Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[matt00773]

Lets talk radars:

I'll do a follow up post of the capabilities and benefits of the various common radars shortly.

Would it be too much to ask if this follow up is put in an actual thread on radars? There's too much of this radar chatter in multiple non related threads at the moment.

[matt00773]

The Type 31 frigate has no military requirement. It was literally pulled from the governments arse, as they didn't want to pay for 13 Type 26 frigates, but also didn't want to face bad headlines about huge cuts to the Royal Navy.

You mean a White Elephant?

I've followed the discussion on T31 for some time and there are quite a lot of assumptions and presuppositions being made about its potential attributes and capabilities. The only salient comment I can make regarding the T31 frigate is that the program has only recently begun the requirements phase. It is only through the gathering of requirements and discussions with defence partners on what operational role it will have where this detail will begin to take shape. Let's not forget also that the intention is to market this for export - and much analysis and discussion with external parties needs to take place for the design to be informed appropriately.

People are getting carried away with the concepts put forward by various ships builders - which in my mind aren't very helpful. From my experience in this type of procurement I doubt they will be any meaningful design decisions and a sense of what this thing will be this side of 2020.

[ArmChairCivvy]

People are getting carried away with the concepts put forward by various ships builders - which in my mind aren't very helpful.

You are quite right with the "carried away" part. But in themselves the concepts are helpful, because in the requirements consolidation phase (must have's; nice to have's and unaffordable luxuries... perhaps not unaffordable in themselves, but in how much (for instance) they would grow the size of the platform) the concepts - collectively, rather than any single one in isolation - represent the art of the possible.

There is a close parallel here to strategy - the art of the possible - ie. which battles to engage in and when, to win a war.

As opposed to tactics: which force elements and in which quantities to commit, in order to win a battle. {Errm, this is all basic Clausewitz, perhaps slightly differently worded. But applies, nevertheless).

[Repulse]

I think the requirement is actually clear. The T31e needs to;

A) Cover all the global gaps left after the T45/T26s concentrate on Task Group, FRE and TAPS duties.
B) Be cheap as it needs to be built in numbers and is exportable.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Looks like the USN wasted quite a few pages
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0
when the cover page could have carried it all.

CDR Salamander (in his blog) seems to think it is a better approach than that tried with the LCS "Jul 11, 2017 - What they did in 2004 was to toss the whole question into the hands of the defense contractors..."

[rec]

Given all the issues with defence procurement, projects ending up over costs and over time. The National shipbuilding strategy could provide an innovative way forward. Providing a possible uplift in the number of escort ships in the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy has had mixed level escourt fleets before, for example in the 1960's and through to the early 1980's. There were first rate GP escorts the Leander class, and second rate GP escorts , the Type 81 Tribals. Not to mention Rothseays and Whitby classes too.

If the Type 31 turns out well it will be a modern version of the Type 81, a useful GP escourt.

[Opinion3]

@rec & @Repulse

What are the requirements for an escort then? Does it need AAW, ASW, to be able to provide area anti air defence? What is the escorts required range? Are we needing to escort merchant ships?

I believe an escort needs to be able to escort unarmed merchant vessels across the Atlantic facing an enemy that has access to air, surface and sub surface assets. I also believe an escort needs to be able to escort into the littoral (for me that means harbour to harbour).

[Zero Gravitas]

Arguably, the fact that it is called the national ship building strategy is telling in itself.

If it were led by strategic rather than industrial need it would be called a national escort strategy or something.

[S M H]

second rate GP escorts , the Type 81 Tribals

Was on-board Gurkha prior to her departure from Gibraltar (last guard ship) Richard who was the engineering officer explained to me that she was single screw, Guns reused open mountings. Re use 4.5 as they will be supported for the type 45s. go down single screw propulsion USN had no problems with a single screw frigate. The tribals had gas and steam. Diesel drive even integrated electric drive if cheaper option than gear boxes for multiple diesel for higher speeds. As long as the numbers are not cut due to costs as happened to the type 81s.

[Repulse]

@rec & @Repulse

What are the requirements for an escort then? Does it need AAW, ASW, to be able to provide area anti air defence? What is the escorts required range? Are we needing to escort merchant ships?

I believe an escort needs to be able to escort unarmed merchant vessels across the Atlantic facing an enemy that has access to air, surface and sub surface assets. I also believe an escort needs to be able to escort into the littoral (for me that means harbour to harbour).

Agree on the merchant escort and would broaden it to a amphibious landing escort also. This is of course in addition to the global patrol / presence role.

I think the main requirements would be:
- 25+kts / 7,000nm range / 30+ day endurance
- Ability to operate / maintain a ASW Wildcat (primary ASuW and ASW asset)
- Ability to operate 2+IRCs and a 30+ RM landing/boarding party.
- Medium calibre gun for local ASuW and NGFS
- Local area air defence (e.g.CAMM)
- Modular ASW / MCM
- Small calibre guns / LMM / maybe SeaSpear for anti swarm attack.

[PAUL MARSAY]

how do we manage all this with 8 type 26 and 5 possibly 6 type 31 all this gets us is a peacetime show the flag fleet . We need numbers .

[PAUL MARSAY]

if we are going to have 6 type 45 and 8 type 26 we need 16 not 6 type 31 .

[Repulse]

if we are going to have 6 type 45 and 8 type 26 we need 16 not 6 type 31 .

Agree, more than 5 needed, hence merging the T31 and MHC budgets. Originally a cost of £100mn per unit was banded around, but think that is far too optimistic. I do think though that if a River B2 is around £120mn per hull (inc the additional TOBA costs), £150mn for a Venator 90 with CAMM and perhaps a 57mm gun is possible when building 12+.

[MRCA]

The RN is incapable of crewing its current escort fleet, ships tied up and us coastguard engineers required for specific trades due to previous service chiefs prioritising equipment over people. We can comment all we want about x number of additional warships but without crew there useless. It's ok saying ah but instead of having 180 crew we'll only have 120 so we free some up. Fine in theory but if you have 10 ships they all need a capt an engineer a pwo ect areas were the navy don't have people or were reducing crew numbers doesn't help the problem.

The starting point should what can we currently crew fully now, then the actual likely hood of what will be available in the future and scale accordingly. Then what is the confirmed not to exceed budget for type 31 because the way it's going at present it has all the hallmarks of req creep to something like a type 26 and if it does it will be yet another paper exercise that will fall apart or turn out half ass'd when it come into contact with the cold hard reality of a finite budget. Requirement no 1,2,3 and 4 is budget for all other capabilities see requirements 1-4.

[Opinion3]

Thanks for your thoughts @Repulse. FLAADS (CAMM(M)) covers one of the biggest threats in my escort scenario however whether a merchant convoy would get far with just the Wildcat for anti-subsurface duties I don't know. Two hours fly time if armed with one weapon which falls to one hour if armed with two weapons.

This is why I like CEC so much because the principle of engaging threats by a variety of means seems to stack up. Certainly you have illustrated the point that the T31 cannot be a patrol vessel (uprated or otherwise)

[ArmChairCivvy]

If it were led by strategic rather than industrial need it would be called a national escort strategy

Upthread Repulse and I were taking ranging shots for what might come under the arrangements and only half of the baker's dozen comes from the escorts quantity

merging the T31 and MHC budgets. Originally a cost of £100mn per unit was banded around, but think that is far too optimistic.

That 100m, I think, was taken straight from the Spanish BAM. Building in Spain that was in euros, and the rate was different then, too

the way it's going at present it has all the hallmarks of req creep to something like a type 26

- they all, stretched corvettes included, exceed BAM? Which has received quite a bit of claim internationally; no exports, though.

[ArmChairCivvy]

FLAADS (CAMM(M)) covers one of the biggest threats in my escort scenario however whether a merchant convoy would get far with just the Wildcat for anti-subsurface duties I don't know. Two hours fly time if armed with one weapon which falls to one hour if armed with two weapons.

Good points about the Wildcat in ASW (other than littoral) role. With SeaCeptor you would need quite a tightly formed convoy, though, to be able to defend it? Or 4 escorts in a diamond formation... then you might actually get some benefit from CEC. Which clearly is a budget option in itself?

[Opinion3]

and if it used 4 escorts for a convoy, the convoy would need to be enormous (due to the lack of available escorts). This would point to a need for more escorts being required or lots of eggs in the one basket.

I suspect a T26 with its better means of fending off submarines and greater space for additional systems once again shines as the better platform in the scenario (and cheaper)

[Repulse]

A T26 and T31/MHPC combo would be best as was the case in WW2 where the Flowers sailed normally under a lead destroyer/frigate. This is part of the reason for wanting to get another T26 out of the overall budget.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think the main requirements would be:
- 25+kts / 7,000nm range / 30+ day endurance
- Ability to operate / maintain a ASW Wildcat (primary ASuW and ASW asset)
- Ability to operate 2+IRCs and a 30+ RM landing/boarding party.
- Medium calibre gun for local ASuW and NGFS
- Local area air defence (e.g.CAMM)
- Modular ASW / MCM
- Small calibre guns / LMM / maybe SeaSpear for anti swarm attack.

No objection, but I'm afraid this means "we want a ship like French FTI", which costs 3.3B GBP for 5 hull for France. If T31e program is to have 5 hulls with 1.25-1.5B GBP, it means the average cost will be 38%-45% of that of FTI. (Hoping for innovation is good, if you like, but relying on it has destructed RN so many times in recent history.) So, we are forced to reduce the requirement or building standard or both.

1: By adding cost for MHC's hull part, how many money can be add here?

# ADD/EDITED.

2: But, adding MHC capability means more larger hull. And with larger hull with escort standard, it means expensive. At last, it will be exactly what the T26 is = large escort with mission bay.

3: If MHC and T31e shall be merged, it must be build not in escort standard. In that case, why not Vard-7 110 design? Five in Patrol configuration as T31e, and 6 in MHC configuration for MHC. Vard-7 110 is said to be 4000t hull, larger than what is discussed for MHCs.

4: But, I prefer to build 5 Corvettes (say 3000t FLD) with good escort standard, and 8 or 10 MHCs in more relaxed (=cheaper) hull, 3000t FLD or so.

[Repulse]

No objection, but I'm afraid this means "we want a ship like French FTI", which costs 3.3B GBP for 5 hull for France.

Why? Most of this bar LMM (which could be achieved via Seahawk Sigma platform) and SeaSpear (not necessarily needed) is already baked into the Venator 90 design.

Agree on survivability would have to be at least at the River / MCM standard, but would still give a lot more protection than now being sat in a Hunt sailing close to shore.

[Opinion3]

Carrier - we said not less than 1 T45, 1 Astute and 1 T26
Carrier - 1 T45, 1 Astute and 1 T26
CASD - 1 T26
Amphibious - as above 1 T45, 1 Astute and 1 T26
Amphibious - as above 1 T45, 1 Astute and 1 T26
North Sea - at least 6 T26 + air support
Supply - 1 T26 + ? T31
Supply - 1 T26 + ? T31
The above is my calculation before considering escorting merchant vessels or protection our overseas territories and other vital interests. Clearly the English Channel and the Gulf would fall into the latter category. Granted the carrier might be used for protection of these interests but I am struggling with a lack of real numbers here.

I have deliberately counted the capital ships with escorts despite the obvious point that it is unlikely that all the vessels would be out at the same time because that is equally true of the escorts.

I see a lack of numbers but my point is a lack of having the right frigate, namely an anti-subsurface frigate which looks vital

[RetroSicotte]

Really, an FTI equivilent ship is the absolute bare minimum for this ship, or it's not worth doing.

[Ron5]

I think there are two discussions. One is about the requirement(s) and one on the capabilities needed to satisfy them. If we mix them up in the same comment, I fear the result becomes meaningless. How can anyone discuss the merits of a 5" vs 3" gun unless the reason for a gun is established in the first place? etc.

So here's my hat in the ring for requirements:

1. Global independent deployment

Able to operate everywhere for significant periods with minimal dependence on land facilities.

2. Diplomacy/presence

Look like an imposing warship with room for cocktail parties.

3. Maritime constabulary

Pirates etc.

4. Secondary escort duties in a hot war

RFA, ARG, or Merchant ship escort in medium threat environs. RN & USN used to have two tier escorts. USN is planning on LCS developing into 2nd tier. France, Italy, and other 2nd level navies have always had them. You could argue a Type 23 GP is second tier right now.

5. Future proofing

25-30 year life so needs ability for new technology insertion. This is despite Parkers urging that ships be built for long life but sold on after 10 years or so. It's a great idea (yeah Parker) that would greatly benefit UK PLC but is bad for MoD budgets so won't happen. The UK defines lack of government cross connection.

6. 250 million unit cost / 120m & 4,000 tons (I think we may assume dimensions are synonyms for cost)

[Ron5]

Thanks, Ron5-san. I myself is a bit complicated here, I admit...

1: First of all, I do NOT like this Vard-7 110 class to be adopted for T31e. Just expect it to be a candidate, because Babcock is deeply involved on it.

2: But, this cutter is a blue-water Patrol ship, even so than T23 frigate, if we look at its long endurance and range. Also, I like Floreal-class. They are not at all fighty, but they are well-designed for their task = surveillance, and pretty well used for "presence".

3: But, but .... I still feel RN shall better not go with Floreal-like frigate. Better stick to OPVs, and really fighty "warships". (As you know, Floreal-like ship is (at least) twice expensive than OPV, and a full-light-light-frigate is twice expensive than Floreal, I think).

Actually, I really think (as fantasy), the 5 River B2 must have been 3 mod-Khareef Patrol Frigate (now called Cutlass), in place. On that time, "optimism" took place (again, sad...) and RN insisted on the "dream" all 5 T23GP could be replaced with fighty light frigates, like Venator 110. It was clear there is no such money.... The 3 Cutlass-light could have been the "patrol" version of T31 (with no SAM no ASW, but with gun, CIWS and a Wildcat) now many here is talking about. Then, RN should have had 3 more fighty version of Cutlass (with CAMM, ASW, in addition to the gun and a Wildcat), with the 1.25-1.5B GBP money for T31e. Leave Babcock for MHPCs, to replace both River B1s and MCMVs. But, this did not happened.

4: Then, now with 5 River B2 already ordered, what will be the "better" solution? Even though my expectations are Vard-7 110 from Babcock and Cutlass-series from BAE, I just hope BAE-Babcock teams-up to propose Cutlass-series to be built by Babcock for T31. It will be 3000t size (with modest several meters of extension), not 4000t, but it can be more fighty than Vard-7 series. 3 Patrol ship version (with no SAM no ASW, but with gun, CIWS and a Wildcat, 200M GBP each) and 2 full-light-light-frigate version (with 12 CAMM, CAPTAS4 or 2, in addition to gun and a Wildcat, 325M GBP each...) will (hopefully) be doable. But, I think this is not highly possible...

# Here I am introducing Babcock to build Cutlass because it is the "heart" of SJP report. Include companies other than BAES in T31 program. In case of Venator 110, its size (4000t hull in escort standard ...), and no-detailed design existing (need more time and cost to do it), put it in very difficult position for T31e.

Donald-san,

1. Apologies.

2. Lack of blue water was mentioned in the links. The design doesn't have that requirement with the USCG. Blue water is a lot more than just range & endurance.

3. I think the T31 requirement is most definitely for a light/patrol/2nd tier/low end frigate and not for a very large OPV. I think all the MoD pronouncements and leaks support my view.

4. I am most curious which design consortia will emerge. As I mentioned previously, if I were in charge of Bae, I would tie up with BMT as a matter of priority. I think a BMT/Bae combo would be unbeatable. That would not at all preclude other shipyards bidding & winning block work. Bae lost the CVF competition and ended up building most of the ships. As with most folk here, I have a soft spot for Appledore. Hopefully they will get some work thrown their way.