Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[marktigger]

bays are much more capable than the sir class. Added with the points more capable than the sir class. the 2 LPD are that much different from fearless and intrepid.

[GibMariner]

I wouldn't say our amphibious capability is dwindling its about the same as it was in the 80's & 90's but better in some aspects.

I disagree.

With 3 ( of 4 ) Bays, with 3 ( of 6 ) Points, with 1 ( of 2 Albions ), soon without Ocean...

No, Mark is right.

We didn't have any of those ships in the 80s and 90s, except for Ocean.

HMS Ocean 1998
HMS Albion 2003
HMS Bulwark 2004
RFA Largs Bay 2006-2011
RFA Mounts Bay 2006
RFA Cardigan Bay 2006
RFA Lyme Bay 2007

4 of 6 of the Point-class ships remain available to the MOD, busy trotting the globe supplying various bases, since they entered service in 2002/3.

The RN's amphibious capability was uncharacteristically boosted during the late 90s/early 00s with the introduction of new vessels which were much more capable than those they replaced.

Throughout their careers, HMS Fearless and Intrepid alternated between being in service and extended readiness just as Albion and Bulwark have since 2011, the fact they didn't do it between 2003-2011 is the anomaly.

The Bay class, though fewer in number than the LSLs they replaced, are far more capable and flexible.

Ocean may be going next year without a direct replacement (which is a disgrace), however, with the carriers coming into service and not having many F-35s available until the 2030s, there'll be space for helicopters, not a dissimilar situation to the Invincible-class CVS, which also rotated between periods of extended readiness and serving as LPH.

In 1997 we had the following in service:

1 x LPH (RFA Argus)
1 x LPD (HMS Fearless; Intrepid in reserve as a donor to keep Fearless going)
5 x LSL (with at least one in lengthy refit)
1 x Ro-Ro (RFA Sea Crusader)
(The Invincible-class CVS also served as LPH as required)

Even with today's reduced amphibious capabilities compared to a decade ago, it's still a step up from what we had for much of the 80s and 90s.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: What is patrol frigate? What is ASW escort?

A light frigate and a Patrol frigate differs a lot. Their difference is as large as the difference between light frigate and T26/T45.

M-class frigate is an ASW light frigate, designed to carry TACTASS. ANZAC and Vasco da Gama (MEKO200) are light frigates with TACTASS FFBNW. These are light frigates, of the similar generation as T23.

M-class is 10% smaller but more expensive than ANZAC. I think it is more optimized for ASW (of course not as much as T23). Portugal navy is modernizing both 3 MEKO and 2 M-class, but former is modestly modernized for low-level threat, and M-class will be extensively modernized to be "used for high-end warfare". I guess they will get LFAPS from Ultra. If properly arranged, VENATOR 110 will be a "modern M-class frigate", I think.

On the other hand, Floreal is a typical "pimped up OPV". Note Floreal is almost "half" the cost of M-class and ANZAC. So it is clearly a different class of ship. Adding gun, SSM and hangar to enlarged River B2 will come to this scope. Adding 12 CAMM is a big jump in Patrol frigate point-of-view, but still much less than a light frigate. Avenger will be here.

Cutlass will be somewhere in-between.

So, for me, a light frigate with some ASW capability exists, and it is quite different from a Patrol frigate. And, I think having an ASW light frigate in addition to the T26s will be useful, especially in the modern active-multi-static ASW tactics world, in particular to escort very noisy CV or LPH/LPD/LHDs.


2: Then, will the Patrol frigate be "waste of money" or not, is not clear for me.

I personally agree ASW is important, but, it will deeply depend on what enemy HMG will think about. Yes SSK is distributed worldwide, but also it becomes very very expensive. So it is still not many navies, who have SSKs. Singapore, Malaysia is a new member of SSK mafia, but they are ally for UK in the form of FPDA. So it is your friendly SSK, which is increasing. Where is your enemy?

If T31 is to counter Hisbollah, Houthi-Rebels or IS, ASW is not needed (but CAMM will be). For less powerful terrorists, even CAMM will not be needed.

In this case, if HMG think UK-CVs as "NATO's big flat tops" (not solely UK's), their escort will be provided by NATO (including USN), and 6 T45 + 8 T26 will be "enough" as UK share of NATO escort, since UK is already providing the big contribution as CVs. Good or bad, but this is one reasonable policy I admit (although I do not like it).

Then, Where is your enemy?

Argentina (are their SSK is active?), Iran, and maybe Algeria and Pakistan (if with coup d'etat?) ?

I do not think UK is fighting with Russia alone. NATO will. Even with Iran, UK will not be alone.
I do not think UK is fighting with ASEAN subs alone. I do not even think RN will deploy there in near future. Allied with US, and FPDA, may be.
I do not think UK is thinking of fighting war against China, India, nor even ROK, nor Japan.

So, the only enemy with SSK with which UK shall fight alone is Argentina?

[Jake1992]

Donald I agree with pretty much all of your last post but HMG should not be just looking at what enemy's they have now with SSK they should be looking at potential ones in the future as these will be 30 year + ships.

HMG should also plan to be able to deploy alone saying we have ally's to make up our own short fall in escorts is a very poor defence policy, what happens if in 15 years we have to go against a enemy that none of our ally's are willing to ? Do we just say ok we can't now sorry

[marktigger]

given how pay is going across the public sector it may be academic there won't be the manpower to crew what ships are available

[abc123]

I wouldn't say our amphibious capability is dwindling its about the same as it was in the 80's & 90's but better in some aspects.

I disagree.

With 3 ( of 4 ) Bays, with 3 ( of 6 ) Points, with 1 ( of 2 Albions ), soon without Ocean...

No, Mark is right.

We didn't have any of those ships in the 80s and 90s, except for Ocean.

HMS Ocean 1998
HMS Albion 2003
HMS Bulwark 2004
RFA Largs Bay 2006-2011
RFA Mounts Bay 2006
RFA Cardigan Bay 2006
RFA Lyme Bay 2007

4 of 6 of the Point-class ships remain available to the MOD, busy trotting the globe supplying various bases, since they entered service in 2002/3.

The RN's amphibious capability was uncharacteristically boosted during the late 90s/early 00s with the introduction of new vessels which were much more capable than those they replaced.

Throughout their careers, HMS Fearless and Intrepid alternated between being in service and extended readiness just as Albion and Bulwark have since 2011, the fact they didn't do it between 2003-2011 is the anomaly.

The Bay class, though fewer in number than the LSLs they replaced, are far more capable and flexible.

Ocean may be going next year without a direct replacement (which is a disgrace), however, with the carriers coming into service and not having many F-35s available until the 2030s, there'll be space for helicopters, not a dissimilar situation to the Invincible-class CVS, which also rotated between periods of extended readiness and serving as LPH.

In 1997 we had the following in service:

1 x LPH (RFA Argus)
1 x LPD (HMS Fearless; Intrepid in reserve as a donor to keep Fearless going)
5 x LSL (with at least one in lengthy refit)
1 x Ro-Ro (RFA Sea Crusader)
(The Invincible-class CVS also served as LPH as required)

Even with today's reduced amphibious capabilities compared to a decade ago, it's still a step up from what we had for much of the 80s and 90s.

I'm not comparing it with 1980s, I'm comparing it with early 2000s. You can't say that now RN has more amphibious capabilities than at the time, nor that the trend is encouraging.

[abc123]

Donald I agree with pretty much all of your last post but HMG should not be just looking at what enemy's they have now with SSK they should be looking at potential ones in the future as these will be 30 year + ships.

HMG should also plan to be able to deploy alone saying we have ally's to make up our own short fall in escorts is a very poor defence policy, what happens if in 15 years we have to go against a enemy that none of our ally's are willing to ? Do we just say ok we can't now sorry

No, they will send poor boys from the UK AF to try again snatch victory from jaws of defeat- to pay in blood and lives what their government didn't want to pay in money before, as they managed to do in Falklands ( somehow ), but I'm not sure that the history is generous enough to permit that amount of luck again...

[LordJim]

History has a knack of repeating itself. Defence always loses out until the balloon goes up but even that didn't happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, just a load of UOR cheques instead. You cannot produce warships with a UOR

[Jake1992]

Well let's look back to the Falklands our closest ally the US wanted very little to do with it and our second closest ally the French were actively helping the argys by selling them new equipment, we were lucky back then that we were still able to put out a carrier group and amphibious group under our own steam and protection. But what some are saying on here is that we don't really need to be able to do that now we can just use NATO and ally's to fill in our gaps as we provide the carrier.

If a stituation like the Falklands arrived again we would not be able to put a full carrier group and amphibious group together and proper protect them or at very best we would really struggle

[marktigger]

I'm not comparing it with 1980s, I'm comparing it with early 2000s. You can't say that now RN has more amphibious capabilities than at the time, nor that the trend is encouraging.

Considering up till 06 we were relying on the Sir Class and 2 leased Ro Ro vessels I think we aren't doing to badly.

The factor you need to ask is have we the Manpower we had in the early 00's.......no if we had the manpower we might actually have more capability.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The RN's amphibious capability was uncharacteristically boosted during the late 90s/early 00s with the introduction of new vessels which were much more capable than those they replaced.

Throughout their careers, HMS Fearless and Intrepid alternated between being in service and extended readiness just as Albion and Bulwark have since 2011, the fact they didn't do it between 2003-2011 is the anomaly.

The Bay class, though fewer in number than the LSLs they replaced, are far more capable and flexible.

Considering up till 06 we were relying on the Sir Class and 2 leased Ro Ro vessels I think we aren't doing to badly.

It is easy as abc and 123... if you have the facts; I will leave it with a question
- are the Albions 33% or 66% larger than the class they replaced (1 for 1)?

It may be well worth reading the '98 SDSR to find out why this may have been " RN's amphibious capability was uncharacteristically boosted during the late 90s/early 00s"

[marktigger]

yeap expeditionary warfare was all the rage, the future was intervening in 2nd & 3rd world failing states quick in and out boot out the bad guys put in our mates throw in some aid Job done. As a concept for National Union of Students policy forum ideal.......Reality total bollocks. But then Nu Labour knew best. Still tony didn't need Amphibious shipping or an aircraft he could walk!

[abc123]

You speak of "uncharacteristically boosted" UK amphibious capability like it's something bad, like "uncharacteristically boosted" amphibious capabilities of Mongolia or Congo.

[Gabriele]

Then, Where is your enemy?

Argentina (are their SSK is active?), Iran, and maybe Algeria and Pakistan (if with coup d'etat?) ?

I do not think UK is fighting with Russia alone. NATO will. Even with Iran, UK will not be alone.
I do not think UK is fighting with ASEAN subs alone. I do not even think RN will deploy there in near future. Allied with US, and FPDA, may be.
I do not think UK is thinking of fighting war against China, India, nor even ROK, nor Japan.

So, the only enemy with SSK with which UK shall fight alone is Argentina?

This is the wrong way to look at it. You are never going to be able to guess right what will happen next. You'll plan for one thing, and another one entirely will happen. That's how it usually go.

In my opinion, the way to think about the issue is: what are the threats that really can shut the UK out of a foreign area and also strangle it at home? Air attacks and submarine warfare will invariably be the answer. That's what you need destroyers / frigates for.

Frigates have very little relevance to struggles against the likes of ISIS, Houthis or samesuch. Those cannot possibly be design drivers for a fleet.

I do not think UK is fighting with Russia alone. NATO will.

Of course, NATO will. The base problem however does not change: the vast majority of combat power is on the wrong side of the Atlantic and needs to be shipped in. A war in Europe will not be lost in Poland, but in the Atlantic. Today as it could have been in 1916, 1943 or in the 60s or 80s had the Cold War turned hot.

It is an unfortunate truth that ASW shipping has been allowed to shrink enormously in numbers, while the number of subs worldwide has grown and, crucially important factor that rarely is appreciated, today's trade depends on an infinitely smaller number of much larger vessels. Lose even a small number of those enormous vessels, and you'll suffer the kind of impact that in the last war would have come only through annihillation of several whole convoys.



Ultimately, "patrol frigates" are the equivalent of a Hawk with 2 ASRAAM and 2 Paveway IV. Adequate to take on ISIS trucks, yet i bet very few would be comfortable with having those Hawks instead of Typhoons.

[ArmChairCivvy]

yeap expeditionary warfare was all the rage, the future was intervening in 2nd & 3rd world failing states quick in and out boot out the bad guys put in our mates throw in some aid Job done

The actual document has an appendix where the then Gvmnt's favourite global strategic planning consultancy had been drafted to exhibit Battle Groups (how and with what they would be constituted) for the tasks that were thought to be "the task ahead"
- those forces were so tiny that even Sierra Leone counts as a major engagement on that scale
- and the thinking was taken as "a fact" by the then-emerging politicians... I can think one Cameron in particular (heh-heh, sitting in the back room of the Conservative Party strategic planning unit) reading up on defence and later exhibiting his depth of knowledge by talking about "Cold War dinosaurs"

[marktigger]

correct.
And many of us cold war dinosaurs have sat and watched knowing it will all end in tears.
And the subsequent SDSR's just compounding the errors the mentality is still about fighting in the 2-3rd world and mentoring.

[GibMariner]

I'm not comparing it with 1980s, I'm comparing it with early 2000s. You can't say that now RN has more amphibious capabilities than at the time, nor that the trend is encouraging.

Mark was talking about the 80s/90s.

If you'd read my post you'd see I said that the RN's amphibious capabilities have been reduced compared to a decade ago, 2007, when the renewal of the amphibious fleet was completed and the RN's amphibious capabilities were strongest they'd been since the mid-1970s from then until the 2010 SDSR.

Yes it is lower now than the mid-late 00s, but it is still higher now than it was for most of the 30 years before then. Comparing it to the 2000s is meaningless as that was the anomaly rather than the norm, yes it was an ambitious plan and produced a very capable amphibious fleet, but as usual the UK government couldn't stomach paying to support that level of capability.

[abc123]

Well, Cold war dinosaurs or not, during the Cold War average British defence spending was 5-8% of GDP, now it's about 2%. Simply, with that amount of money, you can speak about Cold War as much as you want, but Sierra Leone-level operation stays about the maximum that UK can do now.

[ArmChairCivvy]

you can speak about Cold War as much as you want

Need to keep up and read what is current, here we go:
Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University and His books include “Cool War: The Future of Global Competition”

Sierra Leone-level operation stays about the maximum that UK can do now.

- another fact?

[donald_of_tokyo]

In my opinion, the way to think about the issue is: what are the threats that really can shut the UK out of a foreign area and also strangle it at home? Air attacks and submarine warfare will invariably be the answer. That's what you need destroyers / frigates for.
...
It is an unfortunate truth that ASW shipping has been allowed to shrink enormously in numbers, while the number of subs worldwide has grown and, crucially important factor that rarely is appreciated, today's trade depends on an infinitely smaller number of much larger vessels. Lose even a small number of those enormous vessels, and you'll suffer the kind of impact that in the last war would have come only through annihillation of several whole convoys.

I personally agree to your argument.

My point on item-2, "what a Patrol frigate can do?" is exactly on this argument.
- Patrol frigates (PF) are NOT useless, but useful only in a limited environment.
- But, it is also important to note that, 1 full-fat frigate (as T26) amounts to 2 light frigates ("M-class" of 2025s) or 4 Patrol frigates ("Floreal" of 2025s) or 8 River B2 OPVs.

As you said, PF is similar to "a Hawk with 2 ASRAAM and 2 Paveway IV". Or, I would say, MQ-1 Predator. MQ-1 is useless? No it is useful, but maybe not good at fighting against Russian army, considering their high-level of ECM and AAW power.

Because of the cost difference, it is not correct to say "T26 can do both". As I noted, we can purchase 4 PFs (or 3 hulls, if added with 12-24 CAMM) with only 1 T26 cost. Also, PFs with simpler equipments has longer sea going days, which means the integral sea-going days will be even longer.

So I still think, one of the "good" options will be to build 10 (not 8) T26ASW, and 4 Patrol Frigates (or 3 with SAM). Here I assume there is a cost for 11 T26ASWs. Also, I continue to look for "light frigate option" as well, which is better in my personal view. But, PF option coupled with increased number of T26 is not "terrible".

In other words, if the cost is only for 9 T26s, then 8 T26 and 4 PF is not bad.

This is what I think.

[abc123]

Sierra Leone-level operation stays about the maximum that UK can do now.

- another fact?

You disagree?

[abc123]

In my opinion, the way to think about the issue is: what are the threats that really can shut the UK out of a foreign area and also strangle it at home? Air attacks and submarine warfare will invariably be the answer. That's what you need destroyers / frigates for.
...
It is an unfortunate truth that ASW shipping has been allowed to shrink enormously in numbers, while the number of subs worldwide has grown and, crucially important factor that rarely is appreciated, today's trade depends on an infinitely smaller number of much larger vessels. Lose even a small number of those enormous vessels, and you'll suffer the kind of impact that in the last war would have come only through annihillation of several whole convoys.

I personally agree to your argument.

My point on item-2, "what a Patrol frigate can do?" is exactly on this argument.
- Patrol frigates (PF) are NOT useless, but useful only in a limited environment.
- But, it is also important to note that, 1 full-fat frigate (as T26) amounts to 2 light frigates ("M-class" of 2025s) or 4 Patrol frigates ("Floreal" of 2025s) or 8 River B2 OPVs.

As you said, PF is similar to "a Hawk with 2 ASRAAM and 2 Paveway IV". Or, I would say, MQ-1 Predator. MQ-1 is useless? No it is useful, but maybe not good at fighting against Russian army, considering their high-level of ECM and AAW power.

Because of the cost difference, it is not correct to say "T26 can do both". As I noted, we can purchase 4 PFs (or 3 hulls, if added with 12-24 CAMM) with only 1 T26 cost. Also, PFs with simpler equipments has longer sea going days, which means the integral sea-going days will be even longer.

So I still think, one of the "good" options will be to build 10 (not 8) T26ASW, and 4 Patrol Frigates (or 3 with SAM). Here I assume there is a cost for 11 T26ASWs. Also, I continue to look for "light frigate option" as well, which is better in my personal view. But, PF option coupled with increased number of T26 is not "terrible".

In other words, if the cost is only for 9 T26s, then 8 T26 and 4 PF is not bad.

This is what I think.

Agreed.

[shark bait]

Patrol frigates (PF) are NOT useless, but useful only in a limited environment.

Which is not good enough because the environment is out of our control. If we do go down the patrol frigate route it must have the ability to rapidly reconfigure to suite the environment we need it to be in.

[cky7]

Well let's look back to the Falklands our closest ally the US wanted very little to do with it and our second closest ally the French were actively helping the argys by selling them new equipment, we were lucky back then that we were still able to put out a carrier group and amphibious group under our own steam and protection. But what some are saying on here is that we don't really need to be able to do that now we can just use NATO and ally's to fill in our gaps as we provide the carrier.

If a stituation like the Falklands arrived again we would not be able to put a full carrier group and amphibious group together and proper protect them or at very best we would really struggle

Agree with your general point of not over relying on allies and increasing spending or more pertinently capability but do think your examples aren't fair. Firstly, you can't compare then with now. At the time of Falklands the Cold War was still very real. One of the yanks biggest fears was the Soviets making a close ally in South America where in times of trouble the Soviets could base troops, missiles etc etc. Pretty much the only way the US mainland could be threatened is through South America with anything other than ballistic missiles and any occupance of this would have almost certainly lead to the Cold War suddenly becoming not so cool! Joining in on our side would have been an almost sure fire way to get the argues matey with the Soviets. So comparing their reaction then with now isn't fair, it's a different world.

Secondly, whilst for the reAsons above they didn't come straight out and join in with us (not sure that would have actually been in our interest either), after playing at being fair they came down pretty heavily on our side. We were rushed all sorts of new weapons we didn't have in stock including war winning sidewinders. Senior US figures have also since stated on the record they'd have gone as far as giving us one of their LHAs immediately had one of our carriers been lost or seriously damaged. Your comments on the French weren't fair either. They sold them weapons before like Exocet but we were almost as guilty on that score but outright backed us at the UN and immediately cancelled all Exocet and other weapons sales to the Argies at considerable loss to themselves and also provided us with as much technical assistance (including classified info) as we wanted on best beating French made weapons, aircraft etc.

Hope I've not gone too far off topic here but just thought the example wasn't fair even though I agree with the point and think we should be planning to be able to look after ourselves in any situation where there isn't a near guarantee we wouldn't be going it alone. Even without this I think soft power is a pile of crap and the amount of aid etc we give has absolutely no correlation with global influence so ALL aid and soft power spending (other than cultural extension like BBC etc and wildlife protection) ought to be given job lot to defence. Would sort out all this worrying about cutting this and that to get the right escort cos we'd then be able to build the things we need and then worry about getting it at the best value after not working out what we can afford and what's the best we can get for that!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Good that the record on the part of the French was set straight. The Etendards and the Exocets were few and help was recruited, but not from the French.

The Telegraph tells us more, e.g. " 1,500-litre tanks rather than the standard 1,300-litre models and writes that this meant the British Task Force had to move its fleet further east to prevent further bombings."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... s-War.html