Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: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.
Ok if that’s the case fine, but you RM base and use of ribs is already there in the shape of a bay. You could even retask the mine warfare vessels we have there for high value escort particularly in the shallower parts, there as capable as a river and already there. Beyond what we’ve already done I don’t really see any need to do anything more.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1, the thing the Bays and MCMs don’t have is speed - one thing getting a Rib or two quickly to a confrontation, another thing when a 2,000t Warship turns up.
”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 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: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.
Just like every generation of vessels they are far better than what they replace due to the fact that what they face is vastly better than before, this does not justify cuts in numbers let alone cuts to the extent we’ve had. If you believe it does then you’ve brought in to the Blair lie.

Russia hasn’t been going at the rate it’s like to but it is still slowing getting there, yes we won’t be able to compete with China on our own but at the rate we’re cutting numbers we won’t be a global influence anymore either.

And there you have it the current fleet planning started in the mid to late 90s when GDP spend stood at around 3-3.5% and as you’ve just said since early 2000s it hasn’t got above 2.5% while also funding2 land wars. It is this large cut in spending that has caused the fleet cuts not choosing quality of quantity or choosing to cut escorts or the carriers.

The plans were to have
2 x QE
1 or more Ocean replacements
2 x LPDs with hangers
5 x LSD
12 x T45
20 x T26 in full and light set ups
Black swan style to replace Mcm, survey and OPVs
10 x Astute if I remember right
2 - 3 x SSS
6 x Tide and Wave
2-3 x Amphibious Support Ship
Argus and diligence replacement
Along with enough helos, F35Bs and missiles to fill them all

Yes project over runs can account for some cuts but not like we’ve seen that only comes down to lower spend on HMGs part.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: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.
Just like every generation of vessels they are far better than what they replace due to the fact that what they face is vastly better than before, this does not justify cuts in numbers let alone cuts to the extent we’ve had. If you believe it does then you’ve brought in to the Blair lie.

Russia hasn’t been going at the rate it’s like to but it is still slowing getting there, yes we won’t be able to compete with China on our own but at the rate we’re cutting numbers we won’t be a global influence anymore either.

And there you have it the current fleet planning started in the mid to late 90s when GDP spend stood at around 3-3.5% and as you’ve just said since early 2000s it hasn’t got above 2.5% while also funding2 land wars. It is this large cut in spending that has caused the fleet cuts not choosing quality of quantity or choosing to cut escorts or the carriers.

The plans were to have
2 x QE
1 or more Ocean replacements
2 x LPDs with hangers
5 x LSD
12 x T45
20 x T26 in full and light set ups
Black swan style to replace Mcm, survey and OPVs
10 x Astute if I remember right
2 - 3 x SSS
6 x Tide and Wave
2-3 x Amphibious Support Ship
Argus and diligence replacement
Along with enough helos, F35Bs and missiles to fill them all

Yes project over runs can account for some cuts but not like we’ve seen that only comes down to lower spend on HMGs part.
But the current fleet is based on planning and funding post the 1998 strategic defence review all the big spending reductions were part of the reviews of the early 90s. Funding has been fairly constant but inflation of hardware costs have meant that’s had a bigger impact. The type 45 program exceed it original program budget by 30%, the carrier program by 100% and the 26 frigate was launched being billed at the £250m pound frigate to grow the Royal Navy, that has since then been transferred to the slogan of the type 31 program. This is the same with many other programs too. Take the mpa program we have essentially paid 7b pounds to meet that requirement.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:SW1, the thing the Bays and MCMs don’t have is speed - one thing getting a Rib or two quickly to a confrontation, another thing when a 2,000t Warship turns up.
But the ship taken only has a design speed of 14.5 knts

https://www.motorship.com/news101/ships ... ker-design

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: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.
Just like every generation of vessels they are far better than what they replace due to the fact that what they face is vastly better than before, this does not justify cuts in numbers let alone cuts to the extent we’ve had. If you believe it does then you’ve brought in to the Blair lie.

Russia hasn’t been going at the rate it’s like to but it is still slowing getting there, yes we won’t be able to compete with China on our own but at the rate we’re cutting numbers we won’t be a global influence anymore either.

And there you have it the current fleet planning started in the mid to late 90s when GDP spend stood at around 3-3.5% and as you’ve just said since early 2000s it hasn’t got above 2.5% while also funding2 land wars. It is this large cut in spending that has caused the fleet cuts not choosing quality of quantity or choosing to cut escorts or the carriers.

The plans were to have
2 x QE
1 or more Ocean replacements
2 x LPDs with hangers
5 x LSD
12 x T45
20 x T26 in full and light set ups
Black swan style to replace Mcm, survey and OPVs
10 x Astute if I remember right
2 - 3 x SSS
6 x Tide and Wave
2-3 x Amphibious Support Ship
Argus and diligence replacement
Along with enough helos, F35Bs and missiles to fill them all

Yes project over runs can account for some cuts but not like we’ve seen that only comes down to lower spend on HMGs part.
But the current fleet is based on planning and funding post the 1998 strategic defence review all the big spending reductions were part of the reviews of the early 90s. Funding has been fairly constant but inflation of hardware costs have meant that’s had a bigger impact. The type 45 program exceed it original program budget by 30%, the carrier program by 100% and the 26 frigate was launched being billed at the £250m pound frigate to grow the Royal Navy, that has since then been transferred to the slogan of the type 31 program. This is the same with many other programs too. Take the mpa program we have essentially paid 7b pounds to meet that requirement.
The current fleet isn’t based on planning post 98, the planning of the QEs started in 97 the T26 mid 90s the Albion’s and bays all mid 90s the T45 96 I believe, all at a time of much greater defence budgets.

Yes I agree costs on certain projects went over but a 30% increase does not equate to a 50% cut. Last I read the QEs were planed at around £2.4bn for the pair so again a 30% increase. I do agree the £250m for the T26 was pie in the sky but if I remember right that was quickly reviewed.

The defence budget did stay roughly steady from 2000 odd to 2010 but that was a large cut from pre 2000 when a lot of these projects were put in motion along with funding for 2 land wars coming out of the defence budget. Post 2010 the budget took further cuts while also having other fields such as security services chucked in.

I’m not arguing that run away costs in certain projects hasn’t contributed to cuts in numbers but that the core reason is because the budget has been cut over and over since the planning of the current fleet began.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:The current fleet isn’t based on planning post 98, the planning of the QEs started in 97 the T26 mid 90s the Albion’s and bays all mid 90s the T45 96 I believe, all at a time of much greater defence budgets.

Yes I agree costs on certain projects went over but a 30% increase does not equate to a 50% cut. Last I read the QEs were planed at around £2.4bn for the pair so again a 30% increase. I do agree the £250m for the T26 was pie in the sky but if I remember right that was quickly reviewed.
Type 45 was ordered in November 1999 after we withdrew from horizon. Yeah QE started out of sdsr98 at about 2.75b ended at launch of the program in 2007 at 3.75b and will be up at 6.5b today. They bays were ordered in 2000 after the extension to one of the round tables turned into a nightmare. A lot of it been based on unrealistic budgeting you were simply never going to get the quality or quantity for the original estimates.

Yep there was indeed budget reductions after 2010 in part because gdp fell so much after the financial crisis so while the % stayed fairly constant the cash did not the folly of using GDP as your measure. The way the 2 wars were funded added to the problems and a lot of that was due to poor or non existent army vehicle nonsense that continues until today that I do not deny, but until there is acceptance that a large number of these financial overruns and subsequent force structure reductions are with the mod and senior service decision maker door no matter how much additional money is sent to the mod budget it will not deliver what is hoped.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote:SW1, the thing the Bays and MCMs don’t have is speed - one thing getting a Rib or two quickly to a confrontation, another thing when a 2,000t Warship turns up.
But the ship taken only has a design speed of 14.5 knts

https://www.motorship.com/news101/ships ... ker-design
You’ve got to get to the scene first - sure slow sailing convoys of one or two ships maybe okay, but even then when problems occur speed is important to move around the convoy.
”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 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The current fleet isn’t based on planning post 98, the planning of the QEs started in 97 the T26 mid 90s the Albion’s and bays all mid 90s the T45 96 I believe, all at a time of much greater defence budgets.

Yes I agree costs on certain projects went over but a 30% increase does not equate to a 50% cut. Last I read the QEs were planed at around £2.4bn for the pair so again a 30% increase. I do agree the £250m for the T26 was pie in the sky but if I remember right that was quickly reviewed.
Type 45 was ordered in November 1999 after we withdrew from horizon. Yeah QE started out of sdsr98 at about 2.75b ended at launch of the program in 2007 at 3.75b and will be up at 6.5b today. They bays were ordered in 2000 after the extension to one of the round tables turned into a nightmare. A lot of it been based on unrealistic budgeting you were simply never going to get the quality or quantity for the original estimates.

Yep there was indeed budget reductions after 2010 in part because gdp fell so much after the financial crisis so while the % stayed fairly constant the cash did not the folly of using GDP as your measure. The way the 2 wars were funded added to the problems and a lot of that was due to poor or non existent army vehicle nonsense that continues until today that I do not deny, but until there is acceptance that a large number of these financial overruns and subsequent force structure reductions are with the mod and senior service decision maker door no matter how much additional money is sent to the mod budget it will not deliver what is hoped.
So the T42 replace, LST replacement projects were all set before the 98 review just changed direction before they order just like the T26 project started in the 90s even though they weren’t ordered until a few years ago.

It sounds very much like you are trying to make out that government cuts had little to no effect on the make up of the fleet today and it is all down to over ambition and project mismanagement on the RNs part. Even though defence budgets fell from 2000 onwards when compared to the 3%+ being spent during the late 90s, even during the financial boom years Blair sold off the T22s and 3 T23s.

The problems we find our selfs in now are mainly I say again mainly due to defence cuts imposed by HMG over the past 20 years.

The simple fact is if I as a boss tell you to plan the building of a house for me but then consistently cut the funding you are not going to be able to deliver what was first planned even if you keep on budget for ever part of it as the original plans would be to a budget that is no longer funded.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Like all of the MoD's procurement programmes, there is an urgent need scrap the current "Green Book" rules and allow multi year funding. This would especially benefit ship building for the navy and also point the way forward for a drumbeat approach to warship building. Both of these points we key recommendation form the repost on which the NSS was created but both were rejected on the high up front costs mainly at the behest of the Treasury. Another recommendation rejected was the need to remove or at least greatly reduce the financial competition doctrine within the MoD to allow industry to gain some security and encourage them to invest with the knowledge that they would receive orders. Affordability would still play a part as would the trade off between cost and capability but mass would also play a part in these equations.

If these recommendations had been enacted we would now see BAe constructing the fabled "Frigate Factory", and the T-26 programme still consisting of 13 vessels with a eighteen month instead of a two year delivery schedule. To support the "Factory", other yards would be constructing blocks as part of a partnership, an evolved version of the type used for the Carrier programme. This in turn would have provided security to the manufacturers of all types within the supply chain allow them to also invest. This in turn would see a reduction in costs across the whole ship building industry leading to a reduction in the cost per unit of those vessels designed and built for the Royal Navy.

Also of importance and related to he "Green Book" mentioned above would be the insistence that all "Warships" be built in the UK including the vessels of the RFA. No other major European nation puts the construction of its naval platforms out to international tender and neither should the UK. The wider benefits resulting from a healthy warship building programme to the UK economy must be a key factor, even if the benefits take a while to reach the Treasury. The benefits to the manufacturing sector and communities across the country not just in the construction yards would be realised far more readily.

The above would also provide a fertile ground for exports, both for finished vessels built in the UK and of designs and engineering expertise which still exists within the UK. This again would put the UK's Warship building capability on a far firmer foundation and again encourage investment, leading to more highly skilled jobs, increase revenue for the Treasury, and more affordable yet capable warships for the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Changing tack and looking at the size of the fleet and the future numbers of T-45, T-26 and T-31e I am beginning to think that things need to be reorganised. Firstly the initial T-26 purchase should be reduced to only six vessels. I can hear the howls of anguish already but bear with me. These six vessels would be of the current design. Whilst the design of the T-26 is that of a warships able to operate independently for long duration missions and have the on built flexibility to conduct a multitude of mission types. by default they are now tied to the RN's new carriers as their prime ASW escorts. This puts many of the capabilities designed into the T-26 in limbo with the RN trying to decide how to apply them to the platforms role with in the CSG and I almost forgot the ARG. The money allocated to the fifth and sixth T-26s currently planned would be allocated to the T-31e programme. This should allow the construction of an initial five to six platforms that would be capable ASW platforms able to operate effectively as part of both the CSG and ARG. These would be tier one ASW assets but focused on that role. This would give he RN twelve capable ASW escorts as a foundation. But with multi year funding and a healthy warship building industry second batch of T-26 would be purchased consisting of three to four ships of an evolved design, learning any lessons from not jus the initial RN vessels but also those built for the Australians and Canadian navies. Whilst retaining many of the core capabilities of the batch one T-26, especially their ASW prowess, they would have greater AAW, anti surface and land attack capabilities based around the addition of more Mk41 VLS systems and improved sensors and so on. Whether these would be built using the exact same hull as the Batch 1 or a lengthen or widened version in a similar way the later Leander class were altered is an option to be considered. However it is this Batch 2 design that would be the foundation for the successor to the T-45, prioritising their AAW capability over their ASW and other capabilities but not removing them, with a programme to construct at least six of these Batch 3 vessels.

At the end of this programme the Royal Navy would consist of sixteen T-26 in three Batches, and six T-31e. All of them would be capable platforms and would have been kept relevant by an ongoing process of refit and modernisation, made easier by their inherent design characteristics allowing such work to be carried out far more easily and more cost effectively than in the classes that preceded them. The initial drop in numbers would allow the remaining vessels to be effectively manned whilst increased recruitment would mirror the gradual increase in the size of the fleet. This is a twenty five year construction programme but is a holistic view of naval ship building and the size and capability of the Royal Navy. at the end of the period the replacement for the Batch 1 T-26 would be well on the way to be launched. The T-31e, being partly a tool to allow the strengthening of the ship building sector to provide the sort of infrastructure the Royal Navy needs to provide the warships it needs in a cost effective and timely manner, would probably be sold off, with the replacement for the Batch 1 T-26 being purchased in number sufficient to cover both these classes, the number being between ten and twelve. This would enable the Royal Navy to man and operate a fleet of between twenty and twenty two capable escorts but the middle of the century, incorporating emerging technologies like UUVs and such like, something the core T-26 design should be well suited for.

This sized fleet should allow the Royal Navy to operate both CSGs if the need arises and provide escorts for one or two ARGs depending on the size and mission of he latter. It should also allow the deployment of singletons in NATO roles we currently only occasionally fill, or forward deploy a small flotilla to the Gulf or farther afield, addressing what seems to be a fixation of this generation of Politicians. I have deliberately not mentioned the Rivers here for that is another post involving the creation of an independent UK Coastguard which would take over some of the roles currently undertaken by the Royal Navy such a fisheries protection and constabulary duties.

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:
abc123 wrote: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.
Thanks. My point is, how to "efficiently" utilize the naval engineer. "Two 57mm guns" needs MUCH LESS THAN twice the man-power of "one 57 mm gun". If we add Brimstone or SPEAR3, we might be needed cut something else?
SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote: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.
Of course, yes. Air cover is MUST. And, if land-based air cover is available, little need for ship-based one. The latter is more expensive, less available, and put big stress on their crew (especially, maintenance crew). No one asks to add helicopter hangar to border force cutters working in Dover. And, Hormuz Strait is as narrow as Dover.

But, this works only where a land-based air base can be established. In other words, frigate really needs helicopter hangar, because they steam blue water, or deployed to brown water with no friendly air base located near.

The up-armed River B2 I propose here is "a close-in defense monster" (if with two 57 mm guns with guided rounds), much more capable than any escorts in RN for warfare within visual range. This makes her a specialist vessel, which in general I do not like ( :D ). The reason I'm pushing this is I'm afraid many is now rushing for T31e, being blind to the fact that RN need to cut tier-1 escorts to man them. I can easily imagine, 5 years later, everyone screaming "there is not enough tier-1 escorts to support 1 CVTF always ready (or 2 CVTF in rotation)".

For me, in general "up-arming River B2 OPV" is NOT the best solution for RN. For tier-2 tasks in general, I agree T31e will be a better solution. But, for Hormuz Strait issue, up-armed River B2 fits almost perfectly. And, Hormuz Strait will share at least a half of such tier-2 tasks in foreseeable future.

It is a choice between
1:- putting now and future tier-1 escorts in extended readiness, in favor of 5 T31e to be used for general tier-2 tasks in 10 years future.
2:- or securing future tier-1 escorts and answering current issue within 2 years future with up-armed River B2, but may not be good at other tier-2 tasks. Also relocating the remaining 1-1.3B GBP for better manning, more operation cost, modifying T45, drones, and others (even one more T26).

Either may work. I do not think my second option is "totally bad" or "the only solution". Option-1 is also not "totally bad", because we are now so much "used to" keeping escorts in extended readiness for years, and keeping their sea-going days very very low.

Uhm, writing so, again, I strongly prefer option-2. :D

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Uhm, writing so, again, I strongly prefer option-2.
:thumbup: agree - We should choose what we have in our hand rather than a dream of getting more than 5 T31s latter (on the hope the RN has the operating budget and sailors to man, and that they have the capabilities needed).
”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:Like all of the MoD's procurement programmes, there is an urgent need scrap the current "Green Book" rules and allow multi year funding. This would especially benefit ship building for the navy and also point the way forward for a drumbeat approach to warship building. Both of these points we key recommendation form the repost on which the NSS was created but both were rejected on the high up front costs mainly at the behest of the Treasury. Another recommendation rejected was the need to remove or at least greatly reduce the financial competition doctrine within the MoD to allow industry to gain some security and encourage them to invest with the knowledge that they would receive orders. Affordability would still play a part as would the trade off between cost and capability but mass would also play a part in these equations.

If these recommendations had been enacted we would now see BAe constructing the fabled "Frigate Factory", and the T-26 programme still consisting of 13 vessels with a eighteen month instead of a two year delivery schedule. To support the "Factory", other yards would be constructing blocks as part of a partnership, an evolved version of the type used for the Carrier programme. This in turn would have provided security to the manufacturers of all types within the supply chain allow them to also invest. This in turn would see a reduction in costs across the whole ship building industry leading to a reduction in the cost per unit of those vessels designed and built for the Royal Navy.

Also of importance and related to he "Green Book" mentioned above would be the insistence that all "Warships" be built in the UK including the vessels of the RFA. No other major European nation puts the construction of its naval platforms out to international tender and neither should the UK. The wider benefits resulting from a healthy warship building programme to the UK economy must be a key factor, even if the benefits take a while to reach the Treasury. The benefits to the manufacturing sector and communities across the country not just in the construction yards would be realised far more readily.

The above would also provide a fertile ground for exports, both for finished vessels built in the UK and of designs and engineering expertise which still exists within the UK. This again would put the UK's Warship building capability on a far firmer foundation and again encourage investment, leading to more highly skilled jobs, increase revenue for the Treasury, and more affordable yet capable warships for the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Changing tack and looking at the size of the fleet and the future numbers of T-45, T-26 and T-31e I am beginning to think that things need to be reorganised. Firstly the initial T-26 purchase should be reduced to only six vessels. I can hear the howls of anguish already but bear with me. These six vessels would be of the current design. Whilst the design of the T-26 is that of a warships able to operate independently for long duration missions and have the on built flexibility to conduct a multitude of mission types. by default they are now tied to the RN's new carriers as their prime ASW escorts. This puts many of the capabilities designed into the T-26 in limbo with the RN trying to decide how to apply them to the platforms role with in the CSG and I almost forgot the ARG. The money allocated to the fifth and sixth T-26s currently planned would be allocated to the T-31e programme. This should allow the construction of an initial five to six platforms that would be capable ASW platforms able to operate effectively as part of both the CSG and ARG. These would be tier one ASW assets but focused on that role. This would give he RN twelve capable ASW escorts as a foundation. But with multi year funding and a healthy warship building industry second batch of T-26 would be purchased consisting of three to four ships of an evolved design, learning any lessons from not jus the initial RN vessels but also those built for the Australians and Canadian navies. Whilst retaining many of the core capabilities of the batch one T-26, especially their ASW prowess, they would have greater AAW, anti surface and land attack capabilities based around the addition of more Mk41 VLS systems and improved sensors and so on. Whether these would be built using the exact same hull as the Batch 1 or a lengthen or widened version in a similar way the later Leander class were altered is an option to be considered. However it is this Batch 2 design that would be the foundation for the successor to the T-45, prioritising their AAW capability over their ASW and other capabilities but not removing them, with a programme to construct at least six of these Batch 3 vessels.

At the end of this programme the Royal Navy would consist of sixteen T-26 in three Batches, and six T-31e. All of them would be capable platforms and would have been kept relevant by an ongoing process of refit and modernisation, made easier by their inherent design characteristics allowing such work to be carried out far more easily and more cost effectively than in the classes that preceded them. The initial drop in numbers would allow the remaining vessels to be effectively manned whilst increased recruitment would mirror the gradual increase in the size of the fleet. This is a twenty five year construction programme but is a holistic view of naval ship building and the size and capability of the Royal Navy. at the end of the period the replacement for the Batch 1 T-26 would be well on the way to be launched. The T-31e, being partly a tool to allow the strengthening of the ship building sector to provide the sort of infrastructure the Royal Navy needs to provide the warships it needs in a cost effective and timely manner, would probably be sold off, with the replacement for the Batch 1 T-26 being purchased in number sufficient to cover both these classes, the number being between ten and twelve. This would enable the Royal Navy to man and operate a fleet of between twenty and twenty two capable escorts but the middle of the century, incorporating emerging technologies like UUVs and such like, something the core T-26 design should be well suited for.

This sized fleet should allow the Royal Navy to operate both CSGs if the need arises and provide escorts for one or two ARGs depending on the size and mission of he latter. It should also allow the deployment of singletons in NATO roles we currently only occasionally fill, or forward deploy a small flotilla to the Gulf or farther afield, addressing what seems to be a fixation of this generation of Politicians. I have deliberately not mentioned the Rivers here for that is another post involving the creation of an independent UK Coastguard which would take over some of the roles currently undertaken by the Royal Navy such a fisheries protection and constabulary duties.
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here Iv just got 2 questions

1 - where is the extra money coming from for your 3 extra T26s ? If your idea works on extra funding full stop then ok but there’s no need to cut hulls 7&8 just put that funding straight to the T31 as your not really cutting T26 number rather adding 1 and upgrading the design for hulls 7-9.

2 - what is your carrier ASW T31 going to be like ? As I’d think any ASW design would want to keep the T26 hull form, not the hull it’s self but it’s form, engines and rafting set up.
It’s going to need a decent AAW, AShM which in turn would give land strike with the future missile, and an ASW missile. These would need Mk41s.
Would you want a mission bay to utilise any ASW drones ? If so what we’d end up with is pretty much a T26 with 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41s odd and maybe only a merlins flight deck.!

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Jake1992 wrote:If so what we’d end up with is pretty much a T26 with 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41s odd and maybe only a merlins flight deck.!
.... at 60-65% of the cost (and maybe 85-90% of the capability - wouldn't be as good at passive ASW as the T26, but still quite capable). The IH design can take 36 Mk41, so an A140 could probably take 24 Mk41s as well as 24 CAMM
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:If so what we’d end up with is pretty much a T26 with 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41s odd and maybe only a merlins flight deck.!
.... at 60-65% of the cost (and maybe 85-90% of the capability - wouldn't be as good at passive ASW as the T26, but still quite capable). The IH design can take 36 Mk41, so an A140 could probably take 24 Mk41s as well as 24 CAMM
But that’s the key right there would you want a vessel that is not your best ASW asset being the ASW escort to your HVU ? That is what LJ proposal is about its to have a vessel that takes the T26s place in that role so me it’d have to be just as good at ASW with our question

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Jake1992 wrote: is about its to have a vessel that takes the T26s place in that role so me it’d have to be just as good at ASW with our question
.... then it would likely cost the same as a T26. That last 10-15% is expensive. The major difference is likely to be that even if built to best standards achievable for the design, the A140-based design, since the hull-form is not optimised for URN, would probably have to move at lower speed in passive mode (so more a sprint and "drift" capability, rather than continuous operation at normal fleet operation and higher speeds). Still capable, but requiring more hulls to achieve the same coverage, since you would always need one "drifting" while others are "sprinting" to adjust position. Personally, I think it would be good to build some (but not all) T31 to this standard, as they are then capable of supporting high-end escorts quite effectively.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: is about its to have a vessel that takes the T26s place in that role so me it’d have to be just as good at ASW with our question
.... then it would likely cost the same as a T26. That last 10-15% is expensive. The major difference is likely to be that even if built to best standards achievable for the design, the A140-based design, since the hull-form is not optimised for URN, would probably have to move at lower speed in passive mode (so more a sprint and "drift" capability, rather than continuous operation at normal fleet operation and higher speeds). Still capable, but requiring more hulls to achieve the same coverage, since you would always need one "drifting" while others are "sprinting" to adjust position. Personally, I think it would be good to build some (but not all) T31 to this standard, as they are then capable of supporting high-end escorts quite effectively.
That was my question to LJ and why I said you’d most likely want to keep the T26 hull form, in the end I came to the conclusion that to have a carrier ASW vessel in place of a T26 that is also future proofed you end up with a T26 but with a merlin fight deck, 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41s in which case might aswell build more T26s

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:If so what we’d end up with is pretty much a T26 with 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41s odd and maybe only a merlins flight deck.!
.... at 60-65% of the cost (and maybe 85-90% of the capability - wouldn't be as good at passive ASW as the T26, but still quite capable).
Personally I think the French FTI is the benchmark the T31 should be compared against and not the T26 - it's in a different league with a price to match.

The FTI with its CODAD propulsion and Captas 4 compact is what the T31 will be going head to head with in the export market and clearly the French think the FTI is what the market is looking for.

Bringing both Leander and the A140 up to an FTI spec would seem pretty straightforward and could be considerably cheaper than what the French are offering for around £500m.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

For me pushing forward we do need T-31 we also need to form groups which allow good coverage of tasks and better understanding from HMG. so as I have said in the past I would look for

2 x Carrier groups with 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-23 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide ( all of these ships will deploy together and be maintained together )

1 x Amphib groups with 1 x Albion , 2 x Bay , 2 x Point , 1 x Tide ( this would be deployed with a carrier group or with a NATO escort group )

1 x Home fleet with 2 x T-45 , 4 x T-23 , 2 x T-31 , 2 x River B2 & 3 x B1's ( Tasks SNMG-1/2 , FRE , TAPS )

1 x East of Suez group with 3 x T-31 , 2 x River B2 , 1 x Bay , 1 x Wave

For this to work I would go for A 140 as the T-31 fitted with HMS , 1x 76mm , 2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW 2 x Phalanx & Harpoon

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The FTI with its CODAD propulsion and Captas 4 compact is what the T31 will be going head to head with in the export market and clearly the French think the FTI is what the market is looking for.

Bringing both Leander and the A140 up to an FTI spec would seem pretty straightforward and could be considerably cheaper than what the French are offering for around £500m.
Your modified T31 is cheaper than FTI for what reason? If it is “simpler AAW”, FTI can easily propose a version with SeaMICA and make it cheaper than T31e.

But yes it could be cheaper than 500M GBP in unit cost. But, including all the big efforts on designing the ship, the average cost will be not that cheap.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:For me pushing forward we do need T-31 we also need to form groups which allow good coverage of tasks and better understanding from HMG. so as I have said in the past I would look for

2 x Carrier groups with 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-23 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide ( all of these ships will deploy together and be maintained together )

1 x Amphib groups with 1 x Albion , 2 x Bay , 2 x Point , 1 x Tide ( this would be deployed with a carrier group or with a NATO escort group )

1 x Home fleet with 2 x T-45 , 4 x T-23 , 2 x T-31 , 2 x River B2 & 3 x B1's ( Tasks SNMG-1/2 , FRE , TAPS )

1 x East of Suez group with 3 x T-31 , 2 x River B2 , 1 x Bay , 1 x Wave

For this to work I would go for A 140 as the T-31 fitted with HMS , 1x 76mm , 2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW 2 x Phalanx & Harpoon
I agree that for the most part the T31 is needed in a balanced fleet, it just guts me of the missed opertinity due to is being a rushed project. If it had started out as a well planned project giving time for properly developed design we could of had something better than the FTI with a fully British design.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Thanks Donald.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Your modified T31 is cheaper than FTI for what reason?
I wasn't proposing modifying anything. If we take a basic Leander or A140 at around £200m before the armament, radar, decoys and CMS etc is added then that leaves £300m to fit a pretty high spec. It could make for a seriously effective GP frigate.
If it is “simpler AAW”, FTI can easily propose a version with SeaMICA and make it cheaper than T31e.
I really can't see the French building any version of the FTI for £250m. The question of SeaMICA vs CAMM is interesting as is optimised by RN vs optimised by the Marine National. Will export customers value one higher than the other? Maybe.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But yes it could be cheaper than 500M GBP in unit cost. But, including all the big efforts on designing the ship, the average cost will be not that cheap.
How much effort? The FTI as far as we know has a pretty straightforward CODAD propulsion system and a non acoustically optimised hull. Fitting MK41's or Sylvers for CAMM or Aster 15/30 isn't going to be difficult for the A140 in particular and we know the space has been retained in the stern for 2087 so Captas 4 compact should be straightforward. In many ways a fully kitted out A140 would be superior to the FTI.

Alternatively a slightly modified 125m Leander with the beam widened to 16m, 36 CAMM, 16 amidship Mk41's, 8x NSM's, 76mm, 2x 30mm's, Captas 4 compact and Artisan would be tough competition for the FTI. Especially if the hybrid propulsion system was quietened, the hanger made Merlin capable and space was retained for 4 ISO'S and 4 Rhibs. It may also be the UK designed escort frigate that RN really need.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: If we take a basic Leander or A140 at around £200m before the armament, radar, decoys and CMS etc is added then that leaves £300m to fit a pretty high spec. It could make for a seriously effective GP frigate.
No sure. Systems integration is the most costy part.
... In many ways a fully kitted out A140 would be superior to the FTI.
Do not agree. Naval is a world leader in export escort building, and FTI is designed well AFTER Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate was born. Naval knows it well. Heavily armed A140 could be "comparable to", but will never be "superior to" the FTI.

If we are going to heavily arm the T31e, I guess Leander is not a good option. Widening the beam significantly is nearly equivalent to re-designing the whole ship, and if so, I want to see Venator 110 (117m long) than Leander.

If with Leander, I think it shall keep its width, (or only slightly wider, by ~5% (from 14.6 to 15.3m wide), similar to those applied to 1970's Broad-beamed Leander, from 12.5m to 13.1m). Even so, it will be able to carry a 57 mm gun, 24 CAMM in 6 ExLS, 8x NSMs, 2x 30mm, and a CAPTAS-4 CI. Compared to 4200t FTI, this 3700t Leander lacks area air defense and strike-length VLS, but has the limited mission bays. Good balance with the size difference, I think.

The only thing I shall add is to
- quietize the electric propulsion
- change the bow thruster to the one similar to those carried on Tide-class tankers. (can extend and rotate in emergency to provide "survival propulsion")
The first point will improve the ASW capability, and the second will improve the damage control level similar (FTI has two completely independent shaft lines).

By aiming "slightly lower than FTI", the Leander can fill the niche between Gowind-2500 and FTI.

#Although I think T31 shall better be canceled, if T31e is to ever go on, this is my opinion.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

People keep returning to wanting to turn the type 31 into an asw ship and comparing it to every new design going. We have a modification to a corvette, we have a modification to a danish asw ship and a modification to a meko frigate in the contest.

And yet the best and cheapest asw escort vessel is the one we currently have, one has to wonder why no one has proposed a vessel based on an updated type 23 frigate hull. Maybe to many toes would be stepped on and too many questions on type 26 would result.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:People keep returning to wanting to turn the type 31 into an asw ship and comparing it to every new design going. We have a modification to a corvette, we have a modification to a danish asw ship and a modification to a meko frigate in the contest.

And yet the best and cheapest asw escort vessel is the one we currently have, one has to wonder why no one has proposed a vessel based on an updated type 23 frigate hull. Maybe to many toes would be stepped on and too many questions on type 26 would result.
I wonder how much a vessel based on the T23 hull with a upgraded superstructure would cost ?

Granted it wouldn’t have much future growth margins, as we’ve seen nearly all top weight has been used but maybe that could be sorted with a new Superstructure.

Post Reply