Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Jake1992]

No every effort should be made to have the T-31e based on a large enough platform so that it can evolve over its service life, it should not be diluted into becoming a "Super" River. If the RN actually has a need for an up gunned OPV then it should look to modifying the B2 Rivers for that role.

I was looking to the “super river” as you put it to being the MHCP vessel, the back bone of the low end fleet if you will.

I agree the T31 still needs to be a proper light frigate at least, but as I keep pointing out the rushed nature and low funding if the project has seen become a hash job and a real missed opportunity

[dmereifield]

Part of me still thinks (not just hopes) that we are going to see an announcement that the T31 budget will be increased from £250 per hull to something like £350 in due course, and the RN will add in a few optional extras to the baseline that the winning bidder will have offered for £250 million. Rendering much of our arguements pointless over these past few years

[Repulse]

dmereifield, apart from the B2 Rivers should be have minor modifications to allow them to be used more widely and be the basis for the future MHPC that is

For me the B2s (and future B3s) are the answer to the lower level roles - the question is what needed to increase / maximise the RN war fighting capability. I believe more T26s than 8, others the same number of T26s and the T31.

[dmereifield]

Of course, I'm sure we'll still be arguing that for a good few years yet. And then we will also can debate what the RN should have gotten for £350 million vs what they are actually getting!

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting letter in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday signed by seven former First Sea Lords.

" SIR – As professional mariners, and former First Sea Lords, we deplore Iranian actions in arresting the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero and her crew. The ship was exercising its legal right of innocent passage through an international waterway where the right to freedom of navigation is enshrined in international law.

Of particular concern is the welfare of innocent civilian seafarers who, although not British, were manning a UK-registered vessel and going about their lawful business, and have now been illegally detained for over two weeks. They, their families and the ship’s owners have every right to expect protection from the British Government in an unstable region, one of critical importance to the British economy.

However, the hard-pressed frigate HMS Montrose, having foiled an earlier Iranian attack on the tanker British Heritage, was escorting another vessel when the Impero was intercepted and was too far away to intervene. The lesson is simple. One warship cannot be in two places at once. Previous Gulf experience with the Armilla Patrol in the Eighties and Nineties showed that a force of several ships with afloat support and area surveillance was necessary over an extended period to deter such aggression, but at that point the Navy had almost three times as many frigates and destroyers as it has now. With its present force level of 19 such vessels, it is stretched to maintain just one ship permanently in the Gulf region alongside other commitments. Nelson’s October 1805 comments about his “want of frigates” still ring true.

There are three issues on which the Government should now focus. First, every effort must be made to secure release of the Impero and her crew. Secondly, Britain must continue to press for a multi-national naval operation to deter further such incidents. Thirdly, and most importantly for Britain, the build programmes for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates must be adequately funded, expanded credibly and brought into service as soon as practicable so that the Navy can regenerate to a level where it can meet properly one of its traditional roles – protecting British maritime trade."

Admiral Sir Jock Slater

Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce

Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh

Admiral Lord West

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope

Admiral Sir George Zambellas

Many points to consider here but two stand out for me.

1. Both the T31 and T26 programmes are suggested for expansion.

2. Both Frigate build programmes should be speeded up as fast as possible, the inference being that they have been artificially slowed (T26) because the programme has noty been "adequately funded."

It's clear from this letter that in the opinion of the signatories both Frigate types have their role to play but that more than eight T26's are needed along with more than five T31's. Also interesting that an increase in manning levels was not mentioned.

Nothing new or ground breaking here but the preferred direction of travel is clear.

[Lord Jim]

That is sort of the point I have been trying to get across, and that a total approach to the future shape of the Royal navy and the size and capability of the UK Warship building industry needs to be undertaken. I see the T-31e as a stepping stone to allow the RN to maintain numbers with a reasonably effective ASW platform, or at least evolve into one, whilst the T-26 becomes the backbone of the RN's warship fleet, also evolving. If the T-31e ends up being simple a platform to make up the numbers with no real role beyond waving the flag and being the River's big sisters then we are simply repeating the whole B2 River situation, building ships we do not really need to fill the gap until sufficient real warships become available if ever.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks !

Interesting letter in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday signed by seven former First Sea Lords....
Many points to consider here but two stand out for me.

1. Both the T31 and T26 programmes are suggested for expansion.
----- Reasonable. Good to see T26 included.
2. Both Frigate build programmes should be speeded up as fast as possible, the inference being that they have been artificially slowed (T26) because the programme has noty been "adequately funded."
----- Reasonable. The most important thing is to keep the shipyard "alive" until T45-replacement can be budgeted. Just divide it with the number of hulls gives us the drumbeat pace.

It's clear from this letter that in the opinion of the signatories both Frigate types have their role to play but that more than eight T26's are needed along with more than five T31's. Also interesting that an increase in manning levels was not mentioned.
Nothing new or ground breaking here but the preferred direction of travel is clear.

Yes, at first I was also surprised to see no mention on man-power, although it is quite clear it is limiting RN activity.

More hull to show, than more hull to fight. Interesting. May be they think the man-power can be regained, once the RN start to "look like" expanding and appealing to the public?

[Repulse]

If only the frequency of ex-Forces Chiefs writing to the papers, and for it to be ignored, was even close to our build rate of warships...

[donald_of_tokyo]

[donald_of_tokyo]

... I see the T-31e as a stepping stone to allow the RN to maintain numbers with a reasonably effective ASW platform, or at least evolve into one, whilst the T-26 becomes the backbone of the RN's warship fleet, also evolving.

How about the shipyards? Clyde is struggling to keep the pace, so that they can survive with 6+8 = 14 high-end escorts. As modern escorts' life is ~35 years or so (let's not be optimistic here), even with 2 years slow drumbeat there are 7 years gap. With optimistic 30 years life, still we need 2 years gap (which looks OK), but this is with 2 years drumbeat. In short, T26 build pace is NOT slow. If it is 1.5 years drumbeat, it is even too fast. If T31-like is used for 2nd escort builder, we need at least 14 T31-likes. Not practical, I'm afraid.

This means, T31e must be rather simpler, like corvette, so that the technological continuity can be secured by continuing with MHC, which MUST be simple (not to eat money out of other assets).

If the T-31e ends up being simple a platform to make up the numbers with no real role beyond waving the flag and being the River's big sisters then we are simply repeating the whole B2 River situation, building ships we do not really need to fill the gap until sufficient real warships become available if ever.

Not so sure here. A T31 with "a 57mm gun, 24 CAMM, 2x 30mm gun, ESM etc" is not that bad. It is much better than T21 because, it carries state-of-the-art SAM system (T21 had vintage SeaCat), and 57mm gun with guided-round option has very promising future. Lack of ASW and lack of NGFS is not a big issue. Former cam be an issue, but it is anyway not needed in many of the theaters. NGFS is no need, with 2 CVF and 14 high-end escorts with land attack missile coming. Huge leap, already. Capability of 5 T31 does not make difference.

Even I am not supporting T31e, it is just because of ship building in-efficiency issue, and man-power limitation.

[js44]

I don't see how you can justify NGFS as no need by bringing up carrier aviation and the other 14 high end escorts. Those escorts will be hard pressed with their main tasks of asw and aaw and won't be in a position to perform NGFS (kinda makes the 5inch with its expensive ammo system on the type 26 a waste of time as it won't get to be used properly), and as for potential TLAM on type 26 and munitions delivered from f35/apache from the carrier, you can't lay down a smokescreen with missiles. You can't fire illume rounds. You can't realistically perform a barrage and if you did it wouldn't last long. Cost per shot would be ridiculous. NGFS isn't just a phrase that covers land attack generically, it's pretty specialised and despite what some say its still very relevant. 57mm can't do it (does that even have Nlos capability?), and 76mm is borderline at best.

[abc123]

I don't see how you can justify NGFS as no need by bringing up carrier aviation and the other 14 high end escorts. Those escorts will be hard pressed with their main tasks of asw and aaw and won't be in a position to perform NGFS (kinda makes the 5inch with its expensive ammo system on the type 26 a waste of time as it won't get to be used properly), and as for potential TLAM on type 26 and munitions delivered from f35/apache from the carrier, you can't lay down a smokescreen with missiles. You can't fire illume rounds. You can't realistically perform a barrage and if you did it wouldn't last long. Cost per shot would be ridiculous. NGFS isn't just a phrase that covers land attack generically, it's pretty specialised and despite what some say its still very relevant. 57mm can't do it (does that even have Nlos capability?), and 76mm is borderline at best.

With just one Commando as amphibious force, why bother with NGFS? Whatever one Commando can do, they don't need NGFS for that...

[Lord Jim]

When I refer to the "Frigate Factory", I am not talking about one yard or location. To sustain warship building in the UK, retaining the skills required and so on we need to take a much boarder view. We need to emulate the success that the Carrier Alliance found and create an equivalent organisation consisting of not just two or more yards but also the manufacturers of sub systems and such like. The first 6 T-26 and the 5-6 T-31e would be the starter motor for such an enterprise, ensuring that their are at least two construction yards viable moving forward. Other locations as well as these would also ensure they are capable of building block or even super blocks of a revised T-26 design moving forward.

Look I am not producing a detailed NSS 2.0 here but there has to be a way of ensuring there is sufficient work and Government investment to maintain our sovereign warship building capacity as well as capability. the work needs to be shared out, not on a competitive basis but more on a capacity one. If a location has the capacity I its long term schedule then it may be given work to produce modules of classes of smaller vessels for example. The aim would be to produce one T-26 B2 and eventually B3 every 18 months. The 6 T-31e are a means to an end but the right design should evolve into an effective warship. The Royal Navy should have a goal of being able to operate a fleet of between 20 and 24 T-26 variants split 50:50 between GP/ASW and SP/AAW but all will be competent ASW platforms.

But I must stress the needs to be a true NSS with major Governmental investment both I orders and in the infrastructure. Industry must play its part and be willing to also invest heavily, initially cushioned by Governmental support. I doubt we will ever give the industry to level of support the French and Italian Governments give their ship building industry but we need to seriously change how things are done now.

[donald_of_tokyo]

When I refer to the "Frigate Factory", I am not talking about one yard or location. To sustain warship building in the UK, retaining the skills required and so on we need to take a much boarder view. We need to emulate the success that the Carrier Alliance found and create an equivalent organisation consisting of not just two or more yards but also the manufacturers of sub systems and such like....

Understand your point, but I'm afraid it will be inefficient. It means, distributing steal-work, welding work, wiring and all other works distributed in many small portions, located around UK. Will be very very inefficient = high cost. CVF work was distributed, simply because it needed the whole steal work capability UK had. In other words, because there is no future program justifying the huge steal work infrastructure to be newly installed in anywhere. For example, US, French, and Chinese carriers are built in a single yard.

Continuous investment, and not leaving everything to "competition" is the key point, I agree. The NSS distributed work concept is only valid when these yards have another major job to sustain themselves, and only when they are a little empty, they can bid for ship building = a part time job. We see the concept collapsed. See Appledore and H&W are gone/going.

But, in other words, "retaining the ship building capability UK wide" now can be translated to "retaining Cammell Laird, A&P, in addition to BAE Clyde and Barrow". In this case, it is more clear and looks doable.

[Lord Jim]

I suppose it depends on the workload and what future programmes there will be together with the possibility of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary being expanded. Pushing the boundaries regarding ship design, innovation, and so on are also tied up in all this. The UK still has a reputation for high quality capable warships. We are also quite handy at smaller vessels, but we need to move into the territory currently occupied by France and Italy with their new designs like the FTI. That is going take investment in ship building on a scale that hasn't been seen for decades, but the creation of jobs and the benefits to the Treasury should be highlighted.

As for the Programmes and excluding those involving Submarines for the time being we have the T-26, T-31e, SSS, MPHC. Further ahead we have the T-45 replacement, renewal of the amphibious force together with additional escorts and replacements for the B1 Rivers. Add to that possible construction of warships for export as well as sale of design and engineering expertise and we could develop our warship construction aka manufacturing capacity to a level of real benefit to the Country as a whole with jobs and skills spread nationwide.

We need a Government that is will to take the long view with warship construction and support, a Treasury that is willing to provide the up front costs, multi year financing of major programmes and financial support to encourage industry to also invest in the future. Above all we must leave this current stop start construction doctrine and move towards a steady, continuous production plan like that of other nations.

[seaspear]

Is there any consideration by the R.N for the use of hyper velocity shells for the naval guns to address low numbers of VLS launchers and missiles in short to medium ranged air defence
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/navy-q ... rs-deckgun
The article is clear that this addresses a need even a modestly priced small ship would have a significant boost in self defence for small cost

[donald_of_tokyo]

Is there any consideration by the R.N for the use of hyper velocity shells for the naval guns to address low numbers of VLS launchers and missiles in short to medium ranged air defence
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/navy-q ... rs-deckgun
The article is clear that this addresses a need even a modestly priced small ship would have a significant boost in self defence for small cost

The article states the hyper velocity shells with guidance is not particularly intended to replace SAMs, but rather looking at UAV, helicopters or slow moving low-end ASMs, which I think is reasonable. So I think it cannot replace SAMs, but can replace 20mm CIWS. Good idea. Also interesting to see how it compares with MAD-FIRES guided AAW rounds for 57 mm under development.

[jedibeeftrix]

The Royal Navy should have a goal of being able to operate a fleet of between 20 and 24 T-26 variants split 50:50 between GP/ASW and SP/AAW but all will be competent ASW platforms.

In what universe do we aspire to operate a fleet of 20-24 T26 variants? At a billion pound a pop and soaking up 180 bodies in a basic crew. We can't even man the 19 escorts we have now!

If we have that ambition, then why are we fannying around chopping T26 numbers down to eight units and inventing some bobbins demi-frigate that will apparently have future sink-the-bismark potential on a £250m budget?

If we still want, what... half a dozen A140 with 'growth potential' as well as 20-24 T26 frigates then I guess we're expanding the RN headcount by 20% and the defence budget to reach 3.0% of GDP...

I simply do not understand.

What I can understand is the desire to maximise a world class asset such as the T26, but I don't see how this chimes with ambitions for T31e as an 80% high-end escort.

It seems to makes sense to make the T31e as cheap as possible, not to be a pretend escort but to be a UA/SV specialist on the lines of MHCP... and maybe that will allow a few more T26 as well. A black-swan, dare I use the word.

[Repulse]

Not wanting to mix up the MHPC discussion which I think is absolutely required, but recent pictures of HMS Forth escorting the Russian Vasily Bykov Corvette should remind us me whilst the RN (and others) have been focused on globe trotting lower end type ships (like the T31), the Russians have been building real warships.

In parallel to building HUV/CSG escorts and blue water ASW ships like the T26, and low level patrol and MCM (MHPC) replacements, should not the RN be building similar small / capable warships? The areas of contention will always be the same, so why not have a war fighting class designed for the Baltic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Gulf and perhaps the Malacca Straights?

[SW1]

but recent pictures of HMS Forth escorting the Russian Vasily Bykov Corvette should remind us

That despite the bluster Russia is still only building new OPVs. Or in other word HMS Forth is shadowing her Russian equivalent.

As again recent reports have shown the defence budgets needs to rise by a minimum of £2b per year before we consider the latest pay deal to just cover what’s currently in the equipment budget from the 2015 as it remains completely unaffordable.

SDSR 2020 will need to return the program to balance by removing programs or MOD will face yet another review like 2010 when reality does strike, the sooner the boil is lanced the less pain there will be.

[Old RN]

If the Russian corvettes are the River Class equivilants then why does Forth not have a 100mm main gun, 3 x CIWS, 8 x 300km cruise missiles and 21" torpedo tubes?

[RAF>FAN]

If the Russian corvettes are the River Class equivilants then why does Forth not have a 100mm main gun, 3 x CIWS, 8 x 300km cruise missiles and 21" torpedo tubes?

Its ok don't worry. They have Close In Catapults and buckets of stones they can throw if things turn nasty

[SW1]

Vasily Bykov Corvette

Do they carry such or simply proposed possible future upgrades

[Poiuytrewq]

....the Russian Vasily Bykov Corvette should remind us me whilst the RN (and others) have been focused on globe trotting lower end type ships (like the T31)....

How is an Arrowhead 140 'lower end' compared to a Project 22160 class?

I agree the comparison between the RB2 and Vasily Bykov is interesting, especially in terms of value for money but at 94m the 22160's are not really comparable to a 138m Frigate.

....why not have a war fighting class designed for the Baltic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Gulf and perhaps the Malacca Straights?

Couldn't agree more. This is were I believe the Leander design is truly impressive and why at 117m it might be a stretch too far. In a corvette size, something around 103m/105m Leander retains ALL of its offensive and defensive armament as well as space for two 11m RHIB's.

Fully loaded it would make for an impressive and cost effective addition.

76mm
12 CAMM (More with ExLS rather than mushrooms)
8x Harpoon
8x Mk41 cells
2x 30mm's
Phalanx
Artisan
Hull mounted sonar
TAS/VDS
Artisan
Wildcat capable hanger
Merlin capable flight deck
Hybrid electric propulsion

At £250m each I think these are a bargain and we should start building five or six of them immediately.

SDSR could then establish whether to simply increase T26 numbers to around 12 or start another frigate programme to produce a British competitor to the French FTI.

...SDSR 2020 will need to return the program to balance by removing programs....

Which programmes are you proposing to remove?

[abc123]

If the Russian corvettes are the River Class equivilants then why does Forth not have a 100mm main gun, 3 x CIWS, 8 x 300km cruise missiles and 21" torpedo tubes?

Its ok don't worry. They have Close In Catapults and buckets of stones they can throw if things turn nasty