Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Having said that I do think a small PSV fleet (3-4) could be useful for UK waters which will have a layered defence and ability to work without escorts.

Have no problem with say 4 Serco operated PSV's but would not waist RN money and crews on them

[Repulse]

Have no problem with say 4 Serco operated PSV's but would not waist RN money and crews on them

I don’t have an issue with them being under a RN crew / budget - we are hollowing out our RN small ship fleet which will lead to issues with training and also flexibility of use.

We need to look at this in context of the future survey fleet also (inc Echo replacements) - perhaps half a dozen (MRV) SD Northern River type ships might not be a bad option.

[SD67]

Having said that I do think a small PSV fleet (3-4) could be useful for UK waters which will have a layered defence and ability to work without escorts.

That's what I'm kind of thinking. Charter 3-4 PSVs for pennies, Serco could operate them with some RN crew seconded for particular ops. Use them in home waters as a test bed, experience may help inform design of T32. It's not just mines, offshore wind is now moving out to 100+miles offshore, all an enemy would need to do is cut a few cables...

[Poiuytrewq]

8 x MHPC ( 105 x 15 meters )

My concern is whether such a vessel is going to be large enough for MCM duties and possibly littoral ASW going forward.

If the answer is no then the mission areas on the the T26 and even a heavily modified T31 are also looking insufficiently sized.

[Repulse]

My concern is whether such a vessel is going to be large enough for MCM duties and possibly littoral ASW going forward.

Littoral ASW should be based on a ASW Helicopter/ UUV combination backed by more simple ASW Sonars on T31s and OPVs/Sloops. I think a third batch of the River Class with a mission bay would be a better use of funds if combined with more T26s.

[Repulse]

Not wanting to get into fantasy fleets, but the following is a reasonable aim for a balanced 2035 surface fleet IMO:

RN
- 2 x CVFs
- 6 x T45s
- 8 x T26s
- 3 x T83s (based on T26 with AAW and ASW capabilities)
- 8 x T31s
- 10 x River OPVs/Sloops
- 6 x MHC/Survey/MROSS PSVs
- 1 x Ice Patrol Ship
- 18 x Fast Patrol Craft
- plus smaller workboats

RFA
- 3 x Aviation Support Ships
- 3 x LSDs
- 3 x SSSs
- 6 x Tankers

Plus 4-6 Point Replacements

[Tempest414]

My concern is whether such a vessel is going to be large enough for MCM duties and possibly littoral ASW going forward.

For me I feel a ship with a 20 to 25 meters working deck will be fine for the next 25 years

[Repulse]

One of the designs I’ve been interested in is the Fassmer MPV70 mk II. Whilst the default design has a reasonably sized working deck for containers, integrated mast, CMS and two stern launched interceptor boats, I would replace the deck with a T26 style mission bay and add a hangar on top at the same level as the flight deck.





Would say it would make a solid Littoral Mothership with the ability to act as a RM forward platform, and cheap enough to be built in numbers.

[Tempest414]

A 105 meter River or Venari would be the way forward for me

[Lord Jim]

I strongly believe the T-32 should be a true General Purpose Escort able to effectively work in both a Carrier Strike Group and a Littoral Strike Group.

As for future Mine clearance operations, I believe the T-26 and the MRSS at the core of the future LSG should be the "Motherships" for Unmanned MCVs in forward areas, whereas a containerised control centre would be used either aboard a River or similar platform or alternatively based on shore for operations to clear and protect fixed location further back. Asking the T-32 to act as both an escort and a "Mothership" would be asking too much of a platform of such size and weight, and this would have a detrimental effect on its ability to carry out either role due to the inevitable compromises that would have to be made. The Containerised C3 module together with some of the unmanned MCV and Patrol platforms could even be made capable of being flown out to a location in either the RAF's C-17s or A400s. This may negate the need to have a mothership stationed at these locations in certain circumstances.

Ideally I believe the T-32 should be a direct relation to the T-31, being built form the start in the configuration the T-31 will eventually become if its capabilities are gradually improved over time. The T-31 would basically be the Block 1 with the T-32 being Block 2, creating a class of ten, increasing the Navy's Escort force to 24. Both would be built by Babcock, leveraging the skills and infrastructure the company would have built up to support the T-31 programme, leaving BAe to concentrate on designing and Building the successor to the T-45, the T-83, whose construction would dovetail into the end of teh T-26 programme, possibly being an evolved version of this platform, using the space taken up by the Mission Bay to house a greater number of Mk41 VLS systems, and a new radar integral to the Main Mast.

I would also like to see a further batch of River OPVs, with greater capabilities and being more appropriate for overseas deployment, maybe with modular systems bays like those on the T-31, to allow them to he configured in a forward location a required. Possibly the MRSS could be made in such a way that it could also act as a depot ships for these vessels as well as the other ships in its LSG?

[Repulse]

I would say that the main lesson from Afghanistan is that the UK cannot rely solely on the US to project influence on the main stage. To be a credible enabler it needs to be able to wield credible level of power (not necessarily at scale), and logistics, to act as a nucleus for future coalitions of the willing.

The ability to wield a globally capable CBG group sized stick or significant SSN force independently, must now be the priority. Fixing the SSN force is harder and will take longer, but the CBG one is easier by building a few more T26s and the three SSSs quickly.

Second priority is to secure the North Atlantic and UK coastal waters, through a combination of MPAs, SSNs, UUVs, Air Defence, and coastal MCM supported by frigates.

Third priority would be to continue and expand forward presence through RFA RM platforms, RFA logistics plus RN patrol/surveillance frigates (or sloops).

Land operations will now be limited to brigade sized operations at its extreme or company / Cdo / Battlegroup sized ops as a norm.

Hate to say it but the T32 is a dream that cannot be afforded and it would be better to either buy a combination of more T26s and Rivers.

[SW1]

I would say that the main lesson from Afghanistan is that the UK cannot rely solely on the US to project influence on the main stage. To be a credible enabler it needs to be able to wield credible level of power (not necessarily at scale), and logistics, to act as a nucleus for future coalitions of the willing.

The ability to wield a globally capable CBG group sized stick or significant SSN force independently, must now be the priority. Fixing the SSN force is harder and will take longer, but the CBG one is easier by building a few more T26s and the three SSSs quickly.

Second priority is to secure the North Atlantic and UK coastal waters, through a combination of MPAs, SSNs, UUVs, Air Defence, and coastal MCM supported by frigates.

Third priority would be to continue and expand forward presence through RFA RM platforms, RFA logistics plus RN patrol/surveillance frigates (or sloops).

Land operations will now be limited to brigade sized operations at its extreme or company / Cdo / Battlegroup sized ops as a norm.

Hate to say it but the T32 is a dream that cannot be afforded and it would be better to either buy a combination of more T26s and Rivers.

Ignoring of course the elephant in the room of political decision making. The lessons aren’t new. It’s all about command and control, logistics and deployability.

And on your priority list the one you highlight as your second priority is the only priority because all your other ones are mute without it.

[Bring Deeps]

Shouldn't the 'mothership' debate start with a list of functions carried out by the Hunts/Sandowns/Bays followed by an analysis of how this has to change (if it does) with the unmanned alternative?

Presumably someone at MOD procurement will then turn this into the tender specifications.

I would be interested in seeing that list if anyone has any ideas.

[Repulse]

And on your priority list the one you highlight as your second priority is the only priority because all your other ones are mute without it.

Possibly, but “U.K. defence” needs to start outside of the Atlantic. Having the ability to strike at those that want to strike you, forces them to think about defensive capabilities before offensive ones. Maybe joint 1st and 2nd.

[Tempest414]

Shouldn't the 'mothership' debate start with a list of functions carried out by the Hunts/Sandowns/Bays followed by an analysis of how this has to change (if it does) with the unmanned alternative?

Presumably someone at MOD procurement will then turn this into the tender specifications.

I would be interested in seeing that list if anyone has any ideas.

BTM under took this and came up with Verari this was a few years ago now and for me that is why I would like to see this 85 meter ship grow to 105 meters

[SW1]

And on your priority list the one you highlight as your second priority is the only priority because all your other ones are mute without it.

Possibly, but “U.K. defence” needs to start outside of the Atlantic. Having the ability to strike at those that want to strike you, forces them to think about defensive capabilities before offensive ones. Maybe joint 1st and 2nd.

And on your priority list the one you highlight as your second priority is the only priority because all your other ones are mute without it.

Possibly, but “U.K. defence” needs to start outside of the Atlantic. Having the ability to strike at those that want to strike you, forces them to think about defensive capabilities before offensive ones. Maybe joint 1st and 2nd.

You build out not in, your argument is the argument for building trident. You then have the question of deterrence and against what, where the hypothetical can end up at anything to suit pre conceived ideas.

[Tempest414]

For me if the UK wants to be a global player going forward we need to push for the CANZUK alliance with Canada , Australia and New Zealand this alliance would have some real punch on the world stage and would mean the UK was not reliant on the US or EU.

It could also be a good thing for design and build of kit with Canada and Australia already going for type 26 if they were to come on board with Tempest as well and at the same time all four took on Bushmaster or it off spring and Hawkei plus Boxer and then started a new MBT design with good work share

If this alliance could be got to I would push for Canada to build a LHA and the UK 2 LHA's and then look for NZ to take on 3 type 32 this could lead to 2 x CANZUK Carrier battle groups of

1 x Carrier
2 x LHA / LHD
1 x SSN
3 x SSK
2 x Bay class or MRSS
3 x Destroyers
9 x Type 26
3 x type 31/32
2 x SSS
4 x Tankers

[SW1]

For me if the UK wants to be a global player going forward

What does that actually mean a global player, beyond a nice slogan the governments come up with to mean not eu.

[Tempest414]

For me if the UK wants to be a global player going forward

What does that actually mean a global player, beyond a nice slogan the governments come up with to mean not eu.

in context of CANZUK it means being part of a truly global and focused alliance that could have a real place at the table when it comes to the likes of the US , China and the EU.

The big challenge is not to make this about empire or rebuilding it but more about equal states with a equal seat at the table

[Repulse]

You build out not in, your argument is the argument for building trident. You then have the question of deterrence and against what, where the hypothetical can end up at anything to suit pre conceived ideas.

Trident is very different - it is for two purposes (a) to make enemies think twice about nuking you, (b) a weapon of desperation as weapon of last stand.

Personally don’t think (b) is an actual option, people would live under tyranny than radiate the planet, which leaves (a) which is not a deterrent for conventional forces. Tactical nukes (that a lot of countries are looking at) are different, but the U.K. haven’t got there yet.

The principal I’m stating is that if you are keeping your enemies busy in their backyards, then they spend less time and effort in yours.

[Repulse]

What does that actually mean a global player,

For me it is an acknowledgment that things that impact the UK doesn’t stop at the channel, and as such being a Global Player means having options to influence events around the globe and protect your interests.

As a Global Player we should be engaged as a equal in the regions that impact us and our interests, not as a Superpower or Empire, but as a leader (if required) or a contributor as part of a collection of like minded equal nations - I see the Commonwealth as one of these collections.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Shouldn't the 'mothership' debate start with a list of functions carried out by the Hunts/Sandowns/Bays followed by an analysis of how this has to change (if it does) with the unmanned alternative?

Presumably someone at MOD procurement will then turn this into the tender specifications.

I would be interested in seeing that list if anyone has any ideas.

MCM and other tasks differs a lot. So there requirement and solution must differ. Let's start from MCM tasks.

- MCM vs Escort task, in view of sea state
-- apparently not required to be conducted in high-seas/bad weather.
-- escort task are required to cover so-so bad weather. This is the reason T31 was required to be >110m long. It was needed to operate helicopter at "so-so high sea states".

- MCM vs Escort task, in view of threat level
Although some argument exists, I understand MCM is NOT so-much required to be conducted under high threat. When needed, just call for escort.

As such, I think MCM has a big similarity with amphibious operations. LCM/LCVPs are not good at steaming at high sea, not good at surviving under high threat. MCMV (Hunts and Sandowns) are the same. Operating autonomous MCM USV/UUVs from a Bay or MRSS is quit reasonable choice. It will also enable justifying increasing the hull number of Bay replacement.

For example, I guess a Bay will be able to support (both depot and command/control) four sets of autonomous MCM kits, equivalent to 4 Hunts/Sandowns. So, if RN/RFA can assign 3 Bays to this task, MCMV replacement is done, if a team of "4 MCMVs/MCM kits" are the minimum tactical size.

But, this is not true. There will be many tasks only two MCMVs are needed, or even only one MCMV. Here comes the requirement of "many other options". A off-the-shelf PSV (now very cheap to buy/lease), River B1/B2 OPVs, or Venari-85-like dedicated ship will have some space here.

In addition, T26 (and T32?) will provide options to fill the very niche tasks of "MCM under medium/high-threat".

Also, in modern world, sea-bed survey with side-scan sonars can be done from virtually ANY vessels. You only need to deploy a REMUS pod. This makes VERY BIG difference from the days of Falkland war.

In short, I think
- assigning a Bay (or two) for Persian Gulf task
- charter 3-4 PSVs (or assign 3-4 OPVs) for dispersed tasks
- (there will anyway be T26 (and/or T32) there.
- REMUS pod operation from every vessels in RN.

On the other hand, fast-boat swarm and ASW (including shallow water ASW) tasks require very different aspects.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Shouldn't the 'mothership' debate start with a list of functions carried out by the Hunts/Sandowns/Bays followed by an analysis of how this has to change (if it does) with the unmanned alternative?

Presumably someone at MOD procurement will then turn this into the tender specifications.

I would be interested in seeing that list if anyone has any ideas.

Countering fast-boat swarm and future ASW tasks with drones, require a bit different hull design.

To counter small fast boats near the shore, or deploying ASW UUV/USV for shallow water ASW, it can be in calm water. As such, assets proposed for autonomous MCM USV/UUV deployments can be also used here.

But, when it comes to blue water, or shallow water in bad weather, enemy SSK can be there, when the sea is high. The same to the requirement of "110m long hull for good helicopter operation" on T31, drone mother ships assigned for these tasks needs to be able to deploy/recover USV/UUVs in "so-so high sea".

In this respect, thinkdefence post of mission-bay handling system is very interesting. See https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2021/05/ ... g-systems/
In the article, he points out the system needs "active heave compensation" capability. Reading his post, I partly understand why the mission bay of T26 went amidship, and not below the flight deck.

A midships hangar or mission bay allows the boats to be stored, maintained, prepared and launched from a safe environment with a dry, high freeboard.



Clear points. On stern, there are some case of boat-delivery system dedicated for high sea. See https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/uplo ... oyment.pdf
It states, One of the most important factors in stern ramp operability is sill depth. This is the submerged depth at the aft end of the ramp. It governs the time available for recovery of the small boat. ... greater sill depth translates into a greater ability to operate in higher sea states.

See this link for a stern ramp capable of handling boats up to sea state 6. Canadian CG cutter "Gordon Reid"

In short, I think RN is, and shall be, waiting for the initial operation results of T26's amidship mission bay with "active heave compensation" arms. If it works well, T32 (or alike) may be able to have similar mission bay. If not, although being very "wet", a stern ramp option may come in. (Not sure here, as "being wet in North Atlantic" might be a very very bad thing).

On the other hand, for these operation, I start to think well-dock may not be a good solution. In shallow water, or on calm sea, it may work. But, when the ship is under ocean swell/heave and/or in high sea state, the bottom of the boats/drones will hit the well, and might sink. (Well depth is only 1.5m (NATO-standard). SeaState-3 means waves of 0.5 to 1.25 metres. Even if these drones had draught as shallow as 25 cm, it will hit the bottom.)

[SW1]

The principal I’m stating is that if you are keeping your enemies busy in their backyards, then they spend less time and effort in yours.

That depends how big your enemy is and if their backyard is your backyard then you better look after it.

[Poiuytrewq]

Fassmer MPV70 mk II

I think it's an interesting design but for next generation MCM I think its too small.

Fassmer have alternatives and I feel the 120 variant is closer in terms of LOA. Interesting that Fassmer claim the top speed of the MPV120 is around 22knts. Significantly faster than a Bay for example.

Lots of capability for a modest outlay.

https://www.fassmer.de/en/defence/multirole