Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

Reading that notice shows that the US has adopted the UK's legendary Red Tape Gobbledygook standard when it comes to the release of information.

[Halidon]

Reading that notice shows that the US has adopted the UK's legendary Red Tape Gobbledygook standard when it comes to the release of information.

Not sure how you mean, maybe I read too many of them but it seems fairly clear to me. DSCA is giving notice to Congress that State has approved the FMS of 50 Block IB Baseline 2 upgrade kits. They give general information about what the proposed Sale includes, what the program cost is estimated to be, why State approved, and contact information if Congress wants more information. All pretty standard.

[Lord Jim]

It was providing information like "There will be no adverse impact on US readiness as a result of the proposed sale", that I was joking referring to. I keep forgetting that in the US you have to have an arrow and label on a gun telling the owner which end to point at the target otherwise if someone shoots themselves the manufacturer will get sued.

[Ron5]

It was providing information like "There will be no adverse impact on US readiness as a result of the proposed sale", that I was joking referring to. I keep forgetting that in the US you have to have an arrow and label on a gun telling the owner which end to point at the target otherwise if someone shoots themselves the manufacturer will get sued.

I think that means the sale will not affect the US military's stock being held in reserve. IOW it's not being sourced out of the reserves or taking away from future reserves.

[Lord Jim]

It makes sense and I understand, what I was getting at was the way it was phrased, I have a severe aversion to long winded and legalese phrasing of simple points that is all.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I have a severe aversion to long winded and legalese phrasing of simple points

Me too, but in this instance the wording comes out of a (mandated) tick-box exercise.

[Lord Jim]

I hate "Tick box", exercises as well. They always miss something.

[abc123]

I hate "Tick box", exercises as well. They always miss something.

Well, it's a legally mandated thing so...

[Tempest414]

So if we work on the point of view that we will have upgraded Phalanx fitted to type 45 , 26 & 31 making total of 33 units.

12 x type 45
16 x type 26
5 x type 31

this would leave 17 units for the rest of fleet which makes the request for 50 kits sound a bit low when we will / could need 6 for the two Carriers which then leaves 11

P,s was only me who got a warning

[Poiuytrewq]

was only me who got a warning

Let's try and find a solution rather than get you banned

[Repulse]

Sunday Times quoting “experts” who say the Albions are safe but at least 2 T23s will be scrapped. Anyone has any idea when we should expect an MDP update?

[ArmChairCivvy]

at least 2 T23s will be scrapped

Does it say whether they are the same two that have been alongside as "training ships"?

[Lord Jim]

I hate "Tick box", exercises as well. They always miss something.

Well, it's a legally mandated thing so...

I just hate forms

[serge750]

Well it does seem that if the RN lose the tied up t23 it may be the best of the worst options

Well i can hear the politicians now that when we get the 5 T31 "we are growing the navy blah blah blah" never mind about cutting it to shreds in this decade

[Repulse]

at least 2 T23s will be scrapped

Does it say whether they are the same two that have been alongside as "training ships"?

Thought currently it was a T23 and a T45 (HMS Daring) tied up? Didn’t say which ones - but would have thought Argyll + Lancaster and maybe Iron Duke.

[Tempest414]

they will be sold and not scraped a number of navies were given notice some time back

[SW1]

Maybe 2 type 45s was rumoured save a lot more money than type 23 don’t need to upgrade engines.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If T23, do not need to modify CMS, SAM, which will be also expensive.
Diesel gen is also being replaced, but I’m afraid it’s already done?

[SW1]

Donald

Tip of the iceberg I think. But once they go it’s hard to see them coming back, makes type 31 look even less credible may as well just increase type 26 numbers to 9.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald

Tip of the iceberg I think. But once they go it’s hard to see them coming back, makes type 31 look even less credible may as well just increase type 26 numbers to 9.

Thanks. Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.

T45 engine replace cost vs T23 CMS/CAMM replace cost, I think T23's are more expensive. This is my comment. Therefore, disbanding 2 T23 "now" = before upgrade will be better than 2 T45. This is my point, but I think you have other idea?


Completely independent issue, but I think MDP cutting 2 "almost unused" escorts will be "good". The cut it self is bad. But, if any cut is to happen, it must be clear to the audience. Now RN is not using 19 escorts, only 17 (or 18). We are pretending it is "temporary" and just caused by man-power crisis and will be handled soon.

But, I think the man-power crisis will not be handled within a decade. Actually, HMG/MOD/RN is trying it for the past decade. Newest promise for increase in man-power on SDSR2015 failed. I'm not saying they are NOT trying hard, I am just saying even with trying hard, it is not easy.

So, just like RN did with Carrier Strike, I think MDP shall declare, "RN is to gap 2 frigates for ~10 years (until ~2028) simply because of lack of money. In place, 8 T26 and 5 T31 program cost was secured to fill the gap by 2028". To the audience, "RN is clearly sacrificing, so no more cut can take place". In reality, RN loses almost nothing, but a redundancy hull (or two hulls).

[serge750]

Cant' really see T45 being sold since the government is committed to carrier battle group now....., well I hope not anyways.

[Lord Jim]

What I want is for an HONEST paper to be the result of the MDP rather than the usual pile of horse spin. Losing two T-23s early has been mentioned many times and would not hurt the RN. As has been said before the RN needs to concentrate on getting its manpower issues eased so that it can use what it already has. Mind you I think keeping the Albions is not the best idea but they are protected by the "We still need to be able to storm the Normandy beaches", brigade, but that is for another thread.

[abc123]

But with 2 ships less that RN don't use anyway, manning issues will remain just like they were.

[Keithdwat579]

Exactly, how much does it cost to keep them at low readiness? I'm going to assume not much, there would be no point in scrapping theses escorts if they don't cost much, and they're not active so hardly a burden on manpower. It doesn't cost much to keep them, and I'd rather have them there of they are needed in a time of crisis than to not have them(but HMG hasn't really gone for that logic in the past).

[ArmChairCivvy]

not active so hardly a burden on manpower. It doesn't cost much to keep them

The most recent example of what is costs to bring back a vessel to service, once it has been left "just to sit there" for a few years, is from the Albion class
- next time around the "inactive" vessel will have a crew of 40

Picking some numbers from Guto Bepp (answers to Parliamentary Qs Feb- March):
"The average annual running cost for a Type 23 Frigate and a Type 45 Destroyer is approximately £11 million and £13.5 million respectively"
- running costs should mean marginal costs, w/o capital costs, but no guarantees

whereas
"The Ministry of Defence has been allocated £12.7 million in 2018-19 for essential EU exit preparations. This will fund preserving three Off-Shore Patrol Vessels, should they be needed to control and enforce UK waters and fisheries"
- so that is £4.2 mln per vessel per year (much simpler ships than T23s/ 45s) when it is done in a way that you can shanghai a crew and put it on a ship, to make it ready to sail

But you can also put it in terms of providing AD cover for a TF costs the same as being in heightened readiness... to count more fish