Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

shark bait wrote:We do not naturally align with the needs of these coastal defence forces. I do not understand why on earth we are fabricating a new role based on a pipe dream of exporting frigates all over the world. Its not going to happen.
It does seem a little strange that we are allowing export opportunities to pass by but we are under the impression that the T31e is right for the RN and export. e.g. Brimstone and Spear will loose massive sales if the RAAF order is the sign of the future. These weapons should be on as many platforms as possible, Apache, Typhoon, F35, Gripen, Naval etc.

As you know I think the T31e is a waste of money, I also think it might well be a waste of design and engineering expertise too. In the commercial world you look at your competitors, their strengths and weaknesses. You assess demand, supply and how you can produce a product to maximise your profit. Apparently the demand has been identified. I'd be interested in knowing who supplied the vessels that these Navies currently use. Can we compete?

If we get 5 T31e to use for "coastal defences" ('limited purposes' in my words), it doesn't take away the need for many more first rate frigates.

Agree with you Sharkbait. Waste of effort and money.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

T31e is a program to design and build 5 ships with 250M GBP each.

1: This cost is typical of light-light frigates. SIGMA 10514/10513, Gowind, and Khareef. Even with China and South Korea, these ships were sold. So, there are navies who can buy it.
2: RN requirement is basic armaments (>=57mm gun, CIWS or CAMM, and misc) and size (120m and 4000t) to make it ocean going.
3: All the aspect other than the size is open to the designers. THEY WILL surely check the market, and propose what they think can export. Note again, RN's requirement items are quite short (not even requiring full Naval standard = only partly is good), so bidders has lots of options.

Thus, in view of export, only restriction (which I do NOT like much) is "size". Cost itself is very natural. There is zero rationale that a "proper light frigate" option can fight against FTI better than T31e fight against light-light frigates. FTI has less rival, but also less market.

4: RAN is supporting 2 TF with 3 AAW and 8 (to be 9) ASW escorts. French MN is supporting 1 CV and 3 LHDs with 4 AAW and 11 ASW high-end escorts (I do not agree FTI has "good" AAW capability), while letting most of the "presence" tasks to Floreal-class. Then, I think RN can go with 14 escorts, if it is only CVTF and TAPS. But, all the "presence" tasks shall be covered with 5 T31e, or abandoned (in place, get 1 T26 and 2-3 River OPVs).

Again, (even though it is not my personal first choice), T31e itself has its own rationale.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Caribbean wrote:Is it worth compromising the Royal Navy just so that BAES can maintain their monopoly? Is it worth compromising the Royal Navy so that the current, inadequate-for-purpose, procurement system can be maintained? Is it worth compromising the Royal Navy so that the current process of never-ending indecision can be maintained? Is it worth compromising the Royal Navy by maintaining a system that results in ever-decreasing numbers of ships at sea? Is it worth compromising the Royal Navy by letting the UKs ability to build naval vessels wither and die, cut by cut? Is it worth compromising the Royal Navy by sitting on our arses and doing nothing to fix an obviously broken system?

Over to you
No-one said the Royal Navy should be compromised in any way, quite the opposite.

A fully equipped Arrowhead, Spartan or Venator that permitted greater than 5 ships to start rebuilding numbers and spurr a new developer that can grow into higher end ships would be a good thing.

The compromising doesn't come from going non-BAE.

It comes from an inadequate systems fit.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Spinflight wrote:
Size of hull does not equal cost. Cramming a lot of gubbins into a small hull does. Adding capabilities does. Similarly cost per tonne is meaningless even if you are comparing similar designs. Different countries include different things in a price.

The River B2 is an up specced OPV to keep Baes from playing with their bumholes. The Floreal, well just... french.
'Steel is cheap and air is free' ?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

RetroSicotte wrote:No-one said the Royal Navy should be compromised in any way, quite the opposite...........The compromising doesn't come from going non-BAE.
I really don't think that you understood my point at all.
RetroSicotte wrote:A fully equipped ......... that permitted greater than 5 ships to start rebuilding numbers and spurr a new developer that can grow into higher end ships would be a good thing.
IMHO, that's exactly what the T31 program aspires to. The documents released so far explicitly mention more capable future batches and sets no limits on future numbers. First objective, however, is to fix a broken procurement system that prevents that ever being achieved. I'm talking military industrial strategy, not kit. Is it ideal? Obviously not, but we have to start from where we are, not some fictional desired starting point.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

3 different designs if they can generate interest even if its licence builds could be good for countries balance of payments

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Caribbean wrote:IMHO, that's exactly what the T31 program aspires to. The documents released so far explicitly mention more capable future batches and sets no limits on future numbers. First objective, however, is to fix a broken procurement system that prevents that ever being achieved. I'm talking military industrial strategy, not kit. Is it ideal? Obviously not, but we have to start from where we are, not some fictional desired starting point.
That's falling for spin. They have no plans to announce additional batches. It's 5 ships, as cheap as they can, to call frigates no matter how light they are.

Let's not get caught out pretending otherwise. This program "aspires" to nothing but Tory interview response quotes. Give it till after selection, these will be spun as "five new state of the art frigates to support our growing Royal Navy" endlessly.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by bobp »

RetroSicotte wrote:these will be spun as "five new state of the art frigates to support our growing Royal Navy" endlessly.
So five canoes without paddles would be just as effective in the Governments eyes, and would fit there growing (noses) defence budget perfectly.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

bobp wrote: So five canoes without paddles would be just as effective in the Governments eyes, and would fit there growing (noses) defence budget perfectly.
No 5 media opportunities that allow ministers to say how much they are investing in the Royal Navy and British Industry

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Donald-san brings up an interesting point.

He correctly states that the 120m, 4k ton requirement is because the RN wants a global blue water ship that can operate effectively in high sea states.

But the ship is supposed to be tailored for the export market. So how big is the world market for global blue water frigates?

My guess is tiny.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Although that might be just the thing to make it different.......

Personally I think we, the British need to focus on quality and technology as well as cost and that means being better than the French, Germans and Italians to name a few competitors. That seems like a tall order

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Meriv9 »

May i ask, even if it is a light OT, if your shipbuilding industry has a civilian side as we have with Fincantieri, Stx or Meyer? Or are you like the spanish with Navantia?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Short answer is no, they UK does not supply ships to the civilian market.

In reality there is a chunk of offshore construction in support of the energy sector, as well as the odd yacht and ferry being manufactured here.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

I would of believed the profits from the potential market in naval procurement would not be the ships but in the various sensors , armaments and other technologies that can be sold to any ship out there needing upgrading or to finish off new builds , I expect there are various shareholders reports going into those sort of details

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

RetroSicotte wrote:This is yet another case of "everyone else in the world is doing something, but the UK isn't and somehow tries to pass it off as just knowing better."

There's a reason that all major navies are investing in or at the very least retaining ASM capability. The UK doesn't know something they don't.

Lets move this to the escorts thread, anyway.
It's not a case of that at all.

Everyone else in the world use aircraft and submarines as their main anti-shipping platforms, the RN is no different.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Thanks for shifting it here with the quote, much appreciated.
shark bait wrote:It's not a case of that at all.

Everyone else in the world use aircraft and submarines as their main anti-shipping platforms, the RN is no different.
That's rather missing the point of what I said.

Why is everyone else in the world developing new, potent, long range anti-ship missiles ranging into up to and above 600km in range, some supersonic, some hypersonic, with enormous warheads and extremely sophisticated stealth, avoidance and approach vectoring software to put on their ships if apparently a light helo with a 20km small missile is such a better option?

Why are they all developing these things? The US is developing them, Russia is developing them, China is developing them, France and Italy are maintaining theirs, Norway developed them, Sweden continues to develop them, Japan continues to develop them, South Korea continues to develop them.

None of them are sitting going "well that's a submarine and helos job anyway, we don't need these missiles."

The UK doesn't "know better". It's just missing out on a hugely crucial major capability because they think the public won't care so long as they can point at something that has "anti-ship" in its description and say "That's what we use see we DO have it!"

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Same old story. Plan big such as 12 type 45s and 13 type 26s, half way through remember that we suck at planning and cut the original plan to shreds and try and make do until we can find the money.

Same with the type 31, we most likely planned to have VLS launched anti-ship missiles in a couple years for the type 26 and now we don't have any containerized ones for the new type 31. Even so, we don't even have a replacement in the short-medium term for the outdated harpoons we are using.

We simply don't have the budget for a capable 13 ship frigate force. Trying to modernize, fill massive capability gaps left by previous reviews and having to deal with the nuclear sub budget been moved from the treasury to the MOD is killing us. Time to truthfully accept facts or increase the budget.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Most voters either don't know or more likely don't care what an Anti-Ship Missile is or whether we have them or not. Then again besides the firing of Sea Shuas in the Falklands and the first Gulf war we haven't fired any at an opponent either. It is the same old need to prioritise what we spend money on, with both military and political input driving this. I am also getting the feeling that all parties are more interested in defending our assets rather than taking out an opponent's so the T-31e is more likely to get CIWS and then CAMM before it gets a ASM. There is a strong chance that the Mk41 on the T-26 will not carry a ASM but the RN may adopt another containerised system. Just because the Mk41 is being fitted doesn't mean we will be getting the LRASM.

The way I look at this and all defence procurement is that we have a pretty good idea of where we want to de regarding defence capability and we a lumbered with endemic short term knee jerk decisions by both Military planners and Politicians. The middle part of having a stable and funded development path to achieve the long term goal is the part that is always missing. Having the emphasis on balancing yearly budgets, and constantly moving the goal posts makes this practically impossible. Until we have a system of NSSs and SDSRs that are fit for purpose and the Treasury loses is dictatorial oversight of spending, so that if we need something such as a bit of it or additional personnel the Military gets it. However it is vital to differentiate between what the Military needs and what they would like. That is where the RN got in such a mess with both the CVF and T-26.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

In most cases those super long range missiles are unusable without aircraft and/or satellites.

The UK doesn't have don't have those in place yet, so there is no point having the long ranged missiles until we do.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

shark bait wrote:In most cases those super long range missiles are unusable without aircraft and/or satellites.

The UK doesn't have don't have those in place yet, so there is no point having the long ranged missiles until we do.
And the dozens upon dozens of nations who all regard them as critical all do? That argument doesn't hold any water at all.

Plus the RN has been operating ship mounted ASMs for decades now. Did we just mount useless missiles for all that time? Course not. Not to mention that the Royal Navy is getting MORE capable for spotting for such things by the time the "gap" comes in, not less.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by james k »

I'm fairly sure that the UK has both aircraft and satellites
shark bait wrote:In most cases those super long range missiles are unusable without aircraft and/or satellites.

The UK doesn't have don't have those in place yet, so there is no point having the long ranged missiles until we do.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote:.... I am also getting the feeling that all parties are more interested in defending our assets rather than taking out an opponent's so the T-31e is more likely to get CIWS and then CAMM before it gets a ASM.
Agreed, while I do think T45 and 26 shall have NSM/VL-JSM or LRASM.

Loss of Harpoon is not only HMG choice. HMG said they cannot fund replacement. RN selected to disband it. It is another salami slice. Why not decide to disband 1 T23GP then, to accept "18" escorts? It is just a selection of choice. (I'm sure disbanding 1 T23GP can amount more than 6+12 sets of SSMs, so more can be estimated, such as link.16 on Wildcat?).
RetroSicotte wrote:
shark bait wrote:In most cases those super long range missiles are unusable without aircraft and/or satellites.
The UK doesn't have don't have those in place yet, so there is no point having the long ranged missiles until we do.
And the dozens upon dozens of nations who all regard them as critical all do? That argument doesn't hold any water at all.
Plus the RN has been operating ship mounted ASMs for decades now. Did we just mount useless missiles for all that time? Course not. Not to mention that the Royal Navy is getting MORE capable for spotting for such things by the time the "gap" comes in, not less.
So, are you happy to cut 1 T23 GP NOW (in addition to 2 you need to save 1+1 LPDs, as I propose) to equip ASM on T45 and T26, as well as T31e?

T31e not having ASM has no problem. A Wildcat with 4 Sea Venom flying over the horizon can "disable" all missile crafts, and many of the corvettes worldwide. Since T31e is not required to fight against modern blue-water navies, this is enough = meets the requirement. Wildcat is the off-board systems to enable flexibility, and RN has already spent a lot on it. So, we must use it.

Note, I am not saying ASM is useless. Actually, it is relatively cheap stuff (if it is NSM) [*1], so adding them to T31e has not much problem. The only issue here is, I'm afraid RN needs to select between "12-24 CAMM" or "a CIWS and 4 ASMs", and I would like to select the former. If there is enough money to buy both, no objection. On the other hand, Floreal class takes another approach. Even though it does not even carry a CIWS, it carries 2 Exocet (older version). As a "presence ship", it is a reasonable choice = show influence around the ship. In T31e case, a Wildcat with 4 Sea Venom has long influence-range, and more effective than 2 Exocet = good choice for a presence ship. (note Floreal's helo is unarmed).

[*1] We shall note that modern ASM is not as cheap as it has been. Many of 3rd-world navies are still using Exocet and Harpoon (which can be disabled relatively easy with soft kill), and actually starting to go away from missile craft, opting for OPV.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So, are you happy to cut 1 T23 GP NOW (in addition to 2 you need to save 1+1 LPDs, as I propose) to equip ASM on T45 and T26, as well as T31e
I would do neither. I would increase the budget.

The "requirements" for the Type 13 are a political farce to pad their press releases with meaningless content. Pretending meeting them = meeting the needs of the Royal Navy is falling into their trap.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by marktigger »

Caribbean wrote: As is often pointed out, like other navies, the T31 is unlikely to be placed in that position without other resources to assist it

Assumption......the mother of all f"ck ups

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Thanks for shifting it here with the quote, much appreciated.
shark bait wrote:It's not a case of that at all.

Everyone else in the world use aircraft and submarines as their main anti-shipping platforms, the RN is no different.
That's rather missing the point of what I said.

Why is everyone else in the world developing new, potent, long range anti-ship missiles ranging into up to and above 600km in range, some supersonic, some hypersonic, with enormous warheads and extremely sophisticated stealth, avoidance and approach vectoring software to put on their ships if apparently a light helo with a 20km small missile is such a better option?

Why are they all developing these things? The US is developing them, Russia is developing them, China is developing them, France and Italy are maintaining theirs, Norway developed them, Sweden continues to develop them, Japan continues to develop them, South Korea continues to develop them.

None of them are sitting going "well that's a submarine and helos job anyway, we don't need these missiles."

The UK doesn't "know better". It's just missing out on a hugely crucial major capability because they think the public won't care so long as they can point at something that has "anti-ship" in its description and say "That's what we use see we DO have it!"
But the UK with France IS developing a long range heavy anti ship missile. Fair enough to criticize its delivery date but please don't deny the program exists.

And the intention is to fit T45's & T26's with the new missile.

Post Reply