Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Pongoglo]

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!

Im pretty sure thats a T45 hanger not a T23??

[Zero Gravitas]

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.

Our strategic aims in the context of defence are the protection of a rules based international order, the deterring of aggression against the UK and her allies, and as a last resort the genuine ability to defend the island of Great Britain and her interests in a hot war.

There are many people on here with a much better idea than me of what the force structure that entails is. Personally, what I (perhaps incorrectly) understand as the 'strategic raider' concept appeals to me: the ability to influence SLOC with sea power worked well for the UK for centuries - before the two world wars when the UK attempted to become a continental power with a big army.

To update this concept I would expand the RAF too. The army, unfortunately, would relatively speaking lose out and in effect become a lightweight projectile launched from the navy and the airforce. As I say there are people on here who know more about this than me and perhaps you are one of them.

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.

Global sea trade occurred under first RN then USN hegemon. There is a big risk that they will return to their pre-ww2 isolationism. The RN sharing the burden is a way of mitigating this risk and supports the UK's ability to intervene in its interest.

No one is suggesting returning to a RN of hundreds of warships. That was the strength during empire. The discussion on here focusses on getting numbers back up to 19! So why is it relevant?

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.

That's because of RN and then USN dominance. Its not a permanent fact of life. Take that away and....

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.

Yes they have a strategy too. My earlier comments were explicitly about late communist China.

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.

I don't know if there is a plan, or who would be making it if there were. The reality is that hopefully many of these countries will be acculturated towards a rules based system and away from 'might makes right' by the point at which they have there time in the sun.*

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?

I'll defer to Gabrielle.

*Far from guaranteed.

[Ron5]

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.

You are correct. That is not the case. The latest AB's, the flight III's are a great deal more expensive.

Every survey done over the past quarter of a century done on both sides of the Atlantic has shown that UK warships are significantly cheaper by the ton, and by the ship. Of course, many think the US ships are more capable and better built but that's a different discussion.

[CameronPerson]

For anyone that noticed, last week the Daily Telegraph ran an article about what an embarrassment the Royal Navy had become and dived into huge criticism offered by "senior defence sources" into the sterling work that the RN has been doing in the BVI after the recent hurricanes. It has widely been described as sensationalist for the sake of being so, the fact that the article states several inaccuracies makes me agree with this sentiment, it's clearly designed to provoke outrage amongst an audience that with all due respect to it, may conclude that naval operations are more black and white than they are.

The defence blogger Sir Humphrey has recently uploaded a very good rebuttal to this Telegraph article and it can be found here. https://goo.gl/n2hDVT

The article has peeved the Navy Board off so much that the 1SL tweeted that he's written to the Telegraph in complaint of the inaccuracies such as the statement that Ocean could not sale from Gib earlier due to engine problems.. 1SL has outright stated this to be untrue. Re-equipping Ocean for a disaster relief role after having been on a NATO exercise the day before is no easy task and would have always required days of planning and work, anyone who thinks it was an overnight change is clearly not in touch with reality.

Even though the article really is a shoddy piece of journalism and ranks up there in the defence reporting hall of shame, does it serve a purpose in striking up so much outrage towards what is truthfully an under equipped force, both in terms of manpower and escorts. The defence budget in this country is not the scared cow that the NHS is and calls to increase the budget often end in shouts of war monger or being called someone who stills thinks that the sun never sets over the British Empire. In this regard, I'd like to think that any article - even inaccurate ones - that strikes up attentions to the issues in the defence budget is a good thing.

[marktigger]

problem also is the "sacred cow" of the NHS is also in a mess and many of the same reason apply....lack of skilled technical manpower. But thats another matter.

Manpower is the huge elephant in the room and not paying the market rate to attract the best talent was pointed out on question time as being highly hypocritical of MP's

[Lord Jim]

I fully agree, in that the more the spot light shines on the Armed Forces and the inherent fragility it not suffers from the better. However the british public, except those with a direct link to the Armed Forces seem to care very little for how the lack of proper funding has affected the capability and readiness of them. I used to think when the public saw body bags coming off planes their would be outrage and things would improve, but the use of UORs by the Treasury and effective spin by the Government at the time seemed to placate them. People seem to think that you only have to really increase defence spending when you actually go to war but they fail to realise that then is too late.

Linking to the RN and especially its new planned escorts, although getting new hulls in the water is welcome progress, having a large amount of FFBNW, especially on the T-26 his a very dangerous idea. With so few hulls those operational must be kept at their respective full warfighting capability. With the T-31 it means a Wildcat must be aboard at all times and the vessel must carry the ordonnance for the Wildcat in it magazine as a routine matter. More importantly sufficient kit must be available to have the third of vessels in port on maintenance to be made ready for sea at the same standard in a timely manner. I worry that the "Bean Counters" may try to reduce the amount of operational kit the RN has available that is serviceable at any one time as a mean to keep costs down.

The thing about the Telegraph article is that whist it was full of inaccuracies, the rebuttal stating that everything is as it should be, can for example another two T-45s be made ready and be deployed say with a weeks notice? IF not and the same holds true for future, then the RN is basically going to be limited to having a Carrier Group and only one or two other escorts available for all other duties which would see a T-26 in UK waters and a T-31 overseas.

On top of this will the manning level for the RN be sufficient to even do this effectively with all ships deployed actually fully manned? This is one area that needs urgently addressing above all else. If it means the Army loses two thirds of its light role battalions so be it. IT is more effective for the UK to maintain persistent Air and Naval deployments then those involving Ground operations beyond SF. This current interim and future 2020 SDSR are going to raise some very uncomfortable questions as to the composition of the Armed Forces and the answers are not going to make anyone happy. In a nut shell the three services are going to have to defend themselves and justify everything they have and have planned. Peter IS going to be beggared to pay Paul.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Manpower

attract the best talent

The article by Humphrey also points out that the RN maintains the single point of entry (and then you'll make engineers and admirals from them); rather than attracting people to the "pinch trades/ posts" horizontally, from other labour markets where they have been using and practising the same or similar skills.

[marktigger]

I fully agree, in that the more the spot light shines on the Armed Forces and the inherent fragility it not suffers from the better. However the british public, except those with a direct link to the Armed Forces seem to care very little for how the lack of proper funding has affected the capability and readiness of them. I used to think when the public saw body bags coming off planes their would be outrage and things would improve, but the use of UORs by the Treasury and effective spin by the Government at the time seemed to placate them. People seem to think that you only have to really increase defence spending when you actually go to war but they fail to realise that then is too late.

Linking to the RN and especially its new planned escorts, although getting new hulls in the water is welcome progress, having a large amount of FFBNW, especially on the T-26 his a very dangerous idea. With so few hulls those operational must be kept at their respective full warfighting capability. With the T-31 it means a Wildcat must be aboard at all times and the vessel must carry the ordonnance for the Wildcat in it magazine as a routine matter. More importantly sufficient kit must be available to have the third of vessels in port on maintenance to be made ready for sea at the same standard in a timely manner. I worry that the "Bean Counters" may try to reduce the amount of operational kit the RN has available that is serviceable at any one time as a mean to keep costs down.

The thing about the Telegraph article is that whist it was full of inaccuracies, the rebuttal stating that everything is as it should be, can for example another two T-45s be made ready and be deployed say with a weeks notice? IF not and the same holds true for future, then the RN is basically going to be limited to having a Carrier Group and only one or two other escorts available for all other duties which would see a T-26 in UK waters and a T-31 overseas.

On top of this will the manning level for the RN be sufficient to even do this effectively with all ships deployed actually fully manned? This is one area that needs urgently addressing above all else. If it means the Army loses two thirds of its light role battalions so be it. IT is more effective for the UK to maintain persistent Air and Naval deployments then those involving Ground operations beyond SF. This current interim and future 2020 SDSR are going to raise some very uncomfortable questions as to the composition of the Armed Forces and the answers are not going to make anyone happy. In a nut shell the three services are going to have to defend themselves and justify everything they have and have planned. Peter IS going to be beggared to pay Paul.

I agree with your analysis of light role bns but the army needs to be converting them to mech and armoured infantry. Just as the navy need more manpower to bring ships online and keep them online. I would also suggest for the F35 to effectivly go to sea in needs to be in FAA sqns.
Relying on a helicopter like wildcat to provide the high end firepower for a Frigate really is a bad idea. Wildcat is a bit limited in many ways and there are much better, flexible and effective products out there.

[Lord Jim]

Imagine how the RAF Top Brass will react if they are told they will have to do with the Typhoon as the RN is getting all the F-3s we can actually afford to put aboard its carriers. Mind you a similar thing happened in the 1930s but the RAF wasn't giving up its state of the art equipment. I also agree that the Army has to shift manpower to its Armoured Infantry Regiments and ensure the Medium/Mechanised Brigades are fully manned. WE only need 16 Airmobile and possible the Foot Guards remaining "Light" though the latter should have a primary Home Defence role so be given MRV(P) at least.

[Opinion3]

Future Escorts:

The T45 is a good ship design but the numbers were significantly cut with a promise of more T26s. Issues on reliability and capability need to be resolved quickly. Specifically power plants and network capability / BMD. What do we need them for? Area defense, so it we take a Falklands type scenario

1) protect the Carrier group two T45s (if there are two groups that would be four)
2) to act as a Gatekeeper one T45 (this really depends on how many different directions the threat might need early warning and threat elimination from)
3) protect a designated area two T45s (one in reserve) e.g. San Carlos Bay
4) Standing tasks, other areas of threat
5) In port
6) In refit

Frankly I don't think we have enough T45s, although I don't doubt the capability is up there. I dislike the lack of anti-submarine, anti-ship and the single helicopter capability (including needing two helicopters to deal with the threats).

In summary, we have issues and lack numbers. The use of a T45 in a high threat environment really requires other assets (T26s) to be safe.

The T26 I think we all like. The numbers are being cut and those in charge should be ashamed. The time and money spent on trying to get a new "LOW RISK" frigate design off the drawing board and into production is ridiculous. Mistakes made include

1. Allowing military ship design capabilities (and I include submarines here) to decline and go around in circles like a remote controlled boat on Southsea canoeing lake. The T45 was "high technology / high risk" and we had a learning experience. To leave it, what twenty odd years?, before starting again is plain daft. The experience will have retired and the design, build and costs will suffer as a result.

2. Taking a low risk approach, might make sense. But there are already doubts surfacing on the wisdom of life extending our escorts and the number of refits. So are we getting this strategy right?

3. The TOBA was a good idea, it needed to go hand in hand with a ship-building strategy and a 30 year drum beat. There was a strategy, it was for there to be a single warship champion. This didn't work out, although main as a result of 1) Government inconsistencies and 2) Government devolution. Should the yards have been owned by the MOD and leased like Rail franchises? Do we need competition? Was the QE build a disaster?

4. Requirements for the defence of the UK and it's overseas territories, commitments etc. should be stated and defined up front. Yes, Russia became a less capable opponent, but it also arguably has become a higher risk one. The idea that OPVs can replace some tasks the RN carries out is acceptable. But the RN is really there for high end tasks and crews and assets are used for lower end purposes because they need training and frankly something to do.

5. OPVs, and removing the need to send "expensive warships" to carry out drug interdiction is a red herring. In my calculation of threats the number of means of dealing with them is falling because OPVs are not up to it. Money has been wasted, not saved.

6. The T26 should be built in numbers at a drum beat of one a year. It can be block built. Competition is possible Bae Clyde or Babcock Rosyth.

The T31e is useful in that it gets a competition going in new ways of thinking. However rather like the US littoral solutions the results don't look great.

1. Why does a dinky patrol boat represent a better disaster relief platform than a Bay Class or equivalent? This capability would be better provided by the Bays and MARS SSS. I felt embarrassed looking at the Dutch effort with a sensibly sized helicopter and comparing this to the Wildcat. As many have already pointed out the use of off-board capabilities is widespread now, so maybe this is a better use of funds.

2. Would the T31e escort the Russian's through the Channel? Will it deter them from sniffing out our submarines? What is it going to do in the Gulf? and have you looked at the latest warships Japan, China, Korea, Malaysia etc have............ because it is going to feel like turning up at a supercar show in a Golf GTi.

3. I still maintain that the T31e is a complete waste of money, from an industrial point of view it may he helpful. From defence view point a utter waste.

Correct me if I am wrong but the RN in WWII wasn't up against an amazing adversary in Germany. It largely confined the Germans to port and just had to contend with U-boats. When it met the Japanese it don't do well. We had a big Navy, we had a good Navy but we had the wrong Navy. Lets not kid ourselves that because the Government has a budget that having the wrong Navy is right.

[Repulse]

the RN is basically going to be limited to having a Carrier Group and only one or two other escorts available for all other duties which would see a T-26 in UK waters and a T-31 overseas.

Isn't that exactly what is being planned, and probably IMO the right approach. Would like an additional Amphibious/HADR group capability including a large RFA flat-top and also an additional fleet of 7 SSNs, but that will have to come next

Relying on a helicopter like wildcat to provide the high end firepower for a Frigate really is a bad idea. Wildcat is a bit limited in many ways and there are much better, flexible and effective products out there.

Agree the Wildcat is not the answer to everything, but when complemented with with additional unmanned assets it will be a very capable package that can be scaled based on the role / threat level.

[indeid]

Manpower

attract the best talent

The article by Humphrey also points out that the RN maintains the single point of entry (and then you'll make engineers and admirals from them); rather than attracting people to the "pinch trades/ posts" horizontally, from other labour markets where they have been using and practising the same or similar skills.

This, especially for engineers is a major issue.

Mind you I think that the RN did offer golden handshakes/handcuffs to transfers from other services. I know a few REME that have moved over, with an increase in supplement level along with the golden hello and service until 55 making it an appealing offer.

Might not get big numbers but shows a willingness for sideways recruitment. I can't imagine the Army will wear it for long though, they are hardly swimming in Techs themselves.

I think the single entry point will have to change in the next few years, for more than just technical staff.

[Repulse]

Correct me if I am wrong but the RN in WWII wasn't up against an amazing adversary in Germany. It largely confined the Germans to port and just had to contend with U-boats. When it met the Japanese it don't do well. We had a big Navy, we had a good Navy but we had the wrong Navy. Lets not kid ourselves that because the Government has a budget that having the wrong Navy is right.

Just look at the Lens Lease Act to see what was missing in WW2. It was frigates / destroyers that could escort the convoys - this gave birth to classes like the Flower class which could be built quickly in commercial yards. It wasn't sexy, but the RN relearnt numbers mattered - we will hopefully learn that again before they are needed with the T31e.

[Repulse]

One thing for me is clear, the days of single role AAW and ASW ships is now gone. The replacement for the T45s should be multi-role.

[donald_of_tokyo]

One thing for me is clear, the days of single role AAW and ASW ships is now gone. The replacement for the T45s should be multi-role.

Not sure what you are talking about. FTI carries Aster 30, is it multi role? As the "good location" of AAW and ASW assets differ in the task force, I do not buy making a super-destroyer, which is AAW-capable as T45, and ASW-capable as T26. If RN do this, the next generation T45-T26 fleet will be reduced even down to 10 hulls from currently foreseen 14.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As the "good location" of AAW and ASW assets differ in the task force, I do not buy making a super-destroyer, which is AAW-capable as T45, and ASW-capable as T26.

Agreed

[Repulse]

One thing for me is clear, the days of single role AAW and ASW ships is now gone. The replacement for the T45s should be multi-role.

Not sure what you are talking about. FTI carries Aster 30, is it multi role? As the "good location" of AAW and ASW assets differ in the task force, I do not buy making a super-destroyer, which is AAW-capable as T45, and ASW-capable as T26. If RN do this, the next generation T45-T26 fleet will be reduced even down to 10 hulls from currently foreseen 14.

Sorry, disagree. Whilst you are right they slot into different places in a task group depending on the role they are playing, we have already reached critical numbers both in terms of redundancy and design / support costs. If you think that keeping two "focused role" classes will stop numbers dropping then sorry also do not agree - getting numbers/ambition vs money in balance will do that.

[james k]

With regard to how many escorts we need then shouldn't the screen provide AAW/ASV/ASW for two carrier groups, the amphibious task group, the fleet train (RFA) and standing maritime tasks around the UK, British Overseas Territories and NATO commitments? That does not include spare ships for refit, repair. All without considering manpower.

Were going to have to go down the cheap option at some stage simply to provide enough ships to cover this. And OPV's? I'm sure they're going to have to stand in for big ships from time to time.

[james k]

You forgot the very large and capable Italian Navy and the danger posed by the Vichi French

Future Escorts:

Correct me if I am wrong but the RN in WWII wasn't up against an amazing adversary in Germany. It largely confined the Germans to port and just had to contend with U-boats. When it met the Japanese it don't do well. We had a big Navy, we had a good Navy but we had the wrong Navy. Lets not kid ourselves that because the Government has a budget that having the wrong Navy is right.

[marktigger]

Correct me if I am wrong but the RN in WWII wasn't up against an amazing adversary in Germany. It largely confined the Germans to port and just had to contend with U-boats. When it met the Japanese it don't do well. We had a big Navy, we had a good Navy but we had the wrong Navy. Lets not kid ourselves that because the Government has a budget that having the wrong Navy is right.

Just look at the Lens Lease Act to see what was missing in WW2. It was frigates / destroyers that could escort the convoys - this gave birth to classes like the Flower class which could be built quickly in commercial yards. It wasn't sexy, but the RN relearnt numbers mattered - we will hopefully learn that again before they are needed with the T31e.

the flowers were extremely basic as was ASW at that time and where useful because of their simplicity and sheer numbers they did have a number of major flaws being cramped and wet. But their survivability was also fairly pathetic and escaping from them was problematic is they were sinking or on fire.

[marktigger]

Imagine how the RAF Top Brass will react if they are told they will have to do with the Typhoon as the RN is getting all the F-3s we can actually afford to put aboard its carriers. Mind you a similar thing happened in the 1930s but the RAF wasn't giving up its state of the art equipment. I also agree that the Army has to shift manpower to its Armoured Infantry Regiments and ensure the Medium/Mechanised Brigades are fully manned. WE only need 16 Airmobile and possible the Foot Guards remaining "Light" though the latter should have a primary Home Defence role so be given MRV(P) at least.

there is no reason the foot guards shouldn't be in the armoured or mech role they have been in both very successfully in the past. It was the Irish Guards who first had Warrior on lionheart.

[marktigger]

Future Escorts:

The T45 is a good ship design but the numbers were significantly cut with a promise of more T26s. Issues on reliability and capability need to be resolved quickly. Specifically power plants and network capability / BMD. What do we need them for? Area defense, so it we take a Falklands type scenario

1) protect the Carrier group two T45s (if there are two groups that would be four)
2) to act as a Gatekeeper one T45 (this really depends on how many different directions the threat might need early warning and threat elimination from)
3) protect a designated area two T45s (one in reserve) e.g. San Carlos Bay
4) Standing tasks, other areas of threat
5) In port
6) In refit

Frankly I don't think we have enough T45s, although I don't doubt the capability is up there. I dislike the lack of anti-submarine, anti-ship and the single helicopter capability (including needing two helicopters to deal with the threats).

In summary, we have issues and lack numbers. The use of a T45 in a high threat environment really requires other assets (T26s) to be safe.

The T26 I think we all like. The numbers are being cut and those in charge should be ashamed. The time and money spent on trying to get a new "LOW RISK" frigate design off the drawing board and into production is ridiculous. Mistakes made include

1. Allowing military ship design capabilities (and I include submarines here) to decline and go around in circles like a remote controlled boat on Southsea canoeing lake. The T45 was "high technology / high risk" and we had a learning experience. To leave it, what twenty odd years?, before starting again is plain daft. The experience will have retired and the design, build and costs will suffer as a result.

2. Taking a low risk approach, might make sense. But there are already doubts surfacing on the wisdom of life extending our escorts and the number of refits. So are we getting this strategy right?

3. The TOBA was a good idea, it needed to go hand in hand with a ship-building strategy and a 30 year drum beat. There was a strategy, it was for there to be a single warship champion. This didn't work out, although main as a result of 1) Government inconsistencies and 2) Government devolution. Should the yards have been owned by the MOD and leased like Rail franchises? Do we need competition? Was the QE build a disaster?

4. Requirements for the defence of the UK and it's overseas territories, commitments etc. should be stated and defined up front. Yes, Russia became a less capable opponent, but it also arguably has become a higher risk one. The idea that OPVs can replace some tasks the RN carries out is acceptable. But the RN is really there for high end tasks and crews and assets are used for lower end purposes because they need training and frankly something to do.

5. OPVs, and removing the need to send "expensive warships" to carry out drug interdiction is a red herring. In my calculation of threats the number of means of dealing with them is falling because OPVs are not up to it. Money has been wasted, not saved.

6. The T26 should be built in numbers at a drum beat of one a year. It can be block built. Competition is possible Bae Clyde or Babcock Rosyth.

The T31e is useful in that it gets a competition going in new ways of thinking. However rather like the US littoral solutions the results don't look great.

1. Why does a dinky patrol boat represent a better disaster relief platform than a Bay Class or equivalent? This capability would be better provided by the Bays and MARS SSS. I felt embarrassed looking at the Dutch effort with a sensibly sized helicopter and comparing this to the Wildcat. As many have already pointed out the use of off-board capabilities is widespread now, so maybe this is a better use of funds.

2. Would the T31e escort the Russian's through the Channel? Will it deter them from sniffing out our submarines? What is it going to do in the Gulf? and have you looked at the latest warships Japan, China, Korea, Malaysia etc have............ because it is going to feel like turning up at a supercar show in a Golf GTi.

3. I still maintain that the T31e is a complete waste of money, from an industrial point of view it may he helpful. From defence view point a utter waste.

Correct me if I am wrong but the RN in WWII wasn't up against an amazing adversary in Germany. It largely confined the Germans to port and just had to contend with U-boats. When it met the Japanese it don't do well. We had a big Navy, we had a good Navy but we had the wrong Navy. Lets not kid ourselves that because the Government has a budget that having the wrong Navy is right.

If Type 31 is effectivly a pimped OPV I agree its a waste of money and is really only a job creation project for a shipyard as it will have a very limited military value.
With regards to making platforms safe from an AD point of view we need to revisit the original concept for Fort Victoria IE fitting CAMM to all the larger RFA'a along with the necessary Radar and C3I facilities. And to the carriers and LPD's to allow a degree of self defence but also more platforms to improve the defence of the task group.

[Repulse]

the flowers were extremely basic as was ASW at that time and where useful because of their simplicity and sheer numbers they did have a number of major flaws being cramped and wet. But their survivability was also fairly pathetic and escaping from them was problematic is they were sinking or on fire.

Again, no disagreement but without them the battle of the Atlantic would have been lost and hence the war. The fact is that it's all well and good to focus on the top end stuff but it's normally the low end stuff that wins or loses a war. If there is a ready "Flower design, maybe next time we will be ahead of the game and save lives rather than rushing a design.

[marktigger]

I think thats to simplistic a view.

[Repulse]

If Type 31 is effectivly a pimped OPV I agree its a waste of money and is really only a job creation project for a shipyard as it will have a very limited military value.
With regards to making platforms safe from an AD point of view we need to revisit the original concept for Fort Victoria IE fitting CAMM to all the larger RFA'a along with the necessary Radar and C3I facilities. And to the carriers and LPD's to allow a degree of self defence but also more platforms to improve the defence of the task group.

Don't have a problem upping the self defence capabilities of HUVs, but the T31e (or MHPC) remains key, lower end duties such as merchant escorts, survelliance and patrol still must be done. Whilst a T31e may end up a 2nd Sloop the off board kit it'll carry will be far from 2nd rate.