Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[marktigger]

fine donald so the UK armed forces is only there to fight militias and Terrorists?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Note, the T31 will also have 8 NSM or alike (as with T45), so (so-so) deep strike can also be done. T26 (with 24 LAM) will do "a little" better, but no big difference.

are you sure?

No. But I think they shall have. Not only for anti-ship, but also for "so-so" deep land attack (say 200 km away). It is very cheap. If you cut only a single F35B, you can arm 6 T45 and 5 T31 with 8 NSM each (or more), to my understanding.

NSM's (~180 km range) or LRASM's (~400 km range) land attack capability is different from those of TLAM (or alike) with 1000 km range. But, 1000 km range LAM will cost a lot more than (relatively) simple SSM with 2ndary land-attack capability.

[donald_of_tokyo]

fine donald so the UK armed forces is only there to fight militias and Terrorists?

No. I never said so. You are completely forgetting all the CVTF, which will deploy if needed. I am just saying the standing tasks do not need to be heavily armed for land attack. No need.

[marktigger]

all the CVTF you imple there will be more than one? given the support cycles of the escorts I could see there only being 1 deployable CVTF with the remainder being understrength and used for training/flag showing

[donald_of_tokyo]

all the CVTF you imple there will be more than one? given the support cycles of the escorts I could see there only being 1 deployable CVTF with the remainder being understrength and used for training/flag showing

Agreed. And I find no problem with it. If you have 1 CVTF "ready on-call" to revenge you severly, your enemy "deeply hesitate" to attack your assets. This is deterrence.

On the other hand, if you have T26 and not T31 on standing task, yes the situation will be a little relaxed, but only a little.

[dmereifield]

Note, the T31 will also have 8 NSM or alike (as with T45), so (so-so) deep strike can also be done. T26 (with 24 LAM) will do "a little" better, but no big difference.

are you sure?

No. But I think they shall have. Not only for anti-ship, but also for "so-so" deep land attack (say 200 km away). It is very cheap. If you cut only a single F35B, you can arm 6 T45 and 5 T31 with 8 NSM each (or more), to my understanding.

NSM's (~180 km range) or LRASM's (~400 km range) land attack capability is different from those of TLAM (or alike) with 1000 km range. But, 1000 km range LAM will cost a lot more than (relatively) simple SSM with 2ndary land-attack capability.

I Hope you are right, bit its not sounding too positive so far....

[Repulse]

- 200 RM with equipments and 2 LCVPs are "combustible/flamable". To meet the damage control requirement, the "EMF section" of the T27 will be very very expensive. Damage control level needed for LPD/RFA-Bay is much different from those required for an escort, I guess.
- By using a small space of a frigate, it will lose the scale merit. For example, maintenance load for 4 LCVPs is LESS THAN twice needed for 2 LCVPs.

They Absalon class does it OK. Plus surely these maintenance challenges exist with current USV MCM technologies?

Fact is under the current plans the UK will only be able to deploy either a CBG or an ARG at any point in time, not both. I can imagine scenarios when an CBG is useful without an ARG but few the other way round... so a big amphibious assault rethink is needed.

[shark bait]

I can imagine scenarios when an CBG is useful without an ARG but few the other way round... so a big amphibious assault rethink is needed.

Absolutely!

[rec]

http://www.government-online.net/indepe ... er-friend/

[dmereifield]

"The MOD Type 31 Frigate Project Team is potentially seeking a Customer Friend to provide independent, specialist commercial experience of ship build and design:
— To help the MoD to understand the cost implications of ‘preferential engineering’ and of specifying naval standards and bespoke equipment.
— To provide constructive challenge during trade-offs relating to standards, innovation, minimising through life costs and ensuring that the design both has sufficient flexibility for export and facilitates modern methods of construction.
— To provide constructive challenge to ship design and input to the build strategy.
Customer Friend Contractors will be required to cooperate with other Customer Friend contractors in order to work as a cohesive team.
The aim is to bring challenge and learning from the commercial shipping sector, to complement separate defence related Customer Friend Support and thereby avoid any tendency to over-specify the Type 31 Frigate design"

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks for quote, rec-san and dmereifield-san. Great info.

...and thereby avoid any tendency to over-specify the Type 31 Frigate design

Clearly it is in response to the "Sir John Parker's Independent Report into naval shipbuilding", calling for review of naval standard for T31. Yes, clearly it is needed. Its out-come will be nice or bad, we do not know yet.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The problem is not new: The Reagan years
"created the Defense Acquisition Executive Service, which effectively stripped the service chiefs from the acquisition chain of responsibilities.36 The result was the construction of what one critic has described as an “impenetrable wall between a military-controlled requirements process and a civilian-driven acquisition process to the detriment of both.”37["]

So, our DE&S that is.

At the beginning of the last century Thomas Edison was asked to create " the Naval Consulting Board as a private body " to keep the Navy abreast of Best Practices in the civilian world and that lasted until 1943.

We are now reinventing that. Harvard Business Review explains what "Challengers" are:




Challengers use their deep understanding of their customers’ business to push their thinking . They’re not afraid to share even potentially controversial views and are assertive — with both their customers and bosses.

What makes the Challenger approach different?

Challengers focus the conversation not on features and benefits but on insight, bringing a unique (and typically provocative) perspective on the customer’s business. They come to the table with new ideas for their customers that can make money or save money — often opportunities the customer hadn’t realized even existed.

Challengers have a finely tuned sense of individual customer objectives and value drivers and use this knowledge to effectively position their pitch to different types of customer stakeholders within the organization.

Challengers while not aggressive are certainly assertive. They are comfortable with tension and are unlikely to acquiesce to every customer demand.

I have taken the liberty to shorten the description by half; if you feel you have the qualities, why not apply? Though I have a feeling that a design bureau, with deep resource to fall back upon, in weighing technical issues and standards is being sought... and the nominee will have a name consisting of three letters?

[ArmChairCivvy]

For example, maintenance load for 4 LCVPs is LESS THAN twice needed for 2 LCVPs.

- this mixes the concept of "load" (proportionate, or linear) and factor inputs that you will need to reserve for the load (less idling with more units, hence more efficient per unit of output)

Damage control level needed for LPD/RFA-Bay is much different from those required for an escort

- an LPD is (SHOULD BE, if we are talking in a generic way and not just about our own) a warship
- a Bay is a logistics ship; they were designed to a different standard as they would sail in as the second wave (and the Points as the third wave, once a harbour has been taken. The test run went so well in Dieppe that Mountbatten was sent away to do someting less important than liberating Europe).

They Absalon class does it OK

- Absalon is an escort, rebranded as a command ship (meaning flag showing)
- "it" as in damage control; yes. "It" as in landings; no, needs a pier. Recce parties can be sent ahead, but this can be done from various types of vessels.

[donald_of_tokyo]

They Absalon class does it OK. Plus surely these maintenance challenges exist with current USV MCM technologies?

- Absalon is not an escort and named as "support ship". In danish navy, Ivar-class is an escort. But it is much cheaper than T26, and I think it is because of the all-high standard RN requires to their escorts. Then, can RN build Absalon-like ship as an escort to be cheap with RN standard? Maybe, but I am very sceptical.

- Maintenance challenges with current (not USV) MCM technology is there. So making it USV, let it swim more wide area, and host them on a larger mother ship (with less number) is the way RN is going with MHC, I think (if MCM USV works well).

I all agree to the need to rethink the amphibious fleet.

But my choice will be a cheaper hulls with less damage control. For exmaple, I like Ocean. I like Bay. So my idea is, to disband 1+1 LPDs, and get (slightly larger) Ocean-like LPH, and another mod-Bay (Enforcer design) as a replacement. This will provide 1 LPH and 4 Bay-like. 3 flat-tops (2 CV and 1 LPH) will enable 1 always "ready on-call" as an LPH. Losing LSD means you need to clear the landing point more "cleanly". --> drastic rethink of amphibious fleet, yes, I agree.

Fact is under the current plans the UK will only be able to deploy either a CBG or an ARG at any point in time, not both.

Really? In short notice, no, impossible, I agree. But with 2 to 4--weeks notice, I think there can be 1 CVTF and 1 ARG there.

For example, maintenance load for 4 LCVPs is LESS THAN twice needed for 2 LCVPs.

- this mixes the concept of "load" (proportionate, or linear) and factor inputs that you will need to reserve for the load (less idling with more units, hence more efficient per unit of output)

Sorry, I couldn't follow your point. Number of engineers needed to maintain 4 LCVP is "less than twice" you need for 2 LCVP. Is something wrong here?

And also EMF is flammable, with many fuels, vehicles, ammunitions, foods and so on to be carried. To protect them in damage control point of view, you need a dedicated arsenal at the bottom of the escort, another fuel tank as well, well protected vehicle space. Making all of them in escort-standard damage control is surely not easy. Thus, I think it is better to keep your amphibious vessels far backward = low risk, normally, and only on landing day, send them at front. Note that in landing-day, many (if not all) of the enemy fighting power shall be already neutralized.

I also think LSD's damage control is not as high as those of escorts. In escorts there are many many firewalls, and no single space as large as more than half the length of a ship (well dock). Also such "blocks" of escort are not allowed to carry many "flammable". So, LPD and escorts's damage control standard differs, I think.

[abc123]

"The MOD Type 31 Frigate Project Team is potentially seeking a Customer Friend to provide independent, specialist commercial experience of ship build and design:
— To help the MoD to understand the cost implications of ‘preferential engineering’ and of specifying naval standards and bespoke equipment.
— To provide constructive challenge during trade-offs relating to standards, innovation, minimising through life costs and ensuring that the design both has sufficient flexibility for export and facilitates modern methods of construction.
— To provide constructive challenge to ship design and input to the build strategy.
Customer Friend Contractors will be required to cooperate with other Customer Friend contractors in order to work as a cohesive team.
The aim is to bring challenge and learning from the commercial shipping sector, to complement separate defence related Customer Friend Support and thereby avoid any tendency to over-specify the Type 31 Frigate design"

I think that the French do have a horse for that race:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCNS_(company)

[abc123]

Agreed. And I find no problem with it. If you have 1 CVTF "ready on-call" to revenge you severly, your enemy "deeply hesitate" to attack your assets. This is deterrence.

On the other hand, if you have T26 and not T31 on standing task, yes the situation will be a little relaxed, but only a little.

Fully agreed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

from T31 news thread.

A patrol frigate can't do shit outside of peace time. Its a grey flag waving yacht that allows the MOD to pretend they've maintained the fleet.

I do not agree. A light frigate armed with 24 CAMM, a gun, and a Wildcat can do close defense of CV, such as
- providing SAM coverage (AAW)
- its hull sonar will do inner layer submarine "check", to avoid "very near attack" to CV to make anti-torpedo soft-kill effective
- the ship itself and embarked Wildcat can do plane-guard task, which is needed in flight operation.

Clearly there are plenty of jobs in war time for a 1 or 2 light frigate to escort CV.

Also, same thing can be done for logistic fleet escort. So again, plenty of wartime jobs here.

Thus, I see no problem, if it is 5 T31 light frigate. Note I am NOT saying light frigates can replace T26s so its number shall be not much over 5, I propose. Be a supporter of T26 and T45, not replacement for.

[shark bait]

Damn sight easier just to put CAMM on the auxiliary rather than building and crewing a whole new class of frigates to achieve the same goal.

Stick CAMM and a wildcat on an auxiliary and it can do everything a patrol frigate can.

[Caribbean]

... not without an RN crew, it can't.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Damn sight easier just to put CAMM on the auxiliary rather than building and crewing a whole new class of frigates to achieve the same goal.
Stick CAMM and a wildcat on an auxiliary and it can do everything a patrol frigate can.

I do not agree.
- Firstly, damage control requirement differs.

- Secondly, what auxiliary are you thinking of? No redundant Bays. No redundant Tankers/SSSs. Echo class? Scot? Are they redundant in wartime? I do not think so.

Auxiliary vessels have their own tasks, and will be very busy. In other words, there are also many many jobs in wartime auxiliary must do. It is the same for River B2 OPVs. Many tasks they have. (Castle class OPV was busy doing their task as a small transporter). Even polar patrol vessel was used for troop transport.

- Thirdly, in peace time T31 light frigate can "almost perfectly" do standing tasks, not much less than a T26, while all the auxiliary vessels can do their own tasks.

Also, an auxiliary vessel armed as a light frigate, with similar damage control standard, will never be cheap, I think. If you are mounting CAMM and gun on Polar Patrol vessel, (if you like), in peace time what a waste of operational cost it will be. Polar Patrol vessel goes to polar area, not patrolling Kipion. Similarly, it is not cost effective to add another (3rd) Echo and mount all 3 with CAMM and gun. The same for Bays/SSS/Waves/Tides. Sorry but at least I can find no good vessel...

[Ron5]

"Plane guard" ??

Not these days. The RN will have a helo on standby for any splashes.

[Engaging Strategy]

"Plane guard" ??

Not these days. The RN will have a helo on standby for any splashes.

I think he means a ship close by to act as a "goalkeeper" for any leakers.

[Ron5]

Oh OK. Thanks.

[Repulse]

@Donald-san: I agree on the option to go for cheaper RFA Amphibious ships for either OTH or 2nd wave ops, but again they need to be escorted. Tying these RFA ships doing 15-18kts to a carrier group that will need to do 25+kts, 50+nm from the shore is a very bad idea.

A reasonable ARG could from a mix of 6 Amphibious T26s with a purchase of 3 (+2 for the CBG) SSSs each capable of operating 5 Merlins and 2 LCVPS, along with 3 LSDS.

[shark bait]

Any amphibs will have to be tied to the carrier.The carrier is the greatest escort at the RN's disposal, a fleet is nothing without air power.