Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Old RN]

If I remember correctly the last single shaft frigate was the Type 14 Blackwood class. The other reference could be the US Oliver Perry, which is single shaft.

[shark bait]

Don't see why space would be an issue either, the Venator is roughly the same size as the T23, and the latter has room for twin shaft Combined diesel-electric and gas propulsion.

The T23 may be a good place to start, with the diesel electric components receiving a modernization, including new gen sets. Perhaps the most reasonable thing to do is 'copy-and-paste' that work across to the T31?

A £68M contract, with Rolls-Royce subsidiary MTU, which includes a training and transitional support package, will see each ship supplied with four new diesel generators and associated upgraded power distribution. A second contract, worth £12 million, with Hitzinger UK, will provide voltage converters to deliver greater power to the frigates.

The RN already has a modern specification for electric propulsion with acoustic optimizations, they should reuse that.

[LordJim]

I am getting a feeling of deja vu here as I put forward the idea of a T-23 2.0 as the basis for the T-31 as it seemed to tick all the boxes. It could even share TASS with the T-26 if need be if there are not enough of the latter available for ASW work. Install the same open architecture systems, automation to reduce crew numbers, change the power plant and replace the 4,5" gun. Even use the same hull but replace the dedicated CAAM launchers with say 2x6 Mk41 VLS.

Ok this would produce a platform at the top end of the T-31 specification list, but could actually do 95% of what the T-26 is designed to do but cheaper. It could be more so by doing away with the Mk41 and just having CAAM, reducing the requirements for the main gun and not enabling it to carry and operate a TASS.

However the top spec version would allow the T-26 order to be reduced to 6, with the T-31 numbers going up to 8 or even 10, with a minimum loss of capability, and also providing a very capable platform that would appeal to other navies who cannot afford the T-26 and a super OPV is not what they need.

I worry that the whole T-31 project will be still borne though. It will sit in the to do pile at the MoD as slowly fade away as funds are allocated to more "Important" projects, with the production of the T-26 and how the RN is getting new world class vessels distracting the media and public. If a future Government finds it has more money than expected a couple of extra T-26s could possibly be ordered, but any extra money will most likely be spent on health, social care, education and security services along with other more politically important areas. I cannot see the T-31 being concurrently produced with the T-26 unless new funding is made available, as the current equipment plan is already out of control financially. As it is therefore a distant programme politically, funding will be at a minimum at best for at least the next two Parliaments, and as I said above a prime target to be allowed to fade from memory.

[dmereifield]

If the T31 is to be built after the T26s, this would mean that construction would start in ca. 2034/35 and first hulls delivered ca. 2037/38, no? If so, why on earth would the MoD be seeking designs and specifying a budget now, some 20 years prior to coming into service?

[Jake1992]

I can't see the T31 build starting after the T26 as that would mean there would be a large drop in escort numbers meaning a big reduction in capsblities.
I can't see this being politically acceptable especially with how HMG have banged on about there being no reduction in numbers at all and even an increase.

I can how ever see the T31 being just a pimped up OPV and try to pass it off as a credible frigate.

For me the only 2 design being put forward so far that would be credible frigates are the venator and Spartan designs.
I do like the idea of a modern T23 ( T23 2.0 ) but isn't the Spartan design very much like that ?

[RetroSicotte]

Yes - BMT say they could change from CODAD to CODLAD but don't appear to mention anything about a one shaft option.

Still, I'm sure you know best Donald. What do those experts at BMT know about ship design anyway.

Type 23 is twin shaft. Type 45 is twin shaft. Type 26 will be twin shaft. Type 22 was twin shaft. Type 21 was twin shaft. Type 42 was twin shaft. It could be possible that there are some quite sound fundamental reasons why none of these ships was a single shaft design.

Donald, you appear to be suffering from the mind set of a project manager or accountant - one must cost less than two. A designer or engineer will tell you that making such a fundamental change will have a big impact on ship speed, manoeuvrability, propeller noise, survivability, etc. Meeting these requirements with a single shaft design will be more expensive than a twin shaft.

While I appreciate your point, please try to avoid putting it across in an insulting manner for discussion directed at the person specifically.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Still, I'm sure you know best Donald. What do those experts at BMT know about ship design anyway.

Type 23 is twin shaft. Type 45 is twin shaft. Type 26 will be twin shaft. Type 22 was twin shaft. Type 21 was twin shaft. Type 42 was twin shaft. It could be possible that there are some quite sound fundamental reasons why none of these ships was a single shaft design.

Donald, you appear to be suffering from the mind set of a project manager or accountant - one must cost less than two. A designer or engineer will tell you that making such a fundamental change will have a big impact on ship speed, manoeuvrability, propeller noise, survivability, etc. Meeting these requirements with a single shaft design will be more expensive than a twin shaft.

I am not saying I know better than BTM engineers about ships, never. When I say "single shaft T31", I am just following the way USN did in 1970s, with their Spruance DD and OH Perry FFGs, 2-shaft 8000t ship and 1-shaft 4000t ship, using very similar drive train and basically the same hull-quietization technique. All the difficulty you said is the same, but as you know, it was so-so successful. For example, OH Perry has a good reputation on damage control. In USN case, the key point (as I understand) was to make the propulsion system very similar among the 2 classes, so that procurement, maintenance, and training load could be shared = cheap.

Please note I am not proposing to change a ship with 2-shaft into a one with 1-shaft. No. I am just proposing to design a ship with 1-shaft from scratch. Venator 110 is still a concept, so anyway we need to design it from scratch. I will not propose this option for Cutlass, because they have their propulsion system already designed in detail.

Copying T23's propulsion system is also good option to make a quiet vessel, but, it does have some shortfalls. The basic system is old (1980s origin) and differs from T26's system. So, we need independent maintenance/training scheme to support it to at least 2050. Also it requires two independent systems, which will surely be expensive than 1-shaft.

I agree the first choice is to simply follow the 2-shaft CODAD design, and "raft" it and "dump" it to make it as quiet as possible. But, quietization of CODAD could be expensive, and less rewarding than changing it to 2-shaft CODLAD (although, I do not know the exact figure of merit of "quiet diesel" vs "diesel electric"). Thus, with apparently limited cost, I think "copying a single T26 shaft" to T31, just following the way USN did with Spruance and OH Perry, could be a good choice.

#Thanks RetroSicotte-san, but this comment is within my expectation and thus is OK for me.

[Zero Gravitas]

I can't see the T31 build starting after the T26 as that would mean there would be a large drop in escort numbers meaning a big reduction in capsblities.
I can't see this being politically acceptable especially with how HMG have banged on about there being no reduction in numbers at all and even an increase.

I can how ever see the T31 being just a pimped up OPV and try to pass it off as a credible frigate.

For me the only 2 design being put forward so far that would be credible frigates are the venator and Spartan designs.
I do like the idea of a modern T23 ( T23 2.0 ) but isn't the Spartan design very much like that ?

In the reasonably short time I've been vaguely following RN escort procurement, "the absolute minimum" has, for example, gone from 12 T45, to 8 (Government said this was because of their increased capability over T42), to 6, (Government said this was because FSC, what became T26, would be brought forward instead of the extra 2 T45). In practice we now have 5 T45.

FSC started off as a requirement for 20 plus platforms, in three classes if memory serves. This went to 12 of the C1 (T26) variant (which I, for one, was pretty pleased with) and we now have this reduced to 8 (Government says that this is because the C2 variant (or possibly C3), which has become T31, will be brought forward instead).

Don't hold you're breath.

A decade ago, on forums like this, 19 escorts was considered a disastrous reduction. We effectively have 17 as of now, as I understand it. The longer the RN gets by on 17 the more likely this will be the new baseline for planning.

If history repeats we will likely get 6 T26 and 3 T31 = 15 in total if all T45 are put back in service.

Whether we in fact need more (I believe we do) will only be demonstrated in a peer on peer 'hot' war, by which point it will be way to late to do anything about it, and then the 'story' will be that there was never anything we could have done in any case, pace, Sir Humphrey.

All of this is a systemic problem. The reality is that civil servants in Whitehall run the country and not politicians in Westminster. Although there are many good civil servants, most are broken down by the a system in which no one is really in control. All there are are permanent incentives which push civil servants to avoid responsibilty, and focus on controlling the message and explaining or denying obvious failures. Our press focuses on individuals and process, not outcomes. There is hardly any incentive to focus on outcomes (in either defence or any other part of Whitehall) and Ministers, their teams and supposed policies are a passing squall which last a year or two at most.

Apologies for going off-thread on the off-thread thread.

[Jake1992]

@zero if this is the case that we are to prepare for more cuts in numbers as we have previously seen, and as you say this will be justified by the RN "getting by" with just 17 escorts then the RN is its own worst enemy.

What the RN top brass should be doing then is kicking up a fuss, making it clear as day that 17 or "19" escorts are simply not enough and that its at breaking point.
Make it clear to ministers and let a few leaks slip to the media of how bad things are.

Putting it in the public domain of how bad things are how underfunded the forces are seems to me to be the only way to force HMG to stump up for more escorts

[donald_of_tokyo]

But, it is also partly because RN and MOD was too optimistic.
- 70,000t CV? Why not 50,000t.
- 8000t T26, with large mission bay and 24 Mk.41 VLS? Why not 6500t with small bay or VLS.
- IEP T45? Why not CODAG.
- Successor with 12 Tridents tubes each? Why not 8 tubes.

Yes, of course the former options are better: larger is better, more capable is better. But, all come to a simple mathematics = reduction in number. Here, Treasury is not guilty, they provided exactly the money RN/MOD required. They even agreed to increase them. But, not enough to compensate the increased cost. Of course, failing to control the cost is more guilty than not providing "more and more" money.

I want to make T31 better. But, I also want to make it less risky.

For example, "armed Bay" concept may work. Actually I like it (even I never expressed so here). But everything lies on "accepting lower standard". Can MOD/RN control themselves? Very risky. The cheap cheap hull (on paper) will be very very expensive at last.

Also, Spartan and Venator 110 with full armaments looks very attractive. But, to make it a proper light frigate, I think 400M GBP per hull is needed. This means, 3.2B GBP is needed to build 6 of them, or 2.8B for 5.

My comment will look like too pessimistic. But "being too optimistic" historically made such a big big problem to RN. We must not follow the same way.

[Zero Gravitas]

@zero if this is the case that we are to prepare for more cuts in numbers as we have previously seen, and as you say this will be justified by the RN "getting by" with just 17 escorts then the RN is its own worst enemy.

What the RN top brass should be doing then is kicking up a fuss, making it clear as day that 17 or "19" escorts are simply not enough and that its at breaking point.
Make it clear to ministers and let a few leaks slip to the media of how bad things are.

Putting it in the public domain of how bad things are how underfunded the forces are seems to me to be the only way to force HMG to stump up for more escorts

Absolutely agree and focussing on solutions is admirable.

Government (of any hue) will usually attempt to ride out any media storm that lasts less than three news cycles / days (give or take). If a Minister is still front page news three days after the first reporting of some bad news story they will most likely be for the chop.

There have been attempts by the brass to do as you say. Generally their comments make p.17 of one of the broadsheets. (eg the £2bn / 6 ships story was hidden in the inside pages of the business supplement of the Sunday Times.

What would be needed to exert the sort of pressure needed is probably a well funded campaign led by professionals who are paid to seek high profile coverage. Ideally this would a series of high profile resignatnations, one a day with more promised.

We need a sympathetic billionaire and trusted links to a large number of admirals etc I'd suggest.

[abc123]

We need a sympathetic billionaire and trusted links to a large number of admirals etc I'd suggest.

But considering that these days, as a rule, you will become admiral just because you won't do that, then...

[Enigmatically]

But, it is also partly because RN and MOD was too optimistic.
- 70,000t CV? Why not 50,000t.
- 8000t T26, with large mission bay and 24 Mk.41 VLS? Why not 6500t with small bay or VLS.

Because in both cases they need to be that size. You forget that both Thales and BAE said that QEC needed to be that size. When they produced their original designs, both were told to go and come up with smaller designs. Both returned and said they couldn't.
It is not that you couldn't fly an F35-B off a smaller ship, of course you can. It is that there is much more on these ships than you are aware of.
QEC (even with her much smaller complement compared to a CVN) Is ram-packed. You only see the visible bits - either physically on the outside or big ticket items that make the specialist press. But there are many others, important in their own way.

It is also why international comparisons are often inappropriate. Other nations may not necessarily have all of the kit that the RN takes.

Most I will not talk about, but to take one unclassified example. It is true of the RN since the days of the wooden wall that our doctrine is for ships to train by being at sea, not tied up. And that those voyages last longer and go further than most navies. It is why the RN still has an RFA fleet that is the envy of others, and why by some measures we are the #2 navy - because we are one of only two true blue water navies. Well all that places its demands. And unlike the US we don't have the same pool of people to drawn on, so we have to provide better accommodation, better gym facilities, better RAS facilities and much else. Compare the accommodation spaces on QEC against GRF (which are after all the same era) and it is a very stark comparison.

But as I say there are also numerous systems that you will not find on an Absalon, or a Spanish frigate or whatever. They take up space like everything else. QEC and T26 aren't that size on a whim, but because they need to be (indeed I hear that the T26 designers would like it to be bigger)

[abc123]

But as I say there are also numerous systems that you will not find on an Absalon, or a Spanish frigate or whatever. They take up space like everything else. QEC and T26 aren't that size on a whim, but because they need to be (indeed I hear that the T26 designers would like it to be bigger)

For example?

[jimthelad]

I think he covered that by saying 'most i wont talk about'!!

[Biggles]

QEC is the size she is because that is the size of flight deck required to generate the necessary sortie rate for combat ops. I think it assumes 2 sorties a date for 36 jets.

[abc123]

It is also why international comparisons are often inappropriate. Other nations may not necessarily have all of the kit that the RN takes.

Most I will not talk about, but to take one unclassified example. It is true of the RN since the days of the wooden wall that our doctrine is for ships to train by being at sea, not tied up. And that those voyages last longer and go further than most navies. It is why the RN still has an RFA fleet that is the envy of others, and why by some measures we are the #2 navy - because we are one of only two true blue water navies. Well all that places its demands. And unlike the US we don't have the same pool of people to drawn on, so we have to provide better accommodation, better gym facilities, better RAS facilities and much else. Compare the accommodation spaces on QEC against GRF (which are after all the same era) and it is a very stark comparison.

Neither the same number of ships to man.

And still, RN has no enough sailors to man one destroyer and one frigate...

[Timmymagic]

For example?

Certainly in the Absalons case it's missing more than the most basic sonar fit. For the Spanish the Alvaro de Bazan were the first Spanish ships to have raft mounted engines, its' doubtful they have the full acoustic quietening that some (not all) RN vessels have.

Enigmatically's point is well made. Even with the RN's comparatively vast RFA fleet the RN has insisted on greater endurance than most other nations demand. You can well imagine how that impacts demands on space. Couple that with the very sensible insistence on better living conditions for crew (which we need if we want to retain them) and you're always going to need bigger ships. I did see it mentioned that although the T26 would have very good accommodation for the crew it wouldn't hit the heights of the T45, which is a pity. Hopefully the difference won't be that great. It's a much better position than in the past where certain classes of vessels were avoided like the plague. I had some friends who had the misfortune of being on T42's on Caribbean duty. Sounds idlyllic doesn't it? They described it as hell on earth, only relieved by the occasional run ashore.

[abc123]

For example?

Certainly in the Absalons case it's missing more than the most basic sonar fit. For the Spanish the Alvaro de Bazan were the first Spanish ships to have raft mounted engines, its' doubtful they have the full acoustic quietening that some (not all) RN vessels have.

Enigmatically's point is well made. Even with the RN's comparatively vast RFA fleet the RN has insisted on greater endurance than most other nations demand. You can well imagine how that impacts demands on space. Couple that with the very sensible insistence on better living conditions for crew (which we need if we want to retain them) and you're always going to need bigger ships. I did see it mentioned that although the T26 would have very good accommodation for the crew it wouldn't hit the heights of the T45, which is a pity. Hopefully the difference won't be that great. It's a much better position than in the past where certain classes of vessels were avoided like the plague. I had some friends who had the misfortune of being on T42's on Caribbean duty. Sounds idlyllic doesn't it? They described it as hell on earth, only relieved by the occasional run ashore.

Man would say that all the Type 23 frigates have towed sonar or all the Type 45s or that all the Type 45s have VLS with Tomahawks or that QE carriers will have CAAMs or Asters etc., but, wait- no?

If that's so, why has the RN had to leave one Type 45 and one Type 23 tied to the shore?

man would say that the sailors would fight for the place on them?

The reality is that the RN ships in last 20 years are half-equipped as a rule and the RN/MoD tries to cover that with stories of some vaunted RN standards of construction and other such nonsences ( like the other navies are just for show and the RN is every day in Nelsonian times or WW2, so they can't do without such vaunted standards ) , while the truth is obvious- the HMG doesen't want to give enough money for properly equipped ships ( or for enough of them ) or they simply don't care about public money being spent. Current example of Type 26/31 without anti-ship missiles is just the point in case.

[seaspear]

Standards of construction or design may include compliance to Lloyds ratings, a consideration may be are the vessels built to commercial or naval standards , if the main purpose of a naval ship building program is job creation over everything else then Q.A may not be a high priority

[ArmChairCivvy]

if the main purpose of a naval ship building program is job creation

Could be in the works as R4 says the two parties in the Gvmnt still have not arrived at an agreement on all poinst being negotiated - it is hard to see they would be political differences, but rather the smaller party saying (about investments directed specifically at N.I):
" You bribe the Scots with warship building prgrms; try it with us, too!"

[donald_of_tokyo]

QEC is the size she is because that is the size of flight deck required to generate the necessary sortie rate for combat ops. I think it assumes 2 sorties a date for 36 jets.

It is well known. In other words, if the sortie requirement is smaller, a smaller CVF would have been there. This is what I said. With a 45000-50000t FLD CVFs, 2 of them shall be safely active with also 13 T26 secured and even the 1st ship already launched.

[Engaging Strategy]

It is well known. In other words, if the sortie requirement is smaller, a smaller CVF would have been there. This is what I said. With a 45000-50000t FLD CVFs, 2 of them shall be safely active with also 13 T26 secured and even the 1st ship already launched.

The relationship between tonnage and cost isn't linear. Nor is the relationship between tonnage and capability. At the highest end you end up spending small amounts of money to gain very large increases in capability. The only limiting factors are infrastructure. There is 0 chance that Type 26 would be in the water now if CVF had been smaller. Changing the size of the QEC has no impact on how long the design process which produced Type 26 was going to take. In fact the shipbuilding gap following CVF may have been longer, incurring significant costs and forcing HMG to buy yet more OPVs.

[Enigmatically]

QEC is the size she is because that is the size of flight deck required to generate the necessary sortie rate for combat ops. I think it assumes 2 sorties a date for 36 jets.

It is well known. In other words, if the sortie requirement is smaller, a smaller CVF would have been there. This is what I said. With a 45000-50000t FLD CVFs, 2 of them shall be safely active with also 13 T26 secured and even the 1st ship already launched.

Its also well known that goldfish have a memory span of 6s. But that's false too. They have a memory span of 3 months

The point was that below that size, sortie rate would have dropped very quickly, but also other capability would have been lost. If you were to wander round the ship (given free access and quite a lot of time) you would have realised that there is little spare space (apart from deliberately designed in growth margins). So if you cut the size you cut something else. You could cut air wing size, but as crew accomodation takes up a fraction of the volume of the ship, a 1% reduction in ship size would equate to cutting 10% (say) of the airwing. Or you cut something else. So what would you cut?


Like I said, these ships have far more kit in them than you dreamt of in your philosophy horatio. More than you would realise from wikipedia or Janes.

[Aethulwulf]

Has the compartment space directly below the ski jump been allocated for anything yet?

If not, could it be used as an brig overflow, for those people who may need a spot for a quiet kip after an overindulgence or two on a run ashore?