Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Caribbean]

With probable cost overruns, even getting 5 would be great.

Cost overruns are the builder's problem - that's the whole point of the T31 program. The RN gets a hull with various capabilities designed in (FTR) and a fixed build price for 5 hulls. Moving risk back to the builder is one of the major objectives. It does appear, if this figure is correct, that there may be a bit of leeway in the budget when it comes to fitting-out for the RN, however.

[ArmChairCivvy]

In any 6 year period (72 months), each carrier is expected to spend a total of 18 months deployed and 18 months at very high readiness to deploy. For the other 36 months, it will still be at high readiness (20-30 days notice) while it undertakes training, undergoes maintenance alongside and is in drydock for short periods

Are these statistics chosen (the 6-yr period) based on the fact (plan) that every 7th year there would be a longer dry docking?

[abc123]

With probable cost overruns, even getting 5 would be great.

Cost overruns are the builder's problem - that's the whole point of the T31 program. The RN gets a hull with various capabilities designed in (FTR) and a fixed build price for 5 hulls. Moving risk back to the builder is one of the major objectives. It does appear, if this figure is correct, that there may be a bit of leeway in the budget when it comes to fitting-out for the RN, however.

To see Naples and die- as they say...

[shark bait]

...the standard planned UK escort group for a carrier will be 2 T45s and 2 T26s (plus a SSN and RFA). To provide such an escort for the 2 carriers will use up most of the available sea time of 6 T45s and 6 T26s.

Surely that requires 4 T45s and 4 T26s?

[marktigger]

so 1 in refit 1 on work up none for any taksings apart for escorting the carriers except 1 of the carriers will be along side at extended readiness?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Carrier needs training, maintenance, along with being high-readiness and deployed.
Escorts need training, maintenance, along with being high-readiness and deployed.

If the CVTF is made of 1 CV, 2 T45 and 2 T26, this means all the escorts needed for CVTF shall be 4 T45 and 4 T26, when 2 CVs are active, I guess? I agree with Sharkbait-san.

[shark bait]

Yes, the RN needs to establish a cycle where the escorts are maintained in a similar readiness cycle to the carriers. When that happens sustaining carrier ops with escorts it totally feasible with the platform the RN has.

[Aethulwulf]

At the momemt, the carrier escorts will follow the normal 1 in 3 rule. So to have 2+2 always deployed or at very high readiness will require 6+6. In fact, when you look at recent availability, this will be an improvement over recent levels and there are some doubts if it can really be achieved.

The plan for the two carriers is to try to break the 1 in 3 rule; this is very ambitious. The two carriers will swap between very high readiness and high readiness. Neither will ever drop down to medium or low readiness. This means that all training, maintenance and upkeep work (including standard refits) will be done while still at high readiness. This will be a big change to how these ships and their crews will be managed. But this is the consequence of the current policy of continuous carrier capability and continuous amphibious readiness. Continuous means continuous.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The plan for the two carriers is to try to break the 1 in 3 rule; this is very ambitious. The two carriers will swap between very high readiness and high readiness. Neither will ever drop down to medium or low readiness. This means that all training, maintenance and upkeep work (including standard refits) will be done while still at high readiness. This will be a big change to how these ships and their crews will be managed. But this is the consequence of the current policy of continuous carrier capability and continuous amphibious readiness. Continuous means continuous.

Thanks for interesting info. Fingers crosses, but sorry I am almost 100% sure it will not happen.

Six T45 are planned to provide 5 at high readiness. It was the rationale when they decided to go down from 8 to 6. They failed.

Three River B1 was planned to provide 900 sea-going days with 1.5 times over-crewing. In general a ship is designed to provide 180 sea-going days per hull. So, 900 days corresponds to 5 hulls. Here, they succeeded.

Now, if 2 CVs are planned to provide "continuous" high-readiness, it means it must be equivalent to 3 hulls. But, I understand there is no "1.5 times more" over-crewing. There is no "3 CV air-wing", either. I see no good hope for success. Mechanical and logistical issues might be solved by new technology, but how about the crew's life?

But, even if it is not successful, it is not a big problem. 2 CVTF itself is a great power. In this case, [EDIT] 4 T45 + 4 T26 is enough, and the other 2 T45 and 2 T26 can be used elsewhere.

[shark bait]

Neither will ever drop down to medium or low readiness.

Source?

[abc123]

The plan for the two carriers is to try to break the 1 in 3 rule; this is very ambitious. The two carriers will swap between very high readiness and high readiness. Neither will ever drop down to medium or low readiness. This means that all training, maintenance and upkeep work (including standard refits) will be done while still at high readiness. This will be a big change to how these ships and their crews will be managed. But this is the consequence of the current policy of continuous carrier capability and continuous amphibious readiness. Continuous means continuous.

Thanks for interesting info. Fingers crosses, but sorry I am almost 100% sure it will not happen.

Six T45 are planned to provide 5 at high readiness. It was the rationale when they decided to go down from 8 to 6. They failed.

Three River B1 was planned to provide 900 sea-going days with 1.5 times over-crewing. In general a ship is designed to provide 180 sea-going days per hull. So, 900 days corresponds to 5 hulls. Here, they succeeded.

Now, if 2 CVs are planned to provide "continuous" high-readiness, it means it must be equivalent to 3 hulls. But, I understand there is no "1.5 times more" over-crewing. There is no "3 CV air-wing", either. I see no good hope for success. Mechanical and logistical issues might be solved by new technology, but how about the crew's life?

But, even if it is not successful, it is not a big problem. 2 CVTF itself is a great power. In this case, 2 T45 + 2 T26 is enough.

Agreed.

[Tbenz]

Perhaps one answer to the shortage of escorts and the challenges posed by the Type31e programme is to look at the Italian PPA, which is being built in different versions.

Perhaps 4 Type 31 could be built in a Full version with the BAE Mk 45 gun, 48 CAMM, 8 SSM, HMS & TAS with another 4 of a Light version with just an Oto Melara 76mm gun, 24 CAMM, HMS & FFBNW 8 SSM.

Opponents of the 76mm weapon will say that we don’t want to operate two types of main gun, but we will end up doing that anyway as the Type 45s are unlikely ever to be fitted with the Mk45, which would be a waste as the Type 45 are too valuable to risk close to shore doing NGS. The Type 45s could be fitted with the 76mm weapon, along with the latest Rivers.

That way, we would end up with a high end escort fleet of 6 Type 45, 8 Type 26 and 4 (Full) Type 31 and a low end fleet of 4 (Light) Type 31 and 5 Rivers.

Manning all of these ships might be an issue however!

[shark bait]

I agree, considering how tight things are, that is a reasonable model to follow. Same platform, different equipment fit.

If it delivers 3 escorts and 3 patrol ships I'd judge it as a success.

[Ron5]

Not sure there's a significant enough cost difference between your two types.

[Jake1992]

Perhaps one answer to the shortage of escorts and the challenges posed by the Type31e programme is to look at the Italian PPA, which is being built in different versions.

Perhaps 4 Type 31 could be built in a Full version with the BAE Mk 45 gun, 48 CAMM, 8 SSM, HMS & TAS with another 4 of a Light version with just an Oto Melara 76mm gun, 24 CAMM, HMS & FFBNW 8 SSM.

Opponents of the 76mm weapon will say that we don’t want to operate two types of main gun, but we will end up doing that anyway as the Type 45s are unlikely ever to be fitted with the Mk45, which would be a waste as the Type 45 are too valuable to risk close to shore doing NGS. The Type 45s could be fitted with the 76mm weapon, along with the latest Rivers.

That way, we would end up with a high end escort fleet of 6 Type 45, 8 Type 26 and 4 (Full) Type 31 and a low end fleet of 4 (Light) Type 31 and 5 Rivers.

Manning all of these ships might be an issue however!

I feel we'd be very lucky for the T31s to end up like you light option and it makes me very said to say that

[Caribbean]

Perhaps one answer to the shortage of escorts and the challenges posed by the Type31e programme is to look at the Italian PPA, which is being built in different versions.

Perhaps 4 Type 31 could be built in a Full version with the BAE Mk 45 gun, 48 CAMM, 8 SSM, HMS & TAS with another 4 of a Light version with just an Oto Melara 76mm gun, 24 CAMM, HMS & FFBNW 8 SSM.

Opponents of the 76mm weapon will say that we don’t want to operate two types of main gun, but we will end up doing that anyway as the Type 45s are unlikely ever to be fitted with the Mk45, which would be a waste as the Type 45 are too valuable to risk close to shore doing NGS. The Type 45s could be fitted with the 76mm weapon, along with the latest Rivers.

That way, we would end up with a high end escort fleet of 6 Type 45, 8 Type 26 and 4 (Full) Type 31 and a low end fleet of 4 (Light) Type 31 and 5 Rivers.

Manning all of these ships might be an issue however!

Rather than introduce a new weapon class, maybe we should recycle Mk 8s onto the "light version". The full version should also get 2087 in the fullness of time, once the last T23 ASW go out of service. A T31 with 2087 would make a nice complement to a CV with a deck full of Merlin ASW. Add a Wildcat with Stingray and you fulfil both the RFI requirements of "picture contributor" and "entry-level ASW"

[Repulse]

6 T45 + 8 T26s will be enough to escort the 2 CBGs, TAPS and FRE even without any allied support. The FRE role would be support by the B2 Rivers, who will also provide FIGS and probably WIGS.

If you assume that the CBGs will spend most of their time East of Suez, what else is needed / desired, assuming that in a hot war the CBG would also come to bear?
1) ASW and SLOC protection capability in the North Atlantic
2) South Atlantic Guard Ship for BOT patrol with a hangar for ISR/SAR (SAGS)
3) Mediterranean SLOC protection and ISR @ Gibraltar (GiGS) and East Med / Cyprus (CyGS)
4) Indian Ocean Anti Piracy / SLOC protection (IOGS)
5) Litoral protection for forward deployed Amphibious Assault / Supply ships with remote CBG cover.

In my view:
- SAGS, GiGS, CyGS and IOGS needs a second batch of 5 R2+ River like ships with Hangar and CIWS / entry PDMS.
- #1 needs a combination of more SSNs / P8s and 2 auxiliary ASW Carrier / Aviation Support ships
- #3 and also #1 needs a class of say 5 ships that have entry level TAS, Wildcat, Local Air Defence System (CAMM) and medium gun for anti FAC and NGS.

So a class of 10 T31es split into two hi/lol configured batches would be the right approach IMO. Lo for @£150mn and Hi for @£250mn.

[donald_of_tokyo]

6 T45 + 8 T26s will be enough to escort the 2 CBGs, TAPS and FRE even without any allied support. The FRE role would be support by the B2 Rivers, who will also provide FIGS and probably WIGS.

If you assume that the CBGs will spend most of their time East of Suez, what else is needed / desired, assuming that in a hot war the CBG would also come to bear?
1) ASW and SLOC protection capability in the North Atlantic
2) South Atlantic Guard Ship for BOT patrol with a hangar for ISR/SAR (SAGS)
3) Mediterranean SLOC protection and ISR @ Gibraltar (GiGS) and East Med / Cyprus (CyGS)
4) Indian Ocean Anti Piracy / SLOC protection (IOGS)
5) Litoral protection for forward deployed Amphibious Assault / Supply ships with remote CBG cover.

In my view:
- SAGS, GiGS, CyGS and IOGS needs a second batch of 5 R2+ River like ships with Hangar and CIWS / entry PDMS.
- #1 needs a combination of more SSNs / P8s and 2 auxiliary ASW Carrier / Aviation Support ships
- #3 and also #1 needs a class of say 5 ships that have entry level TAS, Wildcat, Local Air Defence System (CAMM) and medium gun for anti FAC and NGS.

So a class of 10 T31es split into two hi/lol configured batches would be the right approach IMO. Lo for @£150mn and Hi for @£250mn.

Repulse san. I like your assessment but I think your cost estimation is too optimistic.
- Floreal class (3000t FLD, 100m gun, 20knots, 1 Helo, 10000nm@15kt) was 150M Euro at 1990s.
- BAM OPV (2900t FLD, 76mm gun, 20knots, 1 AB212, 3500nm range@15kt) is 170M GBP.
- Holland OPV (3700t FLD, 76mm gun, 21.5knots, 1 NH90, 5000nm@15kt) is 113M GBP.

---> "5 R2+ River like ships with Hangar and CIWS" with £150mn will be OK, but no "entry PDMS".

- FTI is (470M GBP unit cost or) 660M GBP average cost (4200t FLD, 16 ASTER30, 76mm gun, NH90, CAPTA4CI, Hull sonar, 27knots, 5000nm).

---> "5 ships that have entry level TAS, Wildcat, Local Air Defence System (CAMM) and medium gun for anti FAC and NGS" will cost at least (350M GBP unit cost or) 490M GBP average. In other words, twice your estimation.

- If "entry level TAS" is CAPTAS-1, not CAPTAS-4, may be (300M GBP unit cost or) 420M GBP average.
- If the hull is mostly of civilian standard, may be (250M GBP unit cost or) 350M GBP average.

... as I guess.

[james k]

One thing that has occurred to me is that Frigates and Destroyers that are in service are not traditional Escorts. In size and some of their tasks such as defence diplomacy, protection of shipping in international waters, maintaining sovereignty of overseas territories, NGS for ship to shore operations and engaging enemy surface vessels they are more like WW2 Light Cruisers.

Meanwhile it's the larger OPV's and Corvettes that should perhaps carry out the primary task of ASW since we may be asking too much of our major warships and as costs rise we cannot afford enough to carry out both the traditional Escorts and Light Cruiser roles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

As you all know,
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php ... &start=105
- Interesting Argentina Sub is actively working, while their air force lost all the fighters (related to escort thread in view of APT-S's ASW and AAW needs)
But
- anyway at this moment, the top priority is to find her and save the 44 crew. Hope they find her soon...

[benny14]

- anyway at this moment, the top priority is to find her and save the 44 crew. Hope they find her soon...

Maybe the UK should offer to send a type 23, to help with the search.

[RetroSicotte]

Maybe the UK should offer to send a type 23, to help with the search.

HMS Protector and the Falklands C-130 is already helping.

I saw some murmurs that the Submarine Rescue System was seen moving through town. I missed it myself (wasn't in the area) to confirm, but not impossible it went onto high readiness.

[ArmChairCivvy]

not impossible it went onto high readiness.

It can be airlifted, but I doubt that there is a ship at the other end, ready to receive? Not sure what specifics are required of a ship, though.

[Repulse]

HMS Protector should be able to operate it, no?

[james k]

That submarine was, I believe, the subject of a short report in Warship and International Fleet Review some time ago. It was under extended refit in a commercial yard, work only being carried out when commercial contracts and orders had dried up. The part time nature of the refit was made considerably worse by a shortage of skilled labour and money to push things forward. This might, and I only suggest it as a possibility, be a contributing factor to the current situation.

I genuinely hope that the crew are found safe