Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

jedibeeftrix wrote: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!
Yes we have manpower shortages now and are struggling with funding. I am looking 30+ years forward with what I think the Royal navy should be aiming at, having an escort fleet built around variants of the T-26 design. The UK needs to play the long game with its warship building capacity and capability, there are no quick fixes. This is the issue I have with not having a T-31e with growth potential throughout its 20 odd year service life. With a larger platform we will still have the option of selling them off in around 10 years but we will also have the option to improve them if we see fit.

Yes it will take investment form both Government and Industry to get things to where they need to be, and we can always keep things the way they are where The Royal Navy with be incapable of conducting missions in any sort of effective manner by the 2050 as our capacity to build warships will be such that they are nearly unaffordable, and we have a woefully small pool of skilled personnel to build the damned things. Without multi year funding of large complex programmes like warships, industry will not be willing to invest its own money. Lack of orders will probably reduce the UK to one yard period and have barely enough UK based companies in the supply chain to actually have a sovereign warship building capability.

SO I have tried to suggest a way that things could be turned around and put on a reasonable footing over a period of time. Will it happen, probably not. Should it happen, yes is we want to have a Navy worth having.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:How is an Arrowhead 140 'lower end' compared to a Project 22160 class?
Because everyone believes that a £250mn Arrowhead will have the same weapons and sensors as a IH - has if we want that then we already have the T26(and T45).

For me, if you are targeting a ship towards the locations I’ve specified which are strategically important to the UK, then you can remove things. e.g.
- it can be shorter (@100m) because it doesn’t have to operate in the North Atlantic
- it will be near land, so no need for a hangar for a manned helicopter
- it could have a limited 15yr lifespan, so no future proofing
- etc
”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: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: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.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Which programmes are you proposing to remove?
Agree - short term the RN needs to take the short term pain also. Scrap the T31e, and 4 of the GP T23s and focus on getting the CBGs up and running.

In parallel:
- Pick the best / youngest GP T23 and extend its lifespan by a few years and add a TAS.
- Get all T45s operational
- Increase the T26 order by one to be delivered late 2020s.
- Purchase HMS Clyde and keep her as the FIGS
- Up-arm the B2 Rivers (more 30mms plus LMM/Starstreak)
- Bring the second LPD back into service
- Go ahead with the 3 FSSs but build in the UK
- Extend RFA Argus to late 2020s

So effectively using what we have (or will have soon) better, keeping a T23 is the Gulf, rotate two globe trotting CBGs, focus the other Escorts on TAPS/FRE/NATO and use the B2s/Echos for global presence/ security and flag waving.

Mid to late 2020s add a 3rd CBG, launch a MHPC programme and possibly a small Corvette class.
”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 »

Is there really much across the MOD as a whole that can cut with out drastically reducing our capabilities or that isn’t desperately needed ?

After 2010 we were cut so far to the bone is there anything left ? Is this the point where instead of accepting more cuts the MOD and senior servicemen need to stand their ground and say no this can’t happen and force HMG in to a corner for more funding ?

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 »

Nowadays, modern high-end escorts as a typical life of 34-36 years. If UK want to keep 18-months drumbeat, this means RN must operate 22-24 high-end escorts, as Lord Jim-san says.

Curreltly, RN can "build and operate" 6+8+2 = 16 high-end escorts (if 1.5B GBP of T31e converted into 2 high-end escorts). So, RN is short of 6-8 high-end escorts (or 9-12 years of buildwork) to keep a single "18-months drumbeat" escort-building shipyard.

In other words, "two-years drumbeat" matches well with the current investment to escort building.

If any investment be for the escort yard, it must concentrate on "as cheap as possible with 1.5-2 years drumbeat", not "as fast as possible to make it cheap".

========================================================
# Then, if we want "1.5 years drumbeat" as normal, how can we arrange it?

For example, currently UK has two systems integration teams, one at BAE Clyde working on T26 (doing everything), and the other at Portsmouth Babcock working on LIFEX of T23 (mainly on warfare systems, and diesel gen upgrade). Can the future mid-life refit of both T45 and T26 be covered by BAE Clyde, to save the days (as long as 9 years) to fill the gap of "1.5 year drumbeat" with 16 high-end escorts?

Can the steal-work team at Clyde save the day by contributing significantly to RFA and/or MHC hull building for 9 years, when the systems-integration team is working on escorts' mid-life refit?

As can be seen, this approach significantly cuts investments off "the 3rd yard" (I think the only remaining candidate is Cammell Laird), to keep the escort yard (Clyde) busy with "1.5 years drumbeat". But, looking at the Sir David Attenborough build cost, I guess CL do not need big orders to survive.

By ordering MARS-SSS and then MHC hull-parts, and then LPD/LSD replacements, very very slowly (as slow as 2.5-3 years drumbeat), then CL can survive with continuous order booked.
========================================================

# I guess, aligning everything of escort shipyard into "2 years drumbeat, for ever" will be a good answer in long term.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Jake1992, or cut standing commitments and change the way of working rather than pretend cuts don’t have an impact.
”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

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:Is there really much across the MOD as a whole that can cut with out drastically reducing our capabilities or that isn’t desperately needed ?

After 2010 we were cut so far to the bone is there anything left ? Is this the point where instead of accepting more cuts the MOD and senior servicemen need to stand their ground and say no this can’t happen and force HMG in to a corner for more funding ?
If required, there can be.
- Significantly reducing amphibious force (we remember it was a big risk only a few years ago)
- Significantly reducing British Army
And of course, there can be;
- cancel T31 and accept 14 escort fleet
- keep one of the two CVFs in extended readiness, as RN does now with LPDs.

Many options are there, sadly. And only comparing with these options, then UK people can think, "if cutting so deep, I will rather agree to increase TAX to pay for the armed forces". On this regard, "19 escorts on paper", "2 LPDs on paper", are both good (=very bad) smoke and screen, so that UK people still think they have "so-so navy", even though the numbers RN is actually operating is very low.

Clear cut is better than stealth cut, if one wants to invoke public support, I think. The reason why I propose to "reluctantly" cancel T31e (to use the 1.5B GBP for something else, including filling the big black holes)

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Is there really much across the MOD as a whole that can cut with out drastically reducing our capabilities or that isn’t desperately needed ?

After 2010 we were cut so far to the bone is there anything left ? Is this the point where instead of accepting more cuts the MOD and senior servicemen need to stand their ground and say no this can’t happen and force HMG in to a corner for more funding ?
If required, there can be.
- Significantly reducing amphibious force (we remember it was a big risk only a few years ago)
- Significantly reducing British Army
And of course, there can be;
- cancel T31 and accept 14 escort fleet
- keep one of the two CVFs in extended readiness, as RN does now with LPDs.

Many options are there, sadly. And only comparing with these options, then UK people can think, "if cutting so deep, I will rather agree to increase TAX to pay for the armed forces". On this regard, "19 escorts on paper", "2 LPDs on paper", are both good (=very bad) smoke and screen, so that UK people still think they have "so-so navy", even though the numbers RN is actually operating is very low.

Clear cut is better than stealth cut, if one wants to invoke public support, I think. The reason why I propose to "reluctantly" cancel T31e (to use the 1.5B GBP for something else, including filling the big black holes)
So making us no more than a regional player at best and some could argue only a local one, that’ll go perfectly with HMGs global Britain approach.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:So making us no more than a regional player at best and some could argue only a local one, that’ll go perfectly with HMGs global Britain approach.
This argument can be powerful enough to gain money, so that to stop cuts?

Not sure....

By the way, among the items on my list, I do think T31e cutting is the easiest. And "compensate" it by up-armed River B2s. Reduction in "escort" number from 19 (on paper) to 14 will be "impressive" to invoke support for RN (= stop further cuts), while in reality there is almost no damage to RN (because it is now limited by man-power, not hulls).

[EDIT] Please note, I am NOT happy with "14 escorts". But how unhappy with it is, not because cutting T31, but rather because current actual RN is ALREADY operating ONLY 12 escorts (which means ~15 escort hulls is enough), far from 19, and even the 12 escorts are seeing very low sea-going days = further stealth cut there and now = current reality.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

With the spending review just around the corner we will soon find out who is right.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:So making us no more than a regional player at best and some could argue only a local one, that’ll go perfectly with HMGs global Britain approach.
This argument can be powerful enough to gain money, so that to stop cuts?

Not sure....

By the way, among the items on my list, I do think T31e cutting is the easiest. And "compensate" it by up-armed River B2s. Reduction in "escort" number from 19 (on paper) to 14 will be "impressive" to invoke support for RN (= stop further cuts), while in reality there is almost no damage to RN (because it is now limited by man-power, not hulls).
I am not saying it’s an argument to warn off cuts I am saying if the cuts you talk about above were made then that is what we’d become a local to regional power at best.

It really is shocking me that we’ve gone from a couple of months ago during the Cons leadership contest most mps accepting that cuts had gone to far to now again talking about yet more cuts, you can’t as a party surely say yes cuts went too far we need to rebuild but instead we’ll make more cuts it’s a joke. All this while at the same time we have a PM and chancellor who are opening up the purse strings in all other areas.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Nowadays, modern high-end escorts as a typical life of 34-36 years. If UK want to keep 18-months drumbeat, this means RN must operate 22-24 high-end escorts, as Lord Jim-san says.

Curreltly, RN can "build and operate" 6+8+2 = 16 high-end escorts (if 1.5B GBP of T31e converted into 2 high-end escorts). So, RN is short of 6-8 high-end escorts (or 9-12 years of buildwork) to keep a single "18-months drumbeat" escort-building shipyard.
how about we take the sexy new international export winning T26 design and sell them second hand after 25 years.
there's a market for new, there will be a market for "one careful owner".

what does that do to drumbeat and in-service numbers?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:With the spending review just around the corner we will soon find out who is right.
Not this one, it will only be a 12mth budget, so fudge at best, cuts to pay for NHS/ Health (no votes in defence) at worse.
”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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Which programmes are you proposing to remove?
Well we got here by ordering lots of stuff in sdsr15 that was the issue against “efficiency” targets that couldn’t be meet and optimistic program costing.

Priorities have to match resources, I would start with doing less with less. So operations for the navy around carrier and ssbn only. I wouldn’t however be removing any personal that would remain constant as we have more equipment than we can man.

If your looking at a list, type31, sandown mcmv, waves, possibly bringing the type23 upgraded asw fleet to 10 and deleting 2 type 45. The remaining 4 work with the carrier in a high low readiness cycle. Green merlin fleet, transferring role and personnel of CHF to chinook force.

The airforce would be looking within the fastjet force to reduce fleet within fleets by taking the older typhoons out, possibly a reduction in c130 numbers.

The army’s a problem because so much equipment is obsolete and needs replaced, may need to drop numbers to invest in equipment, personnelly I go for an all wheel formation and accept a change of role.

Alternatively look at the ssbn renewal program and if it remains sensible to continue. That or we do see a real increase in funding but NO new programs it simply funds what’s already ordered. I remain unconvinced that any serious new funding will go to defence.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Well all bets are off for another couple of years as the full CSR has been put back that long and I cannot see us having a meaningful SDSR until then. The idea of the UK becoming a regional player is going to become more likely unless then we do actually have a SDSR, the Government at the time realises that to meet its global ambitions will actually cost substantial NEW money for defence, bot the remove the existing need for "Efficiencies" and to increase the budget not just for hardware but also increase manning levels and greatly improve the housing and welfare of service personnel. And any increase has to be sustained, not just for a five year Parliament, so a level of defence spending needs to be enshrined in law. Chances of that happening when the same does not apply to health of education, slim to none. So as pointed out, the alternative is reductions in all three services, an acceptance that we need to reduce our commitments and are no longer a truly global player.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

jedibeeftrix wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Nowadays, modern high-end escorts as a typical life of 34-36 years. If UK want to keep 18-months drumbeat, this means RN must operate 22-24 high-end escorts, as Lord Jim-san says.

Curreltly, RN can "build and operate" 6+8+2 = 16 high-end escorts (if 1.5B GBP of T31e converted into 2 high-end escorts). So, RN is short of 6-8 high-end escorts (or 9-12 years of buildwork) to keep a single "18-months drumbeat" escort-building shipyard.
how about we take the sexy new international export winning T26 design and sell them second hand after 25 years.
there's a market for new, there will be a market for "one careful owner".

what does that do to drumbeat and in-service numbers?
Also sell the T31 after enough T26 have been built, then as you say keep building the T26 to an evolved design as lord jim suggested AAW specific but with full ASW spec, GP/ASW spec, even the batch 1 ASW version with their mk 41 may still be in high demand, the UK does seem to be able to sell the older ships the politicians think we don't need :crazy: :thumbdown: :( T23..T22 etc

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote:Priorities have to match resources, I would start with doing less with less.
I think I would much prefer doing more with more. Either more money turns up or the wheels come off of the bus and that would be politically unsustainable at present.

Recent highlighting of the embarrassingly small size of RN's escort fleet has helped elevate the issue up the political agenda. More money will arrive but how much and when remains to be seen.
SW1 wrote:If your looking at a list, type31, sandown mcmv, waves, possibly bringing the type23 upgraded asw fleet to 10 and deleting 2 type 45. The remaining 4 work with the carrier in a high low readiness cycle. Green merlin fleet, transferring role and personnel of CHF to chinook force.

The airforce would be looking within the fastjet force to reduce fleet within fleets by taking the older typhoons out, possibly a reduction in c130 numbers.

The army’s a problem because so much equipment is obsolete and needs replaced, may need to drop numbers to invest in equipment, personnelly I go for an all wheel formation and accept a change of role.
Obviously I completely disagree with the changes you suggest but I do understand your rational and can see the efficiency that you are aiming to achieve. Is the UK ready for such a depletion of its military capability? I sense not but if the Union crumbles maybe this type of force structure will be an inevitable outcome.

Until then I think we all need a little more optimism and little less pessimism. The mood music is good so let's wait and see what happens when Boris and Sajid turn on the spending taps with their pre-election splurge.

Who knows it may surprise us all....

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:Priorities have to match resources, I would start with doing less with less.
I think I would much prefer doing more with more. Either more money turns up or the wheels come off of the bus and that would be politically unsustainable at present.

Recent highlighting of the embarrassingly small size of RN's escort fleet has helped elevate the issue up the political agenda. More money will arrive but how much and when remains to be seen.
SW1 wrote:If your looking at a list, type31, sandown mcmv, waves, possibly bringing the type23 upgraded asw fleet to 10 and deleting 2 type 45. The remaining 4 work with the carrier in a high low readiness cycle. Green merlin fleet, transferring role and personnel of CHF to chinook force.

The airforce would be looking within the fastjet force to reduce fleet within fleets by taking the older typhoons out, possibly a reduction in c130 numbers.

The army’s a problem because so much equipment is obsolete and needs replaced, may need to drop numbers to invest in equipment, personnelly I go for an all wheel formation and accept a change of role.
Obviously I completely disagree with the changes you suggest but I do understand your rational and can see the efficiency that you are aiming to achieve. Is the UK ready for such a depletion of its military capability? I sense not but if the Union crumbles maybe this type of force structure will be an inevitable outcome.

Until then I think we all need a little more optimism and little less pessimism. The mood music is good so let's wait and see what happens when Boris and Sajid turn on the spending taps with their pre-election splurge.

Who knows it may surprise us all....
I agree if the union broke up it may mean a decrease in the short to medium term but why would it need to mean much of one over the long term ?

England alone in today’s world would have an economy of $2.24tn making it the 7th largest in the world between Indian at 6th and Italy at 8th, if we’d still have a larger economy and population than Italy why would we need to have an armed forces much smaller ?

We’d still have the economic power to be a pretty significant player in the world it’d all just depend on how HMG ( like now ) wants us to be seen in the world standing

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:Priorities have to match resources, I would start with doing less with less.
I think I would much prefer doing more with more. Either more money turns up or the wheels come off of the bus and that would be politically unsustainable at present.

Recent highlighting of the embarrassingly small size of RN's escort fleet has helped elevate the issue up the political agenda. More money will arrive but how much and when remains to be seen.
SW1 wrote:If your looking at a list, type31, sandown mcmv, waves, possibly bringing the type23 upgraded asw fleet to 10 and deleting 2 type 45. The remaining 4 work with the carrier in a high low readiness cycle. Green merlin fleet, transferring role and personnel of CHF to chinook force.

The airforce would be looking within the fastjet force to reduce fleet within fleets by taking the older typhoons out, possibly a reduction in c130 numbers.

The army’s a problem because so much equipment is obsolete and needs replaced, may need to drop numbers to invest in equipment, personnelly I go for an all wheel formation and accept a change of role.
Obviously I completely disagree with the changes you suggest but I do understand your rational and can see the efficiency that you are aiming to achieve. Is the UK ready for such a depletion of its military capability? I sense not but if the Union crumbles maybe this type of force structure will be an inevitable outcome.

Until then I think we all need a little more optimism and little less pessimism. The mood music is good so let's wait and see what happens when Boris and Sajid turn on the spending taps with their pre-election splurge.

Who knows it may surprise us all....

It’s like statements made decades ago, if the we don’t grasp the nettle and put a strategic direction in place and match budget and capability in an orderly way then the budget will do it form them in much more brutal and haphazard way, as sure as day follows night.

Indeed we may all be surprised one can only hope.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1, agree with a lot of what you say, but please god not the following.
SW1 wrote:deleting 2 type 45
It would be criminal to ditch these modern warships, especially as part of their role needs to expand into BMD.

I’d argue also that part of strategy for the RN needs to examine what the RAF is proposing around having cheap UAVs as “wing men” to their fighter jets. For example, one option could be to reduce the number of needed escorts for a CBG say down to 3 (2 T45 and a T26) by adding 2-3 unmanned USuV ASW escorts operated from other warships (like the Sea Hunter).
”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: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote:So as pointed out, the alternative is reductions in all three services, an acceptance that we need to reduce our commitments and are no longer a truly global player.
Not sure I fully agree with this - having SSNs and two CBGs with an RFA to operate anywhere in the world allows the UK to remain a global player. As does OPVs/RFAs sailing round the world. Will it be more limited than in the past, yes; but will the RN still be able to project globally, yes.
”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 »

Repulse wrote:SW1, agree with a lot of what you say, but please god not the following.
SW1 wrote:deleting 2 type 45
It would be criminal to ditch these modern warships, especially as part of their role needs to expand into BMD.

I’d argue also that part of strategy for the RN needs to examine what the RAF is proposing around having cheap UAVs as “wing men” to their fighter jets. For example, one option could be to reduce the number of needed escorts for a CBG say down to 3 (2 T45 and a T26) by adding 2-3 unmanned USuV ASW escorts operated from other warships (like the Sea Hunter).
Well one type45 has been stripped of systems and mothballed in Portsmouth for a couple of years now. And they all need upgrades to make them more reliable. Add to that they have issues with merlin so while I agree if money was available I’d spend it on them and keep them all as there newer.

Sea hunter has all the hall makes of being a naval equivalent to a global hawk eg Uber expensive. The unmanned wingman concept the exact oppose and sort of be a cheap simple single role. The carrier battle group is best left to escorts at this time imo.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1, fair points but I’d still put money in getting the T45s “sorted” (inc BDM capable and more strike VLS) ahead of focusing funds on the T31. My view is that whilst the RN needs to fly the flag, “Winter is coming” and either a cold or hot war with it. HMG will catch up with the funding too late of course (nor may it be with the UK as a major player).
”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 »

The fact that the CSR has been delayed until 2021 at the earliest and hence the next SDSR will be delayed will probably mean that any pre election windfall for Defence will likely be before a one off. This is not what the Armed Forces need, and it certainly is not going to improve the situation of the Royal Navy. The MoD needs a consistent uplift in funding and to be allowed to use multi year funding for large programmes, which involves a rewriting of the Green Book. This delay also makes the timescale for the T-31e less certain.

Do we proceed with things as they are now or delay the programme to see what comes out of the next SDSR? So as usually happens, though admittedly for different reasons, things have been kicked down the road once again, even with the possibility of things warming up on the international stage even more.

As for remaining a global player, well yes we may still have the capabilities for the role but we are lacking the capacity to act as one. How long, for example would it take for us to assemble a meaningful Task Force and have it set sail these days?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Unfortunately I think the armed forces due to lack of funds and the pound going down & other factors will just tumble from financial crises to another, I can't see the T31 cancelled as that would drop on paper the number of escorts, maybe cancelling the T31 would be a good option & selling of two of the older T23 that haven't been upgraded for short term savings in the RN.....can't see the F35 purchases getting even slower as they seem to be the main publicity for the MOD & in most peoples minds imo.

Post Reply