Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Lord Jim]

The RN would do better to go straight to LRASM that get involved with the anti-ship Tomahawk programme. Both will be available but LRASM has sufficient range and is far more capable than the Tomahawk. I feel it is simply because we have TLAM some bright spark in the MoD has said "Oh we can buy some of this version as well, we like the TLAM and we need something to put in the Mk41s".

I appreciate that the RFI states that the T-31e should have Phalanx and that the full capability Bofors 57mm will never be bought as it is too expensive for the budget platform. It is a shame though as it is a very versatile weapon systems and covers most of what the T-31e needs. However putting a MK8 on should be a total non -starter as it is totally inappropriate for the roles intended as would a 5".

[ArmChairCivvy]

However putting a MK8 on should be a total non -starter as it is totally inappropriate for the roles intended as would a 5".

I am still wondering if we are to put T-26s/ T-45s on the "gun line" right next to the coast, instead? Or the whole thing is not part of the RN "book of tricks" anymore - which I find unlikely.
- enough SEa Venoms on helicopters and Spear3s in the VLSs could go a long way. But they do cost a tad more than gun rounds, and can't produce any kind of "mass fire". And the space taken up is "away" from other missions.

[NickC]

The only high end capability of the Type 26 is ASW, it does't have a modern high end GaN S-band radar, no high definition X-band radar for optimum detection of anti-ship sea skimming missiles, just local area AA defense with the Sea Ceptor, the VLS cells may possibly be fitted in future with the LRASM, but could just as easily launched from deck canisters and no Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system for when in EMCON mode.

All issues that I have previously highlighted and said require solving, especially if the first ship comes into service in 2027. No argument from me there.

But you need the platform to be capable of said upgrades, to have the room and the power generation. Type 26 has that. It makes little sense to go for an even lower end vessel that isn't even capable of the same level of upgrade.

Cancel future Type 26s as too costly

At the moment the Type 26 capability is that of a Type 23 and I wouldn't call the Type 23 a lower end ASW vessel, if the RN had wanted to they could have spec'd the T26 as a modern T23 for the talked of £350M, not the ~£800M that is now. You are suggesting that cost gives you a platform suitable for unknown future upgrades, but at the massive negative of halving the number of frigates that can be funded.

If these future blue sky upgrades/capabilities e.g. UAV/USV/UUW, railguns and lasers ever become realities there would be the budget available to design and build ships specifically for these new weapon systems, but at the moment they are all in an early phase of R&D and face major scientific and technical hurdles to overcome and my reading of the tea leaves is not favourable.

As said in my earlier post we should not be building in more potential capabilities for future proofing as it's impossible to predict future technologies and their associated requirements, it comes as we have seen with the T26 at double the cost of a modern T23.

[RetroSicotte]

As said in my earlier post we should not be building in more potential capabilities for future proofing

And look how well that turned out for the Challenger 2...now struggling desperately to find a way to remain relevant because it costs so much more (including lives, possibly) to have to fit a square into a circle in a hurry than it does to have just built a slightly bigger hole in the first place.

[Simon82]

If the RN does ever develop a sea launched version of Spear 3, its primary role will probably be land attack.

It would supplement naval gunfire support, providing a precision strike capability against fixed and mobile targets. In terms of range, I suspect the RN would want at least 70 km and desire around 150 km, to allow ships to standoff over the horizon but still support a RM land force to 100+ km inland.

Such a weapon would have been very useful in Libya.

Would guided ER ammunition for the main gun be a more cost effective way of adding this capability to the Type 31e and Type 26 rather than paying for the development and integration of a new variant of a missile with a rather niche role in warfare? While admittedly not quite as capable as some of the missile systems proposed integration with Royal Navy vessels would be simpler, the individual rounds should be cheaper and they can be used in a wider range of scenarios.

Examples for further reading:

http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... 08725_.pdf

http://www.leonardocompany.com/document ... EV2013.pdf

[RetroSicotte]

Would guided ER ammunition for the main gun be a more cost effective way of adding this capability to the Type 31e and Type 26 rather than paying for the development and integration of a new variant of a missile with a rather niche role in warfare? While admittedly not quite as capable as some of the missile systems proposed integration with Royal Navy vessels would be simpler, the individual rounds should be cheaper and they can be used in a wider range of scenarios.

Possibly, although the job you'd want Spear for (anti-small craft) is something that even the guided rounds aren't that great at. They're just guided to a point, not active seeking. At those ranges you'd likely never hit anything that small moving that quickly.

That said, I do feel guided NGS is higher priority than Spear, simply due to the wider application.

[mr.fred]

As said in my earlier post we should not be building in more potential capabilities for future proofing

And look how well that turned out for the Challenger 2...now struggling desperately to find a way to remain relevant because it costs so much more (including lives, possibly) to have to fit a square into a circle in a hurry than it does to have just built a slightly bigger hole in the first place.

It’s not that the Challenger 2 was designed without a growth path. When Challenger 2 was being designed, the prospective new NATO MBT gun was a 140mm with two (three?) part ammunition, which could have been fitted easily. When that was canned, the lack of investment in the stop-gap rifle has told.

So when it comes to ships, either the growth budget needs to assume more than one future growth path to avoid repeating that problem, or you have to follow through on your planned upgrades.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Khareef and T45. With a little imagination, it could be Leander and T45?

[EDIT] Khareef looks bulky, so hull extension will make her look more smart.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Impressive to see two T23 (HMS Northumberland and Westminster) with CAMM, Artisan and with S2087 in excersize.

[NickC]

As said in my earlier post we should not be building in more potential capabilities for future proofing

And look how well that turned out for the Challenger 2...now struggling desperately to find a way to remain relevant because it costs so much more (including lives, possibly) to have to fit a square into a circle in a hurry than it does to have just built a slightly bigger hole in the first place.

It’s not that the Challenger 2 was designed without a growth path. When Challenger 2 was being designed, the prospective new NATO MBT gun was a 140mm with two (three?) part ammunition, which could have been fitted easily. When that was canned, the lack of investment in the stop-gap rifle has told.

So when it comes to ships, either the growth budget needs to assume more than one future growth path to avoid repeating that problem, or you have to follow through on your planned upgrades.

My first thought is the Challenger 2 is past its sell by date, its late 80's design, so not surprised having major problems in upgrades 30 years later. How good is your crystal ball to look ahead 30 years, an impossible ask.

[Lord Jim]

The MoD has a very bad habit of pushing update programmes further and further to the right as an easy solution to in year budgetary pressures. It has done it on countless programmes, with the platforms concerned ending up being unfit for purpose and hopelessly out of date and costly to support. TLMPs used to be a buzz word with in the MoD, Through Life Management Plans to be clear, but funding was never assured, often being withdrawn from the support budget at a moments notice literally. Now things should be better with TSPs, or Total Support Packages let to industry who then partner with the MoD to maintain platforms. But the problem here is everything has to be negotiated at the beginning of the contract as it is very difficult to change this once signed. So you basically have to plan out your future upgrade policy at the start of the support programme. I do not know how the RN operates its ship support work and how much is with industry and how much is still in house, but it all adds up to the fact that even if designed for future growth, neither the T-31e or the T-26 are assured of gaining any capabilities other than that which they enter service with.

[ArmChairCivvy]

How good is your crystal ball to look ahead 30 years, an impossible ask.

Quite. That's why flexibility in the overall design trumping over FFBNW is a most welcome development.

[Ron5]

How good is your crystal ball to look ahead 30 years, an impossible ask.

Quite. That's why flexibility in the overall design trumping over FFBNW is a most welcome development.

Any study of RN ship designs since the second world war would conclude (just like the RN has) that the best way to future proof designs is to build multi-purpose designs that are as big as possible with large design margins. The worst thing to do is to build small, single purpose, they don't last.

The Type 23 is a good example of this, the original design was to be a small ASW only. Not even self defence. A ship that would be absolutly useless in the Falklands conflict. The design was therefore changed to add multi and made as big as possible but still fit the Plymouth frigate complex. Result is a design that has lived and evolved for over 3 decades.

The Type 26 follows that design philosophy and takes it to the next level. Now we know that both the Australian and Canadian Navies believe it too.

What is interesting to me is that the Type 31 program (which is basically a rather uninteresting project) is attempting to provide that same kind of future proofing (they call it "adaptability") in a bargain basement price level. I'm very curious how that will work out.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Any study of RN ship designs since the second world war would conclude (just like the RN has) that the best way to future proof designs is to build multi-purpose designs that are as big as possible with large design margins. The worst thing to do is to build small, single purpose, they don't last.

The Type 23 is a good example of this, the original design was to be a small ASW only. Not even self defence. A ship that would be absolutly useless in the Falklands conflict. The design was therefore changed to add multi and made as big as possible but still fit the Plymouth frigate complex. Result is a design that has lived and evolved for over 3 decades.

The Type 26 follows that design philosophy and takes it to the next level. Now we know that both the Australian and Canadian Navies believe it too.

What is interesting to me, is that the Type 31 program (which is basically a rather uninteresting project) is attempting to provide that same kind of future proofing (they call it "adaptability") in a bargain basement price level. I'm very curious how that will work out.

I have a different point of view. I think it has just been "vibrating" between small and large.
<small> Type-14 = small ASW only ship. Too small.
<large> County class DD = large, multi-purpose ship. --> Bristol class. Many disbanded early.
<small> T21/T42. I think BOTH were too small. T21 disbanded early, T42 contributed to fleet, increasing hull number
- T22 B1/2 was large ASW specialist, B3 was GP. ALL disbanded early.
- T23 is NOT large ship. Do not have large margins. I guess the reason they survived is, partly of small crew, and partly of better ASW than T22, and of course its utility.
<large> T45. Good ship but resulted in reduced number.
<large> T26. Good ship but resulted in reduced number.
<small> T31.
I think now T31 is in turn of "small", and this "vibration" will continue forever.

[Tempest414]

I think now T31 is in turn of "small", and this "vibration" will continue forever.

if the MOD went with A140 it would not be to small however as I said before I would like to see a 130 meter option maybe a A120 extended and cleaned up a bit with a full width mission bay amidships and full width hangar for Merlin

[Repulse]

Back in 2010, the T23 GP survived ahead of the T22 B3s primarily down to crew numbers and overall running costs. IMO it would have been better to save the T22s.

I have to argue though that the T45 (and now seemingly the T26) are ultimately doomed to small batch numbers, and therefore high unit costs, by the endless belief there is a cheaper ship design out there that can do what is needed - this seems to be driven by politics and the treasury rather than based on reality. The fact that the number of “T26s” could easily be close to 40 gives for the first time in generation we are in reach of the benefits of lower unit costs by building in volume (including sharing systems).

In short, I still see little gained in yet another class, which at heart is effectively political driven and offers very little - focusing on getting value and numbers out of the T26 programme should be the priority.

However, I’d do see value in a small batch of 3 evolved Patrol Sloops (extended River Class with Wildcat Hangar and 57mm) for FIGS (South Atlantic), WIGS (Caribbean) and GiGS (Mediterranean) Patrol / HADR duties; though this is less than £500mn.

A resulting 6 T45, 10 T26 and 8 Sloop (5 B2 + 3 B3 River) surface fleet would be a good result IMO to project UK influence globally and protect UK/BOT waters. In addition, I’d like to see a revitalisation of the small patrol craft, perhaps expanding on the new expected Gibraltar ships to strengthen RN Littoral capabilities.

Longer term I’d see the MCM/Survey and Amphibious replacement to build both a new class of small Multirole (LHD style) motherships but also giving more budget for surface fleet platforms.

[Caribbean]

Moved from T31 News thread

“Batch 1” role could be easily handled by an extended River class with a Wildcat Hangar - no significant cost for design and I’d argue you’d get 3 of these for the same price as a single T31e plus the overheads of building / designing a new class.

And yet, Maritime Security would be the pushing the limits of what a stretched River could do. An A120 in the "Maritime Security" configuration could also handle NGFS, local-area AAW, ASuW, carry more RIBs/ Orcs and operate a Wildcat plus UAV.

“Batch 2” would be done perfectly by a T26.

One would hope so, since that is it's core mission, however, the A120 could also provide a Tier 2 capability at considerably less cost (approx. 50%), as well as the NGFS, AAW and ASuW capabilities noted above.

Had we gone for three extended Rivers instead of the five B2's I would have been reasonably happy, as we could probably have stretched the T26 budget to cover 10 full-fat ASW variants, however there was probably a reason for why we didn't and I suspect cost played a large part in the decision (along with design times)

[dmereifield]

Does anyone realistically think there will be a Y31 batch 2? Given the finances I can only imagine that happening if the second batch of T26 are reduced in number

[NickC]

Cancel the Type 26 as too costly

The Type 23s were an undoubted success but the RN has taken it to the extreme with the multi-purpose and complex Type 26 and as a result the cost of the first 3 Type 26s is a mouth watering £3.7 BILLION, £1.2B each. The result the total buy of T26 was cut from 13 to 8 and 5 T31e OPVs, in my eyes a disaster.

If the RN had just continued upgrading/updating the T23 and kept it in build for £3.7B they would have approx 8/9 ships and with an option of another 10 for the cost of ~ £4.0B for the additional 5 T26s, water under the bridge. But its not too late to cancel the future 5 too costly T26s, cancel the T31e OPVs and add the funding so appox £5.25B available and build capable frigates with 'flexibility in design' and end with 13 warships instead of 5 T26s and 5 T31e OPVs.

Donald-san? My understanding is the Japanese Navy cancelled 7,000t 25DD class as too costly at ~$700M / £540M after only two ships and went for new 6,000t 30FFM, 5 " Mark 45, 16x Mk41 VLS cells, 8x anti-ship deck launched missiles, SeaRAM, helicopter, torpedo and decoy launchers, GaN MFR, EO sensors, VDS, TAS, a hull mounted mine countermeasure sonar and capability to deploy and recover UUV, USV, deploy sea mines all for <$500M / £390M.

The aim should be to design for a 20 year life span so ships will always be state of the art, commercial ships scrapped after 20 to 25 years and Japanese Navy ships max life 30 years.

[Tempest414]

As I keep saying we don't need to be so drastic we just need to commit to a 1.15 billion year on year budget for the next 15 years and then we could reduce this down to 1 billion year on year for the 15 years after that which is possible within the current 19 billion pound budget for surface fleet 2016 -2026 i.e 1 billion for new ship and 1 billion per year for fleet upkeep . again as said up thread within the first 15 years we could build

7 x type 26 = 7 billion or 1 billion per ship
6 x type 31 = 3 billion or 500 million per ship
12 x Venari-95m MHPC = 1.8 billion or 150 million per ship
3 x FSS = 1.2 billion or 400 million per ship
1 x LHD = 750 million

This shopping list comes to 13.75 billion from a budget of 17.25 billion pounds over the first 15 years this budget could also cover upgrades to the type 45s or pay for off board systems for the MHPC ships and keep 3 yards in work

[SW1]

If the idea is martime security in the Falklands, Caribbean and Mediterranean is the driver behind type 31 then it’s completely the wrong ship.

But we know thats not what it really is. Its an effort to build 5 “proper” frigate from whatever was left from the type 26 budget as it got way out of control. I don’t much like the tier 1 or 2 mantra that has developed over the past decade as we’ve played around with type 23 replacement.

Ships are either warships or they are not. If they are a warships then they need to be of a construction so as should they be hit with either a missile or torpeado they are made of materials that do not burn, melt and give off toxic smoke for a given time, that they have enough stability to remain upright flooded, and enough redundant systems to allow sufficent time for the crew to either stabilise the situation or to get off.

Clearly we don’t need something the size of type 26 to be a high end asw warship. Type 23 demonstrates that even an FTI frigate carriers a sensor fit every bit as good as type 23 with a tail and they’re roughly similar in size. So we can get a type 23 replacement for less than type 26.

However the choice has been for a much bigger ship. This allows it to go much further without replenishment, it allows it carry many more missiles (if you actual buy them). That in theory allows more persistent in a combat zone. The larger ship also requires a a gas turbine to get to the required speed it would appear the smaller vessels can now do it with modern diesels only. The last question is the length of time required for the ship to spend in refit, some would argue that smaller vessels are more densely fitted out so refits take longer to insert or replace systems. But as sensors and tech become both more powerful smaller and lighter with each passing evolution and a move to better layout and use of commercial IT architecture that may not be as clear cut.

So while the larger and smaller ships are both warships the smaller one would either require more port visits or more access to tankers and stores ships at sea if your planning for very long ranged global operations. Should you be planning to spend most of your time in the NATO area and gulf then type 23 or vessels of that size are fine. You pays your money you make your choices.

[Ron5]

I think now T31 is in turn of "small", and this "vibration" will continue forever.

if the MOD went with A140 it would not be to small however as I said before I would like to see a 130 meter option maybe a A120 extended and cleaned up a bit with a full width mission bay amidships and full width hangar for Merlin

The A140 is as dead as the dinosaurs. Even Babcock's has realized that proposing a 7k ton, 140m ship can be designed and built for 250m is not credible.

[Ron5]

Any study of RN ship designs since the second world war would conclude (just like the RN has) that the best way to future proof designs is to build multi-purpose designs that are as big as possible with large design margins. The worst thing to do is to build small, single purpose, they don't last.

The Type 23 is a good example of this, the original design was to be a small ASW only. Not even self defence. A ship that would be absolutly useless in the Falklands conflict. The design was therefore changed to add multi and made as big as possible but still fit the Plymouth frigate complex. Result is a design that has lived and evolved for over 3 decades.

The Type 26 follows that design philosophy and takes it to the next level. Now we know that both the Australian and Canadian Navies believe it too.

What is interesting to me, is that the Type 31 program (which is basically a rather uninteresting project) is attempting to provide that same kind of future proofing (they call it "adaptability") in a bargain basement price level. I'm very curious how that will work out.

I have a different point of view. I think it has just been "vibrating" between small and large.
<small> Type-14 = small ASW only ship. Too small.
<large> County class DD = large, multi-purpose ship. --> Bristol class. Many disbanded early.
<small> T21/T42. I think BOTH were too small. T21 disbanded early, T42 contributed to fleet, increasing hull number
- T22 B1/2 was large ASW specialist, B3 was GP. ALL disbanded early.
- T23 is NOT large ship. Do not have large margins. I guess the reason they survived is, partly of small crew, and partly of better ASW than T22, and of course its utility.
<large> T45. Good ship but resulted in reduced number.
<large> T26. Good ship but resulted in reduced number.
<small> T31.
I think now T31 is in turn of "small", and this "vibration" will continue forever.

I didn't say "big" or "large", I said as big as possible.

[dmereifield]

Cancel the Type 26 as too costly

The Type 23s were an undoubted success but the RN has taken it to the extreme with the multi-purpose and complex Type 26 and as a result the cost of the first 3 Type 26s is a mouth watering £3.7 BILLION, £1.2B each. The result the total buy of T26 was cut from 13 to 8 and 5 T31e OPVs, in my eyes a disaster.

If the RN had just continued upgrading/updating the T23 and kept it in build for £3.7B they would have approx 8/9 ships and with an option of another 10 for the cost of ~ £4.0B for the additional 5 T26s, water under the bridge. But its not too late to cancel the future 5 too costly T26s, cancel the T31e OPVs and add the funding so appox £5.25B available and build capable frigates with 'flexibility in design' and end with 13 warships instead of 5 T26s and 5 T31e OPVs.

Donald-san? My understanding is the Japanese Navy cancelled 7,000t 25DD class as too costly at ~$700M / £540M after only two ships and went for new 6,000t 30FFM, 5 " Mark 45, 16x Mk41 VLS cells, 8x anti-ship deck launched missiles, SeaRAM, helicopter, torpedo and decoy launchers, GaN MFR, EO sensors, VDS, TAS, a hull mounted mine countermeasure sonar and capability to deploy and recover UUV, USV, deploy sea mines all for <$500M / £390M.

The aim should be to design for a 20 year life span so ships will always be state of the art, commercial ships scrapped after 20 to 25 years and Japanese Navy ships max life 30 years.

Cancelli the 2nd batch of T26 is politically impossible- it would be highly imbarassing, especially now after the fact that allies will be building them, and more than we are. I think even a reduction from 8 is quite difficult from the political perspective now. In my opinion, it *could* happen but would require the following all to occurr:
1) 2nd order for 3 more ships, with the plan still being to order 2 (or even 3) more in a third batch
2) allies reduce the number if hulls they are purchasing
3) if I understand correctly, the slow drum beat for he T26 is to 1] minimise in year expenditure, and 2] ensure that the BAE yard and workers have sufficient work all the way through to the commencement of building the T45 replacement. Therefore, if the last 2 T26 are canned, BAE would have to either 1]¡get some new work in that time frame (perhaps a second batch of Leander, assuming it is selected as the T31), the 2nd batch of T26 build rate is slowed even further (adding to cost), or 3] the T45 replacement programme is brought forward a few years).

I could see it happening, especially if the defence budget is still tight in a decade (I imagine it will be) , if Leander can be modified to a second rate ASW frigate and if 3 could be purchased for ca. £1 billion. This would yield a saving to ca. £500 million compared to the costs of the last 2 T26 (ca. £1.5 billion) and will allow HMG to boast of an increase in the fleet size (up to 20; 6 T45, 6 T26, 5 GP T31, 3 ASW T31)

Lots of speculations and assumptions in there, but not an impossible sequence of events....

[donald_of_tokyo]

Cancel the Type 26 as too costly

The Type 23s were an undoubted success but the RN has taken it to the extreme with the multi-purpose and complex Type 26 and as a result the cost of the first 3 Type 26s is a mouth watering £3.7 BILLION, £1.2B each. The result the total buy of T26 was cut from 13 to 8 and 5 T31e OPVs, in my eyes a disaster.

If the RN had just continued upgrading/updating the T23 and kept it in build for £3.7B they would have approx 8/9 ships and with an option of another 10 for the cost of ~ £4.0B for the additional 5 T26s, water under the bridge. But its not too late to cancel the future 5 too costly T26s, cancel the T31e OPVs and add the funding so appox £5.25B available and build capable frigates with 'flexibility in design' and end with 13 warships instead of 5 T26s and 5 T31e OPVs.

I think your plan should have been valid if it was before 3 T26 was ordered. Now, the detail design + initial cost has been paid, I do not think "so appox £5.25B available" will not pay a lot. For example, if we use this "£5.25B" for a £750M unit cost ship (=T26 full), we get 7 hulls.

If we want 10 frigates, with design+initial cost it means £440M unit cost. FTI's unit cost is £470M (average is £660M), and FTI does not have ASW optimized queitization and lacks future growth margin. Its higher-end AAW capability can be degraded to give more money for ASW. But I think if we want ASW level similar to T23, £440M unit cost will not be enough.

If we want 9 hulls it is £480M, if 8 hulls it is £525M. With this cost, it is doable I agree, but I do not see "big merit" here. If HMG likes to go this way, it is OK, but it is not "clearly better" I think.

Donald-san? My understanding is the Japanese Navy cancelled 7,000t 25DD class as too costly at ~$700M / £540M after only two ships and went for new 6,000t 30FFM, 5 " Mark 45, 16x Mk41 VLS cells, 8x anti-ship deck launched missiles, SeaRAM, helicopter, torpedo and decoy launchers, GaN MFR, EO sensors, VDS, TAS, a hull mounted mine countermeasure sonar and capability to deploy and recover UUV, USV, deploy sea mines all for <$500M / £390M.

Long history there on this FFM-class ship. It started as a Japanese version of LCS, gradually became more ASW heavy, and now it is ASW focussed frigate.

Its GaN AESA radar is rumored to be of limited capability (it is not "AESA" nor "GaN". It is the emission power, beam-pattern, software power, and analysis power which defines the capability of an AESA radar). Its low AAW capability will make it difficult to survive in the front-line.

But, we need a ship to support our sea lanes, and in that theater, ASW is more important than AAW, and FFM can cover this part. I hope it works well.