Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On tasks other than escort:

1: I agree RFA Cardigan bay on Persian gulf shall be relieved by HMS Echo (or Enterprise), which was by it origin design to be a mother ship of MCMVs. (Here, I am talking about ~5 years future, and MCH is not there yet.)

2: To do this, one River B2 shall cover all the tasks "other than MCMV mother and hydrographic/survey", currently covered by Echo. For me, this is a reason for "the 5th hull" of River B2. The other 4 is replacing the 4 River B1s, one-by-one.

This will give us one Bay class free, which can be used for APT-S as "a plastic frigate" with 2 CIWS and 1 or 2 Wildcats, for example. It can deploy 6-months a year. And this will be right enough for diplomacy and show the flag.

3: Here, ATP-N shall be covered half by a Bay in hurricane season, and a River B2 in normal season. River B2 is in all respect better than USCG Reliance class cutters which is actively used in the region. She has flight deck, can carry +50 crews which could be officers to handle smugglers.

If needed, the deployed River can be x1.5 times crewed (similar to the other 4 River B2s in patrol) for 320-days/year (160 days in 6-months) sea going days, or just a single set of crews for ~210 days (~100 days in 6 months).

The one Bay used for APT-N can be optimized for HADR, but in war time they can just rush to UK to carry RM soldiers and equipments. In peace time, RM can do all training with the one Albion active. In real war, they can use one Albion and 2 Bays. I see no big problem here.

In other words, I am proposing to use 4 River B2 to replace 4 River B1, and the 5th one to replace one of HMS Echo/Enterprise, which will free-up Cardigan Bay in Persian gulf. Good trade, I think.

On this regard, escort issue can be kept within escort, not mixed with "other tasks". Note that APT-S is already gapped for long, and Argentina situation will allow it. But, still APT-S is needed to keep the UK influence in the region.

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Spinflight »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ince-1971/

Whilst the story is mainly bollocks it does seem to indicate a change. Not a wise one I'd think.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Spinflight wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ince-1971/

Whilst the story is mainly bollocks it does seem to indicate a change. Not a wise one I'd think.
There have been plans for some time to forward base a T31 in the Gulf. The decision to start early by forward basing a T23 in the Gulf from 2019 makes sense. I suspect it will be GP T23.

How are the mine hunters based in the Gulf manned ? Are they in the 150% manned, 3 watch system? This system would allow each watch to be in the Gulf for 8 weeks and then return to the UK for 4 weeks. Good for training and family life. I wonder if they will adopt this for the T23.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote:There have been plans for some time to forward base a T31 in the Gulf. The decision to start early by forward basing a T23 in the Gulf from 2019 makes sense.
A senior RN officer made that statement a couple of years back in the UAE Naval Expo (which has grown to be one of the major events globally, so probably not meant as "local propaganda").
- generally speaking, where is patrol & presence needed? The pinch points out of the Gulf and into the Red Sea could see two of the T31s gainfully employed (may be one base out of Oman; the CVFs will get their turnaround station built there)
- the 150% manning model would avoid having the third one in perpetual transit between the area and the UK... same manning, but less fuel (for the same effect) :thumbup:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

And the "enduringly present" T23/T31 can help make up the numbers when the carrier group deploys to the gulf

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If the MOD / RN is thinking / going to forward deploy a type 31 on Kipion for 3 years at a time what does this tell us about the capabilities type 31 will need as Kipion is not the place for a toy frigate. Also dose this open the door to forward deploying 3 more type 31s for the same amount of time if so where maybe Singapore to cover the Asian- Pacific , the Caribbean for APT-N or the Falklands to cover APT-S

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Surely the Gulf is possibly one of the highest threat areas we currently patrol. Having participated in the many heated discussions about how the T-31e as planned lacks the ability to either defend itself or attack effectively, is this the right platform for this region? It sort of reminds me of the Victorian idea of posting weak garrisons around the empire, wait until one get attacked and wiped out then send in a proper army to show the true power of the empire to the dirty little upstarts.

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Spinflight »

Lord Jim wrote:Surely the Gulf is possibly one of the highest threat areas we currently patrol. Having participated in the many heated discussions about how the T-31e as planned lacks the ability to either defend itself or attack effectively, is this the right platform for this region?
Send a ferry instead! :D

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

*imagines the Gosport Ferry with a helideck*
:mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Tempest414 wrote:deploying 3 more type 31s for the same amount of time if so where maybe Singapore to cover the Asian- Pacific , the Caribbean for APT-N or the Falklands to cover APT-S
APT-N does not need a frigate, we could do with forward basing an OPV there instead. Falklands has an OPV, there is no need for anything heavier. One Type 31 in the Gulf, four at home for FRE and general/NATO duties.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

benny14 wrote:APT-N does not need a frigate, we could do with forward basing an OPV there instead
I would agree with that, except that we need a more capable OPV. The Caribbean (never mind the rest of the North Atlantic) is pretty big - one small ship with no helicopter is, frankly, useless. I know I say this frequently, and I apologise for doing so again, but we need to adopt the same model as the other European countries with Caribbean OTs - we need the two-ship solution, to cover patrol and HADR with different (forward-based) platforms
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

[quote][/quote]benny14 wrote:
APT-N does not need a frigate, we could do with forward basing an OPV there instead

The Caribean might not need a Frigate, The N Atlantic (probably) justifies far more than just a single Frigate, but one Frigate is the absolute minimum that should be considered sufficient.

Give our potential enemies an inch and we should not be surprised if they are encouraged to take many many miles.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Scimitar54 wrote: The Caribean might not need a Frigate, The N Atlantic (probably) justifies far more than just a single Frigate, but one Frigate is the absolute minimum that should be considered sufficient.
APT-N covers the Caribbean and North Atlantic area near it. Separate to the North north Atlantic area. APT-N is covered by an OPV or RFA. No need for a Frigate on the APT-N tasking.
Caribbean wrote:I would agree with that, except that we need a more capable OPV. The Caribbean (never mind the rest of the North Atlantic) is pretty big - one small ship with no helicopter is, frankly, useless. I know I say this frequently, and I apologise for doing so again, but we need to adopt the same model as the other European countries with Caribbean OTs - we need the two-ship solution, to cover patrol and HADR with different (forward-based) platforms
In the short term we need to permanently station an OPV there, with an RFA doing a deployment in hurricane season as usual. What we need to work on is developing a local capacity similar to what the Bahamas are doing to replace both in the long run. "The Sandy Bottom Project" is costing them $232m for 8 patrol ships, a RO-RO disaster relief ship and a new harbor base. Amazing value for money. The UK could do this in one of the overseas territories, run by the RN with locally recruit crews. Would be better for the region and save money in the long run.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Question. So the other part of the North Atlantic will of course be covered by the "Atlantic Fleet" then will it?
Answer. If only we had one! Oh I know, "one of our CSG's" will be able to cover it!

As usual, not enough Frigates and not enough Carrier Strike Groups. We are continuing to allow our politicians and their "hired help yes men" to waste away our defences. Wake-up! The numbers are WOEFULLY INADEQUATE.

The T42 to T45 ratio gives an idea of the scale of the problem.

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Spinflight »

Which rather neatly puts a lie to the excuse that our tubs are more capable than in the past, they still can't be in two places at once, and too often have been stuck crewless in port.

Can only hope that forward basing results in an uplift of personnel as logically each of the forward based ships has to have more than one crew. Cutting out several weeks of sailing is one benefit, though allowing more rotation rather than tour length cruises is a better one.

Probably unwise with current manning but that surely will change?

With 5 T31s promised I wonder whether they could get away with one or two in home waters for shakedown and the remainder forward based? The Gulf, Singapore and ... somewhere else.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Question. So the other part of the North Atlantic will of course be covered by the "Atlantic Fleet" then will it?
Answer. If only we had one! Oh I know, "one of our CSG's" will be able to cover it!

As usual, not enough Frigates and not enough Carrier Strike Groups. We are continuing to allow our politicians and their "hired help yes men" to waste away our defences. Wake-up! The numbers are WOEFULLY INADEQUATE.

The T42 to T45 ratio gives an idea of the scale of the problem.
The Atlantic is covered by whatever is available in the UK, be it Type 23, Type 45, Astute, QE, Merlin or Poseidon. It is also the responsibility of multiple countries who coordinate effects. The USA, Canada and Norway been the main ones.
Spinflight wrote:With 5 T31s promised I wonder whether they could get away with one or two in home waters for shakedown and the remainder forward based? The Gulf, Singapore and ... somewhere else.
One in the Gulf is the most that will be forward deployed. They are needed for other duties. Singapore is simply not going to happen within current numbers or planning.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:9 patrol frigates? what use is that? sounds like a great way to burn through cash.
I said 9 T26s, which I expect to have full ASW kit, in addition to the 5 ASW T31s.

Whilst I firmly believe the need for a lower end global BOT Sloops acting as a “trip wire” against aggression, if the RN wants to have a regional presence in an area that is relevant then it needs to deploy a tier 1 that is atleast as good as anything the locals have or has a uniqueness that allows it to be useful. Given that the T45 will be tied to the CVFs and the budget for the T31 will be too low to be credible on a global stage, then it has to be the T26 if we are talking about escorts.

The places the RN could perform forward presence is of course the Gulf & Indian Ocean (out of Oman), Far East (out of Singapore) and the Mediterranean (out of Gibraltar) - 4 deployed T26s. Given a 3 year deployed / 1 year refit model, this would require a fleet of atleast 5.

Allowing atleast 5 for CVF duties - we need 10 T26s

Optimising the T31 (Sloop) for ASW and low level / supported Patrol duties would still require a per hull budget increase but much less than what would be needed for the Gulf. I’m thinking a fleet of 8 to cover:

- TAPS
- FRE
- North Atlantic ASW ship
- FIGS
- WIGS
- GiGS
- APT(S)
”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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

benny14 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:deploying 3 more type 31s for the same amount of time if so where maybe Singapore to cover the Asian- Pacific , the Caribbean for APT-N or the Falklands to cover APT-S
APT-N does not need a frigate, we could do with forward basing an OPV there instead. Falklands has an OPV, there is no need for anything heavier. One Type 31 in the Gulf, four at home for FRE and general/NATO duties.
Firstly a type 31 forward based in the Falklands would not be taking over from the B2 River stationed there it would be for APT-S and the reason for using the Falklands is crew flights in to MPA also APT-N has only seen OPVs used due to the lack of escorts and they have been found to be less than ideal at best due to the lack of a Helicopter. Also saying that we can't forward deploy more type 31s due to the lack of escorts is not fully right as we know that in the case of most standing patrols 2 or 3 ships are needed to carry out patrol plus transit to and from task forward deployment frees up ships that would be in transit. As for not having a ship forward deployed to the Asian-Pacific anytime soon I think you are wrong with Argyll replacing Sutherland plus Abions deployment in the region it is a clear sign that this could become a standing task and if it dose then forward deployment will be the best way and Singapore is only one of a number of sites this could happen. So to sum up by forward deploying 3 to 4 type 31s around the world this would free up the type 26/45s to under take the other tasks including SNMG 1 & 2

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:Whilst I firmly believe the need for a lower end global BOT Sloops acting as a “trip wire” against aggression, if the RN wants to have a regional presence in an area that is relevant then it needs to deploy a tier 1 that is atleast as good as anything the locals have or has a uniqueness that allows it to be useful.
I prefer the Global Patrol Vessel concept, maybe they are similar just different nomenclature? In my mind these vessels would have absolutely no war fighting role. They would be lightly armed and lightly built but still capable of defending themselves, 57mm and 2x 30mm's, similar to a USCG spec. The embarked helicopter is paramount but does it need to be a wildcat with all the costs associated with that?

Some would say what's the point of these vessels? Nothing but a waste of money? Much better to build more Frigates! Personally I think it's important to have a mix of both Frigates and GPV's. As currently envisaged the T31's are too much OPV and not enough Frigate and at £250m they are potential death traps in a peer on peer conflict but at £375m to £400m they should be perfectly credible. I would be in favour of building proper Frigates that can fight and win and leaving the low threat constabulary/ HADR roles to the basic and cheap GPV's.

The GPV's are designed primarily to enforce the international rules based system against non state actors by providing security and surveillance along with a decent HADR capability to act as 'first responders' to global natural disasters. In my mind these GPV's are a means of providing a positive British global presence making friends and strengthening ties around the world. They would be cheap £100m vessels. If forward based with a credible (£375m+) T31 it would should be a pretty effective combination.
Repulse wrote:Given that the T45 will be tied to the CVFs and the budget for the T31 will be too low to be credible on a global stage, then it has to be the T26 if we are talking about escorts.
I think it is possible that the T31 could change direction slightly as part of the MDP but time will tell on that one. An ASW T31 would be great addition to the fleet but only if it has credible ASW capabilities.

I think HMG and RN are missing a trick here. Politically, reducing the T26 build numbers on the Clyde was a bad move and it has had a negative impact but political decisions can be easily reversed if the will is there. Why not add another 4 T26's to the build schedule bringing the total back up to 12. Who could argue with 12x T26's and 5 OPV's as opposed to 13 T26's?

Too expensive? Maybe not. What if the 4 extra T26's had the most basic fit possible. Almost everything removed apart from the ASW capability, 30mm's and the ability to embark the Merlin(s). If it was really necessary to make them look 'fighty' install the Mk8's. Keep them for TAPS and FRE and let the 8 fully loaded T26's and T31's go to work. With so many systems removed the crew allocation could also be correspondingly low. By removing so many systems and speeding up the building process I would expect these 4 Basic T26's to be extremely cheap. RN would have another 4 T26's in the water and that could be priceless long term.

This week a member of the Defence Select Committee proposed keeping a number of ASW T23's as a 'reserve'. It's fair to say that idea is not universally popular but why not have a newly built working reserve of fully ASW capable T26's. I think it is worth considering.
Repulse wrote:The places the RN could perform forward presence is of course the Gulf & Indian Ocean (out of Oman), Far East (out of Singapore) and the Mediterranean (out of Gibraltar) - 4 deployed T26s. Given a 3 year deployed / 1 year refit model, this would require a fleet of atleast 5.
Would a joint base with Australia, New Zealand and Canada not make sense in Singapore? If every country forward based a light Frigate and OPV/GPV and then rotated the CVF/LHD/LPD's through a couple of times annually, it would make a powerful statement in the region.

Due to the logistics involved I think it's unlikely the T26's will be forward based anytime soon.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

to pickup on the last point the first task for HMS Argyll when she arrives in the Asian-Pacific is a Five powers exercise with Australia , New Zealand , Malaysia and Singapore

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Anyway, there is not enough money: https://www.forces.net/news/not-enough- ... pment-plan
And therefore I am not optimistic here. For example, we had an information stating "cutting 3 T23GP" (while retaining Albion). But, I think RN can do something, depending on the resource, and I think it is very flexible.

# If my memory works, UK tried but failed to do "ship swapping" on escorts. So is it doable with T23? I am not sure. With more simple systems, T31e (as is RFI) will be capable of ship swapping.

I think warships "less capable than a full-fat frigate" has a good job at Persian gulf. Allies are deploying a spectrum of vessels there, including CV, DDGs, FFs, USCG cutters, Cyclone-class Patrol Boats, in addition to logistic and MCM vessels. So, a T31e, or even a River B2 (if added with 2 CIWS) will be able to contribute there (of course with different scope). NO PROBLEM. RN is never fighting against Iran alone. Every operation will be allied operation.

As a T31e, we shall just imagine Khareef-class corvette (76mm (or 57mm) + 2x 30mm + 12 SeaMICA (or CAMM)), added with a small mission bay (Even if it is Babcock design, the armament will be the same). For me, these modern heavy corvettes in 2020s are comparable to normal frigates (like Leander) in 1970-80s, while the T26 is a Spruance class DD, and T45 is a Tycho class CCG (without BMD and ASW).

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: As a T31e, we shall just imagine Khareef-class corvette (76mm (or 57mm) + 2x 30mm + 12 SeaMICA (or CAMM)), added with a small mission bay (Even if it is Babcock design, the armament will be the same). For me, these modern heavy corvettes in 2020s are comparable to normal frigates (like Leander) in 1970-80s, while the T26 is a Spruance class DD, and T45 is a Tycho class CCG (without BMD and ASW).
As a GP replacement on a budget, I think the BAE stretched design based on the Khareef is decent. If it can be fitted with a CIWS on the hangar and another 8+ CAMM silos on the mid section as suggested by the latest press release, then it will be a capable vessel. Adequate for operating in the Gulf.

As for forward deploying, you are all getting a bit too excited over it. The Type 26 is not going to be forward deployed and with five Type 31s, one is the most that will be forward deployed.

I recommend a read of this blog - https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co. ... -risk.html

APT-N, Falklands, Gibraltar dont require permanent escorts. To do so would be a complete waste of limited resources. Singapore is debatable, it would be significantly harder than stationing one in the Gulf.

Stop trying to over extend the RN, a Type 31 in the Gulf with a 12-18 month carrier deployment to the region is more within our means.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, these modern heavy corvettes in 2020s are comparable to normal frigates (like Leander) in 1970-80s
From the beginning, the T31 was touted as a "Type 21 for the 21st Century", so the comparison is probably appropriate. As long as the known deficiencies in the T21 are not repeated in the T31, then they should be useful ships, just as the T21's were
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

benny14 wrote:[Stop trying to over extend the RN, a Type 31 in the Gulf with a 12-18 month carrier deployment to the region is more within our means.
That's in addition to the 4 MCM and the bay class, and the odd FF/DD/Albion showing it's face en route to the East every now and then

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by benny14 »

dmereifield wrote:That's in addition to the 4 MCM and the bay class, and the odd FF/DD/Albion showing it's face en route to the East every now and then
Yea. RFA Fort Rosalie has also been in the Gulf for the last 6 months. Only returned recently for refit.

Post Reply