UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Apr 2018, 15:42

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Overall, I am just looking for a stretched Khareef, a bit shorter than Leander, with reduced mission bay area. Not both 2 ISO containers and 2 ORCs, but only one of them. Make it simple, much more similar the Khareef, to make the design more reusable.
Thanks, that should achievable for £250m a hull. I suspect current planning is very much in line with your proposal. In my opinion it's the foward basing element of the equation that most people have missed. The Kareef/Leander concept would be well suited to forward basing unlike the T26 which would I suspect, create a lot more headaches logistically.

clinch
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby clinch » 26 Apr 2018, 15:45

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: I think T31e shall better be more smaller, to be on the largest end of heavy corvettes. Mission bay is particularly unpopular for export, neither long range/endurance. Export customers can just ban mission bays amidship, and fill VLS there. Also, "looking fighty" is very important for export, as well.
I agree with a lot of your analysis Donald especially concerning the export potential of Corvettes but do RN really need a class of Corvettes or Frigates?

Going by previous history the obvious answer is Frigates but if RN is moving towards a forward basing strategy to offset the movement of resources towards enabling Carrier Strike just maybe shorter range heavily armed Corvettes may work. If not, it would be asking RN to have 5 heavy corvettes that they don't want or need.

My question would be, if you were to design the perfect export oriented heavy corvette that you described above, what would the spec look like and are you confident 5 such vessels could be built for £1.25bn?
Thanks. My proposal is not much far from Leander, a ~120m ship with ~3500t FLD. Also, the original Venator 110 (in 3 years ago), when it was more narrow, with the 117m length and 3500t FLD. Actually, I prefer a bit smaller option, say, 110m length and ~3300t FLD.

This is the typical size of light frigate we saw in 1990s. M-class, MEKO-200 class and so on. So, they can go blue water "so-so" conveniently.
- As a (relatively) narrow ship, it can obtain 25 kt+ speed with the propulsion of Khareef, 2x 9200kW diesels.
- For export, it must be able to be heavily armed. Because it is one-rank larger than heavy corvette, it must have "add one" to a heavy corvette, (i.e. Khareef) which has a 57/76 mm gun, 12-16 CAMM, and a few 30mm canons.
- The "add one" will be either 16-cell Mk 41 VLS with large SSM, or 16-tubes of canistered SSMs, or option to carry Aster 15/30 in place of CAMM.
- These "add ones" can be accommodated amidship. In case of Leander, where the mission bay is located. No need for mission bay in export. Even I doubt the need for RN. (*1)
- Also, long range is not good. Being forward based, the RN can also live with shorter range. How about 4500nm @ 15kts/28 days?

*1: not saying RN fleet as a whole do not need the mission bay. Just saying, T31e do not need to have it.

Overall, I am just looking for a stretched Khareef, a bit shorter than Leander, with reduced mission bay area. Not both 2 ISO containers and 2 ORCs, but only one of them. Make it simple, much more similar the Khareef, to make the design more reusable.
Jake1992 wrote:Eg if the MOD for example could of been allowed to spend like this say
Year 1 - £3bn
Year 2 - £3bn
Year 3 - £2bn
Year 4 - £1bn
Year 5 -£1bn

Instead of
Year 1 - £2bn
Year 2 - £2bn
Year 3 - £2bn
And so on

They could of saved money for the same out come

It was more a point to forced yearly budgeted by the treasurey instead of multi annual budgets are cost the MOD and tax payers more
I understand your point. But, there is not "£3bn" in the Year-1. Treasury does not have a big strong room full of money. Annual cash flow is the reality. If there is not cash to flow in, you are just bankrupt, or just shut-down as we see in USA. If RN really wants the £3bn in the Year-1, they shall just have a debt. And then, the "£1bn" in Year-5 will simply disappear because of the interest of the debt.


It found a billion quid to bribe the DUP.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 01 May 2018, 11:55

Poiuytrewq wrote:It's just a concept and one worth exploring in my view. The support Frigate design offers lots of capabilites but what does RN need more, Support Frigates or ASW Frigates? Clearly not Patrol Frigates.

The ideal solution for the T31 would be a single class of vessel with both ASW and Support variants sharing maximum commonality between variants, maybe even an AAW variant for export.


An Absalon type is totally is worth exploring.

However I will say putting a lift in and turning it into a mini LPH is probably an unnecessary step, a double hanger will be more than adequate. That enables a manned helicopter and a couple of UAV's at the same time, which is the most we can expect to see on a frigate.

It would be ideal if the T31 ended up as an Absalon class which could do ASW or act as a GP carrier of systems, but im not convinced the budget would allow that, neither am I convinced that platform is fast enough to be an ASW escort.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 May 2018, 18:59

Not good reading for anyone expecting an increase in escort numbers in the upcoming MDP review.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -conflict/

It appears (based on this evidence) that there is no appetite in Government for a general increase In Defence spending. It seems that the current master plan is to get our Allies to spend more on Defence so we don't have too.

That might be a reasonable line to take if it wasn't for the fact that we have been trying to get the same Allies to increase Defence spending for the last 30+ years without much success.

Not mentioned in the article but two areas that did seem to have half a chance of further funding were, Ballistic Missile Defence and deterring hostile Submarine incursions in the North Atlantic. Time will tell.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 May 2018, 21:51

shark bait wrote:However I will say putting a lift in and turning it into a mini LPH is probably an unnecessary step, a double hanger will be more than adequate.
I agree, in a GP Frigate the lift is a bit radical but in the Support variant I'm not so sure. The addition of a lift means removing the hanger, this in turn frees up additional deck space for a second landing spot or a Chinook capable flight deck. With access from the flight deck down to the Flex Deck the range of possibilities for the Absalon design is almost endless.

The double hanger is pretty much a must have on the T31 regardless of the final design chosen in my opinion. It's a cheap force multiplier, with an HMS and 2 embarked Merlins or Wildcats that might the pinnacle of the T31's ASW credentials if the £250m budget is strictly adhered to.

shark bait wrote:It would be ideal if the T31 ended up as an Absalon class which could do ASW or act as a GP carrier of systems, but im not convinced the budget would allow that, neither am I convinced that platform is fast enough to be an ASW escort.
I think at least initially I would stick with separate variants, maybe build 4 GP's with as much ASW capabilities as possible within the budget and then build 1 or 2 of the Support variants at the end of build.

The Danes solved the speed issue on the following Iver Huitfeldt's simply by adding another 2 MTU diesels to achieve 30knts. It might be quick but I'm not sure how quiet it would be :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 May 2018, 04:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:a cheap force multiplier, with an HMS and 2 embarked Merlins or Wildcats that might the pinnacle of the T31's ASW credentials if the £250m budget is strictly adhered to.


I can feel the T23 cycle already making a comeback: make the cake smaller/ cheaper and then load the topping with a generous sprinkling of the best maraschino cherries?
- you don't need to read evidence given to the Defence Committee by the RN that far back (certainly not to the years of T23 construction) and you can see that the cost went up by more than half, by adding not just the hangar but also the Merlin: from £100 mln in the construction years' money to 159
- from the £250 mln base we need :D the two, to get the same effect

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 May 2018, 20:45

Does anyone know if ASROC is compatible with the ExLS system?

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Zealot » 04 May 2018, 20:57

ASROC is too large for ExLS, unless it has its booster removed which would severely impact its range.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 May 2018, 21:09

Zealot wrote:ASROC is too large for ExLS, unless it has its booster removed which would severely impact its range.
Thanks, so it will only work out of a Strike length Mk41 cell?

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Zealot » 04 May 2018, 21:14

Both the Short Module and the Strike Length variants.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 May 2018, 00:44

Among the 3 versions
-209 inches (5.3 m) for the self-defense version,
- 266 inches (6.8 m) for the tactical version,
- and 303 inches (7.7 m) for the strike version"
VL ASROC can be launched from both 6.8 and 7.7 m version, but not by 5.3m version.

ref: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_41_(ミサイル発射機)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_41_(ミサイル発射機)#/media/File:VLS_MK41_Canister_Types.gif

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 May 2018, 08:35

Do anyone know if their has ever been a list compiled of the relative performance of each class of NATO ASW Frigates?

Now that it appears to be official HMG policy to ask our Allies to escort the UK's two QE class carriers. Are they as effective in the ASW role as the British equivalents?

Obliviously an accompanying SSN is the best form of anti submarine defence but a lot of time and effort has gone into making RN Frigates some of the best ASW platforms in the world, how do other NATO Frigates compare to the T23's ASW performance, is it still the best ASW Frigate in the world?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 May 2018, 11:17

Poiuytrewq wrote:Do anyone know if their has ever been a list compiled of the relative performance of each class of NATO ASW Frigates?
I am almost sure there is not such list. Its military secret, it deeply depends on situation (noisy hull is less a problem in active short-range ASW, hunting for subs in ambush. But, it a big trouble in passive blue water ASW, searching for SSN or SSK in long-range transit) so scoring is multi-depemsional.)

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 05 May 2018, 11:22

It also deeply depends on the training and quality of the crew.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 May 2018, 15:28

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I am almost sure there is not such list. Its military secret..
What I was really trying to establish is how many vessels with the capabilities of the T23 are actually going to be available to escort the QE and POW. Most of the European Frigates are optimised for AAW but the T45's are more than capable in this area and with 6 T45's there should always be at least 2 available.

I find the hard to follow the logic here. The T23 wasn't good enough so the much more capable T26 had to be built. As the T26 is much more capable it costs a LOT more and hull numbers have had to decrease. Because of decreased hull numbers, our Allies are going to have to fill the gaps. If our Allies vessels that are filling the gaps are not even as capable in ASW as the T23's what have we achieved? Possibly not the capability increase that you would have expected £10bn+ to provide.

Of course T31's could fill the gaps but as currently envisaged they are not suitable for escorting the carriers. How expensive would it be to upgrade the T31 to a ASW spec similar to our Allies vessels capabilities?

Does this not show that a modernised T23 is what RN really needs the T31 to be?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 05 May 2018, 16:22

You are mistaken. It's not the price of the Type 26's that are limiting their number, it's the reduction in the defence budget.

And a "modernised" Type 23 is a Type 26.

serge750
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 05 May 2018, 19:09

Also is there only 8 x ASW T23 frigates to be replaced by 8 x ASW T 26 frigates? sort of no ASW reduction, the T31 are to replace the 5 x GP T23 frigates & hopefully the T22 that got canned in 2010, I don't really like it but I can understand it if the politicians have got the purse strings :crazy: :crazy:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 May 2018, 19:22

Ron5 wrote:You are mistaken. It's not the price of the Type 26's that are limiting their number, it's the reduction in the defence budget.

And a "modernised" Type 23 is a Type 26.
How many more billions would you like to spend?

I would suggest the T26 is a bit more than a replacement for the T23, it's the absolute best ASW platform that RN can build and the cost shows it.

The T23 was designed from the start to be an acoustically optimised Frigate at a modest cost that has been adapted and improved continually throughout its service life. It's a great ship, would its performance be good enough to keep it relevant for another 15 to 20 years? If so why are we not simply building more T23's? What other European Frigate is going to surpass the ASW performance of the T23 in the near future?

In an escort situation is virtually any hull towing a 2087 good enough if backed up by one or two T26's?

If these Allied Frigates are suddenly perfectly acceptable to escort the British carriers why the need spend so much optimising the performance of the T26?

If BAE is prepared to publicly deride the ASW performance of the FREMM and F100 Frigates in the Australian SEA 5000 competition why should we be happy to let them escort the most important vessels in the UK's fleet?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby KyleG » 05 May 2018, 20:47

Poiuytrewq wrote:It's a great ship, would its performance be good enough to keep it relevant for another 15 to 20 years? If so why are we not simply building more T23's?


The newest Type 23s are scheduled to retire in about 15 years time anyway.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 06 May 2018, 08:20

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:You are mistaken. It's not the price of the Type 26's that are limiting their number, it's the reduction in the defence budget.

And a "modernised" Type 23 is a Type 26.
How many more billions would you like to spend?

I would suggest the T26 is a bit more than a replacement for the T23, it's the absolute best ASW platform that RN can build and the cost shows it.

The T23 was designed from the start to be an acoustically optimised Frigate at a modest cost that has been adapted and improved continually throughout its service life. It's a great ship, would its performance be good enough to keep it relevant for another 15 to 20 years? If so why are we not simply building more T23's? What other European Frigate is going to surpass the ASW performance of the T23 in the near future?

In an escort situation is virtually any hull towing a 2087 good enough if backed up by one or two T26's?

If these Allied Frigates are suddenly perfectly acceptable to escort the British carriers why the need spend so much optimising the performance of the T26?

If BAE is prepared to publicly deride the ASW performance of the FREMM and F100 Frigates in the Australian SEA 5000 competition why should we be happy to let them escort the most important vessels in the UK's fleet?


There are some very good questions here and again for me we come back to the Type 31 budget in that if it was set at the more realistic 2 billion mark for the 5 ships it would still be outstanding value for money when we put it against the 6 billion for 6 type 45 and 8 billion for 8 type 26 and may give us and good ship what HMG needs to be told is that if a UK task force is sent to war the type 31 will need to be sent as part of that force and will need to play its part. And as said if we are going to let others escort our carriers we might as well let type 31 do it as well

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 May 2018, 08:57

Tempest414 wrote:6 billion for 6 type 45 and 8 billion for 8 type 26

and 6+ bn for the 2 carriers (and the same again, just for the part of the F-35 purchase required to give the carriers their weapon system).

Takes us to the fundamental problem that the emphasis on major units, and gold plating them, has lead to a force that can send out one task force (remember Z?) and has very little available for anything else:
- patrol/ presence
- additionally,or more like part of it, securing SLOCs (their pinch points) and home ports against the cheapest of sea denial weapons of all (mines) with enough MCM-capable units, to be spread around as needed
- and protecting littoral manoeuvre (elsewhere); simply not having enough fast ship-to-shore connectors removes the "manoeuvre" from it, anyway, and makes the capability a ferry function, with the added ability to "deposit" a battle group to an advantageous location without needing a harbour

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 06 May 2018, 16:31

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:You are mistaken. It's not the price of the Type 26's that are limiting their number, it's the reduction in the defence budget.

And a "modernised" Type 23 is a Type 26.
How many more billions would you like to spend?

I would suggest the T26 is a bit more than a replacement for the T23, it's the absolute best ASW platform that RN can build and the cost shows it.

The T23 was designed from the start to be an acoustically optimised Frigate at a modest cost that has been adapted and improved continually throughout its service life. It's a great ship, would its performance be good enough to keep it relevant for another 15 to 20 years? If so why are we not simply building more T23's? What other European Frigate is going to surpass the ASW performance of the T23 in the near future?

In an escort situation is virtually any hull towing a 2087 good enough if backed up by one or two T26's?

If these Allied Frigates are suddenly perfectly acceptable to escort the British carriers why the need spend so much optimising the performance of the T26?

If BAE is prepared to publicly deride the ASW performance of the FREMM and F100 Frigates in the Australian SEA 5000 competition why should we be happy to let them escort the most important vessels in the UK's fleet?


I'd like to reply to your comments but I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. Maybe I can make some further points that might help.

1. The Type 26 has been designed to do the job that the Type 23's have actually been trying to do. Not just the job that the Type 23's were designed for.

2. The Type 23's were designed in the 1980's to combat threats that existing at the time and best guess at threats that would emerge over the next 20 years. Threats in the 2030's will be different and more advanced. 1980's technology won't hack it. The RN is buying Type 26's for the same reason the RAF is equipping with Typhoons and F-35's and not Avro Vulcans and English Electric Lightnings. Do the Typhoons & F-35's go any faster and carry more guns? No, the advances are internal and not visible to a casual onlooker.

3. The RN would not be allowed to build Type 23's today. They do not meet today's health and safety regulations plus today's habitability requirements. Those requirements are space eaters. Today's ships have to be larger.

4. Detecting and sinking submarines is very difficult. Especially if they are nukes. So no, just sticking a towed array on the back of any old ship you have lying around will not catch a damn thing.

5. Yes, the Type 26's will be better at ASW than the FREMM's. But that's kinda missing the point. They're not being built to be better than somebody else's frigates. They're being built to catch submarines.

6. In terms of affordability, the Type 26's are just as affordable to the UK as were the Type 23's back in the 1980's & 1990's. The difference is that back then, politicians were aware of the threat to the UK and did something about it. Now, not so much.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 06 May 2018, 16:36

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:6 billion for 6 type 45 and 8 billion for 8 type 26

and 6+ bn for the 2 carriers (and the same again, just for the part of the F-35 purchase required to give the carriers their weapon system).

Takes us to the fundamental problem that the emphasis on major units, and gold plating them, has lead to a force that can send out one task force (remember Z?) and has very little available for anything else:
- patrol/ presence
- additionally,or more like part of it, securing SLOCs (their pinch points) and home ports against the cheapest of sea denial weapons of all (mines) with enough MCM-capable units, to be spread around as needed
- and protecting littoral manoeuvre (elsewhere); simply not having enough fast ship-to-shore connectors removes the "manoeuvre" from it, anyway, and makes the capability a ferry function, with the added ability to "deposit" a battle group to an advantageous location without needing a harbour


It's a conscious decision of HMG & the RN to change the nature of the RN from a frigate based fleet to one that's centered around carriers and force projection. I personally think that's rather hard to argue against given the history of the UK's military over the past 50 years or so.

Now if you are asking, after taking that decision, why have the UK politicians not put the funding in place to match their aspirations, I can only shrug my shoulders. You elected these humbugs and charlatans. Not me. And no, I didn't vote for Trump.

P.S. once again the "gold plating" comment. On behalf of the RN's many fine servicemen and women, may I ask where such plating may be found?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 06 May 2018, 17:51

My point is not should the HMG /RN spend 1 billion per ship for tier 1 escorts as you say it is well with in the scope of the UK to do so. It is that the tier 2 ships should be given a more realistic budget to meat the demands they may / will be asked to under take and to that end 2 to 2.5 billion or 400 to 500 million per ship is where the budget should be and as said it is well with in the the scope of the UK to do so and to my mind it is time to stop messing about give type 31 to CL/BAE and give MHPC to Babcock/ BMT to build 20 ships for 3 to 3.5 billion giving the UK 2 export maps

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 06 May 2018, 21:42

The Type 26's will cost about 650 million each when all is said than done, not one billion. That's ignoring inflation.

Having said that, is it worth building a second class at 400-500 million each?

Or let me put it another way, do you think Bae and the RN could strip 150 million out of the Type 26 design?

They're not going to do that now, that would be dumb, the Treasury will be all over that like flies on sh*t and the stripped down version would be the only one the RN would get. But after 8 full fat Type 26's had been committed, what then?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests