Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2325
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:How different (forgetting about the LCUs and the forward gun) is the aviation training ship in its layout?
- the one recently built in Vietnam for the RAN
Without being privy to inside infomation, but from another forum I visit apprantly they are vastly different internally, although it is based on the Damen OPV 2600


http://www.damen.com/en/news/2017/04/su ... alian_matv

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ok, much smaller than I had thought. the three installations (front, and on the sides close to the helo pad): are they for nets, for UAV recovery (ref: unmanned aerial vehicle support) or are they water cannons (firefighting is also mentioned)?
- just one real one would have enabled the vessel to two-time it as an OPV, when flight training allows
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)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2325
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Ok, much smaller than I had thought. the three installations (front, and on the sides close to the helo pad): are they for nets, for UAV recovery (ref: unmanned aerial vehicle support) or are they water cannons (firefighting is also mentioned)?
- just one real one would have enabled the vessel to two-time it as an OPV, when flight training allows
Have no idea your guess is good as mine, it's a training ship with secondary capabilty for HADR. Fire fighting I would not imagine so

http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Jul2017/Flee ... WUU34lhjTo

Also have to remember its not a warship and not owned by ADF

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

marktigger wrote: the largest long term cost for the T26 will be crew. There are significant differences in the terms and conditions, rates of pay etc Between RN & RFA and they can cause Morale issues. Before you enter into the international legal position.
Sorry, I don't get the argument as there is already on average one RFA East of Suez and one West of Suez. All I am saying is that the type of RFA should be different so when paired with one or more Sloops (River+s) they have the necessary effect for most peacetime ops, taking away the need for a FF/DD.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

if you are doing same job in same theatre along side someone who is on better terms and conditions and has better perks it effects morale.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5597
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RFA on WIGS, Kipion and APT-S support is NOT doing the same job as RN ships, to my understanding.

If war breaks out, I understand RFA ships will retreat rom the front. RN will either stay for fight, or retreat to wait for reinforce to come. In HADR, both will work the same (RFA even better).

This is the same in real war. In war, we see RFA ships are deployed, following the fleet, but not there for Combat. RN ship must stand in front of RFA vessels, and not the other way. Also, in war, chartered merchant vessels will also follow the fleet. But I understand they may be located further "back".

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by CameronPerson »

Sorry to change the subject but does anyone know when St Albans was last in dry dock? Only asking because her paint beneath the WL looks in very good nick. I know we fork out a lot for our secretive paint but the proof really is in the pudding on this one, from my eyes it doesn't look like it's had another coat yet..
IMG_1134.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If war breaks out, I understand RFA ships will retreat rom the front.
Agreed, and so will everything else including a T31, until the SSNs and CBG turns up.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5597
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:If war breaks out, I understand RFA ships will retreat rom the front.
Agreed, and so will everything else including a T31, until the SSNs and CBG turns up.
Not necessarily. T31 as a light frigate, if arm as much as even Khareef, can withstand most of "minor" military threats RFA vessel shall retreat.
- terrorist's SSM missile attack from land.
- missile crafts armed with SSMs, if only 2 or 3 crafts.
- fast attack boats, if it is less than 10.
- about half of the corvettes/patrol frigate worldwide. (Floreal, Colombian and Malaysian's German built FS1500, Italian built 650t class, many of SIGMA class, and many minor corvettes)

Actually, Khareef in 2020s is much better armed for self-defense than T21 in 1982.
- CAMM/SeaMICA is not obsolete even now while SeaCAT was.
- OTO 3in gun is much better in AAW than 114mm gun.
(of course, range, endurance and hull-standard are better for T21).

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2905
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

UK Chamber of Shipping calls for more warships for fleet protection

...
Awe-inspiring videos of the first Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier have made a big splash on social media these past few weeks. But in reality the Royal Navy’s fleet is overstretched and still the Government is delaying making decisions that impact the security of our country and safe passage of the world’s food and energy supplies.

The security of our nation and its trading economy depend on the Royal Navy’s ability to protect the global merchant fleet. You don’t need me to tell you that the world’s geopolitical situation is becoming increasingly unpredictable. Added to this, maritime security threats can jeopardise the safe passage of oil, food, gas and other everyday commodities on which we depend.

Worrying research published last month by Chatham House highlighted the vulnerable “chokepoints” in trade corridors that could hamper the flow of energy supplies, food and manufactured goods, should vessel traffic in these areas be disrupted.

Two of the critical “chokepoints” identified were the Suez Canal and, south of the canal, the Strait of Bab al-Mandab. The Royal Navy has played a leading role in EUNAVFOR’s operation in the Horn of Africa region, escorting merchant vessels through the high-risk area, which has been plagued by pirate attacks.

Somalian piracy is making an alarming comeback. During the first three months of 2017, armed pirates hijacked two vessels off the coast of Somalia, an area in which previously no merchant ship had been hijacked for five years. Four further incidents in the region were also attempted during the period, according to figures from the International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre.

The situation in the Horn of Africa is just one of a range of threats that require a naval response to ensure that world trade keeps moving.

In the Mediterranean, the coordinated efforts of European naval forces, including the Royal Navy, have saved tens of thousands of lives during the migration crisis. The MoD has maintained at least one ship in the south-central Mediterranean since April 2015, as part of an international effort to save lives and disrupt people-smuggling activity. Royal Navy ships also contribute to the NATO operation that provides support to the Greek and Turkish coastguards. On the other side of the Med, the Royal Navy is assisting with training the Libyan coastguard to help improve border control and counter the activities of migrant smugglers in the country.

Maintaining a strong naval response to the migration crisis in the Mediterranean is key. Commercial ships will of course provide any help necessary to people in distress, but the ultimate responsibility lies with those who are best trained and equipped to undertake humanitarian missions at sea.

But the Government doesn’t seem to be taking seriously the renewal of its naval fleet – which should give all of us the jitters.

The first three of eight Type-26 frigates are to be built for the Royal Navy at Scottish shipyards, it was announced this month. The Government has committed £4.7bn to the Type 26 programme, which is scheduled for completion in 2035.

But it remains to be seen if all eight of the frigates will indeed hit the water. More amazing still will be if the project is completed on time and on budget – previous projects have not set a good precedent. In the case of the Type 45 destroyer, for instance, the Ministry of Defence had originally planned to order 12 of the vessels, which would have replaced a dozen of the older Type 42s. But firm orders only materialised for six destroyers, which arrived two years behind schedule and over £1.5bn over budget. (Then there was the small problem that immobilised the vessel’s engine in warm climates).

The Queen Elizabeth-class project, thankfully, remains on schedule but its original budget has doubled to £6.2bn because the Government couldn’t decide on a design.

We have absolutely no more time to waste, let alone money – indecision costs billions.

More detailed plans to renew the frigate fleet are to be included in the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, which was slated for release in “Spring 2017” but has still not materialised. New Type 26 and Type 31E general-purpose frigates have been mooted but we await clarity.

In maintaining Britain’s naval might, we also maintain the security of Europe and the world. Not only that, in protecting the world’s merchant fleet, the Royal Navy keeps the lights on and food on the table. It’s critical that the Government avoids any more delays or deviation. Order those frigates and show the world what the UK is made of.

https://navaltoday.com/2017/07/14/uk-ch ... rotection/
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

In designing a ship for anti piracy ,drug smuggling etc. a consideration would be initial costs and running costs ,I would suggest because of the wide areas to be covered that much smaller ships are used, you might get 3 purpose designed small ships for these roles than a conventional escort that is primarily equipped for war

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

The RN should not be designing ships for that role. Such a waste when any platform can do that job.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:The RN should not be designing ships for that role. Such a waste when any platform can do that job.
I agree. On the other hand, we should be throwing development monies (not away, like now, but) into regional pools, where some RN officers could be seconded early on to get local teams / crews up to speed... on something like this
https://www.wartsila.com/resources/cust ... barentshav

Runs with 16 able bodied men, before you (as and when needed) add non-compliant boarding teams (another 24 will fit in comfortably' so a squad at the ready, round the clock).
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5597
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

The article calls for "more escorts", but in reality, it is discussing about tasks which can be covered with a light frigate (strait of Bab al-Mandab = Yemen), and even an OPV (Med. etc.). So, even though many here think "2nd-rate escort" = a light frigate is not good, it looks like many do not think so, and saying "RN needs to keep escort number". River B2 is "3rd-tier" in this notation (Do not confuse).

Naively speaking, I think, they are saying "we need 3 light frigates for Yemen", and "2 OPVs for Med." and "2 OPVs for Somali pirates". Litrary, this is not so difficult, but it is not what we want.... maybe.?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

we need light frigates not more OPV's

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Do we really need "light" frigates? The reality is that merchant, RFA, shipping lanes, our carriers / amphibious ships, ports and quite possibly our air defences (note a T45 was deployed for the olympics) all would require serious protection in the event of a shooting war. Most commentary on this site refers to struggling to cover our standing commitments and the roles listed above would be in addition.

Ultimately we need our ships to be largely self sufficient so does "light" cover that? You are certainly right an OPV would be useless at most of the above.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I believe we could have a new thread on what a ship requires for constabulary duties needs , if a ship has a sole role of interdiction in illegal activities it would be able to be built cheaper than a warship, it would not need the equipment and sensors of such and would not have the running costs of such ,the amount of money spent on one regular warship would operate likely multiple constabulary vessels .
Certainly environmental conditions of a ship operating in hot climates should be considered ,a trawler design that is at home in the North sea wont be comfortable ,

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Looks like the RN will soon have 11 Sonar 2087 towed array sets. Does this change the calculation on The future escort?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

i'd love to hope so.

either by fitting three of a T31 sub-class with a towed array, or to units 9-12 of T26 if T31 gets canned.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Engaging Strategy wrote:Looks like the RN will soon have 11 Sonar 2087 towed array sets. Does this change the calculation on The future escort?
Is there anything definitive that states that the contract includes procurement of 3 full new 2087 sets? All the info in the public domain that I have seen are a bit vague.

It'd be nice to think that we might get 3 ASW capable T31s. The NSS should clear this up hopefully, any word on when it will be released yet?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Doesn't the UK also have another training set?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Opinion3 wrote:Do we really need "light" frigates? The reality is that merchant, RFA, shipping lanes, our carriers / amphibious ships, ports and quite possibly our air defences (note a T45 was deployed for the olympics) all would require serious protection in the event of a shooting war. Most commentary on this site refers to struggling to cover our standing commitments and the roles listed above would be in addition.

Ultimately we need our ships to be largely self sufficient so does "light" cover that? You are certainly right an OPV would be useless at most of the above.
Absolutely agree I think we may have been getting ourselves into something of a twist with the term 'light'. I have never heard anyone in government let alone the RN refer to it as 'light'. When talking of T31 the terminology used has always been 'lighter' not light. To be 'lighter' than a T26 you dont have to be that light! A 6,000 ton Absalom would be significantly lighter as of course would a Venator 110 or Spartan design which could both come in at 4,500 ton and still be much 'lighter' than T26 but not a 'light Frigate' in the traditional sense. 1st SL has always been adamant that the RN dont want or need Corvettes!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pongoglo wrote:a Venator 110 or Spartan design which could both come in at 4,500 ton and still be much 'lighter' than T26 but not a 'light Frigate' in the traditional sense.

About there, I would think
, compared to "www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0016.htmlTYPE 23 FRIGATE Specifications. Length, 133.0 m. Displacement, 4,200 tons full load. Beam, 16.2. Draught, 5.5 m. Max Speed, 28 knots. Range, 7,800 nm"
- a little bit shorter (and/but "tubbier")
- slower (25 knots; diesel only?); emphasising range & endurance
- tub shape is good for everything else exc. for strike size VLS (which will not be included)
- the other surface combatants will be the TF assets; these will be the singletons and safeguarding the home waters when "everything else" will have sailed
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

I guess the BAE extended OPV designs have fuelled the concerned of a "light frigate" concept.

Surely, if the T31 is to be able to handle itself as a singleton, as suggested in the post above, then it would seem to me (as a general observer, with not relevant expertise) that we are not going to be getting 6 of them for the rumoured £2billion....

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

dmereifield wrote:getting 6 of them for the rumoured £2billion...
5 or more, and the "rumoured" being the operative word in the above. Ship-sinking ability is all relative (some FACs are as potent as frigates ten times their size) but having CAMM and a credible capability against small boat swarm attacks is the insurance against nasty surprises. And you would not want to send a singleton in harm's way if bigger surprises than that beckon?
- now if you have enough tonnage for the kind of range/ endurance listed, space can be found for fitting/ retrofitting one of the CAPTAS solutions
- as for the home waters, the base for p-8s will be about where (around the British Isles) you would expect to be finding a frigate on ASW duty. This does not hold for those frigates that have been tasked with ASW duty when sailing with a TF.
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)

Post Reply