Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[WhitestElephant]

Remind me why we have an 82,000 strong Army? Too small to do anything meaningful at scale, and yet still far too large for what is required of it. You would save a mountain of money, by cutting a further 20-30,000 - and fund a proper Royal Navy instead.

Cherry on the top will be Corbyn as PM in 2022!

[Timmymagic]

Remind me why we have an 82,000 strong Army? Too small to do anything meaningful at scale, and yet still far too large for what is required of it. You would save a mountain of money, by cutting a further 20-30,000 - and fund a proper Royal Navy instead.

Cherry on the top will be Corbyn as PM in 2022!

82,000 is the bare minimum for what we need. But Corbyn isn't going to make it in, despite the awful government we have now. The boundary changes in 2019 see to that. In the long term they'll do for the Tories as well as otherwise we'll be a 1 party state....

[dmereifield]

Remind me why we have an 82,000 strong Army? Too small to do anything meaningful at scale, and yet still far too large for what is required of it. You would save a mountain of money, by cutting a further 20-30,000 - and fund a proper Royal Navy instead.

Cherry on the top will be Corbyn as PM in 2022!

82,000 is the bare minimum for what we need. But Corbyn isn't going to make it in, despite the awful government we have now. The boundary changes in 2019 see to that. In the long term they'll do for the Tories as well as otherwise we'll be a 1 party state....

Can they still get the boundary changes through?

[Timmymagic]

Can they still get the boundary changes through?

Good question. The DUP would be affected by 1 seat.

[MRCA]

I not sure why the army has ended up at 82,000 it certainly seems ill configured for the future. Trying to re fight a fulda gap Cold War seems ill conceived.

However I'm not sure what a proper RN is or what it would really contribute beyond what it does at present. I'm not seeing why we need to spend more on it. It does see itself as being a US navy lite which is both idiotic and pointless this coupled with a number of strange decisions since the 1998 defence review has left it in a bind. It's not 1900 and we don't have an empire to protect.

I don't think we as a country know what our strategic aim is or how we see ourselves and our role in the world. That has certain manafested itself in a chaotic and ill conceived foreign and defence policy.

[dmereifield]

Can they still get the boundary changes through?

Good question. The DUP would be affected by 1 seat.

Yeah I don't think it will go through as previously envisaged.....

[Lord Jim]

According to the News we cannot use money from the Aid Budget for the relief missions in the Caribbean Islands because of international law!? Supposedly it is because the GDP of these islands is too high to qualify. You couldn't make this stuff up.

[Ron5]

Arrowhead 120 being "commercial standard with applied naval engineering standards" is quite reasonable.

Donald-san,

I don't. Thinking like that ends up with snatch rovers.

When the shit hits the fan, British boys and girls go do what they're told to do in kit they've been told to use. Admirals won't stop and and say "I can't send that ship to shoot up Goose Green because that role wasn't in the ship's requirements document". He'll just say, "you're the only ship I got spare, go do it".

Navy standards are there for very good reasons. To throw them away, you'd better have a better reason than you want to save money or East Turdistan doesn't want to buy a frigate with that.

If there's not enough money to build proper warships then the UK must cut responsibilities & tasks. Just don't do figs & wigs & twigs or whatever.

[RetroSicotte]

Is it not being funded properly or is the funds we do have being badly spent on over ambitious projects for a country the size of the UK. Are we still struggling to accept we're not the worlds policeman, are we still trying to deploy at a scale beyond that required of a major regional power. Should we stop trying to punch above our weight?

And what are these over ambitious projects that are draining the UK?

The UK is struggling to maintain parity, it's not because its got some sort of ridiculously high end tech no-one else has. It's because of fund slicing, short term poor decisions and bickering politics that refuses to accept anything is ever wrong instead of a unified belief in what the UK requires.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Ron5-san.

So you think admirals cannot stop sending them to hi-treat theater. Then, the answer will be "go for Cutlass-Like" = a typical light-light-frigate, I propose.

Build it with 3000t full-escort standard hull, do not arm it with 127mm gun so that they will not be sent for NGFS. No land-attack capable SSM. With 57mm rapid fire gun, and 24 CAMM (re-used from T23mod) and a hull-sonar, make it "a minimum goal-keeper of the fleet" (mainly RFA fleet and sometimes CVTF itself). Lack of "look-like having strong-punch" armaments will save them from being sent to the most severe theater. At the same time, it will enable not to make the logistic fleet left without escorts, because all T45 and T26 will be busy with CVTF.

In peace time, using them for standing tasks has no problem. Use Wildcat for all strike part (SeaVenom and LMM, of course with limited punch). Use UAV for surveillance, Cutlass can carry it. If you need mission bay, just accompany River B2.

Introducing 57 mm gun will cause a logistic issue, but
- ammo and training can be shared with USN and RCN
- MHC will also carry it, to defend their remote MCM kits (if MHC only carries 30mm gun, cannot stop someone "robbing" the kit).

[dmereifield]

It's gotten to the point that id be relieved if we ended up with this (how depressing):

3000t full-escort standard hull, 57mm rapid fire gun, and 24 CAMM (re-used from T23mod) and a hull-sonar

[ArmChairCivvy]

because of fund slicing, short term poor decisions and bickering politics that refuses to accept anything is ever wrong instead of a unified belief in what the UK requires.

Quite right> the top military post also has a quick rotation, there is (was?) some kind of quota thinking for holding it (between the Commands); hence we need some stability mechanism, be it
- a strong x-party Committee structure (a la US)
- the same thing without committees, a fixed period x-party negotiation (a la Denmark)
- or codification (in the good old Napoleonic law tradition) as done in France, so that politicians set the dimensions and the military fill it in. Was it The Times advert, ages ago: "We draw the picture; you colour it"?

[Zero Gravitas]

It's not 1900 and we don't have an empire to protect.

I don't think we as a country know what our strategic aim is or how we see ourselves and our role in the world.

Whether by accident or design, the UK's (and US's) consistent aim since ww2 has been to enable and help shape a liberal, rules based international order. This has been very successful.

This aim is the point of the alphabet soup of international bodies. Eg: Dear communist China, you can have all this lovely trade, all you need to do is follow the rules of the WTO.

After some time it is suddenly in China's interest to support international law and free trade.

Track back the history of nearly all of that soup and you will find British lawyers and civil servants disproportionately drafting the initial Terms of Reference and setting it's direction etc

No shots fired. No wars required. Everyone's better off.

It is the support of an international rules based order that the military is there for. Yes the UKs contribution is not as significant as the USs, but we are already seeing with Trump the rise of US isolationism that is no surprise given that much of the US population intuits that they have been doing most of the fighting and dying in return for international hatred from those who hypocritically benefit from liberal free trade just as much as the US. Snooty Europeans keeping their hands clean and their judgements loud.

I do try and follow and read a wide range of sources with a wide range of political prejudices including those on the right. I've never seen anyone call for a return to empire. The only people I ever see raising the subject of empire are those on the left. I wonder why?

[donald_of_tokyo]

It's gotten to the point that id be relieved if we ended up with this (how depressing):

3000t full-escort standard hull, 57mm rapid fire gun, and 24 CAMM (re-used from T23mod) and a hull-sonar

I think, canceling T31e, buying 2 more T26s, keeping 4 River B1s, and disbanding 3 T23s NOW (in accordance to River B2 introduction), is a better option. But this means decision NOT to cover global presence with warships.

If UK wants to keep it, on the other hand, actually I am not much depressed with a T31e being with this light-light-frigate specification.

This is simply because, a modern light-light-frigate (as "3000t full-escort standard hull, 57mm rapid fire gun, and 24 CAMM (re-used from T23mod) and a hull-sonar") is much more capable than T21 or Leanders in 1982.
- If armed with 24 CAMM and Artisan, how many nation can sink the light-light-frigate? Not much, actually. Modern fighter/attackers are very expensive, and not many has them in number.
- The light-frigate can survive attack from any missile crafts, while for T21 and Leander-class it were not so easy.
- In 1982 there were many SSKs all around the world (like Wiscky-class and Foxtrot-class), but because modern SSK is very expensive, number of hostile nations operating SSK is NOT increasing. Also anyway T21 and Leanders (other than Towed-array converted ones) are not better at hunting SSK than these light-light-frigates.

Hyper-sonic ASMs, saturation attack ASMs, AIP-powered SSKs: all of them are very expensive, and not permeating around the world. I think the light-frigate is much robust and safer than a T21 or Leander in 1982.

[S M H]

I think the light-frigate is much robust and safer than a T21 or Leander in 1982.

Having been shown damage assessments and photographs taken of frigates and destroyers post conflict. The Armament for air defence was lacking. The modified sea wolf leanders exempted. IF the minimum armament is CAMM Artisan Hull sonar .30 mm removed from type 23s. Plus a gun, CMS. They would be better equipped than the type 21s when completed The ASM and Anti sub tubes were added in subsequent D&EDs.If fitted for them and phalanx but not equipped . It would be a reasonable light frigate.

[Zealot]

Not sure whether this has been posted here already; but, Lockheed Martin and Elbit Systems to Partner on the Maritime Electronic Warfare Programme for the Royal Navy's frigates, destroyers and amphibious assault ships, with the programme expanding to the wider fleet including submarines in due course.

http://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-09- ... 0001093575

[marktigger]

look at what putting a merlin sized hanger brings to the vessel. Yes you can put 1 merlin in it however as you can see here you can put 2 wildcat/lynx sized aircraft in it. Or maybe 1 Wildcat and a load of DFID disaster packs or a Drone, or a Seaboat, or........ so much flexibility. It is effectively a mission bay. add in the deck space you add a degree of flexibility and utility!

[MRCA]

It's not 1900 and we don't have an empire to protect.

I don't think we as a country know what our strategic aim is or how we see ourselves and our role in the world.

Whether by accident or design, the UK's (and US's) consistent aim since ww2 has been to enable and help shape a liberal, rules based international order. This has been very successful.

This aim is the point of the alphabet soup of international bodies. Eg: Dear communist China, you can have all this lovely trade, all you need to do is follow the rules of the WTO.

After some time it is suddenly in China's interest to support international law and free trade.

Track back the history of nearly all of that soup and you will find British lawyers and civil servants disproportionately drafting the initial Terms of Reference and setting it's direction etc

No shots fired. No wars required. Everyone's better off.

It is the support of an international rules based order that the military is there for. Yes the UKs contribution is not as significant as the USs, but we are already seeing with Trump the rise of US isolationism that is no surprise given that much of the US population intuits that they have been doing most of the fighting and dying in return for international hatred from those who hypocritically benefit from liberal free trade just as much as the US. Snooty Europeans keeping their hands clean and their judgements loud.

I do try and follow and read a wide range of sources with a wide range of political prejudices including those on the right. I've never seen anyone call for a return to empire. The only people I ever see raising the subject of empire are those on the left. I wonder why?

Somewhat interesting and misguided history lesson which tells us precisely nothing about what our strategic aims are going forward and how the configuration of defence that is needed to achieve it or why more ships are the answer.

Don't know where you got the idea about return to empire from merely point out we don't have one to police so there is no need at all to scatter ships or anything else for that matter around the world to protect it which is what the navy's function was when it was much larger, and in the days before the aeroplane.

The only areas we require to protect are our overseas territories which we are aply demonstrating at the minute in the Caribbean. No overseas territory has any security threat against it other than narcortics and various forms of trafficking all may I add are general used as funding or recruiting method for terror organisations.

China was in the free trade game long before this country was even a country. The original Silk Road from china in around 240 BCE was the establishment of trade routes thru Central Asia and the Middle East to Constantinople or to give it today's name Istanbul. From here over the sea to Venice. They have for a number of years been building these trade routes and investing billions in the process mainly across Africa as we have drowning in the Sand pit wasting precious lives and money.

As we move thru the 21st century demographics are not on our side, we're a small country with a small population but with wealth. 1/4 of the worlds population will by 2030 live on the continent of Africa a further 20% each in china and India. What is plan to engage with these regions or countries, there bigger that us and have as much interest in seeing trade get to us as we have of getting it from them While an occasional frigate may sail round the Pacific ever few years it's hardly going to matter much to countries in that part of the world with just as large and capable an armed forces as us indeed many significantly larger.

How do we plan to deal with the growth in population of these areas many will migrate to ever larger coast cities making many coastlines inaccessible to historic amphibious entry capabilities. Coastlines ever more crowded for future escorts or ships to operate in. To some areas were joblessness can lead to lawlessness and trafficking which breeds the very terriorism we see on our streets.

How do we deal with population centres on land so big we cannot hope to counter with numbers as if even we had 5 times the numbers people we still could control an area. Do we priorities areas of the globe with special interest to us because we have not the resources to do everything? Ships may offer very little in some areas but more in others. What kinds of ships do some areas need or want as almost all will be operated with regional and international allies.

Beyond the ability to defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the UK what do we need to contribute to overseas allies and why does that mean more ships?

[Gabriele]

How do we plan to deal with the growth in population of these areas many will migrate to ever larger coast cities making many coastlines inaccessible to historic amphibious entry capabilities.

This point is often made lately, but i find it overblown. As 75% of the world's population moves to the coast, you are going to need more amphibious manoeuvre, not less. More urbanized coasts means more ports. More ports are an advantage for amphibious operations, not a problem. You land on a beach because you cannot seize a port right away, as those will be most defended, while covering all of the coast is not possible.
Having more ports reduces the amounts of beaches, perhaps, but does NOT reduce the points of vulnerability. In fact, it augments them, because an amphibious operation that seizes a port quickly, even a small one, is a lot more dangerous than a purely "beach" one, as more stuff can get ashore faster, easier. The ports will need to be defended, and the beaches too. Ports and urbanized areas might be more suited to defence, yes, so let's assume you can garrison them with "small" forces, but it still increases the number of points the defensive force absolutely needs to cover. Potentially leaving whatever beach remains even more exposed, or this or that small port.

[marktigger]

Ron5-san.

So you think admirals cannot stop sending them to hi-treat theater. Then, the answer will be "go for Cutlass-Like" = a typical light-light-frigate, I propose.

Build it with 3000t full-escort standard hull, do not arm it with 127mm gun so that they will not be sent for NGFS. No land-attack capable SSM. With 57mm rapid fire gun, and 24 CAMM (re-used from T23mod) and a hull-sonar, make it "a minimum goal-keeper of the fleet" (mainly RFA fleet and sometimes CVTF itself). Lack of "look-like having strong-punch" armaments will save them from being sent to the most severe theater. At the same time, it will enable not to make the logistic fleet left without escorts, because all T45 and T26 will be busy with CVTF.

In peace time, using them for standing tasks has no problem. Use Wildcat for all strike part (SeaVenom and LMM, of course with limited punch). Use UAV for surveillance, Cutlass can carry it. If you need mission bay, just accompany River B2.

Introducing 57 mm gun will cause a logistic issue, but
- ammo and training can be shared with USN and RCN
- MHC will also carry it, to defend their remote MCM kits (if MHC only carries 30mm gun, cannot stop someone "robbing" the kit).

you obviosly fail to understand how it all works donald the admirals will be told to deploy what they have that in the RN at min that's about 25% of what is available......about the same as was sent in 1982 and I wonder why that was? don' t think it was anything to do with the "Russian" threat it was what was available. Politicians and the treasury like to think they will have an orderly transition to war of about 10 years in which they can sort out the mess they have generated and they have been thinking like that since the 1920's!

[donald_of_tokyo]

look at what putting a merlin sized hanger brings to the vessel. Yes you can put 1 merlin in it however as you can see here you can put 2 wildcat/lynx sized aircraft in it. Or maybe 1 Wildcat and a load of DFID disaster packs or a Drone, or a Seaboat, or........ so much flexibility. It is effectively a mission bay. add in the deck space you add a degree of flexibility and utility!

Good we already have 13 mission bays on board T23. With T42 replaced with T45, another 6 bay is there. Since T26 has a Merlin capable hangar AND more larger mission bay, much more is coming.

If T31 is to be extended Floreal like merchant-ship standard bulky hull, having a Merlin capable hangar is good. If we want an escort standard hull, the expensive hull must be smaller and large and bulky hangar will even cost you to cut CAMM, and finally it is just a matter of decision.

Anyway RN lacks Merlin (even going lack Wildcat) number, thanks to the huge CVF, putting lower priority on Merlin capable hangar is reasonable. Mission deck can located as a stern-deck, under flight deck, or as a larger boat space.

[donald_of_tokyo]

you obviosly fail to understand how it all works donald the admirals will be told to deploy what they have that in the RN at min that's about 25% of what is available......about the same as was sent in 1982 and I wonder why that was? don' t think it was anything to do with the "Russian" threat it was what was available. Politicians and the treasury like to think they will have an orderly transition to war of about 10 years in which they can sort out the mess they have generated and they have been thinking like that since the 1920's!

Sorry I could not follow your point. Actually I have no objection to your comment.

Note it is not me who are preparing only 250M gbp for T31, its your government. My comment is on "value per cost", and not the total cost.

[Lord Jim]

Just read an article regarding BAe pushing the T-26 for the USN FF(X) programme. The comment that court my eye was the fact that the current cost of a AB Destroyer is only slightly less than the current price of the RN's version of the T-26. Surely this is not the case for if it is the RN and British Taxpayer are NOT getting anything like value or enough bang for their money.

[marktigger]

Sorry I could not follow your point. Actually I have no objection to your comment.

Note it is not me who are preparing only 250M gbp for T31, its your government. My comment is on "value per cost", and not the total cost.

you time and time again fail to understand some of the unspoken parts of British Defence assumptions like the 10 year rule!
which despite being discredited is clung to by politicians, senior civil servants and the treasury. to allow them to not have to spend realistic sums of money on defence. But at short notice expect the military commanders to provide forces to cover their asses.

[ArmChairCivvy]

think they will have an orderly transition to war of about 10 years in which they can sort out the mess they have generated and they have been thinking like that since the 1920's!

They were off by a mere 2 months (Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919) and one could calculate from the Russian financial crisis (also called Ruble crisis or the Russian Flu) that hit Russia on 17 August 1998, which almost put the equipment side into a deep freeze and left the armed forces without pay and, at times, heating.
- the trouble with our politicos is that they prefer the Emu head-in-the-sand approach to undertaking any transition