UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 21 Sep 2019, 15:26

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.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 Sep 2019, 15:41

Seeing that the current MCMs will be there till late 2020s, then 8 (or 9) B1/B2 Rivers is a good combination - though this assumes the B1s will he kept for another 10 years which for me is a must.

Given the circumstances though I now think the RN should take more of an active patrol, deterrence & surveillance role in UK waters, but the bulk of Fisheries patrolling should go to a new English Fisheries Protection Agency like the Scottish and Welsh- if post Brexit becomes a scrap with french fishermen, best to keep it as legal enforcement rather than an escalation to naval forces, at least in the first instance. Then a longer term 9-12 C3 fleet looks realistic given the current budget.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Phil R » 21 Sep 2019, 18:58

Interesting look at the Type 26 from a Canadian perspective.
https://youtu.be/MCa3IX-CN94

Phil R

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 21 Sep 2019, 19:11

Just watched the interview and it just seems that the reporter made a mistake. Seems everyone here is getting overexcited about extra ships for no good reason

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Sep 2019, 20:58

Tempest414 wrote:....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
Agree 100%. This now looks like the best that can be realistically hoped for.

The important thing now is for RN to find a way to specify at least half the T31's with a credible GP Frigate level of armament/sensors etc. Eight security Frigates would just be another massive cut to capability. It would be much better to have five credible GP Frigates than 8 security orientated frigates.

It goes without saying that any new OPV's should have a hanger included from the start.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 22 Sep 2019, 00:34

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:....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
Agree 100%. This now looks like the best that can be realistically hoped for.

The important thing now is for RN to find a way to specify at least half the T31's with a credible GP Frigate level of armament/sensors etc. Eight security Frigates would just be another massive cut to capability. It would be much better to have five credible GP Frigates than 8 security orientated frigates.

It goes without saying that any new OPV's should have a hanger included from the start.


Again, you're being optimistic- you're not (currently) getting 8, you're getting 5 security Frigates

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Sep 2019, 08:25

dmereifield wrote:not (currently) getting 8, you're getting 5 security Frigates


Operative word: currently. The dominos will fall like this:
- the split in the T26 production run; when will it move from ASW to AAW... and even then one can hop back to the other version. If "facts" ie. threats change substantially. When :?: the 'secret' SJP 'revision' comes out, we might get some hints (or the latest, in 2020 when the next batch of T26s will be announced)
- if that split is any earlier than after the 8th, then that will mean more (err, the 5 or more) security frigates. It could equally mean that they will be fitted out to progressively higher stds - but for what? That will depend on the surface fleet mix emerging, at the usual, glacial :problem: speed

Roders96
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 22 Sep 2019, 08:40

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
dmereifield wrote:not (currently) getting 8, you're getting 5 security Frigates

- if that split is any earlier than after the 8th, then that will mean more (err, the 5 or more) security frigates. It could equally mean that they will be fitted out to progressively higher stds - but for what? That will depend on the surface fleet mix emerging, at the usual, glacial :problem: speed

I wouldn't be against seeing 2 of them filled to the brim with quad packed CAMM. Let them stick to the QE at sea and in it's maintenance schedule. To keep them cheap give it one of the possibly surplus Artsian and Link16 to the ops room on a Type 45.

I know CAMM is only local area defence but if it constantly stays within 2km of the carriers it could help provide much needed relief to the T45 force. Extra cells could be added in place of the forward superfiring gun position. I don't know what the maximum growth margin on A140 is but it could be in the region of 60 cells.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Sep 2019, 09:10

Poiuytrewq wrote:It goes without saying that any new OPV's should have a hanger included from the start.


Given the decision on the T31, the limited number of helicopter assets and no sign of significant increase in funding, this is a nice-to-have. C3s/OPVs will operate primarily in range of land bases, and when they are not they could be paired with other assets like the RFA.

Having a UAV hangar would be useful, but this can be containerised already on the B2 Rivers. Also, adding a covered mission bay is something I’ve always said would be ideal, but others have said the space on the open deck is just as effective and I accept that.

Given that the RN has decided to opt for the large T31 option, built in small numbers (5 maybe a couple more) where to maximise its value it will need to spend on money on the FFBNW bits in the brochure, there will be limited money for the C3/OPV fleet - therefore, as I believe numbers remain important, focus has to be on what is needed, not what is nice to have unfortunately.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Sep 2019, 09:15

This was not in the brochure, neither does it answer the max missile load question, but is indicative of the growth potential (DefenceNews interview in 2016):
"upgrade at least one of the Danish Navy's Iver Huitfeldt- class frigates to a BMD sensor role. The underlying intention is to offer this capability to the NATO BMD system.

The cost of the frigate upgrade program is expected to run between $100-150 million.

Once fully upgraded with an IAMD sensor, the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates will provide a robust and important contribution to the NATO BMD system"
- the current 5-yr budget has the money for fleet defence missiles
- the next one (it has been agreed) will have it for the BMD... which missiles are rather heftier

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Sep 2019, 09:20

Nothing new here but an update nonetheless.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P-8665.pdf

Roders96
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Roders96 » 22 Sep 2019, 09:27

Repulse wrote:Given that the RN has decided to opt for the large T31 option, built in small numbers (5 maybe a couple more) where to maximise its value it will need to spend on money on the FFBNW bits in the brochure, there will be limited money for the C3/OPV fleet - therefore, as I believe numbers remain important, focus has to be on what is needed, not what is nice to have unfortunately.


An interesting question would be how many Merlins does it take to deliver a roughlu equivalent capability to a T26 in the ASW escort role.

If a Merlin comes in at 30m GBP a pop, an up gunned A140 at 350m GBP and a T26 at 1,000m GBP.

Would it be more cost effective to spend 1.5bn on A140's and Merlin's than a couple of T26?

Would leave 500m for improving quality of life for defence people.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Sep 2019, 09:52

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Operative word: currently
Yep, who's going to be right, the optimist or the pessimist? Time will tell.
Roders96 wrote:I don't know what the maximum growth margin on A140 is but it could be in the region of 60 cells.
Even if the existing 32 Mk41 cells in the IH Stanflex design were quad-packed with CAMM that's 128 missiles. Surely more than enough.
Repulse wrote:Given the decision on the T31, the limited number of helicopter assets and no sign of significant increase in funding, this is a nice-to-have. C3s/OPVs will operate primarily in range of land bases, and when they are not they could be paired with other assets like the RFA.
Why not just build more helicopters?

The idea that the UK should continue to build warships without hangers is mad. They might have a helicopter embarked or maybe just a UAV or maybe for a lot of the time nothing at all but every warship built for the foreseeable future should have a hanger of some kind.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Sep 2019, 10:04

Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not just build more helicopters?


I’m not arguing against this, but what gives when you move funding in this direction? The future will be more about having adaptable platforms with off board systems doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but the overall capabilities still need to be balanced. The real cost of the Arrowhead 140 is why I question what we’ve chosen for the T31.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Sep 2019, 10:16

Repulse wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not just build more helicopters?
I’m not arguing against this, but what gives when you move funding in this direction? The future will be more about having adaptable platforms with off board systems doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but the overall capabilities still need to be balanced.
I probably look at it differently to most others. Rather than trying to stretch current resources further and further simply draw a line in the sand and explain that no more can be done without additional funding and manpower.

If HMG wants an enhanced forward presence then more vessels need to be built and more helicopters need to be procured to operate from them. If that's unaffordable then so is the idea of enhanced forward presence. It couldn't be simpler. Building less and less capable vessels to stay within an inadequate budget is a race to the bottom, hopefully not literally.
The real cost of the Arrowhead 140 is why I question what we’ve chosen for the T31.
Picking the A140 is risky for RN.

When everyone begins to realise the full potential of a hull of that size, the tempation for political interference will be huge.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Sep 2019, 10:30

Poiuytrewq wrote: The real cost of the Arrowhead 140 is why I question what we’ve chosen for the T31.

Picking the A140 is risky for RN.

Here I disagree. It is about getting the hulls in the water, maintaining trained manpower, seeing if there is any defence budget left (at all :D ) after all the incidental Brexit costs will have been covered.

Moreover, it is an insurance against the next disappearing T45: 12...8... so sorry, 6 it will be
- NEXT this: Oh well, we have hulls that can be upgraded/ re-rolled. However, it will cost this much and the alternative is to cross over certain capabilities altogether (and Global Britain, in the same go)
- this is the discussion with a BoJo-like Gvmnt; of course, with a Corbynite Gvmnt the pen would have already hit the paper, so no need for a discussion. What we will have, long into the future, will be coalition gvmnts, so time to move over to a 5-yr x-party framework agreement for defence & security?

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 22 Sep 2019, 10:40

Poiuytrewq wrote:Picking the A140 is risky for RN.

When everyone begins to realise the full potential of a hull of that size, the tempation for political interference will be huge.


I don’t think the risk is with the RN at all. I think they know full well what potential they have in the hull and it’s been selected because of that. It the ultimate expression of frustration at the process that has resulted in type45, carriers, type 26 and opv contracts, they’ve seen others deliver quicker with more systems for less. They have political cover in the fact they can claim budget is driving it.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Sep 2019, 11:22

SW1 wrote: It the ultimate expression of frustration at the process that has resulted in type45, carriers, type 26 and opv contracts

Agree with the line of thinking, but spot the odd one out: ie. how does the carrier contract fall in with that company?

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 22 Sep 2019, 11:31

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote: It the ultimate expression of frustration at the process that has resulted in type45, carriers, type 26 and opv contracts

Agree with the line of thinking, but spot the odd one out: ie. how does the carrier contract fall in with that company?


Years late and way way over budget. Was signed off as a £3.5b program to deliver 2 ships, will end up costing £6.5b.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Sep 2019, 12:00

However the Type 31 program is not without its money questions i.e the fact we paid 3 companies 5 million pounds for design work this lead to two good ship designs with the winning bid from Babcocks and a well developed design that BAE can still push so money well spent in my book . But as for the third design from Atlas the UK tax payer never even got a model or a CGI of what was on offer from this team so were they just paid 5 million to make it look like they were in the comp or did they really come up with something ?

SW1
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 22 Sep 2019, 12:11

Tempest414 wrote:However the Type 31 program is not without its money questions i.e the fact we paid 3 companies 5 million pounds for design work this lead to two good ship designs with the winning bid from Babcocks and a well developed design that BAE can still push so money well spent in my book . But as for the third design from Atlas the UK tax payer never even got a model or a CGI of what was on offer from this team so were they just paid 5 million to make it look like they were in the comp or did they really come up with something ?


Would agree, and the bigger question can they actually build such a capable design for £250m in the UK.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Sep 2019, 12:25

SW1 wrote:I don’t think the risk is with the RN at all.
The risk is that RN won't actually end up with 8 Type 26's. Clearly the decision has been taken that due the political toxicity of curtailing the T26 build, on the balance of probability, the T26 programme will trundle along as planned.
SW1 wrote:I think they know full well what potential they have in the hull and it’s been selected because of that.
Agreed.
SW1 wrote:It the ultimate expression of frustration at the process that has resulted in type45, carriers, type 26 and opv contracts, they’ve seen others deliver quicker with more systems for less.
No wonder. It's only Canada that makes UK naval defence procurement look good. The rest of the world worked out how to do it better some time ago.
SW1 wrote:They have political cover in the fact they can claim budget is driving it.
How long will that cover last?
Tempest414 wrote:...a well developed design that BAE can still push.
It is a good design, in fact good enough to build, even for the UK regardless of A140 being chosen for the T31.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 22 Sep 2019, 13:20

Tempest414 wrote:However the Type 31 program is not without its money questions i.e the fact we paid 3 companies 5 million pounds for design work this lead to two good ship designs with the winning bid from Babcocks and a well developed design that BAE can still push so money well spent in my book . But as for the third design from Atlas the UK tax payer never even got a model or a CGI of what was on offer from this team so were they just paid 5 million to make it look like they were in the comp or did they really come up with something ?
MoD got a detailed design specification, including cgi, from Atlas and the other bidders which they used to assess the bids. I think 99.99% of UK tax payers do not care one bit that all the design details were not make public.

After all, the final selection was not down to a public vote. It was decided by the Royal Navy and MoD; and they had all the information they needed.

BAE may try to sell their ship to others. But as it has been rejected by the UK, that will be a hard sell.

The fact that the Arrowhead 140 beat the Meko A200 might help it win again against similar opposition.

I believe the three most likely prospects for Arrowhead 140 sales are Poland, Indonesia and New Zealand.

There are also possibilities with Columbia and maybe Portugal, along with some other countries.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2257
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 22 Sep 2019, 16:11

Aethulwulf wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:However the Type 31 program is not without its money questions i.e the fact we paid 3 companies 5 million pounds for design work this lead to two good ship designs with the winning bid from Babcocks and a well developed design that BAE can still push so money well spent in my book . But as for the third design from Atlas the UK tax payer never even got a model or a CGI of what was on offer from this team so were they just paid 5 million to make it look like they were in the comp or did they really come up with something ?
MoD got a detailed design specification, including cgi, from Atlas and the other bidders which they used to assess the bids. I think 99.99% of UK tax payers do not care one bit that all the design details were not make public.

After all, the final selection was not down to a public vote. It was decided by the Royal Navy and MoD; and they had all the information they needed.

BAE may try to sell their ship to others. But as it has been rejected by the UK, that will be a hard sell.

The fact that the Arrowhead 140 beat the Meko A200 might help it win again against similar opposition.

I believe the three most likely prospects for Arrowhead 140 sales are Poland, Indonesia and New Zealand.

There are also possibilities with Columbia and maybe Portugal, along with some other countries.


I think that Indonesia will buy something from S. Korea, while Colombia might buy some used ship from say US or some other country.
But yes, Poland, NZ and Portugal.
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…

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 22 Sep 2019, 16:25



Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], kurskie, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests