Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

If the 5 basic T31 come in on time & underbudget could any unspent money be ploughed into a further carrot dangled batch to grow the royal navy ?

A decision for the mid 2020's ?

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1431
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

seaspear wrote:
To be clear on this Nick the s1850-m as used on the R.N fleet cannot be upgraded but would need to be largely replaced to match the capabilities as used by new Dutch naval ships for an abm capability ?

The write up of the Block 2 De Zeven Provinciën class frigates states the new AESA GaN MM/N variant of SMART-L is a replacement not an upgrade of the original PESA SMART-L.

Not to say a more limited abm capability of the SMART-L PESA radar with software update not possible, the software was installed on the De Zeven Provinciën class with the original PESA SMART-L with the Extended Long Range (ELR) Mode, before upgrade to Block 2 and its new MM/N radar.

Raytheon now claim their new AESA GaN SPY-6 is one hundred times more sensitive than the old PESA SPY-1, SPY-6 to used on the new build Burke Flight III's

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:What the heck are you talking about? They've just signed a contract with Babcocks for 5 ships at an average 250 mill each. You want to rip up that contract that's a mere two days old?
No. Not at all.

Do you really believe the five T31's are going to be built for £1.25bn? I don't and I suspect others within the MOD/RN have their doubts hence the extra £500m.

RN does not need eight 139m self defense gun boats regardless of the recent tensions in the Gulf. What is needed is 21st century replacements for the 20th century T23 GP's. That means building at least 4 or 5 credible Frigates. Vessels that can fight and win against peer or near peer opponents. The T31's as currently proposed will struggle to achieve that especially if the embarked Wildcat is unavailable.

In my opinion the best way to achieve the desired outcome from where we now find ourselves is to ensure that Babcock can build the first batch of T31's on time and on budget. This is the priority. A contract extension then needs to be agreed to give RN the Frigates that they really need. Basically a 21st century T23 GP (reluctantly) based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt design.

A split order of 4 basic and 4 improved T31's seems realistic and affordable but 3 basic and 4 improved would be even better.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:What the heck are you talking about? They've just signed a contract with Babcocks for 5 ships at an average 250 mill each. You want to rip up that contract that's a mere two days old?
No. Not at all.

Do you really believe the five T31's aure going to be built for £1.25bn? I don't and I suspect others within the MOD/RN have their doubts hence the extra £500m.
I do.

Reading the RFI, T31 was intended to be a super long range corvette, and therefore budgeted as such. And all the reasoning of it is to, save the 8 T26 tier-1 escorts and keep the 2 CV active, while keeping the propaganda of “19” escorts, within the foreseeable budget limit.
RN does not need eight 139m self defense gun boats regardless of the recent tensions in the Gulf.
I can see many good places a ship as armed as a modern corvette can work.
In my opinion the best way to achieve the desired outcome from where we now find ourselves is to ensure that Babcock can build the first batch of T31's on time and on budget. This is the priority. A contract extension then needs to be agreed to give RN the Frigates that they really need.
I think what RN really need is, to secure 8 T26 ASW tier-1 escorts, along with BMD/hyper-sonic ASM updated 6 T45, and prevent one of the two CV from going into extended readiness, along with current SSBN-R and SSN program. These are far more important than making T31 a tier-1 escorts.

On the other hand, I do confess rebalancing the T31 capability as attractive option. For me, reducing the first 2 T31’s capability significantly as low as Floreal-class (cutting SeaCeptor and adding CIWS, the lowest AAW level meeting the T31 RFI requirement) and with that resource, making the latter 3 T31 into a “normal” GP frigates (say, adding hull sonar?) are a better option.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

You two have no idea how contracts work.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:You two have no idea how contracts work.
:D

I totally understand all options are already fixed. So, any proposal here is simply because the detail of the contract is not yet disclosed.

We are not even sure if T31 will carry how many CAMM. It could even be zero, because it at least complies the original T31 RFI. We do not know how the requirements has changed (or not) after it.

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 »

Or just maybe get the ships working first, then start buggering about adding capability once they're in service.

This is the only part of the T31 folly that is commendable, there is a focus on delivering a simple fixed price product, and they should not diverge from that. The MOD need more of this behaviour, because many of its failures can be attributed to woolly procurement.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do.
I am impressed with your optimism. Keep the faith :thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I can see many good places a ship as armed as a modern corvette can work.
How many places could a T23 GP potentially operate where a T31 won't be able to?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:These are far more important than making T31 a tier-1 escorts.
If the UK wants to operate a CSG and the CASD concurrently then 8 Tier1 Frigates simply isn't enough. If extra T26's are not going to happen then the only option left on the table is to upgrade some of the T31's. They will never be Tier1 but they could be very effective.

After recent events in the Gulf it has finally dawned on many is that the UK has very few Allies that can actually be relied upon when a crisis situation escalates to a conflict scenario. We have to have enough escorts to secure our own national security. Eight T26's and however many T31 self defence gun boats is simply not enough.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the other hand, I do confess rebalancing the T31 capability as attractive option. For me, reducing the first 2 T31’s capability significantly as low as Floreal-class (cutting SeaCeptor and adding CIWS, the lowest AAW level meeting the T31 RFI requirement) and with that resource, making the latter 3 T31 into a “normal” GP frigates (say, adding hull sonar?) are a better option.
They need to be credible Frigates. Downgrading some to a 'Floreal' standard would just make matters worse. HMG is currently pledging to throw money around like confetti. Time to fund UK defence properly.
shark bait wrote:....maybe get the ships working first, then start buggering about adding capability once they're in service.
I agree but I also think there is a strong case to use the 5th hull as a test bed for a more advanced second batch.

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1431
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
We are not even sure if T31 will carry how many CAMM. It could even be zero, because it at least complies the original T31 RFI. We do not know how the requirements has changed (or not) after it.
Interesting to look at the weapons loadout of the contract placed yesterday by Senegal for three OPV 58S missile patrol boats, displacement 550t, 10% of a T31. OPV 58 is a Kership design, joint venture between Piriou and Naval Group, Concarneau, Bretagne, France (re Xav earlier Senegalese post)

OPV 58S weapons listed -
Leonardo 76mm main gun
Four AShM Marte Mk2N 310kg - 70kg warhead; horizon range 30-35km; RF active seeker
AA missiles SIMBAD-RC (Remote Control) short range IR missile ~6-8 km range, ~ 20kg /3 kg warhead, twin missile unit launcher.
CIWS 2x 20mm NARWHAL20; fully stabilized remotely controlled weapon; thermal camera; laser rangefinder; automatic target tracking video system, effective range 1 km?
2x 12.7mm MGs on bridge

If T31 weapons loadout minimum as specified to meet the £250 million cost cap with no CAMM etc would you classify T31 as a light frigate or a long range limited capability OPV 'Presence' vessel, as clearly out gunned by the Senegalese OPV and other similar OPV's/missile boats eg Chinese Type 22 in the world's navies. Have to wait for details to see what's included in Babcock contract and keep fingers crossed for additional funding to outfit the more than capable hull.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do.
I am impressed with your optimism. Keep the faith :thumbup:
"I do" means ironically. If budget is too tight, the T31 will omit CAMM and use Phalanx CIWS in place. No problem it completely meets the T31 RFI requirement.

On the other hand, I agree at least some part of the added 500M GBP is for risk handling = contingency budget, as the "normal" risks (FX rate and others) came back into MOD/RN from the ship yard, a year ago. I'm afraid it can be all "contingency budget". As this is the first time Babcock is building escorts, project risk will be at least 20%, and can be as high as 30-40% in general.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I can see many good places a ship as armed as a modern corvette can work.
If the UK wants to operate a CSG and the CASD concurrently then 8 Tier1 Frigates simply isn't enough.
I understand, and feel sympathy, but disagree here.

RN has only 2 CV, coupled with 1 strike air-wing and 1 "LPH"-air-wing. Therefore, 2 frigates for CASD, and 2 each for individual CV, (and another 2 for "other") is not that bad.

#Note we do not need to think about maintenance of these 6 remaining T26s. No problem, CV itself will go into maintenance as much as an escort does.

I am NOT saying 8 frigate is enough to deploy 1 CVTF continuously. I am just saying CVTF deployment will be less frequent. One CVTF is designed to be "ready to deploy" anytime, but not "deployed" always.
If extra T26's are not going to happen then the only option left on the table is to upgrade some of the T31's. They will never be Tier1 but they could be very effective.
This is exactly the thing I think shall be avoided. Any "more money to T31" shall come, only after the fate of T26 is cleared. In other words, I'm afraid your approach will eventually decrease the available tier-1 escort number, not increase.

On the number of escorts available, there are many many things RN must do before buying "improved T31". First of all, RN now has only 12 escorts crewed (which I think can be handled with only 15 hulls). Also, even the "active units's" sea going days (100-120 days) is much less than it was in 2010 (140-150 days, the number the same to RNAN ANZAC class frigates when they are active = common number). In other words, only by fully operating current "manned" units, available escort number will increase by 30-50%.
After recent events in the Gulf it has finally dawned on many is that the UK has very few Allies that can actually be relied upon when a crisis situation escalates to a conflict scenario. We have to have enough escorts to secure our own national security. Eight T26's and however many T31 self defence gun boats is simply not enough.
I understand your point, but do not think improving T31 capability is the way to go NOW.

-We all know, British army is in desperate need for more resource.
-We all know the remaining 5 T26 is much more important than any of the 5 T31.
-I do think T45 modification for MBD/hyper-sonic is much more important than any of the 5 T31.
In many respects, for me, "improving T31" will never come in the top of the list.

Yes, I am simply much more realistic (or if you like "pessimistic") than you are. :D


PS On the fantasy part....
donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the other hand, I do confess rebalancing the T31 capability as attractive option. For me, reducing the first 2 T31’s capability significantly as low as Floreal-class (cutting SeaCeptor and adding CIWS, the lowest AAW level meeting the T31 RFI requirement) and with that resource, making the latter 3 T31 into a “normal” GP frigates (say, adding hull sonar?) are a better option.
They need to be credible Frigates. Downgrading some to a 'Floreal' standard would just make matters worse. HMG is currently pledging to throw money around like confetti. Time to fund UK defence properly.
The same thing. I am struggling to increase capable escorts number. Here, by improving some (2 or 3) of the 5 T31 into "normal GP frigate world", by sacrificing remaining hulls (3 or 2) into "Floreal world". Not robbing any resource from T26 and T45-modernizaion is "critical" for me. And, no, I do not think current T31 is a "normal GP frigate". Other than the impressive hull, it looks not much different from Omani Navies' Al Khareef class corvette.

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 »

NickC wrote:Interesting to look at the weapons loadout of the contract placed yesterday by Senegal for three OPV 58S missile patrol boats, displacement 550t, 10% of a T31. OPV 58 is a Kership design, joint venture between Piriou and Naval Group, Concarneau, Bretagne, France (re Xav earlier Senegalese post)
Thanks. Interesting.

First of all, comparing T31 displacement to other is pointless. T31 was intended to be 4000t hull, and Arrowhead 140 intentionally adopted a hull 50% larger than needed. It is upside down.
OPV 58S weapons listed -
Leonardo 76mm main gun
Four AShM Marte Mk2N 310kg - 70kg warhead; horizon range 30-35km; RF active seeker
AA missiles SIMBAD-RC (Remote Control) short range IR missile ~6-8 km range, ~ 20kg /3 kg warhead, twin missile unit launcher.
CIWS 2x 20mm NARWHAL20; fully stabilized remotely controlled weapon; thermal camera; laser rangefinder; automatic target tracking video system, effective range 1 km?
2x 12.7mm MGs on bridge

If T31 weapons loadout minimum as specified to meet the £250 million cost cap with no CAMM etc would you classify T31 as a light frigate or a long range limited capability OPV 'Presence' vessel, as clearly out gunned by the Senegalese OPV and other similar OPV's/missile boats eg Chinese Type 22 in the world's navies. Have to wait for details to see what's included in Babcock contract and keep fingers crossed for additional funding to outfit the more than capable hull.
That is what was written in the T31 RFI.

T31 is clearly not a "normal GP" frigate in RN historical term. Yes, it is much more a 'Presence' vessel, I agree. It is something La Fayette or Floreal, which BOTH were very important and versatile assets for French navy, even though neither of them are normal GP frigates.

By the way, I will not call "T31 without CAMM but with CIWS" as an OPV. For me OPV is much more sharply "designed for task" vessel. See 320 sea-going days of River B2. It is unmatched by any of the RN escorts, which currently goes only 100-110 days even if active units. River B2 is far more better than escorts when tasked for EEZ patrol.

P.S. By the way, T31 can easily win against this OPV 58S. Just send one or two Wildcat(s) with 4 SeaVenoms each. It's end.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the UK wants to operate a CSG and the CASD concurrently then 8 Tier1 Frigates simply isn't enough.
Why isn't is? Giving each carrier two frigates leaves four available for duties elsewhere.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Only if all of those four are available! Moore likely would be one (or at best two) would be available and in the wrong place. Nowhere near enough!! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

for me with the move to carrier groups needs to come a move in how we go about deploying the escort fleet. As I have said before I would build two groups around the carriers like this

1 x Carrier , 2 x type 45 , 2 x type 23/26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide

These would deploy as a group and go into maintenance as a group this would take 8 of the 14 tier escorts I would group the the remaining 6 tier 1 escorts into a home fleet with the view to having 2 at sea all year round

As for the type 31 I hope they come in to service with 24 CAMM and if they do then I would look to add 8 NSM as soon as I could. I would also if first ship goes well look to order 3 more. As far as using the 5 type 31's I would deploy 3 EoS and the other two with the home fleet and if the option for 3 more was taken up add 1 EoS and 2 to the home fleet to make it 4 each

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Nowhere near enough
Enough for what?

There will be enough T26 to post two with each carrier and 1 in the north sea
There will be enough T31 to post two frigates abroad permenantly
There will be enough Rivers to post two patrol boats abroad permanently

That would put the RN at a greater standing than it has done for over a decade.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

It has not had enough frigates/destroyers during that same period.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I think most there would have like to have kept the B3 type 22's in GP form and then replace them with a new build like type 31

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote:You two have no idea how contracts work.
Apologies for my snippy comment, bad hair day and I forgot we were playing fantasy fleets.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
We are not even sure if T31 will carry how many CAMM. It could even be zero, because it at least complies the original T31 RFI. We do not know how the requirements has changed (or not) after it.
Interesting to look at the weapons loadout of the contract placed yesterday by Senegal for three OPV 58S missile patrol boats, displacement 550t, 10% of a T31. OPV 58 is a Kership design, joint venture between Piriou and Naval Group, Concarneau, Bretagne, France (re Xav earlier Senegalese post)

OPV 58S weapons listed -
Leonardo 76mm main gun
Four AShM Marte Mk2N 310kg - 70kg warhead; horizon range 30-35km; RF active seeker
AA missiles SIMBAD-RC (Remote Control) short range IR missile ~6-8 km range, ~ 20kg /3 kg warhead, twin missile unit launcher.
CIWS 2x 20mm NARWHAL20; fully stabilized remotely controlled weapon; thermal camera; laser rangefinder; automatic target tracking video system, effective range 1 km?
2x 12.7mm MGs on bridge

If T31 weapons loadout minimum as specified to meet the £250 million cost cap with no CAMM etc would you classify T31 as a light frigate or a long range limited capability OPV 'Presence' vessel, as clearly out gunned by the Senegalese OPV and other similar OPV's/missile boats eg Chinese Type 22 in the world's navies. Have to wait for details to see what's included in Babcock contract and keep fingers crossed for additional funding to outfit the more than capable hull.
Back to being snippy I guess but really, this old chestnut????

Been going on for centuries: why does that little foreign ship over there have a better weapons fit than our big escorts? Gimme a frikkin break.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Regarding the number of available escorts for a carrier group, the task is greatly eased because the deployments of the carrier are well known far in advance so sufficient escorts can be planned to be available by scheduling their maintenance & refit periods appropriately.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Ron5 wrote:Regarding the number of available escorts for a carrier group, the task is greatly eased because the deployments of the carrier are well known far in advance so sufficient escorts can be planned to be available by scheduling their maintenance & refit periods appropriately.
Peacetime deployments are known far in advance. Some think the fleet needs some redundancy in depth. Things can break when you're getting shot at.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Roders96 wrote:....the fleet needs some redundancy in depth.
Exactly. Current planning has very little strength in depth to the point where the loss of a small number of escorts or a SSS could mean a conflict lost.

The decision was taken in 2010 and again in 2015 that the UK would no longer posess the capability to fight and win a conflict unilaterally. Madness.

The 24 escort target seems further away than ever.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

When the poop hits the fan, maintenance & refits go out the window.

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote:had enough frigates/destroyers
Meaningless statement until someone can quantify 'enough', and with the fleet sat in port 20% of the time it hard to claim there aren't 'enough'.
@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 »

It could be possible to improve the T-31 down the line at some point, most likely at their first major overhaul/refit and the A140 design has plenty of space for extra kit. It is interesting that the 5 sets of "Interim" AShMs will have probably ben replaced by the FCASW leaving 5 sets sitting on the dockside and oh wait we have 5 T-31s about to go into refit, in theory. But any such work will not be at the top of the priority list for the Royal Navy and my crysal balls are a liitle cloudy these days. :D

Post Reply