Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[abc123]

Yes, such cuts were expected, it would be surprising if they have kept the 8.

[Caribbean]

Hmm - keeping my powder dry on this one, but could possibly be seen as a bit of politicking when taken in conjunction with the "justify why we should keep tier one status" leak today. Maybe a shot across the MOD's bows in the "sit down and keep quiet, or we'll take away your toys" vein?

[dmereifield]

Hmm - keeping my powder dry on this one, but could possibly be seen as a bit of politicking when taken in conjunction with the "justify why we should keep tier one status" leak today. Maybe a shot across the MOD's bows in the "sit down and keep quiet, or we'll take away your toys" vein?

Even that would be depressing since it would indicate a lack of desire to even find sufficient resources to paper over the cracks, let alone make improvements

[seaspear]

I have read that both the types 45 and 26 are to have an upgrade in internal armour or increased protection was this always in the planning or result of some assessment?

[donald_of_tokyo]

- The in depth detail of the report does state which ones are highest priority, so its not ignoring it.

Where are this? In the PDF, at the conclusion, it is just written on "Navy --> Army --> AirForce --> Cyber" order and not looking like in priority order.

Within Navy, they say
1- ASW (escorts and Astute, with UAV-ASW kits in view)
2- escorting CVTF by our own
3- keeping LPDs
4- more wide use of TLAM
5- MCMV, standing tasks, and so on

If this is in priority order (which I think is), it means we shall be happy to cut, MHC, Argus, HADR assets, standing tasks, to improve ASW and CVTF.

If there is no increase in budget, which was stated many times actually, "priority" is this meaning.

[Lord Jim]

With no extra money, the priority list mentioned is not one where you take a number of capabilities and simply place them in order. It is more a case of the top four will be retained and funded and the remainder will be lost. This goes across all three services and some very hard decisions are going to have to be made if what has been suggested is what actually happens. To achieve everything on the lists requires extra cash and more than any amount that has even been hinted at. Remember there is the need for between £2.5Bn and £4Bn a year to cover the already underfunded Equipment programme. If we do not want to lose too many capabilities then we have to lose capacity and the Armed Forces will have to be further reduced. Salami slicing is the worst result that is possible as a recommendation resulting from the MDP. Clear and logical, hard idea to get my head around, cut will have to be made.

An example would be the Royal Marines. They would be retained but £ Commando Brigade would cease to exist, with two commandoes being combined with two Parachute Battalions to form a Light Rapid Response Brigade. The maximum sized amphibious operation planned for would be of a Battalion but usually Company sized more usual and this would be achieved by a combination of sea borne and vertical lift. The Commandos and Paras would compliment each other have definite specialities but also being crossed trained to do the majority of tasks. Having the Para's pathfinders in the same brigade has obvious benefits for example. The Roll for the RFA would be to transport land forces to the theatre of operations, not conduct opposed landings, and any successor to the Bays would need to take this into account, with a common class probably replacing these and the Albions. In fact many operations could be launched for vessels like the T-26 or even T-31e. This might appear as heresy to many on here but the MoD will have to think outside of both the box and its comport zone of no extra money is not forthcoming as it cannot even afford its existing plans let alone anything new.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Remember there is the need for between £2.5Bn and £4Bn a year to cover the already underfunded Equipment programme.

If the NAO assesses EP over its whole 10-yr span...
- how does the figure coming out turn into a yearly one?
- remembering that the 4 bn was their "sort of Best Case"

[Jake1992]

Remember there is the need for between £2.5Bn and £4Bn a year to cover the already underfunded Equipment programme.

If the NAO assesses EP over its whole 10-yr span...
- how does the figure coming out turn into a yearly one?
- remembering that the 4 bn was their "sort of Best Case"

Iv seen that it's been said there is a short fall of between £4bn and £20bn over this 10 year precurment faze. Now that could of gone up as this was stated st the beginning of last year.

I'd say to be on the safe side the MOD really needs at least £2bn extra a year just to stand still

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'd say to be on the safe side the MOD really needs at least £2bn extra a year just to stand still

To paraphrase that: the order of magnitude at which keeping the equipment pgrms moving has meant robbing the other MoD budget lines.

The only way to pay for defence is through growth. Anyone can determine for themselves whether Brexit is helping or not (totally aside from the divorce bill). Here in the below chart we can see how China is pushing steady growth (of military expenditure) whereas Russia's and Saudi Arabia's have gone flatter than a pan cake (with the oil prices dipping, exc. now very lately... Venezuela and Libya together count for a 1 mln bpd shortfall, and it seems that OPEC, though aiming to fill that whole gap, only managed to agree 2/3s of it. Then again, what OPEC agrees and what really happens are not the same thing: I expect a free for all upping of the pumping, in the absence of agreed country quotas, which trend will be underpinned by the unbroken upwards trend in US production)
https://cloud.highcharts.com/embed/HklunXkRM/ compiled by the IISS

[RetroSicotte]

Where are this?

Its throughout the text, for example, they state that air defence is seen ass a priority investment for the Army.

If this is in priority order (which I think is), it means we shall be happy to cut, MHC, Argus, HADR assets, standing tasks, to improve ASW and CVTF.

If there is no increase in budget, which was stated many times actually, "priority" is this meaning.

This is incorrect, they called for an increase to 3% to fund these priorities. At no point did they say that there should be cuts, because there shouldn't be. The things already in service are priorities. The things requires are priorities.

It's not their place to tell the Government to cut essential things. They are making the case very clearly that the only sane option is an increase in budget.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Its throughout the text, for example, they state that air defence is seen ass a priority investment for the Army.

Thanks. So I guess I correctly read it in Navy part?

If this is in priority order (which I think is), it means we shall be happy to cut, MHC, Argus, HADR assets, standing tasks, to improve ASW and CVTF.
If there is no increase in budget, which was stated many times actually, "priority" is this meaning.

This is incorrect, they called for an increase to 3% to fund these priorities. At no point did they say that there should be cuts, because there shouldn't be. The things already in service are priorities. The things requires are priorities.
It's not their place to tell the Government to cut essential things. They are making the case very clearly that the only sane option is an increase in budget.

Which is not going to happen. There is no money. I presume there are many other reports saying "XX needs more investments". So, UK need to increase TAX.

Being serious, being strict, is something different. And Priority is ALWAYS there for cut, not for pure addition. Never. History tells so.

<detail>

My depression to this report comes from, it does not mention about more negative but critical issues ; how to keep the current plan = to fill the already existing budget gap. Without more money, RN will not be able to do what they "plan" to do now. If we let it go, what will happen?

MOD must struggle to get the "10-20B GBP for 10 years (1-2B GBP/year)", and maybe some more for sustainment. This is the top priority of anything listed here. And, if not, UK shall admit the reduction of its "influence" to world.

1: Leave south Atlantic un-covered (=ban APT-S, which is already done). Fingers crossed Argentina military will never come back.

2: Leave Caribbean ocean un-covered. Let the smugglers enjoy there life, and leave the region distress even if hit by Hurricane.

3: Leave the Persian gulf un-covered by MCMVs, ban Kipion escort deployments, but replace all of them with "eventual" deployment of UK-CVTF (maybe 6 months every 24 months).

4: Just forget all the "asian deployment" issues, because there is not enough escort to send there.


I think item-1 is already happening. Even with "10-20B GBP for 10 years", this will not come back.

Item-2 shall be retained, because with a single PSV and a River B2 can fill it "so-so well". But, it could be of "foreign aids". For example, say the fleet is for St. Vincent and Grenadines, Grenada, Bellies, etc. and NOT for UK BOTs?

"item-3" shall be considered seriously. CVTF is of great contribution. Balancing it by reducing "other contributions" is not surprise and even logical.

"item-4" will happen. I'm afraid it is related to RAN SEA5000 promotion. UK is rapidly losing its influence in this region, after they stop sending ships and MPA for FPDA a decade ago. If UK want to resume it, UK need to cut elsewhere, item-2 or 3. (item-1 is already cut).


This kind of serious report is needed, I think. Thinking only about "good things" (= adding more), makes me feel it is "unserious" report = depressing. For example, "if Asian deployment is NEEDED for post-Brexit free-trade issue, it shall be noted. If such free-trade issue is not a priority, then just stop sending ships there." This kind of argument is needed.

[jedibeeftrix]

With no extra money, the priority list mentioned is not one where you take a number of capabilities and simply place them in order.

An example would be the Royal Marines. They would be retained but £ Commando Brigade would cease to exist, with two commandoes being combined with two Parachute Battalions to form a Light Rapid Response Brigade. The maximum sized amphibious operation planned for would be of a Battalion but usually Company sized more usual and this would be achieved by a combination of sea borne and vertical lift. The Commandos and Paras would compliment each other have definite specialities but also being crossed trained to do the majority of tasks. Having the Para's pathfinders in the same brigade has obvious benefits for example. The Roll for the RFA would be to transport land forces to the theatre of operations, not conduct opposed landings, and any successor to the Bays would need to take this into account, with a common class probably replacing these and the Albions. In fact many operations could be launched for vessels like the T-26 or even T-31e. This might appear as heresy to many on here but the MoD will have to think outside of both the box and its comport zone of no extra money is not forthcoming as it cannot even afford its existing plans let alone anything new.

Is there a reason why we aren't looking to cull cap-badges of immobile LI before we look at butcher a truly useful capability.

[Tempest414]

It is the problem of being famous most of MPs in HMG don't know we have a Light Infantry it just the army to them

[benny14]

Remember there is the need for between £2.5Bn and £4Bn a year to cover the already underfunded Equipment programme.

Not sure where you got that number from.

It is between £4.9bn and £20.8bn. That means there needs to be roughly an increase of between £500m and £2bn a year.

“The Department’s Equipment Plan is not affordable. At present the affordability gap ranges from a minimum of £4.9bn to £20.8bn if financial risks materialise and ambitious savings are not achieved.”

[Repulse]

Williamson is going to “war” for £20bn over 10 years, this is just to fund what has already been planned. I think it will be tough but ultimately get it either now or when May goes next year and it becomes a Tory Leadership issue. That said, there is zero money for anything new including increasing global presence, cyber and space initiatives. This will need the U.K. to come up with a clear vision on its role in the MDP. My vote is for a maritime based global engagement strategy with high end ISTAR / Long Range Strike / Space assets coupled with a strong but lower readiness U.K. defence.

[Lord Jim]

Given how Government accounting is I will stick to my original figures as things rarely get better with time when it involves money.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Given how Government accounting is I will stick to my original figures as things rarely get better with time when it involves money.

That does undermine the fact(?) that you have been signalling as being/ to have been an insider to how the numbers are made up... before , or after the fact, no?

[Lord Jim]

No, well sort of, can't really go into in to it. Worked on programmes that were contently being messed around with, messing with timescales and having funding taken away, given back, reduced, it went on and on and on. Led to a cynical attitude but you would never guess.

[ArmChairCivvy]

programmes that were contently being messed around with, messing with timescales and having funding taken away, given back, reduced, it went on and on and on

I do recognise that (even from the outside) and feel for you.

[Poiuytrewq]

So if the Defence Secretary doesn't win the argument in Government are these options going to be back on the table?

image.jpg

[Repulse]

Still can’t see the government taking any of these options given pressures from within the Tory party and the US.

However this doesn’t mean the U.K. should do nothing, for example reported noises from RN officers from UDT 2018 are that it needs to get back to peer to peer ASW warfare. I’d still say there needs to be a global capability but perhaps at a lower scale but at a high quality.

This for me would mean for the RN:
- Go 10 full fat ASW T26s, ditch the T31e
- Bring both LPDs back into service to allow a RM Cdo to always be avilable for CSG operations
- Focus on globally deplorable MHPC Sloops vessels ultimately replacing OPVs
- Try and find cash to build extra SSNs after the SSBNs
- Look at forward basing via a two way exchange programme with CANZUK allies and also look at sharing forward based (such as Oman) with these allies.

For the Army, they should focus on globally deplorable “Elite” Air and Medium Battle Groups and on building 3 U.K. based low readiness Divisions.

For the RAF, they should cap the F35B purchase to 80 just for global carrier ops and then invest in designing a new 6th Generation Fighter / Bomber with partners (Japan for example).

[Tempest414]

For me HMG needs to do a deal with BAE which would allow 9 type 26s to be built for the 8 billion and then change the program from MHPC to multi mission corvette / sloop. This ship could be a Venari 95 Mk-3 as seen on the fantasy thread and its roles should look to cover

MCM
Hydrographic
ASW
Patrol

the first 3 tasks should be carried out with use of off board systems which should split something like

8 x MCM systems
3 x Hydrographic systems
6 x CAPTAS-1 ASW systems

As said before the patrol capability would come from the virtue of the ships size, systems and speed. I think we should have 16 to 18 of these ships which would replace the Hunt , Sandown , Echo and River classes this give us a useful fleet of

6 Type 45
9 type 26
5 type 31
18 Multi Mission corvettes

[Tempest414]

now if we had 18 Venari 95s I would look to use them like so

3 forward deployed on Kipion
3 forward deployed in the Asian - Pacific
4 deployed in home waters + 3 ships at rest or refit
1 Falklands Islands
1 AP-N
1 AP-S
2 deployed in the Med

I would also look to rotate crews each 4 months giving meaning back to join the Navy see the world

[shark bait]

Those are some good examples of the tasks that are well suited to a big simple platform like Venari.

Herein lies what is possibly the biggest issue with the T31, in a decades time it may well be superseded by a simpler cheaper platform.

The RN will have the T26 and T45 at the dirty business end, and Venari picking up the slack for everywhere else.

Beyond a decade there is no need for a low spec patrol frigate, so it must be a proper combatant, or it need to be merged with MHCP.

[Scimitar54]

now if we had 18 Venari 95s I would look to use them like so

3 forward deployed on Kipion
3 forward deployed in the Asian - Pacific
4 deployed in home waters + 3 ships at rest or refit

1 Falklands Islands
1 AP-N
1 AP-S
2 deployed in the Med

I would also look to rotate crews each 4 months giving meaning back to join the Navy see the world

You do not need anything like this number (even though it might be "nice to have").

More likely what would happen would be:-

The 3 x Kipion and 3 x Asia/Pacific would be rationalised down to (say 4) and if not forward based, would transit the Mediterranean on both outward and return voyages, so no "permanent" presence there would be required.

Likewise 4 x vessels in Home Waters and 3 in the Atlantic would similarly be rationalised down to (say 4), such that 1 forward based in the FI, 1 for APS and 2 for Home Waters/APN.

There would still be a need for 3 or 4 additional vessels alongside for Maintenance/Refit. No more than 11 or perhaps 12 would be required.

This is in fact how I see the Type 31 being used (although I believe that it should be capable of being used as a serious ASW asset should it be required).

The Crews would still "See the World". but could be partially rotated in traditional fashion at their home port.

Double crewing may make the most of limited "assets", but it is wasteful of "limited manpower" and means that there will be potentially less assets available in an emergency.