Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote: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.
I believe the Dutch ships have much better radar, comms and command & control capabilities when compared to the Bays (they are more akin to Albion class), as well as helicopter hangers. Safety first requires the maintenance of a good operational picture.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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

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.
Forward basing.....A force multiplier!

Where else would be suitable for forward basing if T31 numbers increased?

Can't help thinking things might have a bit more even if the Astute in the Med (according to the Sun) could have whistled up a couple of T23's and 1 or 2 RN SSK's from Gibraltar to provide support. An RAF P8 flying from Akrotiri would helped with the hide and seek too.

Forward basing really would help to make the most a fleet struggling to fulfil its commitments due to a lack of hulls.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I'm not sure what a T31 in its current specification would add for Kipion. Neither a AAW nor ASW carrier Escort.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Forward basing is good for defence diplomacy tasks, where a physical presence provides reassurance to allies and a deterrent to any aggressors.

But, apart from removing transit times, it doesn't increase sea time. The ship will still need to go through the normal training and maintenance cycles - it will just do that while in its forward base.

So far HMS Clyde has been forward based in the Falklands and various MCMV have been forward based in the Gulf. Bigger warships have more complex maintenance and training needs, so forward basing becomes harder. Hence the next step is to try T31.

In theory, you could set up a forward base in the Caribbean (Bermuda?) or Gibraltar - but there is much less benefit in terms of diplomacy and/or reduced transit times. Forward basing a few SSKs in Gibraltar would make sense, if the RN had any SSKs.

Setting up an APT(S) forward base in South Africa could make some sense for defence diplomacy but could be expense and politically difficult.

If more T31s are bought, establishing a forward base in Signapore would send a strong signal about the UK's commitment to the region - much as the UK has recently done in Bahrain.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

Aethulwulf wrote:Forward basing is good for defence diplomacy tasks
Agreed but has the diplomacy been compromised by the Royal Navy's capabilities? If we look back at history the Royal Navy was unable to protect a big chunk of it's empire. History shows many of those countries look to the more reliable US for leadership, their purchases and protection.

I am not suggesting that we can be something like the USN, we cant but we can be reliable, competent and capable. It is the capable I am challenging.....

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Repulse wrote: To put it bluntly the T31e in its current form is not needed and is utter political bollocks.
Best thing ever written about the Type 31. Thumbs up!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Forward basing in the Falklands - most unpopular assignment in the RN? Makes me shudder just to think of it.

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

Aethulwulf wrote: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.
So doctrinally, the T31s will be trip wires that trigger a response from the carrier group?

Assuming the standing tasks you mention are all fulfilled by T31 (gapped or otherwise), what force can we then assume can be generated around the available carrier from T45/T26 etc?

(Shows why RN might believe they don't need to prioritise do-it-all T45s - they, at least, will only ever be mutually-escorted by QE, T26, Astute [in a "proper" war]. T26s on the other hand do have a degree of AAW on top of the anti sub stuff.)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Zero Gravitas wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:T26s on the other hand do have a degree of AAW on top of the anti sub stuff.)
Especially if we have the foresight to allow a mission tailored mix of CAMM/CAMM-ER :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Don't hold your breath :-(

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Zero Gravitas wrote:So doctrinally, the T31s will be trip wires that trigger a response from the carrier group?
Trip wires. Often talked about. Never needed.

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

Ron5 wrote:
Trip wires. Often talked about. Never needed.
Yes, I agree. 5 T31 will inevitably end up costing more than 5 T26 would have, and they will be less capable too (probably).

I'm just searching for positives.

By the way, I thought this tweet from "former treasury official" Nick MacPherson was telling re the Syria strikes. Nick was the permanent secretary at the treasury for 10 years - second only to the cabinet secretary and more powerful in plenty of ways. To the extent that the UK has an establishment it is arguably embodied in people like him.



The establishment sees defence as immature, unsophisticated and old fashioned. They want it to go away so they can focus on what they believe is more important.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Zero Gravitas wrote:5 T31 will inevitably end up costing more than 5 T26 would have
No.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

A T31 is targeted for £250mn excluding design costs; a River B2 (£144mn) with a 57mm BAE mk110 (£5mn), a Phalanx (£8mn), and Camcopter (£5mn) and improved SIGINT and ELINT capability (£2mn), even with the TOBA tariff would be give a unit price of £164mn. Upgrading all of the current five and building 4 more to replace the B1s would be @ £750mn; leaving close to £500mn (plus T31e designcosts) from the T31e budget to put towards another T26.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Zero Gravitas wrote:5 T31 will inevitably end up costing more than 5 T26 would have, and they will be less capable too (probably).
I do hope you are right as if each T31 ends up costing more than £1bn we might end up with something half decent :thumbup:

User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Zero Gravitas »

Poiuytrewq wrote:I do hope you are right as if each T31 ends up costing more than £1bn we might end up with something half decent :thumbup:
My valet, who types up my posts, missed out the key words "empty, de-specced" it should have read:

"Yes, I agree. 5 T31 will inevitably end up costing more than 5 empty, de-specced T26 would have, and they will be less capable too (probably)."

I've had to let him go. :roll:

Nevertheless, lets imagine history repeats with T31 so that T45 and T26 programme performance is replicated. The budget is fixed at £1.25bn for 5. Unit costs start to hugely exceed plans as anticipated efficiencies are not delivered. Rather than change course, or find new money, platform numbers are cut from 5 to 3 or to 2. Suddenly T31 unit costs are coming in not a million miles away from a full fat T26...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Zero Gravitas wrote:Nevertheless, lets imagine history repeats with T31 so that T45 and T26 programme performance is replicated. The budget is fixed at £1.25bn for 5. Unit costs start to hugely exceed plans as anticipated efficiencies are not delivered. Rather than change course, or find new money, platform numbers are cut from 5 to 3 or to 2. Suddenly T31 unit costs are coming in not a million miles away from a full fat T26...
The programs are completely different though, and the Type 31 is very restricted in its budget. Type 26 was designing a brand new ship from scratch. Type 31 is picking an already designed ship and then sticking some of our own gear on it.

Slim chance the Type 31 will even get past £300m

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

I have a concern about the Type 31 programme, which may be unfounded, but I’m hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if i’m wrong.

One of the principal costs of a warship is its crew, hence the drive towards ever increasing levels of automation on Royal Navy ships, as evidenced by the lean manning of the QE Class carriers and the new highly automated magazine on the Type 26 frigates. This automation while lowering the running cost of a vessel across its lifetime has the downside of raising the initial development and purchase costs. To achieve the competitive pricing required by the Type 31 contest presumably the ships will be simpler and feature less automation. What are the chances the core crew complement (expected to be 80-100) will end up being not too disimilar to a Type 26 (I’ve seen figures ranging from 118-157 quoted)?

Of course my worries maybe unfounded and baseless, but perhaps someone could correct me if I’m talking from my posterior. Thank you.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Opinion3 »

The T31 is a mistake, not because of the concept but because like the Rivers their capabilities are too lightweight. With reductions in number of major frontline vessels (about 75% compared to the time of the Falklands) we should be, indeed have been promised over the years, getting extremely capable replacements.

The T31 nor the Rivers are not capable of a one to one replacement let alone a four to one.

Talk of the cold war peace dividend doesn't happen now, because everyone knows, like the government knows, that would be a worrying line to take.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

benny14 wrote:Slim chance the Type 31 will even get past £300m
Even an extra 50m spent on the quality of the hull would be an improvement :thumbup:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As far as the Rivers are concerned if we laid up one of the under crewed type 23's took the money set aside for it's refit and spent it on refitting the 3 B1 Rivers to the same standard as Clyde without the flight deck we could replace Clyde with Forth in the Falklands and put the 3 B1's and Clyde back to work in UK home waters freeing up the remaining 4 batch 2's to undertake low end op's as a stop gap until the type 31's come on line

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

as far as type 31 goes the program budget needs to be 2 billion the extra 750 million is not here or there for HMG but it would be a big step up for the type 31 program. With this budget and some changes to the brief for a 130 m ship built to a higher standard diong away with the mission bay and going with a flex deck and twin hangar capable of operating a Merlin and UAV's the navy would have a ship it could with

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:as far as type 31 goes the program budget needs to be 2 billion the extra 750 million is not here or there for HMG but it would be a big step up for the type 31 program. With this budget and some changes to the brief for a 130 m ship built to a higher standard diong away with the mission bay and going with a flex deck and twin hangar capable of operating a Merlin and UAV's the navy would have a ship it could with
I think £400m is were the T31 should end up, it will be interesting to see if at some point RN requests that the current £250m budget is increased.

The question is at £400m each does the T31 make sense?

If the T31 budget increases to £2bn that would probably purchase 2 T26's @£1.5bn and 4 River Batch 3's @£500m with 57mm, hanger and embarked helicopter.

At the end of build £2bn may even just be enough to purchase 3 T26's.

Which would you rather have?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Having T26s vs forward presence ships (which seems to be the purpose of the T31) isn’t really a choice, it’s all about the balance. As Aethulwulf has commented there is very good reasons to have ships that can be forward based. HMS Clyde has proved this, replacing two previous Castle class vessels.

However, here is the rub. To allow a ship to be forward based, the place you base it (or very close nearby) needs to be able to support it. The 30mm on Clyde is the biggest weapon it has. I suspect the government knows this already, which is why it’s not pushing CAMM in the requirements and rather stating a PDMS. So whilst all the lovely diagrams will show MK41 VLS, CAMM etc, there is in my view zero chance them being put on the initial batch of 5. Having a T31 that cannot forward base would add to the sheer pointlessness of having it.

So, this is why I think an enhanced B2 River is the right design for the actual need. Plus it would save at least £500mn to go towards the a first class escort fleet that is needed.

On the B1 Rivers being upgraded to HMS Clyde Standard with flight deck, there isn’t really a need. They are reasonably good at the UK Fisheries and EEZ Patrol they are being asked to do, and the work deck is liked in this role also.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I did say B1 to Clyde standard without flight deck

Post Reply