Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:No it is not required. The Submersible Barge would need to be used in any case to lower the vessel into the water if it had been completely assembled within the “Shed”. Only difference if being ‘joined” in No.1 Dock would be Floating the two sections into it. (Not required if joining the two sections outside on the Hardstanding).
I'm not following your ideas. I don't think joining blocks on top of a barge is doable. Anyhoo, the simplest solution would be more likely i.e. build in halves, join outside. Just like the T26's at Govan.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:The obvious solution is simply order 2-3 more T26s in return for the Scotsdoun FF. How big is the gap in reality? HMS Daring will be 30 years old in 2040, so first of class T4x build must surely start around 2036. A 10 ship build starting now with a one third concurrency and a 2.5 year build cycle takes us just about out to there.

Offset the cost by
1) the cost savings accrued by the high productivity FF
2) Retire a couple of T23s early
3) Possibly, sell a couple of early build 26s at mates rates (New Zealand?)
Excellent idea. I'm sure the RN would be 1000% in support. Now I wonder who else needs to approve....

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Flies in the Ointment:-
1) Although there are no doubt cost savings to be had due to efficiencies of scale in the build process, there is also
the operational cost of the 2 or 3 extra Frigates for the RN to find.
2) The T23 are already being pushed to a point that is beyond what is reasonable, so no savings here.
3) The RNZN, if considering the T26, will want to have the Hunter Class, for commonality with the RAN, so to get
them interested it would have to be far better than Mates Rates.

Finally, what is the point of building extra vessels if all we end up doing is either giving them away or selling them. T23 to Chile springs to mind as the start of the rot in recent times for reducing the number of Frigates in the RN. An abysmal decision then and an even worse one in the current/short and medium term.

At this point in time we do not know if the next AAW ship will be capable of being accommodated on a T26 Hull, or even if the next generation will require a considerably larger Hull ......... More Cruiser than Destroyer/Light Cruiser size.

I am all for increasing the size of the Fleet. We have too few Destroyers AND too few Frigates. but it takes Government commitment and consistency to:-
a) Increase the numbers of vessels being built.
b) Increase Naval Personnel in order to crew the additional vessels.

Whilst the PMs announcement last month was most welcome, it can only be however “nothing but a start” in providing the resources that are necessary for the RN to be able to do it’s job. Government needs to put defence consistently as its first priority in order to discharge it’s responsibility. There has been far too much equivocation over this for Nigh on 30 years and it will take long term political effort and consensus for the wrongs to be righted. :mrgreen:
All good and true but if the Navy were offered two extra T26 for "free", I'd bet they wouldn't let manning or running costs get in the way :lol:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Absolutely Fine, but I would not want to see them acquired (or given) to the RN, only to have them passed to a “third party” Navy. :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Any sources for your highly sensitive information?
Which part?

1. Bae/T26 sole source/open book contract is public record.

2. Request for funding to develop Scotstoun as a "frigate factory": well publicized by Bae. Computer generated videos of the facility are still on YouTube as far as I know. Scotstoun site was prepped for the work with space cleared for the new buildings and facilities. You can go and check both out yourself.

3. Amount of funding requested and the Treasury refusal to fund, published in major newspapers at the time: Times & Telegraph. No doubt leaked by the good folks in the Gideon lead Treasury in their unabated war on Bae. A narrative clearly swallowed by a few folks here.
I've never understood this. Even by the myopic standards of the Treasury at the time the funds involved are relatively trivial for a pretty fast payback. And it's CAPEX - a long term investment. My only guess is that Cameron and Osborne really wanted to cancel one of the carriers but the contract was too tightly stitched up so downgrading the t26 was a kind of revenge.
If you look up "someone that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing", a picture of Osborne and his Treasury staff is displayed. Osborne has left but the staff remain.

One good thing has happened tho and that is that the Treasury's "green book" which codifies their naive and damaging view of the world, has been rewritten so reflect (some) common sense.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Absolutely Fine, but I would not want to see them acquired (or given) to the RN, only to have them passed to a “third party” Navy. :mrgreen:
Agree 100%

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If the we were not looking at a 2nd Scottish ref and money was on the table then the way out of the mess would be build the escort factory and add one Type 26 to make it 9 and start T-4X with a class of 8 and with 3rd ship of the class replacing the first of type 45's to go out of service

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Ron5 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Any sources for your highly sensitive information?
Which part?

1. Bae/T26 sole source/open book contract is public record.

2. Request for funding to develop Scotstoun as a "frigate factory": well publicized by Bae. Computer generated videos of the facility are still on YouTube as far as I know. Scotstoun site was prepped for the work with space cleared for the new buildings and facilities. You can go and check both out yourself.

3. Amount of funding requested and the Treasury refusal to fund, published in major newspapers at the time: Times & Telegraph. No doubt leaked by the good folks in the Gideon lead Treasury in their unabated war on Bae. A narrative clearly swallowed by a few folks here.
Please can you provide links and page references?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Roders96 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Any sources for your highly sensitive information?
Which part?

1. Bae/T26 sole source/open book contract is public record.

2. Request for funding to develop Scotstoun as a "frigate factory": well publicized by Bae. Computer generated videos of the facility are still on YouTube as far as I know. Scotstoun site was prepped for the work with space cleared for the new buildings and facilities. You can go and check both out yourself.

3. Amount of funding requested and the Treasury refusal to fund, published in major newspapers at the time: Times & Telegraph. No doubt leaked by the good folks in the Gideon lead Treasury in their unabated war on Bae. A narrative clearly swallowed by a few folks here.
Please can you provide links and page references?
Sure, they're in the mail.

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: with 3rd ship of the class replacing the first of type 45's to go out of service
OSDs are quite 'stretchy' but with the official information that would be in 2035.
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Sure, they're in the mail.
Daily or Sunday?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: with 3rd ship of the class replacing the first of type 45's to go out of service
OSDs are quite 'stretchy' but with the official information that would be in 2035.
If say we went down the road I put down and added one T-26 to make it 9 and then a class of 8 T-4X if we were to build one every 18 months this would take 24 years to build 16 ships i.e the remaining 8 T-26's + 8 T-4X. If this was to start in 2023 and we were looking to replace the first T-45 with the third T-4X that would give a OSD of 2039 for the first T-45 which given there light work load so for should be doable which also means if all 8 T-4X were built would give a OSD for the first T-26 of 2050 = 25 year service

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: with 3rd ship of the class replacing the first of type 45's to go out of service
OSDs are quite 'stretchy' but with the official information that would be in 2035.
If say we went down the road I put down and added one T-26 to make it 9 and then a class of 8 T-4X if we were to build one every 18 months this would take 24 years to build 16 ships i.e the remaining 8 T-26's + 8 T-4X. If this was to start in 2023 and we were looking to replace the first T-45 with the third T-4X that would give a OSD of 2039 for the first T-45 which given there light work load so for should be doable which also means if all 8 T-4X were built would give a OSD for the first T-26 of 2050 = 25 year service
Your math is lot better than the treasury's :thumbup:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

The 9th and 10th Italian FREMM GP frigates said to be sold to Egypt for 1.2 billion euros ~ £1.1 billion, build contract was 764 million euros with the first supply, one year guarantee and ten years support, final contract total value ~1 billion euros with cash deposits and loans. Ships to be delivered by 2024.

Need an expert in Italian military funding to confirm the figures and to see the small print as to what's covered by the one year guarantee and ten years support, but if true the actual build cost of IT-FREMM was 764/2=382 ~£350 million each, looks a very competitive price, Fincantieri have won some large export contracts for naval ships eg Qatar 4 billion euro 2017 contract.

It reflects the competition Babcock will have to beat to win export orders for T31 variants.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www...fne3sndKp3

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Whilst we wait for the Integrated Security Review, if the reports are true the Hunt and Sandown MCM platforms are in the firing line for early retirement to be replaced by unmanned systems and also to free up crew for the carriers and other larger assets.

If the Type 32 will serve as mothership for unmanned systems, I cannot help but think that that it would be helpful for the RN to quickly refer to the T32 as a Sloop rather than a Frigate.

Why? Two primary reasons:

- first is that by not calling a frigate there will be no pressure to arm it as such. Instead the focus should be on its primary role. IMO we are taking about a Venator 90 or extended River Class not a T31 batch II. If you want a more expensive warship with a good capability of operating off board systems we have the design already- it’s called a T26.
- secondly, by calling it a Frigate it will be used when counting the real number of DDs/FFs, where there is a real argument to go back to pre 2010 levels (24+). The money is not available to build hybrid frigates and if it was then build more T26s - I can see though that another 5 T31s plus say 10 Sloops could be affordable (when replacing the 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

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Repulse wrote:If the Type 32 will serve as mothership for unmanned systems, I cannot help but think that that it would be helpful for the RN to quickly refer to the T32 as a Sloop rather than a Frigate.
1. Everything will be a mothership for unmanned systems.
2. Sloop is an archaic term that's not been used in 70-odd years and has no resonance with anyone under that age, with the possible exception of a Beach Boys Song that is over 50 years old.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well I am under that age and it does resonate with me! Also I suspect it might with anyone familiar with Beach Boys recordings! :mrgreen:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

RichardIC wrote:Sloop is an archaic term that's not been used in 70-odd years
Well - the term "frigate" wasn't used for about 65 years from 1875 until WW2, so it's quite possible that it could come back into use, particularly as the RN seems to have an aversion to the word "corvette".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:until WW2, so it's quite possible that it could come back into use
After the war, with so many excess destroyers the (re)start was not glamorous:
"In 1948 the Royal Navy reclassified its remaining sloops and corvettes as frigates (even though the term sloop had been officially defunct for nine years)"
but with new production - in due course - the term got somewhat elevated
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
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Caribbean wrote:particularly as the RN seems to have an aversion to the word "corvette"
and "sloop".

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Have any, of either, been spotted ;) since 1948?
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: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

RichardIC wrote: 1. Everything will be a mothership for unmanned systems
Maybe, like every ship is a patrol ship, doesn’t mean that they all do the job equally well. The RN needs more than just a handful of “motherships”, if done properly and at scale (10+) these ships can transform the navy and release more expensive assets for other duties.
”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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Have any, of either, been spotted since 1948?
Yes in everything but name, as they were all classified as Frigates for whatever reason.

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:classified as Frigates for whatever reason
To get rid of them as soon as wartime destroyer hulls could be rebuilt into frigate configs.

Type 81s were (wrongly) called sloops in the early days, totally disregarding the Admiralty order (then still standing) that colonial ships were destroyers if they were able to keep fleet speed, and sloops if not. To remove this ambiguity they were classified not just as frigates (as indicated by the type) but as GP frigates, years into the service of the first ships
- T-81 frigates could make 28 knots :)
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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Moving on a bit at this time we have heard about type 32 with a class of 5 we are lead to believe it will be a Frigate and feel if it was it will be in the 350 to 400 million pound price range so for 5 ships between 1.75 and 2 billion. For me the money would be better spent on a new class of 10 or 12 MHPC like

105 to 110 meter by 16 meters
Crew 50 + 60 extra for mission crews
Good 3d radar
M-Cube CMS
20 knots speed
range 6000 Nm
1 x 57mm , 2 x 12.7mm , 2 x GPMG
Capable of operating all current and future unmanned systems

Post Reply