Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
shark bait wrote:The T31 decision has no effect on this; a T31 does not change how incredibly useful and organic helicopter is.
There are plenty of helicopters; the Navy has 28 wildcat at their disposal to spread between 17 active combatants.
The T31 does impact the decision - including the T31s and the RFAs, there is now planned hangar capacity for close 50 helicopters, that is not including the CVFs and any future FLSS. Adding more hangar space in itself is not a reason when there is more than enough already.
shark bait wrote:The whole point of a Navy is they can operate without fixed infrastructure. Suggesting a navy should only operate where there are land bases is stupid.
I’m not suggesting a navy, as above with the carriers and future FLSS there is capacity for 170+ air assets. Think about these ships operating in U.K. waters, Falklands, the Med or the Gulf there are fully equipped air fields where air assets can Lilli pad or operate for short times of the existing flight deck.
shark bait wrote:If the patrol boat has to be paired with an auxiliary to be effective, just save all the money and leave the patrol boat at home
If the B2s become the new C3 then they will be more capable minor warships deploying first rate off board systems. I can think of occasions where a RFA Tanker could be escorted by a B2, or where a group of B2s with a RFA asset like Victoria could protect a convoy.
shark bait wrote:Without organic aviation the River Class will never be good for anything other than flag waving, or the most basic security operations. Without a helicopter the OPV's are just small slow ships with a tiny sphere of influence.
This is where the off board systems, including UAVs are the game changer.
I don’t buy any of this vessels don’t need hangers as we have loads already, any vessel operating out side of UK or BOS waters should have at least a wildcat hanger IMO.

It’s not about how many spaces we have over all it’s about having the needed space available when needed. It’s all well and good saying we’ll have 170 space between QEs and LSS but they won’t always be where needed when needed.

I would much rather have a hanger empty 80% of the time but there when need than not have it at all.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992, at the end of the day it’s down to hard choices - even putting hangars on 5 OPVs could be comparable to putting ASMs onto the T45, or buying a decent set of CB90s - for me both of these examples would come ahead of a hanger for the OPV. Whether you agree or not, the choice for the T31 allows the RN a fleet of vessels, not tied to the CSG or TAPS, to independently roam far into blue water territory where hangars would primarily be a must have. Also, as mentioned this does not preclude having containerised UAV hangars today.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:Jake1992, at the end of the day it’s down to hard choices - even putting hangars on 5 OPVs could be comparable to putting ASMs onto the T45, or buying a decent set of CB90s - for me both of these examples would come ahead of a hanger for the OPV. Whether you agree or not, the choice for the T31 allows the RN a fleet of vessels, not tied to the CSG or TAPS, to independently roam far into blue water territory where hangars would primarily be a must have. Also, as mentioned this does not preclude having containerised UAV hangars today.
I agree retrofitting a hanger on the RB2s after build is a waste or at least way down the list, IMO the RB2s shouldn’t be used out side of UK / BOS waters they are what they say OPVs and not war ships or long range patrol vessels.

It was more in regard to the talk over time of not having hangers on existing or new amphibs as we so much already or on future multi mission sloops.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Jake1992 wrote:
Repulse wrote:Jake1992, at the end of the day it’s down to hard choices - even putting hangars on 5 OPVs could be comparable to putting ASMs onto the T45, or buying a decent set of CB90s - for me both of these examples would come ahead of a hanger for the OPV. Whether you agree or not, the choice for the T31 allows the RN a fleet of vessels, not tied to the CSG or TAPS, to independently roam far into blue water territory where hangars would primarily be a must have. Also, as mentioned this does not preclude having containerised UAV hangars today.
I agree retrofitting a hanger on the RB2s after build is a waste or at least way down the list, IMO the RB2s shouldn’t be used out side of UK / BOS waters they are what they say OPVs and not war ships or long range patrol vessels.

It was more in regard to the talk over time of not having hangers on existing or new amphibs as we so much already or on future multi mission sloops.
I agree the River B2s are what they are. If we need something with a hangar buy more T31s or get on with the MHC (P) programme and build a BMT Venari with a hangar or or the latest version of the Echo class from VARD.

Helicopter wise as I have said before all Wildcats should be re-allocated to the navy and the army should have a new chopper to replace them and the Gazelle (H145 or AW149)

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: all Wildcats should be re-allocated to the navy and the army should have a new chopper to replace them and the Gazelle
Throw in Puma, for good measure, and you get that yawning gap: the next medium helo?
- I hear we just ordered 16 more Chinooks :think:. OK, to be continued on anther thread. BUT: even though Merlins are scarce, overall marinised (or easily converted helos) are not
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

And we have quite a backlog of helicopter that have to be marinized already, the Chinook and Apache to start with. However stripping out the crew compartment of the Army's Wildcats and giving them to the FAA after the necessary work would give the RM etc a useful LUH for moving small numbers of troops around. What the FAA really needs though is another six to eight Merlin HM2s to increase their ASW assets. These would have been more useful to the UK overall that the sixteen extra Chinooks. The other almost essential need for the Royal Navy is to find a way to fund and install a BMS on the T-31. Fitting those form the GP T-23 would be a start as even though these are far from cutting edge, doing so would plum the vessels for a future upgrade down the line, and make such work far cheaper. Again another case of money up front to save money later on.

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:If the B2s become the new C3 then they will be more capable minor warships deploying first rate off board systems.
The River Class is not that platform, neither is is likely to become that platform (at least without significant work).

These are offshore patrol vessels solely designed for constabulary duties in domestic waters. They quite simply don't have the space to become the 'C3 minor warship' that was touted in the past. Small bits and pieces can be added, but not enough to turn these into a combat vessel without accepting a huge quality drop from the RN's usual status.

There is a role for a 'minor warship' in RN Colours, it would probably behave similarly to the larger US or Japanese coast guard vessels. The B2's couldn't act like that without external support, which voids the concept of a low cost to operate high availability vessel.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: the concept of a low cost to operate high availability vessel.
A good thing that the reason why we have them was uttered.

Now, let's put all the extras on combat-worthy platforms. Rivers can still step in, in the same way as e.g. mine hunters do: for specific, assisting things, but while protected by something else (be it ships, air cover...)
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:If the B2s become the new C3 then they will be more capable minor warships deploying first rate off board systems.
The River Class is not that platform, neither is is likely to become that platform (at least without significant work).

These are offshore patrol vessels solely designed for constabulary duties in domestic waters. They quite simply don't have the space to become the 'C3 minor warship' that was touted in the past. Small bits and pieces can be added, but not enough to turn these into a combat vessel without accepting a huge quality drop from the RN's usual status.

There is a role for a 'minor warship' in RN Colours, it would probably behave similarly to the larger US or Japanese coast guard vessels. The B2's couldn't act like that without external support, which voids the concept of a low cost to operate high availability vessel.
I agree the RB2s are simply that OPVs and shouldn’t operate out side of UK /BOST waters, but as Iv mentioned before I do believe the RB2 design could be evolved in to a credible C3 something similar to the old Black Swan concept or the Venari 95 idea.

For me the C3 isn’t a war ship, they’d be there to do all the low end tasks from mcm to survey work to Littoral ASW and long range patrol duties like around Africa.

Iv always said the RN seem to be missing a trick when it comes to the T26 and RB2 designs ( whether this is due to funding or not ).
With the 2 above designs we have successful export designs that can be evolved in to 2 families that cover every ship class from OPV to Destroyer.

T26 Family could be as such -
- T26 it’s self
- T4X a lengthened hull fitted out as an AAW / multi role destroyer like the USN ABs
- T27 a smaller light frigate design based on the T26 of around 130m by 18.5m 5000t

This family gives designs for the RN and export market in every “war ship” role built off a proven successful start.

RB2 family could be as such -
- RB2 as is for the OPV role
- RB3 the avenger style design for a long range patrol role think of a British Floreal Class, equipped as customer wants.
- Multi mission sloop think Black Swan / Venari 95, around 105m by 14.5m 3000-3500t fitted with dividend cranes and work areas open and covered.

This would give designs for the RN and export that cover all low end roles based on a successful proven design.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote:evolved in to 2 families that cover every ship class from OPV to Destroyer.

Starting from the premise that OPVs are not warships, I would make a similar statement:
- with the T31 and T26 hulls we can do that
- and after the T45 retirement we would have great commonality (onshore training, support, logistics chain; all of that and more) with two classes of surface combatants, fitted out as the desired fleet mix will dictate
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:evolved in to 2 families that cover every ship class from OPV to Destroyer.

Starting from the premise that OPVs are not warships, I would make a similar statement:
- with the T31 and T26 hulls we can do that
- and after the T45 retirement we would have great commonality (onshore training, support, logistics chain; all of that and more) with two classes of surface combatants, fitted out as the desired fleet mix will dictate
We are where we are war ship wise and unless more money is forth coming and the NSS approach of sell off early is followed my ideal of one parent class covering all the T classes won’t happen ( again I believe a missed opportunity ) so a class of 2 will do for me.

But we have a chance to use and evolve the RB2 design in to the MHCP to give commonality there along with export opportunity based off a successful export.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:NSS.......MHCP
Both are now void.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:NSS.......MHCP
Both are now void.
In regard to the NSS I did say if there was more money and if it was followed not that it is

In regards to the MHCP is it really void ?
By the time they come around in the late 2020s the 5 RB2s will most likely be replacing the RB1s in UK EEZ so a patrol ability for Africa the Med and Far East will be needed so why not the MHCP ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NSS... review/ updating by SJP... publication withheld

Why? I suspect not because of negative aspects, but in order to rewrite it into a format that declares a "policy triumph"
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

I think the decisions related to "improving the lethality" of the RB2s will give significant information as to the capabilities of the RB2 (and any future variants). If the decision is to add minor improvements only, then it will be apparent that the vessel can't "step up" in any significant way, without disproportionate danger to the crew. If the decision is to add significant weapons and other systems, then the hulls may be more capable than we surmise at the moment
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: then the hulls may be more capable than we surmise at the moment
Interesting point, as the only mention in that direction that has caught my eye is about bulkheads.

Going over to the USN stds, they state that " The three principal disciplines of survivability are susceptibility, vulnerability, and recoverability. " Rivers would not impress on any of those dimensions?

Let's put it in another way:
- stay in the fight
- stay afloat
- allow the crew to abandon ship in an orderly way (mainly: with enough time)to avoid casualties beyond what are caused by initial hits

Tick the third (lowest) category?
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Tick the third (lowest) category?
Yes - the RB2 probably falls into that category, in that a single "incident" could leave one dead in the water and without power generation, depriving you of the ability to either continue to fight or to evade and defend. Sinking with dignity is about all that's left. Significant work would be required to remedy that. However, that said, there is some merit in improving offensive capabilities to the point where a potential adversary would be dissuaded from engaging, so preventing damage by deterring agression.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:avenger style design
Interesting you mention this, this is probably the minimum standard for a global patrol ship like people seem to be advocating.

Too late, but the RN would be in much better shape with an 'avenger style' instead of the B2 OPV's.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

shark bait wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:avenger style design
Interesting you mention this, this is probably the minimum standard for a global patrol ship like people seem to be advocating.

Too late, but the RN would be in much better shape with an 'avenger style' instead of the B2 OPV's.
I am not necessarily saying the RN should have a vessel if this class, I believe that role would be covered by the MHCP vessels in our case.
But yes they would of been better Calvin for money back then.

More to the fact that the RB2s have been a proven export success and the avenger design shows it can evolve quiet well. This leads me to the family of 3 ( OPV, multi mission sloop, global patrol ) from this design.
The avenger style design could prove a good export for nations that want something with longer legs than their current coverts but can’t afford a really tier 2 frigate like the FTI / T31.

For me it’s all about making the most out of the 2 successful exports we have in the RB2 and T26, and just by chance what they can both evolve in to would cover the full spectrum of vessels from OPV to destroyer between them.

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 »

Three Al Khareef class were also exported.

In case is River B2, 3 to Brazil, and another 2 built in Thailand.

Not much different.

A Leander/Cutlass design (Khareef-based), built to OPV standard not frigate, lightly armed as a 57 mm gun and some 30 mm guns with LMM, with modified mission deck/bay, would be also a good candidate, I guess.

As C3, but, I prefer Venari-like vessels.

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: that said, there is some merit in improving offensive capabilities to the point where a potential adversary would be dissuaded from engaging
Yes, so going back to the US Navy Survivability Policy for Surface Ships (OPNAVINST 9070.1A):

Susceptibility is defined as avoiding or defeating a threat by using a combination of tactics, signature reduction, countermeasures, and self-defense systems: speed (nope), maneuverability (nope), organic (=gun) systems and sensors to counter surface, air, and underwater threats.
- a UAV ( and that dreaded container, on the back, to help to operate it) would provide over-the-horizon threat detection, creating an increased standoff range (say, 3 km for the 30 mm, 4 km for the 40 mm - more for surface targets - and 6 km for LMM (helos and boats). I haven't checked the ranges, just going by the discussion as it emerges here; I guess 30 mm on land would be no more than 2.5 km but at sea you have a billiard table and if the target is not closing in following a pretty straight line, then it is just giving "you" more chances of hitting it :D )
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)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

From last year, maybe a few things to go on the RN's shopping list for the T-31e and other platforms.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Light on details - has anyone got more info on the following?

https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/gmb-welcome ... e-shipyard
”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 »

A bit more info on Appledore - from the comments doesn’t look T31 related.

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/20 ... -shipyard/
”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:A bit more info on Appledore - from the comments doesn’t look T31 related.

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/20 ... -shipyard/
Great news but what are they going to build?

Post Reply