Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Scimitar54 wrote:If you build ships more quickly without increasing the number ordered, you are going to end up with a Stop/Start programme. 10 x T26 (plus 6 x T45) will not give the number of Escorts "currently deemed necessary". That would require 13! Even the "19" are grossly inadequate. The only solution is an increase in the size of the navy (both manning and vessels) so that:-
a) The Fleet can be the size that it needs to be. b) The number of ships ordered (and the build rate) match those needs. One can only take reductions in Crew size so far. :mrgreen:
Well between 12 and 14 high end ASW/GP platforms and 6+ AAW platforms would see the RN in good stead. In fantasy land we would still be the worlds largest navy and Queen Elizabeth would be a CVN, but we aren't and never will be. What the RN can do in the future will be far different from what it has done over the past few decades. Its two main roles will be CASD and Carrier Strike. Everything else will be done when possible if at all. We will have only a limited Amphibious Assault capability in reality, but will still be able to move troops by sea if needed.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:The gaps create more operational constraints, they do not preclude operations altogether.
Quite. With the Boer War as the ringing alarm bell, the army was intensively reformed over a period of ten years and (despite initially low numbers) played a 'model' part in ww1.

There was not much preparation (on the army's part, beyond text books 'exercises') for ww2, and the "world's first fully mechanised army" that was sent to the Continent was, numbers wise, almost like we would now send the SEG from Warminster. While the huge bulk of the army was garrisoning the Empire
- in a modern war the number of years it took to alleviate the initial operational constraints (and in a lucky way, by playing for time, was allowed) would now be counted in weeks
- so the operational constraints you start with are the ones that you end with (UORs, anyone?)
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)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RetroSicotte »

Depends on the conflict.

Long term, low intensity theaters (of which navies have almost none) sure there is time to make UORs and counter issues, because there is less consequence for losses.

But in a peer war, where such things are measured in days, even UORs don't have the time.

In peer to peer, you come as you are these days. There won't be a chance to fix issues.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

At this time the RN has or will have

6 x destroyers
13 x frigates
5 x OPV
13 MCM
2 Hyrographic ( only Echo class here)

this gives a total of 39 ships across 6 classes as it stands. What I would like to see and what I think is doable for 900 million a year over 15 years is to have a more balanced fleet capable of operating all over the world. As I keep harping on about

6 x T45 AAW Destroyers paid for in service
8 x T26 Global combat frigates cost 500 million per year 1 built every 2 years
6 x TXX ASW frigates cost 250 million per year 1 built every 2 years
15 x MHPC 100 meter Multi-mission sloops cost 150 per year

This would give us after 15 years a new fleet of 35 ships across 4 classes able to carry out a host of operations across the world as so

2 x Carrier groups operating in rotation 1 x Carrier , 2 x T45 AAW , 2 x Txx ASW , 1 or 2 NATO escorts
2 x Txx on TAPS
2 x T45 & 8 x T26 operating on singleton patrols or as part of allied standing patrols across the world ( also could form the escort group for the Amphib group)
15 x 100 meter Multi-mission sloops able to undertake MCM , Littoral ASW , Hyrographic and Patrol which would include UK EEZ , FIGS , AP-N

For me this would be a drop in hulls but a rise in capability it would give us 1 more frigate and most important at this time is we could with good planning properly man these ships

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, I’d say Singleton deployments are a thing of the past, or at the least rare going forwards. Our Destroyers and Frigates will be tied up on Task Group duties and FRE/TAPS. Ideally we would have 3 Task Groups in rotation around the 2 Carriers and a new large LHD - for this probably 16 would just stretch to it.

Coupled to this should be forward based Sloops (or OPVs if you must) for FIGS, WIGS and GiGS; plus 2 more forward based T26s for Kipion and another based in Singapore.

Assuming a MHPC Sloop isn’t going to happen - 6 T45s, 12 T26s, 8 River derivant OPVs plus 8 cheaper UUV/USV MHC motherships would be a good balance.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Repulse wrote:Tempest414, I’d say Singleton deployments are a thing of the past, or at the least rare going forwards. Our Destroyers and Frigates will be tied up on Task Group duties and FRE/TAPS. Ideally we would have 3 Task Groups in rotation around the 2 Carriers and a new large LHD - for this probably 16 would just stretch to it.

Coupled to this should be forward based Sloops (or OPVs if you must) for FIGS, WIGS and GiGS; plus 2 more forward based T26s for Kipion and another based in Singapore.

Assuming a MHPC Sloop isn’t going to happen - 6 T45s, 12 T26s, 8 River derivant OPVs plus 8 cheaper UUV/USV MHC motherships would be a good balance.
And, this can also be achieved with 8 T26, 6 T45, 5 T31 and 5-8 OPVs(?), which appears to be the current plan

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

[quote][/quote]Well between 12 and 14 high end ASW/GP platforms and 6+ AAW platforms would see the RN in good stead. In fantasy land we would still be the worlds largest navy and Queen Elizabeth would be a CVN, but we aren't and never will be. What the RN can do in the future will be far different from what it has done over the past few decades. Its two main roles will be CASD and Carrier Strike. Everything else will be done when possible if at all. We will have only a limited Amphibious Assault capability in reality, but will still be able to move troops by sea if needed.

If you keep arguing that less is enough, that is what you will get (if you are lucky). 13+6 = the current "19", which would require a constant drumbeat of 1 x Escort every 18 months. Any longer than that and you will be in a downward spiral, which politicians will use to cut what they will regard as "excess" RN manpower. They are running (ruining) the RN. The lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum. What must come first, is the correct number of Escorts to perform the tasks required plus the addition of an adequate contingency reserve and the manning for these. The drumbeat (in years per vessel) required will be the life of an Escort / number of escorts needed.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54 wrote:And, this can also be achieved with 8 T26, 6 T45, 5 T31 and 5-8 OPVs(?), which appears to be the current plan
Current plans are two CSGs not three, with the budget forget any idea that a T31 could replace a T26 in a carrier group, nor be a meaningful forward based contribution in the Gulf or Far East.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:b2 and b1b against dozens of hardened a/c shelters
Impressive inventory, but with without a clear political goal (NOT-something is not a goal) the whole thing adds up to just fireworks.
- let's throw in a Churchill quote, for good measure:
" it must be remembered that an army is not a field upon which persons with Utopian ideas may exercise their political theories, but a weapon for the defence of the State"

The quoted part reminded me, though,
that the RAF never stopped talking about DeepStrike even though the means at their disposal have been just for battlefield interdiction
- I guess here we can find common ground in that "it is very dangerous if our politicians believe our own propaganda"?

So, here comes DeepStrike, right on cue:
Lord Jim wrote:By the time the last T-26 B2 is launched, the MoD and BAe should have finalised the design of the platform to replace the T-45, possibly using the same hull and machinery. Just imagine how many Strike length Mk41 VLS could be fitted in the space currently occupied by the Mission Bay.
- or, is the strike length required for ABM? In which case we would be filling them with an Aster missile?
Any used of armed forces without a clear political and military objective is always doomed to failure, we’ve seen campaigns conducted with and without.

But it doesn’t disguise the fact there is missions and operations we cannot do because of large gaps in all the areas that those ships a/c and logistical assets cover.

Tomahawk is not a panacea for deep strike it doesn’t have the warhead options and requires the targeting an image collection assets to allow them to be used.

When you start to get into operations where these assets are required to achieve the outcome desired and with the War stocks to sustain and follow thru to conclusion and you don’t have then you will be found out and it will be the poor sods sent that bare the brunt. This means uk independent action is limited as a result

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Repulse wrote:
Scimitar54 wrote:And, this can also be achieved with 8 T26, 6 T45, 5 T31 and 5-8 OPVs(?), which appears to be the current plan
Current plans are two CSGs not three, with the budget forget any idea that a T31 could replace a T26 in a carrier group, nor be a meaningful forward based contribution in the Gulf or Far East.
Not disputing any of that, and I so prefer to see either an increased T31 budget or more T26. My point was that what you described is not far of the reality ofthe situation we appear to be heading towards:

3 task groups (2 QE and 1 Albion)
- The two carrier groups will likely have 3 escorts tied to each (1 T45 and 2 T26).
- Amphibious task group led by Albion escorted by T45/T26/T31 (1-3 hulls depending on the nature often depooyement)
- T26 for TAPs
- additional T45, T26 or T31 to supplement the task groups when necessary, especially when deployed in the region
- T45/26/31 as FRE
- 2 T31 forward deployed
- OPVs to supplement defence engagement activities and overseas territories

With careful planning and alignment of deployment cycles (tying 1 T45 and 2 T26 to each carrier) the above seems possible with 6 T45, 8 T26 and 5 T31. Spread a bit thin, and no margin for losses, but not half bad it seems to me

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Repulse
Please make sure when quoting what a member has written, that you have your facts correct.
The words may have been correct, but the attribution to an Author was not.
scimitar54 did not write: ............., however. dmereifield did write:
An apology might be a good idea. That Trump fellow does not like "Fake News"

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

There has been a lot if chest thumping regarding the retention of the Albions, but Amphibious Assault is going to be a very limited operational task for the RN going forward. Yes we will need escorts to protect a major sea lift operation, moving a Brigade (or more) into theatre, but we are not going to be doing any major Amphibious Operation nor can we. It is arguable that the Falklands was not an Amphibious operation but more one of sea lift and the bulk of the troops were con charters vessels like the QE2 and Canberra and the Amphibious vessels were there to get the troop ashore father than launch an assault. This seem to confuse people.

With current plans the RN should have two T-45 and two to three T-26 at sea at any one time with and additional one T-45 and one or two T-26 available to surge if needed. That covers the Carrier Group if at sea and Uk waters/CASD. We are going to struggle to maintain the curretn nineteen escorts going forward, and this includes the T-31e which barely qualifies as such. I would rather accept number are going to drop but start a drumbeat productionof the T-26, bringing forward the frst of class and keep launching them every twelve to eighteen months startin gin 2023.

The design is probably the best of its generation and is plexible enough to mean almost any customers needs. Havingover thirt already planned makes it the biggest class if escort outside of the USA and this should generate further export orders down the line. This in turn will feed into the RN's fleet developement. The fact that it has the Mk41 VLS allow customers already using US manufactured weapons to continue to do so, something that goes against the FREMM and other Franco/Italina designs. Navantia has won completions in teh past but their designs are getting old and the fate of the Norwegian Frigate raises some uncomfortable quastions about them.

AS for a T-26 based T-45 successor replacing the mission bay with say a further eight Stike MK41 VLS, these are ideal both for ABM duties, being able to launch the SM-3 and SM-6 as well as TLAM and whatever the US developes in future. Also being able to launch the LRASM would make the platform a formidable anti-surface combatant. Such a platform could have as many as twelve eight cell Mk41 VLS fitted, that is 64 cells. The downside is Aster dies with the T-45 as a dead end even though it is capable. Maybe we could adapt the system to a land based version at some future point filling another of the gap inthe UK defences.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Amphibious Assault is going to be a very limited operational task for the RN going forward. Yes we will need escorts to protect a major sea lift operation, moving a Brigade (or more) into theatre, but we are not going to be doing any major Amphibious Operation nor can we.
Lord Jim wrote: This seem to confuse people.
Reading the Joint Doctrine will ease confusion, no?
JDN 1/17 talks about the importance of being able to flexibly shift
between movement and manoeuvre – critical decisions for the commander.

"Early entry operations.
Early entry operations are employed to seize
and hold key terrain, in particular entry points, ports of disembarkation or
defiles through which main intervention forces may subsequently manoeuvre.
Theatre entry requires land and amphibious forces capable of forcible entry
onto the land with sufficient firepower and protection to hold ground."

and
" An amphibious operation is defined as:
a military operation launched from the sea by a naval and landing force
embarked in ships or craft, with the principal aim of projecting the landing
force ashore tactically into an environment ranging from permissive to
hostile
[...] Operational reach of this nature enables
the landing force to expand the land battlefield by posing an unpredictable,
credible and dynamic threat to the adversary’s maritime flanks."
Seems like a false dichotomy assault vs. operation are being created
... and it also seems that Falklands very much meets the above (NATO) definition
Lord Jim wrote: The downside is Aster dies with the T-45 as a dead end even though it is capable. Maybe we could adapt the system to a land based version at some future point filling another of the gap inthe UK defences.
Another opinion stated as fact
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 »

dmereifield wrote:3 task groups (2 QE and 1 Albion)
Not likely. The Marines aren't going to operate without aircraft, the carrier group and the amphibious group are one and the same.
@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 »

shark bait wrote: the carrier group and the amphibious group are one and the same.
... until the last moment (then keeping a different distance to shore)
- all this does is that it dictates a couple more escorts "than otherwise"
- that otherwise concept1 "carriers close to shore" does not exist in reality,
- nor does concept2 "truly over the horizon" rather than from just behind it... for the lack of means to carry out such an operation en-masse and with speed [ en masse in this context is counted in Companies, simultaneously or over one night]
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 »

Yes, it means on a real amphibious operation will require a couple more escorts, which will only happen under exceptional circumstances so it is manageable. (often referred to as surge capacity around here)

Supporting the two groups requires around 10 escorts, which can be swapped for allies, leaving enough platforms for ancillary roles (assuming 19 real combatants)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
shark bait wrote: the carrier group and the amphibious group are one and the same.
... until the last moment (then keeping a different distance to shore)
- all this does is that it dictates a couple more escorts "than otherwise"
- that otherwise concept1 "carriers close to shore" does not exist in reality,
- nor does concept2 "truly over the horizon" rather than from just behind it... for the lack of means to carry out such an operation en-masse and with speed [ en masse in this context is counted in Companies, simultaneously or over one night]
This is why for me we need type 31 to be a proper ASW for the carrier group this would allow a task group to be made up of

1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
1 x Albion / LHD
2 x Bay
2 x Point
3 x T45
3 x T26
2 X T31

this would also allow at the point of landing the carrier group made up of the Carrier 2 x T45 AAW , 2 x T31 ASW and SSN to stand off and the Amphib group to close in to shore with the LPD / LHD , 2 Bay , 2 Point , 1 x T45 , 3 x T26. The T45 and T26 would be able to offer good area air defence , NGFS , Land attack , and maybe T26 could offer MCM . This would also leave us with a second carrier group of

1 x Carrier
1 x SSN
2 X T45
2 x T31

Plus 1 x T45 , 1 x T31 , 5 x T26

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok the Joint Doctrine clarifies things about what the various options are but to conduct such operations does the UK need highly specialised shipping. Early entry requires sufficient sea lift not specialised over the beach capability, and he definition of amphibious operations is one I have agreed with just not the scale or the amount, type and size of amphibious shipping the RN needs. I simply cannot see the UK landing 3 Commando in its entirety behind enemy lines in a future peer on peer conflict. Though they are very good, they are a light infantry formation with a number of specialisations I have discussed before. Landing raiding forces behind enemy lines to cause disruption sure. TO do that do they need large, expensive and vulnerable specialised shipping?

Our Armed Forces and our Government still have a lot of aspirations as to what we are capable of, many of which are really dreams compared to what we actually can do. Deploying a Brigade battle group to Afghanistan push the whole army to its limit and yet we are supposed to be able to deploy a fully equipped and balance fighting division of four brigades! The RAF is now scaled to be only able to surge 24 aircraft in the event of a urgent deployment and then maintain that number for only a relatively short period of time. I could go on and on.

We are not going to be conducting large amphibious operations require substantial numbers of escorts. Yes we might have to protect a sea lift operation, moving troops from A to B, and a T-26 might be sent on the odd mission to launch or recover a raiding party and/or support them.

CASD and Carrier Strike are going to be the RN's reason for being for the next fifty years. The RN wanting to conduct global amphibious operations is not.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Sorry to be such a stickler for the terms, but it is just to avoid confusion in delineating our topics.
Lord Jim wrote:Early entry requires sufficient sea lift not specialised over the beach capability
Early entry = opening the door to theatre entry (the latter may or may not be in the form of an amphibious operation; when it is, then non-specialised, ie. without over-the-beach capability shipping will be in the main role).
Lord Jim wrote: Deploying a Brigade battle group [to Afghanistan] push the whole army to its limit
- lesson 1 : do not do sustained
- lesson 2 : whatever you need to do, try not do sustainment over an airbridge only
... unique circumstances (the RM did well, though... that far from the sea!)
Lord Jim wrote:large amphibious operations require substantial numbers of escorts. Yes we might have to protect a sea lift operation
- a sea lift operation would be a continuous effort, and one would (?) think that after Day One the threats would have been somewhat degraded. Of course, foregoing protection altogether is not an option

Yes, specialised amph. shipping is expensive as it is, errr so specialised (and only gets to be fully utilised every now and then
- then ;) again, there is no real substitute for it
- "multi" everything also gets expensive as we know from using PoW as "an Ocean"
- and, as in real life, here too we need to find the right mix, to be cost effective; effective part in that meaning that there is enough effect (scale is part of it) to get the "job" done
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: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Scimitar54, my sincere apologies in attributing comments mistakenly to you, the quote functionality on an iPhone is hard to get right. No Fake News intended.
”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

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

The U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command announced $149.4 million contract award Friday to the Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of their SM-2 Block IIIC missile for surface warships, based on the RIM-66 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) with active radar seeker as used on the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM. Understand the driver is the planned use on the new FFG(X).

June 2017 Paris, Raytheon announced restart of the SM-2 production line, for SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles for the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan and Australia, $650M for 280 missiles, $2.32M ea. In July 2018 State Department authorised sale of 46 SM-2 Block IIIA to Denmark plus 4 test missiles with their MK 13 MOD 0 VLS canisters for $152M/$3.04M ea. The SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles use the older tech semi-active radar seeker head.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

shark bait wrote:
dmereifield wrote:3 task groups (2 QE and 1 Albion)
Not likely. The Marines aren't going to operate without aircraft, the carrier group and the amphibious group are one and the same.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was talking about routine peacetime deployments. Just as we see Albion deployed in the far East this year

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 »

Even then, the Royal Navy didn't form a task group for Albion, the best it got was a T45 limited to the duration of Saif Sareea 3. I expect that will be a familiar sight in the coming years too.

Hopefully it will be different for the carriers, and early indication are it will, QE has rarely been alone since going to sea. Routinely maintaining a task group around each carrier is a realistic goal for the RN, given all the pressures on the force adding a third may be a step too far.
@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 »

shark bait wrote: the best it got was a T45 limited to the duration of Saif Sareea 3
Even then, probs, for "exercising" the use of Joint Command facility on HMS Albion (kitted out to a better std than on T45s)
- the Omani corvettes surely were enough of a screen, in all other aspects
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

the RN could operate 3 task groups if it did nothing else as far as the escorts go

task group 1) HMS QE , 2 x T45 , 2 x T23

task group 2) as above with POW

task group 3) HMS Albion 2 x T45 , 2 x T23

leaving 4 T23s for TAPS & FRE ( given 2 to 3 of the 13 T23s are laid up ) of course as the T23s are replaced by the currently planned T31s this option will be lost

Post Reply