Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
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.
I don’t know but interesting as I mentioned the Americans and Germans can do it and top weight has and can be regained with modernised systems.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

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.
Agreed. Put the superstructure that's stealthy enough and that's pretty much it.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Many of us have, @SW1, here and on TD. According to those who claim to know about these things, RN crews are so fat and pampered now that it would need to be at least 5000t to accommodate them, plus another 1000t to accommodate the Mk41 cells, 5" gun and CAMM cells, expanded beam to allow for the topweight of the higher mounted radar as well as a couple of Phalanx and approximately another 1000t to cater for a mission bay, getting you to around 6500-7000 tonnes. I believe the concept goes by the name of T26. :shh:
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:Many of us have, @SW1, here and on TD. According to those who claim to know about these things, RN crews are so fat and pampered now that it would need to be at least 5000t to accommodate them, plus another 1000t to accommodate the Mk41 cells, 5" gun and CAMM cells, expanded beam to allow for the topweight of the higher mounted radar as well as a couple of Phalanx and approximately another 1000t to cater for a mission bay, getting you to around <a href="tel:6500-7000">6500-7000</a> tonnes. I believe the concept goes by the name of T26. :shh:
Would it need all that though ?

If we took a T23 hull added the same lay out superstructure as T26 only smaller ( the radar wouldn’t be any higher than on current T23s ) -57mm up front,
-16Mk41s forward like on the T26,
-6 ExSLs between the superstructure and funnel
- no mission bay only a merlins hanger with a enclosed boat bay either side
- 1 phalanx mount on the hanger
- merlin flight deck

Yes it’d look very much like a small T26 but could it be done for say £500m ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote:Many of us have, @SW1, here and on TD. According to those who claim to know about these things, RN crews are so fat and pampered now that it would need to be at least 5000t to accommodate them, plus another 1000t to accommodate the Mk41 cells, 5" gun and CAMM cells, expanded beam to allow for the topweight of the higher mounted radar as well as a couple of Phalanx and approximately another 1000t to cater for a mission bay, getting you to around <a href="tel:6500-7000">6500-7000</a> tonnes. I believe the concept goes by the name of T26. :shh:
But thats not a type 23. It doesn’t need a 5” gun, a mk41 or a mission bay it doesn’t need a radar any higher than the current type 23 and like the current one it doesn’t need phalanx.

Type26 is nearer 9k tonnes if you believe the Canadians and Australians.

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

5000 tonnes was the minimum size quoted and that was just to meet the current accommodation standards, nothing else. ExLs are not in use by the RN, but Mk41 are and the 76mm has not been adopted either, with the 4.5" being dropped in favour of the 5". With increasing ASuW missile speeds, the radar does need to be moved higher and Phalanx is definitely a requirement.

Edit: re the 9000 tonnes - I think that's full load - I tend to quote "light" figures
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:5000 tonnes was the minimum size quoted and that was just to meet the current accommodation standards, nothing else. ExLs are not in use by the RN, but Mk41 are and the 76mm has not been adopted either, with the 4.5" being dropped in favour of the 5". With increasing ASuW missile speeds, the radar does need to be moved higher and Phalanx is definitely a requirement.

Edit: re the 9000 tonnes - I think that's full load - I tend to quote "light" figures
ExLS makes perfect sense to adopt given that it gives a far better use of space with it being far more compact, this would not only help any T31 ( T23 idea being discussed right now ) but also the T26 free up space for any future upgrades.

I can see the 57mm being used on any future mcm survey replacement so bringing it in on other Vessel is not hard to see, remember they have put the T31 as a 57mm or up on the specs.

Mk41s are going to be needed on any future vessel to accommodate the future AShM unless the RN plan on operating 2 different types.

The height of radar in the current T23s isn’t exactly low by any stretch.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Caribbean wrote:5000 tonnes was the minimum size quoted and that was just to meet the current accommodation standards, nothing else. ExLs are not in use by the RN, but Mk41 are and the 76mm has not been adopted either, with the 4.5" being dropped in favour of the 5". With increasing ASuW missile speeds, the radar does need to be moved higher and Phalanx is definitely a requirement.

Edit: re the 9000 tonnes - I think that's full load - I tend to quote "light" figures
And yet Leander and the a200 variants both entered for type 31 are smaller than type 23. How’s there radar height? ASuW missile speeds are unlikely to be significantly faster than whats available today already, short of moving to ballistic trajectories.

Mk41 isn’t in use with the RN either. It will be a very long time before the 4.5” gun will be out of RN service unless it’s planned to be replaced on type 45. The current type31 program is even proposing a second combat management system for the RN so introducing something new is hardly a deal breaker.

Type 26 is within a few feet the same size as an Arleigh Burke it’s significantly larger than a like for like type23 replacement needed to be.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Trying to keep track of everything said so here goes. I wasn't saying that the more capable T-31e would replace the T-26 in Carrier Groups but that it would be capable of operating effectively within them, something the baseline design cannot really do. The desire to be able to improve the T-31e would mean that a platform the size of the Arrowhead should be seen as the base line and definitely not one the size of the Leander or A200. If the eventual aim remains a small basic sloop for a better word, then fine these will do but neither can form the basis of a class that would be effective in operating in either the Carrier or Amphibious Groups except to make up number. A vessel with a medium calibre gun, possibly Sea Ceptor (why do people still keep calling it CAAM?) a couple of small auto cannons and a Phalanx would simply be a drain on the Groups resources. The result would be that the Royal Navy's T-26 and T-45 would have their diaries pretty much fully books ensuring there are sufficient escorts available to cover the CSG and ARG, assuming we are not going to only provide a minimum presents of a couple each time one or both Groups sail.

Revisiting or more accurately adopting fully the recommendation made for the NSS should be a priority. In order to have a sustained warships manufacturing capability with sufficient capacity with the UK we need to have multi year funding for large complex programmes like warship construction, a "Drum Beat", production cycle to allow confidence in the industry to invest in skills, capacity and construction methods, not just in the yards but right down the supply chain. This is going to require up front expenditure but will deliver far greater benefits down the line, to the Treasury and the MoD. It is this that could allow the Fleet to grow both in manpower and material.

Both the T-31e and the follow on Batches of T-26 should be built in super blocks, and the programmes manages by an alliance of companies in a similar manner to the Carrier Alliance that has been so successful. Sufficient investment up front should allow an additional shipyard to be capable of completing escort sized and smaller vessels under this programme, with new second yard concentrating in T-31e assembly and BAE on the T-26 in its "Frigate Factory". These two site would not be in competition with one another, the revised NSS would allocate final assembly work based on the capacity available within the necessary timeframe. A certain level of competition would remain regarding work further down the supply chain, but all efforts would be made to ensure as much of the capacity for this work would remain in the UK. In some ways this follows the systems set up in Italy and France where their Warship manufacturing is heavily supported by their respective Governments. Reliance on competition may have save the UK Government some money in the past but it has led to the situation we are currently in. Investing in Ship Building is a win/win for the Government, generation highly shilled jobs, providing assets to the Royal Navy at more affordable prices, increasing tax and other revenues to the Treasury and increasing the likelihood of exports, both of the finished article, sub-systems and design expertise. But it needs up front investment from the Government.

As for what a more capable T-31e would look like, well as mentioned above a hull the size of the Arrowhead 140 would be the starting point. The aim would be to produce a capable platform that has the ability to evolve into one that has at least 80% of the ability of the T-26 in the area of ASW as a minimum. The baseline design would have a medium calibre main gun and a single Phalanx. It would have a single standard length Mk-41 initially only holding Sea Ceptor, and two RWS autocannons. Finally it would have a hanger for a Wildcat, but a flight deck able to handle a Merlin. It would not have mission bays though it would carry two RHIBs. Importantly though the design would be such that incorporating further improvements through the life of the vessels would be able to be done in a timely and cost effective manner, with easy access to the ships infrastructure to install new hardware and software. One option there would be would be that there would be at least seven Artisan sets going spare with the T-26 Batch 1 programme being limited to six ships.

As for the T-26 Batch 2s, it would be tempting to adopt the RAN Hunter class as the baseline, including its radar and increased use of Mk41s and so on. This should provide the RN with four very capable vessels, with more balanced capabilities than the ASW specialised Batch 1. It is during the construction programme of these vessels that the T-31e would be undergoing refits to include the additional capabilities still outstanding.

With the Batch 3 T-26 we would be looking at a far more substantial change to the hull form, possibly increasing its length and or width. These vessels would be the replacements for the T-45 and possibly the T-31e. At the same time it would be possible to put the Batch 1 T-26 through a refit programme to bring them up to the configuration of the Batch 2, or additional Batch 3s could be manufactured to replace these over time as well, with the fleet then comprising solely of Batch 2 and Batch 3 T-26 vessels.

In my opinion all of the above is possible, without a massive increase in the Defence Budget, as the investment needed would come from a variety of Governmental Departments, both the kick start things and to provide support over time. Probably not to the levels made in France or Italy but far more than in done now. Without an overarching programme like a fit for purpose NSS things will not change and the Navy will continue to shrink and possibly more vessels will be manufactured overseas.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by seaspear »

"As for the T-26 Batch 2s, it would be tempting to adopt the RAN Hunter class as the baseline, including its radar and increased use of Mk41s and so on. This should provide the RN with four very capable vessels, with more balanced capabilities than the ASW specialised Batch 1. It is during the construction programme of these vessels that the T-31e would be undergoing refits to include the additional capabilities still outstanding. "
Are you suggesting that the Hunter class is not as advanced as the baseline type 26 in asw operations or just more capable in other areas?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

I wonder if the flaw in adopting a highly modified Type-23 design would be that the cost of modifying the design to accept modern, highly automated equipment might end up being more expensive than a clean-sheet design? I also doubt that even if the design, assessment and demonstration costs of a modernised T23 were relatively low that the eventual total cost per ship would be substantially lower than a third batch of five T26's. That then begs the question of what's the point of a low-cost general purpose frigate designed for export that isn't low-cost or general purpose?

I agree that the five ships that are allocated as T31e's should be ASW frigates, I just don't think that there's going to be substantial cost savings or export potential added by the T31e being an ASW frigate. The UK already has an ASW frigate design that's enjoying export success. If we want to re-allocate those five ships as ASW frigates the route to take is working to bring down the cost of building them to the existing design. However, if we want a general purpose frigate for constabulary and anti-piracy duties then something like BAe's Cutlass design is probably as good as anything.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
Sorry Donald, can't agree with that.

The FTI doesn't compare well to the Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140 in my opinion.

- The A140 has a higher top speed but can achieve 18 knots on a single engine.

- The FTI has a range of around 5000 nm compared to the A140's 9500nm.

- The A140 is longer and wider and therefore more stable for hello ops and launching/recovering small craft.

- The enlarged hull size also allows for improved levels of crew habitability, extra growth margins for future proofing and of course enhanced sea keeping qualities.

- In the IH configuration it can fit 16x Harpoon sized ASM's, together with strike length Mk41's for a potential TLAM compatibility.

- The hanger is Merlin capable and the flight deck is Chinook capable.

- Space for a Mk45 AND a 57/76 or a medium calibre gun plus forward and aft CIWS positions.

- Space for four ISO's and in the A140 four RHIB's.

The FTI is a much more modern design but in many ways the Arrowhead and Iver Huitfeldt designs are superior in terms of capability. At the end of the day it comes down to which vessel matches most closely each individual export customers requirements.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Pseudo wrote:However, if we want a general purpose frigate for constabulary and anti-piracy duties then something like BAe's Cutlass design is probably as good as anything.
Obviously keen on a River variant, but why the Cutlass rather than the Avenger design? If we are talking about constabulary, lower level maritime security and presence, I’d say the Avenger would be sufficient.
”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

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 doesn't compare well to the Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140 in my opinion.
- The A140 has a higher top speed but can achieve 18 knots on a single engine.
- The FTI has a range of around 5000 nm compared to the A140's 9500nm.
- The A140 is longer and wider and therefore more stable for hello ops and launching/recovering small craft.
- The enlarged hull size also allows for improved levels of crew habitability, extra growth margins for future proofing and of course enhanced sea keeping qualities.
- In the IH configuration it can fit 16x Harpoon sized ASM's, together with strike length Mk41's for a potential TLAM compatibility.
- The hanger is Merlin capable and the flight deck is Chinook capable.
- Space for a Mk45 AND a 57/76 or a medium calibre gun plus forward and aft CIWS positions.
- Space for four ISO's and in the A140 four RHIB's.
The FTI is a much more modern design but in many ways the Arrowhead and Iver Huitfeldt designs are superior in terms of capability. At the end of the day it comes down to which vessel matches most closely each individual export customers requirements.
I do not agree.

Naval is very very serious contender in export market. When they propose FTI, it means it has some merit. It is either, you/we think too small about FTI, or too big about Iver Huitfeldt (I'm afraid the latter). I respect Naval group (even though I hope UK can do something). Naval, Damen, Navantia, and Fincantieri are the world leaders in export escort market. Now, BAE also doing well in hi-end escort market, great.

Note, I am NOT saying anything bad about Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140. I'm just saying GOOD about FTI. It is serious contender, and I think, in view of export, fighting against FTI face-to-face is not a good way to go. If Arrowhead 140 want to win, put more stress on mission bays, on which FTI intentionally omitted.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Pseudo wrote:I wonder if the flaw in adopting a highly modified Type-23 design would be that the cost of modifying the design to accept modern, highly automated equipment might end up being more expensive than a clean-sheet design? I also doubt that even if the design, assessment and demonstration costs of a modernised T23 were relatively low that the eventual total cost per ship would be substantially lower than a third batch of five T26's. That then begs the question of what's the point of a low-cost general purpose frigate designed for export that isn't low-cost or general purpose?

I agree that the five ships that are allocated as T31e's should be ASW frigates, I just don't think that there's going to be substantial cost savings or export potential added by the T31e being an ASW frigate. The UK already has an ASW frigate design that's enjoying export success. If we want to re-allocate those five ships as ASW frigates the route to take is working to bring down the cost of building them to the existing design. However, if we want a general purpose frigate for constabulary and anti-piracy duties then something like BAe's Cutlass design is probably as good as anything.
What is the difference (in cost, kit, build spec) of a BAE Cutlass vs the BAE T31?

I get the feeling that we wouldn't save a huge sum but would end up with something that is a lot less flighty than a T31.

The most important thing for the RN surely is to build 5 T31 hulls at full frigate build standard that are easily upgradable. So even if even if lightly armed on commission, they can be upgraded later. If we build 5 hulls that arent at frigate build standard, we've lost 5 frigates, indefinitely

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Both the T-31e and the follow on Batches of T-26 should be built in super blocks, and the programmes manages by an alliance of companies in a similar manner to the Carrier Alliance that has been so successful. Sufficient investment up front should allow an additional shipyard to be capable of completing escort sized and smaller vessels under this programme, with new second yard concentrating in T-31e assembly and BAE on the T-26 in its "Frigate Factory". These two site would not be in competition with one another, the revised NSS would allocate final assembly work based on the capacity available within the necessary timeframe.
Not so sure. BAE Clyde with the "Frigate Factory" can build 1 ship a year. Typical of "active" escort shipbuilder in the world. This means 30-35 hi-end escorts for typical 30-35 years-long life of modern escorts. Now, T45 and T26 is planned to be ~16 in total, only about a half. Thus, NSS is inefficient in its nature for sure. Prioritizing "2 escort builders" means RN need to pay for it = less number of hulls.

Long term vision, drum-beat commitment, all I totally agree.
... Sea Ceptor (why do people still keep calling it CAAM?)
Similar to the reason we call Sea Viper as ASTER 30/15. I like to call it CAMM, a good contender of ESSM. :D

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

dmereifield wrote:What is the difference (in cost, kit, build spec) of a BAE Cutlass vs the BAE T31?
About 10m in length added amidships, probably v.little cash wise.
dmereifield wrote:The most important thing for the RN surely is to build 5 T31 hulls at full frigate build standard that are easily upgradable. So even if even if lightly armed on commission, they can be upgraded later. If we build 5 hulls that arent at frigate build standard, we've lost 5 frigates, indefinitely
Unless there is the cash to upgrade them you still end up with 5 unsuited Frigates which at best will take longer to sink. Adding a new class is expensive, the point I make is that by having an evolved River Class plus more T26s you are actually getting real ships not FFBNW Political hulls that look ok on a naval comparison newspaper info graphic.
”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 »

Repulse wrote:
dmereifield wrote:The most important thing for the RN surely is to build 5 T31 hulls at full frigate build standard that are easily upgradable. So even if even if lightly armed on commission, they can be upgraded later. If we build 5 hulls that arent at frigate build standard, we've lost 5 frigates, indefinitely
Unless there is the cash to upgrade them you still end up with 5 unsuited Frigates which at best will take longer to sink. Adding a new class is expensive, the point I make is that by having an evolved River Class plus more T26s you are actually getting real ships not FFBNW Political hulls that look ok on a naval comparison newspaper info graphic.
This is why Iv now come to the conclusion that the best way forward would be to develope 2 families of vessels, 1 based on the T26 with a larger destroyer to replace the T45s and a smaller light frigate for the T31 and that area of the export market. The 2nd based on the RB2 design with the RB3 to give a long range patrol vessel similar to the french Floréal class and and wider longer multi mission sloop fit for mcm survey work and so on.

This is very unlikely though due to the rush job of the current T31 project instead of a well thought out long term plan.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4580
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Naval, Damen, Navantia, and Fincantieri are the world leaders in export escort market. Now, BAE also doing well in hi-end escort market, great.
“Hi-end Escorts” are always best :lolno:

Joking aside, you are spot on with your observation that the mid and low end escort is saturated by companies with either healthy order books, cheap offshore construction yards or government funding / ownership or combination of all three.

The RN is a top end Escort purchaser and so it should remain, what it is also is a high end Minor warship purchaser. What is needed is a top end MHPC, which would be a world beater for UK shipbuilding when attached to the RN brand.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

seaspear wrote:Are you suggesting that the Hunter class is not as advanced as the baseline type 26 in asw operations or just more capable in other areas?
Far from it, the Hunter Class is a more balanced design in my opinion, adding more capability to the already top tier ASW capability of the baseline T-46. I believe the Radar on the Hunter offer more scope for enhancement and the substitution of additional Mk41s of whatever type is a gain over the existing "Mushrooms". By the time we would start building the Batch 2 T-26 they design would already have been in RAN service for a number of years and so most of the kinks should have been ironed out. We could either adopt the same sonars as the RAN or keep to the same types already in use. Sea Ceptor integration would be no issue except for the adoption of the ExLS insert, but that could already be in service on the T-31e.

The Frigate Factory up on the Clyde would initially be working to an eighteen month timescale but could possibly shorten this if required. The second yard would be up and running for both "Super Blocks to support the Factory and the construction of other RN vessels up to the size of the A140 it would already been built. Larger vessels like the new RFAs would still need to be built up on the Clyde, but again using ""Super Blocks if possible". It would also be possible if the alliance works as well as it possibly could for the second yard to be able to assemble T-26 is the workload justifies further expansion and the Governments is will to invest ore when needed.

As for the T-31e, I see it evolving into a Acceptable ASW platform that exceeds the its Danish relative in most capabilities with the possible exception of area AAW. With two or three Mk41s, a mid calibre main gun, one or two Phalanx, up to eight AShMs, two light autocannons, Wildcat, Artisan, full defensive electronics suite and a reasonable TASS by the time the platform has matured over its lifetime. This would also make them very attractive on the resale market.

As I mention earlier I see this as a 25+ year programme to increase and sustain the UK's warship construction capacity. And it will take Governmental support both in financial support and the placing of a steady stream of orders.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

Repulse wrote:Obviously keen on a River variant, but why the Cutlass rather than the Avenger design?
I said something like Cutlass, I was just umentioned the Cutlass design because it was the first that came in to my head. That said, from what little I know about them, the Cutlass design appears to be a more credible warship than the Avenger design and if the five ships are to be warships then they have to be credible combatants in their class, so be capable of deterring a MEKO-200 or similar.
dmereifield wrote:What is the difference (in cost, kit, build spec) of a BAE Cutlass vs the BAE T31?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the BAe Type 31 proposal essentially is the BAe Cutlass design with a few modifications.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Pseudo wrote:
Repulse wrote:Obviously keen on a River variant, but why the Cutlass rather than the Avenger design?
I said something like Cutlass, I was just umentioned the Cutlass design because it was the first that came in to my head. That said, from what little I know about them, the Cutlass design appears to be a more credible warship than the Avenger design and if the five ships are to be warships then they have to be credible combatants in their class, so be capable of deterring a MEKO-200 or similar.
dmereifield wrote:What is the difference (in cost, kit, build spec) of a BAE Cutlass vs the BAE T31?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the BAe Type 31 proposal essentially is the BAe Cutlass design with a few modifications.
I don't know, that's why I was asking. If it that is the case, why are you advocating going with Cutlass instead of the T31?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

dmereifield wrote:I don't know, that's why I was asking. If it that is the case, why are you advocating going with Cutlass instead of the T31?
As I say, I don't think that I am. AFAIK the BAe Type 31 design is essentially the BAe Cutlass design with a few modifications. I'm just calling it Cutlass because that seems like the initial design concept. If I'm wrong about that tell me why, otherwise I don't see much point of pettifogging over nomenclature.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
Sorry Donald, can't agree with that.

The FTI doesn't compare well to the Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead 140 in my opinion.

- The A140 has a higher top speed but can achieve 18 knots on a single engine.

- The FTI has a range of around 5000 nm compared to the A140's 9500nm.

- The A140 is longer and wider and therefore more stable for hello ops and launching/recovering small craft.

- The enlarged hull size also allows for improved levels of crew habitability, extra growth margins for future proofing and of course enhanced sea keeping qualities.

- In the IH configuration it can fit 16x Harpoon sized ASM's, together with strike length Mk41's for a potential TLAM compatibility.

- The hanger is Merlin capable and the flight deck is Chinook capable.

- Space for a Mk45 AND a 57/76 or a medium calibre gun plus forward and aft CIWS positions.

- Space for four ISO's and in the A140 four RHIB's.

The FTI is a much more modern design but in many ways the Arrowhead and Iver Huitfeldt designs are superior in terms of capability. At the end of the day it comes down to which vessel matches most closely each individual export customers requirements.
I have to say this why l like A 140 for me I feel it is a good fit for the RN .

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Just to add to Poiuytrewq's list. The A140 design has also been updated to comply with ANEP77 build standards (so it is to RN specifications) and the parent design, at least, allows for additional URN-reduction features, such as engine rafting, on a shock-tested hull that is already rated for NATO ASW work.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply