Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Great discussion today, taken me ages to read through which is good, Glad the FSS is now a goer :D

As been said, probably not a lot of dosh for new suff, but atleast the black hole should get lighter...

Would it be possible to speed up the build of the T26 ( now money is a bit more certain ) say 1 per year? then slot in the T31 ? whatever it is ( fingers crossed ASW focussed ) then start on the T45 replacement

Sorry if its been suggested ( I might of missed it, D'oh )

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

I'm all for speeding up delivery of T26, but only if the shipyard remains busy until T4X.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

“multi-role research vessels” - what are these? My bet is on the low end USV/UUV motherships - would be a perfect job for Appledore. An Echo II class anyone?
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Can think of two main role options for a T32:
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
Or
- A Multirole Amphibious Support Frigate (Absalon class MkII) to support Littoral and RM operations
”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

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

Repulse wrote:Can think of two main role options for a T32:
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
Or
- A Multirole Amphibious Support Frigate (Absalon class MkII) to support Littoral and RM operations
That was my immediate thought for the Type 32, a Type 31 with a big mission bay for USV's and the like that would look more along the lines of the Absalon class. Since the Iver Huitfeldt was developed from the Absalon, doing the reverse surely shouldn't be too difficult. :)

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:Regardless of what forms the basis of the T32 if I were Babcock I would be working hard to give HMG an alternative for the T4X programme.
especially as
SD67 wrote: frankly you're[, er someone,] never going to build a 150 metre ship efficiently in a 100 metre hall.
Poiuytrewq wrote:the A140 is more than most expected at the outset.
Looking at you, Ron. Not a 'lego ship' at all (most ;) would say).
RichardIC wrote:we don't know how cobbled together today's announcement has been in usual Borisesque chaos mode.
David Davis asked the question (he was in remote) and the BBC cut off half of the answer; Boris was saying something about setting up a unit...(?)
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

rhodes76 wrote: 2 more T26 bringing the total to 10
was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?
Roders96 wrote:I'm all for speeding up delivery of T26, but only if the shipyard remains busy until T4X.
or will any speeding up just keep the door open to interleave or totally move over to the production of AAW destroyers
- should Babcock's offer be judged 'inferior'
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:“multi-role research vessels” - what are these? My bet is on the low end USV/UUV mothership
My first thought was a new polar ship because Borris wanted projects ready to start immediately which could would be possible with a derivative of the research ship.
Repulse wrote:Can think of two main role options for a T32:
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
I used to really like this idea, however I've since moved away from it because “home waters ASW" would be the perfect role to introduce some large unmanned boats to the Navy. The RN should defined use this opportunity to produce a demonstrator vehicle. The Navy needs to be bigger, but it isn't going to manage that if all the ships have a crew.

My bet, it's a ploy to give the MOD a better negotiating stance on the T31 batch 2.
@LandSharkUK

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Home Waters (in this context) is; THE NORTH ATLANTIC! I do not think it appropriate to give the slightest consideration to an unmanned vessel in such a place, unless you want them to fall victim to Great Whites (Icebergs that is, of course). :mrgreen:

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

What? You think a computer cant navigate around an Iceberg?

Regardless of that, in the context of the North Artlantic I would suggest putting those boats underwater.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
rhodes76 wrote: 2 more T26 bringing the total to 10
was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?
Roders96 wrote:I'm all for speeding up delivery of T26, but only if the shipyard remains busy until T4X.
or will any speeding up just keep the door open to interleave or totally move over to the production of AAW destroyers
- should Babcock's offer be judged 'inferior'
1 - Not sure but we're definitely still on track for 8. They won't stop talking about a 24 escort fleet, that won't happen if it's 5 for 2.

2 - Babcock's offer comes in greater numbers, the main priority for the fleet. Numbers has a quality all of its one, it's called redundancy.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:....was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?
The PM said SIX T26's in answer to Anne Marie Trevelyan's question.

Tbenz
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Feb 2017, 17:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tbenz »

It is all very well talking about a 24 escort fleet, however that will be pointless if the majority of those 24 ships are under armed and in particular lacking in ASW capability.

If the 5 (Batch 1?) Type 31 only come fitted with 12 CAMM, 1 x 57mm, 2 x 40mm and a Wildcat, then it is stretching credibility to call them escorts.

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:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:....was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?
The PM said SIX T26's in answer to Anne Marie Trevelyan's question.
Thank you!
So what I penned as further thoughts is valid.
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Right now the the UK has 13 frigates and 6 Destroyers = 19 escorts the RN wants 24 meaning we need 5 more for me we should double down on what have and go for 1 more Type 26 and 4 more Type 31 and then start design work on type 4X. however if it a new design then for me it should be a carrier group only ASW design to free up type 26 something like

125 x 15 meters
good radar
good CMS
top sonar kit
Merlin capable flight deck and hangar
2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 , 8 NSM

This could allow a carrier escort group of 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-32 and a T-26 freeing up say 4 T-26 to work in pairs along UUV's in North Atlantic ASW hunting packs

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:Right now the the UK has 13 frigates and 6 Destroyers = 19 escorts the RN wants 24 meaning we need 5 more for me we should double down on what have and go for 1 more Type 26 and 4 more Type 31 and then start design work on type 4X. however if it a new design then for me it should be a carrier group only ASW design to free up type 26 something like

125 x 15 meters
good radar
good CMS
top sonar kit
Merlin capable flight deck and hangar
2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 , 8 NSM

This could allow a carrier escort group of 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-32 and a T-26 freeing up say 4 T-26 to work in pairs along UUV's in North Atlantic ASW hunting packs
I’d definitely double down on what we’ve got in the way you suggest, I’m not sold on the idea of a 4th escort class it just makes little sence IMO to have 4 small runs or different classes.

Having said that to me if a “new” design is needed I’d go for a shrunk down T26, take the design lay out a great ASW hull form in to a smaller hull.

I’d go with something like this ( keep in mind T26 hull form and lay out )

Length - 130m
Beam - 18-19m
Displacement - 5,500t
Merlin flight deck
Merlin hanger
Divedents for 2 Rhibs / unmanned
Hull + tow sonar
6 ExLS
16 Mk41
Triple 57mm

Something of this set up with a T26 hull form could sell well for smaller navies like RNZN, Brazil, Singapore, Greece.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we need to keep it simple one extra T-26 and four T-31's would give the RN 6 x AAW Destroyers , 9 x Global Combat frigates and 9 x Global Patrol frigates . My other preferred option would have been 14 Multi mission sloops at a cost per ship of 140 million = 2 billion

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Does anyone actually have an official source for this "24" escorts figure?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Felt like it came from one of those news articles on it rather than the Gov announcement.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I suspect 24 comes from 13 type 23, 6 type 45 and 5 river 2 and a hope to replace the 5 river 2 with a frigate at a later date. There is a danger of this turning into a navy equivalent of the army vehicle fleets of fleets and a maintenance and logistical nightmare 10 years down the line. A continual drum beat and evolution of type 31 and type 26 would seem appropriate as both designs have plenty of room to spare. Though I fear with shopping lists coming out we are repeating the same mistakes and serving up ever greater problems dwn the line.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Surely it has to be 6 x t45, 8 x t26 and 10 x t31 derivatives; and if T4x is a t26 stretch derivative as rumored then we are basically on a sustainable path with two platforms, two yards on a steady drumbeat out to 2040+. Good result all round IMHO

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

SD67 wrote:Surely it has to be 6 x t45, 8 x t26 and 10 x t31 derivatives; and if T4x is a t26 stretch derivative as rumored then we are basically on a sustainable path with two platforms, two yards on a steady drumbeat out to 2040+. Good result all round IMHO
Sounds good, but can see why they want to make T32 a competitive procurement programme rather than hand it on a platter to Babcock. Having said that, one would assume that the most cost effective approach would be a T31 derivative, unless BAE come up with something reasonable based on their prior designs (Leander, Cutlass, River B3, mini T26 etc) in the right price range.

We'll see what it is that the RFI for T32 specifies in due course I guess...and in the meantime we might get an inkling from the IR when it's finally released in the new year. I still have some doubts that it will happen, but hope to be wrong, and if we can get all of the additional 5 T26 and 5 T32 contracted by 2024 I'll be happy (and surprised)

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:Looking at you, Ron. Not a 'lego ship' at all (most ;) would say).
Babcock's offered a Danish ship to be built in blocks all over the UK and plugged together in Rosyth.

Being an intelligent and witty individual, I named the ship the Lego frigate.

You, not being either, have never understood the joke.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:What? You think a computer cant navigate around an Iceberg?

Regardless of that, in the context of the North Artlantic I would suggest putting those boats underwater.
All boats can go underwater, some more than once :lol:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:5 T32 contracted by 2024
I'm not sure why that would be a goal.

How about a well thought out set of requirements, a specification that matches, and preliminary design work by then?

And regarding requirements, it will be hard to do that until the requirements and subsequent changes are nailed down for the T26 Batch II. I suspect we may see some significant changes.

Post Reply