Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Rambo
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Rambo »

I think there is too much political correctness in choosing names these days.
Putting grand names on the persieved 'cheap' frigate is a little bit daft. On the other hand putting names beginning with A wouldn't be tasteful as they wouldn't want the T31 to be compared with the T21 of the past. (although i do like those names)
How about going back to the B class of the T22?
Town names? like the old T12.. i suppose not enough hulls to spread around.
Or county class could go nicely with the city class.. but again not enough hulls to go around but neither did the original county class DD.

My guess would be carefully chosen counties, or possible ex Leander names to be announced shortly.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Scimitar54 wrote:So, in order not to offend anyone, presumably you probably also think that we should also rename Waterloo Station. If people (either at home or abroad) are so sensitive, then they deserve (and need) to be offended, iif only in order to grow up. :mrgreen:
It was fun, before they switched it to St Pancras, arriving from Paris inEurostar, train full of Frenches, and the announcer says “We’re now approaching Waterloo - your journey ends here”...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

SD67 wrote:Simple me would like an adjectival “F-class” D class destroyers, F class Frigates
Fearless
Foresight
Fury
etc
Scimitar54 wrote:How about the "Battle" Class ? :idea:
Both your wishes could be granted if the first of class was HMS Falkland.

It'd also be a spoonful of petty retaliation for the Argentine's calling their Chinese OPV's the Malvinas class.

We could then use the other four ships to piss off a few other countries, so hows about HMS Waterloo, HMS Bladensburg, HMS Armada and HMS Wembley Stadium 1966. :P

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Now that the RN has settled on the T31e and also needs the T45/T26 to cover TAPS/CEPP the question remains how will the RN deploy the 5 T31 + 8 B1s/B2s to cover the other standing commitments / future aspirations (that have been discussed by HMG).

My view is the probably something like the following:
5 T31e: FRE [1], East Med/APT(S) [1], Gulf [1], Reserve/Refit/Training [2]
8 B2s: UK/Fisheries [3], FIGS [1], WIGS [1], GiGS/Med [1], Horn of Africa [1], Singapore [1]
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:GiGS/Med [1], Horn of Africa [1], Singapore [1]
Fairly sensible overall, but
- why do we need a Gib "warship"?
- and [add double quotation marks] what is such a vessel supposed to achieve in the areas close to Singapore
... so two, stricken off. Means that we can rotate between B1s, to keep them all workable (until they are retired?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:GiGS/Med [1], Horn of Africa [1], Singapore [1]
Fairly sensible overall, but
- why do we need a Gib "warship"?
- and [add double quotation marks] what is such a vessel supposed to achieve in the areas close to Singapore
... so two, stricken off. Means that we can rotate between B1s, to keep them all workable (until they are retired?)
I think a B2 based in Gibraltar (“Gib warship”) would allow better availability in the mid to western med where one the Echo classes has been operating.

The Singapore B2 deployment reflects the HMG aspiration to have a forward permanent presence in the area - I agree that a B2 will only be capable of diplomacy/training/HADR/low threat evacuation ops even with a 57mm :)

You are right though that it’s a stretch - personally I’d keep HMS Clyde also.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Is it me, or are we now back in the thinking prior to the 2010 SDSR. By this I’m referring to the C1, C2 and C3 concept.

* C1 - Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Combatant (T26)

* C2 - Stabilisation Combatant (T31)

* C3 - Global Corvette (B2 River)

Image

Originally the discussions were 10 C1, 8 C2 and 12 C3 (MCM and B1 River replacement). Now seems over optimistic, but if I’m interpreting the noise correctly it seems the RN is still aiming for something close to this.
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:10 C1, 8 C2 and 12 C3
x 0.8? If you get fractions, round C2 up and (in money terms) take as much away from C3
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Repulse wrote:10 C1, 8 C2 and 12 C3
x 0.8? If you get fractions, round C2 up and (in money terms) take as much away from C3
Something like:
- 6 T45
- 8 C1 (T26)
- 7 C2 (T31)
- 9 C3 (B2+ Rivers)

Feels fairly balanced if that is what the RN is going for, but would assume that the bulk of MCM/Survey capability would ultimately be spread through out the RN and RFA fleet through off board platforms. Would also need IMO some of the UK Fisheries duties is performed outside of the RN (like Scotland and Wales does today) and also strengthened with a few more Serco platforms (like SD Victoria or SD Northern River) to support operations in UK waters.
”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

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Repulse wrote:Is it me, or are we now back in the thinking prior to the 2010 SDSR. By this I’m referring to the C1, C2 and C3 concept.

* C1 - Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Combatant (T26)

* C2 - Stabilisation Combatant (T31)

* C3 - Global Corvette (B2 River)

Image


Originally the discussions were 10 C1, 8 C2 and 12 C3 (MCM and B1 River replacement). Now seems over optimistic, but if I’m interpreting the noise correctly it seems the RN is still aiming for something close to this.
In an ad-hoc way yes we are, albeit the cost of the C1 variant (Type 26) has taken up more of the budget than initially planned. The decision to axe C2/T27/T31 in the wake of the financial crash, and the subsequent lobbying by certain stakeholders to inflate the size and market position of the T26 seems to have backfired into a smaller order book with delivery rate slowed.

This was discussed at a 2017 Westminster Hall debate on the NSS. Dr Julian Lewis, chair of the defence committee described the gap left by the C2 variant as a 'cheap as chips' combatant. That is exactly what Type 31 is.

http://bit.ly/30h9kre

There's also an argument that adding the growth margin and upgrading the market position of T26 was required to win Sea5000 and CSC however - hopefully we'll see the dividends from the exports in a much cheaper unit cost for T26 and increased orders. Whether or not that happens will decide whether or not inflating T26 was a good call.

-----

As an aside - the tradeoffs between a mk41 silo with something similar to the harpoon replacement or a quadpacked cell with spear cap 3 seem interesting.

If you were the warfare officer would you rather have 1 EW variant and the other 3 as standard SC3 or a single high end unit?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Given what has been talked about i.e 3 more T-31 and more Rivers if we could end up with a fleet of

6 x type 45 to be replaced by 8 new ship
8 x type 26
8 x type 31
8 x OPV's

we would be in a great place with 16 C1's , 8 C2's and 8 C3's

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:Given what has been talked about i.e 3 more T-31 and more Rivers if we could end up with a fleet of

6 x type 45 to be replaced by 8 new ship
8 x type 26
8 x type 31
8 x OPV's

we would be in a great place with 16 C1's , 8 C2's and 8 C3's
Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Yes they could do the mcm, survey and Littoral ASW but are no best designed to. Surely something with an open work deck and covered work area in front with at least a UAV hanger and multiple dividends and cranes would be better.

A Venari 95 or modern black swan would be better in my opinion.

Maybe keep the 5 RB2s to replace and enlarge the OPV fleet ( which I think will be needed after brexit ) and then start to look at 8 plus purpose built sloops.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992 wrote:Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Probably not no, I still like the Venator 80 design. However, it’s what we have and with the 4 B1s (yes, I want to keep HMS Clyde), with some modification they could do a decent job till the late 2020s when a new design can be built.
”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

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Probably not no, I still like the Venator 80 design. However, it’s what we have and with the 4 B1s (yes, I want to keep HMS Clyde), with some modification they could do a decent job till the late 2020s when a new design can be built.
Do you think something based off the Absalons could fill the gap in a similar way to A140?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Jake1992 wrote: Surely something with an open work deck and covered work area in front with at least a UAV hanger and multiple dividends and cranes would be better.
I think that that requirement (the UAV mothership) is most likely to be covered by a cheap modified OSV hull, with each one capable of deploying UAVs eqivalent to two or more current MCMVs. All other vessels in the fleet should also have the capability of deploying at least one small variant MCM/ASW/Survey offboard system in place of a ships boat (at some point we will probably start also using much larger UAVs that are too big to be carried onboard).
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 »

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Probably not no, I still like the Venator 80 design. However, it’s what we have and with the 4 B1s (yes, I want to keep HMS Clyde), with some modification they could do a decent job till the late 2020s when a new design can be built.
I agree they can fill in as a stop gap just don’t think it’d be the best idea to build more of them as mentioned above. IMO they should be used in the stop gap role while the RB1s are still in service and the moved over to the EEZ role once the RB1s go with a fleet of 8 plus multi mission sloops being built for the C3 role.
Roders96 wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Probably not no, I still like the Venator 80 design. However, it’s what we have and with the 4 B1s (yes, I want to keep HMS Clyde), with some modification they could do a decent job till the late 2020s when a new design can be built.
Do you think something based off the Absalons could fill the gap in a similar way to A140?
Iv mentioned this idea before of having the C3 ( low end work / unmanned systems ) made up of 3 types of vessels.
- a bay style vessel for low threat areas, areas that need mass in numbers of unmanned systems.
- a multi mission sloop for low to medium threat areas along with patrol roles.
- a absalon style vessel for high threat areas being able to defend them selfs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:we would be in a great place with 16 C1's , 8 C2's and 8 C3's
The problem is that it will be 2040 before such a force structure is possible with current planning. Lots of SDSR's between now and then.
Jake1992 wrote: A Venari 95 or modern black swan would be better in my opinion.
Too slow, they need to achieve at least 25 knots. Possible but expensive.
Roders96 wrote: Do you think something based off the Absalons could fill the gap in a similar way to A140?
Hopefully :thumbup:

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Roders96 wrote:Do you think something based off the Absalons could fill the gap in a similar way to A140?
My view is that they are too big and overlap with larger amphibious / support ships (a ok compromise for small navies) and too manpower intensive (100+).
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

dmereifield wrote:Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?
Only people speculating on the possible rather than anything certain as far as I’m aware.
”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

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

dmereifield wrote:Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?
Unless I have missed something (which is entirely possible) this seems to come solely from the 11.25 mark of the below video:



The important thing is that it is the reporter (Vago Muradian) who introduces the mention of eight ships rather than Babcock Marine's CEO (John Howie MBE) and furthermore he seems to think that is the first block buy. John Howie immediately indicates that it is five ships. Not clear whether the reporter has 'heard something' or has simply made a mistake but unfortunately the context suggests the latter. That said I wouldn't be at all surprised if the RN did have an unofficial target of circa eight ships if the costs can be kept to budget or near to budget.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

dmereifield wrote:Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?
The additional three T31 is based on a comment by the Babcocks spokesman (I think) at DSEI. The current order is for five, but there is the possibility of eight overall. The speculation over the RB2s is based on a comment (DefSec, I think) that the RN could get more T31 and Patrol Vessels, coupled with the fact that the three B1s will go out-of service in the late 20s.
So speculation based on some snippets that seem to indicate current official thinking (which, of course, may come to nothing)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Caribbean wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?
The additional three T31 is based on a comment by the Babcocks spokesman (I think) at DSEI. The current order is for five, but there is the possibility of eight overall. The speculation over the RB2s is based on a comment (DefSec, I think) that the RN could get more T31 and Patrol Vessels, coupled with the fact that the three B1s will go out-of service in the late 20s.
So speculation based on some snippets that seem to indicate current official thinking (which, of course, may come to nothing)
Phil Sayers wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?
Unless I have missed something (which is entirely possible) this seems to come solely from the 11.25 mark of the below video:



The important thing is that it is the reporter (Vago Muradian) who introduces the mention of eight ships rather than Babcock Marine's CEO (John Howie MBE) and furthermore he seems to think that is the first block buy. John Howie immediately indicates that it is five ships. Not clear whether the reporter has 'heard something' or has simply made a mistake but unfortunately the context suggests the latter. That said I wouldn't be at all surprised if the RN did have an unofficial target of circa eight ships if the costs can be kept to budget or near to budget.
Repulse wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Is there anything official about T31 increasing from 5 to 8 or 3 more River B2's? Or is this all speculative?
Only people speculating on the possible rather than anything certain as far as I’m aware.
Important to remember that from the start the ambition for T31 and the NSS has been to grow the RN.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ambi ... -in-the-uk

https://www.contracts.mod.uk/do-feature ... -frigates/

Don't know if 5 T31 for 5 T23 is growth or not. Government has always talked of the current contract as the 'First Batch'.

The official line seems to be 'more than 5'. Guess the final number depends on the success of the first batch.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jake1992 wrote:Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Yes they could do the mcm, survey and Littoral ASW but are no best designed to. Surely something with an open work deck and covered work area in front with at least a UAV hanger and multiple dividends and cranes would be better.

A Venari 95 or modern black swan would be better in my opinion.

Maybe keep the 5 RB2s to replace and enlarge the OPV fleet ( which I think will be needed after brexit ) and then start to look at 8 plus purpose built sloops.
You are right that the B2's are not the best ship for the C3 role but add 3 more and start to use them in the role and learn what it is we need to replace them with even if we started to replace the MCM around 2028 it would be 2038 before we started on replacing the B2's
Poiuytrewq wrote:The problem is that it will be 2040 before such a force structure is possible with current planning. Lots of SDSR's between now and then.
Yes but SDSR's will come and go anyway. However if we started in 2021 to build 3 more OPV's and added 3 more T-31's to the order then by 2031 we could have a fleet of

6 AAW destroyers
8 ASW Frigates
8 GP Frigates
8 OPV's

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Are the RB2s really the best vessel for the C3 ?
Yes they could do the mcm, survey and Littoral ASW but are no best designed to. Surely something with an open work deck and covered work area in front with at least a UAV hanger and multiple dividends and cranes would be better.

A Venari 95 or modern black swan would be better in my opinion.

Maybe keep the 5 RB2s to replace and enlarge the OPV fleet ( which I think will be needed after brexit ) and then start to look at 8 plus purpose built sloops.
You are right that the B2's are not the best ship for the C3 role but add 3 more and start to use them in the role and learn what it is we need to replace them with even if we started to replace the MCM around 2028 it would be 2038 before we started on replacing the B2's
Poiuytrewq wrote:The problem is that it will be 2040 before such a force structure is possible with current planning. Lots of SDSR's between now and then.
Yes but SDSR's will come and go anyway. However if we started in 2021 to build 3 more OPV's and added 3 more T-31's to the order then by 2031 we could have a fleet of

6 AAW destroyers
8 ASW Frigates
8 GP Frigates
8 OPV's
Why buy 3 more now though ? Yes use the existing ones to learn but why buy more unsuited vessel instead of designed and building one that is properly suited to the roles, it’s just chucking money away.
Remember the RB1s will need replacing come mid 2020s so you’ll lose RB2s there.

Having 8 OPVs as your C3 fleet is not only having not well suited vessels for the role but not enough of them either.
You’ll need at least 3-5 of them doing EEZ work after brexit leaving at best 5 and at worse 3 vessel to conduct all your mcm, survey, Littoral ASW and patrol roles. This is why I believe the OPVs and C3 fleets need to be separate, 8 properly designed C3 may just be enough to do all the above but not if they have to do UK EEZ work aswell.

Post Reply