Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Pongoglo wrote:what he is saying is that we need more ASW/AAW escorts that can protect the QEC from both missiles
That’s what we’ve spent billions buying type 45 and type 26 for.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Current maritime drones may be limited in speed and endurance, but that is bound to change over time. What is needed is a new class of Warship that is designed to operate as part of the fleet and be able to launch, operate and recover drones and numerous types. I see drones as a evolution of the modular ship designs we see now, but instead of changing the weapon and sensor fit of the actual platform, you change the composition of the drones it carries. These vessels would deploy drones to provide a screen for a task Force against multiple threat types, as well as setting up mobile barriers comprising of drones equipped both as sensor carriers and weapons planforms, think mobile SOSUS net backed up by mobile CAPTOR mines. In addition drones would be deployed to counter an opponents drones, and extend the radar coverage of the fleet in a covert manner though various means. In summary I believe drones will become an integral part of naval operations, enabling fewer manned platforms to have a far great areas of influence through them.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:That’s what we’ve spent billions buying type 45 and type 26 for.
Agreed, and we need another billion or two to buy some more. The only “relatively” cheap things that can be added to real ASW capabilities are MPAs, Merlins, dip sonar for Wildcats and in the near future ASW drones. Building a new “cheap ASW” ship with the necessary quietening will ultimately cost as much as a T26 given the scale at which the RN could afford to build it.
”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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Current maritime drones may be limited in speed and endurance, but that is bound to change over time. What is needed is a new class of Warship that is designed to operate as part of the fleet and be able to launch, operate and recover drones and numerous types. I see drones as a evolution of the modular ship designs we see now, but instead of changing the weapon and sensor fit of the actual platform, you change the composition of the drones it carries. These vessels would deploy drones to provide a screen for a task Force against multiple threat types, as well as setting up mobile barriers comprising of drones equipped both as sensor carriers and weapons planforms, think mobile SOSUS net backed up by mobile CAPTOR mines. In addition drones would be deployed to counter an opponents drones, and extend the radar coverage of the fleet in a covert manner though various means. In summary I believe drones will become an integral part of naval operations, enabling fewer manned platforms to have a far great areas of influence through them.
This is spot on why Iv come to the thinking that we need a 3 tier Unmanned Mother Ship set up.

Tier one would the small multi mission sloop like the Venari 95, these would carry your smaller mcm and ASW drone and conduct their work in low to medium threat environments. They would also be able to conduct low end security like counter piracy, Gib and Falklands guard ship.

Tier two would be a frigate sized Mother Ship, think of the Absalon or cross over designs but with a T26 type mission bay and a Karl Doorman style steak beach and launch system, say 150m by 20m. These would be there to be part of a task group and keep up with the carriers, they would operate in high threat environments.

Tier 3 would be a large bay style vessel with a well dock and two large deck cranes, capable of launching the largest drones of any sort as well as double up as HARD platforms. These would operate in low threat environments.

IMO the mcm replacement program is the place to start the move towards this set. Numbers would obviously depend on money, but for me I’d go for 8-10 tier ones 5-6 tier twos and 2-3 tier threes.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Not wanting to go into fantasy but perhaps in the future asw drones may be launched via parachute from aircraft as a quicker response ,building expensive ships to do same may limit resources

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

seaspear wrote:Not wanting to go into fantasy
Peh, that’s not fantasy - I’m going for modern Sunderland flying boats with mission bays 8-)
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote: What is needed is a new class of Warship that is designed to operate as part of the fleet and be able to launch, operate and recover drones and numerous types
Kinda like a carrier for aircraft?
seaspear wrote:Not wanting to go into fantasy but perhaps in the future asw drones may be launched via parachute from aircraft as a quicker response
Like a sonobuoy?
Pongoglo wrote: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?
Whilst this does make sense Pongoglo, it's not the point I am trying to make, and that is simply drones in no way justify cheap incapable escorts.

The Navy is getting back into he business of proper carrier group operations and there is no way that carrier group is going to slow down so a PSV can recover a drone that can only reach 5 knots. These type of drones are simply not the solution to the carrier group problem.

These drones have their place, but it is not in a carrier group that needs fast high endurance assets that can cover the huge sphere of influence around a carrier croup.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For this all goes back to what I said some time back which is that type 31 should have been a class of 6 Carrier group only ASW escort with a spec like so

130 x 18 meters
top speed 30 knots
crew 110 plus space for Helo crew
3D radar
Merlin capable hangar and flight deck
hull mounted and CAPTAS-4 sonar
good Soft kill fit
1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 1 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM , 24 cell MK-41

this ship would have then freed up the T-26s to be the Global combat ship it is designed to be. however now we will have 8 t-26s capable of going anywhere tied to the carrier group and TAPS with a 5" fully automated gun system that will never be used in war time due to the fact they can't leave the carrier group or the Boomers.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

shark bait wrote:The Navy is getting back into he business of proper carrier group operations and there is no way that carrier group is going to slow down so a PSV can recover a drone that can only reach 5 knots. These type of drones are simply not the solution to the carrier group problem.
The navy specifically bought type 45 and is buying type 26 to cover the requirement to provide protection to the carrier group. These vessels along with the carrier air group provide all the protection that is required.

I’m not sure why you are continuing to link this carrier requirement to drones.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:however now we will have 8 t-26s capable of going anywhere tied to the carrier group and TAPS
Which is exactly what the navy wanted and designed the type 26 accordingly

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:however now we will have 8 t-26s capable of going anywhere tied to the carrier group and TAPS
Which is exactly what the navy wanted and designed the type 26 accordingly
No what they wanted was one class 13 ships capable of going anywhere what they will have is 8 ships tied to the carrier group and boomers

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 »

SW1 wrote:I’m not sure why you are continuing to link this carrier requirement to drones.
Just as an example why the Navy can't build a crap ship then say it'll have drones to offset the capability drop.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

shark bait wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’m not sure why you are continuing to link this carrier requirement to drones.
Just as an example why the Navy can't build a crap ship then say it'll have drones to offset the capability drop.
The navy are building 14 escorts to cover its 2 primary tasks carrier strike and CASD, the conversation around drones and the rest is how does it cover other tasks beyond that that it may like too but are not it’s primary ones.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:however now we will have 8 t-26s capable of going anywhere tied to the carrier group and TAPS
Which is exactly what the navy wanted and designed the type 26 accordingly
No what they wanted was one class 13 ships capable of going anywhere what they will have is 8 ships tied to the carrier group and boomers
No that was not the requirement. It requested a replacement for the type 23 asw capability that could be globally deplorable in support of the carrier group and deep water saw in support of the ssbns.

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 »

Cross-post from T45 thread.
Tempest414 wrote:
NickC wrote:So on average each T45 deployed 80 days/22% of year, a good, bad or very indifferent record for a fleet of six ships? Understand USN Burkes ~135 days whose ships date back to the 90's and with the new FFG(X) USN aiming to more than double that figure. No reason given why MoD did not report different readiness levels, so presume need to draw your own conclusions.
See this is a miss leading sum for me and a leading question as the number of days at sea and the number of days ready to go to sea if needed are different thing. we have to note that the RN dose not have the funding that the UN navy enjoys. What I see when looking at the figures above is that of the 4 ship available ( that were not in refit ) 2 were at ready or at sea all year round

Edit : this means that the four available ships had average of 119 sea going days meaning there at ready availability must be near to 140 to 150 days very good in my eyes for a highly complex AAW destroyer
RN T45 and T23 BOTH enjoyed 140-150 sea going days on average, around 2010. This is clearly a massive reduction.

For me it is the “stealth cut”, saying we have 19 escorts but actually operating tempo per ship is 40% less than those we saw in 2010.

Again, RN is NOT using 19 escorts for years. Actual number is 40% less = 11-12 hulls.

Do we really need 5 T31?

Even if we completely cancel 5 T31e (and re-use that cost for anything you like *1), and be with only 6 T45 and 8 T26 (=14 full-fat escorts), if RN can operate them with 140-150 sea-going days per year (not 80 days), is RN ever going to lose anything?


*1: how about 1 more T26 and significant number of drones?

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Simon82 »

I think the issue is the Royal Navy can’t afford the luxury of single purpose vessels, the size of the fleet is too small and there’s no way they could man a larger fleet. Modern British warships must be general purpose vessels, to cope with whatever eventuality they find themselves in. To clarify here, when I say ‘general purpose’ I mean capable of effective ASW, ASuW and air defence, not in the sense that ‘general purpose’ is often bandied around to describe a stripped down vessel with no specific offensive capability and a second-rate radar.
There is one big drawback to this plan, true general purpose vessels like the Type 26 frigate or the Arleigh Burke destroyers are individually very expensive. The Royal Navy did go down this route once before with the Type 82 which foundered like the Type 26 on it’s politically unpalatable high unit cost. This was despite the fact that repeated studies through the early ‘60s found that to give the best chance of of having the right weapon in the right place at the right time was to have all the weapons on single, large general-purpose ship, the Type 82. This worked out cheaper overall and also required much less manpower than having double the number of smaller, if individually cheaper ASuW and air defence ships. Not only are these ships more capable as as individuals, they also are more effective as part of a carrier escort group. They also, being larger, have more growth and modernisation potential to meet emerging future threats and requirements.
It was deemed in 1965 that nothing less than the Type 82 would survive in the battlefield of the 1970s, even in the Third World, against modern Soviet equipment supplied to proxy states. Today the proliferation of explosive drones and, more worryingly, anti-ship missiles even to non-state actors like the Hothies in Yemen or Hezbolah in Lebanon, mean this is even more true today than it was in 1965. The last few decades has seen a terrific levelling of the weapon technology, with the West only maintaining a lead where it chooses to spend vast sums of money. Stealth aircraft being an obvious example. Unfortunately the Navy (or the Army for that matter) is not viewed in the same light as the Air Force. To suggest cutting the order for F-35s in favour of a larger order of a combat version of the Boeing T-X or Lockheed-Martin/KAI FA-50 on the reasoning that those aircraft are more than capable of meeting the roles the RAF is currently performing and it will enable the RAF to grow in size would, I hope, rightly be regarded as utter madness. Yet this same logic when applied to the Type 26 and Type 31 and is regarded as a sound vision of the future.


Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do we really need 5 T31?
Yes I think we do need T-31 as the T-45's and T-23 ASW 's will bogged down with the Carrier group so the T-31s will be needed.

Good to see the LMM tests If it goes into service on the fleet it will help the T-31s and Rivers. Say we get Leander's this ship with

110 crew
Artisan radar
BAE/CMS
good soft kill both air and torpedo
wildcat hangar and flight deck
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm with LMM , 24 CAMM and FFBNW Phalanx

this will be a capable ship not as capable as the tier 1 ships but still a capable ship

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I think we are just going to have to accept that the Royal Navy going forward is going to be limited to 14 Tier1 escorts and then have a force of 5 or more Tier 2 platforms. Things really have come full circle if you include the Rivers, with a fleet of three levels of platform, though in smaller numbers than originally planned. The small ray of light is that the T-31e may be able to have their capabilities improved overtime.

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 »

Digger22 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do we really need 5 T31?
A smaller fleet would give less ship availability not the same. A flawed argument. We need 19 Escorts min.
I think you (and many here) mis-understood my point.

I think all RN escorts can be "at sea" 140-150 days per year technically on average, including all the rotations. They did it until 2015.

Even though, currently RN operates only 80 days per year on average. In other words, current RN escort are providing active services only equivalent to 12 escorts if properly operated. This means there are other factors limiting the escorts' usage. If we do not solve these problems, the "effective escort number" will never increase from "12" regardless of what RN build or not.

In other words, regardless of 5 T31e built, if RN do not "solve these problems", it will be totally useless.

This is my point.

As you know, I think "these problems" are, operation cost, and man-power shortages.
Tempest414 wrote:Yes I think we do need T-31 as the T-45's and T-23 ASW 's will bogged down with the Carrier group so the T-31s will be needed.
Lord Jim wrote:I think we are just going to have to accept that the Royal Navy going forward is going to be limited to 14 Tier1 escorts and then have a force of 5 or more Tier 2 platforms.
Thanks, both comments I have no objection, but it is not related to my point above. Only after RN "solve these problems", these issues may become relevant, I'm afraid. If not, cancelling T31e or building 10 T31e will have zero impact to RN escort fleet, because its capability is limited by other factors, not hulls.
Simon82 wrote:I think the issue is the Royal Navy can’t afford the luxury of single purpose vessels, ...There is one big drawback to this plan, true general purpose vessels like the Type 26 frigate or the Arleigh Burke destroyers are individually very expensive...
Agreed.

I think T45 and T31e, as it is designed now, has its own rationale, regardless of we like it or not.

But, adding the situation that, RN lacks something else, not escort hull number, to actually operate escort fleet, I think your point becomes more and more important.

So, my point is, by cancelling 5 T31e (freeing up 500 crews, which I'm afraid actually are NOT existing), how about re-rolling the 1.5B GBP (not 1.25B) associated with the program to
- build 1 more T26 (only needs ~150 crew) with ~750M GBP, to make escort fleet 6+9 = 15 hulls
- add CAPTAS-4CI to all 6 T45 to make it multi-purpose (may need 180-240M GBP, including stern modification)
- and utilize the remaining 0.5B GBP for others, such as; buying NSM, drones, LMM added to 30mm gun fleet-wide, adopting UAV helo, and anything you like (even up-arming River B2!?), even some River B3s?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

What the RN desperately needs is more funding to enable:-
1. Additional Personnel
2. Additional Escorts both AAW and ASW
3. Addition SSN
4. The removal of any artificial constraints that limit the at sea time for all vessels per year.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote:What the RN desperately needs is more funding to enable:-
1. Additional Personnel
2. Additional Escorts both AAW and ASW
3. Addition SSN
4. The removal of any artificial constraints that limit the at sea time for all vessels per year.
Of course the problem could be that both T-45 & T-23 have had problems added with the lowest funding seen. We all know about the problems with T-45 but T-23 could also have issues and the low usage was away of keeping them going until life-ex or why so many in life ex at the same time. given that the average sea days of the 4 available T-45's was 119 days last year and what seems to be a bigger effort from the T-23s that are out of life ex I think we will an up trend by 2021 and the coming of carrier group ops

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do we really need 5 T31?
No. The Navy has not has 19 escorts in use for years, it makes little sense to accept such low quality ships just to maintain an arbitrary figure decided by politicians in 2010.

The Navy should focus on quality, and fixing its internal issues, after that it can consider expansion.
@LandSharkUK

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:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do we really need 5 T31?
No. The Navy has not has 19 escorts in use for years, it makes little sense to accept such low quality ships just to maintain an arbitrary figure decided by politicians in 2010.

The Navy should focus on quality, and fixing its internal issues, after that it can consider expansion.
I think the RN fear on that ( and rightly so ) is that if they let numbers slip now with the idea of expanding in the future they never get those numbers back, this has been shown over and over with the drop from 30 then 24 now 19 each time with the promise to get back and each time politicians setting that as the new bar.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:I think the RN fear on that ( and rightly so ) is that if they let numbers slip now with the idea of expanding in the future they never get those numbers back
That is a reasonable concern, and why the RN can't drop the T31 and buy an extra T26 in the 30's, that would likely create an unrecoverable drop.

I propose the best compromise is to drop the T31 requirement by one, and drop the SSS requirement by one, and use the savings to build a higher quality T23 replacement.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply