Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Engaging Strategy]

From the Conservative manifesto. Seems the Parker Report may actually be implemented. GPFF programme mentioned also. Seems it's still the intention to go ahead with it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"modernise and collaborate"
- replicate the Airbus production model, but within one country

[dmereifield]

Well, at least it got a mention. The devil is in the detail though...how capable/credible will it be, how many will we get, and when. Not holding my breath for anything too positive. Hopefully, we'll get HMG response to the report shortly after the election...

[ArmChairCivvy]

we'll get HMG response to the report shortly after the election...

Any excuse not to do it as promised, by the end of April

[MRCA]

The navy only has 19 escorts on paper, reality is it is incapable of manning or supporting the ships it's got let alone asking for more, Its why frigates, destroyers and lpds are mothballed for years at a time.

[Timmymagic]

From the Conservative manifesto. Seems the Parker Report may actually be implemented. GPFF programme mentioned also. Seems it's still the intention to go ahead with it.

'Take Forward' are the key words....and they're not the same as 'we will implement in full'...

Add in 'We want to see shipbuilding growing'...again carefully chosen words. They could have said 'We will grow shipbuilding...'

[shark bait]

@Timmymagic I was just about to post exactly the same thing. Still positive to see it getting a mention.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Add in 'We want to see shipbuilding growing'...again carefully chosen words. They could have said 'We will grow shipbuilding...'

A further analogy: "Airbus is not a state (nor state subsidised) enterprise"

[marktigger]

Just been watching a video of Ardent burning and sinking in 1982. And I can see the lessons so hard learnt in the Flaklands being sacrificed to create numbers. If we want to have suficient escorts and then need to be paid for. So saying we can get 5 ships paid for from the "Savings" from another program is completely bonkers and it god forbid in future we find these ships in a situation like Ardent and Antelope or Sheffield and Coventry I can see these bargin basement vessels costing lives.

[LordJim]

It will take another conflict with the loss of numerous warships for the Government to cough up the funding to build the numbers of warships people want. That is just how it has always been. Somewhere in Whitehall is a department that runs political risk assessments on a daily basis. Until they say that the political risk of not increasing the size and capabilities of the RN is at a level that will affect the future of the Government nothing will change or even get worse. I thought this would happen with the Army during the Iraq and Afghan wars but even then the result was a multitude of UOR sticking plasters. That will not work for the RN.

[Caribbean]

Picking up on the discussion over in the T31 News thread.

Except it's increasingly looking like it won't be bringing our escort numbers up to 20, instead it will be dropping to 14 if the T31 turns out to be a patrol frigates.

If I understand your idea of what constitutes an "escort" correctly, then we only have 14 anyway, since 5 of the T23s are GP frigates without TAS

[shark bait]

True. Their saving grace has always been they could be upgraded quickly if we needed to.

[Caribbean]

True. Their saving grace has always been they could be upgraded quickly if we needed to.

Lets hope that whatever shape the T31 comes in, it can also be upgraded quickly. With container-based versions of the CAPTAS rigs available, that should be fairly easy to accommodate.

[Aethulwulf]

True. Their saving grace has always been they could be upgraded quickly if we needed to.

While it might be possible to fit the extra kit in short-ish time frames, it would take years to train up the extra ASW specialist crew members. The ability to quickly upgrade the 5 GP T23 to ASW is one that exists on paper but not in reality.

[shark bait]

I agree @Caribbean.

I advocate 6 hulls sharing 3 compact CAPTAS-4 systems from the start.

[shark bait]

While it might be possible to fit the extra kit in short-ish time frames, it would take years to train up the extra ASW specialist crew members.

Yes it would. I was more referring a situation where if one of our ASW frigates was put out of action long term, the effect of that on ASE ops could largely be mitigated.

It's not like the early 5 are completely powerless either, last year we sent one of them on a NATO ASW exercise, so they must maintain some ability, perhaps in the littorals where a hull sonar is still important.

[Repulse]

I'll be controversial and say that the target should be a balanced "warship" fleet of 30. If this means that we end up with 14 First Raters and 16 second rate Sloops FFBNW so be it, something has to change though.

[Zero Gravitas]

Yes. Making a deliberate attempt to look through the other end of the telescope: quantity does have a quality all of its own, and Donald-san's point about the seeming cost of T31 being inbetween the cost of T26 and a River seems a good one to me. If cost is a measure of capability, T31 will end up as either a very, very heavy OPV / sloop / etc or a very, very light frigate.

That French thing with the tumbledown hull does look nice.

I think though recent history is a reasonable guide to the future in procurement and T45 went from 10 hulls to eight, to six (on the basis that Future Surface Combatant - what became T26 - would be brought forward), and we've already seen a similar decline in T26 numbers, so when it comes to T31... I guess in FSC terms, the question is whether T31 is a C2 or C3 varient?

Perhaps T31 suffers principally in (on paper) comparisons to T26. Is T26 arguably going to be the world's best Frigate? I guess it should be up there since it's actually a light cruiser classified as a frigate as others have said...

Also worth considering all this within the context of the proposed RN in the future being able to reliably generate a QEZ CBG with F35 and AEW, 2-3 T45, 3-4 T26, 2 Astute(?), and a genuine RAS ability. Am I correct in believing that the only Navy that could safely overmatch that CBG would be the USN? Will take a few more decades before the Chinese can safely generate say three CBGs presumably - if they ever do?

[shark bait]

"quantity does have a quality", only if you can afford to make losses.

A swarm of drones has a quality, because we can afford to loose some, and they gain strength in numbers through added resilience.

5 extra patrol boats adds little extra quality, because it only introduces weak links that we cant afford to loose, so no strength in numbers.

[Aethulwulf]

There are a large number of maritime tasks. A General Purpose Frigate should be able to contribute to most, if not all.

[shark bait]

And arguably a Bay Class could do the same things, if not better, as well as offering a highly specialist capability when we need it.

[Repulse]

"quantity does have a quality", only if you can afford to make losses.

A swarm of drones has a quality, because we can afford to loose some, and they gain strength in numbers through added resilience.

5 extra patrol boats adds little extra quality, because it only introduces weak links that we cant afford to loose, so no strength in numbers.

But that's the point being made, each DD/FF/OPV(Sloop) is so valuable that it cannot be "risked". If we carry on this way we'll have one Battlestar Galatica sat in Portsmouth to scared to leave - things fundamentally has to change. We are going back to a world more akin to the 1970s whether we like it or not. Back then the UK had a global reach with 70 DDs/FFS; ok the UK is no longer a world power but it needs to fight it's corner (and defend it's friends) in a low level resource war fought in the Maritime arena. Having presence is key, therefore more ships are required.

Just look at what HMS Mersey (a low level useless Patrol ship) was escorting through UK waters over the past few days.

[Repulse]

There are a large number of maritime tasks. A General Purpose Frigate should be able to contribute to most, if not all.

I'd agree with that except the "Combat Operations from the sea" (unless we are talking about small scale SF insertion - this is what the Maritime group is for. Whilst I definitely see the need to break the BAE monopoly, anot upgraded and extended Rivers (Avenger style) should be sufficient.

[Repulse]

And arguably a Bay Class could do the same things, if not better, as well as offering a highly specialist capability when we need it.

Sorry, but couldn't disagree more. Sure a Bay class has its place, and maybe another few could help increase lift / small boat mothership capabilities it is the wrong type IMO by a long way.

The reasons are:
- They are far too slow for patrolling
- They are too big a target
- They have too big a radar signature to be a surveillance ship
- They are too big to be built in most yards - we want a "Flower" that could be built in numbers if needed.
- Steel still costs, a Bay would be near £250mn with its current weapons / sensor fit. A similar fit on a Sloop (OPV) would be less than half that.

[Repulse]

Just been watching a video of Ardent burning and sinking in 1982. And I can see the lessons so hard learnt in the Flaklands being sacrificed to create numbers. If we want to have suficient escorts and then need to be paid for. So saying we can get 5 ships paid for from the "Savings" from another program is completely bonkers and it god forbid in future we find these ships in a situation like Ardent and Antelope or Sheffield and Coventry I can see these bargin basement vessels costing lives.

I've just read "Sea Change" by Keith Speed MP back in 1982 - he was the naval under Secretary but resigned in 81 after the Knott cuts were being planned - very good read. He says the key deficiencies that costed lives & ships was a lack of AEW, layered air defence (carrier CAP and short ranged defence including more Sea Wolf launchers). The Aluminium issue of the T21s was over stated in his view, and was easily solved with a special coating / kevlar.