Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

include the first set of service/support costs.

You are getting a bit tiresome; that is quite a limited item. In Australia the number of years stipulated for inclusion in the "sticker price" so that comparisons are like with like is something that we should aspire to . Or not?

Is it a hobby for you to try to debase what I am saying? Has not gone too well, lately Or before. Quite the contrary, in fact. Or what say you?
- my count (not assuming) is that you have been out for count in... 90% f the cases Luckily the record is there and does not go away.

I allowed 50 miilion of the 250 million Type 31 target, for a bunch of stuff that other countries, other companies and other navies do not include when they publish unit costs. This was offered as advice to those looking for comparable figures to decide for themselves whether the Type 31 budget was realistic.

You, on the other hand, chose to highlight two words in my comment ("and service") to make some DA remark. I explained why I had included those two words. End of story.

[Lord Jim]

I am usually a pessimist here with regards to UK defence procurement (having been in the system), but I think the T-31 could actually save the Royal Navy. Many are criticising the capabilities of the basic proposed designs but if you compare those to the Leanders say, it isn't a disaster by any means.

Take the basic version:
1x2 4.5 Guns
1x4 Seacat
1x Limbo ASW Mortar
1x Wasp Helicopter

You then have the variants, including the Broad beam, that all lost the 4.5 and gained either 4 MM38 Exocet, an Ikara system or Exocet and a 6 round Sea Wolf. The former two gained an additional Seacat launcher and all gained 2 x 40mm. THE Limbo was removed and 2x3 Stingray were eventually carried. Some also had TASS fitte4d during their service life. These were effective escorts and a success on the export market with 20 sold new and many were sold on later.

Especially if the T-31e is designed with enough space for future growth, it will far exceed the Leanders in capability over its service life. If it starts of with a 57/76mm, 16 Sea Ceptor, 2x DS-30 and a Wildcat, though probably only carrying 8 Sea Ceptor routinely we have a very good basis. With a well designed platform I can see a ASM being fitted once the RN decide which route they are going down and being able to fit at least a half decent hull mounted sonar will probably be in most design. The CMS will be based on that planned for the T-26 in that it will have open architecture allowing new systems to be introduced down the line.

The key thing with the T-31e is that it has forced the Powers that be to reset their aspirations regarding future platforms. They got their fingers burned when allowed to spec the T-26 and lost 5 hulls as a result. With the T-31e as a base line we should be able to actually expand the RN and if the hull is adaptable enough have the basis for one able to carry out a number of roles beyond those initially planned.

[Ron5]

You are not wrong in that the pendulum has probably swung too far in one direction and needed to be reset. The fear expressed by many here is that the problem has been over corrected. So from one extreme of a super capable, best in the world (and I think it will be) expensive Type 26 to a zero capable and too cheap Type 31 corvette.

I forget his name but a Russian naval theorist described the two approaches of maximizing capability vs maximizing affordability as a navy in a single ship vs a navy of a thousand junks.

The UK is not alone. the USN is in exactly the same dilemma.

[WhitestElephant]

Had we stuck to earlier and more modest T26 design concepts, and not threw away the T22s and 5,000 sailors in SDSR 2010 - what sort of future escort fleet would we now be looking at? (Assuming the Army and Royal Marines shared the 5,000 personnel cut between them instead).

The earlier concepts are (to my mind) a better balance between capability and affordability. We could have got a good deal more than 13.

[james k]

The most successful of the Leanders were the Dutch vessels, starting out as repeats their conversions kept them as multi role ships with
76mm Gun
8 x Harpoon SSM
2 x Triple Mk32 Torpedo Launchers
1 x Lynx



The crew was reduced and systems upgraded. It was the conversion that the RN should have carried out on these magnificent warships.
In Indonesian service the engines have been replaced by diesels, the crew have been reduced yet further and more modern weapons fitted.
If the Type 31 can be the "modern Leander" then the RN and the nation will be well served indeed. Twenty Four Type 31' Frigates for the RN? Yes please!

I am usually a pessimist here with regards to UK defence procurement (having been in the system), but I think the T-31 could actually save the Royal Navy. Many are criticising the capabilities of the basic proposed designs but if you compare those to the Leanders say, it isn't a disaster by any means.

Take the basic version:
1x2 4.5 Guns
1x4 Seacat
1x Limbo ASW Mortar
1x Wasp Helicopter

You then have the variants, including the Broad beam, that all lost the 4.5 and gained either 4 MM38 Exocet, an Ikara system or Exocet and a 6 round Sea Wolf. The former two gained an additional Seacat launcher and all gained 2 x 40mm. THE Limbo was removed and 2x3 Stingray were eventually carried. Some also had TASS fitte4d during their service life. These were effective escorts and a success on the export market with 20 sold new and many were sold on later.

planned.

[MRCA]

Perhaps we’re looking at 12 French FTI type frigates instead of 8 type26 and 5 type 31.

Is type 26 perhaps the equivalent to the US navy seawolf submarine.

[Spinflight]

The earlier concepts are (to my mind) a better balance between capability and affordability. We could have got a good deal more than 13.

Pure speculation on my part but the delay in the T26 design seems to be linked to the newer classes of Russian subs being put through their paces.

If you are going to design something to combat a specific threat then it does make sense to get some decent information on the threat it will face. The cost and specification is clearly well above that originally touted.

So yes if they'd stuck to more cheaper Type 26s the fleet as a whole would have benefitted. But the two key functions of future Andrew, CASD and carriers, would have been more vulnerable. Even the amphib fleet seems to be a distant third in priorities given the current financial difficulties.

Sadly the last time we started building new Bombers the defence budget was 4.6% of GDP, falling to 2.5% as the last one was built and putting great strain on existing forces as it coincided with options for change. Now it is barely scraping 2% of GDP and ditto. Even the might of the USN feels the pinch when they have to replace their boomers, we just tend to pick particularly crappy times to do it.

[shark bait]

If we never get anything more than the base model , that criticisim may be valid, but if later models are mini-T26s then less so.

That isn't possible. The T26 is not full of empty space, it is the size it needs to be to deliver multi-domain capitulates. There is no way to repackage that inside a hull half the size and expect it to be anywhere near as credible.

There should be no issued with getting a base model, and adapting it over time. The world moves very fast and we build frigates very slow so it absolutely must have flexibility baked in from the beginning.

The issue is the base model the RN look to be heading for is less capable than the T23. That is never ok.

[shark bait]

If you can build the RRS Sir David Attenborough for £200M in a UK yard then you can build a frigate for £50M less and any ship able to spend its operational career in the Antarctic will be pretty damned close to naval standards even exceeding them.

It sounds partly correct. The difference is the polar ship is a fat simple hull, where as a frigate is a long thin hull with sexy curves, making it a more complex (expensive) build.

That sexy hull form makes perfect sense when trying to listen for subs when traveling at task group speed, but for most other roles it is additional expense for little gain.

The polar ship is a big simple hull, built to strong standards, with resilient mounted machinery, and even a moon pool, being built in the UK for £150M. That looks like a better model to follow for the T31.

[shark bait]

If it starts of with a 57/76mm, 16 Sea Ceptor, 2x DS-30 and a Wildcat, though probably only carrying 8 Sea Ceptor routinely we have a very good basis

Good for what?

If the Type 31 can be the "modern Leander" then the RN and the nation will be well served indeed.

Leander could hunt subs. If the T31 can hunt subs it will be a valuable investment. Without the ability to hunt subs theirs is no point. Any vessel can do general purpose on the side.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ingalls says the frigate version (not the coastguard cutter) is 70% Naval standards.

It is worthwhile to check the date, before quoting (BTW, it is 2012):
"PF 4921, features a more extensive set of changes – primarily in its combat systems. Around 70 percent of the ship design is to Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), according to HII."

Lots of time has passed since, and PF has been superceded by a design prefixed FF... quite a different ball game. One for patrolling; the other for keeping up with a CTF and protecting it.

You assume; I respond with facts. You then assert (without contributing any facts)... I don't think one thing from you would ever pass any Editor-in-Chief, for publication
- but this is a blog, so back to usual business

[Engaging Strategy]

The issue is the base model the RN look to be heading for is less capable than the T23. That is never ok.

The Type 26 is shaping up to be very much more capable than the Type 23. If we had chosen to replicate the capabilities of Type 23 in a slightly more modern form we likely could've gotten 13 "mid-tier" ships. But we didn't, so we get a high-low mix. There is no possibility of an all "high tier" escort fleet that doesn't contract. Realistically the prospect of that died in 2007/8.

[RetroSicotte]

The issue is the base model the RN look to be heading for is less capable than the T23. That is never ok.

The Type 26 is shaping up to be very much more capable than the Type 23. If we had chosen to replicate the capabilities of Type 23 in a slightly more modern form we likely could've gotten 13 "mid-tier" ships. But we didn't, so we get a high-low mix. There is no possibility of an all "high tier" escort fleet that doesn't contract. Realistically the prospect of that died in 2007/8.

If there wasn't a massive driving need for upgrading the navy in recent times though, perhaps that may have been the case.

But right now is not the time to be splitting hairs on "counts as" comparisons, when the requirement for upgrading the navy is stronger now than it has been since 1982.

[NickC]

Ingalls says the frigate version (not the coastguard cutter) is 70% Naval standards.

It is worthwhile to check the date, before quoting (BTW, it is 2012):
"PF 4921, features a more extensive set of changes – primarily in its combat systems. Around 70 percent of the ship design is to Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), according to HII."

Lots of time has passed since, and PF has been superceded by a design prefixed FF... quite a different ball game. One for patrolling; the other for keeping up with a CTF and protecting it.

You assume; I respond with facts. You then assert (without contributing any facts)... I don't think one thing from you would ever pass any Editor-in-Chief, for publication
- but this is a blog, so back to usual business

USCG ship costs, the new ~ 3,400+ ton Eastern Shipbuilding (with Babcock detail design) Offshore Patrol Cutter $264 million plus GFE total USCG budget of $421 million/ ~£325 million. If same ratio applicable build + GFE to the HII $486 million contract for ninth 4,600 ton National Security Cutter excluding GFE, including GFE would be ~ $775 million/~£600 million, NSC was basis of the HII Patrol Frigate 4921 the 5,070 ton combatant.

So question is what can UK shipyards deliver for £250 million including support costs, both USCG OPC, NSC and Type 31e built to commercial/limited navy ship standards, no shock protection.

[Engaging Strategy]

If there wasn't a massive driving need for upgrading the navy in recent times though, perhaps that may have been the case.

Despite the naysaying the navy *is* actually undergoing a massive modernisation within the budget it has to work with. There isn't masses of extra money to play with. As I said, that died in 2007/8.

But right now is not the time to be splitting hairs on "counts as" comparisons, when the requirement for upgrading the navy is stronger now than it has been since 1982.

It's not splitting hairs. If we wanted 13 ASW frigates then designing them to be quite a lot beyond Type 23 was always going to run us into problems.

[RetroSicotte]

The Navy needed to design beyond Type 23. The requirement for escort quality has gone up drastically in the last 15 years. If they had designed purely to match the previous series then the UK would have been left behind in the capability race as much as they're being left behind in the weight of force race they are now.

That's why I constantly put forward the reminder that "arguing for cuts" is never the answer. Because flipping from one side of the coin to the other helps no-one. It merely changes the problem, rather than actually solving the problems.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: With well advanced standard and very much sophisticated escorts coming, reduction in number is a world trend. Looking for 2nd-tier is also a world trend, now. Thus, going with 8 T26 combined with 5 T31e is nothing wrong. UK payed a lot lot lot for bringing in 2 CVFs, which is clearly a quantum leap in air-strike capability. If Treasury and HMG says "asking for another quantum leap (on escort) is out of UK resource", not many people can argue against.

2: World is changing. Yes threat is increasing "in some regions", but it is also drastically decreasing in other regions (see Argentina's miserable military status). The latter simply reflect the fact the modern war-machines are getting quite expensive, and not many country can buy them (e.g. Brazil). Practically, it has the same origin as item-1.

3: One of the clearly emerging threats to RN is "terrorist equipped with ASM". It is a big problem, but here you never need to take care of "ASM-saturation attack". Only expect 1-3 ASMs to come. Another is the fast-boat saturation attack, but, apart from Iran, "saturation" means less than a dozen. Both are not that difficult. I guess T31e is aiming at these threats, which is non-negligible but still not needing 1st-tier escorts, which are designed to handle "saturation ASM attack" and "SSK in ambush" scenarios.

I think item-3 is positive for "5 T31e". On the other hand, item-2 may indicate that APT-S can be covered with River, which may lead to "1 more T26 and a few River B2+hangar and MHCs". Again, it is just a matter of choice.

[Ron5]

Ingalls says the frigate version (not the coastguard cutter) is 70% Naval standards.

It is worthwhile to check the date, before quoting (BTW, it is 2012):
"PF 4921, features a more extensive set of changes – primarily in its combat systems. Around 70 percent of the ship design is to Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), according to HII."

Lots of time has passed since, and PF has been superceded by a design prefixed FF... quite a different ball game. One for patrolling; the other for keeping up with a CTF and protecting it.

You assume; I respond with facts. You then assert (without contributing any facts)... I don't think one thing from you would ever pass any Editor-in-Chief, for publication
- but this is a blog, so back to usual business

What fact? You are assuming that because two letters in the proposal's name "PF" changed to "FF", that magically increased the ship's survivability and adherence to USN standards.

It didn't, the proposal still does not meet all the appropriate USN frigate standards for working with a TG. For a (speculated) one billion dollar warship, that's not very good. Goes a long way to explain why exactly none have been ordered by anyone.

PF to FF is just a marketing angle to reflect where they're redirecting their concept. Welcome to Yankee salesmanship.

PS You've been spending time on google in your sad attempt to get one up on me, suggest you also read CRS: Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress dated Aug 2017 for the latest news on the cutter.

[Opinion3]

IMO, enough to get the off board systems that make a difference and enough where it can self escort in low threat regions.

I am beginning to wonder if the T31e's "self escorting capabilities" are more as a result of their unthreatening capabilities rather than anything it possesses that makes it worthwhile for an adversary to knock them out of the water.

[Lord Jim]

The Leander could hunt submarines with its hull mounted sonar and at the end of its career some has TASS. As I mentioned if the design for he T-31e is clever enough it would be possible to fit a hull mounted sonar at a later date if it is not done at the start. The open architecture CMS etc. will allow this and other additional systems to be integrated relatively simply and at far less cost than current refits.

I am not suggesting "Plug and play" facilities for new kit like Stanflex or a major dose of FFBNW, but rather simply having the room on deck and internally to take additional systems. Having an adaptable hull that could fulfil other roles is what the RN needs. I am starting to see similarities with the ANZAC frigates which had a pretty austere weapons and sensors fit when they first entered service, but the adaptable design allowed a substantial capability increase later.

If the T-31e fails the Royal Navy is past the tipping point regarding fleet levels. We will either contribute vessels to standing commitments or operate a Carrier group but not both at the same time. It will be difficult to switch from one to the other and it will be relatively easy for other nations to work out where in the cycle we are at any one time. The T-31e in probably the last chance the RN will get to actually increase the number or Warships it operates. The alternative is to accept a maximum of 14 escorts with only 4 or 5 available at any one time.

[ArmChairCivvy]

not the time to be splitting hairs on "counts as" comparisons

Have you considered (as you were saying, when I proposed it) the name change for the thread? The waters are being muddied (again) by dragging half a decade old patrol frigate specs into this thread, claiming that there is no difference between ship classes.
- that would be OK, if the thread headline said so
- for clarity: I am talking about HII PF 4921 and their current FFG(X) proposal, which are both based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter. The former designed for export (any similarity to the current UK discussion?) and the latter for the USN. The USN RFI sets a threshold value (= nothing less will be accepted) as
"Grade A Shock Hardening for
Propulsion, Critical Systems, and
Combat System Elements to retain full
Air Defense and Propulsion Capabilities"

On my part I am washing my hands of the mud slinging competition that has ensued and, mimicking someone , can just say "Sad"

[ArmChairCivvy]

If the T-31e fails the Royal Navy is past the tipping point regarding fleet levels. We will either contribute vessels to standing commitments or operate a Carrier group but not both at the same time. It will be difficult to switch from one to the other and it will be relatively easy for other nations to work out where in the cycle we are at any one time.

A good summary of what we are talking about here, and how it bears onto the the considerations of cutting capabilities across the services (not in isolation). In the end, CEPP is joint.
- kill the T-31 and the RN altogether becomes part of joint;
- SSN numbers dragging behind (and dangerously low; unplanned re-coring needs having put everything back by 50+ months)
- and the Deterrent being Strategic/ Joint and only entrusted to the navy, to operate

[Ron5]

I'm not sure what operating a carrier task group means in peacetime. I would think RFA plus a single destroyer/frigate to accompany the carrier will be the most common deployment. Leaves a few high end escorts to play NATO games elsewhere.

[Repulse]

If the T-31e fails the Royal Navy is past the tipping point regarding fleet levels. We will either contribute vessels to standing commitments or operate a Carrier group but not both at the same time.

There is no chance that Standing Commitments will be operated in the same way as now. The UKs contribution will be a CSG plus maybe the odd DD/FF deployment (but nothing 100% of the time). The T31e will (and should) IMO be the equivalent of basing MCMs in the Gulf where the value is more in the niche technologies they would bring (in off board systems). Obviously as part of the ships capabilities will be to protect UK interests against "low" level threats with the ability to self and consort escort in this environment. In wartime it should be upgradeable to be able to do the same in a higher threat environment but not in a primary role as an offensive warship in itself.

The value of the T31e must be in hull numbers - which is why I believe it should be a smaller/cheaper ship with half the crew than the headline design suggested. It should be heading towards 30 hulls (through evolving the first batch design) to replace all OPVs, MCMs, Survey ships and GP T23s.

Combined with this I'd still aim for another T26, as it would allow for a third auxiliary amphibious/HADR flat-top to be operated.

Lastly, if the RN really wanted to make a statement of global power and have the ability to independently act post Brexit, another 7 SSNs would go a very long way...

[ArmChairCivvy]

another 7 SSNs would go a very long way...

- staying at 7 is a good start