Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[marktigger]

Well, there's one undoubtably good consequence of all this fleet reduction by the RN: soon all the RN ships will be able to be in one port, imagine how much money will that save for the NHS and international aid...

Something to remember about the NHS it is 4th line medical care for the military and the bulk of the medical professionals in the armed forces regular and reserve work in it.

[abc123]

Well, there's one undoubtably good consequence of all this fleet reduction by the RN: soon all the RN ships will be able to be in one port, imagine how much money will that save for the NHS and international aid...

Something to remember about the NHS it is 4th line medical care for the military and the bulk of the medical professionals in the armed forces regular and reserve work in it.

Nobody's against NHS as such, but when NHS is sacred cow and defence isn't...

[Opinion3]

Opinion3 wrote:
If it is using decoys or weapons systems to overcome the seekers or destroy the missile then they are expendable and/or over whelm-able with volume

Any ship can be overwhelmed by volume, that is kind of the point of saturation attacks. That is why you need better defenses and more missiles than the enemy.

There is my point. There are a number of individuals, including it appears, those who actually control the budget, whom believe an anti-ship weapon can be gapped. There are also a number who believe a helicopter is the platform of choice. A helicopter's weapons load is extremely low in volume if not punch.

What do the Russian's Japanese, Indian, Chinese and American Navies use to knock out a ship? What do they use to knock out a helicopter? What do they use to knock out the incoming attacks? Can we win. With our Escort numbers I'd suggest we are in danger of being sitting ducks or totally dependent on external help

[marktigger]

There is my point. There are a number of individuals, including it appears, those who actually control the budget, whom believe an anti-ship weapon can be gapped. There are also a number who believe a helicopter is the platform of choice. A helicopter's weapons load is extremely low in volume if not punch.

What do the Russian's Japanese, Indian, Chinese and American Navies use to knock out a ship? What do they use to knock out a helicopter? What do they use to knock out the incoming attacks? Can we win. With our Escort numbers I'd suggest we are in danger of being sitting ducks or totally dependent on external help

In terms of a heavy anti ship missile like Harpoon or Exocet both those systems are approaching the end of their lives and the powers that be see nothing currently on the market that tick enough of their boxes to warrant purchase. now that gives us a few options

1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

everyone is banging on about swarm attacks from surface vessels? now is a system like Harpoon going to be used in this situation?
against that sort od attack by multiple numbers of small vessles like RIBS or small attack craft things like a multi launched LMM would be a better option as ROE's won't allow the use of missile like harpoon emphesising the "Direct Threat" to the platform so you are probably looking at ROE' that will favour "Visual" identification and engagement. and a launcer like that could also deal with drones and aircraft.

Can anyone actually point to any "Current" threat that would require us to fire a Harpoon?
more worrying is Wildcat still isn't cleared on Martlet or Venom! Infact i wonder have the sensor integration problems been overcome?
we should also be looking to add Martlet and Venom to the Merlin to!

We have since 1940 been dependent on others and that situation isn't going to change any time soon.

[Jake1992]

There is my point. There are a number of individuals, including it appears, those who actually control the budget, whom believe an anti-ship weapon can be gapped. There are also a number who believe a helicopter is the platform of choice. A helicopter's weapons load is extremely low in volume if not punch.

What do the Russian's Japanese, Indian, Chinese and American Navies use to knock out a ship? What do they use to knock out a helicopter? What do they use to knock out the incoming attacks? Can we win. With our Escort numbers I'd suggest we are in danger of being sitting ducks or totally dependent on external help

In terms of a heavy anti ship missile like Harpoon or Exocet both those systems are approaching the end of their lives and the powers that be see nothing currently on the market that tick enough of their boxes to warrant purchase. now that gives us a few options

1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

everyone is banging on about swarm attacks from surface vessels? now is a system like Harpoon going to be used in this situation?
against that sort od attack by multiple numbers of small vessles like RIBS or small attack craft things like a multi launched LMM would be a better option as ROE's won't allow the use of missile like harpoon emphesising the "Direct Threat" to the platform so you are probably looking at ROE' that will favour "Visual" identification and engagement.

Can anyone actually point to any "Current" threat that would require us to fire a Harpoon?
more worrying is Wildcat still isn't cleared on Martlet or Venom! Infact i wonder have the sensor integration problems been overcome?
we should also be looking to add Martlet and Venom to the Merlin to!

We have since 1940 been dependent on others and that situation isn't going to change any time soon.

I think what a lot of people have a problem with this the length that we are gapping it for, we are not talking a couple of years we are talking 10 years that's a bloody long time.

You keep asking what current threat is it needed for but 10 years is such a long time it allows for no end of change to the threat spectrum we could face as a nation.
If you said in 1904,1929 or 1972 what threats do we need this or that for you would not of come up with the senarios that occurred.

You say we've been complety dependent a on others since 1940 how so ?
I'd argue that it has only been since the end of the Cold War we have started to be come dependent on others even up till 15 odd years ago we had the full spectrum of capabilities to act independently, granted not against a super power such as the USSR but in most other sercumstances we had, the Falklands was a clear show of that.

[abc123]

a few options

1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

If there's money, I would use option no. 3. If not, option one will do.

[marktigger]

a few options

1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

If there's money, I would use option no. 3. If not, option one will do.

and accept a significant reductions of stocks in the eventual buy?

[abc123]

I think what a lot of people have a problem with this the length that we are gapping it for, we are not talking a couple of years we are talking 10 years that's a bloody long time.

You keep asking what current threat is it needed for but 10 years is such a long time it allows for no end of change to the threat spectrum we could face as a nation.
If you said in 1904,1929 or 1972 what threats do we need this or that for you would not of come up with the senarios that occurred.

You say we've been complety dependent a on others since 1940 how so ?
I'd argue that it has only been since the end of the Cold War we have started to be come dependent on others even up till 15 odd years ago we had the full spectrum of capabilities to act independently, granted not against a super power such as the USSR but in most other sercumstances we had, the Falklands was a clear show of that.

X

Unfortunately, in last 15 years we all could see that there's no such defence capability that HMG/MoD can't gap, reduce in numbers/capabilities or simply cancel and claim it was not necesarry in the first place.... So, 10 years with current attitude towards defence is like 1000 years.

[abc123]

a few options

1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

If there's money, I would use option no. 3. If not, option one will do.

and accept a significant reductions of stocks in the eventual buy?

Yes.

[marktigger]

I think what a lot of people have a problem with this the length that we are gapping it for, we are not talking a couple of years we are talking 10 years that's a bloody long time.

You keep asking what current threat is it needed for but 10 years is such a long time it allows for no end of change to the threat spectrum we could face as a nation.
If you said in 1904,1929 or 1972 what threats do we need this or that for you would not of come up with the senarios that occurred.

You say we've been complety dependent a on others since 1940 how so ?
I'd argue that it has only been since the end of the Cold War we have started to be come dependent on others even up till 15 odd years ago we had the full spectrum of capabilities to act independently, granted not against a super power such as the USSR but in most other sercumstances we had, the Falklands was a clear show of that.

I know in a previous post I pointed out we did require help of allies to mount the falklands operation. The Americans with kit the Kiwis deployed one of their 2 leanders to release one of our frigates from a standing task.

I would agree about for seeing threats however no one can do that. Its about calculating risk why admirals and senior civil servants are paid an awful lot of money.The balance of probabilities is that not allot will change. If there was a perceived threat the T26 and 31 programs would be proceeding allot quicker. There is what is known as the "10 year rule" it came in after ww1 that we would have 10 years indication of impending change so we could re arm for it......it has never been right but the treasury like it

[marktigger]

a few options

1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

If there's money, I would use option no. 3. If not, option one will do.

and accept a significant reductions of stocks in the eventual buy?

Yes.

reductions to the point where the project becomes unfeasible?

[marktigger]

the budget for the next gen ASM missile is a future budget not currently allowed for so what do you want to cut now to pay for harpoon life extension?

[abc123]

the budget for the next gen ASM missile is a future budget not currently allowed for so what do you want to cut now to pay for harpoon life extension?

I really don't know. As I allready said, it seems that too much things are allready fixed, starting from overly expencive Type 26, deterrent budget as part of defence budget and too low defence budget in general, exchange rate of pound..... That's the reason why I don't see any buy in the future, because new comitments will just pile up and MoD will have less and less money...

[marktigger]

I think Type 26 is being scrimped on to generate savings for type31.
yes dumping the deterrent into the defence was totally unforseen.
Yes exchange rates fluctuate......(it'll be interesting to see the exchange rate after the next election.)
yes the MoD will have overruns to deal with and if the conditions remain they may continue to gap the capability or bite the bullet and get the money or cut somethingor some duplication out of the budget.

[Opinion3]

Actually the size of the defence budget probably isn't the issue......

we have witnessed ourselves waste. Just think delaying the QE cost hundreds of millions. The real issue is political. We are running a budget deficit and the Government has spent so much time telling us about the deficit that the country hasn't been grasped that the actual debt shot up to WW2 levels. This needs to be repaid, and the sooner the better.

So can we afford company taxation to be skirted around by the big multinationals using transfer pricing and clever accounting. No we cannot. I am not suggesting we go backwards but pensions, old age care and the NHS need a sustainable plan. The Government saying no cuts to so many areas stores up problems.

We don't need to tax the rich, the old, the young etc. more. Actually we need to encourage a better allocation of resources and a fairer, and prouder sense of community. i.e. all these venture capitalists are actually creaming our pension funds.

Can we also afford more defence spending. We can certainly afford a better allocation of resources.

[marktigger]

Actually the size of the defence budget probably isn't the issue......

we have witnessed ourselves waste. Just think delaying the QE cost hundreds of millions. The real issue is political. We are running a budget deficit and the Government has spent so much time telling us about the deficit that the country hasn't been grasped that the actual debt shot up to WW2 levels. This needs to be repaid, and the sooner the better.

So can we afford company taxation to be skirted around by the big multinationals using transfer pricing and clever accounting. No we cannot. I am not suggesting we go backwards but pensions, old age care and the NHS need a sustainable plan. The Government saying no cuts to so many areas stores up problems.

We don't need to tax the rich, the old, the young etc. more. Actually we need to encourage a better allocation of resources and a fairer, and prouder sense of community. i.e. all these venture capitalists are actually creaming our pension funds.

Can we also afford more defence spending. We can certainly afford a better allocation of resources.

what is needed is wholescale clamp down on the culture of tax avoidance that goes for the cash in hand tradesman to the multinayional company putting its profits offshore. But given the complexity of our tax system and the cuts to HMRC that is problematic. There does need to be major changes to both UK and international tax laws to stop multinationals and individuals avoiding tax. But given people in ths country want scandanavian levels of publc service but want to pay bahamian levels of taxation its going to be a difficult one
Saying the NHS should have it resources cut is a non starter the NHS is creaking at the seams at the minute and more voters come into contact with it than the armed forces and the ministers and their party managers.
There are huge savings that could be made to both the defence and NHS budgets but its having the political will to make them and ride out the storm

[Lord Jim]

The "Sacred Cow" that is the overseas aid budget need to be seriously looked at, not just to release funding for he MoD but for other departments. When the Country's finances are all rosy it is fine to sit on ones high horse and try to guilt trip other nations into spending more to help others, and to go on about the value of "Soft power", but the country is in a financial mess and we don't have the luxury. Keep a certain amount back for emergency relief cases and the few really genuine examples where aid actually makes a significant difference but the rest if the money is needed else where. It is not for he UK to spend money of schools and hospitals in countries that use the money they save by relying on our generosity to by ships, tanks and aircraft or fleets of German limos.

[Opinion3]

There still exists a tendency to do things the same way though. Who is actually challenging the Government's assertions? Policies and priorities. Right now I do not believe we have enough escorts (bringing it back to thread relevance) nor that gaps in capabilities is being openly and intelligently discussed in an open and reported forum. Do commons researchers do a good job for their MPs? How do MPs actually make a difference? Do they make a difference?

We are being told jumped up patrol boats are escorts, and that we can wait years for T45 fixes. I have seen most of the T45 fleet in Portsmouth, it should be out or being repaired...... and our way of holding the government to account reviewed.

[marktigger]

There still exists a tendency to do things the same way though. Who is actually challenging the Government's assertions? Policies and priorities. Right now I do not believe we have enough escorts (bringing it back to thread relevance) nor that gaps in capabilities is being openly and intelligently discussed in an open and reported forum. Do commons researchers do a good job for their MPs? How do MPs actually make a difference? Do they make a difference?

We are being told jumped up patrol boats are escorts, and that we can wait years for T45 fixes. I have seen most of the T45 fleet in Portsmouth, it should be out or being repaired...... and our way of holding the government to account reviewed.

Basically no one to the vast majority of the population defence is a non issue its a functon of government and the general public don't see or unnderstand how small the fleet is. Its only if you live in places like Plymouth or Portsmouth that you see the reality. When was the last "Navy Day" at any of the dockyards? the MoD do't want them as they would cause poltical embarrassment when the public actuallly realise how small the fleet really is. We could in reality close Plymouth or Portsmouth and centralise the surface fleet in one port making huge savings but the political fallout would be immense. Serving admirals can't/won't say anything. Retired ones want their seats in the lords, continuing gong on the various honours lists and their seats on boards of various companies not to mention their pensions. The media aren't interested. Look at the last time there was a major change in naval policy it was John Knott in 1982 and the images of burning and sinking royal navy ships shamed the thatcher government into reversing policy and investing in the Navy.

[benny14]

Can anyone actually point to any "Current" threat that would require us to fire a Harpoon?

There are plenty of threats that could pop up anywhere requiring a heavy anti-ship missile. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Still it is getting dated and is quickly losing its edge as potential enemy systems improve. Not to mention that with Harpoon you are limited to 8 missiles ready at a time and then you have to reload.

Both Russian and China are now fielding anti-ship missiles that can out range any US/UK ship, some by up to 100 miles. This is why the US is rapidly bringing LRASM in to service over the next couple years. Not to mention that with LRASM you are not limited to 8 missiles at a time,

[shark bait]

Those extra 100 miles are worthless unless you can target over the horizon, and since the RN has no drones, jets or helicopters with a data link, missiles with a data link, nor do we have our own satellites, the RN can't target over the horizon.

Need to get those things in place before we start considering advanced missiles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

a few options
1.use part of the budget to extend current stocks,
2. expend hose stocks and UOR purchase the old system missilesfrom allies if the need arises
3.use part of the budget to buy an interim solution and its support then use the remaining budget to buy the optimal solution and its support but in significantly reduced numbers.
4. hold onto the budget in light of a fairly benign threat assessment an then purchase the optimal missile ad its suport in the numbers the budget allows.

If there's money, I would use option no. 3. If not, option one will do.

and accept a significant reductions of stocks in the eventual buy?

Two comments I have, which are relatively independent.

1: If an ASM capability is OK to be gapped for at least 10 years and maybe even 15 years, there is a good possibility 10-15 years later "again" there will no need for them. I think it is 50-50. Then, do UK really need to invest on ASM development, the Anglo-Franco ASM program? I think it can be happily cut = can get money.

In this case, the gap will be filled within 3-4 years (not 10-15 years), when USN starts to use LRASM (for DDGs) and NSM (for LCS). For land-attack, let's buy 100-200 Tomahawk B4 as "interim" solution (of course with ASM option implemented) for T26s.

Common missiles with US has a big merit in view of mass-production = lower cost. It will also be "more battle proven", since European nation is not investing a lot on land attack as much as US does.


2: To enable harpoon to be life-extended and LRASM or NSM/JSM and TLAM to be procured, I can happily cut 200-250M GBP from T31e program.

For example, is "13 frigate" so important? I do not think so. What is the difference between 5 T31e and 4 T31e? It will just require the standing tasks (to be filled with 5 T31e) gapped for 20% of the time, if there is only 4 hulls. I think this "gap" is much less impact than "gapping ASM from whole the fleet".


In summary, 10-15 years gap means "not needed". It is not a gap, it is abandoned. So, ASM development shall be abandoned as well. If it is important (which I think it is), RN must not gap it for "10-15 years".

[RetroSicotte]

Two comments I have, which are relatively independent.

1: If an ASM capability is OK to be gapped for at least 10 years and maybe even 15 years, there is a good possibility 10-15 years later "again" there will no need for them. I think it is 50-50. Then, do UK really need to invest on ASM development, the Anglo-Franco ASM program? I think it can be happily cut = can get money.

Bear in mind that this missile is not just replacing UK/French anti-ship missiles, but is also intended to be the future land attack and air launched cruise missile to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP/Tomahawk as well. As such the program would still need to be carried on to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP at the very least.

For example, is "13 frigate" so important? I do not think so. What is the difference between 5 T31e and 4 T31e? It will just require the standing tasks (to be filled with 5 T31e) gapped for 20% of the time, if there is only 4 hulls. I think this "gap" is much less impact than "gapping ASM from whole the fleet".

Because even with 19 escorts, the Royal Navy was unable to meet its requirements both for general work (that smaller patrol vessels could do) and for high end warfare. Falling below 13 frigates would damage this even further, and is already set to lose that high end capability.

Dropping below 13 frigates, even just in a sense of dropping the borderline OPV that is Type 31, would achieve nothing other than getting even less escorts going forward. As you say, when it comes time to look at escorts again, there will "again" be no more "need" to increase from the politicians.

Cutting is easy, maintaining is difficult but doable, increasing is hellishly improbable.

[marktigger]

the thing is donald the company involved in the anglo french development is partially British so fine cancel the contract close down high tech British jobs and give them to americans. Not exactly a great vote winner.

[donald_of_tokyo]

the thing is donald the company involved in the anglo french development is partially British so fine cancel the contract close down high tech British jobs and give them to americans. Not exactly a great vote winner.

Around here, I am not familiar with. How about investing the same amount of money on Spear3, Meteor, CAMM, and integration of them into F35, Typhoon (all 3) and, T26/T31 and others (for CAMM and Spear3)? These divisions cannot hire the "jobs" from cutting Anglo-French ASM project?.