Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:leaks of Macron stating he’ll use the MN to enforce french fishing rights.
This is just complete bollocks the French navy can't and wont face down the RN / UK over fish and we all know it. There are much bigger things at play it will end up a bit like Gib with the French fishing fleet fucking us about and the French gov looking the other way

As for replacing the B1's with more B2's maybe that would be OK but for me I would like us to move on and build a new class of 8 to 10 ships with more focus on off board kit. Now this could be based on the 107 meter Leander hull form with re worked upper works
Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:leaks of Macron stating he’ll use the MN to enforce french fishing rights.
This is just complete bollocks the French navy can't and wont face down the RN / UK over fish and we all know it. There are much bigger things at play it will end up a bit like Gib with the French fishing fleet fucking us about and the French gov looking the other way

As for replacing the B1's with more B2's maybe that would be OK but for me I would like us to move on and build a new class of 8 to 10 ships with more focus on off board kit. Now this could be based on the 107 meter Leander hull form with re worked upper works
It maybe just all bluff and electioneering as it’s coming close to a french election but what is true is that 5 OPVs is no where near enough to patrol our EEZ after Brexit.

I was not suggesting 3 RB2s in place of any of the “multi mission sloops” you suggested but to allow the 10 odd of that new clsss to operate out side of the UK.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:Don't quite understand why you'd want a hot launch system when MBDA have dedicated a lot of engineering effort to successfully develo a cold launch system for CAMM which could presumably also be used for Brimstone etc.
You'd need to add a stabilisation and tip over mechanism to a Brimstone if you wanted to use Soft Launch, which costs. This is a quick and easy way to get missiles to sea. It's not perfect as you lose some of the range as the missile expends fuel leaving the canister with a vertical or near vertical climb out before turning to target.
Or bolt on the CAMM tip over module and a suitable booster.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

ASW capable T32 based on a T31 using USVs?

The unsilenced diesels of the T31s will always generate more noise at low speed by some order higher than the T26 degrading ASW ops, but the severe limitation is only eight very expensive T26s planned.

If T32 was based on T31 for it be to be an effective for ASW ops one possible option might be by using USVs with lightweight VDS / TAS creating a multi-static sonar system and with advantage of distancing from mother ships noise, multi-static sonar looks to be one of the most promising techs for effective ASW against the new gen very quiet subs if the difficulties of comms and integration of different sonars sorted, expect UAV would be much less expensive system compared to that based on multi ASW helicopters.

Lots of unknowns, T32, would its diesels be silenced, what ship sonar fitted and its helicopter ASW capabilities LWT only or having a dipping sonar with sonar buoys) etc.

An earlier post mentioned the new Belgium/Dutch MCM 2,800t ships, of interest was the specs of the Naval Group USV, 18t and its ability to launch and recovery two USVs up to sea state 5/6 which thought should be capable of operating a sonar with limited power to create a multi-static sonar system.

A more costly option would have been quiet corvettes to work with T26, thinking of the methodology of the WWII hunter killer groups and if still operationally effective , the Chinese fit VDS to their Type 056 1,500t corvettes, 54 built, the more recent A variant comes with the VDS, with another 26 to be del'd from 2021 to 2025.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Bit of a Ding-Dong here but good to see some tough and sustained questioning about insufficient escort numbers and how limited T31 capabilities will actually be as currently configured.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e ... t=11:46:10

No sign of any proposal to decommission any of the T23's early which is at least some good news.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

From today's Telegraph,

Exclusive: Military cuts of £1bn over next year, with Navy Reservists suspended for first time
Sweeping savings to the Armed Forces will also see drill nights and training weekends paused



Royal Marines Commando Reservists training in Norway
The military is to make £1 billion in cuts over the next year, with Navy Reservists suspended for the first time as part of sweeping savings to the Armed Forces.

Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has signed off on the Royal Naval Reservists being stood down until April next year in a bid to save £7.5 million.

It is understood that all drill nights, training weekends and two-week training activities for the 2,700 reservists enlisted will be “paused”, although they will remain at “high readiness if needed”.

The 150 naval reservists currently mobilised, as well as the 300 on the full-time reserve service, will be expected to continue as normal.

The Telegraph understands that the move is one of a range of cost-cutting measures being implemented by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as it looks to make in-year savings on the £13 billion black hole Mr Wallace inherited when he took over the brief in July last year.

A further £2 million will be saved by not sending HMS Prince of Wales to America next year for essential training as part of the Westlant Exercise.

Instead similar training will now take place in British waters.

The HMS Prince of Wales sailing up the River Mersey to Liverpool for a week-long visit to the city
The HMS Prince of Wales sailing up the River Mersey to Liverpool for a week-long visit to the city CREDIT: CPO Phot Ellison/Royal Navy /PA
Meanwhile, the number of Army Reserves training days will be scaled back from 38 to 32 in an effort that is thought will save £11 million, while the RAF’s Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft fleet, which is due to be replaced by Wedgetail in 2023, will be halved from six to three.

The MoD, which has an annual budget of £41.5 billion, plans to sell three of the aircrafts once decommissioned at a saving of £138 million.

Civil servant recruitment will also be paused until the spring, which will save £8 million for the Army and £750,000 for the Navy.

The cuts come after Mr Wallace secured £16.5 billion to be spent on defence over the next four years in the spending review.

Boris Johnson, who made the announcement of the largest investment in the Armed Forces since the Cold War, pledged that “the defence of the realm must come first”.


Admiral Lord West, the former First Sealord, called the suspension of naval reservists “shortsighted” and questioned why cuts were needed after having had “such good news about an increase”.

“It’s a bad message for the reservists, it sort of says ‘you’re not that important’,” Lord West said.

“The reserves are important for us and one wants to make sure we keep them on side.”

However, sources said the “record settlement” secured from the Treasury last month for defence spending was “not for plugging black holes”.

“It’s to fund a once-in-a-generation modernisation of the Armed Forces,” they said.

Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, agreed the measures were “shortsighted”.

He said: “This is very sad news following the welcome announcement of increased defence spending.

“Securing savings by diminishing the reservist contribution will not just impact on overall operational capability and national resilience but do little to encourage potential recruits to sign up to the reserves.”

Mr Ellwood added that retiring “the E-3’s before their replacement, the Wedgetail, is brought fully into service, will challenge our ability to police our increasingly contested skies”.

“The first duty of Government is the security of the nation and this is a small price worth paying,” he said.

A defence source said: “The settlement received by defence was hugely welcome, but we know this does not solve all of our problems. We still have difficult and necessary decisions to make to address our financial position, and will not shy away from the responsibility we have to the taxpayer.”

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

So we get around £4bn extra a year then need to cut £1bn it makes no sense. It was made out the extra funding secured not only filled the black holes but also allow extra on top, so who’s been telling the lies ? Both things can’t be right so either HMG has been fudging it by making out there increasing defence while really still cutting or the source to this paper is full of it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

As was pointed out at the time


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As we were talking about the OPV's and fishing stocks the B1's are half manned by reserves

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Those currently deployed will not be cut, training however will.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:B1's are half manned by reserves
Is the other half (in the main) drawn from the MCM fleet?
- some initial comments after the reactivation decision were suggesting that to be the case.
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: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Roders96 wrote:Those currently deployed will not be cut, training however will.
Yes but the reserves on the B1's are not there for 6 months they come and go and are replaced by others that need training all on short deployments. The bit I liked was we are cutting training but expect the reserves to be a high readiness the MOD/ HMG can't have there cake and eat it. It is keep training and maintain readiness or cut training and lower readiness but this comes at a time when the at sea time of the OPV's will need to increase and the army reserves will be needed to conduct mass covid testing

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Quite! :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:The bit I liked was we are cutting training but expect the reserves to be a high readiness the MOD/ HMG can't have there cake and eat it.
Yes -it's like a disease, spreading into more and more areas. Big and small.
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Credit to Babcock for committing to such a level of investment on what is a pretty modest contract.



https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... r-type-31/

Now we just need the Frigate Factory on the Clyde.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Credit to Babcock for committing to such a level of investment on what is a pretty modest contract.



https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... r-type-31/

Now we just need the Frigate Factory on the Clyde.
To put it in perspective, the level of investment is 2.1% of Team31s slice and 1.7% of the programme.

It's quite an insignificant investment, the notion it should be heralded as a success is more a product of how inefficient, uncompetitive and frankly profiteering BAE have been over the whole frigate factory saga.

BAE once again showing themselves to be nothing but a leech on UK security.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

They said they needed £ 200 mln
- this one came in at just 30+
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)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by bobp »

Does that price include the Gantry Crane that fits inside? But anyhow lot less than Bae wanting the Government to fork out 200 mill.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

bobp wrote:Does that price include the Gantry Crane that fits inside? But anyhow lot less than Bae wanting the Government to fork out 200 mill.
The BAE proposal was for a lot more than a big empty shed to keep the rain out.

By the way, the UK government/tax payer is paying for the Rosyth shed in just the same fashion.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by bobp »

PEMA production equipment video this has been ordered for t31 metal bashing....




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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Ron5 wrote:
bobp wrote:Does that price include the Gantry Crane that fits inside? But anyhow lot less than Bae wanting the Government to fork out 200 mill.
The BAE proposal was for a lot more than a big empty shed to keep the rain out.

By the way, the UK government/tax payer is paying for the Rosyth shed in just the same fashion.
This is complete and utter horse manure. If they were - BAE would have built it.

200m comes in at 2.03% of the (9.87bn) T26 programme.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Roders96 wrote: complete and utter horse manure.
We are so polite :D on this side of the Pond.
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)

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:
Ron5 wrote:
bobp wrote:Does that price include the Gantry Crane that fits inside? But anyhow lot less than Bae wanting the Government to fork out 200 mill.
The BAE proposal was for a lot more than a big empty shed to keep the rain out.

By the way, the UK government/tax payer is paying for the Rosyth shed in just the same fashion.
This is complete and utter horse manure. If they were - BAE would have built it.

200m comes in at 2.03% of the (9.87bn) T26 programme.
The t26 contract was open book so the treasury could see the line for infrastructure improvement cost and said that had to be removed.

The t31, on the other hand, was not open book so babcocks cost structure is not known to either the MOD or the Treasury but it does include the cost of building the 31 million pound shed. Babcocks is no more a charity than BAE despite the bullshit posted above.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
bobp wrote:Does that price include the Gantry Crane that fits inside? But anyhow lot less than Bae wanting the Government to fork out 200 mill.
The BAE proposal was for a lot more than a big empty shed to keep the rain out.

By the way, the UK government/tax payer is paying for the Rosyth shed in just the same fashion.
The BAE “Frigate Factory” in Osborne South Australia cost the Ozzie taxpayer 550m AUD, which is about 300m£.

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: the treasury could see the line for infrastructure improvement cost and said that had to be removed.
How do you know that

Or are you again making it up, AKA
Ron5 wrote: bullshit
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote: the treasury could see the line for infrastructure improvement cost and said that had to be removed.
How do you know that
Although many suspect the reason why it was deleted I'm not aware this information was ever openly in the public domain.

I'd be interested to see a source quoted to back that up.

Post Reply