Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

SW1 wrote:So you’ve made my point and your own point for yourself. They haven’t won any work in years if there so efficient and capable then they would of contracts over the last 3 or 4 years but they haven’t.
That's an incredibly over-simplistic way to put it, I feel. Remember that Appledore was sustained for a time in the modern sense on the British orders for Echos 1 and 2, and HMS Scott. The yard becomes known for that, and also finds success equipping a whole other nation's navy, then suddenly that major customer just abandons them due to "budget concerns". Any yard would suffer. The Clyde would have too in the same way if they hadn't had TOBA.

(Forward notice from here on the post isn't really in response to your words directly so much as a general summary of thoughts on the whole thing.)

The issue is the MoD and Gov's refusal to actually use the assets they have available to them with proper planning. How can any shipyard function with such constant lack of planning and unwillingness to commit to anything? See - Portsmouth, and the Clyde costing more than it should on Rivers because lack of planning left the Clyde without a giant gap. The Glasgow yards were saying for years that Type 26 was ready to go any time they wanted, and Type 45 was meant to last a lot longer too.

This whole thing is an MoD/Gov side created fault. The yards are floundering, competing, and devouring one another in attempts to get whatever few things go out, and it's hurting everyone in the end. Yards close up or get sudden changes to inconsistent plans, the Royal Navy gets rushed and incomplete ship designs due to the inflated costs, the MoD has less or its budget, and people lose jobs.
I think the excitement here is people want to give work to someone other than BAE. That’s a different argument and comes back to the point there’s only enough work for one supplier, we’ve made our bed.

If people want to see investment in future ship systems in that part of the world then the money and backing should go to the Thales facility in Plymouth not appledore.
I don't really care who wins a contract, tbh. I'm not a BAE-apologist for their own role in creating issues (and they do have some) but I'm not someone who demonises them either. What matters to me more is the sustainment of industry in general. Via location, via skillsets, and via jobs.

Plymouth I think definitely has a good future as somewhere that all ships go for their upgrades, but I admit I am less read up on what Plymouth's real capabilities as a yard are.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting article in todays FT interviewing Admiral Sir Philip Jones.

https://www.ft.com/content/efe13b86-d50 ... e0dcf18713

These are most relevant quotes but the article in full is well worth reading. I have to say that the quality and accuracy of FT's defence articles is much better than average.

Last year the Royal Navy escorted ships from the Russian fleet close to UK waters on 33 separate occasions. Sir Philip said Russian activity was still on the rise with the numbers likely to be the same “if not higher” in 2018.

“They [Russia] are flexing their muscles on a global stage,” said Sir Philip. “We have to work very hard to understand their intent and to be able to track and cope with what they do. it’s a very significant development in British defence."

The problem for the Royal Navy is that with a dwindling number of frigates and destroyers — the number has fallen from 28 in 2005 to 19 this year — the need to urgently respond to Russian activity can leave the rest of the fleet stretched when it is facing so many tasks in other parts of the world.

(Speaking about the upcoming MDP)
Sir Philip said he could not “speculate on whether we get the money or not” following the conclusion of the review but said Mr Williamson’s recent pledge to safeguard the UK’s two amphibious landing ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, was an “enormously positive step”.

He added there would be no “concomitant knock on effect” to other parts of the fleet, rebutting speculation that two Type 23 frigates would have to be taken out of service early to pay for the commitment.

Naval chiefs insist the force is going through a transition period and that the arrival of seven new Astute class attack submarines, eight new Type 26 frigates and the general purpose Type 31E frigates will take the Royal Navy to levels of potency not seen since the Falklands War in 1982.
I think this highlights the point I made previously about the decision to cut the T26 numbers to 8 and introduce 5 T31's as opposed to building 13 T26's.

The First Sea Lord himself when commenting on the Russian threat said “We have to work very hard to understand their intent and to be able to track and cope with what they do. it’s a very significant development in British defence."

Surely very significant changes to the overall strategic picture and a heightening of threat levels warrant a reassessment of our direction of travel and by association the budgets allocated to defend against such threats?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Retro

I would be in total agreement with regards to fwd planning and a continued stable production planning to make a yard viable. Signing up to a TOBA and then failing to keep to it shows just how bad MoD are at planing they’ve got a chance with type 26 to put it right I seriously hope they don’t screw it up again why I’d make the plan now to keep building and modify refreshing type 26 like the US have done with areligh Burke.

I don’t buy the abandoning line there is a simple fact of overcapacity like it or not. It’s 10 years + since survey vessels were ordered. Followed by some patrol boats for Ireland it’s hardly been orders flooding in. A surface ship and sub yard is all use can realistically support with work both should be developed the sub one i would like the surface ship one to be similar but that would probably mean it needs to be at Rosyth.

As for Plymouth Thales have set up a centre of excellent for the design build test and commissioning of future unmanned naval systems. In the old RM facility. That I think is the future and where the IP and funding need to be going

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting article in todays FT interviewing Admiral Sir Philip Jones.

https://www.ft.com/content/efe13b86-d50 ... e0dcf18713

These are most relevant quotes but the article in full is well worth reading. I have to say that the quality and accuracy of FT's defence articles is much better than average.

Last year the Royal Navy escorted ships from the Russian fleet close to UK waters on 33 separate occasions. Sir Philip said Russian activity was still on the rise with the numbers likely to be the same “if not higher” in 2018.

“They [Russia] are flexing their muscles on a global stage,” said Sir Philip. “We have to work very hard to understand their intent and to be able to track and cope with what they do. it’s a very significant development in British defence."

The problem for the Royal Navy is that with a dwindling number of frigates and destroyers — the number has fallen from 28 in 2005 to 19 this year — the need to urgently respond to Russian activity can leave the rest of the fleet stretched when it is facing so many tasks in other parts of the world.

(Speaking about the upcoming MDP)
Sir Philip said he could not “speculate on whether we get the money or not” following the conclusion of the review but said Mr Williamson’s recent pledge to safeguard the UK’s two amphibious landing ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, was an “enormously positive step”.

He added there would be no “concomitant knock on effect” to other parts of the fleet, rebutting speculation that two Type 23 frigates would have to be taken out of service early to pay for the commitment.

Naval chiefs insist the force is going through a transition period and that the arrival of seven new Astute class attack submarines, eight new Type 26 frigates and the general purpose Type 31E frigates will take the Royal Navy to levels of potency not seen since the Falklands War in 1982.
I think this highlights the point I made previously about the decision to cut the T26 numbers to 8 and introduce 5 T31's as opposed to building 13 T26's.

The First Sea Lord himself when commenting on the Russian threat said “We have to work very hard to understand their intent and to be able to track and cope with what they do. it’s a very significant development in British defence."

Surely very significant changes to the overall strategic picture and a heightening of threat levels warrant a reassessment of our direction of travel and by association the budgets allocated to defend against such threats?
Sounds like special pleading again as Bernard Gray mentioned if the priority and requirement is for naval assets in the North Atlantic and Uk then that’s we’re assets need to be. Everywhere else is a nice to have it’s a simple choice stop the galavanting around the globe. Russian activity has picked up a little from zero but like qra its couple of vessels or aircraft a month. It’s not like the Cold War with 20 odd a day or the like. We have the assets to keep an eye on them already and we’re updating them for by.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The issue is that the RN is becoming or has become a one shot pony. If its asset, and I am referring to its singular formation going forward, the Carrier Group is deployed in the Gulf or further afield, then there is little the RN will have in the cupboard to deal with anything closer to home. We would not have sufficient assets to escort the ARG, in whatever form it takes in the future, and struggle to provide security to the CASD. The rate at which Russia is expanding its naval forces both in numbers and capabilities is a serious issue given the current attitude of its Government.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:The issue is that the RN is becoming or has become a one shot pony. If its asset, and I am referring to its singular formation going forward, the Carrier Group is deployed in the Gulf or further afield, then there is little the RN will have in the cupboard to deal with anything closer to home. We would not have sufficient assets to escort the ARG, in whatever form it takes in the future, and struggle to provide security to the CASD. The rate at which Russia is expanding its naval forces both in numbers and capabilities is a serious issue given the current attitude of its Government.
I agree but is it a permanent change of positioning or just a budget induced temporary side step?

It's pretty clear that RN has a core group of assets which is non negotiable. I would suggest these are,

2x CVF
6x Tier1 AAW Destroyers
8x Tier1 ASW Frigates
4x SSBN
7x SSN

Everything else is just icing on the cake as far as current planning is concerned.

I think the low SSN numbers are a major concern and there appears to be little industrial capacity to do anything about it even if HMG decided it wanted too but the ASW Frigate numbers are far too low at 8 hulls and in my opinion a way must be found to increase that number to at least 12.

It is fair to say that as we only have 8 ASW frigates now, why should we aim for a higher number in the future? I think the answer to that is simple, we need 8 plus whatever it takes to properly look after the CSG going forward. To me that is a minimum of 12 ASW Frigates.

Can the T31 ever be regarded as a truly credible ASW frigate or is the T26 realistically the only game in town?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

But that has been completely by design quality over quantity has been the mantra, the navy and the armed forces in general are some shot force. We can operate at small scale independent but go anywhere up the scale or complexity tree it’s as a coalition with limited sustainability.

Yeah 8 asw frigates is too few which is why there aaw capability should be enhanced and replacement of type 45 with type 26 in later batches.

Russians aren’t expanding there fielding new stuff to replace ancient like we are, with exactly the same issues off smaller modern numbers replacing more old stuff. Were just not used to having to prioritise defending our own back yard it’s been a quarter of century of ignorance.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With tis return to the "Big carrier" club the RN is going to have to totally re organise how it operates. Even with the Three CVLs it was still a "Frigate" navy, and had tasks that were compatible with this. With this change in focus, the RN will be contributing a Carrier Group to NATO and not much else, with other nations filling the void in NATO Standing groups in future. As the UK will be contributing a Carrier Group The USN will not be allocating the number of its Carrier Groups as it would have other wise and this has already been hinted at.

As for the growing Russian threat, well yes it is growing compared to the state their navy was in the 2000s. More platforms are going to sea, both legacy and new build and may of the former are getting improvements. Are they the same threat they were in the late Cold War era, certainly not but then again the UK is not the same size it was then either. Also of importance is that the platforms in service with the Russian Navy have both substantial Anti-air and Anti-Surface capability together with very effective CIWS. Whether both current and planned RN platforms will have the capability to defend themselves or other vessels in their charge against such a possible threat is up for debate. If operating only with UK Escorts out Carrier Group will only have 96 Aster 15/30 and around the same number of Sea Ceptor. How quickly would these be used up in a prolonged engagement? Each Russian combatant, especially the newer generation have between 16 and 24 modern AShMs before you add in aircraft and submarines. It gets worse if you replace Russia with China. The F-35B has a good radar but is not really designed as a fleet defence platform. All of this means that if things get hot the RN is going to have to commit its entire available fore of escorts to the Carrier Group, with nothing left over and the same goes for the available SSNs. The RN is going to be a true one shot pone as I said earlier.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:All of this means that if things get hot the RN is going to have to commit its entire available fore of escorts to the Carrier Group, with nothing left over and the same goes for the available SSNs. The RN is going to be a true one shot pone as I said earlier.
I agree with your analysis but what's going to look after the 'back yard' if virtually the entire fleet has sailed with the CSG.

Surely current planning must include at least some strength in depth and allow for a small number of losses?

Realistically when RN drops to 14 escorts how many lost or damaged Destroyers/Frigates can it withstand?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

So close to 200 missiles protecting a carrier plus whatever fighters are around I think it will be fine!

If it get hot with the Russians it will all be in our back yard carriers and all.

If we start shooting with the Russians at that scale there will be no one left to worry about loses...

If the back yard is priority nothing else matters.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The idea of strength in depth has basically gone out of the window in the last few decades. The PR spin that fewer platforms could do a better job that a greater number of legacy platforms was music to the treasury's ears and because everything is now only discussed in terms or capability not capacity we are where we are across the board when it comes to defence. With the size of the fleet we are going to have to concentrate far more on traditional NATO commitments rather then global power projection, regardless of what the Government might wish. I just hope the Top Brass explain this fact clearly and carefully to the Politicians when they request our sole Carrier Task Force sails to the far east to promote the UK as a global naval power. Our only reserve is going to be the vessels tied up because we haven't the manpower for them to put to see. The only option would be to man them with "Desk Jockeys", and reservists in things go seriously T@@s up.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Interesting comparison of the Fincantieri wave piercing bow on the new ~6,000t PPA said to give an additional knot in speed compared to the Leander 'conventional' bulbous bow.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

In reply to Poluytremq question on the type 31 thread with so many class of ship needed all at once this is how I would spread out my 1.15 billion pound year over the 30 years

500 million per year - years 1 to 30 for tier 1 escorts = 14 to 15 ships
250 million per year - years 1 to 12 for tier 2 escorts = 6 ships
150 million per year - years 1 to 12 for MHCP ships only = 12 ships
200 million per year - years 1 to 6 for FSS = 3 ships

In years 1 to 6 this will cost 1.1 billion per year leaving 50 million in the Budget

in years 7 to 10 we replace the 200 million per year FSS program with the 250 million per year LHD program bring the budget to the 1.15 billion per year

in years 11 to 15 we replace the LHD program with the batch 2 Bays program
in years 13 and 14 replace the 250 million tier 2 escort program with the Hospital ship program
in years 15 to 27 use the 350 million from the tier 2 escort and MHCP programs to build 6 SSKs

note there is still 250 million per year in the budget from year 15 to 30 to allow a second batch of tier 2 escorts or a second LHD or other projects

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Excellent, Thank you.
Tempest414 wrote:500 million per year - years 1 to 30 for tier 1 escorts
250 million per year - years 1 to 12 for tier 2 escorts
150 million per year - years 1 to 12 for MHCP ships only
200 million per year - years 1 to 6 for FSS

In years 1 to 6 this will cost 1.1 billion per year leaving 50 million in the Budget

in years 7 to 10 we replace the 200 million per year FSS program with the 250 million per year LHD program bring the budget to the 1.15 billion per year
So in real terms that would be,
Tier1 escorts - One hull every 18 months @£750m or 2 years @£1bn.
Tier2 escorts - One hull every 2 years @£500m.
MHPC - One hull every year @£150m.
FSS - One hull every 2 years @£400m.

So as a guide within the first 12 years the fleet would gain,
8x Tier1 ASW Frigates
6x Tier2 ASW Frigates
12x MHPC vessels
3x FSS vessels
1x LHD
in years 11 to 15 we replace the LHD program with the batch 2 Bays program
in years 13 and 14 replace the 250 million tier 2 escort program with the Hospital ship program
in years 15 to 27 use the 350 million from the tier 2 escort and MHCP programs to build 6 SSKs

note there is still 250 million per year in the budget from year 15 to 30 to allow a second batch of tier 2 escorts or a second LHD or other projects
When you get to this stage it's clear the log jam is cleared and lots of decisions need to be taken and priorities assessed but the crucial thing would be to keep the drumbeat going.

From a shipbuilding point of view how many yards would be required to make this work?

8x Tier1 ASW Frigates - Govan and Scotstoun
6x Tier2 ASW Frigates - Cammell Laird
12x MHPC vessels - Appledore
3x FSS vessels - Rosyth
1x LHD - Rosyth

Is this roughly what you had in mind?

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: If its asset, and I am referring to its singular formation going forward, the Carrier Group is deployed in the Gulf or further afield, then there is little the RN will have in the cupboard to deal with anything closer to home. We would not have sufficient assets to escort the ARG, in whatever form it takes in the future, and struggle to provide security to the CASD.
True. Hence the other two are "the" priority and ARG - excepting a NEO where the threat from sea/ air is likely to be a lesser factor - will be an adjunct to the CG.
Poiuytrewq wrote: I think the low SSN numbers are a major concern
Agreed. But you overstate the numbers as until the 7th Astute will be in service, there is going to be a T-boat dropping off for every "A" one year ahead
- so we get 6! Not 7 :(
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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:So in real terms that would be,
Tier1 escorts - One hull every 18 months @£750m or 2 years @£1bn.
Tier2 escorts - One hull every 2 years @£500m.
MHPC - One hull every year @£150m.
FSS - One hull every 2 years @£400m.

So as a guide within the first 12 years the fleet would gain,
8x Tier1 ASW Frigates
6x Tier2 ASW Frigates
12x MHPC vessels
3x FSS vessels
1x LHD
Correct and for me this can be done from the standing MOD budget as set today
Poiuytrewq wrote:When you get to this stage it's clear the log jam is cleared and lots of decisions need to be taken and priorities assessed but the crucial thing would be to keep the drumbeat going.

From a shipbuilding point of view how many yards would be required to make this work?

8x Tier1 ASW Frigates - Govan and Scotstoun
6x Tier2 ASW Frigates - Cammell Laird
12x MHPC vessels - Appledore
3x FSS vessels - Rosyth
1x LHD - Rosyth

Is this roughly what you had in mind?
Again correct Govan and Scotstoun would carry on the dum beat of 1 tier 1 escort every 2 years even after the 30 years. And I would push the tier 2 frigate and MHPC on the export market plus look at other programs for Appledore. Rosyth would as you say build the FSS and new LHD then go on to build the batch 2 Bays with Cammell Laird building 4 new Point class after the tier 2 frigate program.

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by albedo »

Tempest414 wrote: Again correct Govan and Scotstoun would carry on the drum beat of 1 tier 1 escort every 2 years even after the 30 years.
Can you remind me please how an independent Scotland would fit into this picture (as seems increasingly likely to me, especially if a more extreme version of Brexit wins the day)?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

albedo wrote:Can you remind me please how an independent Scotland would fit into this picture (as seems increasingly likely to me)?
More specifically "how would the UK fit this project into its picture". Us here in Glasgow would lose all of it and wouldn't fit into any picture at all if the idiots up here got their way.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
albedo wrote:Can you remind me please how an independent Scotland would fit into this picture (as seems increasingly likely to me)?
More specifically "how would the UK fit this project into its picture". Us here in Glasgow would lose all of it and wouldn't fit into any picture at all if the idiots up here got their way.
In this case which I would look to avoid the Tier 1 program would be put on hold until BAE could move to a yard in the union and the Tier 2 program would be stepped up to cover the short fall this would need to be the same for the FSS/ LHD programs at Rosyth

I guess that BAE would be happy to build new ships for the new Scottish navy. more important to the RN is what ships it would lose

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tempest414 wrote:In this case which I would look to avoid the Tier 1 program would be put on hold until BAE could move to a yard in the union and the Tier 2 program would be stepped up to cover the short fall this would need to be the same for the FSS/ LHD programs at Rosyth
That would only give the SNP more ammunition of "betrayal" and increase their chances. Remember the saying that is popular up here amongst those with a bit of sanity left, "Facts don't matter to Nats".

The best solution for them is simple, obvious investment and no wiggle room to deal with it. Keeping Type 26 here and making sure there are continued announcements and public notices of its construction is the best bet. Much as I understand your wish to get Tier 1 escorts out, losing Scotland would have far greater consequences than just an interruption to move a yard. Faslane more than anything is of higher importance than a delay in escort production.

If escort schedules must be at risk to protect Faslane and Scotland's overall contribution to the budget (and avoidance of the forces being cut in two) and avert the financial oblivion that needing to change its location would entail, then that is what must be done.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:For God's sake lets just keep building T-26s, one every eighteen months to two years on a rolling programme
Ok, so how to you manage the gap between T23 going out and T26 coming in?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

to be clear I would not be looking to move any ship building from Scotland what I have put forward in answer to your question is only in the event Scotland leave the union. I feel that my program to build all tier 1 escorts at 1 every 2 years for the next 30 years plus 3 new FSS a new LHD and 4 new Bay class would be a positive message to Scotland that we want them to stay

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

shark bait wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:For God's sake lets just keep building T-26s, one every eighteen months to two years on a rolling programme
Ok, so how to you manage the gap between T23 going out and T26 coming in?
Well considering the we can ignore the GP T-23s as they are now laid up almost permanently the gap is not the issue it would be if the RN was fully manned and all vessels deploying on schedule. The average length of a at sea deployment for the T-23s last year was just over a month followed by a far longer time along side.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

If you ignore it and accept a gap the RN will be down to 14 escorts by 2030, that's not an acceptable solution. (7 T23 out of service, and only 2 new T26)
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Iran is a BIG country, not a terrorists. When fighting with them, all weapons will be used. If a frigate faces a swarm of "ASM equipped boats" = missile crafts, it is a big mistake the same to a C17 faces a squadron of enemy fighters. These swarm missile crafts are petty expensive bits, and shall be handled with a squadron of Tornado/F35Bs with bunches of Brimstone/SPEAR3, not a single frigate.
"Hold a second guys, lemme just get my real assets down here first."

When the escorts fleet drops to 14 and the carrier group becomes active, the tier 1 assets will be in higher demand than ever for ASW and AAW. You propose that the RN in that area should constantly take 1-2 premier ASW or AAW escort away from duties requiring those specialist tasks (ie - Away from the North Sea or the carrier) to babysit in the Strait? They can barely manage it now, and that's with 19 escorts. Let alone the assumption that Tornados will be there (they'll be long gone) or that the stretched and understrength remaining combat air force can conduct maritime watch over RN vessels that ought to be self escorting? That area is a 365 days a year area of concern for the RN.

If anything ever happens with those boats, it'll be sharp, sudden, and rapid. That's the point of these squadrons. That's Iran's trump card they constantly hold over. Just this week HMS Dragon got rushed by a group of them looking to provoke the ship into backing off. No Wildcat in the air at the time, because helos aren't infinite. Iran has dozens of ASM equipped such vessels. But as Dragon was capable of action in return, they have the factor to force them to back off.

A Type 31 rolling around without said means to reach out to that light ASM distance is nothing more than a target pretending to be a deterrent. And if it's too unprotected to handle it, then it's going to force a tier 1 asset to be wasted there instead when their specialist capabilities are needed elsewhere. Remember very clearly what happened when Iran managed to rush an outgunned USN vessel just a few years ago. They are not above taking hostages from even defended vessels if they sense weakness. It has happened to the RN in the past from even a higher end escort that got caught out.

If the entire point of T31 is that it cuts the fleet capabilities by reducing a portion to only non-specialist general purpose tasks, then it ought to at least be capable of said tasks.

Post Reply