Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

I am not a fan of ASW version of T31e. Better buy more P8As, better increase Merlin (even 4 or 5), or even better add CAPTAS4CI to T45.

Donald-san, I complement you an a great series of comments.

Let me just pick up one of them.

Perhaps you can remember "All Politicians are the Same", who was a regular contributor to Think Defence. He sounded like an RN/MoD insider and usually made authoritative comments.

He maintained more than once that there was a real warfighting role that the Type 31 could fill. That of close-in escort for a carrier group.

One part would be AAW using CAMM to provide last ditch protection against leakers for a (virtually) unarmed carrier. The old goalkeeper role. He maintained that having a nearby ship with CAMM was better than putting CAMM on the carriers where use of the missiles would greatly impact flying operations.

Secondly, and to the point, a type 31 with a hull mounted sonar and a reasonable, but not excessive (because that would be unaffordable), level of quietness, could materially add to inner ASW defence. Any form of towed array would be pointless because it would not be usable due to the constraints of operating as part of the inner ring. When asked if a hull mounted sonar would detect any submarines, he pointed out that the tail-less Type 23's do just fine.

By the way, he was also a fan of CAMM-ER on the type 31's.

[dmereifield]

Could the Leander (or indeed any other ship with a similar set up) operating on it's electrics at slow speed (7-8 knots) with a tail meaningfully contribute to delousing and protecting CASD?

[Ron5]

There's a brochure on the OMT website that contains some pertinent information: https://updoc.tips/download/free-pdf-eb ... april-2014

I find the section on costs most interesting so I've clipped that portion:

OMT IH Costs.jpg

The IH cost breakdown (in millions) becomes:

£118 $166 51% Platform as delivered by yard
£9 $13 4% System Integration
£72 $101 31% AAW
£28 $39 12% Weapons/Electronics
£5 $7 2% Other

£232 $325 100% totals

The document doesn't reveal the cost of the blcoks built in Lithuania & Estonia or the cost of equipment reused from early ships (like the guns) or how the labor cost of the Navy shipyards were calculated. The shipyard is allowed a decent profit margin (although it did go bankrupt and close very soon afterwards but probably due to the world financial crisis) but presumably the fitting out work had no profit margin being done by servicemen & women.

I'd be interested how Babcock's plan to match these numbers. That's polite shit for "i bet they can't".

But for c400 million (pounds), maybe. Except for the manning (which apparently is well over 100 in Danish service), there's a lot to like about the design.

But for around 400m each with another 400m for design, the UK could also do a blank sheet design that would be new & exciting and actually get some foreign orders. Or maybe would be enough to buy 4 full fat Type 26's or 5 skinny (de-specced) Type 26's.

[Opinion3]

Did the requirements specification actually say CAMM etc. fitted? Babcock might be on to something? Personally I think 250 doesn't sound realistic for a frigate full stop.

[Poiuytrewq]

"Reassessment of the options" you mean more large variety of ships, including "Bay" (or alike), Khareef itself, USCG Heritage class cutter itself, in addition to the options now considered?

Not necessarily a larger variety of ships, simply ensuring that RN gets what it really needs to perform the peacetime tasks asked of it and also retain the ability to fight and win in a conflict scenario. Personally I think this is more important than ring fencing 8x Type 26 Frigates.

As ever there are lots of options but there are two ways to conduct such a reassessment. Cost neutral and increased funding. Let's stick to cost neutral.

For example,

RN decides that the A140's are built to a standard that would allow a war fighting role (this is far from guaranteed). A vessel capable of fighting and winning. Armed with 12 to 24 CAMM and a medium calibre gun it's a strictly self defence weapons package but with the addition of the Wildcat, it would provide a useful offensive capability albeit only when it's actually airborne.

Suddenly that changes everything. Gone are the patrol vessels unable to fight. RN would really have a realistic chance of increasing the fleet back up to 24 escorts. As I stated previously I am not yet clear how Team 31 are going to build the A140's for £250m in the UK but that would be one of the main points of the reassessment, what is possible if building the OMT way.

What does RN really need, 8x Type 26's at all costs or the ability to build escort numbers back up to around 24? As sticking with the 8x Type 26's is current planning let look at the alternative.

What if HMG decided to reconfigure the whole T31 programme in an effort to give RN what it really needs, a truly balanced fleet. This would be BAE's worst nightmare.

Instead of building 5x £250m A140's ask Team 31 to build 2x of the best ASW escorts possible for £375m each using the A140's hull. OMT know this design inside out. I am sure lots of work has been done already to optimise the Iver Huitfeldt for ASW and OMT will know exactly where to spend the money. Ensure the two vessels are built in parallel so that they both hit the water at exactly the same time.

Hand them over to RN and have them tested extensively to rapidly assess performance and suggest changes. While these trails are ongoing get Team 31 to build 2x Support Frigates based on the Absalon design but with as many Iver Huitfeldt's improvements as possible for £250m each. That's a nice round figure of £1.25bn.

This would achieve 3 things.

1. Team 31 would have produced 2x RN optimised Frigates with ASW capabilities (up to a point) suitable for export for £375m each.

2. RN would receive 2x Support Frigates (@250m each) suitable for relieving the Bays in the Carribean and the Gulf. This in particular would be a big win.

3. RN can then decide based on the trails of the 2x ASW A140's which direction it wants to take. Stick with 8x T26's or go for the increase in overall escort numbers. As the whole process is cost neutral it would seem reasonable to allow RN to decide.

Could these £375m ASW A140's be comparable to the FTI? It would be interesting to find out.

So what happens if the improvements to the A140 are disappointing?

RN gets two basic ASW platforms to conduct TAPS or FRE. RN gets two Support Frigates to relive the Bays. Big Win. Carry on with 8x T26's as planned.

HMG provides a further £250m for another Support Frigate bringing the total build up to 5 hulls as promised. This £250m would be HMG's financial support for the NSS (I accept this financial support for the NSS is not fiscally neutral but support for the NSS shouldn't come out of RN's budget).

It's a Team 31 win from start to finish. Five frigates built for the Royal Navy. Three different variants for export, basic frigate, ASW frigate and support frigate. Zero risk for Team 31 and a bit more wriggle room with the £375m ASW versions to get the shipyards off to a solid start.

So what if the improvements turned the A140 into a useful ASW escort suitable for RN use? This is the big prize for Team 31 and the possibility of an increased order book might just lead to the type of innovation Sir John Parker was looking for at the outset.

The options at that point are numerous but RN may decide to reduce T26 numbers or petition HMG for more funds to enlarge the escort fleet. Either way it creates options and all of them are good options. If RN were to order this ASW variant in numbers I think export orders would be assured. After all if it is good enough for the Royal Navy.......

This is only one example of many possibilities but it's interesting enough to warrant a brief pause for a reassessment, just to confirm that after the A140 inclusion the T31 and NSS are still on the right track.

[shark bait]

The biggest recent change since the A140's announcement is that some are now coming around to possibility that it might after all actually be possible to build a 'real fighting warship' in the UK for £250m.

It might just be possible to build a fighting ship for £250m.

No way is is possible to design and build a fighting ship for £250m.

[shark bait]

or even better add CAPTAS4CI to T45.

That would be just about the biggest waste of money the RN could manage. It's a noisy ship that will never be in the right place to operate a big variable depth sonar effectively.

Could the Leander (or indeed any other ship with a similar set up) operating on it's electrics at slow speed (7-8 knots) with a tail meaningfully contribute to delousing and protecting CASD?

No good protecting a carrier moving at 20+knots.

[donald_of_tokyo]

or even better add CAPTAS4CI to T45.

That would be just about the biggest waste of money the RN could manage. It's a noisy ship that will never be in the right place to operate a big variable depth sonar effectively.

Maybe may be not. CAPTAS4 and CAPTAS4CI are different sonars; the latter has more compact TASS, but the same VDS. It is adopted for FTI, a noisy CODAD ship. (I guess it is much more active-ASW oriented). Also, USN's Tycho-class CCG has a TASS. Why not T45? Anyway, it is just one of the items I proposed. For ASW, ASW-T31 is NOT at the top of the priority list, that is the heart of my comment.

[shark bait]

It's less about the platform, and more to do with where the platform will be. The AAW escort should be close to the carrier, whereas the ASW escorts should work slightly detached from the carrier.

A platform cant to both roles effectively because it cant be in two places at the same time.

[RetroSicotte]

That would be just about the biggest waste of money the RN could manage. It's a noisy ship that will never be in the right place to operate a big variable depth sonar effectively.

Type 45's noise has been overstated I think. Gabe had the test results on its noise some time back, apparently its not that loud.

I'd like to see them with a tail, because I firmly believe every major escort ought to have one, because submarines often don't give you a choice, and only 8 Type 26s is too small a number to guarantee they will always be around. If there's a threat, you want something to dissuade them. Anti-submarine response should not be maintained solely on anti-sub specialised ships, when you only have 14 escorts you need them all to be capable of pitching in when a threat emerges. The enemy has a habit of not waiting for you to make your own plans and bringing the right thing to them first.

That said, I do not regard tails on T45s as an immediate priority in comparison to ensuring continuation of over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, credible escort numbers, and anti-ballistic missile defence. Those are definitely more worrisome to me, and should take the bulk of required funding, before tails on T45s is considered. At the very least they already have a hull sonar, something the T31 still doesn't have.

[Repulse]

- Designing skill... Does they have such high one currently? (I am talking about Babcock, not BAES nor BMT). I guess it will be much faster to "learn" from OMT, how they build IH-class (process, concept, and "tricks"), than inventing them from scratch.

But we have BAE, BMT and in-house RN design skills already surely another one isn't needed given the size of the market. Better to invest in what we have IMO.

- I am not a fan of ASW version of T31e. Better buy more P8As, better increase Merlin (even 4 or 5), or even better add CAPTAS4CI to T45.
- Risking BAES is the whole "aim" of the NSS, actually. I hope you all understand it and accept any results to come

More MPA would be useful and is needed, but we also need ASW warships so I don't see the two in the same discussion.

Whilst more BMD ships would be useful, given the main threat is against the UK, it's BOTs and any task groups between investment in the current T45s and ground based systems the needed is probably not pressing.

The need as I see it is local (UK or forward based) ASW and Air defence, freeing up the T26s for global CSG and ASW duties.

If a warship design is required and it didn't jeapordise the current T26 order, then surely persuading BAE to build dumbed down (and smaller) T26s would surely be the better route - looking for cost savings across the board with commonality of systems, maintainability and training.

[dmereifield]

or even better add CAPTAS4CI to T45.

That would be just about the biggest waste of money the RN could manage. It's a noisy ship that will never be in the right place to operate a big variable depth sonar effectively.

Could the Leander (or indeed any other ship with a similar set up) operating on it's electrics at slow speed (7-8 knots) with a tail meaningfully contribute to delousing and protecting CASD?

No good protecting a carrier moving at 20+knots.

Sorry, to clarify, I meant delousing in terms of protecting the CASD. What I'm asking about generally, is what use would a slow moving Leander be with a tail? What deployments it tasks could it undertake that would free up a T26?

[shark bait]

It's unlikely it would be much use, an increase in surface activity around the deterrent would do more harm than good. Better to let it slip away quietly.

ASW escorts are good at protecting surface assets, they're not well suited to protecting submarines, or searching for subs in a big ocean. That's what MPA's are for.

[dmereifield]

It's unlikely it would be much use, an increase in surface activity around the deterrent would do more harm than good. Better to let it slip away quietly.

ASW escorts are good at protecting surface assets, they're not well suited to protecting submarines, or searching for subs in a big ocean. That's what MPA's are for.

So is there any value in having the Leander with it's quiet but slow electrics vs a noisier Arrowhead 140 if both had a tail (or eve a hull mounted sonar)?

[Caribbean]

It's unlikely it would be much use, an increase in surface activity around the deterrent would do more harm than good. Better to let it slip away quietly.

Isn't that what TAPS does, though? As I understand it, its role is reactive, in support of CASD.
In response to the original idea, personally, if you wanted to keep a permanent CASD sonar patrol, I would suggest using a smaller vessel (thinking more like a cutter/ OPV than a frigate) in a nominally "training" role (it could even be a Serco asset). Since its primary function would be to detect enemy subs in and around the approaches to Faslane, it wouldn't need to be armed (plenty of land-based support available) or particularly long-legged, though it might benefit (for training purposes) from URN-optimisation, which even in a small, simple hull, might still cost a bit. It would, however, save the T31s/ T26s for deployment further afield.

[Tempest414]

A few things around export of UK warships.

Firstly what is needed for export to have a chance ?
And what can be done ?

For me we need to look at something like fighter exports which could hold the key in as much as what do countries look for when buying a new aircraft and for me it is ( is this aircraft operated by the seller in numbers and how long will it be supported in service with them and us) so when we look at this we see that type like F-35 , Rafale , Typhoon , SU-30 and smaller types like KAI T-50 are doing well and types like JF-17 are finding it harder ( in mind due to China not operating it)

so taking this in mind it seems to me that had HMG pushed head and allowed BAE to get type 26 in the water it could be cleaning up in the top end frigate market as its biggest challenge is not FEMM or what ever other ship it is that it is not in the water and that the UK is messing about and cutting numbers.

So what should be done now for me there are 3 good opportunities

1) Stick to building 8 Type 26 and push it hard for export (8 billion)
2) stop messing about and make the type 31 budget 4 billion for 10 new ships for me this would show counties looking to buy new ships that the RN / UK are looking to build and operate a good ship that they could benifit from
3) set the budget for the MHpC at 2.5 billion for 15 ships and would have the same effect as above


this would have a net cost to the UK tax payer of 14.5 billion pounds over 14 years which to my mind is well within what the UK can afford and be a better way of supporting British ship building and could if played right give the UK a 24 ship escort fleet once we get to start a program of one new ship a year or have two yards building a new ship every 2 year in step

[Lord Jim]

All of the above is great but is obviously in fantasy land. The whole idea of the NSS was initially good, but I cannot see having a second yard being stood up on the back of 5 cheap warships and then relying on exports to maintain its viability is realistic. In fact the whole escort replacement programme is a fiasco. This is not just down to the Government but the Navy's willingness to sacrifice everything to get its two big aviation platforms. On top of that, where most navies seem t be pretty good at getting the maximum bang for they buck, we seem to excel and spending an awful lot for very little bang. With proper programme management and secure funding, there is no reason that the replacement for the T-22/23 should not already be in the water and a programme of at least 13 underway. The should have been no need to even consider building the T-31e. As for the Carrier, its aviation group should be far more established than it currently is, with the F-35 OCU and first operational squadron already stood up at RAF Marham and CROWSNEST entering service.

Back to the escorts. We seem to be pretty good at designing high end waships still by some miracle. As far as sensors and defensive counter measures we are very good, but when it comes to the part where you give a platform the ability to actually control or simply influence and area we are bad to say the least. There is the arguement that the MoD doesn't need to replace the Harpoon yet because the T-26 isn't built yet. But all we have is a few dozen old spec Harpoon being re-lifed to use on the T-23 and nothing for the P-8 or our SSNs. The idea of gapping capabilities has become a default policy for the MoD replacing that of pushing back or slowing programmes as is did in the past. Doing this once or twice is fine, but more and more holes are appearing in the UKs capabilities that the RN will soon not be able to do what it is required to do. We can not longer adapt the RN to met its tasks so we are going to have to adapt the tasks given to the RN to meet what it can do. In fact this is what the MDP should be concentrating on, realigning all three services to what they can actually do rather than aiming for some unattainable aspiration. The Treasury is not going to open its wallet so cuts are comming. Part of me wuold rather see the T-31e dumbed down or cancelled to ensure the T-26 hots the water with a full spectrum of capabilities. If we want a flag waving patrol vessel capable of long range operations fine, but it only needs a basic weapon load out and doesn't need Meriln capable fight facilities or ASW systems. A medium caliblke gun plus a couple of HMGs should suffice. Aim for a UK Floreal and not try to convice the world the T-31e is a true combat vessel. We actually need more patrol vessels so five of these ocean going "Rivers" would get plenty of use.


So at the top end we would be left with 6 T-45 and 8 T-26. Being optimistic that could give up 3 of the former and four of the latter available at a given time. If the Carrier is on duty then that would leave 1 and 2 resectfully available for other duties, but retaining one of the T-26 in UK waters means we have one of each left. That allows the RN to carry out a maximum of two standing tasks with a warship. Which should these be?

[donald_of_tokyo]

It's less about the platform, and more to do with where the platform will be. The AAW escort should be close to the carrier, whereas the ASW escorts should work slightly detached from the carrier.
A platform cant to both roles effectively because it cant be in two places at the same time.

You think there is not task in inner layer for ASW. I think there is. Also, as USN's AAW cruisers has TASS (even in the passive ASW era!), T45 having CAPTAS4CI has a meaning, I think. BUT, I am actually not strongly pushing it, as you see. My top priority is "a few more P8A", if it is for ASW.

It's unlikely it would be much use, an increase in surface activity around the deterrent would do more harm than good. Better to let it slip away quietly.

As you say here, anyway I think (at least major part of) CASD support can be done by P8A. (If my memory works, TAPS task was reserved for T23ASW following the Nimrod disbanding?).

May be 4 more P8A will release 2 T26s to other tasks. The "4 more P8A" will be much cheaper than the first 9 P8As (250M GBP ave), because all the logistics support and training can be shared. May be 150M GBP each = 600M GBP? So, it is apparently a good buy.

But, sorry this "+600M GBP" is already a fantasy. Therefore, if ASW is really really important, RN can just "cut" T31e program cost from 1250M to 650M GBP to make it something like 4-5 River "B3" OPV, and just add 4 P8A. This might reside in "fantasy fleet" regime, I agree, but at least, this is cost-flat.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The whole idea of the NSS was initially good, but I cannot see having a second yard being stood up on the back of 5 cheap warships and then relying on exports to maintain its viability is realistic.

I am against it from the beginning. Just a short term job generation proposal. If stopping "BAES monopoly" is the main aim, it is much more important to grow up a team of RN engineers so that they can "fight" with BAES to cut un-needed equipments, surplus profits, and control the whole program to be more efficient.

In fact the whole escort replacement programme is a fiasco. This is not just down to the Government but the Navy's willingness to sacrifice everything to get its two big aviation platforms.

Exactly.

... The idea of gapping capabilities has become a default policy for the MoD replacing that of pushing back or slowing programmes as is did in the past. Doing this once or twice is fine, but more and more holes are appearing in the UKs capabilities that the RN will soon not be able to do what it is required to do.

Agreed. Gapping SSM in hope for anglo-franco ASM in far future to come is very very bad idea. If the "anglo-franco ASM" does no meet the timing, just adopt interim solution. No gap. RN has even gapped carrier air wing, the whole capability. Then, bean counters will just say, why not gap frigates? It is just 3 or 4 of the 13 hulls. I am not proposing to cut escorts, but I am strictly against gapping anything RN want to regain in future. If it is needed, I think reducing the frigate number, and declare that RN MUST abandon one of the standing tasks for lack of (or mismanagement of) money, is much better.

Part of me wuold rather see the T-31e dumbed down or cancelled to ensure the T-26 hots the water with a full spectrum of capabilities. ... Aim for a UK Floreal and not try to convice the world the T-31e is a true combat vessel.

Part of me also think this will be the only way. But, it is not me, but HMG, who need to decide.

So at the top end we would be left with 6 T-45 and 8 T-26. Being optimistic that could give up 3 of the former and four of the latter available at a given time. ..

This exercise is important I agree. There are 2 CVs. So, how about assigning "1 T45 and 2 T26 each" in normal operation, and share the maintenance and training cycle. (CV can alway deploy with 1 T45 and 2 T26). This will leave 4 T45 and 4 T26 free for other tasks. Among them, we need 2 T26 for TAPS (which is a on-call ready task, as I believe and not needing 3 for rotation). Then 4 T45 and 2 T26 will provide 2 to be deployed. May be 1 for NATO, and 1 for "east of Suez". While using the "UK-Floreals" for APT-N/S and Indian ocean.

[NickC]

You need a lot more than 1" of armour to stop even a 250lb bomb let alone a current generation mach3+ ASM. The shock damage alone would wreck the vessel hit even before we get to rupturing the hull. To be effective against possible threats we would have to add at least four times as much. Yes sufficient armour would mitigate some damage, which is why the USN brought back the Iowas in the 1980s and introduced Kevlar on many of its vessels to stoop splinters and small calibre rounds. It was thought the BBs could shrug off hits form the heavy Russian ASMs, get into gunnery range and blow a Kirov, for example to hell and back. As it stands, no escort can expect to survive a hit from a current generation Russian or Chinese high speed, heavy ASM or a heavy Torpedo. The impact, shock and explosive damage would leave the vessels simply trying to stay afloat long enough for the crew to get off.

I do get the point regarding steel that is too thin being used on current naval vessels. I am sure some very well paid people have done a risk assessment based on dubious data and concluded there is no risk to a vessels constructed using such materials with no thought to saving weight or money in a given design.

Thanks for input to my original post, must emphasise that as said the use of thicker steel plate in build of frigates/destroyers would in no way stop a 250lb bomb or a Brahmas, talked of mitigation several times so as to give ship chance survive and capable of taking damage and continuing to fight from a non fatal strike.

Lets play a very simplistic what if scenario, T26 comes under attack from a Brahmas, Sea Ceptor works as advertised but due to the Mach 2.5 closing speed intercept very close in and when the Brahmas breaks up the propellant tank with its massive kinetic energy breaks through hull and ends in cabin as a massive fireball. Internal build using 4mm thin steel plate and though the highly sophisticated damage control activates with its highly pressurized water sprinkler system to spray atomized demineralized water with its limited supply it is overwhelmed and before the damage control party can get to scene the 4mm steel plate reaches its melt point and fire expands out of control and ship lost. Alternative is that ship uses 16mm steel plate and with four times mass able to survive the vital few extra seconds enabling the damage control party to reach fire and eventually contain it. Above, I don't know the thickness of the Swedish thin steel plate specified for the T26, though have seen 6.5mm quoted for the QE2 flight deck and 4mm used in commercial world for the giant hotel cruisers superstructures, so don't think figures will be far off.

You would have hoped but very much doubt that the MOD had built half a dozen or so samples of T26 build structure in various thicknesses sizes and types of steel plate and on test range exploded 250lb bombs and rocket engines to determine which has the best survivability after trade off for cost and viability.

My contention being post WWII with the demise of big guns the free lunch of thin plated steel warships and no armour as an acceptable risk is over, though bombs never went away, soft kill mostly negated the ASM, the balance of power is changing with AI homing heads of ASM as LRASM and USN recently funding an additional $119M for a new homing head for Tomahawk ASM and sure Chinese and Russian will have equivalent, negating soft kill making ships more vulnerable.

[shark bait]

So is there any value in having the Leander with it's quiet but slow electrics vs a noisier Arrowhead 140 if both had a tail (or eve a hull mounted sonar)?

I'm sure there is some value yes, but realistically a frigate held at readiness in Southampton is in no position to respond rapidly to an event in Scotland, whereas Merlin and P8 are. TAPS is a bigger deal at the moment because we don't have any MPA's.

The real value of an ASW frigate is to escort the carriers, and on top of that they will also find some use in UK waters.

You think there is not task in inner layer for ASW.

There is, but that's not what CAPTAS is for.

Typically within the inner layer platforms would use their hull sonars, or a much simpler towed array.

[dmereifield]

So at the top end we would be left with 6 T-45 and 8 T-26. Being optimistic that could give up 3 of the former and four of the latter available at a given time. If the Carrier is on duty then that would leave 1 and 2 resectfully available for other duties, but retaining one of the T-26 in UK waters means we have one of each left. That allows the RN to carry out a maximum of two standing tasks with a warship. Which should these be?

Not being snarky, but why do you think that the carriers will have 2 T45 in the escort group? This sounds optimistic

[donald_of_tokyo]

You think there is not task in inner layer for ASW.

There is, but that's not what CAPTAS is for.
Typically within the inner layer platforms would use their hull sonars, or a much simpler towed array.

But, I am NOT talking about (full) CAPTAS-4, but about CAPTAS-4CI or even CAPTAS-2. (I understand CAPTAS-4CI is a 4's-VDS with 2's-TASS?).

They are small sisters of CAPTAS-4, and are used for 2nd-rate ASW ships, such as FTI, Nansen-class, Malaysian light frigate, and may be some other light frigates.

[Lord Jim]

So at the top end we would be left with 6 T-45 and 8 T-26. Being optimistic that could give up 3 of the former and four of the latter available at a given time. If the Carrier is on duty then that would leave 1 and 2 resectfully available for other duties, but retaining one of the T-26 in UK waters means we have one of each left. That allows the RN to carry out a maximum of two standing tasks with a warship. Which should these be?

Not being snarky, but why do you think that the carriers will have 2 T45 in the escort group? This sounds optimistic

I did day I was being optimisitc or at least trying. To be honest I think the carrier will deploy with one of each as standard.

[benny14]

I did day I was being optimisitc or at least trying. To be honest I think the carrier will deploy with one of each as standard.

Standing tasks:

Carrier - 2 Type 26 / 2 Type 45
CASD - 1 Type 26
Gulf - 1 Type 31
FRE - 1 Type 31

The rest in refit, maintenance or training.

Very achievable within a 19/20 escort number. The carrier escort will flex depending on the task and risk. One Type 26 and one Type 45 will highly likely be the regular compliment. This will definitely allow us to occasionally do other deployments such as SNMG2.