Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

The biggest problem for the UK forces is that we drown grade our assets and then down grade them again in case they are to good and affect the top line and we really need to get over this and move on. If we take Type 26 and A-140 as a point in case A-140 will never be the ASW asset that T-26 will be but it can be a very good global frigate able to defend its self and ships around it and if we can build 3 of these for the same money as one type 26 then we should but at no time should the two programs be mixed. The fact is some time ago the RN went to a system of having 8 ASW frigates and 5 GP frigates and was not going to change with Type 26 yes we all would like an all T-26 frigate line up but for me 5 A-140's out of the box fitted with

Good 3D radar ( same as Type 26 )
good CMS ( same as Type 26 )
good Soft kill system (Same as Type 26 )
1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm and 24 CAMM ( good set of anti-air and close in surface weapons )

it will be a good global frigate. As for the poor sods that have to serve on this ship as some people put it if these were FFBNW 2 x Phalanx and I-SSWG there become a very good CIW ship able to operate with CBG or Amphib group

[Repulse]

Ah yes, so T45 isn't one mission? Ocean without a dock, Bay without a hanger, Albion without a hanger, Astute without a VLS, F-35 without ASM etc.

I think you misunderstand, by one mission I’m talking about a 1982 fleet optimised towards fighting the Russians rather than flexible to address a broader set of missions.

A global CSG is not a one mission concept, the assets that make up the CSG maybe single role (e.g. T45 is primarily for AAW defence), but the CSG could conduct a number of missions.

[Repulse]

if these were FFBNW 2 x Phalanx and I-SSWG there become a very good CIW ship able to operate with CBG or Amphib group

Yes, but only if money was found to add the FFBNW kit and they sailed as part of a larger group with T45s and T26s.

[Jake1992]

Ah yes, so T45 isn't one mission? Ocean without a dock, Bay without a hanger, Albion without a hanger, Astute without a VLS, F-35 without ASM etc.

I think it is all two fold.

For 1st-rate war-fighting mission = all good
- T45 is single mission AAW specialist. Good. Putting ASW assets on noisy hull is not optimal, and making AAW asset quiet hull make its number reduced by 30%. (6-->4 hulls)
- Ocean is a single mission LPH. Good, because a well-dock on LPH do not work on 1st-day of landing (*1). It will never be near the beach in the 1st-day.
- Bay is a logistic landing specialist. Great. Good.
- Albion will be with Ocean or CVF in amphibious operations. No problem. Good.
- Astute do not need VLS, it carries many torpedos and missiles. Good.

But, for peace time operations = depends
- T45 is good. I see no problem. Good.
- Ocean shall better have at least a steal beach with mexefloats, so that in singleton she can land heavy assets in HADR operations. Not so good.
- Bay shall better have a helo hangar for HADR and anti-drug operations...., oh, she already has it (although plastic), now there is no problem. Good.
- Albion shall better have a helo hangar for HADR. Not so good.
- Astute do not need VLS for peace-time information gathering, SSBN and CVTF escort tasks. Good.

So, from my point of view, all these assets are optimized for 1st-rate war-fighting. But, for peace-time operations, Ocean and Albion shall be better with steal-beach and hangar added, respectively, but all other assets are well designed.

This is just my opinion, and do understand other standpoints can exist.

*1 Even in USN, their LHD carries LCU, not LCAC in the newest plan. So, the well dock is for 2nd-wave landing (can be slow), not 1st-wave (must be fast).

Even a US Navy, the strongest and most numerous navy in the world, tries to make their vessels as multi-role as possible. With some exceptions.
So, LHDs: After Iwo Jima class, Tarawa, Wasp all have dock. Even Batch II America will have them, because they have seen that they have made a folly.
LPDs: San Antonio- has hanger, not rubber for single Wildcat but a real one for more than one helicopter. Same with Austin class and even old Raleigh.
OK, LSDs have them not, but that's an exception to the rule.
USN could also build their last Flight II LA class subs and Virginias not to carry VLS, but they have chosen not to do so. And they can carry a lot of torpedos too.
Burke class destroyers are, as people here say, so-so ASW optimised. Not the top of the line, but so-so. But, the USN is happy to live with that impairment.

What I want to say is- if the USN tries to have their ships as much as possible multi-purpose ( with some exceptions ) then the RN with it's far smaller numbers of ships HAS to have them multi-purpose as much as possible- with no exceptions. Maybe not top-notch in all areas, but good enough for just about everything.

It’s not that these vessels were designed as single role it’s money that has limited them.

T45s were all meant to have 8 canisters and 16 Mk41s for land strike and BMDM, but ended up FFBNW and still havnt got them due to budget cuts. They are also widely expected to be just as good as the FTI in ASW.

Albion’s and Bays were meant to have hangers but cut due to budget cuts.

Ocean and a sister were meant to be short term temp stop gaps until a future vessels could be chosen but ended up as just ocean and became long term.

I suspect that the lack of VLS on the Astutes is due to budget as well as I see this as their only weakness.

With regard to the A140 as the T31 it could’ve a very capable GP second tier frigate if money becomes available to fit them out but at the moment the budget doesn’t allow this.
I do think though that if money and time was there we could of designed a better all British second tier design creating a T26 family of designs.

On a side note I read on naval new page earlier that there is set to be an announcement on increasing the defence budget on Wednesday, how true this is and if so how large of increase is to be seen.

[abc123]

Ah yes, so T45 isn't one mission? Ocean without a dock, Bay without a hanger, Albion without a hanger, Astute without a VLS, F-35 without ASM etc.

I think you misunderstand, by one mission I’m talking about a 1982 fleet optimised towards fighting the Russians rather than flexible to address a broader set of missions.

A global CSG is not a one mission concept, the assets that make up the CSG maybe single role (e.g. T45 is primarily for AAW defence), but the CSG could conduct a number of missions.

Agreed, I misunderstood. Sorry

[abc123]

if these were FFBNW 2 x Phalanx and I-SSWG there become a very good CIW ship able to operate with CBG or Amphib group

Yes, but only if money was found to add the FFBNW kit and they sailed as part of a larger group with T45s and T26s.

Agreed. On the other hand, can you point me the period from 1918 when the RN didn't fight with the lack of money and being forced to make compromises?

[Lord Jim]

If the MoD has any sense the T-26 will evolve into a multirole platform combining the ASW qualities of that hull with the radar and AAW systems of the T-45. this assumes that by a miracle we actually build more T-26 above the 8 already on order to fill the gap between replacing the T-23s and then the T-45s. By all means build the T-31e but class it as it should be a large ocean gong Corvette rather then include it in the number of escorts.

[Repulse]

Agreed. On the other hand, can you point me the period from 1918 when the RN didn't fight with the lack of money and being forced to make compromises?

It’s a fair point, but historically the RN has had a relatively large “balanced” fleet, so where it didn’t always win on individual platforms it had depth and numbers on its side - that isn’t the case anymore and given that one ASuW can now sink a ship, and peer nations will have ships with 70+ ASuW missile launchers then all bets are off. You need platforms that can survive and win such encounters.

[SW1]

I think there’s only a firm production contract for 3 type 26 at present. It depends how specialist you want to be you can over do it. The US did with seawolf and dialled it back to get a Virginia class which it built in numbers.

You could in theory progress in a number of ways from here build the 8 type 26 and move to a configuration along the lines of the Australian design and essentially have an arleigh Burke RN equivalent and then build 8 type 31 based on the a140 design to complement as 16 ship escort force.

The conundrum is I think had the powers that be been confident that type 26 would sell as well as it has I don’t think we would of had type 31 at all. When success for type 26 came it was too politically difficult to get out of type 31. The other side of that is if they do select the a140 for type 31 it is a fully capable warship hull by any definition and used as the bases for the principle anti air warfare vessel of a professional nato navy and the air warfare system is used by a further 2 nato navies albeit on different hulls. So it is a ship that has potential to operate against a simultaneous multi domain threat a tier 1 vessel. It also happens to be not built by bae and no matter the ifs or whys of that, there is more than a perception of dislike of bae within mod particularly naval areas.

[Roders96]

Make no mistake, the Type 31 exists to teach the Defence Industrial Complex how to listen to the budget the government sets out. It exists to bring competition back to UK naval shipbuilding.

Type 26 was envisaged as no more than £500m a vessel, with a cheaper general purpose option. The long timescale of the procurement process means certain stakeholders forgot the original scope of the programme, and, due to a broad range of reasons, the ship is vastly different to that envisaged. Thus far there are only 3 orders for Type 26. This is because the cost was too high, way past the original programme conception. The only bargaining power HMG had was to reduce the size of the batch, rightly they did so, rightly the budget remains capped. It is enough to deliver what was originally asked for.

It is likely Arrowhead 140 will win T31e, as it is the vessel with the growth margin to compete with Type 26, and therefore gives the government leverage when it negotiates the final T26 batch. Yes, it is not the ASW specialist that Type 26 is, but it is cheaper.

If the Fleet was offered more top line AAW escorts, which double as Merlin pads, alongside an extra few squadrons of Merlins at the expense of the Final Batch of T26, it provides an alternative to HMG to the final batch of T26. It provides an incentive for BAE to innovate and become efficient. Or, dare I say it, stop profiteering.

BAE, the old monopolist, designed Leander to be the opposite end of the market for this reason. They don't want anything that can compete with the cash cow that is the Type 26 on the market. Babcock on the other hand want future business, so they're offering the best value for money they can.

It will be interesting to see how fast the unit price for Type 26, whose first batch was negotiated during a monopolistic monopsony, will fall. It is a stretch, but A140 might see T26 numbers go up.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The US did with seawolf and dialled it back to get a Virginia class which it built in numbers

Indeed, but times have changed and all Seawolfs are now "facing" China.

it is a ship that has potential to operate against a simultaneous multi domain threat a tier 1 vessel.

Quite.

It is likely Arrowhead 140 will win T31e, as it is the vessel with the growth margin to compete with Type 26

Indeed.

an incentive for BAE to innovate and become efficient. Or, dare I say it, stop profiteering

TOBA was for the same purpose, but I am more fond of this approach.

[abc123]

The other side of that is if they do select the a140 for type 31 it is a fully capable warship hull by any definition and used as the bases for the principle anti air warfare vessel of a professional nato navy and the air warfare system is used by a further 2 nato navies albeit on different hulls. So it is a ship that has potential to operate against a simultaneous multi domain threat a tier 1 vessel. It also happens to be not built by bae and no matter the ifs or whys of that, there is more than a perception of dislike of bae within mod particularly naval areas.

This.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Make no mistake, the Type 31 exists to teach the Defence Industrial Complex how to listen to the budget the government sets out. It exists to bring competition back to UK naval shipbuilding.

Type 26 was envisaged as no more than £500m a vessel, with a cheaper general purpose option. The long timescale of the procurement process means certain stakeholders forgot the original scope of the programme, and, due to a broad range of reasons, the ship is vastly different to that envisaged. Thus far there are only 3 orders for Type 26. This is because the cost was too high, way past the original programme conception. The only bargaining power HMG had was to reduce the size of the batch, rightly they did so, rightly the budget remains capped. It is enough to deliver what was originally asked for.

It is likely Arrowhead 140 will win T31e, as it is the vessel with the growth margin to compete with Type 26, and therefore gives the government leverage when it negotiates the final T26 batch. Yes, it is not the ASW specialist that Type 26 is, but it is cheaper.

If the Fleet was offered more top line AAW escorts, which double as Merlin pads, alongside an extra few squadrons of Merlins at the expense of the Final Batch of T26, it provides an alternative to HMG to the final batch of T26. It provides an incentive for BAE to innovate and become efficient. Or, dare I say it, stop profiteering.

BAE, the old monopolist, designed Leander to be the opposite end of the market for this reason. They don't want anything that can compete with the cash cow that is the Type 26 on the market. Babcock on the other hand want future business, so they're offering the best value for money they can.

It will be interesting to see how fast the unit price for Type 26, whose first batch was negotiated during a monopolistic monopsony, will fall. It is a stretch, but A140 might see T26 numbers go up.

I understand your standpoint. It is a stand point people in UK tend to take in all governmental procurement. (*1). But I do not think you are right.

Looking at the high capability of T26, I see little problem on their cost. With its required capability, the original cost estimation of "£500m a vessel" is ridiculously cheap. This part is the only bad thing in T26 project I think. Final cost is not that bad, compared world-wide.

I also really hope MOD guys, asking for a T31e to be "£250m a vessel", understands what they are doing. From simple market search, it is crystal clear it cannot be armed as even as a large corvette, because it is a program with a cost of a corvette with a hull of a frigate.

Who must learn a lot is MOD/RN, not BAE. BAE succeeded in exporting T26 twice, which means T26 design, not only its equipments and hull-design, but also its building process, are competitive (Australian build system is a copy of "frigate factory" originally proposed for Clyde).


*1: Competition will not save the cost, because there is not enough order. Only if RN decide to go with 60-80 corvette fleet, not 19 frigate/destroyers, only in this case there can be 2-3 warship builders to compete each other. By definition, competition means = losers go away. With competition, Appledore closes (they lost against Fincantierri), H&W bankrupt (lost windmills or offshore orders), FM almost bankrupt (bad order of ferries), and Cammell Laird struggling to survive even by laying-off some of the workforce. If you simply compare the ship building industry on China, Korea, (or even Japan) with those of UK, you will immediately understand the inefficiency of the latter.

France has Naval for warship, and Kership for OPV. Italy has Fincatierri. These two are even going to be united soon. Spain has Navantia. They do not rely on competition to control the cost of their internal orders. German has ~2 ship builders (partly allied), but facing big problem.

[Tempest414]

If we take the German F-125 as a point in case it costs 650 million euros or 595 million pounds and comes with

4D radar
good CMS
speed 26 knots
NO ASW capability
hangar for 2 NH-90 flight deck for one
Range 4000 nautical miles
2 x 20 ft containers
4 x RIBS
1 x 5 " , 2 x 27mm , 42 RAM missiles , 8 RBS-15 MK4 (to come) , 7 x 12.7mm HMG

Now if we take A-140 as it could come out of the box at 250 million pounds

3D radar
good CMS
speed 30 knots
NO ASW capability
Hangar for Merlin flight deck up to Chinook
Range 9500 nautical miles
4 20 ft containers
4 x RIBS
1 x 4.5" or 76mm , 2 x 30mm with LMM or 40mm with 3 P , 24 CAMM , 6 x 12,7 HMG or Miniguns

It looks to me we are getting a good deal which in my mind we should push our self and HMT a little bit harder for those extra bits of kit that will make it a truly capable global frigate and fit a good HMS and the I-SSWG

[donald_of_tokyo]

Have some comment...

If we take the German F-125 as a point in case it costs 650 million euros or 595 million pounds and comes with

4D radar
high-level CMS
high-level ESM/ECM
good chaff/flare decoy systems
good network/communication
speed 26 knots
NO ASW capability
hangar for 2 NH-90 flight deck for one
Range 4000 nautical miles
2 x 20 ft containers
4 x RIBS
1 x 5 " , 2 x 27mm , 42 RAM missiles , 8 RBS-15 MK4 (to come) , 7 x 12.7mm HMG

Now if we take A-140 as it could come out of the box at 250 million pounds

3D radar
corvette-level CMS
basic cheap ESM/ECM
basic cheap chaff/flare decoy systems
so-so cheap network/communication
speed 30 knots
NO ASW capability
Hangar for Merlin flight deck up to Chinook
Range 9500 nautical miles
4 20 ft containers
4 x RIBS
1 x 76mm (no guided round), 2 x 30mm (optionally LMM), 12-24 CAMM , 6 x 12,7 HMG or Miniguns

[Tempest414]

Is this just your opinion or fact . It will be interesting to see what the RN make of the F-125 class as it is now in the UK to starting FOST

[donald_of_tokyo]

Is this just your opinion or fact . It will be interesting to see what the RN make of the F-125 class as it is now in the UK to starting FOST

1: Not sure about F125. What is clear is, the cost of T31e compared to T26 is only 1/4, and hull size is 80% (if Arrowhead 140). Even if without "quite hull", hull cost may largely exceed 1/4 of that of T26. As a result, war-fighting equipments (CMS, sensor, soft-kill systems, network/communications and armaments) shall be "less than" 1/4 of a T26.

# Spanish Descubierta-class corvette was armed with, 76mm gun, SeaSparrow SAM, 2x 40mm guns, Anti-sub rockets and torpedoes, hull sonar and even with VDS. But, I understand its CMS was well below the standard of contemporary frigates (such as T22 Broadsword class frigates, or Dutch Kortenaer-class frigates?).

Also, the war-fighting equipments of T31e will be "similar or less than" that of a modern corvettes (like Damen 10514, Gowind-2500, Brazilian Tamandaré-class corvette etc.), built with similar total cost, but with smaller hull. This is what I meant.

2: By the way, I have a question about what "passing FOST" means. I understand FOST training menu is "relative" to the specific ship/navy standard, not absolute? We all know, RFA vessels, RN OPVs, frigates, destroyers, CVF all goes FOST. Danish frigate, Polish frigate, German frigate and Corvette, Dutch frigate and OPV, Norwayan missile boats, can be seen on FOST twitter, as well.

[SKB]

By the way, I have a question about what "passing FOST" means.

Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) is a Royal Navy training organisation responsible for ensuring that Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels are fit to join the operational fleet. It is also the name of the senior flag officer responsible for all naval sea training, who is based at Royal Navy Command Headquarters, Portsmouth.

[Tempest414]

2: By the way, I have a question about what "passing FOST" means.

I think we all know what passing FOST means if it didn't mean anything no other Navy including the US navy would send they ships to undertake the course and second they would not shout about so much when they passed .

However what I was getting at was the RN will now get a good look at the F-125 and how fights and how it will fair in war i.e damage control against what they what they know about the Iver Huitfeldt and it damage control

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks. What I meant was, passing FOST does not mean anything about the ship’s instrumental capability, but it is more about the crew train level and readiness?

For example, it does not tell us if the CMS is high grade or not, nor it’s Chaff/decoy system is high grade or not, But, it means the decoy system is working and the crew knows how to use it.

Am I right here?

[Tempest414]

For example, it does not tell us if the CMS is high grade or not, nor it’s Chaff/decoy system is high grade or not, But, it means the decoy system is working and the crew knows how to use it.

Am I right here?

For the most part yes you are right

but what my point is it lets the RN take a really good look at a ship as a whole in this case a F-125 and asses its not that it is better or not than what the RN or anyone has

[MikeKiloPapa]

An Arrowhead 140 selection would be very welcome news, as far as i'm concerned

At the end of the day its still not as good as the ship it replaces, with the RN having to accept a capability climb down

Copy-pasted from the T31 thread, but i,ll answer it here, lest i incur the wrath of the resident Off-Topic Police (™) .......

This is getting ridiculous SB .....the type 23 has a smaller underwater noise signature and is a couple of knots faster ..That is it!.....In all other aspects the A140 is either equal or better!.....initially it has the same level of armament, but with capacity for much more, .being a bigger ship it doesnt just have better growth potential, its also a better weapons and sensor platform.
Its internal arrangement is better.
Habitability is better.
It has superiour survivability and DC.
Maintainability is MUCH better
Flexibility and adaptability is superiour.

And while it will , at least initially , lack the powerful ASW sensors of the T23, it is prepared for the installation of those, and they could be fitted if the RN so choses. As a GP frigate the A140 will have an equivalent CMS (but in a superior OPS room/CIC) and better radar......in terms of ESM/ECM , decoys , SIGINT/ELINT capability we dont know what it will be fitted with yet, but likely the same basic capability as T23 has.
The Arrowhead 140 is clearly NOT the "bestest frigate evah!" .......but neither is it the "5 lbs of shit in a cheap 10 lbs bag" that many here make it out to be. Unlike the other two designs , A140 at least has the potential to become a first rate surface combatant.

And lets be frank ......the only reason some here dont like it , is because it isnt British (enough) .....If Leander had been the one based on a Danish design , no one would be giving it a second look!

[MikeKiloPapa]

Final cost is not that bad, compared world-wide.[/b]

For what is, if not exactly a one trick pony, then at least a very specialized warship, i think it is precisely THAT bad. 1 BILLION POUND for an ASW "frigate", even if it is allegedly going to be the best, is a very steep price, for something that has very basic capabilities in the other domains.

Also lets not forget that the £1B is with an empty MK41 launcher .....as soon as you start putting missiles in it, you very quickly add another £100M or more to the cost.....at which point you are approaching the price of an Arleigh Burke, with its much superiour radars , and 3 times as many missiles.

When you try to remove the weapons and sensor cost from the T26, and discounting all the GFE equipment, you are still left with a basic hull cost of £400-500M, which no matter which way you cut it, is a huge sum of money for an empty hull. Dubious equipment choices like the $60M MK45 with its ridiculously expensive automatic ammunition magazine , and fitting costly MK41 launchers that are likely to remain empty, only serves to exacerbate the cost of an already overpriced warship.

I see little problem on their cost

Well the UK GOV/RN apparently does......and that unfortunately is what counts, not the opinion of the likes of you and me

[MikeKiloPapa]

high-level CMS ...... There is nothing high level about the Atlas CMS, it is shit compared to Tacticos, basically an OPV C2 system.

high-level ESM/ECM .....it is a basic ESM system comparable in capability to the ES-3701.....F-125 has no ECM capability.

good chaff/flare decoy systems.......Yes...for a corvette!..... for a frigate?...not so much...the payload and effect of MASS cartridges is
pathetic compared to standard 130mm decoys.

good network/communication[/b]......perhaps but it looks bog standard to me

corvette-level CMS ...Bollocks!

basic cheap ESM/ECM....Basic but also one of the most advanced and capable systems on the market.

basic cheap chaff/flare decoy systems......Pure conjecture

so-so cheap network/communication[/b].....

[Lord Jim]

How much kit could be taken off the GP T-23s and installed on the T-31e, leaving off the Mk8 as that weapon system really is a dead end and installation would be a major undertaking.