Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

But could having less doing less actually be more.

One of the things the forces are tasked with is to retain the ability to regenerate (holidays and all that...)
- and we know from the past that the 10-yr rule was not a good one (incidentally, to 2027 it is...)

[Tempest414]

It is a dangerous game to play as we could cut the number of escorts again and over crew them and so on but then when the next round of cuts come they are a easy target for HMG and we are then back were we started but with less ships and the same problem

[abc123]

But could having less doing less actually be more. If we reduced escort ships to allow double or increased crewing it could actual mean we are able to equip, support and maintain the remaining vessels to a higher standard adding more robustness in the system as we’re not spreading the budget over too many ships. If each ship has more people assigned then perhaps it may mean people are deployed less frequently which may inter help retention and improve recruitment long term.

Yes, but the Treasury will then say: How can you have the same number of man, with less ships?

[SW1]

As far as I see it we have 8 asw type 23 and 6 type 45 that is the future escort force. To provide a carrier group and deploy in the Atlantic that allows whatever regeneration they think there maybe in the future. Though the premise of regenerating anything to take the form of what went before is increasingly questionable.

How and where we engage elsewhere is open for debate.

Well as for budget there is a acceptance by all that 2% of gdp is the minimum for defence spending and we can argue about how that number is arrived at but at least a minimum is set. Within that the MoD has an amount of flexibility to decide how to spend its funds.

The principle problem that has been driving the majority of “cuts” and the current debacle over budget has been purely the result of cramming too many programs into the budget with unrealisic ideas about what the programs will cost and an inability to find “efficiencies promised to pay for said programs.. This results in all budgets being squeezed to attempt to continue the illusion.

So trying it from a different end keeping personnel numbers up investing in spares and reducing the number of new or the size of new programs may produce better results.

[Lord Jim]

Basically their are only really two option, either more money is allocated to Defence, or the MoD needs to take a hard look at its current list of programmes, equipment levels and manning levels, and decide what it can do without and/or reduce, informing the Government what it can no longer do as a result. Being open and honest is the only way we are ever growing to get out of the growing mess.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the premise of regenerating anything to take the form of what went before is increasingly questionable.

That's what I meant... next major hull ready and in use in 2027. In between you can only regenerate from the hulls we have
- not proposing a "reserve fleet"
- but not scrapping everything at the first thought, but rather slowing down how they go thru LEPs ... and then, at the end, perhaps skipping that step for a couple

This results in all budgets being squeezed to attempt to continue the illusion.

Yes. CAPEX is preserved thru cuts in OPEX. And if you cut manpower (within OPEX), then you can't regenerate. So you cut readiness instead

may produce better results.

in the short run,yes, but will leave us increasingly behind. By so much as to make it foolish to even contemplate any (even bit?) part in a peer-on-peer conflict

[Repulse]

SW1, you raise some good points. Whilst no one is sure how GDP will increase (or decrease) over the next few years, I cannot see defence spending going below 2%, and even if GDP did fall in relative terms then I see the naval part of the budget being fairly protected - so my view is that assuming that the RN lives within the budget given then the Treasury will leave the MOD to get on with it. As such, I don’t see the argument of overcrewing backfiring by HMT cutting sailors.

Your other point that old arguments over escort numbers has changed - the future RN will be based around UK/BOT defence (inc CASD) and global forward based presence (as a partner rather than a lead) backed by CSGs projected from the U.K. (the big stick). Under this model, how many Escorts are really needed?

Assuming UK EEZ, WIGS, FIGS and GiGS will be primarily covered by Sloops (OPVs), then I see the following:
- 2 CSGs, each with 2 T45s and 2 T26s
- 2 forward based T26s integrated with allied task groups (Gulf and Far East) from a pool of 5 T26s (which will also cover TAPS)
- 1 FRE / BMD response ship from a pool of 2 T45s

So (just), 6 T45s + 9 T26s could work. Whilst more escorts would be nice it doesn’t feel necessary, and I personally don’t see additional standing commitments that would be required atm, except the ASW operations in the North Atlantic where a ASW CSG could be of use, but ultimately this is a SSN playground.

For me the number of SSNs is too low in this new world and can easily see the need for another 7 to give a fleet of 14 to allow for allow 4 to be deployed at any time - one escorting the SSBN, One escorting the CBG, one based in the North Atlantic and another globally deployed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

old arguments over escort numbers has changed - the future RN will be based around UK/BOT defence (inc CASD) and global forward based presence (as a partner rather than a lead) backed by CSGs projected from the U.K. (the big stick). Under this model, how many Escorts are really needed?

The question is well put (I am not going to comment on the answer - yet)
- just add ARG, in the main sailing with MTF (note the singular)
- but in the area of Ops the two may need to demerge: adds to the escort rqrmnt

[SW1]

ACC

I’m not sure I agree it leaves us behind. For any high end combat operation the carrier group is the principle fighting element from the sea and if reducing numbers means its better supported so be it. It is all eggs in one basket but that the consequence of going the root we have.

Repulse

I agree with what you say in the most part. It’s the fwd presence bit where I think we differ. I see the fwd presence in a different way perhaps. Yes it involves engaging with allies and conducting martime security and anti access tasks. I see the role of fwd presence more as a trip wire an ability to gather intel to warn of impending issues developing to facilitate thru water security, anti access operations (hydrographic/mine) and with logistics the arrival of the carrier group. That’s why the likes of the bays,waves or the like being fwd deployed with enhanced modular and unmanned systems as a better option.

[Poiuytrewq]

That’s why the likes of the bays,waves or the like being fwd deployed with enhanced modular and unmanned systems as a better option.

I agree, it does appear to be the better option.

I can also see the attraction for some inexpensive 'sloops' for low threat global maritime security tasks. I think it's entirely plausible to say if we had of got three RB3's and two RB2's rather than five RB2's, the T31 programme would never have started. Pity.

I think the important thing now is to look at what we have today and go from there. With the 4 Tides and the Forts or FSS vessels, the logistics requirements for the CSG is sorted. So the Waves could fill in some of the gaps along with the Bay's (if relieved), Albion and Bulwark and Argus. That's 8 vessels in the water today that I think could be better organised and better utilised.

If the T31 programme was halted or kicked into the long grass and two T23's were sold now before LIFEX then the manning issue as discussed would start to ease within three to four years. That should save move than £100m before the first T31 is currently due to hit the water.

If that £100m was invested into the remaining 3x T23 GP's to bring them up to ASW standard it would give the UK 11x Tier1 Frigates. Further savings could be made if two T23's were permanently assigned as TAPS vessels with a reduced CAMM load out.

Some of the T31 budget could then be used to upgrade the Waves and Bays to a more multipurpose role.

The Bay's could have permanent hangers/ deck garage fitted, a second landing spot created and the medical facilities could also be enhanced. This would give the three Bays an 18x Merlin capacity along with 6 to 9 landing spots, helping to alleviate the loss of Ocean.

The Waves could have some of their fuel capacity reduced and replaced with a vehicle deck and EMF accommodation. A second hanger could be created in the superstructure along with enhanced medical facilities. With davit mounted LCM's and upgraded deck cranes, the Waves could become excellent multipurpose logistic support vessels and would be fantastic assets to the fleet.

Argus could be replaced in the aviation training role by a Serco operated vessel. This would free up Argus to take on a mainly humanitarian role, primarily funded by DfID unless required for an Amphibious deployment.

Bulwark could be reactived and given a vastly reduced crew allocation, more suited to general patrol/HADR deployments. A Rubb hanger could be installed to add a much needed embarked aviation capacity.

This would give a Amphibious Assault, Patrol & HADR fleet of:

3x Bay LSD Amphibious Assault Vessels
2x Wave LSV Logistic Support Vessels
1x Albion LPD (Amphibious Assault)
1x Albion LPD (Patrol/HADR)
1x Argus (PCRS/HADR)

It would clearly give the UK a very capable Amphibious and HADR capacity, capable of performing cost effective patrol deployments when not needed for more specialised roles.

This would of course require some pretty extensive refits which would be good news for UK yards. If these refits costed an average of £50m for the 3x Bays, 2x Waves and Bulwark (re activation) that's a total of £300m.

I honestly believe this to be the most sensible way forward, and although not perfect it would be much better than spending £1.5bn on five pretend frigates.

The hardest part would be working out what to spend the remaining £1.2bn on......

[Repulse]

Repulse

I agree with what you say in the most part. It’s the fwd presence bit where I think we differ. I see the fwd presence in a different way perhaps. Yes it involves engaging with allies and conducting martime security and anti access tasks. I see the role of fwd presence more as a trip wire an ability to gather intel to warn of impending issues developing to facilitate thru water security, anti access operations (hydrographic/mine) and with logistics the arrival of the carrier group. That’s why the likes of the bays,waves or the like being fwd deployed with enhanced modular and unmanned systems as a better option.

I’m actually ok, with large multi-role ships as part of a balanced forward based fleet, but when coupled with first rate assets when in higher threat areas and (minor) warship Sloops where speed & low level deterrence is a factor.

As stated I’d say 9 OPV (Sloops) is probably sufficient for patrol purposes, now what replaces the 15 MCM/Survey ships is another question.

[donald_of_tokyo]

SDSR2020 is coming, very very soon. RN must put decision very carefully.

There is a 7-14.8Bn gap on 10 years 180Bn GBP equipment budget, 2019-2028. Within this period, RN is planning to get (be handed over) 3 or 4 T26, 5 T31, 4 Astute SSNs, 1 Dreadnought, 2 MARS SSS, and a few MHCs at most. I think T31's priority is the lowest here.

RN is also facing big man-power shortage. Recently 2 CVFs required 260 more crew than planned (planned crew 670, actual crew 800, each). Even looking only at this, "1 (or 2) less escort(s)" is quite natural.

Navy pretending "19 escort is must" is one approach to fight the SDSR2000 game. But, it is evident there are two surplus escorts with no crew available. I think "keeping 19 escorts" may NOT win. If RN sticks to it, it will lose much more critical parts; such as man-power, operational cost and ammunitions, which is the top-of-top priority to RN now.

Other drastical options will be
- 2nd CVF in reserve
- cut yet another RM commando
- disband both Albions
All three is politically strongly supported, but what if general election?

To keep these "big three", I think RN must cleverly handle the "surplus escorts" issue. I personally think RN will not win here. So, how to "sell" it with (politically) high-price is the key.

To this end, I think
- T31e order MUST be delayed AFTER SDSR 2000. When further cuts are required, "the big three" or "cutting 2 T26s with further delaying the build" will be the only option.
- LIFEX of HMS Iron Duke (GP) shall be "swapped" with HMS Somerset (ASW). (Just invent some "technical reason"). Keep GP in "extended readiness", and modernize T23ASW. LIFEX of HMS Monmouth (the last GP) shall also be "delayed".

RN has a bad history ordering something in hurry right before the review. HMS Ocean refit, Diligence refit, and many others. Sometime RN do good decisions, such as keeping 2 Hunts in dry dock without upgrade with a foresight of them to be disbanded, and keeping River B1 in extended readiness. In my view, being realistic always worked well, but being optimistic ONLY made the things bad. Very bad.

I really hope RN be realistic here again.

[RetroSicotte]

RN has a bad history ordering something in hurry right before the review. HMS Ocean refit, Diligence refit, and many others. Sometime RN do good decisions, such as keeping 2 Hunts in dry dock without upgrade with a foresight of them to be disbanded, and keeping River B1 in extended readiness. In my view, being realistic always worked well, but being optimistic ONLY made the things bad. Very bad.

I really hope RN be realistic here again.

It would be better written as "The Royal Navy has a history of making logical upgrade decisions to maintain operational capability as is their job, only for the Government to stab them in the back with no warning."

[donald_of_tokyo]

RN has a bad history ordering something in hurry right before the review. HMS Ocean refit, Diligence refit, and many others. Sometime RN do good decisions, such as keeping 2 Hunts in dry dock without upgrade with a foresight of them to be disbanded, and keeping River B1 in extended readiness. In my view, being realistic always worked well, but being optimistic ONLY made the things bad. Very bad.

I really hope RN be realistic here again.

It would be better written as "The Royal Navy has a history of making logical upgrade decisions to maintain operational capability as is their job, only for the Government to stab them in the back with no warning."

I understand your stand point. But, it also means RN was "not clever enough" to foresee the realistic future (=was fooled).

Military is reality. There were plenty of warnings, and RN ignored them. Being sensitive to such reality is very important in view of "damage control".

[shark bait]

If the T31 programme was halted or kicked into the long grass and two T23's were sold now before LIFEX then the manning issue as discussed would start to ease within three to four years

All this does is delay the pain. This is the exact reason the equipment plan in such a mess, the MOD continually kicks decisions down the line, compounding the problems until reaching crisis point.

The T23's need replacing sooner rather than later.

Contrary to popular belief around here, selling T23's does not save money on LIFEX, the oldest T23's have already had the money spent on them. Plus what customer would want an out of date ship?

The Bay's could have permanent hangers/ deck garage fitted, a second landing spot created and the medical facilities could also be enhanced.

The Bays are already a great platform, why waste money to increase aviation capacity that will never get used?

The RN would be far better served leasing a supply vessel for gulf duties, and sending the Bay back to general purpose and amphibious duties around the globe, no modifications required.

That allows the RN to fill the gap created by selling a T23 early.

[shark bait]

with no warning."

Its not been without warning. The MOD have known for ages the equipment plan is affordable, but the forces like to pretend it is.

[Tempest414]

So I don't know if this has come up or not so I will pull this in the pot. In the defence budget brief of November 8th 2018 it states HMT will release 800 million extra to the MOD in the year 2019/20 the same as year 2018/19 this along with a extra money in line with inflation means the 2019/20 budget will be 37.9 billion or 2.1% GDP

[Tempest414]

- LIFEX of HMS Iron Duke (GP) shall be "swapped" with HMS Somerset (ASW). (Just invent some "technical reason"). Keep GP in "extended readiness", and modernize T23ASW. LIFEX of HMS Monmouth (the last GP) shall also be "delayed".

They don't have to look to hard as it has already been said Iron Duke is in a bad way and a lot of the 35 million will go into hull repairs

[Poiuytrewq]

So I don't know if this has come up or not so I will pull this in the pot. In the defence budget brief of November 8th 2018 it states HMT will release 800 million extra to the MOD in the year 2019/20 the same as year 2018/19 this along with a extra money in line with inflation means the 2019/20 budget will be 37.9 billion or 2.1% GDP

Just enough to paper over the cracks?

[Poiuytrewq]

....the MOD continually kicks decisions down the line, compounding the problems until reaching crisis point.

I am suggesting a different approach. One that makes the most of what we have in the water today. I think it would be cheaper and more effective that the T31e idea.

The T23's need replacing sooner rather than later.

Fine, replace them with the correct number of T26's and everyone's happy.

Contrary to popular belief around here, selling T23's does not save money on LIFEX, the oldest T23's have already had the money spent on them. Plus what customer would want an out of date ship?

in that case, sell them cheap and let the new buyer pay for the refits - in British yards of course.

The Bays are already a great platform, why waste money to increase aviation capacity that will never get used?

Never is a long time and events can rapidly alter horizons.

For example, if RN had to respond to a once in a decade natural disaster and resulting humanitarian crisis tomorrow, what platform would it send? A Bay with a single Merlin? Maybe Argus with no ship to shore connectors? Maybe we could temporarily forget about Carrier Strike and send QE?

The fact is RN doesn't have a multipurpose HADR platform like Ocean because it was sold without direct replacement. Yes PoW is superior in lots of ways but as a HADR platform Ocean is a much better and vastly cheaper platform.

Making the most of what we have with the Bay's would solve this problem overnight.

The RN would be far better served leasing a supply vessel for gulf duties, and sending the Bay back to general purpose and amphibious duties around the globe...

I agree, and with the £1.2bn saved from the T31 programme it would be just about the first thing on the list.

[shark bait]

I think it would be cheaper and more effective that the T31e idea.

The suggestion is to cancel the replacement of 5 frigates, how does that make the RN more effective?

if RN had to respond to a once in a decade natural disaster and resulting humanitarian crisis tomorrow, what platform would it send?

What ever it had. (And a more realistic response is the RAF flying in Puma)

Disaster relief is 'make busy' work for the forces during peacetime, its a nice thing to do, but forces are not built for peacetime.

The Bays exist to supply lots of hardware without established infrastructure, that is a task they perform well today, and a task that does not require greater aviation capacity than they have today.

[Tempest414]

For example, if RN had to respond to a once in a decade natural disaster and resulting humanitarian crisis tomorrow, what platform would it send? A Bay with a single Merlin? Maybe Argus with no ship to shore connectors? Maybe we could temporarily forget about Carrier Strike and send QE?

If it was that big then we could send Argus with a Bay

[Tempest414]

Just enough to paper over the cracks?

more is always better than less and if true and if this carries on then if there is a 7 billion short fall HMT will pay for it year on year

[donald_of_tokyo]

If the T31 programme was halted or kicked into the long grass and two T23's were sold now before LIFEX then the manning issue as discussed would start to ease within three to four years

All this does is delay the pain. This is the exact reason the equipment plan in such a mess, the MOD continually kicks decisions down the line, compounding the problems until reaching crisis point.
The T23's need replacing sooner rather than later.
Contrary to popular belief around here, selling T23's does not save money on LIFEX, the oldest T23's have already had the money spent on them. Plus what customer would want an out of date ship?

The already modified T23GPs can stay a few years longer. It is NOT only the combat system, but many internal thing are refitted.

Selling Iron Duke and Monmouth (the 2 T23GPs not yet LIFEXed) to Chili will enable them to modify it to their own standard, the Canadian option (with CAMM). Selling LIFEXed ships to either Brazil or Chili will make them a new work horse of their navy. They are still using T22.

Either options works. RN get small amount of money, can get rid of maintenance costs (e.g. system license fee), and the cost to keep it in extended readiness. Furthermore, it will make Chili or/and Brazil more supporting UK in South America. Great benefit to UK.

Keeping two of them in extended readiness wastes all these merits.

The suggestion is to cancel the replacement of 5 frigates, how does that make the RN more effective?

By not wasting money on ships which cannot be used.

In my calculation, there is only ~280 crew left for T31e even when "1 more T45" is in engine refit. When the refit ends, no crew. In the former case, only 2 or 3 T31 can be manned, and in the latter, all 5 T31 must be kept in extended readiness, without robbing crews from T23ASWs/T26s. And, to keep politicians face, I'm sure two or three T23ASWs will be quietly sent into extended readiness to keep T31e working. Is this your "T23 replace sooner"? No, as I understand.

Buying ship which cannot be used, how can this make RN more effective?

The RN would be far better served leasing a supply vessel for gulf duties, and sending the Bay back to general purpose and amphibious duties around the globe, no modifications required.

I suggest to send a River B2 to Med to replace tasks HMS Echo/Enterprise is doing, and then send Echo or Enterprise to the Persian Gulf. No need fore leasing yet another tender.

if RN had to respond to a once in a decade natural disaster and resulting humanitarian crisis tomorrow, what platform would it send?

No problem to send QECV, if needed. HMS Ocean was sent when she was the only flat top. When RN has two (big) flat tops, no reason to hesitate to sending them, if needed.

If not needed, just send Bay, Albion, Waves, Tides and Forts. I see no problem here.

[shark bait]

Buying ship which cannot be used, how can this make RN more effective?

What do you mean "cannot be used"? The crew of five T31 = three T23, they should help release some of the pressure.