Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

Frigate - ASW specialist.
Destroyer - Air Defence.
Cruiser - Area control including influence of event on land and Command and control.

Just a suggestion.

[Poiuytrewq]

Lord Jim Sir, I think that's a pretty good stab at it, certainly from a British or possibly European perspective.

I would add that if the Crusier classification exists in the modern era it is a vessel that can deploy independently across the globe. Have the ability to neutralise aerial, surface and underwater threats without the assistance of another vessel and pack a very large punch to take the fight to the enemy over very long distances and also possess the ability to land a meaningful number of troops for littoral raiding or security operations.

In effect a Global Combat Ship.

Maybe Cruiser is the wrong classification with too many echo's of a now obsolete vessel confined to history and granted tonnage is a poor way to classify a vessel in the modern era but in my opinion the Type 26 looks like it is going to possess capabilities far in excess of a standard ASW frigate.

Now if the Type 26 had 6 inch guns arranged in 4 double turrets with 3 inches of deck armour and reach speeds in excess of 30 knots it would definitely be a Cruiser.......

[donald_of_tokyo]

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....

Interesting. T31e unit cost will be ~200M GBP, excluding design+initial (its average cost is 250M GBP). In other words, 0.01% of GDP = 1/3 of the T23/GDP ratio.

If this is meaningful, T31e's cost is equivalent to 1/3 of T23. Thus, it cannot be a proper frigate, not even proper light-frigate.

As we all know, T31e is twice the cost of River B2 (although including TOBA).

As the difference between T26 and T31e is very large, difference between River B2 and T31e is also very large.

[Clive F]

For what its worth I'd say a cruiser is a large ship that can fire loads of missiles (not very technical granted). Usually part of a task group, giving it AAW cover as well.

[Caribbean]

Further to Ron's GDP based calculations, I found this document on estimates for defence inflation
http://www.metasums.co.uk/uploads/asset ... atrick.pdf
It rightly points out that there are different inflations for different components of defence spending, but attempts to work out an overall figure for the essentially military costs as distinct from " other, essentially civilian, goods and services which are not subject
to the same military imperative to match enhanced threats", which can be expected to rise in line with normal inflation.
In this case he comes up with 6.2% for those components that are essentially military in nature (i.e. driven by the imperative to match enhanced threats)
Using the 6.2% figure and basing it on the first T23 costing £135m in 1990 (the year of commission), we get a figure of £727m (135m x (1.063^28) as the current cost of the first in class, with subsequent vessels (again wiki) costing between £323m (£60m) and £517m (£96m) at today's prices. (the 1.062^28 comes to approx. 5.39 times the original cost)
Buried in the text is an interesting comment that the range for inflation is actually 5-10%, where "Equipment incorporating mature technologies tends to appear at or below the lower end of this range, and equipment exploiting rapidly advancing technologies tends to appear at or above the higher end."
Applying these limits to the calculation above gives a range of 3.9 to 14.42 times the base cost, so a range of £525m to £1.95b for the first in class T23, with subsequent vessels coming in at (very approximately) 50-75% of the lead vessel.
I think that Ron's estimates based on GDP give an indication of "affordability" in relation to current national economic output, whereas the "defence inflation" based calculations give an indication of how much we have increased (or decreased)
capability relative to our own starting point and in a less direct way, to our peers (since there will inevitably be a lot of additional adjustments to be made when comparing between different economies).
Tucked away towards the end of the document is an interesting observation, that, if HMG wishes to maintain the UK Armed Forces military capabilities in line with those of our peers and potential adversaries, then it will have to increase defence spending by "about 3% ...... higher than the predicted values of the GDP deflator". You'll have to read the article to see how the "GDP deflator" is calculated (basically RPI extended to include price inflation for "non-marketed public services")

[Ron5]

Defense inflation is a minefield. Very treacherous.

Domestic inflation isn't too hard to calculate. What was the price of a can of baked beans or a loaf of bread in 1990 vs the price today? It's the same item.

But what defense items being produced today are the same as they were in 1990? Bullets I suppose, but hardly ships, aircraft or tanks.

I guess you could go to Bae and ask them how much would it cost to build a Type 23. Not likely to get a great answer though.

[Jake1992]

Something Iv been wondering about, with the development of CAMM-ER to pretty much replace aster 15 in the mid range missile, and it's ability to be quad packed in mk41 and sylver lurnchers like CAMM can be had there been any thought or planning on developing the family further to replace aster 30 ??

If it could be done and made quad packablr like the other 2 veriants this could massively increase the T45s capsblity, affictivly get rid of any worry over saturation acts.
If made quad packable they could have a load out of 48 CAMM, 48 CANM-ER and 48 of the new missiles while still leaving 12 lurnchers free for BMD missiles.
Then if the T45s ever get there mk42 can canister upgrades they would truely be world beaters.

[Caribbean]

I think it's unlikely that CAMM-ER will be quad-packable, as it's a bit fatter than CAMM, but I guess you may be able to get two or three to a Mk41, depending on exact dimensions. I would be happy to be wrong about that however

[abc123]

About defence inflation, I saw somewhere the number of 2% annually.

[Poiuytrewq]

The Modernising Defence Programme is being put together at the moment and I for one am hopeful that it avoids becoming another cuts exercise (2010 SDSR) or un costed fantasy (2015 SDSR) and although tough choices will have to be made potentially the net effect could provide a clear vision and coherent strategy leaving our armed forces in a much improved condition going forward.

Bearing this in mind and with so many RN and RFA vessels either having been recently replaced or in the process of being replaced this may turn out to be a once in a generational opportunity to re balance the fleet in a positive way rather than inheriting a force structure formed by the constant cutting programmes we have had to endure for the last 20 to 30 years.

This is not fantasy territory, this review is happening now. The procurement programmes and that are often discussed here are being considered and costed now. The future direction of the entire RN for is being decided now.

With this in mind would anyone care to have a go at setting out what in your opinion would be a balanced fleet for RN going forward?

[Gabriele]

I think it's unlikely that CAMM-ER will be quad-packable, as it's a bit fatter than CAMM, but I guess you may be able to get two or three to a Mk41, depending on exact dimensions. I would be happy to be wrong about that however

It is. Canister diameter is the same; only lenght changes. Looking at the photo you can see that the fatter section, including the new wings, does not protrude past the non-folding base of the tail fins.

[donald_of_tokyo]

It is. Canister diameter is the same; only lenght changes. Looking at the photo you can see that the fatter section, including the new wings, does not protrude past the non-folding base of the tail fins.

I agree CAMM-ER is designed to fit in the same "circular" tube. But, the outfit of the folded wing is "boxy" shape, rather than circular. Are there any comment if CAMM-ER can fit within ExLS, which has a boxy shape?

It could be, but not sure.

[Caribbean]

It is. Canister diameter is the same; only lenght changes. Looking at the photo you can see that the fatter section, including the new wings, does not protrude past the non-folding base of the tail fins.

Thanks Gabriele. What about length-wise - quite a bit of the bottom of the ExLs canister seems to be taken up with control equipment and CAMM-ER is quite a bit longer, so that might be a concern?

[shark bait]

Something Iv been wondering about, with the development of CAMM-ER to pretty much replace aster 15 in the mid range missile, and it's ability to be quad packed in mk41 and sylver lurnchers like CAMM can be had there been any thought or planning on developing the family further to replace aster 30 ??

What would be the benefit behind that?

Aster 30 is just Aster 15 with a bigger booster, so it doesn’t reduce missile types. The better option would be to fit CAMM silos mid ship like on the T26, rather than adding CAMM in the Mk41.

[shark bait]

With this in mind would anyone care to have a go at setting out what in your opinion would be a balanced fleet for RN going forward?

Drop the T31, and buy as many T26 can be afforded. 10+ T26 and 6 T45 is a very strong combat force, and is adequate for protecting a carrier group, plus a few other solo tasks.

Batch 2 rivers do the flag flying stuff in the interim before MHPC comes along a delivers a multi mission platform (C3). All non combat roles are replaced by this single platform.

Submarine service maintains the same course.

Amphibious fleet maintains the same course, and begin a project to renew in a decade.

Introduce new welfare standards across the board to stem the loss of talent, and make the RN a place where people want to work.

If any more cash can be found, spend it on more people, more aircraft, and SSK’s, in that order.

[Jake1992]

Something Iv been wondering about, with the development of CAMM-ER to pretty much replace aster 15 in the mid range missile, and it's ability to be quad packed in mk41 and sylver lurnchers like CAMM can be had there been any thought or planning on developing the family further to replace aster 30 ??

What would be the benefit behind that?

Aster 30 is just Aster 15 with a bigger booster, so it doesn’t reduce missile types. The better option would be to fit CAMM silos mid ship like on the T26, rather than adding CAMM in the Mk41.

I never surgested adding them in the mk41s
What I was asking was that since CAMM-ER looks set to replace aster 15 could a longer range derivative of theCAMM family be designed to replace aster 30 ?

If this could be done and if it could be made quad packable like the existing 2 in the family seem to be then it could greatly incease the T45s missile load out from the existing 48 sylver cells. It would also mean the use of one common family of missile ( like now with aster, yet soon to be 2 with CAMM )

[shark bait]

CAMM could never replace Aster, its 'control fins only' vs 'thrust vectoring & fins' respectively.

That extra level of control on Aster gives it a much higher probability of interception against more difficult targets. Plus Aster will get Anti Ballistic Missile capabilities, something that CAMM will never get, and in that role you need a big long ranged missile, which would be too big to be quad packed anyhow.

Aster is excellent and expensive, CAMM is cheap, cheerful and still very good on paper.

[Poiuytrewq]

I agree on the multi mission platform. Maybe the T31 should go in this direction from the start but it appears the programme will be in such a hurry this opportunity may be missed.

I agree 10 T26 and 6 T45 would be adequate to protect the carriers but not do much else. No further increase in ASW platforms or SSK numbers to increase presence in North Atlantic, GIUK?

[Jake1992]

CAMM could never replace Aster, its 'control fins only' vs 'thrust vectoring & fins' respectively.

That extra level of control on Aster gives it a much higher probability of interception against more difficult targets. Plus Aster will get Anti Ballistic Missile capabilities, something that CAMM will never get, and in that role you need a big long ranged missile, which would be too big to be quad packed anyhow.

Aster is excellent and expensive, CAMM is cheap, cheerful and still very good on paper.

I am only asking this as Iv seen the Italians are replacing aster 15 on there vessels with CAMM-ER and there's talk of us doing the same but with CAMM, that's what got me wondering if the same could be done with aster 30 for a longer rang derivative of CAMM especially if it could be quad packed.

I never expected for a BMD missile to come from the CAMM family or for it to be quad packable, I always thought we'd go down the aster 30ntb1 rout or its follow on that's why on my original comment I said there could be 12 sylver cells left for these.

But like you say if the CAMM family are not as capable then I'd happily stick with aster 30.

[shark bait]

I agree 10 T26 and 6 T45 would be adequate to protect the carriers but not do much else. No further increase in ASW platforms or SSK numbers to increase presence in North Atlantic, GIUK?

In this instance 7-8 allocated to the carrier leaves 8-9 for other things, which is a carrier group, plus 3 other things, not bad, better than today.

[Tempest414]

I feel the start point should be confirm Astute 7 and add 6 billion to the budget with the extra money going on

build 2 more type 26's (£1.8 billion)
buy 5 SSK off the the self (£2 billion)
bring all Merlin's back into service and add 6 wildcats (£500 million)
bring the budget for type 31 up to 2 billion (£750 million)

as for future Amphib group as said start to look at replacements now with a view to starting in 2028 and to this end I would be looking at as a start

2 LHD's along the lines of the Juan Carlos design
5 batch 2 Bay class with added hangar for 2 Merlin's 3 as 1 for 1 replacement 1 as a replacement of RFA Argus and 1 to replace RFA Diligence

[Poiuytrewq]

I have to say a T31 at £400m each could be a real game changer!

[donald_of_tokyo]

I understand current plan could even not be supported with current funding. We need to add 5-20B (say, 10B?) in 10 years equipment budget, and we need to improve man power (with additional cost) to "just" keep the current plan = no additional equipments.

# Note procurement is only half of the equipment budget, and equipment budget itself is only ~40% of the total budget.

I guess RN needs 2B GBP per year more money to just keep the current plan (=stop the "efficiency saving" and "cannibalizing"). If RN can properly "maintain" the current fleet = no escorts laid-up as harbor training ship nor something like that, then I think the situation will get very much better. Before adding anything else, let's fully utilize the current assets and fully man them !

[Tempest414]

what I am getting at is just procurement and you are right and for this defence needs to see at rise to 2.5 of GDP and the CASD needs to be removed from the MOD budget as this can be much better managed from HMG also lets not forget that any new ship over and above what we have now will not come on line for 10 years even if we got the SSK's off the self it would take 5 years for the first in class and 8 to 10 to be fully operational

[benny14]

IF the MOD gets any more money it will be split among the whole armed forces, and the majority of it will immediately go towards filling holes. The best we can hope for at the moment is no more cuts and all of our ships active.

If there was a serious increase, which is highly unlikely, I would imagine it would go towards increasing manpower, upgrading the Type 45 for BMD, or increasing the Type 31 budget/hull numbers.