Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

Jake1992, to be fair you can argue the three Task Group option I suggest allows for a “always available” CSG and ARG, but on a cheaper basis...

How the fishery work be done by drones, the boarding and detaining ?
What about all the other EEZ work ?

You’d still need boarding teams, but a lot of surveillance work would be done remotely. My idea would be to have say 4-5 MHPC ships fulfilling the current Fisheries/MCM/low level FRE role in UK waters perhaps backed by the three B1 Rivers being operated by a revamped RNR.

[Caribbean]

If each CSG had 2 T45 + 3 T26 escorts, plus 3 for FRE/TAPS this would mean 12 T26s

I think we are one carrier short for that (and about 24 F35b)

Who knew all needed to keep those pesky Russians out of the channel was a handful of sunseekers with machine guns up front

We can't afford Sunseekers.

[Repulse]

I think we are one carrier short for that (and about 24 F35b)

I call it a large LHD or LPH, plus 6-12 F35Bs short.

[Poiuytrewq]

Some big statements here, can you explain how the current situation backs this up?

Very simple. The current situation in the Gulf requires vessels that are built to fight and win but not Tier1 assets like T26/T45. Basically something along the lines of a T31. In my opinion these mini-crisis that involve state actors at a level just below full scale war will become increasingly common. Securing sea lanes against pirates with AK47's and RPG's using OPV's is totally different to recent events in the Gulf so current planning will need to adapt. Maybe it already has with the T31 concept.

All the statements that I have seen so far have indicated that the Government is thinking of more T31 and more OPVs, rather than more T26

Correct. Increased T31's and OPV's look like the most likley outcome.

I have some reservations about building more OPVs

Me too but I think four or five 105m Leanders would be a good option for forward based OPV sized vessels. The build standards will be that bit higher so should be able to contribute something in a conflict scenario.

image.png

I would prefer a new patrol frigate class - maybe Avenger?

A Batch2 120m Leander configured like Avenger could be the way forward. Especially if the beam was widened to 16m+ and the hanger made Merlin capable. Something along these lines could be much more capable than most think - for a very reasonable outlay.

.....a hash job rushed fleet of tier 2 frigates and OPVs instead of a well balanced fleet for the global role we intend to play.

I agree but we must get the balance right between high/low assets. The RB2's are severely limited by the lack of a hanger so increased numbers of better equipped OPV sized vessels can still be justified in my opinion.

1: ASW capability?
2: CAMM/SeaCeptor ?
3: 57/76 mm cannons ?
4: Wildcat ?
5: escort-standard damage control hull?

1. Yes but basic
2. Yes, 12
3. Either
4. Hanger, helo embarked as necessary
5. Definitely

....the B2 River has a high level of damage control for an OPV.

Maybe but Leander is even higher. If Leander is a better design why build more Rivers for global patrol?

[Tempest414]

As much as I want to see the RN grow we need to do this the right way first step is to retain the key manpower needed second is to recruit and train new people and at the same time build a new fleet of ships that need less crew and can give more sea going days

[Repulse]

Very simple. The current situation in the Gulf requires vessels that are built to fight and win but not Tier1 assets like T26/T45.

Currently all we are fighting is the threat from another seizure of a Tanker from fast boats with machine guns and lightly armed helicopters dropping boarding parties, monitored by UAVs. If it gets any hotter than that, with shore based ASuMs firing, forget your 12 CAMM, everything short of a T23/T45 should and will be running for the Indian Ocean.

Given their speed (25kts+), the ability to support using helicopters from a shore base, and with a little more anti-FAC / anti-drone (by installing LMM/Starstreak and using the port and starboard space for additional 30mm mounts already there) I actually think given the current threat, the B2 Rivers are a good solution to the current need with an oversight in the region of a T23/T45.

[Repulse]

Caribbean wrote:
I would prefer a new patrol frigate class - maybe Avenger?

A Batch2 120m Leander configured like Avenger could be the way forward. Especially if the beam was widened to 16m+ and the hanger made Merlin capable. Something along these lines could be much more capable than most think - for a very reasonable outlay.

On this I do agree, though perhaps call it a multi-purpose Patrol Sloop, ensuring it has a mission bay for unmanned drones capable of being part of a future MCM replacement - that way we can aim for a class of say @10 (and this getting efficiencies).

[donald_of_tokyo]

#moved from T23 NEWS thread

I would have to say 6 frigates in or waiting for refit is a ship problem not a manpower problem anyway I am back in the UK next week for 2 weeks and at Wattisham and Marham for one of those weeks and it turns out a mate of mine will be there to who is on the CAMM team now so I will dig up what I can

Thanks a lot. Such info is very needed. If with 6 T23 and Bulwark non active, added to 1 T45 officially in extended readiness, and if the man power is actually there waiting for the ships, there should be 1600 crew waiting at shore. If true, there must be many sailors and officers waiting the ship.

In RNZN, they say it is the lack of naval engineers not ordinal sailors which is limiting the ship availability. I guess the same for RN, but only guess.

Any info is welcome!!

In Devonport there's loads of crews milling around.
I've heard a lot of moaning concerning reduced sea drafts as it's hitting them in the pocket.
Less sea time equals less sea pay equals unhappy Jack.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

In RNZN, they say it is the lack of naval engineers not ordinal sailors which is limiting the ship availability. I guess the same for RN, but only guess.

If the issue is a lack of naval engineers then the issue is more likely to be the 2010 public sector pay-freeze rather than the 2010 manpower reduction. I suspect this is why the last government committed to a slightly higher increase in wages for armed forces personnel than it has for the rest of the public sector.

One issue is the man-power = how many escorts RN can fully man. It looks like it is somewhere around 12.

Another issue is the sea-going days, which is now ~80, but was ~140 on average. This means 0 days for hulls in maintenance, and ~180 days for active hulls. But, now in RN, even within the 12 "fully-manned" escorts, the most actively used ones goes to sea only 110-120 days per year.

The former issue is "man power", so we need long term investments, at least 4-5 years will be needed to solve the issue. I even think RN shall better cut equipment budget for pay rise.

The latter is operational cost issue, so only money matters. Can be solved virtually within months. Must do it NOW, I think. I even think RN shall better cut equipment budget to increase operational cost, as well.

[Jake1992]

As much as I want to see the RN grow we need to do this the right way first step is to retain the key manpower needed second is to recruit and train new people and at the same time build a new fleet of ships that need less crew and can give more sea going days

Spot on, we seem to forget that it’s took 20 years odd of cuts to go from a global powerful navy to what we are now and that is not going to be reversed in just a few years, this is going to take the best part of 20 years to get the fleet size to where it needs to be but also to realistically recruit the personal needed.

That is exactly why we need to put together a proper road map of what we need and how long it’ll take and not rush to get what ever Vessels in the water we can as fast as we can.

What ever plan comes forwards it’ll need more funding the fleet will only shrink with out it, so for me this is how it should be gone about.

1 - recruitment and ship numbers can’t be looked at separately, numbers of ships need to be decided then the build time frame and only after that can the required recruit numbers per year be put in place other wise it’s putting the cart before the horse.

2 - what balance are we looking for ? Are we looking to have only enough tier 1s to escort the CSG / ARG or more for individual roles ?
For me we need 4 groups 2 x ARG and 2 x CSG as a minimum but we need more tier 1s than they require, there are going to be times when sending one of the above is over kill but a patrol vessel is not enough.

3 - build time scale and location, are we going to continue in the per year spending structure which seem to give us poor value for money or move to a block payment project set up ? IMO the later is better.
We need to set up centre of specialty like the subs, so we have centres for escorts, smaller vessels ( multi role sloops, OPVs ), RFA vessels and maintenance. The only area where more than one centre would be needed would be with the escorts to guard against political uncertainty but this could also be require to fulfil the desired numbers.

4 - budget security, as it stands most projects run for a 10 year plus period but the MOD doesn’t know from year to year if its budget will be maintained or devastated. IMO the law needs to be set that defence budgets have to meet a certain percent of GDP like the aid budget ( for me this would be 3% excluding security services and Nukes cost) this would give the MOD greater stability in long term project planing especially in times of changing government as any incoming government wanting to reducing the budget would have to be seen as changing the law to actively weaken defence.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Balance between hulls, man-power, and operation cost is the key to improve RN activity levels. And among them, operation cost is of course the top priority.

1: First thing to do is to improve operation cost = make the active hulls' sea-going days as much as 180 days. With ~12 active hulls, the average sea-going days shall be 180*12/19 ~ 110 days, compared to current ~ 80 days. 1.4 times more sea-going days = 1.4 times more ships in action. For example, currently 2 escorts are in Kipion, 1 in NATO fleet and 1 as FRE. With 1.4 times availability, at least 2 more hulls will be available. Two more. This will be the short-term aim.

2: Second thing to do will be to increase man-power. Pay rise and better life-standard and support to family. How about some bonus pay for "thankful of serving RN in this man-power shortage days".

3: Building more ships, and more T23 in LIFEX, is just a waste of money now. Practically, HMS StAlbans and Sutherland, as T23ASW, need LIFEX. The only T23GP waiting LIFEX is HMS Monmouth, and if the LIFEX work on HMS Iron Duke is yet to start, just stop it now. Disbanding 1 (or 2) T23GP now will generate non-negligible amount of money, which can be used for item-1 easily, and increase RN active hull number, not decrease.

On T31e and increase in hull, I shall go to separate post.

[Lord Jim]

2x ARG and 2x CSG is at best a long term goal and would take a serious increase in funding for both the hardware and manpower, and will take a fair amount of time to come to fruition. In the medium term the Royal Navy should look to have a single CSG available at all times and be able to generate the ARG relatively quickly. In the short term I am afraid the navy is going to be getting by on a wing and a prayer using slight of hand tricks to appear to be doing more that it actually is, but requiring definitive guidance from the Government as to where it has to concentrate its resources.

Regarding growth, after viewing a number of Parliamentary debates and Committees, It is starting to look like there may be more to the T-31e than it seems. From discussion it appears the RFI could be to requirements for the vanilla platform, in order to get the hulls in the water an a fairly smartish manner. But and it is a significant but, the MoD is looking for the T-31e to have a developmental path where is capabilities can grow as and when funding to do so is available or the situation requires it to do so. This would mean that whatever design is chosen it must have room to grow and not be another T-21. So we could see the T-31e initially arriving in service with a 57/76mm Gun, a Phalanx, 2x Autocannon and a hanger for a Wildcat, but with room to install 24-48 Sea Ceptor, 4-8 AShMs and a TASS, installed at a later date, but probably not all at the same time. Core to this scenario is ensuring whatever CMS is used on the winning design is able to be easily patched to allow the addition of new systems, and for the Sensor suite to be compatible with these types of systems also. Current and planned CMS/Sensor combinations are taking an open architecture approach allowing them to be used on many different platforms and manage and control a variety of weapon systems. This bodes well, in theory for the T-31e.

As has been mentioned, it is in the form of the T-31e that any possible growth in the Royal Navy will rest. The current budget for the initial five vessels is very tight indeed but it should be possible to build the class in its vanilla form for that level of funding. The design that win is going to have to be pretty smart in the way it is laid out so that future modification can be done in the most cost effective way. The platform may not initially be FFBNW but the way power and data cables are laid out with regards to available space and location will be important. Any future weapon systems chosen for installation must be more of the containerised variety, requiring as little on board maintenance of the actual weapons the weapon being stored in sealed launch containers. The majority of modern weapon systems are falling into this category. This helps with manning levels as the ships capabilities are increased reducing the traditional increased manning requirements. Modern CNS station also help in this with each station able to do a variety of roles and being able to switch easily from one to another as required. It is possible that in future personnel will be more likely to be responsible for a role, such as air or surface, rather then an individual system, and able to control whatever systems are needed at any given time depending on the priorities in any given moment as decided by the officer in charge. This again could reduce manning requirements and allow greater flexibility and provide redundancy.

Given time and resources, if the right type of design is chosen for the T-31e, the Royal Navy could have a credible escort platform, able to contribute to and operate in any Naval Task Group at any tier of warfighting. If singletons are needed then the Navy will have the T-26 as that is one of the key roles it was originally designed for.

[SW1]

Spot on, we seem to forget that it’s took 20 years odd of cuts to go from a global powerful navy to what we are now and that is not going to be reversed in just a few years, this is going to take the best part of 20 years to get the fleet size to where it needs to be but also to realistically recruit the personal needed.

I’m going to disagree with this premise. I would say the navy of 20 years ago to day are roughly of the same power and both where/are globally deployable. Infact I would go as far to say that the navy of today is better equipped.

The navy we have today is a result of decisions it’s higher command and the mod have made and wanted to make. From the time lord west was 1sl and involved with setting requirements for the aircraft carriers and all those that have since followed we have had repeated statements that they desire quality not quantity. That we are moving from single ship presence tasks to carrier task group operations. The many many reports and commentary has highlighted the challenges this poses, that we are plugging into American forces will equip and operate as a mini me US and feed into there deployment cycle. To that end escorts have been traded to fund carriers, new tankers, stores ship ect, escort numbers have been traded to acquire every larger and higher end escorts, maintenance, stock holdings and personal have been cut to ensure these ever higher end ships continued as costs ballooned and ever more pressure was placed on the budget from outside events.

That is the strategic direction the navy have been following there was many who argued concentrating so much in to 1 or 2 task groups was unwise and that more distributed operations was the more likely and the scale of the high end was to big. That trying to copy America was unaffordable and not in the UKs interest it remains to be seen who will ultimately be right.

As for were this leads in fleet size and what it’s required to do. Arguably the incident in the gulf is a distraction on a pivot away from Middle East and to the counter of Russian and Chinese expansion. Since the tanker wars of the 1970s the strategic importance to the UK of gulf directly from a resource point of view has been diminishing and will continues to do so as governments move to a lower carbon and plastic footprints alternative sources of energy and suppliers start to come on line. Having said that there remains a requirement to ensure the safe of navigation at sea, and that is a requirement for all nations with an interest in it. It is a question of how much resource should be assigned to it. Even the use of flagging of civilian vessels has changed, no longer are British citizens on UK flagged vessels, reading about flag hoping would suggest ethical companies use European flags to show compliance with environmental standards and to achieve tax breaks for it and as ships are nearing the end of there lives are sold on and reflagged to African nations to allow scrapping on beaches in the Far East.

But none of this really has much relevance to what’s going on in the gulf. We made a strategic decision to play big balls and seize an Iranian tanker of Gibraltar without seeing or thinking thru the consequences of such a decision and putting appropriate contingency plans in place at the national security level the 6Ps come to mind. Reminiscent of the not a shot being fired statement.

Going fwd it should invigorate the discussion on countering maritime security in the littoral and brown water reading on operation prime chance in the gulf and others in Vietnam would suggest navys are relearning the lessons of low cost, asymmetric action by states or state sponsors are hard counter with traditional blue water assets. A timely reminder to feed into sdsr2020.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The item-1 is an action for short-term = NOW, and item-2 is for long term = needs ~10 years to accomplish. Independently, here I have some proposal to generate the operational cost and man-power pay rise, by cutting equipment budget. Specifically, the 1.5B GBP of T31e program.

As can be seen, my proposal is to up-arm River B2. Usually, I do not like it, but with current primary restriction of "man-power" and "operational cost", priorities can change.

My up-armed River B2 proposal will carry
- two 57 mm guns, one at bow (easy) and the second one in place of the 16t crane (I think, doable). It must be equipped with guided-rounds, such as ALaMo and MAD-FIRES.
- two 30mm canon both with LMM. LMM will "save the day" until ALaMo become ready.
- Sea Sentor ship-torpedo defense decoys system (doable) as most basic ASW.
- also carry standard ESM/chaff/flare kits (say, the same to RNZN ANZAC frigate modified version)
I think these armaments can be easily carried on a 2000t vessel.

The ship will need man-power of ~60 onboard, also good for improved damage control. It has a good range, so-so endurance (will be a bit shorter because of increased crew), and can go anywhere (90m long 2000t hull is not small).

It lacks helicopter capability and it will (almost) lose its mission deck (because of the increased weight of the armaments) versatility, but both of them is not critical in Hormuz Strait. Good air cover can be foreseen, and USV/UUV/UAV can also be provided from other assets.

The largest merit is, 5 hulls can be prepared within 2 years or so. Very fast. Also cheap, may be 200-300M GBP T31e needs 10 years and 1.5B GBP.

-------------
T31e has CAMM, but two 57 mm guns with MAD-FIRES can do something? T31e has a Wildcat hangar and 2 more boat bays, which is good, but these are best used in solo-deployment world-wide, NOT important in the Gulf. Also I think "two 57 mm guns" will be better suited in current situation, surely better than "a 114mm gun and 32 CAMM (T23GP)", and even better than "a 57 mm gun and 24 CAMM (T31e)" (all are equipped with two 30mm canons).

[Jake1992]

2x ARG and 2x CSG is at best a long term goal and would take a serious increase in funding for both the hardware and manpower, and will take a fair amount of time to come to fruition. In the medium term the Royal Navy should look to have a single CSG available at all times and be able to generate the ARG relatively quickly. In the short term I am afraid the navy is going to be getting by on a wing and a prayer using slight of hand tricks to appear to be doing more that it actually is, but requiring definitive guidance from the Government as to where it has to concentrate its resources.

Regarding growth, after viewing a number of Parliamentary debates and Committees, It is starting to look like there may be more to the T-31e than it seems. From discussion it appears the RFI could be to requirements for the vanilla platform, in order to get the hulls in the water an a fairly smartish manner. But and it is a significant but, the MoD is looking for the T-31e to have a developmental path where is capabilities can grow as and when funding to do so is available or the situation requires it to do so. This would mean that whatever design is chosen it must have room to grow and not be another T-21. So we could see the T-31e initially arriving in service with a 57/76mm Gun, a Phalanx, 2x Autocannon and a hanger for a Wildcat, but with room to install 24-48 Sea Ceptor, 4-8 AShMs and a TASS, installed at a later date, but probably not all at the same time. Core to this scenario is ensuring whatever CMS is used on the winning design is able to be easily patched to allow the addition of new systems, and for the Sensor suite to be compatible with these types of systems also. Current and planned CMS/Sensor combinations are taking an open architecture approach allowing them to be used on many different platforms and manage and control a variety of weapon systems. This bodes well, in theory for the T-31e.

As has been mentioned, it is in the form of the T-31e that any possible growth in the Royal Navy will rest. The current budget for the initial five vessels is very tight indeed but it should be possible to build the class in its vanilla form for that level of funding. The design that win is going to have to be pretty smart in the way it is laid out so that future modification can be done in the most cost effective way. The platform may not initially be FFBNW but the way power and data cables are laid out with regards to available space and location will be important. Any future weapon systems chosen for installation must be more of the containerised variety, requiring as little on board maintenance of the actual weapons the weapon being stored in sealed launch containers. The majority of modern weapon systems are falling into this category. This helps with manning levels as the ships capabilities are increased reducing the traditional increased manning requirements. Modern CNS station also help in this with each station able to do a variety of roles and being able to switch easily from one to another as required. It is possible that in future personnel will be more likely to be responsible for a role, such as air or surface, rather then an individual system, and able to control whatever systems are needed at any given time depending on the priorities in any given moment as decided by the officer in charge. This again could reduce manning requirements and allow greater flexibility and provide redundancy.

Given time and resources, if the right type of design is chosen for the T-31e, the Royal Navy could have a credible escort platform, able to contribute to and operate in any Naval Task Group at any tier of warfighting. If singletons are needed then the Navy will have the T-26 as that is one of the key roles it was originally designed for.

That’s why I said the aim for 2 ARG and 2 CSG would be over the basis of building the fleet over 2 years odd, it is also why i said an increase in funding would be needed not only to expand the fleet but to just stop it from shrinking.

From what you describe with regards to the T31 only leaves the A140 as a viable option, but unless they ended up with world class ASW capabilities then they won’t be freeing up the T26s as they would still be linked to the CSGs and rightly so as you wouldn’t want them protected by a 2nd rate ASW vessel.

Spot on, we seem to forget that it’s took 20 years odd of cuts to go from a global powerful navy to what we are now and that is not going to be reversed in just a few years, this is going to take the best part of 20 years to get the fleet size to where it needs to be but also to realistically recruit the personal needed.

I’m going to disagree with this premise. I would say the navy of 20 years ago to day are roughly of the same power and both where/are globally deployable. Infact I would go as far to say that the navy of today is better equipped.

The navy we have today is a result of decisions it’s higher command and the mod have made and wanted to make. From the time lord west was 1sl and involved with setting requirements for the aircraft carriers and all those that have since followed we have had repeated statements that they desire quality not quantity. That we are moving from single ship presence tasks to carrier task group operations. The many many reports and commentary has highlighted the challenges this poses, that we are plugging into American forces will equip and operate as a mini me US and feed into there deployment cycle. To that end escorts have been traded to fund carriers, new tankers, stores ship ect, escort numbers have been traded to acquire every larger and higher end escorts, maintenance, stock holdings and personal have been cut to ensure these ever higher end ships continued as costs ballooned and ever more pressure was placed on the budget from outside events.

That is the strategic direction the navy have been following there was many who argued concentrating so much in to 1 or 2 task groups was unwise and that more distributed operations was the more likely and the scale of the high end was to big. That trying to copy America was unaffordable and not in the UKs interest it remains to be seen who will ultimately be right.

As for were this leads in fleet size and what it’s required to do. Arguably the incident in the gulf is a distraction on a pivot away from Middle East and to the counter of Russian and Chinese expansion. Since the tanker wars of the 1970s the strategic importance to the UK of gulf directly from a resource point of view has been diminishing and will continues to do so as governments move to a lower carbon and plastic footprints alternative sources of energy and suppliers start to come on line. Having said that there remains a requirement to ensure the safe of navigation at sea, and that is a requirement for all nations with an interest in it. It is a question of how much resource should be assigned to it. Even the use of flagging of civilian vessels has changed, no longer are British citizens on UK flagged vessels, reading about flag hoping would suggest ethical companies use European flags to show compliance with environmental standards and to achieve tax breaks for it and as ships are nearing the end of there lives are sold on and reflagged to African nations to allow scrapping on beaches in the Far East.

But none of this really has much relevance to what’s going on in the gulf. We made a strategic decision to play big balls and seize an Iranian tanker of Gibraltar without seeing or thinking thru the consequences of such a decision and putting appropriate contingency plans in place at the national security level the 6Ps come to mind. Reminiscent of the not a shot being fired statement.

Going fwd it should invigorate the discussion on countering maritime security in the littoral and brown water reading on operation prime chance in the gulf and others in Vietnam would suggest navys are relearning the lessons of low cost, asymmetric action by states or state sponsors are hard counter with traditional blue water assets. A timely reminder to feed into sdsr2020.

The fleet of today is no where near comparable to the fleet of 20 odd years ago, back then we had 30 odd frigates and destroyers, 4 flat tops, 2 LPDs, 12+ attack subs and so on. Yes the indevidual vessels have increased in capabilities but as have those of other navies so in real terms it’s a reduction.

The RN haven't made these cuts or “trade offs” out of choice but by having there hand forced due to budget cuts, wanting 12 T45s getting 6, wanting 20 T26s then 13 but getting 8, having ocean cut with no direct replacement, swift subs cut with no replacement, invincibles and harriers cut early.
None of the above were done out of RN choice but due to the fact that the budget went from 3-3.5% of GDP in the late 90s to around 1.7% today when measured the same way.

[Poiuytrewq]

I am not a fan of up-arming OPV's to make up for gaps in the escort fleet but a single 30mm was never going to be sufficient for global deployment. Personally I don't consider adding a 57/76mm, 2x 30mm's and Phalanx FFBNW as up-arming as this is what they should of had in the first place. In my opinion up-arming the RB2's would involve ASM's and CAMM and I certainly wouldn't be in favour of that. It would be classical mission creep.

...with current primary restriction of "man-power" and "operational cost", priorities can change.

Its worth remembering that even without an increases to manning levels things will ease as the T23's start to decommission and the T26's/T31's start to come online.

Hypothetically, 12x T23's (leaving 1 in ER) require around 2220 crew. If we set realistic complements for the T31/T26 at 120 and 155 respectively that amounts to 1840 for the currently planned 8x T26's and 5x T31's. The 360 difference in manning would be enough to crew another 3x T31's or 5x OPV's with a complement of around 72.

If RN and HMG just concentrated on getting all 6 of T45's and 11 or 12 of the T23's crewed going forward most of the manning problems within the escort fleet would pretty much evaporate within 4 or 5 years. It will take a big recruitment drive and much improved retention rates to improve things before the T31's start commissioning if that's what HMG wants to do. Extra funding will of course be a prerequisite.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Its worth remembering that even without an increases to manning levels things will ease as the T23's start to decommission and the T26's/T31's start to come online.

Thanks. I also understand your points, and I'm not perfectly confident of my idea. But, your calculation works only AFTER ~2035, when most of the T23 be replaced with T26.

Even if your calculation is correct, it does not change the fact that RN currently only running 12 escorts, and this means even when the whole T31e is not built, RN loses nothing.

With routine maintenance, I think "12 active hulls" means equivalent to 15 escort fleet. In other words, I think 4 escorts out of 19 has no crew and after the LIFEX ends, this means 4 escorts can go into extended readiness (likely 1 T45 and 3 T23). Thus, the first 4 T23GP can decommission without providing any crew for T31e. To man T31e, RN shall put a few T45/T23 in extended readiness intentionally. Also crews are needed for the first 2 hulls of T26 when T31e are commissioning (Crew is needed when the ship is handed over to RN, not when commissioned). In other words, still 1-set of crew is missing without considering T31e.

If the choice is, to keep ~4 T45/T23 in extended readiness, only then the T31e can be manned. Are RN really going to man tier-2 escorts by cutting active tier-1 escorts? The answer could be yes or no. My proposal is based on answering this question as NO. Therefore, re-using the existing assets = River B2 to fill the gap.

Again, I'm not saying my idea is the only choice. I myself is looking for better solution. But, any other solution coming into my mind ALL requires to "man tier-2 escorts by cutting active tier-1 escorts", which I think is not good considering CVTFs to come.

[abc123]

The item-1 is an action for short-term = NOW, and item-2 is for long term = needs ~10 years to accomplish. Independently, here I have some proposal to generate the operational cost and man-power pay rise, by cutting equipment budget. Specifically, the 1.5B GBP of T31e program.

As can be seen, my proposal is to up-arm River B2. Usually, I do not like it, but with current primary restriction of "man-power" and "operational cost", priorities can change.

My up-armed River B2 proposal will carry
- two 57 mm guns, one at bow (easy) and the second one in place of the 16t crane (I think, doable). It must be equipped with guided-rounds, such as ALaMo and MAD-FIRES.
- two 30mm canon both with LMM. LMM will "save the day" until ALaMo become ready.
- Sea Sentor ship-torpedo defense decoys system (doable) as most basic ASW.
- also carry standard ESM/chaff/flare kits (say, the same to RNZN ANZAC frigate modified version)
I think these armaments can be easily carried on a 2000t vessel.

The ship will need man-power of ~60 onboard, also good for improved damage control. It has a good range, so-so endurance (will be a bit shorter because of increased crew), and can go anywhere (90m long 2000t hull is not small).

It lacks helicopter capability and it will (almost) lose its mission deck (because of the increased weight of the armaments) versatility, but both of them is not critical in Hormuz Strait. Good air cover can be foreseen, and USV/UUV/UAV can also be provided from other assets.

The largest merit is, 5 hulls can be prepared within 2 years or so. Very fast. Also cheap, may be 200-300M GBP T31e needs 10 years and 1.5B GBP.

-------------
T31e has CAMM, but two 57 mm guns with MAD-FIRES can do something? T31e has a Wildcat hangar and 2 more boat bays, which is good, but these are best used in solo-deployment world-wide, NOT important in the Gulf. Also I think "two 57 mm guns" will be better suited in current situation, surely better than "a 114mm gun and 32 CAMM (T23GP)", and even better than "a 57 mm gun and 24 CAMM (T31e)" (all are equipped with two 30mm canons).

Actually, not a bad proposal at all, I would just delete aft 57 mm gun and put there either a third 30 mm gun with LMM ( or maybe even with a Brimstone missiles ). Say, a launcher with 6-8 missiles.



Sea Sentor decoys I would omit, because if it happens that she has to defend from torpedos, then we are in real shooting war against Iran.
Same thing with chaff/flare.
Basicly, I would turn them into something klike Thailand's Krabi class.

Advantage- it should be even cheaper ( 1 x 57 mm gun, say 5 mil. USD, 1 x Brimstone launcher with 10 missiles- say another 5 millions )- so 10 millions per ship.. And even more quick solution...

[Repulse]

Actually, not a bad proposal at all, I would just delete aft 57 mm gun and put there either a third 30 mm gun with LMM ( or maybe even with a Brimstone missiles ).

Would agree with this a 2nd 57mm seems too much here - would rather see 57mm fore, 30mm port & starboard plus a LMM/Starstreak launcher where the crane is.

Sea Sentor decoys I would omit, because if it happens that she has to defend from torpedos, then we are in real shooting war against Iran.
Same thing with chaff/flare.
Basicly, I would turn them into something klike Thailand's Krabi class.

Disagree here, adding a basic level of self defence is wise - a hot shooting war only starts after the first missile / torpedo is launched and you’d want the B2 to be able to defend and run.

[abc123]

Actually, not a bad proposal at all, I would just delete aft 57 mm gun and put there either a third 30 mm gun with LMM ( or maybe even with a Brimstone missiles ).

Would agree with this a 2nd 57mm seems too much here - would rather see 57mm fore, 30mm port & starboard plus a LMM/Starstreak launcher where the crane is.

Sea Sentor decoys I would omit, because if it happens that she has to defend from torpedos, then we are in real shooting war against Iran.
Same thing with chaff/flare.
Basicly, I would turn them into something klike Thailand's Krabi class.

Disagree here, adding a basic level of self defence is wise - a hot shooting war only starts after the first missile / torpedo is launched and you’d want the B2 to be able to defend and run.

Meh, I'm not so sure that even a real warship ( like T45/26 ) would be able to 100% defend itself from an incoming torpedos/ASMs, beecause if you are, then would you agree to be on a T45/26 that tries to force Hormuz against Iran- even if Iran wouldn't fire more missiles at you then you have CAMMs/Asters? I definitly wouldn't. And chances of uparmed OPV like RB2 are slim to non. She probably wouldn't know what hit her...

[Repulse]

In the short term, buying HMS Clyde and running her and the other B1s in their current roles for 5-10yrs gives the RN some space, it also allows the (upgraded) B2 Rivers to play a larger role. Yes, it would be great if the B2s would have a hangar but they don’t and for any operations in the Med, Gulf or Caribbean helicopters can be operated from land bases and the B2 can be used to refuel and extend range.

A fleet to 2023 of 6 T45s, 13 T23s and 9 Rivers is not a bad result in reality.

I would redirect the £1.5bn in accelerating the T26 build so that the first is available in 2025, yes it would be a drop in two frigates but as has been posted the crew isn’t there just yet, and I think as long as numbers return to 16+ longer term the gap can be managed. In parallel the MHPC concept should be revived and the T31 repurposed with an aim to start the build to replace the OPVs and MCMs in early 2020s.

Last comment - the future for the RN is based around first tier war fighting SSNs & Carrier Task Groups plus low level forward presence, training and constabulary roles using minor warships- to do anything else would require a lot of cash, time and ignores the current reality.

[SW1]

The fleet of today is no where near comparable to the fleet of 20 odd years ago, back then we had 30 odd frigates and destroyers, 4 flat tops, 2 LPDs, 12+ attack subs and so on. Yes the indevidual vessels have increased in capabilities but as have those of other navies so in real terms it’s a reduction.

Your now comparing numbers and that’s the point, we’ve elected to go with quality over quantity. Both fleets then and now were globally deployable and both capable and I can’t think of to many like sized countries that can deploy what we can. Yes some other countries have modernised mainly western ones and those that would be considered hostile have done some modernisation but they to have traded quantity for quality.

Lots of those programs reduced in number because the costs of the program ballooned by 2 or 3 times what was originally budgeted and numbers were cut to keep the over program within cost, it’s something the mod have been dragged over the coals for about 30 years starting programs with knowingly unrealistic budgets just to get them started. For the price of the 2 carriers, 6 type 45 and 8 type 26 you could of instead had 4 Cavour/Canberra/Trieste/izumo, 10 De Zeven Provincien and 20 A140 if you believe the prices but we chose to go for what we consider more capable higher quality units across the board because maintenance manpower ect of the larger fleet was unrealistic. These are all choices, the same applies across the other 2 services as well. There lots of choices but if you consistently go for the very high end equipment across the board then numbers will reduce because all budgets are finite. But it means you do less with less and you prioritise your tasks.

[SW1]

It lacks helicopter capability and it will (almost) lose its mission deck (because of the increased weight of the armaments) versatility, but both of them is not critical in Hormuz Strait

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... ng-mantis/

Might change your opinion on boats and helicopters.

[Repulse]

I believe what donald-san was saying was not that helicopters are not needed, but that given the narrowness of the straight they can be land based.

I still think that the B2 Rivers could and should operate RMs and Ribs/ORCs even after some minor additions.

[Jake1992]

The fleet of today is no where near comparable to the fleet of 20 odd years ago, back then we had 30 odd frigates and destroyers, 4 flat tops, 2 LPDs, 12+ attack subs and so on. Yes the indevidual vessels have increased in capabilities but as have those of other navies so in real terms it’s a reduction.

Your now comparing numbers and that’s the point, we’ve elected to go with quality over quantity. Both fleets then and now were globally deployable and both capable and I can’t think of to many like sized countries that can deploy what we can. Yes some other countries have modernised mainly western ones and those that would be considered hostile have done some modernisation but they to have traded quantity for quality.

Lots of those programs reduced in number because the costs of the program ballooned by 2 or 3 times what was originally budgeted and numbers were cut to keep the over program within cost, it’s something the mod have been dragged over the coals for about 30 years starting programs with knowingly unrealistic budgets just to get them started. For the price of the 2 carriers, 6 type 45 and 8 type 26 you could of instead had 4 Cavour/Canberra/Trieste/izumo, 10 De Zeven Provincien and 20 A140 if you believe the prices but we chose to go for what we consider more capable higher quality units across the board because maintenance manpower ect of the larger fleet was unrealistic. These are all choices, the same applies across the other 2 services as well. There lots of choices but if you consistently go for the very high end equipment across the board then numbers will reduce because all budgets are finite. But it means you do less with less and you prioritise your tasks.

Have we really gone for quality over quantity ? Can we really say that a T45 is that much better than an AB or an Horizon or Type055 ? Yes I’d say they are slightly better at AAW but not to the extent that they are worth multiple of them, what you are doing is giving the old excuse that Blair gave saying they are so much better that we only need half as many.

It’s not just western navies that are modernising every navy from Russia through to China through to India and all the smaller navies in the middle east and Far East but its no reason for numbers to be cut to the extent they have.

Yes those program cost did increase and I could accept a small drop in numbers due to this but that is not the main cause, no matter how you try to spin it the cause is due to budget cuts, we are effectively spending just over 50% in terms of GDP today compared to the late 90s. We have seen this with the sell off of vessel left and right during the 00s with our frigate fleet being cut by a third before any replacement.

I’m not arguing what we could of got in place of what we have with the same budget what I’m saying is when a lot of these projects were started ( QEs for example ) the defence budget was in effect nearly double what it is today in terms of GDP. If you start a project and then your budget is cut over and over while having to deal with inflation and 2 costly land wars that is what causes cuts.
If the budgets hadn’t of been cut and the cost of the 2 wars not come out of the defence budget we could of ended up closer to 8-10 T45s with BMD, 16 odd T26s, 2 QEs, an Ocean replacement, 5 Bays, 2 Albions with hangers, and more astute

[SW1]

Have we really gone for quality over quantity ? Can we really say that a T45 is that much better than an AB or an Horizon or Type055 ? Yes I’d say they are slightly better at AAW but not to the extent that they are worth multiple of them, what you are doing is giving the old excuse that Blair gave saying they are so much better that we only need half as many.

It’s not just western navies that are modernising every navy from Russia through to China through to India and all the smaller navies in the middle east and Far East but its no reason for numbers to be cut to the extent they have.

Yes those program cost did increase and I could accept a small drop in numbers due to this but that is not the main cause, no matter how you try to spin it the cause is due to budget cuts, we are effectively spending just over 50% in terms of GDP today compared to the late 90s. We have seen this with the sell off of vessel left and right during the 00s with our frigate fleet being cut by a third before any replacement.

I’ve no idea if it’s better than those vessels but type 45 is multiple time better than the type 42 which it replaced which is just a fact. Russia makes a lot of noise about modernisation but delivers little beyond corvette or patrol type vessels it’s larger or more sophisticated vessels are largely soviet era still or very late appearing and in very small numbers. What there also doing is reducing numbers as they modernise. The Chinese are a different animal there a rising super power and at completely different scale to any Uk direct comparison. As for other navies lots of it is around corvette and fast attack craft so it’s all relative.

As for GDP well it was the late 80s when we last spent 4% and it’s been around the 2.5-2% since about 2000. I’m not spinning anything budget cuts certainly are a factor overall reductions but there only part and other factors have played just as big a part.