Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

Don't forget that it's this incarnation of the T31e that is not ASW-capable. T31e is just a hull - it can be equipped for ASW. If it does come with fast diesels, or even an MT30 (and that may not be in this iteration, either) and a "slow, quiet" mode (which is in the core ROI features), then it has the basics for loiter (for detection) and dash (for repositioning) - after that its just bolting on the right equipment (though it's deliberately not well tuned, both to keep it cheap and also, so that it doesn't compete with the T26).

The one thing that does concern me about the suggestion that the Leander could incorporate a gas turbine is that BAE seem to be following the T21 pathway - extending an existing diesel-based patrol ship design and then putting in a (far lighter) GT. That didn't work very well with the T21

[Scimitar54]

The GT did make the T21 very fast though

[donald_of_tokyo]

And did many negatives. Big intake/exhaust making it top heavy, as well as wasting large deck space. And by adding significant ballast, it also lost future growth margin and even its speed.

[Poiuytrewq]

I agree, the Type 31e could be made more effective in the ASW role in subsequent batches but would it ever be as effective as a Type 23, if not that becomes a degradation of capability and should not be welcomed.

My view is the Type 31e is good programme based on a solid operation requirement for a general purpose patrol frigate possibly leading on into the MCH role in further batches. This would ensure hull commonality and help ease logistics if it is possible to combine the two roles effectively based on one hull. Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way around, maybe the Type 31e should be based on a hull best suited to the Mine countermeasures role and adapt a patrol frigate from that.

In my option the frigate design that would be truly exportable would be a Type 26 based ASW frigate with the mission bay removed or simplified, flight deck shortened and crew size reduced. A world class ASW platform for around £500m could prove to be extremely popular. Who knows even the RN might like it and order a few more!

[Caribbean]

would it ever be as effective as a Type 23

A good question. My personal feeling (and assuming that you mean the T23GP that it is intended to be a substitute for) is that, if it only gets an HMS, then (assuming 2050 as the HMS) it will be marginally less capable, in that it is not optimised for URN, so will have to operate at lower speeds to minimise self-noise (though an ASW-specific model may well be better optimised than the patrol frigate version) and may be less effective in passive mode, particularly. If it gets a modest sonar upgrade (say the Bluewatcher/ Captas-1 combo - substitute your own preference here) then that might compensate somewhat for the lack of optimisation. Of course, there is also the possibility of going with a top-end sonar combination (which I don't think is planned for if you read between the lines of the RFI), which might move its capabilities to somewhere between the current T23GP and the T23ASW.

maybe the Type 31e should be based on a hull best suited to the Mine countermeasures role and adapt a patrol frigate from that

I think that you are on the right track with that. I would not be surprised if they were the same hull, one with offboard MCM equipment in the mission bay and the other with RHIBS/ HADR containers. Given the lack of hulls, the ability to vary the specialisation by loading different equipment is logical (with the caveat that your base your "modules" on existing/ de-facto standards)

[RetroSicotte]

Pretty much what I've been saying for ages. Type 31e is nothing but a reduction of the Royal Navy. A shift to purchasing weaker ships, from an unwillingness to fund a navy as powerful as it was.

Once Type 31e comes about, expect its replacement to not be any better.

Once you drop down, you almost never raise back up, because then the "one for one" becomes too easy a political sell.

It's why I have opposed this approach time and time again, and said that T31 must match an equivalent of Type 23GP's relevance. There is no way to spin it with any truth that this is anything more than the Government trying to say they have something they don't.

Hence, the minimum requirement really was:
- 32x CAMM
- Artisan
- 8x Anti-Ship Missiles
- Some form of ASW munition (be it Mk41 launched or torpedoes)
- Merlin Capable Hangar and Deck
- Fitted for but not with Towed Sonar
- Hull Sonar
- 2x 30mm
- Capable of around 30 knots
- Acoustically silent

If they wanted GP to have a new flavour, then sure dropping the acoustic quieting and 30 knot requirement to get a Mission Bay and CIWS may be something you can subjectively decide on.

But right now, we're in a bizarre situation where a Type 23GP, were it newly built to the exact specifications it was originally in the 90's and given the same upgrade the current T23s are getting, would actually be a superior warship to what the Type 31e is supposed to be.

[Caribbean]

Really? T26 is a major improvement on the T23, QNLZ and PWLS are major improvements on the Invincibles, T45 are major improvements on T42, Astute are improvements on the Trafalgars, Dreadnought will be an improvement on the Vanguards, F35B will be an improvement on the Sea Harrier, Wildcat is an improvement on Lynx. Merlin was an improvement on Sea King. The RN also gets to keep 13 frigates and may well get a few more, setting a marker for future frigate numbers.
The only one where there is a marginal decrease in capability is the T31 as a replacement for the T23GP (and that's mainly to do with the fact that it doesn't have a hull that is optimised for URN, meaning it can do the same stuff, but slower - everything else is to do with what you bolt onto it).

[RetroSicotte]

Really? T26 is a major improvement on the T23, QNLZ and PWLS are major improvements on the Invincibles, T45 are major improvements on T42, Astute are improvements on the Trafalgars, Dreadnought will be an improvement on the Vanguards, F35B will be an improvement on the Sea Harrier, Wildcat is an improvement on Lynx. Merlin was an improvement on Sea King. The RN also gets to keep 13 frigates and may well get a few more, setting a marker for future frigate numbers.
The only one where there is a marginal decrease in capability is the T31 as a replacement for the T23GP (and that's mainly to do with the fact that it doesn't have a hull that is optimised for URN, meaning it can do the same stuff, but slower - everything else is to do with what you bolt onto it).

The above logic is only true in a world where nobody else in the world improves in turn. It assumes that the exact nature of threat and peers has not changed.

However, they have, which invalidates that entire point. It's as equally redundant as "its twice as good as the last one so we only need half as many!"

It is the in context capabilities that defines the potential of a given service arm. In this case the Royal Navy has went from 19 frontline escorts comparable to peers, to only 14 frontline escorts comparable to peers.

There is no spin in the world that can defend that it is a major reduction in capability.

[matt00773]

Really? T26 is a major improvement on the T23, QNLZ and PWLS are major improvements on the Invincibles, T45 are major improvements on T42, Astute are improvements on the Trafalgars, Dreadnought will be an improvement on the Vanguards, F35B will be an improvement on the Sea Harrier, Wildcat is an improvement on Lynx. Merlin was an improvement on Sea King. The RN also gets to keep 13 frigates and may well get a few more, setting a marker for future frigate numbers.
The only one where there is a marginal decrease in capability is the T31 as a replacement for the T23GP (and that's mainly to do with the fact that it doesn't have a hull that is optimised for URN, meaning it can do the same stuff, but slower - everything else is to do with what you bolt onto it).

The above logic is only true in a world where nobody else in the world improves in turn. It assumes that the exact nature of threat and peers has not changed.

However, they have, which invalidates that entire point. It's as equally redundant as "its twice as good as the last one so we only need half as many!"

It is the in context capabilities that defines the potential of a given service arm. In this case the Royal Navy has went from 19 frontline escorts comparable to peers, to only 14 frontline escorts comparable to peers.

There is no spin in the world that can defend that it is a major reduction in capability.

This is an interesting point on current and future threats, though I think capability can be measured in many ways.

Whilst military asset numbers are important, how are we to view the recent expeditionary force initiatives - one with France, and and other with Nordic/Baltic/Netherlands. Also the agreement for USM to make use of QE carriers adds depth for future threats. Surely politics combined with technical capability can bring about a better outcome than just numbers? How else is UK meant to counter a country such as China given the numbers will never work out? What are the other countries that are growing in wealth, military capability, and global aspiration and where does UK fit in on just numbers?

[Caribbean]

As you say, it is the context that matters and the context is that the T31 is part of a complete refocus of RN power towards carrier battlegroups. The carriers bring F35, AEW and a major increase in ASW capability in their own right. The ability for all RN ships to cross-deck and support Merlin only adds to that. T45 is a top-rate AAW platform that is in the process of being upgraded to full BMD capability. The T26 brings a significant upgrade to the RN's land attack capability as well as promising to be the best-in-class at ASW. Add in P8 and possibly Protector for maritime patrol and everything is going in the direction of increased capabilities, but you choose to focus on the fact that the T31 is marginally less capable than the T23GP. I view it as an opportunity to upgrade the entire MHC fleet to a common platform, based on a frigate hull (and once you have the hulls, you can start adding capabilities to them)

[RetroSicotte]

The carriers bring F35, AEW and a major increase in ASW capability in their own right.

I'd argue this not the case. Ocean could carry Merlins too, and even it was something you wouldn't want to risk going submarine hunting. There is at best a moderate increase due to the facilities to sent out Merlins, but ASW is not and should not be its role.

The ability for all RN ships to cross-deck and support Merlin only adds to that.

Right now we have 13 frigates that can land and store Merlins. In future we will have only 8 that can store them. That is a reduction in the frigate fleet. OPVs do not apply for this, as they are not going to be amidst such a scenario.

T45 is a top-rate AAW platform that is in the process of being upgraded to full BMD capability.

Full BMD has yet to be approved, funded and detailed. It's only endless "tests" right now.

The T26 brings a significant upgrade to the RN's land attack capability

All T26 has right now is a gun with slightly longer range and CAMM missiles. There has never been a single announcement that the thing will even get an anti-ship missile on entry to service, let alone TLAMs.

and possibly Protector for maritime patrol

There has been no funding, intention or progress toward doing this at all in RAF service as of yet.

and everything is going in the direction of increased capabilities,

Only compared to previous Royal Navy ships. What should be compared is current peer navies, in which case things come off a lot worse.

but you choose to focus on the fact that the T31 is marginally less capable than the T23GP.

Because its replacing the T23GP.

I don't focus on it being marginally less capable. I focus on it being massively less capable. Less speed, less range, less SAM protection, less hangar space, less sonar, less endurance, less anti-ship measures, less anti-sub measures, less acoustic quieting and its only benefit being a mission bay that the Royal Navy possess jack all to put in other than some RIBs.

[Lord Jim]

First off the obsession with the "Mission" bay on the T-31e and T-26. Why all the controversy? Many current generation vessels have there auxiliary craft house in covered bays these days to reduce the vessels signature. This is where we should start from and in the case of the T-31e end. The T-26 has an enlarges covered bay that lends itself to other uses at a future date which is a good thing.

As for the desired specs for the T-31e, though the design will probably allow for a TASS t be fitted, the RN will never get it, as being a GP/Patrol vessel ASW is not going to be its role. As for CAMM, well the numbers have not been set in stone, but up to 24 is more than adequate for its role. Turning to AShMs, well how often on routine patrols does the T-23GP carry any of its possible Harpoons these days. A Harpoon replacement or lack of is of great concern but this is not an issue to bash the T-31e with it is a RN as a whole issue. Ok the T-31e will not carry a Merlin, but a Wildcat is more useful and flexible. The RN will still have 14 escorts able to carry the former, as well as RAF vessels, even if they do not routinely carry them. Even in a surge there will rarely be more than a dozen Merlin total deployed in the fleet at any one time. All assets in a Carrier group will be able to land and refuel a Merlin, as the T-31e is not designed in its current configuration, to be part of said groups.

The key with the T-31e though is its role. It will not be, despite the PR and spin a front line units for peer to peer operations. It will be a patrol vessel operating in a manner like the French A69 and Floreal classes but actually more capable.

We all agree the RN need to be bigger and have more capable ships but how are we funding this? At least the RN will have a viable fleet cantered around the Carriers, whist the Army is turning into a dogs breakfast. If we want more escorts etc. then the RN will have to give up something, and has already been identified, losing the Albions and possibly the Bays would be the only way forward. We have to remember there is a huge battle going on behind the door of Whitehall to prevent cut to existing programmes due to a budget shortfall. IF the MoD loses this it will not even be able to maintain the assets it has and will suffer further reductions.

[Poiuytrewq]

I agree with a lot of what has been said but one thing I would add is that the a Type 26 is not a like for like replacement for the Type 23 GP or ASW.

The RN had the option to build a fleet of world class 5000t ASW and GP frigates for around the £500m mark but decided to build a fleet of 7000t globe trotting light cruisers with a very large mission bay, Chinook capable flight deck and a many more VLS cells than the Type 23. If they cost twice as much it's probably fair to expect to get half as many.

[Ron5]

Must be getting old, took me forever to figure out your username.

Anyhow, to follow up your thought, is the cost of the Type 26 as a percentage of the UK's GDP, twice the cost of the Type 23 vs the GDP back then?

I have no idea, but I'm curious. I suppose GDP's are available someplace on the interweb. Maybe I should look.

[Ron5]

Bit complicated to figure out. The first type 23 was laid down in 1985 and the average cost of the ships was 130m according to Wikipedia (yeah I know).

According to MeasuringWorth (I have no idea how reliable they are), the nominal UK GDP for 1985 was 412.120b, so the T23 cost was 0.0315% of GDP.

UK GDP in 2016 from MW again, plus 3% annual growth guessed by me, gives a 2017 GDP of 1,997,829b.

0.0315% of 2017 GDP (year first T26 was laid down) is 630m.

Mmmm I find that interesting. My guess is that the T26 will average out to be between 650m and 700m unit cost.

I would argue that the T26 is being built to a more extensive requirement i.e. it is being asked to do more things than the T23 was designed to do. So a smallish increase in relative cost isn't unreasonable.

Of course if my math and/or data sources are rubbish........

[Clive F]

You must be younger than me Ron then. Lol

[Simon82]

I always thought of the Type 26s as a more direct replacement for the Type 22 frigates rather than the ‘cheap and cheerful’ Type 23s that followed them (all things are relative!). The last of the Type 22s, HMS Chatham, cost £175 million in 1985 according to the ever reliable Wikipedia, but just using that as a rough figure the unit cost in 2017 pounds equates to more or less the price of a Type 26 in Ron5’s calculations (above).
Also, of course, there were rather more than 8 Type 22s built so the savings from economy of scale would be somewhat greater. Perhaps the Type 26s aren’t such bad value after all?

[RetroSicotte]

I'll never understand this incessant call for the Type 26 to be marked as "cruisers".

They are not cruisers. They never were cruisers. They don't look, weigh, displace, carry or do anything like modern age cruisers. 6,900 tonnes is not that large for an escort these days. It's actually much the norm in the world of 6-10k ton frigates and destroyers. Hell the Type 45s are 8-8.5k alone.

[Ron5]

Not thought of it that way before, but Simon, that's an excellent point: the T26 are more like a T22 descendant than they are a T23 in several aspects.

[Poiuytrewq]

What tonnage range would you put a modern light cruiser into?

[RetroSicotte]

What tonnage range would you put a modern light cruiser into?

I wouldn't put a "light cruiser" in anything for two reasons. Because it's an obsolete class of ship that hasn't existed since the near post-WW2 era, and because tonnage matters a lot less than it used to in defining ships.

There are only two cruisers by name in the world now. Ticonderoga and Kirov. Both are substantially beyond Type 26 in scope. Several destroyers (Zumwalt, Type 055) are nearing 15,000 tonnes too, both beyond Type 26's scope. Heck many destroyers such as Sejong and those new Japanese ones exceed 10k. The Burke nearly does too. All the above have armament and capabilities to match.

Which is why I'm so confused by the "cruiser" talk on Type 26. When the T26 is actually very lightly armed compared to them, with its only real standout being the ASW capability, and a mission bay. T26 looks like one of the best frigates you could buy for its tonnage range, for certain, properly kitted in the Mk41 it will put every other comparable frigate to shame...but cruiser? I have no idea where that came from.

[Sunk at Narvik]

"Global Combat Ship" seems to be political speak for "cruiser". Agree that modern ship definitions are baffling and owe more to the political climate in the countries that build them than any naval role.

[RetroSicotte]

I have never once seen reference to GCS as cruiser.

[Tempest414]

It is time for navies to come up with a new way to class ships. However type 26 is and will always be a Frigate

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think none here is proposing to designate T26 as cruiser, with a pennant numbers C-XXX not F-XXX.

But, I do think T26 has a "cruiser" like aspects = offensive capability "from the sea", which T23 "frigate" lacks. NGFS is not so, but Mk 41 VLSs and mission bay to carry 3-4 Offshore Rading Craft is a bit "additional" to a pure escort. As well, I think US's AEGIS DDG "smells" more a cruiser aspect.

But again, I am never proposing to designate them with a pennant numbers of C-XXX nor CG-XXX.