Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

serge750 wrote:Perhaps sturgeon ha got her eye on the batch 2 rivers....
HMS Glasgow, surely?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

More likely that they would get 2 or 3 of the River Class (B2) "Frigates". After all, they were built in the "Frigate Factory". As they won't need to carry Helicopters, they won't need to have ships with hangars either. Now everyone will know why the ships were built when they were as well. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

The SNPs White Paper called for:
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf

- Two frigates from the Royal Navy’s current fleet
- A command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities (from the Royal Navy’s current fleet, following adaptation)
- Four mine counter measure vessels from the Royal Navy’s current fleet
- Two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to provide security for the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). However, as the Royal Navy only has four OPVs currently262, a longer lead time for procurement might be necessary
- Four to six patrol boats from the Royal Navy’s current fleet, capable of operating in coastal waters, providing fleet protection and also contributing to securing borders
- Auxiliary support ships (providing support to vessels on operations), which could be secured on a shared basis initially with the rest of the UK

In effect, Sturgeon's Navy wanted to be:

- 1x Albion
- 2x T23
- 4x Sandown/Hunt
- 2x River
- 4-6x Archer
- Sharing the RFA with the RN

Aside from the absolute level of AHAHAHAHA LOL NO that this is for both reasons of "They would never agree" and "Even if they did this is still totally pathetic and unworkable based on the numbers they had to run it all", they also wanted two further frigates going forward. Likely small ones given to whatever remained of the Clyde yards after Independence destroyed the jobs there and put thousands into unemployment. (Because as we all know, the SNP cares nothing for the actual people who's lives they ruin to get what they want.)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

She wants an "Albion", the old name of the island she wants to split from. :lol:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well they have got the Shipyards, let her build her own Navy. I wonder how popular she will be in her home city when there are No ships being built and No possibility of them being built either. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Scimitar54 wrote:Well they have got the Shipyards, let her build her own Navy. I wonder how popular she will be in her home city when there are No ships being built and No possibility of them being built either. :mrgreen:
In fairness to them, they do have a claim on vessels, since they paid for them as well via taxes.

The issue is the proportion of the claims they feel they have is way out of place.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Ever since the Barnett Formula was implemented, they would have already been more than recompensed. The additional costs, to the remainder of the U.K., of relocating both the Submarine Base and other Defence facilities would also need to be paid for. They would not be entitled to much, if anything at all. 100% of nothing is still, guess what ........ Nothing.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Scimitar54 wrote:Ever since the Barnett Formula was implemented, they would have already been more than recompensed. The additional costs, to the remainder of the U.K., of relocating both the Submarine Base and other Defence facilities would also need to be paid for. They would not be entitled to much, if anything at all. 100% of nothing is still, guess what ........ Nothing.
Back in 2014 there were more factual analyses of it, which pretty much indicated Scotland would have gotten some (likely Batch 1) Rivers, Archers, and perhaps a T23 GP or two.

Nothing that would be a big loss to the RN given replacements coming in.

The true issue however, is the manpower they'd take with them from those who elect to remain in Scotland.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As much as I don't want to see Scotland go if they did I think a fleet of

1 x Albion
2 x T-31
3 x River B1s
3 x Hunt class
5 x Archer
1 x Point class

would be a good match this could allow the RN to build a sixth Type 31 what are we losing 1 Albion we are not using 3 x B1 Rivers that will go anyway 3 x Hunts that are along side anyway and 5 Archers of which 4 are ready in Scotland plus 2 tier 2 escorts

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Why on earth would the Scots want an Albion and a Point? They might find a use for a Wave though.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:Why on earth would the Scots want an Albion and a Point? They might find a use for a Wave though.
Indeed. Given that an independent Scotland is likely to take on about as much responsibility for its own defence as the Republic of Ireland does then the four Block 1 River's should more than suffice for their navy and a couple of dozen Short Tucano's should meet their "air defence" requirements.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me Scotland would have a different view to the Irish for a start they have a lot more Islands and coast to protect and its location makes it more front and centre in any conflict so if I was to put a Scottish defence force together I would base it around a Marine Brigade back up a light armoured brigade so a Albion and a point would be a good start to be replaced latter by two enforcer LPDs

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:As much as I don't want to see Scotland go if they did I think a fleet of

1 x Albion
2 x T-31
3 x River B1s
3 x Hunt class
5 x Archer
1 x Point class

would be a good match this could allow the RN to build a sixth Type 31 what are we losing 1 Albion we are not using 3 x B1 Rivers that will go anyway 3 x Hunts that are along side anyway and 5 Archers of which 4 are ready in Scotland plus 2 tier 2 escorts
This is as much fantasy as asking for a third QE for the RN. Scotland alone couldn't hope to support that. The SNPs listed budgets and manpower just do not match up to it at all and are laughably misleading.

And that's before we get to their assumption that members of the Royal Navy will jump ship to Scotland despite 50% of the numbers they quoted they will have not even coming from Scotland to begin with. They indicate that numerous thousands of English, Welsh, and Northern Irish members of the RN will suddenly go "...I'm gonna go live in Scotland now!" and with no prior interest suddenly uproot their families and go north to be a part of the Scottish Navy.

It's absolute nonsense, and a smokescreen of "Look, pretty numbers!" to fool their significantly defence illiterate voterbase.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Do you want to keep the Balamory ferry?!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Hardly unexpected but a worrying escalation nonetheless.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-midea ... KKCN1U52SC

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 ball does appear to be in Iran's court on this. If they start to interfere with vessels belonging to European nations transiting the Gulf they will lose any chance of the EU and France and Germany in particular trying to de-escalate the situation or offer help to counter the US Sanctions. The same goes for they planning to break the agreements on the manufacture and storage of nuclear materials. The US has hurt them with its reintroduction of sanctions, but if the hard liners in the Revolutionary Guards supported by the more extreme Religious leader continue to push back militarily things are going to get out of hand pretty quickly. It also doesn't help when the CinC of the US Armed Forces decides what action he wants to take based on his mood minute by minute. We need the more stable parties in Iran to make a major effort to keep the others in check. The West will try to keep the US calm as well.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

An interesting point - the IRG seem to have been unaware of the presence of HMS Montrose until she intervened (hence the rant yesterday from some Iranian bigwig about the British being "cowards" because we protected our own shipping, which I thought was odd when it was reported. The fact that they were spotted and warned off by an unimpeachable witness will have been very embarrassing for those involved) - that would seem to indicate that they don't have access to radar-based intelligence from other elements of the Iranian armed forces.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Caribbean wrote:An interesting point - the IRG seem to have been unaware of the presence of HMS Montrose until she intervened (hence the rant yesterday from some Iranian bigwig about the British being "cowards" because we protected our own shipping, which I thought was odd when it was reported. The fact that they were spotted and warned off by an unimpeachable witness will have been very embarrassing for those involved) - that would seem to indicate that they don't have access to radar-based intelligence from other elements of the Iranian armed forces.
I think they were all too aware. Testing one's limits and/or poking the bear is a time honoured thing to do for Iran.

They wanted to see what we'd do/if we'd escalate. Since Iran is currently the one looking more escalatory than anyone after the drone shootdown.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We should not kid our self that US is not pocking the nest hoping something will happen at will let them have pop. the big thing here is we only have one frigate on station forward deployed unless we are going to double crew her she will max out at 130 sea going days and even with extra crew will maybe make 200 with the remaining day being needed for maintenance and resupply and crew leave

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:We should not kid our self that US is not pocking the nest hoping something will happen at will let them have pop.
I think that's beyond doubt. People seem to be on "Blame Iran!" or "Blame America!"

In truth, I blame both of them.

Bravo zulu on Montrose having the discipline not to just open fire though.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Although this a commitment from a politician who is extremely unlikely to be our next PM, it serves to highlight the issues within RN and is a welcome intervention nonetheless.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... oyal-navy/

For those that can't get past the paywall here is the most relevant quote,

Furthermore when you look at this week’s events it shows that in recent decades we have run down the Navy too much. Our current commitment is for 19 destroyers and frigates, supported by excellent offshore patrol vessels.

If I become prime minister, I will review this commitment as part of a wider look at our defence capability.

That will be backed by my promise to increase the defence budget to 2.5 per cent of GDP over five years. We will also see whether we need to add more Type 31s or offshore patrol vessels.
Interesting that the suggestion is to possibly increase T31's or the 'excellent OPV's'.

Unfortunately no sign at present of Boris making the same commitment.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by andrew98 »

And they'll say that we don't NEED to, but should, but cannot afford as they have to buy votes with nhs/education.

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by clinch »

Tempest414 wrote:We should not kid our self that US is not pocking the nest hoping something will happen at will let them have pop. the big thing here is we only have one frigate on station forward deployed unless we are going to double crew her she will max out at 130 sea going days and even with extra crew will maybe make 200 with the remaining day being needed for maintenance and resupply and crew leave
Indeed. And the UK seizing an Iranian tanker wasn’t very bright.

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

"Indeed. And the UK seizing an Iranian tanker wasn’t very bright."

or was it?
It showed what RM's can do.
It proved why we have a frigate in the gulf
It may prove we need more frigates


Post Reply