Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
In reply to AndyC, you need to crew them and how many Type 23's will be fit for purpose?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
In the details of Navy Command to 2030 I've estimated that the Royal Navy could get an additional 1,100 personnel out of the increased budget for the next four years. That's just about enough for five Type 23s.
Sources are also being quoted above by ArmChairCivvy that HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke will get extra re-fits to keep them going. So I don't know exactly how many will be on full duty and how many might be resting in port at any given moment but enough to stop numbers dropping too low.
Sources are also being quoted above by ArmChairCivvy that HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke will get extra re-fits to keep them going. So I don't know exactly how many will be on full duty and how many might be resting in port at any given moment but enough to stop numbers dropping too low.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The decipher key (for what I meant) was providedpotential to gain on the lead time from design to build
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I wonder, how much could current manning crisis of the RN be solved if, instead of spending billions on equipment, they spend, say, 500 mil. pounds on incentives for enlistment into a RN ( say 100 000 pounds per recruit that passes training- with obligation to stay in the RN for say 10 years or return the money with interest ).
100 000 quids isn't some fabulous sum of money, but it could be nice thing to get. 500 mil. is enough for 5000 additional men.
100 000 quids isn't some fabulous sum of money, but it could be nice thing to get. 500 mil. is enough for 5000 additional men.
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…
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…
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Still doesn't provide any kind of description of what you mean by "sharing hulls". My conclusion is that you don't know what that means either.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The decipher key (for what I meant) was providedpotential to gain on the lead time from design to build
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Hull form is normally an early (and often prolonged) step in the design process. Start from Step Two... and even you can work out the rest .Ron5 wrote: My conclusion is that you don't know what that means either.
I can see (err feel) that you are back to your snarly form; what's happened?
And just in case there is a translation difficulty, if they speak different in Palm Springs, one of the thesaurus alternatives will surely be recognised:
"tangled, baffling, problematic, convoluted, tortuous, gnarled, knotty, tough, involved, knobbed, snarled, knotted, elusive, problematical, gnarly"
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Nonsense. The selection of hull shape is one of the simplest and cheapest parts of the whole design process. Reuse of hull shape designs is driven primarily by hydrostatics not finances.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Hull form is normally an early (and often prolonged) step in the design process. Start from Step Two... and even you can work out the rest .Ron5 wrote: My conclusion is that you don't know what that means either.
I can see (err feel) that you are back to your snarly form; what's happened?
And just in case there is a translation difficulty, if they speak different in Palm Springs, one of the thesaurus alternatives will surely be recognised:
"tangled, baffling, problematic, convoluted, tortuous, gnarled, knotty, tough, involved, knobbed, snarled, knotted, elusive, problematical, gnarly"
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Its an outlier when you compare the deadweight as a ratio of the FL displacements, i still have a real hard time squaring how CSC manages to be a full 2000t heavier than FFG-62 , despite almost identical dimensions and very similar sensor and weapons fit-out.NickC wrote:@MikeKiloPapa
CSC full load displacement 9,400t, light 7,800t, deadweight 1,600t, deadweight doesn't look an outlier compared with FFG-62 figures 7,400t FLD, 6,100t LWD, 1,300t DW and Iver Huitfeldt 6650t FLD, 5450t LWD 1,200t DW
Actually it didnt, ....in fact you wont find any credible source listing IHs lightship displacement....what all the official presentations from NTD/OMT ect quotes is design displacement, which is NOT the same as lightship. In a fully equipped combat role the IHs deadweight is 1330ish metric tonnes IIRC, which ,assuming a lightship weight of 5462t, would give a FL displacement of ~6800t! ...or well above the design max and leaving little growth margin.( FWIW wrt to margins, the IH platform was designed to accomodate a 10% increase in lightship displacement through life) .The OMT/DALO April 2014 presentation on the Iver Huitfeldt quoted displacement as 5,462t light and 6,649t full, deadweight 1,200t
So its safe to say that the design weight includes a lot of stuff that isnt normally a part of lightship displacement, which for IH is presumably very close to T31s ie around 5000t.....BUT tbh i have never actually seen an official figure corroborating that. However early design drafts of what would become the Absalon class mentioned lightship displacement of +4500t so 5000ish for IH sounds plausible.
I think at this point in the discussion its important to note that , unlike commercial vessels, warships displacement standards are NOT well defined, and more importantly they are not similar but varies from navy to navy. That means that Full Load displacements are essentially arbitrary figures, depending upon the requirements regarding stability margins, reserve buoyancy , damaged stability, seakeeping etc of the individual navy/country.
So displacement comparisons will always be a case of apples to oranges. Perhaps to a certain extent, even between T31 and IH. That said though , im willing to bet my left nut that the 5700ton quoted for T31 is in fact standard displacement and not full load(despite Babcocks website saying otherwise) ....there is simply no reason why it would have so much lower FL weight,... if anything it should have MORE stability margins to play with due to the absence of IHs heavy radars/masts and featuring the same broad beam hull with its low set and heavy propulsion machiney giving it a very low COG.
.
Because it probably isnt ...give or take a hundred tons.Why is the T31 550t lighter than IH?
None of which is included in Lightship displacement and thus irrelevant. All of the above is part of the deadweight.T31 is not fitted with IH weapon systems, 32 Mk41 VLS cells for SM-2's, 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSMs, Harpoon Block II launchers, 2x2 LWT launchers, larger guns 2x 76mm plus Millennium 35mm,.... hull mounted sonar, SMART L and APAR
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
As you say thatRon5 wrote: selection of hull shape is one of the simplest and cheapest parts of the whole design process.
... you have actually put yourself into a paperback; and pulled the drawstring tightly closed.
Let me put a couple of simple questions, so that we can see if you can fight your way out of the bag:
How many years did it take for the T26 hull shape and propulsion combination to get finalised?
Then next (as I proposed, and you - in rude turns of language - protest against):
For the AAW version, would it make sense to take this design, and then just start to load it with differently purposed dead weight?
So no swearing or personal insults, please. Over here we do 'nice' conversation... over here being on these islands. The answers are
- one number (a year count), and
- a Yes or a No to the second question.
As we always say, whatever the odds: Good luck!
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3954
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
More good news!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... roops-cut/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... roops-cut/
It will announce that HMS Trent, an offshore patrol vessel, will operate from Gibraltar later this year, where she will be able to support Nato operations in the Mediterranean, as well as work with North African partners and support counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of West Africa.
It will be the first time a vessel has been based permanently in the British Overseas Territory and will represent the new approach, which Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has described as "globally engaged, constantly campaigning and forward deployed".
It will be the first time a vessel has been based permanently in the British Overseas Territory and will represent the new approach, which Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has described as "globally engaged, constantly campaigning and forward deployed".
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_HPoiuytrewq wrote:It will be the first time a vessel has been based permanently in the British Overseas Territory and will represent the new approach
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It's not good news, it's a gimmick.Poiuytrewq wrote:More good news!
She's sometimes going to operate from somewhere that's less than three days sail from where she already operates from.
It's like the time crackpot Williamson announced HMS Severn was going to be based in Cardiff and Tyne was going to be based in Newcastle.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3954
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Nope, it good news. Forward basing one RB2 in Gibraltar makes complete sense.RichardIC wrote:
It's not good news, it's a gimmick.
In which case HMS Trent will arrive were she is needed 3 days faster. All good.She's sometimes going to operate from somewhere that's less than three days sail from where she already operates from.
Forward basing one RB2 in Gibraltar one RB2 in the Falklands and keeping the remaining three in the UK EEZ when the RB1's are decommissioned is clear sighted IMO.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
1. The lengthy T26 gestation had zero to do with selecting the shape of its hull.ArmChairCivvy wrote:As you say thatRon5 wrote: selection of hull shape is one of the simplest and cheapest parts of the whole design process.
... you have actually put yourself into a paperback; and pulled the drawstring tightly closed.
Let me put a couple of simple questions, so that we can see if you can fight your way out of the bag:
How many years did it take for the T26 hull shape and propulsion combination to get finalised?
Then next (as I proposed, and you - in rude turns of language - protest against):
For the AAW version, would it make sense to take this design, and then just start to load it with differently purposed dead weight?
So no swearing or personal insults, please. Over here we do 'nice' conversation... over here being on these islands. The answers are
- one number (a year count), and
- a Yes or a No to the second question.
As we always say, whatever the odds: Good luck!
2. I can think of no good reason why the T26 hull shape would be reused for the T46 as opposed to any other. And several reasons why it would be a bad choice. One thing against it is that it's at its L/D limit so stretching is out of the question. A larger T46 is likely given its probable increased demand for electricity generation.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
One wrong answer, two good considerations, and a statement that we could start to put bets on... may I be the one who builds 'the book'Ron5 wrote:1. The lengthy T26 gestation had zero to do with selecting the shape of its hull.
2. I can think of no good reason why the T26 hull shape would be reused for the T46 as opposed to any other. And several reasons why it would be a bad choice. One thing against it is that it's at its L/D limit so stretching is out of the question. A larger T46 is likely given its probable increased demand for electricity generation.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re T83. (as speculation not news so on this thread). Why does it require ASW abilities etc. These will drive up cost and size for little use or benefit (inc extra crew which are in short supply).
The T26 is optimised for ASW and as can be seen from our US friends (Arleigh Burke's) the ASW bit doesn't get practised very often (on "multi skilled" ships) so is less effective, as it likes doing the sexy AAW stuff.
Make it focused on AAW. No Admiral accommodation, no helicopter, no NGFS. It just needs to stop stuff flying thro' the air hitting the carrier (and rest of task force).
Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.
I suspect the T32 looks more thought thro', A "self protecting" Frigate that clears mines using off board "stuff".
End of ramblings, back to work.
The T26 is optimised for ASW and as can be seen from our US friends (Arleigh Burke's) the ASW bit doesn't get practised very often (on "multi skilled" ships) so is less effective, as it likes doing the sexy AAW stuff.
Make it focused on AAW. No Admiral accommodation, no helicopter, no NGFS. It just needs to stop stuff flying thro' the air hitting the carrier (and rest of task force).
Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.
I suspect the T32 looks more thought thro', A "self protecting" Frigate that clears mines using off board "stuff".
End of ramblings, back to work.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Isn't the T-26 supposed to be "Self protecting" using its Mission Bay to launch the necessary UUVs etc. If not what is the Mission Bay for? I still think the T-32 should be a full fat version of the T-31, the ship certainly has space to be made far more capable and this would give the Shipyards building the T-31 a seamless extension of at least another five hulls. A few alterations like larger recesses and davits for larger craft to be launched and retrieved would be a good idea, so joining the two on the starboard side would be a good start. Surely this is the most cost effective way of getting the T-31 in the water rather than a clean sheet design.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Well, the T31 is not ASW in any shape or form (yet, though the Danes have put a tail on theirs)Clive F wrote:Make it focused on AAW. No Admiral accommodation, no helicopter, no NGFS. It just needs to stop stuff flying thro' the air hitting the carrier (and rest of task force).
Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.
... but More To The Point I am hearing disturbing noises of going back to the Global Cruiser mode - when just securing the MTF is far off (into the future)
No, no, it is for RM forays into foreign landsLord Jim wrote:using its Mission Bay to launch the necessary UUVs etc. If not what is the Mission Bay for?
- though we have come more to our senses now, and will be using an Albion + a Bay as a tripwire and as first responders, instead
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5549
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Type 32 needs to be all about protection of the littoral response groups to watch over the LPD/ LSD's to free up type 45's which until now have been doing the job and to this end should be fitted with
1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land
1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
vs the far north and the Russian undersea menace.Tempest414 wrote:Type 32 needs to be all about protection of the littoral response groups to watch over the LPD/ LSD's to free up type 45's which until now have been doing the job and to this end should be fitted with
1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5549
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
In terms of the LRG op's in Littoral waters ASW and MCM would be carried out by USV's from the LPD / LSD the type 32 could also carry a towed sonar and would still carry a helicopter capable of carrying torpedoes out side of this a type 26 would be neededRichardIC wrote:vs the far north and the Russian undersea menace.Tempest414 wrote:Type 32 needs to be all about protection of the littoral response groups to watch over the LPD/ LSD's to free up type 45's which until now have been doing the job and to this end should be fitted with
1 x 127mm gun for NGFS
2 x 40mm for local area defence
60 x CAMM or CAMM-ER for local area air defence
16 x NSM for over the horizon strike both sea and land
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Well I suppose if the T-32 ends up being a leaner T-26 or more like a 21st Century T-23, and the T-31 is brought up to a higher spec, these together with the T-45/83 would provide an adequate escort group for the Carrier on duty, freeing up the T-26 if that was the route chosen and funded.ArmChairCivvy wrote:... but More To The Point I am hearing disturbing noises of going back to the Global Cruiser mode - when just securing the MTF is far off (into the future
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
And ignore the hard earned lessons of the Falklands that single role warships are not the way to go?Clive F wrote:Having said that the T26 should have been focused on ASW not fancy guns and "mission decks". Or the T31 should have been pure ASW and the T26 cruises around the world on their tod.
How soon they forget.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Why use a frigate for mine clearing?? Makes no sense.Clive F wrote:I suspect the T32 looks more thought thro', A "self protecting" Frigate that clears mines using off board "stuff".
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Especially when you do not have sufficient Frigates to start with!