Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Well what if the RFI was altered to reduce the capability requirements, so no Sea Ceptor ever, no sonar ever, medium calibre gun, FFBNW CIWS, able to operate Wildcat sized helicopter, removing any growth potential, reducing the budget a maximum of £175m per vessel and so on. The MDP no longer calls it an escort or combat vessel, instead calling it the T-31e Global Patrol Vessel to go with the T-26 Global Combat Ship bring a family these into the picture.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well what if the RFI was altered to reduce the capability requirements, so no Sea Ceptor ever, no sonar ever, medium calibre gun, FFBNW CIWS, able to operate Wildcat sized helicopter, removing any growth potential, reducing the budget a maximum of £175m per vessel and so on. The MDP no longer calls it an escort or combat vessel, instead calling it the T-31e Global Patrol Vessel to go with the T-26 Global Combat Ship bring a family these into the picture.
1: I think it is a Floreal-like ship, added with CIWS. At least, France (Floreal) and USA (USCG cutters) have similar kind of ships, and therefore it will work well as a presence ship.

2: As lightly armed, the sea-going days will also improve. Sea-going-days of "active escort" and "active OPV" is 180 and 240-300 days, respectively (or 1.5 times larger). If a "Floreal-like" can have a sea-going-days 1.33 times larger (240 days), 3 ships can replace that of 4 T23GPs.

3: Therefore, I think "1 more T26 and 3 new Floreal-like" will be good. Cost-wise, it will be 1.25B GBP with;
- 1 more T26 will cost 750M GBP in unit cost only, but I guess efficiency savings of 100M GBP may be there. (650M GBP)
- Then the 3 Floreal-like can be budgeted as 600M GBP in total. It could be either "USCG Heritage-class cutter based" or "BAE Khareef based". The design change is minimal, and I guess the unit cost can be 150-175M GBP (with 75-150M GBP design+initial cost).

4: This plan is flexible for future.
- If money increases in future, adding 1 more T26 (10th hull) can be an option.
- If further cut comes out, the only thing that can be cut is the 9th T26 (as the 3 Floreal-like has already been built). If the T26's number become less than 8, I think RN will need to order another OPVs to "keep the yard active", wasting another 250M (1 year) or 500M GBP (2 year TOBA equivalent) money.

On this regard, current "5 T31e first" + "8 T26 later" has a risk on future cut. As there is not good place to cut on T26 program, RN shall be forced to do cuts in other place, (such as putting PoW in extended readiness or even disband her.)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Well what if the RFI was altered to...
OK, thx for the clarification.
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Matching vessels to roles is I believe the only way to avoid getting half arsed classes for the T31e which make up numbers in certain warship categories, but in reality are a waste of money.

Outside the CSG Escort Role, TAPS (and broader North Atlantic ASW role) and FRE, which will be the territory of the T45/T26, I think there are 5 areas where a new class is needed, FIGS, WIGS, GiGS (Med and Mid Atlantic Patrol), HAGS (Horn Of Africa anti piracy) and BaGS (Persian Gulf Escort).

I’d argue that BaGS is the odd one out given the threat level, so take that out. HAGS has a higher threat level than the rest given pirates / terrorist threat from fast boats, but not significant enough to require a new class.

WIGS has a significant HADR requirement, but when coupled with a regular RFA deployment no need for a new class.

As such I’d argue that for FIGS, WIGS, GiGS and HAGS an extended River Class (Sloop) with a Wildcat / UAV hangar and a CIWS is enough. So why do more? Call it £125mn per ship and build 4 under licence at Appledore.

Take the remaining £750mn and either make it stretch to another T26, or add it to say the £400mn budget for the 3rd FSS and build 2 of the extended San Giusto class LPDs we’ve been discussing on the FSS thread (perhaps with CAMM and Artisan) to fulfil more global roaming Patrol roles (and supporting amphibious ops as needed).
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:there are 5 areas where a new class is needed, FIGS, WIGS, GiGS (Med and Mid Atlantic Patrol), HAGS (Horn Of Africa anti piracy) and BaGS (Persian Gulf Escort).

I’d argue that BaGS is the odd one out given the threat level, so take that out
Although the charitable use of the monies thus saved (and you are quite right to take BaGS out, leaving the four) is hard to disagree with, the whole idea of building warships for an exact fit with peace time tasks is flawed, sorry to say.
- even USCG ships (optimised, in the main, for spending max number of days out at sea, every year) have wartime tasks and that has cost money upfront (e.g. the Legend Class carries a full EW suite)

The only exception I would make is the the (UK) EZ patrols, and those ships we have ordered already. The fact that we paid too much for what we are getting is down to other reasons (and we have amply covered those reasons on various threads, so will not get into it here).
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the whole idea of building warships for an exact fit with peace time tasks is flawed, sorry to say.
Agreed - if we were to take that to the extreme, we would never build any proper warships!

The T31, it seems to me IS a warship built for peacetime tasking (or at least, an attempt at building such). In everyday use, lightly armed and equipped, and thus operable by a smaller crew, but built to sufficient standard and with sufficient space/ accommodation/ margin to add crew, weapons and other systems at relatively short notice should it be deemed necessary. In addition to being FTR Phalanx/ Decoys/ Sonar and with sufficient space for TA, SSM etc, I would feel happier if the budget allowed for Mk 41 cells to be added at build, even if they are never filled with anything. However, in view of the expected limited life expectancy of this first batch of ships in RN use, it may have been deemed acceptable to not fit them at build.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

The Type 31 may well be able to perform many useful tasks in peacetime and at a much cheaper price than sending a ‘full-fat’ frigate to monitor Somali pirates, chase down drug runners in the Caribbean or fly the flag for ‘Global Britain’ in Singapore and the Far-east.
However in war it will have to fill the shoes of Type 26 numbers 9 - 13, because if the Type 31s don’t, or can’t, what will?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote:in view of the expected limited life expectancy of this first batch of ships in RN use, it may have been deemed acceptable to not fit them at build.
this is why I am coming to the idea that this a 1.25 billion pound experiment to see if someone else can build a semi complex warship. And if it works then a more complex batch 2 set of ships will be ordered with proper time and money for planning and build will be issued. This is why for me it is important that the RN/MOD set out from the start that the new ships will have BAE - CMS and Artisan radars for fleet commonality and logistics

This is why I would like to see Team 31 come up with a 130m design with said systems above and a light armament of something like 12 camm 1 x 76 mm and 4x 30mm plus a hangar for a Merlin ( I would still like full width hangar for 2 Helicopters)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Simon82 wrote:However in war it will have to fill the shoes of Type 26 numbers 9 - 13, because if the Type 31s don’t, or can’t, what will?
Indeed, but war rarely starts without some period of extreme tension beforehand - the point is that if the T31 is FTR certain additional systems, then they can be "bolted-on" during that period (it seems to be routine and very quick for Phalanx and I suspect that it would likewise be a relatively simple operation for surface decoys). Sonar and SSTD might take a little longer (might take a few days in dry-dock, even), but would probably be doable in weeks, rather than months (including CMS integration etc). Mk 41 could simply be filled with whatever missile systems are deemed appropriate, with appropriate CMS patches being applied in hours/ days. The other salient point is that this form of upgrading can all be passed-off as "routine maintenance/ planned upgrades" or preparation for everyday operations/ training and thus not contribute to the sense that the nation is starting mobilisation.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:in view of the expected limited life expectancy of this first batch of ships in RN use
Yes, that RN service life expectancy (and selling them then) has taken me to the same conclusion as Tempest
Tempest414 wrote: And if it works then a more complex batch 2 set of ships will be ordered
except that I believe there will be batches for more specialised roles, e.g.
- with tail
- with mission deck maxed out and an enlarged work deck under the helo "pad"... that is meant as a dimunative; not to be derogative :) ... so that any task force needing it can have globally self-deploying MCM capability attached
... may be something else; where is my lateral thinking hat today?
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote:The other salient point is that this form of upgrading can all be passed-off as "routine maintenance/ planned upgrades" or preparation for everyday operations/ training and thus not contribute to the sense that the nation is starting mobilisation.
Or if it dose kick off fitted under a UOR

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:warship built for peacetime tasking
um... sounds useful, a bit like a fire blanket that can’t be used on fires...
ArmChairCivvy wrote:building warships for an exact fit with peace time tasks is flawed
I would generally agree, but these roles are fairly permanent and the approach I’m suggesting is building Patrol ships (minor warships if you must) at a price so that the money can be saved for real flexible warships (and saving said ships from tastings where they are wasted).
”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

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 »

Simon82 wrote:However in war it will have to fill the shoes of Type 26 numbers 9 - 13, because if the Type 31s don’t, or can’t, what will?
As the cost of T31e amounts only for 2 T26s, we must not compare 5 T26 vs 5 T31e. Whether 5 T31 can do something "as useful as 2 T26" is the only question we shall have. This cut has been done in 2015, it is an old story, sorry to say.
Caribbean wrote:Indeed, but war rarely starts without some period of extreme tension beforehand - the point is that if the T31 is FTR certain additional systems, then they can be "bolted-on" during that period ...
But a good manual and experience must exist. So, the 5 T31s must be equipped very biased. For example, 3 hull as a Floreal-like (even without CAMM, but only CIWS), and 2 hull as all the FTR added (CAMM, hull sonar, torpedo defense, and even CAPTAS2 or so).
Mk 41 could simply be filled with whatever missile systems are deemed appropriate, with appropriate CMS patches being applied in hours/ days.
Too much exaggeration, sorry. Introducing new weapon kit is not that easy. Even if the hull 4 and 5 already has it, "CMS patches" to the hull 1-3 will at least need a few weeks of testing and shake down, including the training of the crew.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the whole idea of building warships for an exact fit with peace time tasks is flawed, sorry to say.
Caribbean wrote:Agreed - if we were to take that to the extreme, we would never build any proper warships!
T31e (as Leander) is far from useless in war time. An asset with 12 CAMM with Artisan and a CIWS with ESM/decoy kits, good sea keeping and Wildcat handling, built to NATO frigate standard, can surely fight. Of course, it cannot be as good as T45/T26, but it is 3 time cheaper, (we are getting 5 T31 out of 2 T26 equivalent costs), so it is not a problem.

Invincible CVS is not as capable as Nimitz super carrier, no problem.

In short:
-- In Peace Time : A T31 is as useful as a T26/T45. Good.
-- In War Time: Many scenario that "2 T31s" on theater (which requires 5 T31) relieving "1 T26" (which requires 3 T26) from the backend tasks, to be sent to the front-line, can be easily imagined. Not so bad.

So, as far as the T31 number remains minor fraction (say 5 out of 19), T31 is useful at BOTH peacetime and wartime.

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 »

Figure of merits of 3 "cost-neutral" options:

Here I provide my assessment of 3 cost-neutral options on T31e. I assume, in wartime surge, 50% of the assets can be sent. In peace time, 25% of the assets are deployed "far from Britain" (=other than TAPS and FRE). (number from fact)

Option-1: 5 T31 (as Leander)
- peace time: provide 5x0.25 = 1.25 hull for "far from Britain" standing tasks
- war time: 5x0.5 = 2.5 T31e can cover other tasks (*1) to enable 1 (or 2) more T26/45 to the front line.
(*1; the back-end logistic fleet, FRE, or inevitable GuardShip roles, say, Persian gulf)

Option-2: 2 T26 (3 less hull)
- peace time: lose 3x0.25 = 0.75 hull for "far from Britain" standing tasks (*2)
(*2: RN will need to cut one of those tasks (say, a T45 in NATO fleet or Argyll at far-east)
- war time: increase 2x0.5 = 1 more T26 to the front line.

Option-3: 1 T26 and 3 "Floreal-like"
- peace time: One of the "far from Britain" standing tasks will be covered by "Floreal like". (I think it is doable).
- war time: increase 0.5 more T26 on theater on surge, and the "Floreal like" may replace FRE to enable 1 more T26/45 in front-line.

---------------------
As you know, my favorite is Option-3, but Option-1 (current default) itself has its own rationale. :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Option-1: 5 T31 (as Leander)
Option-2: 2 T26 (3 less hull)
Option-3: 1 T26 and 3 "Floreal-like"
Very nice Donald :thumbup:

How about Option-4:?
- Cut T26 down to 6 (or even 5)
- Cancel T31 programme or merge with the MHPC
- Combine T31/T26 budgets to get 11-12 hulls that can be upgraded over time
- Give the T26 lite's a T31 spec to get them in the water but include HMS/2087

Best option?

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 »

Thanks.
Poiuytrewq wrote:How about Option-4:?
- Cut T26 down to 6 (or even 5)
- Cancel T31 programme or merge with the MHPC
- Combine T31/T26 budgets to get 11-12 hulls that can be upgraded over time
- Give the T26 lite's a T31 spec to get them in the water but include HMS/2087

Best option?
For clarity, you are proposing to use 1.25B GBP (from T31) and 1.5B GBP (from cutting 2 T26s) = 2.75B GBP to build "11-12 hulls that can be upgraded over time" ? Average cost will be 220M GBP or so, even less than that of T31e.

If the "T26 lite" is this 220M GBP average ship, including HMS/2087 will mean no gun, no CAMM, and just a CIWS. I think I am misunderstanding you proposal, sorry...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think I am misunderstanding you proposal, sorry...
No need to apologise, my fault for not being clear as usual.

Without getting bogged down in numbers as we are all using educated quesswork to estimate cost, I am proposing an Option 4 whereby the T26 (unaltered) order in stopped at 6 or possibly even 5 hulls.

This would, based on my figures free up either £1.72bn if 6x unaltered T26's were built or £2.58bn if only 5x unaltered T26's were built.

So, with the £1.72bn and £1.25bn (T31) combined that would equal roughly £3bn for 5x Frigates at £600m unit price.

That's 6x unaltered T26's and 5x T26 lites at £600m each.

Or,

5x unaltered T26's and 6x T26 lites at £640m each.

Why stop there :D

If a change of direction was decided upon as being the best way forward before ordering any more T26's after the 3x already in build the pot would stand at around £5.55bn.

This would provide 3x unaltered T26's and 9x T26 lites at £615m each.

That's 12 proper Frigates.

This is before any efficiency savings is added in by removing the artificially slowed build schedule.

Is it clear now?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

It is the "Upgraded over time", suggestion I am having a problem with. The idea is very sound and something we should be doing with more programmes, getting the vanilla hardware into the hands of the Soldiers and Sailors and then following a well planned programme of incremental improvements over the life of the platform. As I said great in theory. But what seems to happen is that these upgrades and improvements are put aside year on year until we are forced to conduct a major programme to simple reduce obsolescence that is very expensive and cannot be carried out on the whole fleet. The platforms that cannot be upgrades are sacrificed to save money and/or contribute to the cost of the upgrade programme. We have seen this time and time again, so what is stopping a future Government doing the same with the proposed T-26 "Lite", at a future date, once again reducing numbers in the escort force.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:um... sounds useful, a bit like a fire blanket that can’t be used on fires
..... and now read the rest of what I said
Repulse wrote: I’m suggesting is building Patrol ships (minor warships if you must) at a price so that the money can be saved for real flexible warships (and saving said ships from tastings where they are wasted)
A surefire way, if ever there was one, of guaranteeing that, when things get nasty, you don't have any proper warships available to boost frontline numbers. Building decent hulls and equipping them simply (so they are cheap to run in peacetime) will save you around 4-5 years in that process.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Too much exaggeration, sorry. Introducing new weapon kit is not that easy. Even if the hull 4 and 5 already has it, "CMS patches" to the hull 1-3 will at least need a few weeks of testing and shake down, including the training of the crew.
If you were to try it for the first time, at the point of need, then quite possibly. However, as they say, practice makes perfect. I would assume that at least some of the money spent as part of the T26 project on shore-based test rigs has gone into a software to hardware test integration suite, precisely so that the upgrade process can be simulated and debugged to the point where it becomes an almost trivial task. That would be in addition to the manufacturers own integration testing suite, prior to release to the customer. At the point where you are going to install onto the end platform, there should be no real surprises.

Testing (or to be more accurate, confidence building, since there should be no surprises in what is, in effect, safety-critical software) and training will take time, yes, but this would be as part of the normal working up of the ship for active-duty status, not down-time at the dockside.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:2 hull as all the FTR added (CAMM, hull sonar, torpedo defense, and even CAPTAS2 or so).
I suspect that a great deal will be tested on static test rigs (particularly anything that is specified as FTR), but I would also hope, over time, that much of that testing takes place in situ, with a rolling program of upgrades to the T31's.
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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think I am misunderstanding you proposal, sorry...
No need to apologise, my fault for not being clear as usual.

Without getting bogged down in numbers as we are all using educated quesswork to estimate cost, I am proposing an Option 4 whereby the T26 (unaltered) order in stopped at 6 or possibly even 5 hulls.

This would, based on my figures free up either £1.72bn if 6x unaltered T26's were built or £2.58bn if only 5x unaltered T26's were built.

So, with the £1.72bn and £1.25bn (T31) combined that would equal roughly £3bn for 5x Frigates at £600m unit price.

That's 6x unaltered T26's and 5x T26 lites at £600m each.

Or,

5x unaltered T26's and 6x T26 lites at £640m each.

Why stop there :D

If a change of direction was decided upon as being the best way forward before ordering any more T26's after the 3x already in build the pot would stand at around £5.55bn.

This would provide 3x unaltered T26's and 9x T26 lites at £615m each.

That's 12 proper Frigates.

This is before any efficiency savings is added in by removing the artificially slowed build schedule.

Is it clear now?
What spec would your T26 light be?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:..... and now read the rest of what I said
I did, and whilst I agree all ships have utility during war, the problem I have is that the T31e isn’t it. It will be too complex a design to build in volume like the WW2 Flower class, and yes whilst you could upgrade it, it is much better to have more 1st rate ships in the first place given the numbers being discussed. A pimped MHPC would be better idea in my view is we wanted scalable platforms.

donald_of_tokyo, my view is an Option 5:

Expanding my comments above, combine the approx £400mn from the 3rd FSS and £1.25bn T31e budget and build:

- 4 “Avenger” extended River class Sloops (@£600mn)
- 2 small multi-role flat-tops, Kalaat Béni Abbès style, with Artisan and CAMM
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote:It will be too complex a design to build in volume like the WW2 Flower class,
OK - you clearly read something into my post that I didn't intend - I'm not suggesting that these are the quick build ships that we would need if we were to be involved in a prolonged conflict (and whether that is likely to happen is a completely different discussion!). These are the hulls that we keep available for rapid upgrade, in the event that war looms, to cover the period before we can get ourselves organised to start building wartime frigates.. They need to be cheap to run in peace time, so that we can build and operate quite a lot of them, easy to upgrade (so preferably quite big) and built to at least half-way decent standards, so that they are of some utility once upgraded (and by that I mean, far more useful than a "pimped MHPC", whatever that is). The T31 seems to be a first stab in that direction.

I am fully in favour of building as many top-tier combatants as possible, but there are constraints on the budget, and any scheme that maximises the number of decent hulls in the water gets my vote.

On the other hand - the issue of "rapid-build" designs is a very interesting one, but would probably not pass the mods sniff test for discussion on this thread.

All I can say is that, if we do as was done in the past and adapt an existing design, then our next "wartime frigate" is probably going to look like a car ferry, or a wind turbine :D
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:this is why I am coming to the idea that this a 1.25 billion pound experiment to see if someone else can build a semi complex warship. And if it works then a more complex batch 2 set of ships will be ordered with proper time and money for planning and build will be issued.
I very much hope you are right and there is method is the madness.
Lord Jim wrote: It is the "Upgraded over time", suggestion I am having a problem with.
I have a problem with it too but we are where we are and we have to make the best of it. I think history will show that getting the maximum number of T26 hulls in the water is the wisest decision.
Lord Jim wrote:We have seen this time and time again, so what is stopping a future Government doing the same with the proposed T-26 "Lite", at a future date, once again reducing numbers in the escort force.
We have but what's to stop a future Government cancelling hulls 7 and 8 and replacing them with 2x T31's? What would we have then? 12 escorts and 12 patrol vessels. What's the greater risk?
dmereifield wrote:What spec would your T26 light be?
Good question, hard to answer. The difficulty is trying to estimate the amount of money that can be saved by speeding up the build schedule. I think it would be considerable.

The figures above are without the efficiency savings added in. I think we could still end up with 12 very credible Frigates but as a baseline I would expect a T26 lite to have at least, 24 CAMM, 8x Mk41, Artisan, 76mm and 2x 30mm's plus 2x Phalanx FFBNW.

One question that isn't often talked about is how much cheaper were the T26 GP's supposed to be when compared to the T26 ASW's? Anyone got any idea?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Given the uncertainty and funding issues, I still believe the best option is to forget the T-31e, accelerate the T-26 by a couple of years, use the money allocated for T-31e to increase the T-26 batch one programme to nine hull and endure they come out fully equipped. Then once the programme is fully underway look to extending it past nine, initially with say three more to a revised Batch 2 design using lessons learned to reduce cost etc. and then move on to Batch 3 which would initially supplement the T-35s and eventually replace them increasing the number of AAW Destroyers over time to say eight. So the first T-26 would enter actual service in 2022 and the last Batch 3 entering service towards the end of the 2030s. Yes the number of escorts in service would drop but we would have a sustained warship building capability and a RN that was properly equipped. I haven't go the time or energy to do any charts showing when ship are retired and when their replacement shit the water over this period but I am sure someone could work it out.

Post Reply