Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by andrew98 »

On the Type 45, if you were to rip out ALL the Sylver silos, how many Mk41's could you fit between the gun and the superstructure?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I do not think T45 needs TLAM. For me, it is very low in priority. T45 is a primary AAW asset. Strike shall be provided by CVF itself, which is designed to provide "strike".

On the other hand, adding Mk.41 VLS is can be regarded as "for SM-3" BMD missiles. Note that Mk.41 VLS itself is not expensive, but the TLAM control unit and/or SM-3 system integration is much more costy.

Also, the proposed locations for "more CAMM" is very interesting I agree. How about the bow? Modern escorts has a covered-deck with big anchor handling space at the bow. I understand the space is not full, and adding narrow ExLS there will be easy.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Giving the T45's a TLAM capability would finally give RN the platform that was originally envisaged.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Another possible location could be in one of the boat bays adjacent to the hanger. This area of the T45 has lots of under-utilised space
I'll comment on those above in reverse order:
I am very much in favour of using the sides of the helo hangar, as they have done on the Canadian Halifaxes
- but, I read somewhere that this goes against RN policy and access between different parts of the ship must be there, on the deck, too

As for the first one, we are changing the modus operandi and T45s will not need to ' do singletons' anymore (much)
- a native helo is therefore not a must anymore (the helo deck is)
- use all :D of the hangar! Can we afford :wtf: to fill so many silos? An arsenal ship, at long last
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:As for FREMM being a favorite for the USN, I'm still laughing. Not a hope in hell.
Who in your opinion is the favorite?

Personally I would like to see a Legend Class derivative win but maybe that's wishful thinking as I am a big fan of the design. Has Ingalls even confirmed which design they are putting forward yet?
I think the program will be cancelled. The basic idea is to chose an existing ship that can be modified & built quickly to meet a USN requirement that no existing ship can meet. I don't think that can be done.

As our armchair friend has pointed out, the requirement amounts to a mini Arleigh Burke that can catch submarines at a third to a half of the price!!!

I think the program will be cancelled and be replaced with an AB replacement program plus more fighty LCS.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:been suggested that Leander will take the sonar from the retiring T23's
This (once again :) ) brings in the cost, ie. how will the 1.25+ .25 bn total be affected (should the above happen).
- they won't come dirt cheap (that would be a result from straight-line depreciation, and resulting book value)
- as military inflation tends to be so high, there is something called Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC), to obtain which indices are used to revalue the asset (which then is followed by the "normal" depreciation calculation)

In the prgrm context the above is by no means limited to the sonar transfers, but is a universal principle
It's quite simple. The book value is the acquisition cost times the depreciation years left divided by the full depreciation life.

So if the kit costs $10m brand new and the usable life is set at 20 years, after 5 years the book value is $10m x 15/20 = $7.5m. After 10 years it is $5m and after 20 years, it is zero.

But, and it is a huge but, book value is not real money, it is not cash, it is an accountants concept. The real money, the cash, has already been spent.

So mixing up actual cash that will be spent and an accountant concept of "virtual cash" which is solely used to spread the budgetary hit by large infrequent purchases of capital equipment is a major no, no. But of course the MoD and Treasury do it all the time. The effect to to leave the impression that more money is being spent than actually is. It's fake news.
Ron5 wrote: Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC)
I did my best, time to read the exam question again.
I'm afraid your question scored an F. In transferring equipment from the T23 to a T31, nothing is being replaced so DRC is totally irrelevant. But thanks for playing :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:more fighty LCS
Isn't there such a thing among the contenders? Saves face nicely.
Ron5 wrote: DRC is totally irrelevant
"R" in that means that the original "book" cost cost is revalued and the, in itself simple, straightline method run then, based on the "new" number.
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Isn't there such a thing among the contenders? Saves face nicely.
The USN isn't Asian and being under proper scrutiny wouldn't get away with calling an LCS an FFX however fighty it might be..
ArmChairCivvy wrote:"R" in that means that the original "book" cost cost is revalued and the, in itself simple, straightline method run then, based on the "new" number.
No, not even close. The book value of an asset under the RBA used by the MoD is not based on its theoretical replacement cost but is based on it's actual acquisition cost spread over its useful life. There's a couple of downloads on the MoD site that explain their accounting methodology. You might find them interesting.

By the way, many thanks to your pointer to the book on the history of UK sonobuoys. I'm half way through and its fascinating.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

TLAM is a political weapon as far as the UK is concerned, we will never have enough to be able to launch a meaningful strike, but they are good at saying that we are taking part. As for fitting ExLS to the T-45, this would be a piece of cake funding permitting. The three cell standalone could be fitted relatively easily, and it is very compact. Each carrying 12 Sea Ceptor (Why do people keep calling it its old name?) and we end up with a platform with 48 Aster 30 and say between 24 and 48 of the former by installing two to four ExLS launchers. You do not even have to penetrate the deck ot install them except for wiring. The RN could treat the standalone like it does Phalanx and have a pool shared amongst the fleet with as many vessels as possible plumbed for the system.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Sea-Ceptor or CAMM in addition to ASTER 15/30 on the Type 45 makes a lot of sense. It might enable the number of T45 Escorts for a QEC Carrier to be reduced and therefore stretch farther across the Fleet. If the Type 31 (or a variant) could become an effective ASW escort as well, then it might enable the number of T26 Escorts for a QEC Carrier to be reduced also. Between 1 x T45 and 1 x T26 the number of CAMM would be very little different from the 2 of each accepted hitherto. Of course the T31 may bring some CAMM to the party as well!

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil R »

Ron5 wrote:history of UK sonobuoys
Clive Radley's book?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Scimitar54 wrote:Sea-Ceptor or CAMM in addition to ASTER 15/30 on the Type 45 makes a lot of sense. It might enable the number of T45 Escorts for a QEC Carrier to be reduced and therefore stretch farther across the Fleet. If the Type 31 (or a variant) could become an effective ASW escort as well, then it might enable the number of T26 Escorts for a QEC Carrier to be reduced also. Between 1 x T45 and 1 x T26 the number of CAMM would be very little different from the 2 of each accepted hitherto. Of course the T31 may bring some CAMM to the party as well!
1) you can't reduce the number of T45 any lower than 1, which is what the CBG will have routinely unless 1) for a photo opportunity, 2) shit hits the fan, or 3) the CBG meets an additional T45 which is deployed near the CBG or is transmitting near by.

2) the T31 will have no ASW capacity of any value unless the scope of the programme, and budget, is increased. As it stands the only thing the T31 is likely to contribute to the T31 is 12+ additional Sea Ceptor

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:The book value of an asset under the RBA used by the MoD is not based on its theoretical replacement cost but is based on it's actual acquisition cost spread over its useful life. There's a couple of downloads on the MoD site that explain their accounting methodology. You might find them interesting.
Well, the "how to do it " guidelines were circulated in 2012 and are still in force.

Oct 4, 2018 publication about departmental resources (of the MoD) has this short-format explanation:
"This section presents a detailed breakdown of the net book value of MOD’s
non-current assets by category. Non-current assets (
formerly known as “fixed assets”) are assets, tangible or intangible,
acquired for continued and long-term use by the MOD. They include assets such as land, buildings
and equipment.
The MOD is one of the largest owners of non-current assets in the United Kingdom. The
stewardship and efficient management of the Department’s assets are the responsibility of Top
Level Budget (TLB) Holders. MOD non-current assets are formally revalued on a five-
yearly basis, but are uplifted annually using indexation.
This valuation method complies with financial reporting standards with values being on an existing use basis rather than market value at disposal. "
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)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

D M

Please read my last post more carefully and you will see what I meant.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Scimitar54 wrote:D M

Please read my last post more carefully and you will see what I meant.
Unless I misunderstood your point, you suggest that the carrier(s) could be deployed with fewer T45 escorts if Sea Captor were added to the T45s.
My point is that I'm guessing the carrier(s) will only typically deploy with 1 T45 anyway, irrespective of whether Sea Captor has been fitted or not.
Given the low number of escorts, and the manning issues, I can't see a typical UK carrier group in peace time comprising more than:
1 QE
1 T45
2 T26/T23
1 tide
1 SSS

This will occasionally be augmented with whatever RN assets are also operating in the area and allied vessels.

Even so, with 18 or so F35s and the associated helicopter wing, that's a pretty badass force that only a handful of other nations can match. And, we'll have two such groups (though likely only one with a fixed wing airgroup) providing year round availability

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

D M
Thank-you. I was suggesting the possibility that the escorts might be able to be comprised of 1 x T45 and 1 x T26 plus 1 (or perhaps 2) T31 suitably upgraded to conduct ASW. The (extra) CAMM that might be carried by a T45, would offset the reduction of a second T26 (for it's CAMM) and the loss of the ASTER 15 on a second T45.
In that way, suitable escorts could be released for independent deployments. The CSG escort could obviously be re-inforced with the additional vessels (and/or an SSN) as and when required.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Phil R wrote:
Ron5 wrote:history of UK sonobuoys
Clive Radley's book?
Yes indeed. A good read.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The book value of an asset under the RBA used by the MoD is not based on its theoretical replacement cost but is based on it's actual acquisition cost spread over its useful life. There's a couple of downloads on the MoD site that explain their accounting methodology. You might find them interesting.
Well, the "how to do it " guidelines were circulated in 2012 and are still in force.

Oct 4, 2018 publication about departmental resources (of the MoD) has this short-format explanation:
"This section presents a detailed breakdown of the net book value of MOD’s
non-current assets by category. Non-current assets (
formerly known as “fixed assets”) are assets, tangible or intangible,
acquired for continued and long-term use by the MOD. They include assets such as land, buildings
and equipment.
The MOD is one of the largest owners of non-current assets in the United Kingdom. The
stewardship and efficient management of the Department’s assets are the responsibility of Top
Level Budget (TLB) Holders. MOD non-current assets are formally revalued on a five-
yearly basis, but are uplifted annually using indexation.
This valuation method complies with financial reporting standards with values being on an existing use basis rather than market value at disposal. "
The key here is "continued and long term use". That's things like land & buildings that can last for hundreds of years (fixed assets) not items like guns and sonars which have a defined usable life. Seeing that we are discussing transferring sonars & guns from the T23's and not bricks and mortar, this is totally irrelevant. As I have stated before, book value of the guns & sonars will be based on their actual acquisition cost, not a theoretical replacement cost.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

OF course it would be better if we stuck 4-6 3 Cell ExLS (48-72 Sea Ceptor) onto the QE and PoW to dramatically increase their fire power. The lack of the above is as bad as the UK's policy on how to organise the air group for the carrier. I can only see a T-31 joining a Carrier group if it is part of a PR photo op to try to convince people it is a proper warship. 1x T25 and 2x T-25 with a SSN when one is available and of course FRA support, of 1 tanker and 1 Solid stores platforms.

In fact how the T-31s are actually used when they enter service is going to be quite interesting, will they be given duties that are appropriate to their actual capabilities or are we going to have the naval equivalent of the "Snatch Land Rover" mess, where a platform was used in situations for which it was neither designed or capable of handling.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not think T45 needs TLAM. For me, it is very low in priority
It should be there for compatibility with the T26 and future cruise missiles.

However, a single T26 has a greater capacity than the RN has ever used in a single conflict, making it a difficult upgrade to justify with so many other items that need fixing.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We should keep the TLAMs solely on the SSNs with the Astute successor being fitted with a VLS for them. We rely on the systems as a surprise strike weapon fired in twos and threes. Having them on an SSN also allows the UK to bluff opponents by announcing a SSN is moving towards an area even if one isn't. It will only be worth installing TLAM even on the T-26 if we greatly enlarge out inventory of he weapon by a considerable margin.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not think T45 needs TLAM. For me, it is very low in priority
It should be there for compatibility with the T26 and future cruise missiles.
However, a single T26 has a greater capacity than the RN has ever used in a single conflict, making it a difficult upgrade to justify with so many other items that need fixing.
I struggle with the logic of current planning regarding the T45 and TLAM. Why invest so much time, effort and money in a Frigate design big enough to accommodate strike length Mk41 cells when we already have 6 hulls in the water capable of receiving them? It seems bonkers.

I understand the argument that the T45 is an AAW platform and also conducting strike operations at the same time is problematic but the simple solution is to send two T45's. Do we really think that in a conflict situation a single T45 will be looking after the entire CSG? No chance.

This is why I think we should give the T45's the full TLAM capability and downgrade some of the T26's to simple CSG ASW escorts and try and get more hulls in the water.

Even if the first 3 T26's got the full Mk41/TLAM setup and the remaining hulls were built to a basic 24 CAMM non TLAM spec, it would still provide 9 TLAM capable vessels in the fleet. Do we really need more?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Taking 3 VLS modules off the T26 is going to save peanuts, the modules cost about three million a piece.

I don't think conducting AAW and Cruise Missile strikes at the same time is at all problematic, the Burke class has been doing it for decades. I would say its preferable to use the Destroyers for that role, if the RN go popping off a few cruise missiles that can expect to see a few coming back in their direction. The French and American ships we're on high alert for such an event for days after the Syria strikes.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:use all :D of the hangar! Can we afford :wtf: to fill so many silos? An arsenal ship, at long las
Lord Jim wrote: It will only be worth installing TLAM even on the T-26 if we greatly enlarge out inventory of he weapon by a considerable margin
:( , while I agree :D
Poiuytrewq wrote:Why invest so much time, effort and money in a Frigate design big enough to accommodate strike length Mk41 cells when we already have 6 hulls in the water capable of receiving them? It seems bonkers.
One word: ABM ;)
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:One word: ABM
anti-ballistic = 1
missile = 1

1 + 1 = 1 :think:
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: As I have stated before, book value of the guns & sonars will be based on their actual acquisition cost, not a theoretical replacement cost.
Sorry Ron, the MoD have a lot of downloads about the changes they make to their reporting. As RAB happened at the beginning of this millennium, the changes since may make interesting reading (for understanding the published figures):
"The MOD is one of the largest owners of non-current assets in the United Kingdom. The
stewardship and efficient management of the Department’s assets are the responsibility of Top Level Budget (TLB) Holders. MOD non-current assets are formally revalued on a five-yearly basis, but are uplifted annually using indexation.

This valuation method complies with financial reporting standards with values being on an existing
use basis rather than market value at disposal. Overseas estates for which the Crown holds no
legal title, but which are used for garrison and training purposes by British Forces, are included in the MOD non-current assets register. UK bases occupied by visiting forces are also included.

As at 31 March2017, the value of MOD non-current assets stood at £130.6 billion
, which is a rise of £2.8 billion compared to the
figure for the previous year. The recent increases in value have
been caused mainly by the reclassification of inventory as non-current assets.
The largest value non-current assets were Single Use Military Equipment at
£33.1billion
and Land and Buildings worth £31.6billion. "

What's £2 or 3 bn between friends? The sums are so big that no one ;) would have noticed.
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)

Post Reply