Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

2 ) East of Suez Command made up of

4 x T-31 , 4 x MCM , 1 x Bay , 2 x Wave , 1 x Point

No ASW capability EoS?

best I would hope for is a good HMS or CAPTAS-4 Compact fitted to the T-31's

[Caribbean]

2 ) East of Suez Command made up of

4 x T-31 , 4 x MCM , 1 x Bay , 2 x Wave , 1 x Point

Plus 1 x FLSS?

[jedibeeftrix]

[

best I would hope for is a good HMS or CAPTAS-4 Compact fitted to the T-31's

is there any indication that these are in our magical £250m wunder-package?

[Poiuytrewq]

2 ) East of Suez Command made up of

4 x T-31 , 4 x MCM , 1 x Bay , 2 x Wave , 1 x Point

No ASW capability EoS?

best I would hope for is a good HMS or CAPTAS-4 Compact fitted to the T-31's

There is no indication thus far that any form of hull mounted sonar is going to to be fitted....at least in the initial batch. Hopefully sense now prevails and the budget is set at a level that can provide a credible platform, which must include an ability to see what is happening below the waves as well as above it. Around £375m is the sweet spot for the T31, will Mr Javid be more generous than his predecessor? We shall have to wait and see.

The A140 has lots of potential as this recently updated piece from SaveTheRoyalNavy admirably portrays.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-foc ... candidate/

A few things stand out for me,

1. How much would the rafting and noise reduction measures that are mentioned actually cost?

2. Is the stern ramp really possible without a major redesign, and if so, how would an A140 with a misson bay under the flight deck with attached stern ramp compare to the Project Spartan concept? It might not be an Absalon but it could be useful.

3. What SWL could the strengthened davits actually handle. CB90?

Could some of these additions actually improve the export chances of an A140? Making it a clearly different option to the standard Iver Huitfeldt rather than it just being cheaper?

[Tempest414]

[

best I would hope for is a good HMS or CAPTAS-4 Compact fitted to the T-31's

is there any indication that these are in our magical £250m wunder-package?

God no they would only come with shed more money and that is why I said the best I could hope for as sending a T-26 EoS will not happen unless it is with a Carrier

[SW1]

But is it not that you have the group work up and deploy as a task group, the escorts don’t all stay with the group along the way some break off do other things and the group only reforms for passage thru high treat areas or for major exercises or operations. You choose a region to deploy to.

If the high end escort force has to chance hows it manned and supported to fall into line with the carriers cycle then that’s a choice that should be made if singleton deployments are to be replaced with a carrier group deployment.

Stupid question maybe, but would the CEPP CSG ever deploy without a CVF but perhaps be focused around a LPD? This would mean a task group being deployed 100% of the time but also doing the “break off regional” tasks you mention?

Is that not what has being doing recently, I would assume it would only do that if a cvf wasn’t available for whatever reason.

On a wider point part of the steel is cheap air is free mantra about building bigger warships which are less dense in fit out ect is we are told because they are easier to upgrade, easier to maintain therefore require less time in dry dock and so are cheaper as a whole on thru costing and will be available more than what’s gone before. So with with a new class in type 26 coming along based on that very premise, sdsr2020 would seem like a logical time to ensure the support contracts are in place to support a change of emphasis to carrier deployment cycles and operations.

[abc123]

Good thing about CVBG is that she can be retreated back into a safe(r) area until reinforcements arrive.

Err, to paraphrase: fire engine arrives on the scene in good time, but then pulls back, for the waterpump to be delivered, on a separate vehicle... in due course?

Better than to lose fire engine.

And anyway, how many frigates, destroyers and submarines should the RN have to insure that? Two days sailing is about 1000 nm. Meaning you should have at least 1 destroyer, frigate and SSN in North Atlantic, 1 destroyer, frigate and SSN in Mediterranean, 1 destroyer, frigate and SSN in Gulf and 1 destroyer, frigate and SSN in Far East. All of them in high readyness. Plus one destroyer, frigate and SSN in actual escort. That's 15 destroyers, 15+ frigates and 15+ SSNs to have that posture. I mean, I would like to see that, but I doubt that I will ever see the RN in these numbers.

[Repulse]

Is that not what has being doing recently, I would assume it would only do that if a cvf wasn’t available for whatever reason.

My question is more that if the RN will remain on a 3:1 ratio, and the CSG assets will also split off for Singleton Operations in a particular region - could we see the CVFs following a similar rotation whereby two out of three deployments will have a CVF and the other one based around a LPD (and possibly supporting RFAs like Argus)?

[SW1]

Is that not what has being doing recently, I would assume it would only do that if a cvf wasn’t available for whatever reason.

My question is more that if the RN will remain on a 3:1 ratio, and the CSG assets will also split off for Singleton Operations in a particular region - could we see the CVFs following a similar rotation whereby two out of three deployments will have a CVF and the other one based around a LPD (and possibly supporting RFAs like Argus)?

I have not a clue if they’d do that. I would think it will look like the annual cougar task groups that have deployed in the past only centred on the carrier. Time will tell how sustainable the whole thing will be especially the air groups.

[Tempest414]

2 ) East of Suez Command made up of

4 x T-31 , 4 x MCM , 1 x Bay , 2 x Wave , 1 x Point

Plus 1 x FLSS?

As said I am not a fan of FLSS but if I had to spend 100 million pounds on two ships to offer a Multi-mission option I would go for 2 160 meter Makassar LPD's configured to operate 3 Merlin's off of two spots have bunks for 500 including the crew of 60 also able to operate off board systems from it well dock.

So if I had these ships or at a push the FLSS as seen ( a Point hash up ) then yes I would put one under the EoS command as this could allow in a Max effort a small group of

1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x Point , 3 x Type 31's supporting 800 to 1000 troops with 3 Merlin's & 4 Wildcats plus landing craft

[Tempest414]

it. Around £375m is the sweet spot for the T31, will Mr Javid be more generous than his predecessor? We shall have to wait and see.

As I have said before and stand by I reckon T-31 will come in at 310 million per ship

[Repulse]

Going back to the list of current commitments; the indications are that the T31s would be used for Kipion, the FRE and possibly Atalanta/ CTF150/ CTF151. The FRE would also be supported by the B2 Rivers.

If a forward base T31 is Singapore is added to this list, how many ships would be required? If 3:1 still applies, but assume FRE can be taken up by a T31 vessel that’s ramping up, this would seem to be 9. Personally don’t see the MOD getting (or finding) another £1bn soon, let alone £2+bn for a £375mn design.

[Repulse]

So if I had these ships or at a push the FLSS as seen ( a Point hash up ) then yes I would put one under the EoS command as this could allow in a Max effort a small group of

1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 1 x Point , 3 x Type 31's supporting 800 to 1000 troops with 3 Merlin's & 4 Wildcats plus landing craft

To do what exactly? I can see a couple of FF/MHPCs and a FSS/JSBL RFA (Fort Victoria or equivalent) tying up (with a company of RMs) for SF, low level sea “control”, HADR or anti piracy ops - but the idea of putting that size of force/ number of troops into a region outside of the CSG is firstly questionable and secondly would take funds away from the CSG itself.

[Tempest414]

Going back to the list of current commitments; the indications are that the T31s would be used for Kipion, the FRE and possibly Atalanta/ CTF150/ CTF151. The FRE would also be supported by the B2 Rivers.

If a forward base T31 is Singapore is added to this list, how many ships would be required? If 3:1 still applies, but assume FRE can be taken up by a T31 vessel that’s ramping up, this would seem to be 9. Personally don’t see the MOD getting (or finding) another £1bn soon, let alone £2+bn for a £375mn design.

This why I say add another Type 31 to make it six and forward base 4 of them at Bahrain along four MCM two Wave class one Bay class and a Point class this should allow a EoS command to undertake Kipion , Atalanta , CTF150/151 plus allow deployment of a Type 31 into the Indo-Pacific for 8 months of the year with a wave class taking over for the rest of the year. This would then leave the rest of the fleet made up of 2 x Carriers , 1 x LPD , 6 x Destroyers , 10 x frigates , 8 x OPV's , 6 x MCM , 5 x survey ships , 4 x Tide class , 2 x Bay class , 2 x SSS , 1 x Fort , 3 x Point class to get on with NATO and other tasks in the Atlantic , Baltic and MED

[Repulse]

This would then leave the rest of the fleet made up of 2 x Carriers , 1 x LPD , 6 x Destroyers , 10 x frigates , 8 x OPV's , 6 x MCM , 5 x survey ships , 4 x Tide class , 2 x Bay class , 2 x SSS , 1 x Fort , 3 x Point class to get on with NATO and other tasks in the Atlantic , Baltic and MED

If that is the focus then we have become a regional fleet and the RFA ratio is far too high. Also, whilst I’m sure that a CVF could do the same ASW role as the Invincible Class it would be a complete waste as none of the areas you mention require a CVF.

If I understand correctly the CSG CEPP concept is about generating a group that on peacetime operations operates in a region (like the Indian Ocean or Pacific) fulfilling commitments on the way, either as a Task Group or individual FF/DDs breaking off for Singleton deployments.

Any other forward based ships EoS should be there to support flag waving, training, MCM, Survey, low level escorting, SF ops and HADR. That why I believe a MHPC style ship is the best fit (with a multi-role Support/Replenishment RFA Ship).

I’m not saying the T31 cannot do the role, my fear is that the reality will not match the brochure for the budget and it will be a short run class (5 max) - if the money is increased then that could be a different story.

[Tempest414]

Of course the CSG will deploy into the Indo-Pacific but the main fleet focus needs to be the Atlantic and NATOs North flank

For me a A-140 fitted with a good 3D radar , CMS , HMS , 76mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 CAMM + FFBNW Phalanx & NSM or the like can be got for 310 million pounds which is where I feel it will end up and this would make a very good global patrol ship

[Scimitar54]

I believe it will have a 127mm Gun

[jedibeeftrix]

Of course the CSG will deploy into the Indo-Pacific but the main fleet focus needs to be the Atlantic and NATOs North flank
p

i disagree, a global navy pursueing an activist foriegn policy needs to be where the action is, and in 21c that is EoS.

[Lord Jim]

A Royal Navy CSG operating in the Atlantic and/or Northern Flank of NATO would not be carrying out the same roles and duties as those carrier out by the OLD CVLs, but more likely replacing a USN Carrier Group that would be transferred to the Far East.

As for the operations of the RN EoS, I cannot see how we can afford to have a force of sufficient size to be operationally relevant without affecting not just other naval programmes but those of all three services. The level of investment needed to set up and sustain such operations requires far more resources than a simply slight of hand with the petty cash. If things we that simple, and to support our allies, why not have the RAF re establish QRA operations in Singapore and Oman on a semi permanent basis, and whilst we are at it re establishing our global presence along with a number of out old garrisons, rebranded as forward deployment bases.

You cannot just have a global navy to be a global power, which is what the UK Government wants. It is one thing to have single vessels travelling EoS to operate with close allies, and once every five or more years having our CSG do a good will tour, but this is basically flag waving, shouting to the world that little Old England is still here. We have barely enough resources to properly meet our NATO obligations, and these are in our back yard so to speak, yet we are also planning to station significant naval forces EoS, the sums don't add up.

[Scimitar54]

The example of the Maginot Line should be sufficient proof for you that they do.

Of course, you may say that there is not enough money in the budget for this. I agree that much more needs to be spent, but treating NATO as the solution to world problems, when many of its member states do not provide enough funds for even the defence of continental Europe from Russia (which without the ability of our forces to go anywhere in the world that a conflict might flare-up in or indeed spread to, would simply be just another Maginot Line.

[Lord Jim]

I am not suggesting that NATO is the solution to all the worlds woes, but it has done a pretty good job regarding what it was established to do. Our commitment to NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy and those commitment should be our priority before we start acting as a world wide policeman armed only with a taser and baton.

Are Japan or Australia planning to do the same and forward deploy assets in the European theatre, the former definitely has more assets than we do. We aspire to once again be a global power with a world wide reach, especially with out navy. I am fine with that as long as it is funded above what we currently spend, which barely covers existing needs. Our current policy and plans are like saying we are going to set up a world class hospital in Singapore for heart patients and to do so we are going to use the money currently spent at Addenbrooke's, a world lass hospital in Cambridge as well as taking a significant number of its staff and send them east. We end up with both being under funded and under strength and not able to achieve the results aspired to.

If we actually end up with five T-31e's with the level of equipment installed at the low end, we will have five long range, up gunned patrol vessels at the start. They will not be adequate replacements for the five GP T-23s, but there is potential for them to be so if the right design is chosen. If not then we will have vessels able to patrol the areas around our OSTs and partake in anti-piracy operations, in fact carry out most of the non warfighting roles currently assigned to true escorts. This will allow us to concentrate on the generation of the CSG and allow continuous training of the escort component comprised of T-23/26 and T-45 to operate in such a formation.

Once fully established, our CSG will be one of the most powerful naval forces in the world, only out done by the USNs own CSGs. It will be a powerful sovereign naval assets, but more so if it operates under NATO as part of a larger naval grouping including substantial amphibious assets. This is power projection on a scale we cannot do alone. People grumble about are increasing reliance on working with allies to carry out duties we historically could carry out alone. That is a sign of the times, and a result of reduced defence spending for decades. Yes we can regain the level of sovereign capability we once had but that is gong to take serious investment by successive Governments to be realised, and is going to take a long term strategic view covering not just defence spending but on creating and maintaining the infrastructure to build and support he hardware our military is going to need. This will mean that the NHS, DoE and so one will not get the level of funding many Politicians would like them to get, to win votes and keep them in their jobs. could this happen, it is possible but as the level of investment need increases the willingness of those in power to act will diminish.

[jedibeeftrix]

i can see the point of T31 as a cheap and cheerful sea-control frigate - with the two theatres of operation being the indo-pacific (based in Bahrain - shuttling across to s'pore) and the med-atlantic (based in UK - shuttling past Gib).

with this, you are controlling the corridor from the Baltic to japan through which trillions in trade passes each year.
you are also then in a position to provide a local theatre escort for any CTG transiting EoS. A carrier with a T26 and T45 + oiler and FSS, with one atlantic T31 taking it to Bahrain, and then a pacific T31 escorting it onward.
I can even see the point of basing an oiler in Bahrain to support these deployments, as well as exercises with partner nations.

i still have the fear that in choosing A140 they have ambitions that cannot be realised, and in the attempt they will put in jeopardy both the notion of the cheap and cheerful sea-control frigate, and the necessary numbers for the high-end escorts above as well as the low end USV platforms below.
i.e. getting a GP frigate out of a £250m budget. or for that matter - even out of a £375m budget. And if £375m/ship ends up being available, is that really what you'd choose to spend it on? remember - we justify T31 because the £1.25b pot would only buy ONE extra T26!

i can also see the point of basing three MHCP in Bahrain on a permanent basis, which once done would presumably end the requirement to leave an amphib out their to support mini vessels do the same task.

i'm just not sure why we're not better served by going for the smaller cheaper platform (leander) with smaller cheaper ambitions (MHCP), which has better potential for operating USV's (bigger davits than A140 - and more mission space than a 2000t Venari).

so to engage in fantasy fleets:
6x T45
9x T26
12x Leander MHCP

rather than:
6x T45
8x T26 (if we're lucky)
5x A140 GP frigate (if we're willing to fund the equipment/manpower)
6x Venari MHCP

[Repulse]

jedibeeftrix, dangerous stuff posting fantasy fleets

Overall though agree with the balance of your fleet, assuming that in addition we would still have the B2 Rivers (which ultimately I’d say should come onto the same platform, but maybe not all the kit as the MHPC).

I do think the Leander is a closer match to the stated budget and could be a bigger export winner. Having said that if the budget is increased by about ballpark £200mn pa (to cover additional build and support costs) then I can accept the Arrowhead 140 and my view of reduced export chances, assuming the class is 12+ Vessels.

[abc123]

Must say that I doubt strategic sense of having a RN base in Bahrein, as opposed to Oman?

[Repulse]

Must say that I doubt strategic sense of having a RN base in Bahrein, as opposed to Oman?

For short legged MCMs maybe not, but when replaced then I think Bahrain will be scaled back.