Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Phil Sayers]

Tomahawk - no UK surface ship can currently use it, so why do we need them? The T26 will get them (or a successor system) when they are finished. As for the sub-launched version - probably only useful against an opponent without access to satellite surveillance - rather gives the position of the sub away when you fire it and negates their prime advantage. Far better for them to be on surface ships.

I think the point you make about satellite surveillance is actually a point in the other direction. If cruise missiles are carried by submarines no potential adversary (other than ones a long, long way from the sea) knows whether or not they are in range of sub-launched cruise missiles at any given time. If placed on surface ships that information may become only too apparent and a threat somewhat hollow if the adversary knows it will take a week before we have sufficient assets in place to strike.

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting perspective and whilst I agree with a lot of the analysis, I completely disagree with the final conclusions.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... o.html?m=1

If the T26's can be begin to enter in 2025 rather than 2027 with a £100m funding injection why not simply find the money from somewhere else?

If 2 to 3 Destroyers and Frigates are at any one time tied up without crews why not fully man the T45's and sell 2x T23's now. How much would that save over the next 8 years?

As far as a lack of crew is concerned surely the fact that the T23's will be decommissioning with around a 20% higher crew allocation than the incoming T26's will take care of that problem.

I fully understand that in year budgets have to be managed carefully and accelerating programmes can have unforseen consequences elsewhere but how much money is also being wasted with artificially slowing down projects to keep within arbitrary targets? How much money is being wasted by Life Extending platforms that are simply worn out?

The rest of world is racing on ahead and we are beginning to look like we are in danger of getting left behind. Look at what the Italians have achieved in the last 5 years and are expected to achieve in the next 5 years. Look at what the Chinese are doing every single year. When the Australian and Canadian navies are planning to build more frigates than the UK with OUR own design it might just be time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The CVF's are very very impressive but RN has other pressing priorities too. Maybe it's time for some difficult decisions to be made to get things back on track.

Some relevant follow-up.

[NickC]

Well, let's see- Type 45- torpedos not installed, Harpoon soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, CAAM probably not installed, Tomahawk not installed; Type 23- Harpoons soon to be dropped- probably not replaced, half of them without towed sonars; submarines- Sub-Harpoon dropped, Tomahawks in minuscule numbers, probably not replaced once out of service; Type 26- currently firm commitment just for gun and CAMM, same thing for Type 31; QE-carriers- planned for 36 fighters, probably will never see more than 24 ( and that's with USMC jets )...

There have never been plans to fit torpedoes on the T45 - it uses it's helicopter to deliver them. The RN appears to be taking that approach with all it's surface ships now, as the T23 (an ASW specialist) was the last ship to have them fitted). I believe that they have taken the view that lightweight torpedos are obsolescent as a ship-borne weapon in open water.

Think the RN in a minority of one in taking the view that lightweight torpedoes are obsolescent as a ship-borne weapon in open water, all other navies seem to take opposite point of view and fiitted with ship launched LWTs eg USN Burke destroyers and new FFG(X) has an objective to fit its SVTT and ASROC, Australian Hobart fitted with SVTT and presume the Hunter will be as well for its MU90's, French & Italian FREMM's, Italian FREMM also equipped with their MILAS (a longer range ASROC), the new French FTI, new Japanese 30FFM, Korean Daegu class, the new Italian PPA frigates fitted to take both LWT and two Blue Shark HWTs to launch from stern, the Indian Russian frigates also launch HWT's.

[shark bait]

I completely disagree with the final conclusions.

Me too, the author is pretty much apologising for the MOD's continual failures.

Speed is a function of money.

At the moment the schedule is slowed to so the annual budget stretched further, the MOD's favourite trick.

They should have invested in the frigate factory, they should have started the T26 instead of the building patrol boats no one wants, and they should have a faster schedule. All of this would have delivered a cheaper total programme, but it all got shelved so the MOD could play its trick card mentioned above.

[Poiuytrewq]

They should have invested in the frigate factory, they should have started the T26 instead of the building patrol boats no one wants, and they should have a faster schedule. All of this would have delivered a cheaper total programme

Agreed. The fact that the T26 programme is being delayed by another 2 years due to a lack of £100m when tens of millions is currently getting spent life extending frigates that have no crews and are destined to be tied up on completion of the refit almost beggars belief.

Time for a new approach I think.

[Poiuytrewq]

Relevant to recent discussions.



Confirmation that more resources will be provided for the Arctic and Indo-Pacific regions with additional bases opening in overseas territories to deploy OPV's and T31's.

Where is the funding coming from for these additional resources?

How much use are forward based RB2's and T31's actually going to be? Would larger Auxiliaries/Logistics vessels actually be cheaper and more useful?

More presence in the Arctic. Additional Submarine resources or more survey Icebreakers and/or MPA's?

Interesting that additional resources for North Atlantic not mentioned.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As far as a lack of crew is concerned surely the fact that the T23's will be decommissioning with around a 20% higher crew allocation than the incoming T26's will take care of that problem.

Allegedly all five t-31s will be in service by the time HMS Glasgow completes its trials; isn't that answering the below call? Or you may have had extra measures in mind?

Time for a new approach I think.

additional resources for North Atlantic not mentioned

Didn't the Arctic convoys sail in N. Atlantic?
- so which ever turn of phrase is used, they are actually tightly linked (and so are the objectives of any ops)

[Jake1992]

Relevant to recent discussions.



Confirmation that more resources will be provided for the Arctic and Indo-Pacific regions with additional bases opening in overseas territories to deploy OPV's and T31's.

Where is the funding coming from for these additional resources?

How much use are forward based RB2's and T31's actually going to be? Would larger Auxiliaries/Logistics vessels actually be cheaper and more useful?

More presence in the Arctic. Additional Submarine resources or more survey Icebreakers and/or MPA's?

Interesting that additional resources for North Atlantic not mentioned.

Could we see a small set of ice patrole vessels like the RCN are building right now say 3-6 or a few based on a modified RRS sir David Attenborough with the incessing importance of arctic sea lanes?

But I key thing I take from them statements is surely to do all that extra on top of rebuilding CSG there has to be new money coming in from somewhere, if not then it'll be just all talk

[Tempest414]

How much use are forward based RB2's and T31's actually going to be? Would larger Auxiliaries/Logistics vessels actually be cheaper and more useful?

For me right now when it comes to the Indo-Pacific we would be better off sending and Wave class tanker and maybe taking Bulwark out of readiness and trying to get the Australians to go 50/50 on running costs and manning her both these ships would be big assets in the region and would allow a Commonwealth Amphib group with a Canberra class LHD & HMS Bulwark LPD

[Lord Jim]

Maybe we should start discussing with other members of ASEAN the possibility of setting up a joint auxiliary support flotilla to support Naval operations, in the sane vain as NATO has with its joint AWACS, AAR and Air Transport needs. We would offer one or both Waves and possibly with one of the Albions, to be jointly manned and with operating cost costs paid for again jointly. It would be a way of firming up alliances and showing that there is a will to co-operate.

[abc123]

Tomahawk - no UK surface ship can currently use it, so why do we need them? The T26 will get them (or a successor system) when they are finished. As for the sub-launched version - probably only useful against an opponent without access to satellite surveillance - rather gives the position of the sub away when you fire it and negates their prime advantage. Far better for them to be on surface ships.

I think the point you make about satellite surveillance is actually a point in the other direction. If cruise missiles are carried by submarines no potential adversary (other than ones a long, long way from the sea) knows whether or not they are in range of sub-launched cruise missiles at any given time. If placed on surface ships that information may become only too apparent and a threat somewhat hollow if the adversary knows it will take a week before we have sufficient assets in place to strike.

Yep, that threat is especially strong with whopping 3-4 active SSNs of the RN... Countries from Venezuela to China are shaking because there might be RN sub with 10 Tomahawks in vicinity...

[abc123]

Maybe we should start discussing with other members of ASEAN the possibility of setting up a joint auxiliary support flotilla to support Naval operations, in the sane vain as NATO has with its joint AWACS, AAR and Air Transport needs. We would offer one or both Waves and possibly with one of the Albions, to be jointly manned and with operating cost costs paid for again jointly. It would be a way of firming up alliances and showing that there is a will to co-operate.

I have an even better proposal- why not rent them a whole RN? If possible to Singapore. They might, at least properly finance her. It's even possible that they will not cut capabilities every year or sell ships for peanuts to potentially hostile countries...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... razil.html

[donald_of_tokyo]

I completely disagree with the final conclusions.

Me too, the author is pretty much apologising for the MOD's continual failures.
Speed is a function of money.
At the moment the schedule is slowed to so the annual budget stretched further, the MOD's favourite trick.
They should have invested in the frigate factory, they should have started the T26 instead of the building patrol boats no one wants, and they should have a faster schedule. All of this would have delivered a cheaper total programme, but it all got shelved so the MOD could play its trick card mentioned above.

Sir Humphrey is right that "speeding up" cannot be done without cutting something else. I totally agree here. But, the situation changes if we cut (or delay) something.

Yes we have two good candidates, cutting/reducing T31e and disbanding one or two T23GP without modernization.

If we need 100M GBP in 2020-2025, these cuts can provide it easily.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Alix Valeti : #surfacewarship conference in London,Commander of Maritime ops @RoyalNavy explains that (1)presence in Arctic will be strengthened,(2)as will presence in Indo-Pacific,(3)confirms that UK is looking to build bases on overseas territories (also used to deploy Type31 & OPVs).

Confirmation that more resources will be provided for the Arctic and Indo-Pacific regions with additional bases opening in overseas territories to deploy OPV's and T31's.
Where is the funding coming from for these additional resources?
How much use are forward based RB2's and T31's actually going to be? Would larger Auxiliaries/Logistics vessels actually be cheaper and more useful?
More presence in the Arctic. Additional Submarine resources or more survey Icebreakers and/or MPA's?
Interesting that additional resources for North Atlantic not mentioned.

It does not necessarily mean additional resources.
(1) How about sending HMS Protector there? Go Arctic and just leave Antarctic (say, only one deployment every two years?). As Arctic is nearer, it needs less resources.
(2) presence in Indo-Pacific, is just relocating the Kipion escorts from Persian Gulf to Indian Ocean (and sometimes ASEAN).
(3) If there is a continuous deployment, I understand building base overseas and locating a "guard ship" there is cheaper than continuing the deployment.

On item-(3), we need to think about actual cases.

3a: Falkland islands:

It has a base and HMS Clyde (to be replaced by HMS Forth). As there is an air field, it has good air cover and thus no need for helicopter hangar (because a land-based patrol airplane is always more efficient than a helicopter). Good example of the cheapest solution to station a guard ship there.

3b: Caribbean ocean: RN/RFA is using allied ports, which is good I guess. But, with a port, what can be done?

I think placing a River B2 there is good. Similar to Falklands Island, they need an air base. Two or three BN Islander/Defender is much cheaper than a single Wildcat, and there are many airports there. So, it is "doable". A Bay-LSD will be anyway needed in summer, but the Wave in winter can go out. If she can find another job, it is good (see 3d). Wave needs ~100 RFA crew, while a River B2 needs only ~36.

3c: Bahrain: I understand T23GP will be located there.

It will just be replaced with T31e. Looking at the fact that there were long gaps of escorts there, "even T31e will do".

3d: Singapore (may be):

Compared to "nothing" now, even a T31e will be a great leap. A Wave is another option, relocated from Caribbean ocean.

Among those candidates, only item-3d is "addition", and other three (3a,b,c) is not recourse intensive, I guess.

[RetroSicotte]

(1) How about sending HMS Protector there? Go Arctic and just leave Antarctic (say, only one deployment every two years?). As Arctic is nearer, it needs less resources.

3a: Falkland islands:
It has a base and HMS Clyde (to be replaced by HMS Forth). As there is an air field, it has good air cover and thus no need for helicopter hangar (because a land-based patrol airplane is always more efficient than a helicopter). Good example of the cheapest solution to station a guard ship there.

Couple of quick notes here.

1) You can't leave the Antarctic like that without Protector. It's performing an extremely busy workload down there, and without its presence, both the British Antarctic Presence and the ice sheets would encounter issues for passing ships. It has no real purpose up north in the same fashion, it's needed in the south.

3a) The ranges to things like the South Georgia and South Sandwich Isles won't allow a land based helo to reach, which I think is their intent about wanting a ship-borne helo down there. If you need to land anybody on those little isles, then docking at them is extremely difficult, as they are not very sheltered.

[ArmChairCivvy]

their intent about wanting a ship-borne helo down there.

Falklands itself is a big place: the ship's helo has been tasked with SAR and medical evacuations... where you need it and when you need it

[donald_of_tokyo]

Couple of quick notes here.
1) You can't leave the Antarctic like that without Protector. It's performing an extremely busy workload down there, and without its presence, both the British Antarctic Presence and the ice sheets would encounter issues for passing ships. It has no real purpose up north in the same fashion, it's needed in the south.
3a) The ranges to things like the South Georgia and South Sandwich Isles won't allow a land based helo to reach, which I think is their intent about wanting a ship-borne helo down there. If you need to land anybody on those little isles, then docking at them is extremely difficult, as they are not very sheltered.

Thanks, so HMS Protector is needed there, to do both "Antarctic" and "South Georgia and South Sandwich Isles"? (But, I understand South Georgia has a peer, on which HMS Clyde is berthing frequently.)

their intent about wanting a ship-borne helo down there.

Falklands itself is a big place: the ship's helo has been tasked with SAR and medical evacuations... where you need it and when you need it

?? Falkland Island has its own SAR helicopter detachment, sourced out to civilian company. There has been no ship helo there for long (other than those onboard HMS Protector).

[Aethulwulf]

I believe that HMS Protector is only deployed south during the Antarctic summer. If she were to be deployed to the north, I expect this would be during the Arctic summer. Luckily, someone has arranged for these two summers to occur at opposite times of the year...

"Protector spends the British winters – summertime in the Southern Hemisphere – working around the frozen continent, withdrawing to the more temperate climes of South Africa for the austral winter to undergo maintenance and conduct survey work and training, typically off the west coast of Africa."

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... an-mission

It could be possible for HMS Protector to return to her Plymouth base from ~April to October, and conduct surveys etc. around the high north for some of this time. During this time, a T31 could deploy south to South Africa and engage with sub-saharan African navies, Brazil, Chile, and other southern hemisphere nations (APT(S)). This is in addition to the Falkland Islands Patrol Task around the EEZ of the Falkland Islands conducted by HMS Clyde / Forth.

[Poiuytrewq]

Allegedly all five t-31s will be in service by the time HMS Glasgow completes its trials; isn't that answering the below call? Or you may have had extra measures in mind?

That's true but how cheap are these T31's actually going to be if upgraded over time?

What are we actually getting for the roughly 620 crew that it will take to man the T31's? If the T31 was to get a serious ASW capability either now or in the future that could result in an additional 100 crew needing to be found or around 700 in total for the 5 vessels. We always look at the procurement costs but how cheap are these T31's going to be over the lifetime of the platform?

How would the operating costs of an ASW T31 compare to a basic ASW T26 with only a 76mm, 12/24 CAMM, 8 ASROC, 2x 30mm's and single a Phalanx ?

Is it possible that both vessels would have a crew allocation of around 140?

If so, how much more expensive to operate would a basic T26 be over a 25 year service life? The difference may be smaller than what you would imagine.

The other aspect to consider is how much would extra T26 hulls actually cost if HMG agreed to stump up £8bn for the first eight? How much would hulls 9, 10, 11, 12 actually cost?

If hulls 9 to 12 were to cost around £700m each due to the accelerated build schedule and economies of scale etc. That would be £2.8bn for the four T26 hulls. If an ASW T31 was to cost around £450m each for 5 hulls that would cost in total £2.25bn or £550m less than the four T26 option. Over the 25 year service life the difference would amount to just over £20m per annum.

With only 560 to 600 crew required for the four T26's as opposed to the 700 required to man 5x ASW T31's, could the 4x T26 option actually have comparable operating costs or even lower operating costs over the 25 year service. It could be closer than it would first appear.

When comparing overall operating costs over the entire service life of the platforms it worth remembering that it doesn't matter if the T31's are upgraded now or 10 years from now. It will still cost the same amount over the 25 year term. The difference is, if the capabilities are included from the start, the vessel can make full use of them over the entire service life of the vessel.

This is clearly a different approach from current planning but I think it shows a couple of things.

1. The T31 programme only makes financial sense if the crew allocations are kept to around 100 or less and the procurement cost of around £250m/£300m, ideally much less. Given the fact that upgrading the T31 substantially over its service life makes little financial sense it begs the question, what is the point apart from penny pinching in the short term?

2. If for purely political reasons the T31 programme has to happen I think their is a very strong financial argument to keep these vessels as simple as possible. Spending much more than £250m makes very little sense over the longer term. Unfortunately £250m doesn't make a Frigate but it could make a highly useful 21st century multipurpose global patrol vessel. One that could be a genuine game changer for RN and the UK's Allies around the world.

Didn't the Arctic convoys sail in N. Atlantic?
- so which ever turn of phrase is used, they are actually tightly linked (and so are the objectives of any ops)

Agreed, it is difficult to fully understand what is being proposed without knowing more details but I think it's fair to say that a lot of the problems that are requiring attention in the North Atlantic are much further south than the Arctic or the High North.

[Poiuytrewq]

Could we see a small set of ice patrole vessels like the RCN are building right now say 3-6 or a few based on a modified RRS sir David Attenborough with the incessing importance of arctic sea lanes?

Very unlikely but let's wait and see.

The RRS SDA build is very important however to help assess what can be built today in the UK for £150m.

Compared to what Canada is spending on the Harry DeWolf class it appears we are getting excellent value for money.

[Poiuytrewq]

How much use are forward based RB2's and T31's actually going to be? Would larger Auxiliaries/Logistics vessels actually be cheaper and more useful?

For me right now when it comes to the Indo-Pacific we would be better off sending and Wave class tanker and maybe taking Bulwark out of readiness and trying to get the Australians to go 50/50 on running costs and manning her both these ships would be big assets in the region and would allow a Commonwealth Amphib group with a Canberra class LHD & HMS Bulwark LPD

I think forward basing a Wave and Bulwark is a much better plan than sending a Leander style T31. I like the idea of a Commonwealth Force operating in the Western Pacific but we are a long way away from that at present.

At least initially I would look seriously at bringing Bulwark out of mothballs and reducing the crew allocation down to the lowest possible level for general patrol duties. Adding a Rubb hanger would allow two helicopters to be embarked and still retain a Chinook capable landing spot. A modular medical facility could be added to the vehicle deck if required and when combined with a LCU, one or two LCVP's and a couple of Merlins it could make for a very effective HADR platform.

I believe this is what the UK really need in the region. It would be difficult to argue that basing a logistics vessel and a HADR vessel in the region was an escalation even if they regularly conducted FONOPs in the South China sea.

[Poiuytrewq]

Among those candidates, only item-3d is "addition", and other three (3a,b,c) is not recourse intensive, I guess.

If this plan was enacted would it not be fair to say that the UK would be widening it's influence in certain areas and retreating in others?

I suppose it comes down to whether we actually want to make a difference or just specialise in short term token deployments.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What are we actually getting for the roughly 620 crew that it will take to man the T31's? If the T31 was to get a serious ASW capability either now or in the future that could result in an additional 100 crew needing to be found or around 700 in total for the 5 vessels.

Good points and the foreward based T31 will get 6 mth crew rotations (plus some duplication of maintenance crew, for the work not done centrally when back at home: handing over Kipion duties every 9 months scenario will become rare, with a ship permanently based in Bahrain for 4-5 years.)
- so crew-wise, add a 6th "ghost" ship
- but the whole point of my point of the 5 T-31s coming before the 1st T-26 was that the crew savings will be realised in a "front-loaded" manner
cfr.what the future could hold, below, once we get past the first batches (5 and 3, respectively)

With only 560 to 600 crew required for the four T26's as opposed to the 700 required to man 5x ASW T31's

The T31 programme only makes financial sense if the crew allocations are kept to around 100 or less and the procurement cost of around £250m/£300m

- exactly why both money and crew savings are front-loaded

what is the point apart from penny pinching in the short term?

Level of capacity maintained translates to money, even if ships were not built (or token ships were built; Who swore in the back and uttered TOBA )
- all capacities were not created equal
- we have more capacity to knock a few hulls more than to rapidly fit them out (in the military way)

If for purely political reasons the T31 programme has to happen I think their is a very strong financial argument to keep these vessels as simple as possible.

- so what I was trying to say above the quote, there might be other, totally rational reasons

the problems that are requiring attention in the North Atlantic are much further south than the Arctic or the High North

- but that is where they sail from, be it above or below the surface

[Poiuytrewq]

- but that is where they sail from, be it above or below the surface

Unless they come up from the Med

Realistically, what assets would it take to fully shut the GIUK gap and tail anything that tries to pass through? With the USN pivoting towards the Pacific I don't think NATO has the available resources to do it properly now. The increased MPA's will help but RN SSN numbers are currently woefully inadequate.

In my opinion this is priority No1 and the UK should be investing heavily in counteracting the current issues.

[Tempest414]

In some part it will come down to how the Canadian navy splits its T26 fleet at this time they have 7 frigates in the Atlantic and 5 in the Pacific if they have the same sort of split when it comes to T26 they could have 9 frigates in the Atlantic and 6 in the Pacific. Also when it comes to the MPAs with the UK and Norway going for P-8 along with the US Atlantic based P-8 fleet it could be a plan to build a joint MPA base in Iceland