Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

the reality is that MCM and Littoral ASW equipment is going to be increasingly modular in the future, so it could be embarked on a Bay, Point, Argus or possibly even an RB2.

This is a good practice: state your premise, before building the argument

If the equipment continues to grow in size and displacement however the T26 and T31 won't be able to deploy it. This is a problem and perhaps someone, somewhere who is paid to worry about such things has just worked it out

Conclusions then follow, and they can be disputed e.g. with doubting or denying the premise

can see modular MCM equipment being used for fast clearance by a naval group in order to gain access to an area, being deployed from non dedicated MCM assets

We should call a spade a spade: the term for this is breaching

the very simple fact that 99% of mine clearance operations is not during combat operations.

Whereas the term for this is (as used) mine clearance

combat mass on benign tasks like mine clearance.

Failing to see that breaching is/ can be ' a combat operation' is quite an omission, and it may of may not be followed by 'clearance' - by us, or someone else. Immediately, or once the circumstances are benign again (often called 'peace').

the frigate form factor which was never designed for this era

Form does not dictate function. Generally speaking, the trend is towards multifunction. Jokingly, if a tubby corvette has the same function(s) in the littoral as a sleek frigate in blue water, then the different form...

[shark bait]

Failing to see that breaching is/ can be ' a combat operation' is quite an omission

When has that ever been a thing? I do not have one example of any counter mine ops performed during a battle. Iraq is a real life case study: the enemy mined, so the Brits flew over the mines and came back to clear up after.

Form does not dictate function

Yes it does, they aren't building wind farms with multifunction frigates! Or to stay closer to the military, they RAF don't tanker with Tonka.

[RichardIC]

Is an Absalon a Frigate?

No.

[Poiuytrewq]

The Navy already have that, and they call it the Type 26!

Surely building £1bn MCM vessels would be an extreme form of gold plating even by Royal Navy standards.

The Navy does not need a Frigate spec mine hunter for the very simple fact that 99% of mine clearance operations is not during combat operations. It would mean spending billions of pounds to cover the extreme fringe use case that has already been covered by the T26 and T31. Moreover, because there isn't the crew to maintain all these complex systems, the navy would be forced to dedicate a big chunk of its combat mass on benign tasks like mine clearance.

The modular systems will move between hulls and the experienced crews move with it. This flexibility and interoperability will be crucial in the future. A multi-role T32 wouldn't be a dedicated MCM vessel or a Littoral ASW specialist or a AAW Frigate or a dedicated escort or a sea base for the FCF. However it could be capable of performing all of those roles up to a certain level if designed correctly.

Yes, more kit will be moving off board and this is a reason to move away from the frigate form factor which was never designed for this era.

What will a multi-role Frigate look like in the 2030's? Will an Absalon type form become the norm? I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Funnily enough a 284 page JCS publication for amph. ops doctrine (we also have a joint doctrine; perhaps worthwhile to check there too, just to 'double check')

1. Leads in with the scope definition
"Prior to the execution of the action phase of an amphibious operation, the JFC seeks to shape the operational environment. Although these operations are usually referred to in the context of an amphibious assault or amphibious raid, they may be used to support other types of amphibious operations such as shaping the operational environment for a NEO "

and then
2. Lists supporting operations of 7 types which may include
... AND MCM comes as the first on the list (I have included also the next one as there may be overlap in the carrying out of the two
(1) Initiation of MCM operations. MCM operations emphasize the clearance of mines in the transport areas, FSAs, and sea approaches to the landing beaches. MCM forces do not have the capability to conduct their mission in a clandestine manner, do not operate at a high rate of speed, and have limited capability for self-defense. Therefore, the decision on whether and where to conduct MCM during supporting operations (or to postpone their use until prelanding operations) should be made considering not only the mine threat to the AF but also the operational requirement to conduct MCM. However, MCM forces’ limitations also can be used to support operational deception.
(2) Hydrographic reconnaissance of the landing beaches and seaward approaches. In a permissive environment, the Navy’s Fleet Survey Team may conduct quick response hydrographic surveys and produce chart products in the field to support maritime requirements. They provide high-resolution hydrographic surveys for use in nautical or tactical charting to support amphibious landings, MIW, or naval special warfare with bathymetry and other collected hydrographic information. Deployable detachments from this team can conduct navigation quality surveys or clearance surveys to provide access to ports and waterways in support of amphibious operations.
In forward-deployed ARGs and MEUs operations in which access to the above teams may be more difficult, the CATF and CLF should use organic or supporting reconnaissance and surveillance assets to provide hydrographic information. Beach surveys and hydrographic reconnaissance can be conducted by SOF/SEAL teams that operate as a task unit within the AF or independently under the OPCON of the theater special operations command commander. SOF/SEAL teams can be employed prior to an opposed assault and may be part of an operation to clear obstacles.

[shark bait]

A multi-role T32 wouldn't be a dedicated MCM vessel or a Littoral ASW specialist or a AAW Frigate or a dedicated escort or a sea base for the FCF. However it could be capable of performing all of those roles up to a certain level if designed correctly.

This is what the T26 is! The illusion of a cheap multi-role frigate has been shattered by the T31 project, and the T32 project is not going to magically repair this. Any multi role combat vessel is going to be very expensive, this has been indisputably proven by the T26 project three times over for three different nations.

Mine clearance does not need a combat vessels, there is no example of it needing a combat vessel, and the doctrine above acknowledges its not required. A more suitable category is a multi-role utility vessel that is simple to construct and cheap to operate. It has to be simple (cheap) to offset in increased complexity (expensive) of the modular systems it will operate otherwise number will plummet further.

[Jake1992]

A multi-role T32 wouldn't be a dedicated MCM vessel or a Littoral ASW specialist or a AAW Frigate or a dedicated escort or a sea base for the FCF. However it could be capable of performing all of those roles up to a certain level if designed correctly.

This is what the T26 is! The illusion of a cheap multi-role frigate has been shattered by the T31 project, and the T32 project is not going to magically repair this. Any multi role combat vessel is going to be very expensive, this has been indisputably proven by the T26 project three times over for three different nations.

Mine clearance does not need a combat vessels, there is no example of it needing a combat vessel, and the doctrine above acknowledges its not required. A more suitable category is a multi-role utility vessel that is simple to construct and cheap to operate. It has to be simple (cheap) to offset in increased complexity (expensive) of the modular systems it will operate otherwise number will plummet further.

To me to sounds more like a frigate sized bay style vessel with a main gun, ie a vessel of around 140m by 19m that has a decent sized hanger and a large open space to house and deploy off board systems with a 5” gun, NOT a full fat combatant with mission space like the T26.

[Tempest414]

This is what the T26 is! The illusion of a cheap multi-role frigate has been shattered by the T31 project, and the T32 project is not going to magically repair this. Any multi role combat vessel is going to be very expensive, this has been indisputably proven by the T26 project three times over for three different nations.

Mine clearance does not need a combat vessels, there is no example of it needing a combat vessel, and the doctrine above acknowledges its not required. A more suitable category is a multi-role utility vessel that is simple to construct and cheap to operate. It has to be simple (cheap) to offset in increased complexity (expensive) of the modular systems it will operate otherwise number will plummet further.

I agree for me I will be happy to push on to 24 escorts once we have sorted our base line fleet out and for me this means something like a 100 to 110 by 17 Meter Venari with a max top speed of 20 knots fitted out like so

Scanter 4100 radar
M-Cube CMS
crew 40 with 80 berths for Mission crew ( MCM , ASW , EMF )
25 meter covered working deck
25 meter open working deck
25 ton crane
fight deck and hangar for Wildcat / UAV's
1 x 57mm , 2 x 12.7 mm , 3 x minigun

For me any unmanned kit that is over 25 meters and 30 tons needs to be able to self deploy. For me a ship like this could be forward deployed and if needed have mission kit and crew flown out to re-role a ship as needed

[ArmChairCivvy]

a vessel of around 140m by 19m that has a decent sized hanger and a large open space to house and deploy off board systems with a 5” gun, NOT a full fat combatant

Will give you a 20 m shorter
https://www.scalemates.com/kits/dutch-f ... p--1276012 one that carries a bn, with some armour (in our case BV206/ Viking for swimming the last 'mile'... hopefully less), has two helicopters to lift a platoon at a time and was to have the Russian equivalent of a 5'' (which changed into a self-defence weapon). Make it a 5'' for Vulcano rounds (volume and AA fire out to 30km with BER and guided long-range rounds to hit targets where heli-borne forces might be landed, 120 km inland).
... a nifty package with a little bit of tweaking with western kit

[donald_of_tokyo]

The two USN LCS classes are exactly a
- USV carrying
- lightly armed (in the same league as T31)
- 4000t class vessel.
"Good reference design"? I can easily imagine it carrying 12 CAMM, added with a 57 mm gun.

Omitting its high speed, it shall be cheaper, can be with lower center of gravity = good stability, with larger cargo/mission-system weight tolerance, with River B2 level or more longer range and endurance.

Looking it again, it is very similar to Crossover (although it does not have crossing derick = its namesake). Not saying it is better than "Absalon"-ized T31 = "frigate-looking" (not frigate) 6000t multi-role vessel. But, a 4000t class "light-frigate-or-heavy-corvette-looking" 4000t multi-role vessel could be designed.

see https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... p-lcs.html

[NickC]

Thx, another query Naval News saying the 16 Mk41 VLS cells FFBNW, do you know if correct as was surprised as thought would be needed for the ESSM and SM-2's, if correct 30DX will only have the SeaRAM with 11 RAM Block 2 AA missiles.

The initial 6 hulls (and may be 2 more now proposed for JFY2021) are planned to be delivered WITHOUT Mk.41 VLS. So, yes, only SeaRAM is their AAW armament.

If you take a look in JMSDF DE-class (Abukuma-class), you can see they do not have SAM. This is because DEs are planned to be operated not in the front-line, but under the air-cover and/or in the logistic backend. FFM is "DE and MCMV replacement". Now we can see MCMV building pace has been slow down (only Awaji-class MSO is in build, an slowly). If you think it is "DE + MHC", SeaRAM is enough. But, if you think it is a "frigate", of course NOT enough.

It is planned that, al least in the later hull of 22 planned, they are to carry VLSs. Also, from the beginning, the first 8 was designated to be "batch-1". The next hulls to be proposed (or not) for JFY2022 is the first batch-2 hulls, and VLS may be added, I guess.

The program looks like following the "gradually improving/increasing equipment" idea discussed by the BMT paper, to reduce risk and flatten cost. I myself feel OK, if it is really to be "the initial 8 out of total 22 vessels", because omitting AAW capability (very CMS intensive) will contribute significantly to reduce cost = increase number of hulls. Anyway, the space are left (big hole), and the hulls is big enough (at least for ESSM), so "Fitting out later" is easy.

Thx, general impression of FFM is more expensive than a T31, as you pointed out earlier difficult to make direct cost comparisons due to the way they are budgeted. FFM slightly faster and with much shorter range compared to T31 but has better sensors eg new gen four panel array MFR, four sonar systems! and a IRST plus a 127mm main gun etc.

[Lord Jim]

Historically Japans Frigates have been limited to specialised ASW platforms with very limited self defence capability. The combat strength of the Japanese fleet is its Destroyer force with the Frigates which have been far smaller vessels, assigned more secondary roles.

[tomuk]

An interesting aside by Ben Wallace at the Defence Committee when discussing the 'shipbuilding renaissance' and capacity he moaned that he had been overseas and secured an order for a UK shipyard and they now didn't want to build it.
BAE and the Barzan class for Ukraine I assume.?

[Jensy]

An interesting aside by Ben Wallace at the Defence Committee when discussing the 'shipbuilding renaissance' and capacity he moaned that he had been overseas and secured an order for a UK shipyard and they now didn't want to build it.
BAE and the Barzan class for Ukraine I assume.?

Reckon there's a good chance you're right. If the 'yard' in question is BAE Clyde, then that's pretty disturbing.

Big difference between not having the potential capacity for five T31s of a new design, verus lacking it to build two missile boats designed in the 90s. Not to mention the ridiculousness of not having secured that capacity and timescale before offering billions of quid in loans to build up another country's industry.

Then again, Wallace has been in The Gulf and nearby places a lot recently too, so could be a red herring. He was also careful to not actually say whether it was a ship..

What caught my ear was the Minister stating in no uncertain terms "the Navy have requested another class of ship, that's the Type 32." (Of course the Royal Navy has made weird use of the Type System in the past but he was very direct about the way he said it). Also confirmed to one of the committee members that Type 32 would be suitable "for NATO" (whatever that means precisely?)

[NickC]

Originally the T31 was the T31e, export, in part driven by the thinking of Sir John Parker's 2016 National Shipbuilding Strategy report, which in simplified form advocated building naval ships for their economic service life and then sell them on to avoid expensive mid-life refits eg original T23 design life was 18 years, with the benefit that shipyards could build new batches of ships optimised to take advantage of latest tech and were not operating in a feast or famine mode and so create an increasingly viable industry to back up the RN, similar to the French and Italian pattern.

Might the RN thinking behind the T32 be the replacement of the T31, hoping to sell T31 asap, not waiting for them to reach mid-life date and replace with T32 with a better fit out and capabilities similar to the Japanese FFM or similar, the T31 capabilities are minimal due to the Treasury mandated £250 million cost cap in response to the very costly T26.

[Poiuytrewq]

Might the RN thinking behind the T32 be the replacement of the T31, hoping to sell T31 asap, not waiting for them to reach mid-life date and replace with T32

How would such a strategy help RN achieve the 24 escort target?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Also confirmed to one of the committee members that Type 32 would be suitable "for NATO" (whatever that means precisely?)

Could be this ( a prgrm that would allow each country to modify the design and then build their own):


The objective of the four-nation EPC program is to develop a modular design that each country can personalize to meet its own specific requirements; if Portugal and Bulgaria join, EPC will become six-nation

The suggested configurations of the EPC are:

A limited warship optimized for surface warfare and able to counter airborne attacks as well as undertake anti-submarine missions; read 'littoral'?
A limited warship for lengthy missions (10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots) that can conduct surface warfare missions; read hi-end, blue water OPV... the 'O' capitalised more than the other two letters, or a 'light frigate'?
An offshore patrol vessel in various configurations; read a more std i.e. cheaper OPV?

[Ron5]

Is an Absalon a Frigate?

No.

It is now, they've given it an F number plus ASW gear earmarked for the IH's.

[Ron5]

What will a multi-role Frigate look like in the 2030's? Will an Absalon type form become the norm? I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

I may be wrong, but to me your long posts may be summarized in that you think mission bays will be standard on new frigate designs and that they will become larger. Perhaps merged with the hangars.

If so, I agree.

But I don't agree with all that twaddle about frigates replacing mine warfare, or landing ships. That's silly.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The Gvmnt has indicated (thru 'intended drum beat', and not allowing for slightly different start times) that for every T26 there will be 1.5 of 'other' surface combatants
- assume we get the full 8 of the former
- then there will be 12 of the other (and the 6 AAW will still be around)
Oops! How do we get from the 26 down to the indicated 24? Where did this widely talked about 24 come from, btw

To pour some water onto the water wheel, to get it properly (indignantly ) going
- we will cut the ASW specialists short by two, and move over to AAW replacement earlier, or
- the slow crawl of the ASW specialists will continue towards the full eight, and the AAW replacement is derived from a different hull (and will be built in a different place)

COPIED TO HERE FROM THE T31/32 THREAD as more than just T32 is in the scope

[Ron5]

The two USN LCS classes are exactly a
- USV carrying
- lightly armed (in the same league as T31)
- 4000t class vessel.
"Good reference design"? I can easily imagine it carrying 12 CAMM, added with a 57 mm gun.

Omitting its high speed, it shall be cheaper, can be with lower center of gravity = good stability, with larger cargo/mission-system weight tolerance, with River B2 level or more longer range and endurance.

Looking it again, it is very similar to Crossover (although it does not have crossing derick = its namesake). Not saying it is better than "Absalon"-ized T31 = "frigate-looking" (not frigate) 6000t multi-role vessel. But, a 4000t class "light-frigate-or-heavy-corvette-looking" 4000t multi-role vessel could be designed.

see https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... p-lcs.html

You'll not find very many folk in the US Navy that think LCS is anything else but a very expensive mistake.

The two major issues are: the ship's role was that it would be small and cheap enough to be expendable with its safety being primarily confirmed by very high speed. That meant compromised survivability. Flimsy, substandard compartmentalization, poor damage control.

Secondly, the idea of equipping LCS with mission specific packages to be operated with mission specific crew (a concept beloved by some posters here) was a 100% abject failure. Failure of concept and failure of execution.

If not for the overriding goal of increasing ship numbers, they would be very quickly taken out of service and scrapped.

[Ron5]

Also confirmed to one of the committee members that Type 32 would be suitable "for NATO" (whatever that means precisely?)

Could be this ( a prgrm that would allow each country to modify the design and then build their own):


The objective of the four-nation EPC program is to develop a modular design that each country can personalize to meet its own specific requirements; if Portugal and Bulgaria join, EPC will become six-nation

The suggested configurations of the EPC are:

A limited warship optimized for surface warfare and able to counter airborne attacks as well as undertake anti-submarine missions; read 'littoral'?
A limited warship for lengthy missions (10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots) that can conduct surface warfare missions; read hi-end, blue water OPV... the 'O' capitalised more than the other two letters, or a 'light frigate'?
An offshore patrol vessel in various configurations; read a more std i.e. cheaper OPV?

I read that as meaning an ship that would be fighty enough to be committed to NATO.

Speaking of which. I've kindof enjoyed reading all the flights of fancy here. However, I'm not quite sure why the majority dismiss the idea that the the RN believe they are short of escorts and would like some more. After all, that what's been said so it has that going for it.

Personally I think escorting the carrier group with, at best, a couple of t26 & t45 and an SSN, to be an appalling risk. Yet that is all the current numbers allow. They need more. A souped up T31, a souped down T26, or a brand new design, sounds much more likely than anything else. A UK Constellation class so to speak.

How the T26 Batch II turn out might have a huge bearing.

[RichardIC]

It is now, they've given it an F number plus ASW gear earmarked for the IH's.

I think that's all the confirmation needed that the support ship concept hasn't worked. But some people just seen to love 'em.

[donald_of_tokyo]

You'll not find very many folk in the US Navy that think LCS is anything else but a very expensive mistake.

The two major issues are: the ship's role was that it would be small and cheap enough to be expendable with its safety being primarily confirmed by very high speed. That meant compromised survivability. Flimsy, substandard compartmentalization, poor damage control.

Secondly, the idea of equipping LCS with mission specific packages to be operated with mission specific crew (a concept beloved by some posters here) was a 100% abject failure. Failure of concept and failure of execution.

If not for the overriding goal of increasing ship numbers, they would be very quickly taken out of service and scrapped.

Exactly. When talking about Absalon-like or Crossover-like, Blackswan or even "up-armed Venari", we have to be very careful to identify what will make it different from LCS problems.

Candidates will be
- No speed (just expensive and does not pay)
- Sending into tier-1 enemy threat is a mistake (the same applies to T31)
- Mission bay concept must be very carefully designed and implemented.
If not, it will just fail as LCS did.

But what is the essence? It could be mixing of MCM and fighting. Or, thinking MCM as temporal use. Other idea?

Another example is STANFLEX system. The SF300 fast boats, which was used for MCM and ASM boat, even with ESSM and ASW VDS, were not regarded as successful. Any STANFLEX system remaining is only for war fighting.

So, any Absalon-like or Crossover-like, Blackswan or even "up-armed Venari" proposal must address how it differs from LCS.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think that's all the confirmation needed that the support ship concept hasn't worked.

Just that security priorities have changed. They were designed to enable 'flag raising' at any spot in Greenland, should incursions in someway be threatened.
Now that the Ruskies are bothersome closer to home (subs making incursions in Greenland would only disturb the whales) extra kit is being fitted to reflect those priorities
- worthy of note that the female PM beat D. Trump's Greenland advances back simply with a cold shoulder