Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: Default investment timescale considered in making MOD investment decisions is 25 years
Just to add, including estimated life time costs are now mandatory for Main Gate proposals where the upfront 'ticket' value exceeds 'X'
- though even the Parliament seems to face a struggle in getting this information
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)

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
serge750 wrote: As much as I want to defend our various uk governments, they all think short term on every thing that costs money
This is a bit of an urban myth. Default investment timescale considered in making MOD investment decisions is 25 years; this is not short term by most people's understanding. Detailed planning stretches out to ten years. The problems which all governments face is that by and large predicting tax revenues is highly dependent on predicting the future economy, and any shortfall has to be made up in borrowing, which is essentially deferred taxation. Running out of money has a habit of forcing one's hand whether a private citizen or a government, this is harsh reality and not necessarily short termism.
I see your point

To help fill the long term financial black hole, how easy would it be to switch from the T26 after the first batch of 3, to building 3 T31 maybe with TAS? then back to the T26 in Goven ?

Still keep the build rate at Rosyth (5 x T31gp)

Was thinking it might save some money for the late 2020's ?

Also as the T31 are smaller they should be built quicker - maybe help with ship numbers?

Goven still produces (fingers crossed) 3 x T26, 3 X T31 limited asw, then 3 -5 T26, then the T45 replacement?

If it costs 1 bn for a T31 over 18 month build ( 2bn over 3 years?) then for 3 t31 over 3years maybe 1 bn? just like slowing the program down, better than getting more river b2?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The UK can only afford one major yard building warships, the T31 was an attempt at getting a second up and running through a small RN investment but really by exports. I see no exports coming, the T26 has turned out to be the export success, but in the design and technology not metal bashing - if countries are building their own T26s why on earth would the T31 be built here?

The cheapest option (whilst preserving a credible navy), would be to keep Govan building at a 18mth drumbeat for FFs and DDs with say 24yr lifespans, get Appledore (or another) up and running building sub 100m ships on a 12mth drumbeat (with 20yr lifespans) and another yard building RFAs every two years (with 30yr lifespans).

Unfortunately, governments don’t get this.
”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

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Just wouldn't surprise me that after the first batch there will be either a massive slow down (24months per ship) or cut to the numbers to help with the financial "black hole"

Just thinking what would be an ok outcome, it would keep the workforce working, the politicians could spin that they are growing the navy as previously eluded whilst still saving on short term costs?

The drop in the pound over the last few years haven't helped with things, but I do agree the MOD need more money to help reduce the defecit rather than keep cutting, but the money won't get better anytime soon!

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

serge750 wrote:Just wouldn't surprise me that after the first batch there will be either a massive slow down (24months per ship) or cut to the numbers to help with the financial "black hole"

Just thinking what would be an ok outcome, it would keep the workforce working, the politicians could spin that they are growing the navy as previously eluded whilst still saving on short term costs?

The drop in the pound over the last few years haven't helped with things, but I do agree the MOD need more money to help reduce the defecit rather than keep cutting, but the money won't get better anytime soon!
It’ll depend on 3 main things IMO

1 - what government is in power at the time and how they see “Global Britain” does this involve a capable armed forces

2 - what the government of the day thinks about UK ship building and what cut in numbers would do it along with what damage it could do to the T45 replacement

3 - what political damage it would do to the UK on the world stage to cut the T26 further already being the smallest order, and how it’d look to military allies to see us further degrade our forces.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Cutting numbers of T26 from the absolute minimum of 8 is so dumb that it’s likely. The equally dumb T31 unfortunately makes people believe stupid things are possible.
”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

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Jake1992 wrote:
serge750 wrote:Just wouldn't surprise me that after the first batch there will be either a massive slow down (24months per ship) or cut to the numbers to help with the financial "black hole"

Just thinking what would be an ok outcome, it would keep the workforce working, the politicians could spin that they are growing the navy as previously eluded whilst still saving on short term costs?

The drop in the pound over the last few years haven't helped with things, but I do agree the MOD need more money to help reduce the defecit rather than keep cutting, but the money won't get better anytime soon!
It’ll depend on 3 main things IMO

1 - what government is in power at the time and how they see “Global Britain” does this involve a capable armed forces

2 - what the government of the day thinks about UK ship building and what cut in numbers would do it along with what damage it could do to the T45 replacement

3 - what political damage it would do to the UK on the world stage to cut the T26 further already being the smallest order, and how it’d look to military allies to see us further degrade our forces.
There is another factor: what the Government thinks it can get passed its own backbenchers in Parliament.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
serge750 wrote:Just wouldn't surprise me that after the first batch there will be either a massive slow down (24months per ship) or cut to the numbers to help with the financial "black hole"

Just thinking what would be an ok outcome, it would keep the workforce working, the politicians could spin that they are growing the navy as previously eluded whilst still saving on short term costs?

The drop in the pound over the last few years haven't helped with things, but I do agree the MOD need more money to help reduce the defecit rather than keep cutting, but the money won't get better anytime soon!
It’ll depend on 3 main things IMO

1 - what government is in power at the time and how they see “Global Britain” does this involve a capable armed forces

2 - what the government of the day thinks about UK ship building and what cut in numbers would do it along with what damage it could do to the T45 replacement

3 - what political damage it would do to the UK on the world stage to cut the T26 further already being the smallest order, and how it’d look to military allies to see us further degrade our forces.
There is another factor: what the Government thinks it can get passed its own backbenchers in Parliament.
Very true and that ties in to what size majority it has at the time

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

serge750 wrote:Also as the T31 are smaller they should be built quicker
Size and complexity are factors, but when parallelism has been factored into the overall plan, the builds become not only quicker, but also cheaper.
- we are forever stretching the build schedules, or worse still: inserting gaps into them
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)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
serge750 wrote:Also as the T31 are smaller they should be built quicker
Size and complexity are factors, but when parallelism has been factored into the overall plan, the builds become not only quicker, but also cheaper.
- we are forever stretching the build schedules, or worse still: inserting gaps into them
The T31 should be quicker to build on two bases

1) Design - It was designed by Odense/Maersk to be cheap and easy to build. Blocks were bulit in commercial yards in eastern Europe.

2)Facilities - Rosyth will have a new build assembly hall allowing two ships to be built in parallel. There will also be room for two ships to be held on the quay for fitting out before launch.

In comparison Govan can only hold three half ship parts within the assembly hall. The two halves of each ship will need to be welded together outside on the quay. The quay can only hold one ship at a time.

Also there are no longer any canes at Govan or Scotsoun. Whereas there is the Goliath Crane at Rosyth.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

tomuk wrote:Also there are no longer any canes at Govan or Scotsoun. Whereas there is the Goliath Crane at Rosyth.
Yep, the frigate factory would have taken £250m in investment and only c. 100 was actually spent
- the "no longer any" cranes came as a surprise to me, though
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 »

Repulse wrote:The cheapest option (whilst preserving a credible navy), would be to keep Govan building at a 18mth drumbeat for FFs and DDs with say 24yr lifespans, get Appledore (or another) up and running building sub 100m ships on a 12mth drumbeat (with 20yr lifespans) and another yard building RFAs every two years (with 30yr lifespans).
Sounds like a Terms of Business Agreement, which we know does not create good value.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:The cheapest option (whilst preserving a credible navy), would be to keep Govan building at a 18mth drumbeat for FFs and DDs with say 24yr lifespans, get Appledore (or another) up and running building sub 100m ships on a 12mth drumbeat (with 20yr lifespans) and another yard building RFAs every two years (with 30yr lifespans).
Sounds like a Terms of Business Agreement, which we know does not create good value.
The best option would have been to order 11 Type 26's in 2018 to be built at a speed that BAE could deliver all 11 ships by 2030 and then have them build 8 100 x 16 meter MHC's between 2029 and 2035 and then move onto building 8 Type 4X from 2034 and 2042. Of course they would have needed a new ship build hall capable of building 2 x 200 x 24 meter ships

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree that makes sense, unfortunately the Treasury doesn't agree.

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:2 x 200 x 24 meter ships
Good Grief Charlie Brown!

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:I agree that makes sense, unfortunately the Treasury doesn't agree.
Also RN refused to face the fact there will be less than “19 escorts”, I guess.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:2 x 200 x 24 meter ships
Good Grief Charlie Brown!
I don't see type 4X being this big however I could see it getting to 170 by 22

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Lord Jim wrote:I agree that makes sense, unfortunately the Treasury doesn't agree.
To be fair - those Treasury lot do know a lot about money.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Four escorts (Daring, Defender, Kent and Richmond) will join the 2021 carrier strike group deployment. When was the last time we had that many escorts together on the same deployment?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Four escorts (Daring, Defender, Kent and Richmond) will join the 2021 carrier strike group deployment. When was the last time we had that many escorts together on the same deployment?
Not a clue but will be a sight to behold, that is for sure.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

There should be some allied escorts joining too along with Fort Vic and a Tide class it really will be a sight and even though there will only be 16 jets in the airwing if anything was to kick off when at sea we can always surge more jet if needed

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Tempest414 wrote:There should be some allied escorts joining too along with Fort Vic and a Tide class it really will be a sight and even though there will only be 16 jets in the airwing if anything was to kick off when at sea we can always surge more jet if needed
14, according to STRN (see Carrier thread): 8 x UK and 6 x USMC. Disappointing, hope they numbers ramp up for subsequent deployments

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With the recent announcement by France to purchase 10 new OPVs to replace older vessels it is interesting to compare and contrast the future of both navies.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -new-opvs/

France is a regional power, with a global reach and significant forward presence. In a lot of ways where the UK is heading. Looking at the surface ships, the core of the future navy looks something like:

- 1 x CVN
- 3 x LHDs
- 4 x AAW DDs
- 6 x ASW DDs
- 5 x Light (ASW) FFs
- 6 x Surveillance FFs (Corvettes)
- 17 x Large OPVs
- 4 x Logistic Support Ships

Compared to a future RN of:

- 2 x CVFs
- 2 x LPDs
- 3 x LSDs
- 6 x AAW DDs
- 8 x ASW FFs
- 5 x Light GP FFs
- 8 x OPVs
- 6 x Tankers
- 3 x FSSs

Now it’s true that France has more territories, which would explain the higher number of OPVs and Corvettes. The MN is focused on a part time CBG combined with 3 smaller (LHD focused) task groups. The RN on the other hand is focused on having an always available CBG with two lower level LRGs. However, overall the desired effect is similar.

Some broad observations:
- Both navies will have a similar number of significant platforms (46 MN v 45 RN)
- The RN will have more than twice the number of logistical ships than France - does it need so many?
- The RN has half the number of flat decks that the MN will have - argument for another for the RN?
- The RN has 5 LPDs/LSDs v 3 MN LHDs - argument to cut the number of RN amphibious ships?
- The MN will have 11 ASW “capable” ships v the RN 8, does the RN need more?
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

So the observation is the RN should change to

1 CVF
3 LSDs (replaced by some mistral equivalents?)
4 Type 45
6 Type 23/26

5 Type 31 (with a sonar)

22 River opv
4 tide tankers

So that we can be roughly like the French navy?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:Some broad observations:
- Both navies will have a similar number of significant platforms (46 MN v 45 RN)
- The RN will have more than twice the number of logistical ships than France - does it need so many?
- The RN has half the number of flat decks that the MN will have - argument for another for the RN?
- The RN has 5 LPDs/LSDs v 3 MN LHDs - argument to cut the number of RN amphibious ships?
- The MN will have 11 ASW “capable” ships v the RN 8, does the RN need more?
the RN will need this number of Logistical ship due to the carriers not being Nuclear maybe we could cut one Wave class however I would still like to see both forward deployed EoS

As I have said a number of times I would like to see a new LPH / LHA replace the Albion's

No I think we just need to look at the future and again as I have said for me 1 x LHA and 4 x 200m Enforcer's to replace the 2 Albion's 3 Bays and Argus. Lets not forget that we could have a Enforcer LHD meaning all 5 new ships could be based on the same hull and systems

The RN could always do with more ASW frigates however we need to remember the after the French ASW's will be tier 2

Also for me the key for the RN will be MHC and for me I think we need to look to replace the 12 MCM , 2 Echo's and Scott = 15 ships with something like 10 x 100 meter Venari

Post Reply