Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Because the intent at that point was there would still be 13-18 other escorts around them.
Then when that changed, "fitted for but not with" became a thing.
Then it never emerged, because budget. As usual.

So you mean, when RN has 19-24 escorts, 6 T45 "not being multi-purpose" is OK, but now with only 14 escorts (I agree T31e is NOT an escort), it must be multi-purpose. And to realize it, you propose to cut T31e equipment level. Sounds reasonable as one option. As you know, I have different opinion, but now do not think your idea bad.

UK PAAMS handles Asters not CMS. Different software.

Thanks a lot. Do you know how the UK PAAMS is connected to CMS-1? It is an independent CPU+display+software system connected to CMS-1's network? Or, one of the "application software" running on the CMS-1 system?

[abc123]

With missile armed Wildcats, Astutes & QE carriers, that has to be the dumbest thing I've seen written here in a long while.

What's the range of missile armed Wildcats? ( range of missiles ) What's the average availability time of 1 Wildcat? 1/3 or 1/4 of time? What to do when your Wildcat is under repair and the enemy needs to be attacked?

How many Astutes has the RN and how many can be operational? 2-3? There's 360 millions of square kilometers of world seas.

QE-carriers, what will they do? Ram the enemy surface ship?

Bolded:
And you know, till now, as far as my memory serves me, I haven't offended you yet because that's not my style or way I behave, but do not think that I'm Lord Jim, and that you can crap on me without getting the appropriate reply.

[matt00773]

UK PAAMS handles Asters not CMS. Different software.

Thanks a lot. Do you know how the UK PAAMS is connected to CMS-1? It is an independent CPU+display+software system connected to CMS-1's network? Or, one of the "application software" running on the CMS-1 system?

PAAMS refers to the architecture stack that provides the complete AAW capability. PAAMS is similar to the Aegis architecture stack and is essentially the warfare system that is comprised of multiple integrated components:

- SAMPSON, s1850M radars
- PAAMS Command & Control System - fire and launch of missiles, manages missiles when launched
- CMS-1 - software which takes all the information from sensors and works out what action to take. Integrates with PAAMS C&C for automatic/manual launch etc. Consists of consoles for viewing data etc.
- Sylver VLS
- Aster missiles

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... .-16).html

[Ron5]

How many T26 Frigates would HMG have to order for BAE to build the Frigate Factory on the Clyde after all or has that ship sailed?

From BAE's point of view it would seem like a good idea to invest in it to help cement their place as the home of complex naval shipbuilding in the UK.

If the Frigate Factory were to be built would this increase capacity and allow more T26's to be built faster and therefore cheaper?

My understanding is that the key piece that was not funded was the building of a very large hall or halls (can't remember if it was one or two) so that the Type 26's could be completely built under cover. Without that, some of the work will have to be done in the open. There was a video on youtube at one time that showed T26 construction at Govan where final assembly of blocks is performed outside. This is what will happen as far as I know.

Given the Scottish climate, 100% indoor build would clearly improve build time and quality. But the Treasury doesn't want them built more quickly. It is insisting on a much less economic, slow fixed rate build. Wasting the UK taxpayer money but they don't care, everything for a small navy and lower annual costs. The infamous "drumbeat" that the UK public has been brainwashed into thinking is a good thing. It isn't.

So no, Bae has zero incentive to build the ships faster because the customer will not accept them any faster. International competitiveness suffers but the Treasury doesn't give a FF about that.

[Ron5]

I am hoping in the corridors of Downing Street this gave food for thought on the defence budget....

Fat chance.

[Ron5]

What converting? I'm postuating a Mk41 or two with SM-3's in addition to the current Asters. Not as a replacement.

Converting from Aster for the next phase to SM-3 for the next phase . Thought that was obvious. Apologies if not
Costs also pretty obvious - bringing Mk. 41, SM-3 and new missile control software into use and integrating them with both PAAMS and CMS-1, installing completely new hardware and software, standing up several completely new logistics trains etc. etc. etc.
People wonder why T26 is so expensive - well, if you want Mk 41 and lots of different missile types - do you start to understand what is included in that budget?

Got it

But don't forget the price premium paid for buying French. PAAMS on the Type 45 cost around 200 million per ship. That's excluding the huge R&D costs and the missiles themselves.

And you're still assuming Aster is capable of, and will be, developed to become a big boy ABM. I have my doubts. I don't think it's capable of that much growth and still fit in the T45 cells.

[Ron5]

Is there any reason why it couldn't? The final stage is a very advanced missile, I assume it requires pairing with a few extra stages below, which is not really breaking any new ground.

a) who will pay for its development?

b) will it still fit in the T45 cells?

[Ron5]

Do you know how the UK PAAMS is connected to CMS-1? It is an independent CPU+display+software system connected to CMS-1's network? Or, one of the "application software" running on the CMS-1 system?

Not sure. I would guess the first, but only a guess, so that it could be more easily ported between ships with different CMS.

[Ron5]

With missile armed Wildcats, Astutes & QE carriers, that has to be the dumbest thing I've seen written here in a long while.

What's the range of missile armed Wildcats? ( range of missiles ) What's the average availability time of 1 Wildcat? 1/3 or 1/4 of time? What to do when your Wildcat is under repair and the enemy needs to be attacked?

How many Astutes has the RN and how many can be operational? 2-3? There's 360 millions of square kilometers of world seas.

QE-carriers, what will they do? Ram the enemy surface ship?

Bolded:
And you know, till now, as far as my memory serves me, I haven't offended you yet because that's not my style or way I behave, but do not think that I'm Lord Jim, and that you can crap on me without getting the appropriate reply.

My original comment wasn't directed at you. I don't converse with trolls, it only encourages them.

[Ron5]

UK PAAMS handles Asters not CMS. Different software.

Thanks a lot. Do you know how the UK PAAMS is connected to CMS-1? It is an independent CPU+display+software system connected to CMS-1's network? Or, one of the "application software" running on the CMS-1 system?

PAAMS refers to the architecture stack that provides the complete AAW capability. PAAMS is similar to the Aegis architecture stack and is essentially the warfare system that is comprised of multiple integrated components:

- SAMPSON, s1850M radars
- PAAMS Command & Control System - fire and launch of missiles, manages missiles when launched
- CMS-1 - software which takes all the information from sensors and works out what action to take. Integrates with PAAMS C&C for automatic/manual launch etc. Consists of consoles for viewing data etc.
- Sylver VLS
- Aster missiles

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... .-16).html

Better answer than mine. Sounds like Donald-san's #1 suggestion is the correct one.

[abc123]

With missile armed Wildcats, Astutes & QE carriers, that has to be the dumbest thing I've seen written here in a long while.

What's the range of missile armed Wildcats? ( range of missiles ) What's the average availability time of 1 Wildcat? 1/3 or 1/4 of time? What to do when your Wildcat is under repair and the enemy needs to be attacked?

How many Astutes has the RN and how many can be operational? 2-3? There's 360 millions of square kilometers of world seas.

QE-carriers, what will they do? Ram the enemy surface ship?

Bolded:
And you know, till now, as far as my memory serves me, I haven't offended you yet because that's not my style or way I behave, but do not think that I'm Lord Jim, and that you can crap on me without getting the appropriate reply.

My original comment wasn't directed at you. I don't converse with trolls, it only encourages them.

Fine, in that case, I appologise. Smart choice, I should start adhere to that policy too.

[Poiuytrewq]

Given that USN is intending to life extend all Arleigh Burke destroyers to a 45 year service life would it even be possible to do the same to the T23's?

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/12/navy-w ... icials-say

USN seems to operate its vessels for a long time compared to what was proposed in the National Shipbuilding Strategy which was to sell vessels before first major refit at around 15 years service life.

[abc123]

National Shipbuilding Strategy which was to sell vessels before first major refit at around 15 years service life.

Have they said where will they find the money for that?

[Poiuytrewq]

National Shipbuilding Strategy which was to sell vessels before first major refit at around 15 years service life.

Have they said where will they find the money for that?

It think it's in relation to the £250m T31's rather than the £1bn T45 and T26's.

A major refit on a Tier 1 escort might cost more than a new T31. It's a novel approach and may be financially sound but only if the T31 becomes a credible addition to the fleet.

[Repulse]

Taking it a topic from the CVF thread looking at the current RN standing commitments, the only overseas standing commitment I see being met permanently by a T26/T45 is Kipion, with the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) covering a number also.

My view:
- Antarctic Patrol: HMS Protector
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking North (APT (N)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking South (APT (S)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop
- Falkland Islands Patrol Task: B2 River Sloop
- Gibraltar Squadron: Scimitar (replacements) + B2 River Sloop
- Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime): CSG + RFA Army ARG
- GULF (inc Kipion): a T23/T45/T26, 4 MCMs plus mothership
- Standing NATO Response Force (NRF): a part-time T23/T45/T26, plus MCMs
- Royal Marines and Amphibious Capability: CSG plus RFA Army ARG
- Operation ATALANTA: B2 River Sloop

So, if the B1 Rivers continued to provide the UK EEZ security role, slight upgrades to the B2 Rivers would allow them to cover 5 of the standing commitments. The B1s should then be replaced by more B2s, over the next 5 years.

Assuming FRE/ TAPS can be supported by FFs/DDs training or building up in the UK, then the surface fleet needs to be scaled to supporting Kipion, 2 CSGs (each with a CVF and LPD for a Cdo) and escorting 1 RFA Army ARG (which is scaled to carrying an Armoured Infantry Brigade to a friendly / secured port).

Kipion needs 3 FFs/DDs, a CSG each needs 4 (plus 2 reserve) and say 4 for the RFA ARG - this means 19 FFs/DDs.

The ideal would be to go back to 13 T26s, but perhaps more realistically is 10 T26s plus 4 escorts that are suited to supporting a slow / noisy ARG which has a CSG umbrella around it. That is what the T31 could be, that actually meets a requirement IMO.

[Aethulwulf]

My view:
- Antarctic Patrol: HMS Protector
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking North (APT (N)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking South (APT (S)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop
- Falkland Islands Patrol Task: B2 River Sloop
- Gibraltar Squadron: Scimitar (replacements) + B2 River Sloop
- Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime): CSG + RFA Army ARG
- GULF (inc Kipion): a T23/T45/T26, 4 MCMs plus mothership
- Standing NATO Response Force (NRF): a part-time T23/T45/T26, plus MCMs
- Royal Marines and Amphibious Capability: CSG plus RFA Army ARG
- Operation ATALANTA: B2 River Sloop

A little touch of reality...

- Antarctic Patrol: HMS Protector Correct
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking North (APT (N)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop Wrong Bay + T31 (6 months alternating)
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking South (APT (S)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop Wrong T31 forward based
- Falkland Islands Patrol Task: B2 River Correct - HMS Forth
- Gibraltar Squadron: Scimitar (replacements) + B2 River Possibly
- Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime): CSG + RFA Army ARG Wrong, RFA Army ARG is a fantasy
- GULF (inc Kipion): a T23/T45/T26, 4 MCMs plus mothership Wrong T31 forward based + MCM + Bay
- Standing NATO Response Force (NRF): a part-time T23/T45/T26, plus MCMs Wrong T31 + MCM
- Royal Marines and Amphibious Capability: CSG plus RFA Army ARG Wrong Carrier + Albion + 2 Bay + 2 Point
- Operation ATALANTA: B2 River Sloop Wrong T31

Plus...
FRE T31
TAPS T26
CSG QEC + 2×T45 + 2×T26

[Repulse]

Aethulwulf, I know the T31e is planned for the roles I flag for the B2s, but please explain why anything more is needed in the explicit standing commitment outlined against each.

I have a very different view on how the UK should structure it’s amphibious forces. The CSG is not the same as a RFTG and never should be. To replace the RFTG is a combination of the CSG for primarily OTH Air Assault and a RFA ARG for transporting troops and kit to already prepared / safe ports.

As for the Bays being based in the Caribbean and Gulf, there are other options and this needs to be addressed urgently.

As for TAPS this has never been a full time role, and I’m fine with the FRE to continue being assigned to a FF/DD that is already in UK waters not deployed.

To put it bluntly the T31e in its current form is not needed and is utter political bollocks.

[Aethulwulf]

The River B2 are not great for APT(N) mainly due to the lack of a helicopter but also other factors like a limited comms fit.
They would not be used for Op Atlanta as they lack combat capabilities and survivability, particularly with the recent use of anti-ship missiles in the region.
For APT(S) and Kipion, these are defence diplomacy and engagement tasks, so the ships need to have similar capabilities to the ships of local nations and act as deterrent to hostile actions. Not a job for an OPV.

TAPS is a full time commitment, although not a full time task.

As for your ideas for amphibious forces which you have posting for many months, if not years, I'm sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I'm just very glad you're not in charge.

[Repulse]

The River B2 are not great for APT(N) mainly due to the lack of a helicopter but also other factors like a limited comms fit.
They would not be used for Op Atlanta as they lack combat capabilities and survivability, particularly with the recent use of anti-ship missiles in the region.
For APT(S) and Kipion, these are defence diplomacy and engagement tasks, so the ships need to have similar capabilities to the ships of local nations and act as deterrent to hostile actions. Not a job for an OPV.

I do not see the need for a FF/DD for APT(S), who is this peer nation that has more than this? Brazil is the closest but is bankrupt and is actually also using their B2 Rivers to save wearing out their aging frigates.

Operation Atlanta has been performed by RFA Lyme Bay which was fitted with Phalanx for the tasking. A small upgrade to add Phalanx to the Rivers is more than possible and coupled with either a UAV such as camcopter or a retractable hangar gives it the appropriate capabilities for the tasks outlined.

TAPS is a full time commitment, although not a full time task.

Agreed, my poor wording but the approach is the same.

As for your ideas for amphibious forces which you have posting for many months, if not years, I'm sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I'm just very glad you're not in charge.

No there is nothing, though perhaps given the sheer lunacy of putting a 60,000t HVU close to shore to support a half arsed amphibious assault capability, maybe you are?

[Lord Jim]

I think referring to Amphibious Assaults is really overstating what we can do. Doing anything beyond landing a single Commando is a non starter and even that will really push our capability to the limit. We are more likely to see smaller landing to secure a sire for the "Unopposed", landing of further assets. The main mission is going to be to get troop to a theatre by sea as safely as possible and land them at a port, then move inland. In extremis we should be able to land a reasonable force over the beach, but again unopposed. The assault mission would really be in the realm of raiding by units of u to company size. In fact we haven't done a brigade sized opposed landing since WWII.

[Poiuytrewq]

To put it bluntly the T31e in its current form is not needed and is utter political bollocks.

Maybe not how I would have wrote it but I think it's clear how you feel about the T31
I am a fan of the T31 programme but not in its current form, hopefully it evolves into a credible escort.

- Antarctic Patrol: HMS Protector Correct
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking North (APT (N)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop Wrong Bay + T31 (6 months alternating)
- Atlantic Patrol Tasking South (APT (S)): RFA + a B2 River Sloop Wrong T31 forward based
- Falkland Islands Patrol Task: B2 River Correct - HMS Forth
- Gibraltar Squadron: Scimitar (replacements) + B2 River Possibly
- Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime): CSG + RFA Army ARG Wrong, RFA Army ARG is a fantasy
- GULF (inc Kipion): a T23/T45/T26, 4 MCMs plus mothership Wrong T31 forward based + MCM + Bay
- Standing NATO Response Force (NRF): a part-time T23/T45/T26, plus MCMs Wrong T31 + MCM
- Royal Marines and Amphibious Capability: CSG plus RFA Army ARG Wrong Carrier + Albion + 2 Bay + 2 Point
- Operation ATALANTA: B2 River Sloop Wrong T31

Plus...
FRE T31
TAPS T26
CSG QEC + 2×T45 + 2×T26

Two very different competing views but in terms of numbers of hulls I think there is an element of fantasy on both sides as current planning simply won't provide enough hulls to complete all of these standing tasks without lots of gaps. Of course plans can be changed....

When a Bay and a RB2,T31 or MCM is required for a deployment would it not be worth considering the possibility of combining the role of Bay and the T31 in an Absalon type Support Frigate thus saving a hull and a crew that could be utilised elsewhere.

So, if the B1 Rivers continued to provide the UK EEZ security role, slight upgrades to the B2 Rivers would allow them to cover 5 of the standing commitments.

What would you slightly upgrade? Maybe a hanger? Bigger main armament?

The ideal would be to go back to 13 T26s, but perhaps more realistically is 10 T26s plus 4 escorts that are suited to supporting a slow / noisy ARG which has a CSG umbrella around it. That is what the T31 could be, that actually meets a requirement IMO.

Personally looking at ALL the commitments I think RN needs 14 Tier One ASW escorts plus the 6 T45's as well as the additional presence ships for lower threat deployments. A lot will depend on the credibility of the T31's ASW ability. At £250m a hull it won't have any so the only realistic way forward in to find a way to increase T26 numbers.

[Aethulwulf]

The River B2 are not great for APT(N) mainly due to the lack of a helicopter but also other factors like a limited comms fit.
They would not be used for Op Atlanta as they lack combat capabilities and survivability, particularly with the recent use of anti-ship missiles in the region.
For APT(S) and Kipion, these are defence diplomacy and engagement tasks, so the ships need to have similar capabilities to the ships of local nations and act as deterrent to hostile actions. Not a job for an OPV.

I do not see the need for a FF/DD for APT(S), who is this peer nation that has more than this? Brazil is the closest but is bankrupt and is actually also using their B2 Rivers to save wearing out their aging frigates.

Operation Atlanta has been performed by RFA Lyme Bay which was fitted with Phalanx for the tasking. A small upgrade to add Phalanx to the Rivers is more than possible and coupled with either a UAV such as camcopter or a retractable hangar gives it the appropriate capabilities for the tasks outlined.

TAPS is a full time commitment, although not a full time task.

Agreed, my poor wording but the approach is the same.

As for your ideas for amphibious forces which you have posting for many months, if not years, I'm sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I'm just very glad you're not in charge.

No there is nothing, though perhaps given the sheer lunacy of putting a 60,000t HVU close to shore to support a half arsed amphibious assault capability, maybe you are?

RFA Lyme Bay joined Op Atlanta for just 4 weeks in 2013. The use of a Bay for Op Atlanta has not been repeated, and the threat situation has changed over the last 5 years. Even if you could fit Phalanx to a River, I doubt they would ever be deployed to Op Atlanta in the current threat climate.

I agree there may be potential, by adding a UAV capability, to make better use of River B2s for anti-smuggling ops (people or drugs) in safe areas.

For APT(S), defence engagement with South Africa, Brazil and Chile all require more than an OPV. Defence diplomacy with Argentina also requires more than an OPV to send the right level of deterrence message.

[donald_of_tokyo]

RFA Lyme Bay joined Op Atlanta for just 4 weeks in 2013. The use of a Bay for Op Atlanta has not been repeated, and the threat situation has changed over the last 5 years. Even if you could fit Phalanx to a River, I doubt they would ever be deployed to Op Atlanta in the current threat climate.

I think Netherlands LSD joined Atalanta with CB90 in the well dock, very recently. ASM threat is not a big one, only in limited area.

For APT(S), defence engagement with South Africa, Brazil and Chile all require more than an OPV. Defence diplomacy with Argentina also requires more than an OPV to send the right level of deterrence message.

This is convincing argument, I agree.

[Aethulwulf]

Two very different competing views but in terms of numbers of hulls I think there is an element of fantasy on both sides as current planning simply won't provide enough hulls to complete all of these standing tasks without lots of gaps. Of course plans can be changed...

You are quite right.

The introduction of carrier group ops is going to be a big change to how other standing tasks are managed. Only TAPS will be fully maintained. All others will be only be undertaken when possible.

However, there is one new trick can be used and that is forward basing.

Keeping a FF/DD permanent Kipion presence has required at least 3 FF/DD rotating in and out of theatre and even then there have been gaps. Forward basing a single T31 will ensure that a ship is always present (but not always at high readiness). But in this case, physical presence is the key, so the desired effect is still achieved.

So, the hope for the five T31 is to have one forward based in the Gulf. Maybe have another forward based in the Falklands for APT(S). FRE and all other 'standing tasks' to be covered by the remaining T31s. Clearly many of these tasks are going to be gapped quite a lot. Again, the hope is that if the T31 programme is successful, more T31 could be bought.

[Opinion3]

Reality is we don't need 6 T45s or 7 T26's, or x T31's. We actually need more T45s and more T26s than is currently the case or being proposed. This is also true of submarines.

Russia is flexing its muscles, the Navy look like the best aerial defence we have that doesn't involve a serious commitment to keep planes in the air. Talk of helicopters, planes or submarines prosecuting the threats will only go so far. They cannot and will not be in a position to provide the defence actually needed all the time.