Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

It’s quite likely the most F35 the UK will be able to put to sea is around 24, so yes that could fit on a smaller carrier that is cheaper to build.

The issues is the smaller carrier comes with more operational constraints, leading to increased turnaround times, and much lower efficiencies. The RN is sucking up a bigger capital investment now, for great operational benefits in the future, allowing them to do way more, with similar resources to those with a smaller carrier.

A carrier that is marginally smaller or bigger will have the same crew requirement, because the mission is the same.
@LandSharkUK

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

shark bait wrote:It’s quite likely the most F35 the UK will be able to put to sea is around 24, so yes that could fit on a smaller carrier that is cheaper to build.

The issues is the smaller carrier comes with more operational constraints, leading to increased turnaround times, and much lower efficiencies. The RN is sucking up a bigger capital investment now, for great operational benefits in the future, allowing them to do way more, with similar resources to those with a smaller carrier.

A carrier that is marginally smaller or bigger will have the same crew requirement, because the mission is the same.

Less sortie generation rate, less time on station or more RAS, maybe less stable to name a few, they were designed as strike carriers when we had proper resources to have separate amphibious ships for that role but thanks to various gov's now it looks like they will be used as jack of all trades...

such a bad thing to lump the nuclear deterant in with the defence budget so conventional forces loose out on capability :(

ps sorry well of topic for this thread now

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 »

Size matters to crew. It is crystal clear. Many many examples you can find all around the world. Many. Really many.

BIG automation effort (=huge maintenance cost) paid to reduce the crew number is a different story.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Size matters to crew. It is crystal clear. Many many examples you can find all around the world. Many. Really many.

BIG automation effort (=huge maintenance cost) paid to reduce the crew number is a different story.
So how do you still get to the numbers you did ?
Reduce the hull size by 13% will not reduce the need for crew in any off the area that are not automated as 700 on a ship this size it already very low let alone 520 ( saving the 90+90 you said ) on a 60,000tn vessel.

All you mange to do is reduce the aircraft, flue, stores and increase time away from station

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 »

OK, so let's explain.

Invincible class 20,000t has a ship crew of 650. Its armament is "less" than T42B3 5400t, which has a crew of ~285 (excluding the small air crew). Air crew exists independently. What the +365 crew are doing? For sure, they are there for "maintenance" and in particular "damage control".

Nimitz class is ONLY 30% larger than QLNZ class CV. She carry 5000+ crew including air crew in this case. But the ship core crew will be 2500 or so? Why? Not for fun. Surely for maintenance and damage control. The reason CVF has less crew is only because significant automation was implemented. It is different issue, and for sure, not for free.

Yes crew number it is NOT proportional to the ship size. If you are posting out there, I have no objection. I would change my comment to, "reduce CVF hull size by 20% or 25% to save 13% of crew". But, 100% NOT "un-related". Smaller the ship, lesser the crew. Reduces arsenal size, engine size, damage control easiness, fuel tanks size, verything make the crew smaller. It is only when you put nothing in the increased hull, when it has less impact on crew. But even then, you need larger engine = larger maintenance = larger crew.

Yes the efficiency gets low with smaller CV. And that is exactly what I was "dreaming". It is only that, I am taking the lack of man-power for escorts more seriously, than "lack of size" in the CVF.
All you mange to do is reduce the aircraft, flue, stores and increase time away from station
No ([EDIT]sorry, I must use YES, here), in place I will just reduce the sortie rate. And, I "guess", anyway the sortie rate will NOT not be as high as has been required initially. Note, 24 F35B in 2020 is much more capable than 24 SeaHarrier in 1982. Fighter get VERY expensive (and capable), which means its number is dramatically reducing worldwide. Relatively, "24" is very significant, already.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:OK, so let's explain.

Invincible class 20,000t has a ship crew of 650. Its armament is "less" than T42B3 5400t, which has a crew of ~285 (excluding the small air crew). Air crew exists independently. What the +365 crew are doing? For sure, they are there for "maintenance" and in particular "damage control".

Nimitz class is ONLY 30% larger than QLNZ class CV. She carry 5000+ crew including air crew in this case. But the ship core crew will be 2500 or so? Why? Not for fun. Surely for maintenance and damage control. The reason CVF has less crew is only because significant automation was implemented. It is different issue, and for sure, not for free.

Yes crew number it is NOT proportional to the ship size. If you are posting out there, I have no objection. I would change my comment to, "reduce CVF hull size by 20% or 25% to save 13% of crew". But, 100% NOT "un-related". Smaller the ship, lesser the crew. Reduces arsenal size, engine size, damage control easiness, fuel tanks size, verything make the crew smaller. It is only when you put nothing in the increased hull, when it has less impact on crew. But even then, you need larger engine = larger maintenance = larger crew.

Yes the efficiency gets low with smaller CV. And that is exactly what I was "dreaming". It is only that, I am taking the lack of man-power for escorts more seriously, than "lack of size" in the CVF.
All you mange to do is reduce the aircraft, flue, stores and increase time away from station
No ([EDIT]sorry, I must use YES, here), in place I will just reduce the sortie rate. And, I "guess", anyway the sortie rate will NOT not be as high as has been required initially. Note, 24 F35B in 2020 is much more capable than 24 SeaHarrier in 1982. Fighter get VERY expensive (and capable), which means its number is dramatically reducing worldwide. Relatively, "24" is very significant, already.
It is not realistic to compare any USN ship to a RN ship in terms of personal numbers, we both have very different doctrines and requirements in this area. The US always ask for higher personal numbers on their vessels as they belive it is required for damage controll, this is not the case in the RN.

Your original comment said that by reducing the QEs to 60,000tn we could of saved 90+90 crew ( 180 over all ). Where would these personal be saved from ? As you pointed out the QE is a complety different case due to its very high levels of automation, this automation would still function the same and do the same jobs as it would on the current 70,000tn, the only area that would reduce in the airwing personal and as you said that is taken seperately.

In modern naval vessel particularly across Europe ship size and crew size are ever more disconected from each other, take the T26 for example a good 2/3 larger than the T23 and far more systems for the far more role it can preform yet a smaller crew, this is all due to automation so saying by making a vessel abit smaller reduces crew that can be used else where it far from the truth.
For your argument to stand up the QEs would have to be cut down to something similar in size to Cavour but then that complety changes what it's caplsble of and comes with a whole new set of problems that others have pointed out.

The US has to be taken as a seperate case when descusing crew sizes

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 »

Automation and maintenance/damage control requirement are different issues.
Yes, automation can reduce crew size. I totally agree. If we more automation to QNLZ, the crew size will get smaller (but cost more). Sorry, I think our discussion is not in good form.
- You say automation can do something. I agree.
- I say ship size do matter to the maintenance/damage control load. You agree?
Then it is the end.

I already said I agree 15% smaller hull cannot provide 15% smaller crew. Maybe 20-30% smaller hull is needed.

My whole point is, (this is escort thread), the number of escort is dangerously small, compared to the very good situation of CVF's size. Just imaging 1982. How many escorts were there, and how many carriers were? The escort number are less than half now, while the carrier number is the same.

If there are money or manpower in excess, I will put it on escort not on CVF. If I am a time traveller and have some chance to "advice" RN/MOD 15 years ago, I would advice to make the crew size of CVF smaller. With "similar" automation technology, it will result in smaller CVF. If with the same size, more automation shall be input (= more money though). This is what I mean.

Note again, this is escort thread. And anyway, rebuilding CVF, either larger or smaller, is complete fantasy now. We must fully utilize the asset we have.

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 »

A slightly smaller carrier will still have the same equipment on board, with the same engineering requirements. The only way the RN could get a smaller crew would be to start deleting capability.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

shark bait wrote:A slightly smaller carrier will still have the same equipment on board, with the same engineering requirements. The only way the RN could get a smaller crew would be to start deleting capability.
Yes. Smaller carrier has smaller capability, and hence smaller cost and smaller crew. No objection. Also, current small escort fleet has small capability, for sure. This is my point.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

shark bait wrote:With 6 we should be able to sustain 2 at sea, which is about the correct amount.
For carrier maybe but what about defending our territories, merchant shipping, supplies and replacing lost assets. I believe we probably already don't have enough AAD assets for the seas, and I haven't even thought about whether due to lack of land assets these might be needed to cover that angle too (like during the Olympics). There is no sign of planning for the worst case scenarios is there.... if we are honest

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Defo should of been the original 8 !!! or maybe took a couple of the options up aswell, was it 12 originaly? bloody politicians :crazy: :cry:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

In fact what is to stop a Russian sub sinking these things? Lets face it they have plenty of subs and know how to use them..... A T45 needs another asset to protect it doesn't it?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

the T-45s are not supposed to go into harms way alone, in fact no RN vessels are. Historically the RN like most navies operate groups of specialised ships which compliment each other, as I am sure people already know. The fact the RN frequently operates its assets independently is through necessity rather then design. At a minimum there should be 1 T-23 and 1 T-45 plus a RFA at each independent deployment. In a nut shell, and as is often repeated here, we have not got either enough ships or the personnel to man them compared to our nation's aspirations.

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 »

We have enough escorts to maintain a well protected task group at sea, assuming we fix the availability crisis.

The RN has the assets to sustain 2 Destroyers, 2 Frigates and 2 Nuke boats deployed with a carrier deployed most of the time, bringing massive air-power. That is a very strong formation, that few others could match, which should allow the RN to dominate a region.

Sure that does't leave many surface escorts for other roles, but perhaps that is acceptable with other options on the table, such as self escorting platforms, escorting with MPA's, or pulling in NATO escorts?
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Wasn't the original plan to have 4 out of the 6 T45s avalible all the time when they were first built ?
I'd asume it was a similar rate for the T26s a 2/3 avalible. Whether that happens though well just have to wait

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 »

It is possible to have that many available, but it would not be possible to sustain that many on deployment, and it is maintaining a persistent force that really matters.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:We have enough escorts to maintain a well protected task group at sea, assuming we fix the availability crisis.

The RN has the assets to sustain 2 Destroyers, 2 Frigates and 2 Nuke boats deployed with a carrier deployed most of the time, bringing massive air-power. That is a very strong formation, that few others could match, which should allow the RN to dominate a region.

Sure that does't leave many surface escorts for other roles, but perhaps that is acceptable with other options on the table, such as self escorting platforms, escorting with MPA's, or pulling in NATO escorts?
Absurd to think such a tiny set of escorts could protect a carrier taskforce and its RFA support.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Sharkbait, I know you are not actually saying this but protecting the carrier groups (if indeed that is possible with such few numbers in a hostile environment) is a bit like the army saying we have enough soldiers to protect the queen and PM.

Great but what about the other tasks and the rest of us.

What assets are going to protect the submarine cables (hot topic) and something I do know a bit about. They really are vital economic infrastructure and we lack satellite bandwidth whilst I am considering a plan B......

If we resort to shuttling pieces of paper across the Atlantic we are no longer anything worth protecting

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Protecting Submarine cables is a whole new area for defence. They are only really vulnerable on the continental shelves and the responsibility for this is going to be a multinational task. The Russians and NATO have both tried to tap under sea communications in the past to varying degrees of success. Tapping these cables is a more likely scenario than actually cutting them.

The impression I get form the story though is that it is a pitch for additional resources for the RN in the form of more surface ships and submarines, raising the spectre of a new threat to counter those who say historical adversaries are an overstated threat. What we do not want is money spent on highly specialised platforms just to protect these lines of communication.

Turning the Shark Bait's point, it is very valid. Under current plans the Rn will basically be a deployable Carrier group plus assets to protect UK waters and if necessary the Falklands. Amphibious assets will be attached to and be protected by the Carrier Groups as and when they are needed. That is just the reality of the situation, until the numbers of escorts operated by the RN is increased to at least 24.

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by S M H »

Lord Jim wrote:Protecting Submarine cables is a whole new area for defence. They are only really vulnerable on the continental shelves and the responsibility for this is going to be a multinational task. The Russians and NATO have both tried to tap under sea communications in the past to varying degrees of success. Tapping these cables is a more likely scenario than actually cutting them.
The RMAS had a lot experience in laying sonar detectors and cable saddles . This was supplemented by submarines using submersibles. The Americans had a good run of tapping of the Russian (soviet ) cables from there northern cable link. As they thought that the cables were secure . Protecting cables was impossible for the Russians so they latterly encrypted the information. This provided little protection once decrypted solution was worked out. There was a massive effort made to gather information the equipment for recovery had to be positioned over the cable so that the user was in aware of its presence. Russian doctrine may follow the soviet practice of equipping there intelligence gathering ships (A.G.I.) with advanced cable cutters. They also had a single torpedo tube starboard side below the water line. This with there presence round carrier groups gathering information while providing a opportunity for a close strike. Research and survey ships used for placing and recovering the saddles. Rather than dedicated naval vessels.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by marktigger »

how much will it cost to rebuild and regenerate the T45 along side at present?
is the budget for the navy enough to sustain the current planned escort build and its ongoing costs?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:Protecting Submarine cables is a whole new area for defence. They are only really vulnerable on the continental shelves and the responsibility for this is going to be a multinational task. The Russians and NATO have both tried to tap under sea communications in the past to varying degrees of success. Tapping these cables is a more likely scenario than actually cutting them.
One of the most significant actions of WW1 happened literally hours after war was declared, when the UK cut five German trans-Atlantic cables. The only other cable to the US ran through the UK, so we intercepted (and decoded) all German communications to their embassy in the USA. This allowed us to intercept the Zimmermann Telegram (which, along with Germany restarting unrestricted submarine warfare, lead to the US entering the war, leading in turn to the German surrender)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

KyleG
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 25 Oct 2016, 16:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by KyleG »

Ron5 wrote:
Absurd to think such a tiny set of escorts could protect a carrier taskforce and its RFA support.
There's many instances of US CSGs operating with four surface escorts plus a replenishment vessel.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yea the days of the large "Cold War" Carrier Battlegroups is long over, mind you the four escorts 2 CG and 2 DDG plus an SSN are far more effective.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

KyleG wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Absurd to think such a tiny set of escorts could protect a carrier taskforce and its RFA support.
There's many instances of US CSGs operating with four surface escorts plus a replenishment vessel.
In war time??? Don't be so daft.

Post Reply