps.

[Lord Jim]

Before we start trying to deter Russia or China from being aggressive in areas they should not be, the Royal Navy along with the other two Armed Services need to fill the numerous holes in their capabilities. Until that happens any force deployed is vulnerable to an unacceptable degree.

There is little or no room to jiggle things around anymore, we are down to the bear bones across the board, with all three Services only be able to deploy a barely viable one shot force which if damaged cannot be replaced or effectively repaired and return to the battle. We have stuck to the mantra of quality over quantity (T-31 the exception) but now we are not even meeting this goal. We may have some world class capabilities and certainly have highly skilled and trained personnel but we have lost any capacity for sustained high tempo operations against a Peer opponent who is able to effectively shoot back.

Given how long our procurement programmes now take for one reason or another it is very strange that we have not heard about any such programmes to purchase weapon systems to install in the Mk41 VLS on the T-26. Without these, the T-26 may be very good at detecting a submarine but will only have (hopefully) a Merlin to prosecute it. Its only anti-ship weapon system is currently its 5 inch gun, and the fleet as a whole is still relying on the Phalanx as it last layer of defence even though there are serious doubts over its effectiveness against the latest AShMs. Every ship in the fleet is lacking in firepower and there are no plans to improve this situation except for a small, unfunded purchase of new AShMs, and the hope that the FCASW programme will actually deliver and will be affordable in the number required.

I could go on and on, but at the current funding level things are more likely to get worse rather than improve over the next decade or so.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Before we start trying to deter Russia or China from being aggressive in areas they should not be

Waitrose had run out of real newspapers, so I just read - last night - from the Daily Mail that PLAN will sail into the Atlantic as soon as the Arctic snow melts

will only have (hopefully) a Merlin to prosecute it [the sub]

Not after 2030, if we believe the MoD, as they say that will be the year for retiring RN Merlins
- a source on par with the one I quoted above

[Lord Jim]

Very good

[donald_of_tokyo]

From T31 news thread.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/ne ... ss-update/
Analysis:
See diagram shown at 10:52 of the movie clip. ...
- Max speed stated as 26.1 knots, not 30 knots (Might be 100% MCR vs 80% MCR?)

We all know ship speed is a function of, load (full load or light), sea-state, and engine's Maximum Continuous Ratio (MCR; 80% or 100%).

Then, if the IH-class is capable of 30 knots-max in Danish navy standard, while only 26.1 knots in RN standard, this means,
- Type-26, of 26+ knot max in RN standard, CAN BE 30 knots-capable in Danish Navy definition,
- River B2 OPV, of 25 knots max in RN standard, CAN BE 29 knots-capable,
- and QNLZ CV, of 25+ knots max in RN standard, CAN BE 29 knots-capable?

[Ron5]

From T31 news thread.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/ne ... ss-update/
Analysis:
See diagram shown at 10:52 of the movie clip. ...
- Max speed stated as 26.1 knots, not 30 knots (Might be 100% MCR vs 80% MCR?)

We all know ship speed is a function of, load (full load or light), sea-state, and engine's Maximum Continuous Ratio (MCR; 80% or 100%).

Then, if the IH-class is capable of 30 knots-max in Danish navy standard, while only 26.1 knots in RN standard, this means,
- Type-26, of 26+ knot max in RN standard, CAN BE 30 knots-capable in Danish Navy definition,
- River B2 OPV, of 25 knots max in RN standard, CAN BE 29 knots-capable,
- and QNLZ CV, of 25+ knots max in RN standard, CAN BE 29 knots-capable?

I think that's a very reasonable conclusion.

But the Tides still can't do 27 knots in operational trim

[Ron5]

Not after 2030, if we believe the MoD, as they say that will be the year for retiring RN Merlins

Based on past performance, we can be very sure of two things:

1. They'll be run on after their EOS date

2. They'll be eventually replaced with LEP Merlins

[Aethulwulf]

Ship's speed is also dependent on how clean is the hull. RN standard is based on a dirty hull, in near worst case conditions.

So when the RN states that a ship's top speed is 26 knots, it means that towards the end of its 25 year(?) service life, when the extra weight allowance in the initial design margin has been taken up, after at least 6 months in tropical waters, and in sea state X, the ship will still be able to maintain a speed of 26 knots.

[Ron5]

Ship's speed is also dependent on how clean is the hull. RN standard is based on a dirty hull, in near worst case conditions.

So when the RN states that a ship's top speed is 26 knots, it means that towards the end of its 25 year(?) service life, when the extra weight allowance in the initial design margin has been taken up, after at least 6 months in tropical waters, and in sea state X, the ship will still be able to maintain a speed of 26 knots.

Not really these days. Anti-fouling paint is so good it doesn't make that much of a difference.

[Tempest414]

The type 23 is in RN service rated at 28 Knots but HMS Sutherland topped out at 34 knots on trials in 2008