Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:And that is why the T-31e will not get a Mk45 let alone Guided rounds.
No argument but, I'm not saying they will, I'm saying they should have a guided round capability whether that be 57/76/127mm IF and only IF the T31's are to be tasked with NGFS.

The main question we should be asking is, will we have enough T26's to be able to guarantee that one or two is available to provide NGFS? The answer appears to be absolutely not. Especially if the CSG and the Amphibious Task Group are needing escorted simultaneously. Are we really suggesting that NGFS is going to be passed across to Allies?

The simple fact is, eight T26's is not enough to provide escorts for both the Carrier and Amphibious groups plus TAPS and also provide NGFS. We either need more capable T31's or just more T26's. Possibly both.

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:... We either need more capable T31's or just more T26's. Possibly both.
I am happy to vote to spend all 1.5 Bn GBP of T31 to get more T26 and/or add more capabilities to existing assets.

RN is manpower limited for the time being, may be for a decade. Filling the “holes” in existing assets’ capability will be the way to make RN more capable.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: IF and only IF the T31's are to be tasked with NGFS.

The main question we should be asking is, will we have enough T26's to be able to guarantee that one or two is available to provide NGFS? The answer appears to be absolutely not. Especially if the CSG and the Amphibious Task Group are needing escorted simultaneously.
Good to set the context/ boundaries for the discussion (as was done in the above).
- so what else could we set with that tasking? (An open question)
- are we or are we not going to keep NGFS as one in the potential set of RN taskings (A closed question)

Answers on a postcard, please.
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 »

The simpler answer is to remove the big gun requirement altogether, saving a heap of capitol and operating costs.

What is used more often in the RN, sonars and radars or naval artillery?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But if RN could man the two escorts, they should have done it. I understand there is no surplus’s crews. Every info says so.
Why? . What we also know is that T45 has had a lot of problems that are only now being put right and we are starting to see them deploy as they should and reading in to the back ground T23 has problems as well with so many ships heading for life EX at the same time and low days at sea it is better to put it down to low crew than say the ships have problems add to this the need to find an extra 140 odd crew per carrier

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:The simpler answer is to remove the big gun requirement altogether,
But but but then it want look like a frigate

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Announced yesterday Finland will procure the Raytheon ESSM Block II, ~50 km range with its new active seeker for its new four class Pohjanmaa corvettes, last September Spain also picked the ESSM Block II for its five new 6,100t F110 frigates.

In both cases MBDA was the losing bidder with the shorter range Sea Ceptor ~25 km range with active seeker, Finland also received bid from Israel's IAI for the Barak-8, ~ 70 km range.

IAI did win contract for their Gabriel AShMs for the Pohjanmaa corvettes against competitive bids from Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile, MBDA’s Exocet, Boeing’s Harpoon and Saab’s RBS15.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... apons-buy/>

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:then it want look like a frigate
This https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/i ... e-ifs1.jpg Inshore Fire Support (5000 nm in the Pacific is inshore... bordering riverine :) ) does not look like one either, but once ;) we get the flo-flo ships, a couple can be taken into the area of Ops and be the near-to-the-shore companions to LCUs plying their trade
- just replace the two 40 mm Bofors on the superstructure with Rheinmetall RAM system, to cover not just the vessels but also the beach lodgement from rocket, artillery and/or mortar harassment.
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

From that link by NickC
"The Finnish Navy designers will seek high performance in a corvette which will sail through shallow waters and ice, he said. That calls for avoiding carrying heavy systems onboard, particularly at the bow, he said. MBDA expects that will favor a pick of CAMM, which weighs around 100 kg, about half the weight of ESSM, he added."
and add to that the size of the corvettes (smaller by half) relative to the Spanish vessels for which ESSM was also chosen (beating SeaCeptor)
... and the renders that will now come out will be quite interesting as for the placing of the SAM launchers
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

MoD video claims Sea Ceptor Mach 3 with coverage of 500 sq miles, equates to range of ~12.5 miles /11 nm/ 20 km, weight said to be 99 kg, if range as seen claimed as 25 km that would increase coverage to ~750 sq miles.

ESSM range claimed to be 31 miles /27 nm+ /50 km; Mach 4; 280 kg, that would give coverage of ~ 3,000 sq miles, so four to six times coverage that of Sea Ceptor.

As always a trade off of cost/capabilities.

The Italian CAMM-ER, Wikipedia quotes 45 km range: 160 kg, range seems high for weight compared to ESSM?, though understand funding now "suspended".


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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: ESSM range claimed to be 31 miles /27 nm+ /50 km; Mach 4; 280 kg, that would give coverage of ~ 3,000 sq miles, so four to six times coverage that of Sea Ceptor.
Sounds like a lot, but space them evenly on this axis:

From - To

Mariehamn (MHQ) - Rønne (RNN)
km641
NM346

and we are back to convoys in the "Sea of Azov" scenario... or, quick! cross into Swedish territorial waters and hug the coast ;)
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)

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 »

So a small increase in man-power of RN at October 2018 has gone. No improvement.
スクリーンショット 2019-02-23 10.26.03.jpg
Again I will say,
- banning 1 (or 2) T23GP now,
- and delaying T31 for one year to keep the main-contract AFTER SDSR2020
are the best way to make the RN more powerful, efficient and robust .

Building ships which cannot be manned, upgrading ships which cannot be manned and will decommission within a few years. Keeping these "cannot be used" asset "active" to make it look like they exist "on paper". I think these cost can be 200M GBP in this decade. All these cost must be spent on other urgent needs. For example, ifall spent on up-arming T31e, making ~2 of them into "2ndary level ASW capable version" will easily be come true. Not a "fantasy fleet" discussion but can be "real" one.

"banning 1 (or 2) T23GP now" may look politically bad game, but insist that it is "gapped" not "reduced". As T23 replaced with T26, manning T31 will become more easy around 2030. RN gapped air strike for a decade, proposed to gap the whole SSM capability, why not a single or two frigate?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So a small increase in man-power of RN at October 2018 has gone.
How about replacing all the UKAF with Gurkhas? :lol:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Again I will say,
- banning 1 (or 2) T23GP now,
- and delaying T31 for one year to keep the main-contract AFTER SDSR2020
are the best way to make the RN more powerful, efficient and robust .
I still think the problem are with the ships them self so there is no need to man them as they can't go to sea and this is the hole point of the T23 life ex.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Building ships which cannot be manned, upgrading ships which cannot be manned and will decommission within a few years.
Agree completely with the thrust of your comments. I’d say that the political obsession with maintaining Frigate numbers through the T31e programme (and dangling the carrot of increasing numbers) is leading to bad decision making. People are hoping for a windfall for the defence budget during the next budget - this may happen but this should be spent on more T26s and Multirole Sloops any day ahead of a half arsed Frigate.

The whole RN structure is being based around two CSGs and (more limited) forward based presence. The FLSS falls into the latter and any ARG into the former - there is no separate ARG nor should there be IMO. 6 T45s + T26s, are (just) sufficient to support 2 CSGs, TAPS/FRE and one standing commitment (Kipion).

The T31e design is falsely pitched as a Colonial Patrol Ship where the local “natives” feel reassured to see the white ensign and where there is no danger of being coming up against a foe of equal (or higher) capability. This is a 19th century Fantasy, that wasn’t even true then. The only roles that this type of ship could take up are FIGS, WIGS and GiGS where the current (River B2) Sloops with some modification can do already.

The real needs beyond the current proposed commitments/ structure above (which requires the 14 T45 and T26 numbers) are:
- (ASW) Sea Control of North Atlantic
- Challenging Russian and Chinese ambitions to restrict freedom of navigation in the Black and South China seas
- Supporting multinational groups fighting piracy in important sea choke points
- Escorting the two FLSSs either in low level (West of Suez) or medium level (East of Suez) operations
- Having a third available CSG to allow the RN to have more of an active 1st tier global role

None of these require the T31e, and they shouldn’t be done without more cash where the RN/UK could afford the right assets (more T26s, SSNs, MPAs, modifies Sloop-of-Wars aka OPVs etc). Even for the FLSS escorts the answer should be a T26 or modified River.

To cut a long story short, unless the T31e is a guise to keep T23 numbers whilst the government backtracks and increases Defence spending and buys real (T26) frigates, then let’s stop wasting money and cut the T23s to the real expected force size and maximise everything we’ve got.

My money remains on the hope of another T26 (to base in Singapore and operate with the RSnN, RAN and RNZN) and a new batch of 3 extended River Sloop-of-Wars (replacing the B1s) and upgrades to the B2s with limited ASW capabilities to cover FIGS, WIGS, GiGS and better support FRE/TAPS freeing up more of the T26 time to operate in the North Atlantic and East Med.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:I’d say that the political obsession with maintaining Frigate numbers through the T31e programme (and dangling the carrot of increasing numbers) is leading to bad decision making.
It should be remembered that each of the five T31's is presently expected to cost on average £300m each.

If these T31's are now to be upgraded to an escort spec to fit in to an LSG for example they will probably cost closer to £375m each or effectively half of a T26.

I know what I would rather have.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If these T31's are now to be upgraded to an escort spec to fit in to an LSG for example they will probably cost closer to £375m each or effectively half of a T26.
For me if tomorrow BAE/CL or Babcocks said with the new budget of 375 million per ship we will give you a ship with

Artisan radar taken from T23
BAE CMS
Crew of 135 + helicopter crew of 25 total room for 200
CAPTAS-4CI
Merlin Capable flight deck and Hangar
top speed of 27 to 30 knots
range of 7500 to 8500 Nm
1 x 4.5" gun, 2 x 30mm , 24 CAMM , 8 x Harpoon all taken from T23 + 1 Phalanx mount, and space for a 8 cell Mk-41 VLS

I would take them

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, for what role / purpose?
”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

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 »

Repulse wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Building ships which cannot be manned, upgrading ships which cannot be manned and will decommission within a few years.
Agree completely with the thrust of your comments. I’d say that the political obsession with maintaining Frigate numbers through the T31e programme (and dangling the carrot of increasing numbers) is leading to bad decision making. People are hoping for a windfall for the defence budget during the next budget - this may happen but this should be spent on more T26s and Multirole Sloops any day ahead of a half arsed Frigate.
Thanks.

But, my point is independent of T31e issues. I myself do understand T31 aim itself. "Two more T26s" or "one more T26 supplemented with a few Florea-level capable OPVs" or "several T31es", all will do.

Regardless of T31e options, banning one or two T23 now is valid. They cannot be manned. At the same time, current crew number CAN fully man all 5 T31e and 8 T26. So, future is still OK. "Banning one or two T23GP now" is harmless to RN (other than on paper), and give us a non-negligible amount of money back.

Don't take me wrong, I love your proposal for "other than T31e" (while I also like to see T31e itself).

But my point is, this proposal is independent of "what to do with T31e program".

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:I still think the problem are with the ships them self so there is no need to man them as they can't go to sea and this is the hole point of the T23 life ex.
Then, CV must be very easily find enough crew to handle their increase. HMS Bulwark can be re-activated easily. But it is not the case. Sorry but I think every information is telling us man-power shortage.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:Tempest414, for what role / purpose?
ships as laid out above become proper globe patrol frigates allowing

1 to be the the full time FRE
2 to be forward deployed with the LSS ships
1 to be deployed as seen fit
1 in maintenance

This would allow the T 45 & T-26 to get on with working as the 2 x CSG & TAPS ,

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

How are the Rn currently running their Escorts? Is it now the intention to have two out of every three available for operations where as I though in the past it was one in three. How would they be able to do this with the current manpower limitations? I ask because I cannot see haw we can have more than two of the five T-31e planned available at any one time, but then again they plan to have both LSS available all of the time so go figure.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, my point is independent of T31e issues.
I personally don’t think the issue is separate, as people are hooked on the idea of the T31e they believe T23 numbers need to be protected - for me the whole logic is wrong unless underneath they believe any budget increase will pay for 13 T26s which even if it could, may not be the right answer given the new RN operating structure.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:
Repulse wrote:Tempest414, for what role / purpose?
ships as laid out above become proper globe patrol frigates allowing

1 to be the the full time FRE
2 to be forward deployed with the LSS ships
1 to be deployed as seen fit
1 in maintenance

This would allow the T 45 & T-26 to get on with working as the 2 x CSG & TAPS ,
The problem for me is that these are the wrong ships for what is needed even if it was possible to build them to spec for the price (which I doubt).

FRE and escorting FLSS ships which are to be forward based does not need the range / endurance you state. I’d argue that the West or Suez doesn’t need an escort normally neither. FRE can be performed by a River or in extremes by a T45/T26 gearing up for deployment as now.

I can perhaps understand a few better armed short legged frigates to base EoS, but would still opt for more T26s / Rivers.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if the programme budget for the T-31e went up to £1.875Bn I would rather see two additional T-26 period.

Post Reply