Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

both A-140 and Leander last offering have been without Phalanx[/quote]

Are they without Phalanx but FTR Phalanx or are they not able to receive Phalanx? I'd have thought (hoped) the former, and that Phalanx isnt being included in the offers becuase the RN will use it's pool of Phalanx to supply it as and when the T31 need them[/quote]

Both would be capable of hosting phalanx it just looks more likely they will not get it in the first place and this why I would like to 2 x 40mm fitted if we take Leander and fit it with 57mm , 2 x 40mm and Phalanx plus 24 CAMM it could become a very good close in support ship as very main weapon on the ship has a anti air capability plus very good anti fast boat

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Does your "B3 River (Avenger)" need high damage control or OPV standard is OK?
...My view is that it doesn’t need a “Frigate” level of damage control, it is not intended to purposely be put in harms way, so the principle is not to take damage and still be able to fight, its to take damage and withdraw or abandon ship with minimal loss of life.
May be, may be not.

Actions expected for these assets are more "close in" warfare, and close-in warfare is more exposed to enemy fire, like sudden attack or ambush.

Mk.VI boats has a good speed to out-maneuver the enemy.

But the River-family is a miniaturized escort in its hull form (not large fast boats),
- although much more maneuverable than Bays, still not as much as fast boats
- cutting all the high-end war fighting assets, and lacks helicopter hangar
- but carries almost all of the close-in weaponries an escort carries
So, if the "River B2" has similar damage control standard as an escort, it may be "as good as" an escort in the theater.

What I have in mind is the attack to Saudi's F2000 frigate, for example. Neutralizing it via good sensor and close-in defense armaments is good, but 100% avoiding such attack is not easy.
The benefit is another £1/2bn back into the T26 budget.
In that case, how about 5 US Cyclone class patrol craft as T31, and give nearly 1B GBP back to T26? Note Cyclone class is of VT design.. (although already very old...) :D

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: Avenger style ... would be a very capable vessel
The marketing spin is clearly rubbing off on people.

Either that or Poiuytrewq uses a new definition of 'capable'. This is a smaller, less powerful, and less robust hull than its predecessor designed 40 years earlier. The Royal Navy is on a capability climb down, meanwhile potential adversaries are are becoming more complex.

Here we have a platform that is far less capable than the T23 first conceived in the late 70s! This is not the capability needed for 2040+
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:Either that or Poiuytrewq uses a new definition of 'capable'.
It depends how you define capability in the 2030's/2040's. An Avenger or PPA style vessel, with a large amidships working deck serviced by a heavy duty deck crane may well be what is needed to deploy the ASW UUV's or XLUUV's of the future. A Bay could do the same job but a Bay can't reach 25knts. That could be important when working alongside the CSG.

I'm not suggesting an Avenger style vessel is a worthy replacement for a GP T23 but the capability of the PPA for example is truly impressive even it isn't exactly aesthetically pleasing. RN should be replacing Frigates with Frigates but if UUV's really are the future, current planning is sadly lacking with little sign of the foresight needed to embrace this new and continually evolving technology.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:Either that or Poiuytrewq uses a new definition of 'capable'.
It depends how you define capability in the 2030's/2040's. An Avenger or PPA style vessel, with a large amidships working deck serviced by a heavy duty deck crane may well be what is needed to deploy the ASW UUV's or XLUUV's of the future. A Bay could do the same job but a Bay can't reach 25knts. That could be important when working alongside the CSG.

I'm not suggesting an Avenger style vessel is a worthy replacement for a GP T23 but the capability of the PPA for example is truly impressive even it isn't exactly aesthetically pleasing. RN should be replacing Frigates with Frigates but if UUV's really are the future, current planning is sadly lacking with little sign of the foresight needed to embrace this new and continually evolving technology.
Is this where’s modern British version of the Absalon class could come in handy and come in to there own ?

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 »

Drones do not turn a big patrol boat into a frigate replacement. No way can drones be used to offset such a massive capability climb down.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:Drones do not turn a big patrol boat into a frigate replacement. No way can drones be used to offset such a massive capability climb down.
Only partly can agree. Even though drones are not completely replacing escorts, what if drones are "partly covering" escorts' tasks?

In late 1930s, aircraft carriers replaced battleships, not addition. I think drone-based tactics will at least partly replace the current escort-based tactics (but not all). This is why T26 has a large mission bay, making the ship more expensive (by hull size and standards within), and therefore RN could afford only 10 T26 with the budget prepared for 13 T23 replacement (and then broken down to 8 T26 and 5 T31).

I think the gain of drones to T26 pays for 30% less hull number. So, for me 8 T26 is equivalent to 10.4 T23 (if drones are properly equipped). The 5 T31e is required to cover 2.6 T23 equivalent tasks (= only has 2.6 T23 equivalent money). So, in general, I think 5 T31 with proper drones can replace 2.6 T23.

Not sure about Avenger, if NOT built to frigate standard hull. As for more "quasi-war" or "peacetime engagement" tasks, damage control against bullets and RPGs, or ATGM-class warhead will be very important. On which, I'm afraid OPV standard will not be so good.

# As we can see, then "from where drone costs come?" is the biggest remaining question...

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:Is this where’s modern British version of the Absalon class could come in handy and come in to there own ?
Maybe, but how would an Absalon deploy a 15m/30t UUV?
The wide 20m beam would be an advantage for stability but some pretty large alterations would be necessary to enable it.
On paper with the weapons deck and medium gun(s) left unchanged, a double Merlin capable hanger, Chinook capable flight deck and an enormous Flex deck capable of deploying very large UUV's as well as CB90 style craft, an improved Absalon could be a fantastically versatile addition to any fleet.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not sure about Avenger, if NOT built to frigate standard hull.
I agree, but what about a 120m Leander in a Avenger/PPA configuration?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Is this where’s modern British version of the Absalon class could come in handy and come in to there own ?
Maybe, but how would an Absalon deploy a 15m/30t UUV?
The wide 20m beam would be an advantage for stability but some pretty large alterations would be necessary to enable it.
On paper with the weapons deck and medium gun(s) left unchanged, a double Merlin capable hanger, Chinook capable flight deck and an enormous Flex deck capable of deploying very large UUV's as well as CB90 style craft, an improved Absalon could be a fantastically versatile addition to any fleet.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not sure about Avenger, if NOT built to frigate standard hull.
I agree, but what about a 120m Leander in a Avenger/PPA configuration?
I wasn’t thinking of the Absalon it’s self but I British design of something of that kind, say a T26 size Absalon Bay class hybrid.

Maybe something that has the open work area under the flight deck with steal beach like on the Absalons to Launch large UUV USV and a T26 type mission bay for smaller ones. Keep the VLS forward like on the T26 T45 so they don’t take space mid ship.

Would it be worth the RN having a 3 tear system for unmanned systems say,
- a Venari 95 style for smaller systems in low and medium threat areas
- a Bay style for larger and XL systems in low threat areas
- T26 sized vessels for larger systems in higher threat areas and to keep up with carrier groups

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Would be worth noting we don’t have the unmanned payloads, air, surface or subsurface would be nice if we actually started buying our own and deploying with ones integrated and learn from actual operations. This is the problem.

The reason bay/Albion keeps getting mentioned as there host is because we already have them we don’t have to buy new ships we can spend the money on the payloads and see how operating them will change and were improvements can be made in the mother ship before we think about replacement ships. Rather than buying new ships that may not work or need modified.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:Would be worth noting we don’t have the unmanned payloads, air, surface or subsurface would be nice if we actually started buying our own and deploying with ones integrated and learn from actual operations. This is the problem.

The reason bay/Albion keeps getting mentioned as there host is because we already have them we don’t have to buy new ships we can spend the money on the payloads and see how operating them will change and were improvements can be made in the mother ship before we think about replacement ships. Rather than buying new ships that may not work or need modified.
No we havnt got the systems yet but the vessels we build today will be in service in 25 years time so they will need to be designed with that in mind, this is what we’ve seen with the T26 mission bay.

The question is do we take this a step further and have a 1, 2 or 3 tear system ranging from small multi mission sloops through to frigate size vessel all the way up to bay size set ups ?

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 »

There is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from missiles, and there is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from submarines. As long as the Royal navy are in the carrier business they have not lost the requirement for traditional escorts.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Clive F »

Yep, agree with Shark Bait.

We need a "cheap" ASW only escort

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:There is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from missiles, and there is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from submarines. We have not lost the requirement for traditional escorts yet.
As I understand, no one here is talking about completely replacing escorts with a ship with drones. What we are talking here is about T31e, a program consuming only 20% of the T23 replacement budget.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:There is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from missiles, and there is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from submarines. As long as the Royal navy are in the carrier business they have not lost the requirement for traditional escorts.
Oh I agree, for me the type of vessel talked about above would have to be a additional part of the fleet and not in place of traditional escorts.

Though unmanned systems are going to become a bigger part of warfare going forward so the type of vessel or vessels used to deploy them does need to be looked at.

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 »

This all sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

QE has plenty of space for UAV's and the T26 has plenty of space for boats. There is nothing on the horizon that doesn't fit into these categories.

Dress it up however you want and the concepts touted over the last couple of days are a massive drop in capability.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

T31e program has seen all the three proposals submitted. We know, it is
- a 5 ship program built in UK, planned to commission on 2023, 24, 25, 26, and 27,
- with hulls as long as (or longer than) ~120 m with 5000+ nm range and good endurance
- and armed as written on T31e RFI (we see no big update to the requirement since then)
- which means no ASW weapons nor sensor, but with spaces for 4+ RHIBs and 2+ 20ft-ISO containers.

So, to cope with the "reality", not fantasy, we have only 3 options left.
A: proceed with the current design on T31e
B: delay it (only shifting the time-line)
C: or cancel it (including re-designing and re-submitting).


With 4-10B GBP shortfall in 10 year equipment budget (fact), I strongly suggest any decision on T31e program MUST be done AFTER SDSR2020. So, my choice is only options-B or C (wish or will).

Even though I am not strongly supporting Avenger idea or Cross-over-like idea, I do think it is very important now to discuss about "T31e replacements" (including ASW specialists), because I think MOD MUST seriously consider option-C, not only option-B. This is simply because "4-10B GBP shortfall in 10 year equipment budget" is reality, and facing reality is what the military must always do.

Proceeding with option-A looks very foolish for me. What we need is only ~1.5 years delay, even if it is option-B. We all know 2 escorts are currently in extended-readiness (or alike), and also know all the LIFEX work of T23s will end very soon. So, all T23s are coming back to the fleet. And not enough crew RN have. Zero need to hurry now.

[EDIT] And discussion about "T31e options" is exactly the thing we shall do now (but note that any such option will immediately include delay, for sure. And I am very happy with it).

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:This all sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

QE has plenty of space for UAV's and the T26 has plenty of space for boats. There is nothing on the horizon that doesn't fir into these categories.

Dress it up however you want and the concepts touted over the last couple of days are a massive drop in capability.
You don’t want to use your only active carrier for simple UAVs that’s just a waste.
The way USVs and UUVs have been moving is ever larger and more capable so Vessels with larger spaces to handle them will be needed, it’s these types that are being talked about.
I’m not sure about the others but I was seeing them as an addition to the fleet maybe via the MCM replacements down the line, and not a replacement for escorts so there would be no drop in capability.

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 »

Using an aircraft carrier to operate aircraft is a waste now?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

shark bait wrote:This all sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

QE has plenty of space for UAV's and the T26 has plenty of space for boats. There is nothing on the horizon that doesn't fit into these categories.

Dress it up however you want and the concepts touted over the last couple of days are a massive drop in capability.
Your type 26 is your escort asw vessel. Of which we have 8. The vessels and configurations are not replacing those. It maybe we don’t require any more asw assets beyond those 8 but fair enough

I would content there is a significant number of other areas were having knowledge of the underwater environment on a persistent or semi regular period is a requirement for example several days prior to a high value asset transiting a confined area.

I would also content that type 26 has extremely limited boat capacity for multiple unmanned systems or to create a multi static net. With the ability to store at most 4 boats is useful at least 2 will be required for use by actual people for a number of tasks second would you risk only being able to lower a manned boat from one side of the ship would take the risk of one side becoming jammed/damaged if a person was in the water needed a boat launch to get him.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In that case, how about 5 US Cyclone class patrol craft as T31, and give nearly 1B GBP back to T26? Note Cyclone class is of VT design.. (although already very old...)
I like the Cyclone class and could see how something similar would be a good ship/boat to operate from Gib/Med, but it’s not what we want from the T31 which is a global presence ship.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:Using an aircraft carrier to operate aircraft is a waste now?
Using it to operate simple UAVs that could be operated from cheaper simpler and less important asset is a waste. It’s like using a T45 for counter piracy it’s a waste of a high value asset.

This is where Unmanned Mother ships from sloop size through to frigate size and up to bay size to operate different size unmanned vehicles in different threat environments come in to play. IMO this is where the MCM replacement program should be going, not taking money away from escort programs that will as you rightly say degrade capabilities in areas that we simply can’t.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:This is a smaller, less powerful, and less robust hull than its predecessor designed 40 years earlier. The Royal Navy is on a capability climb down, meanwhile potential adversaries are are becoming more complex.

Here we have a platform that is far less capable than the T23 first conceived in the late 70s! This is not the capability needed for 2040+
I think you may be getting too excited by the current T31 brochureware rather than what £250mn buys - there is no doubt in my mind the T31 will be less capable than a relative T23 of today.

What should happen is that we buy as many T26s as we can afford, but the balance is to have a level where we can have a meaningful forward without taking all the cash out of the war fighting capability- i.e. cheaper T31 and more T26s.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Clive F wrote:Yep, agree with Shark Bait.

We need a "cheap" ASW only escort
Yep, and I agree with Shark Bait too, but that's not what he said. I quote;

"There is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from missiles, and there is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from submarines. We have not lost the requirement for traditional escorts yet."

Unless Ive got it wrong Shark Bait isnt saying that we needed a cheap ASW only escort, what he is saying is that we need more ASW/AAW escorts that can protect the QEC from both missiles AND submarines, the classic goal keeper role as performed by the Batch 1 Type 22's in the Falklands methinks?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Clive F wrote:Yep, agree with Shark Bait.

We need a "cheap" ASW only escort
Does such a thing exist? A cheap, yet effective, ASW esxort?

Post Reply