Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4582
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1, it’s a good question. I thought the comparison was interesting as both navies seem to be closer in terms of objectives than before, and the budgets are similar.

There are some very valid differences though - France has a large number of overseas territories so the number of OPVs will be different though think the RN does need a couple more (I’m also ignoring the future MCM platform for both).

Comparing an auxiliary logistic ship with no hanger and very limited we’ll dock to a LHD is not a comparison at all. I’d say the LSDs are most ripe for culling, and perhaps a RN LHD ( if it can be afforded if not an Argus replacement) is an answer plus 2 LPDs. Also perhaps replace the waves with a BMT Ellida type design could fill any logistics gap they would leave.
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

As Repulse says, geographical spread explains a large part of the requirement for additional OPVs, as France has three OTs in the Indian Ocean and four in the Pacific vs our one in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia, so basically "looked after" by the US) and one in the Pacific (Pitcairn, administered by New Zealand). Also, three of the Caribbean OTs are integrated French Departements, requiring the permanent presence of French regular forces.

We've also taken to placing Army/ RAF "garrison" forces in quite a few of ours, along with local self-defence regiments in a few others, rather than using patrol assets

The interesting thing to me is, that if you combine those two fleets, they are actually quite complimentary and could between them, generate 3 x carrier groups and 3 amphibious groups (with LHD and either LDP or LSD), all with a reasonable selection of escorts and logistics supports.

Almost as if it was planned :think:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Yes I would agree that there is a geographical reason for the French patrol vessel bias. The mistral is a very gd capability to cost balance and when the two were up for sale I would of bought them. I feel we have significant common outlooks and goals with the France. When we do co-operate we produce equipment that stands the test of time it’s a great shame we don’t do it more often

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Yeh, I wish we could of bought one of the X -Russian Mistrals, even if we had to sell/scrap the albions & Ocean ( admitadly they would of needed money spent on them to get to uk spec ) I think they would of been a good compromise for the RN as the RM seem to have a smaller capability - sorry "focused" = political spin, sorry for getting OT

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

putting the carriers and Amphib fleets aside for a moment the french will end up with

4 AAW destroyers
6 ASW Frigates ( tier 1 )
5 ASW light frigates ( tier 2 )
6 heavy Corvettes
17 OPV's
+ MCM

I would like to see the RN end up with something like this

6 AAW Destroyers
8 ASW frigates
6 GP frigates ( 1 more Type 31 )
5 OPV's
13 MHC ( Multi Mission Sloops ) ( Replacing the 12 MCM , 2 Echo's , HMS Scott , 3 Batch 1 Rivers = 18 ships )

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I read a while back that the IH ( T31 forerunner ) that they maybe trialing a Towed Array Sonar, would this bee comparable to the French Tier 2 asw light frigates?

What are the chances of the Rn T31 getting a TAS or would it depend on the IH trials ?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The first IH class should be fitted with TAS now and trial under way it will be interesting to see how this works out I am sure the RN are watching 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:I’d say the LSDs are most ripe for culling
They're cheap to run, and in high demand. The Bay class spends the more time at sea than any other in UK service! I can't see them being cut. The LPD's on the other hand.....
Repulse wrote:The MN will have 11 ASW “capable” ships v the RN 8, does the RN need more?
Yes. This is the biggest equipment gap in the Navy.
serge750 wrote:I read a while back that the IH ( T31 forerunner ) that they maybe trialing a Towed Array Sonar, would this bee comparable to the French Tier 2 asw light frigates?
The French are fitting a derivative of the T23's sonar, so could be a capable ASW ship depending on how well they can dampen the basic propulsion system. I don't think we'll ever see anything like that on IH or T31. That might actually be ok, and I wonder if it may be prferable, and a little cheaper, to go for a smaller sonar designed for coastal environments? In this environment the self noise matters a little, so I think that's a more reasonable option for the noisy IH platform, and it gives the RN a wider capability set.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4582
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:They're cheap to run, and in high demand.
The demand is three fold -
a) MCM Depot Ship (Gulf)
b) HADR (Caribbean)
c) Part of the amphibious Group

As we know requirement (a) is changing where larger ships will be involved mostly or more operations from a shore base.

Option (b) is ok, but not a driver for a ship class where the role could be better served by a civilian/ local government operation using commercial shipping.

Option (c) is key. A LSD can never be the centre of a credible amphibious group. You could argue a SF platform but only up to a company level in a low threat environment, and can only be additional to something that can actually provide more scale.

The reality is, if the UK’s amphibious ambition is 3-4 RM Cdo level operation, a LPD + Tanker/SSS RFA + ASS/CVF is all that is needed.
”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

Max Jones
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 20 Feb 2020, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Max Jones »

I was looking into some of the 127mm guided shells recently (VULCANO for land attack, HVP for missile/air defence).

Is there any chance of getting these on the Type 26 with the Mk.45 Mod 4? Seems like it would enhance capabilities quite a bit to have anything like available on top of CAMM and whatever land attack cruise missiles we are already planning for the Mk.41 VLS.

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 »

shark bait wrote:They're cheap to run, and in high demand.
Repulse wrote:Option (c) is key. A LSD can never be the centre of a credible amphibious group. You could argue a SF platform but only up to a company level in a low threat environment, and can only be additional to something that can actually provide more scale.

The reality is, if the UK’s amphibious ambition is 3-4 RM Cdo level operation, a LPD + Tanker/SSS RFA + ASS/CVF is all that is needed.
Not sure. "Cheap to operate" is one of the top benefit. And, there are many "amphibious" operations other than assault. Actually, in many cases, "landing" is not a big issue. Logistic support is. On this regards, there will be many many cases LSDs will be much suited than LPD.

"Landing on contested seashore" is very very very rare operation, although its capability must be kept.

Mali, not contested. Sierra Leone, no. Even, East Timor (Australia and New Zealand), no.

Falklands war is the very rare occasion, and surely cannot be ignored. But, 90% of amphibious operations need more logistic/carge carriage than many LCUs --> LSD is much more suited than LPDs.

Sadly, it is the same to the escorts. "Cheaper to operate" is sometimes essentially important. In case of escorts = in peacetime its needs come from presence and patrol/surveillance. In this case, "cheaper" can be at any level, T31, or even River B2 OPV can do something. Therefore we have a long discussion here. :D

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Max Jones wrote:I was looking into some of the 127mm guided shells recently (VULCANO for land attack, HVP for missile/air defence).

Is there any chance of getting these on the Type 26 with the Mk.45 Mod 4? Seems like it would enhance capabilities quite a bit to have anything like available on top of CAMM and whatever land attack cruise missiles we are already planning for the Mk.41 VLS.
Two things to say here. Yes, long range and guided shells are the future of artillery in general and naval artillery in particular. But there has to be the budget to pay for them. We don't know if there is for the Type 26.

Secondly, we haven't a blind clue what missiles are being planned for the VLS

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

RichardIC wrote:
Max Jones wrote:I was looking into some of the 127mm guided shells recently (VULCANO for land attack, HVP for missile/air defence).

Is there any chance of getting these on the Type 26 with the Mk.45 Mod 4? Seems like it would enhance capabilities quite a bit to have anything like available on top of CAMM and whatever land attack cruise missiles we are already planning for the Mk.41 VLS.
Two things to say here. Yes, long range and guided shells are the future of artillery in general and naval artillery in particular. But there has to be the budget to pay for them. We don't know if there is for the Type 26.

Secondly, we haven't a blind clue what missiles are being planned for the VLS

BAE USA did take out a license from Leonardo for the Vulcano round as possible replacement for the Lockheed LRLAP rocket round for the Zumwalts 155mm AGS guns which was cancelled due to cost ~ $1M per round, USN did not take up the option for the Vulcano. Don't know if BAE USA license would apply to their Mk45 5" gun.

Question with the long range Vulcano round is as partially GPS guided can easily be jammed so accuracy degraded and actual explosive payload will be limited as its a sub-calibre projectile, is it worth it as will be expensive or are there better options?

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 »

Interesting tweets on T31.



In the actual document (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eport-2020), it states

- in PDF:
The Competitive Design Phase, completed in late 2019, has delivered a value-for-money solution which provides the required capability and for its price, a market-leading warship that is attractive in the export market. Throughout the Competitive Design Phase, the programme team worked to deliver an outcome that achieved the targets of cost and a baseline schedule to deliver acceptance of all five ships by the end of 2028. The team have also achieved the Design & Build contract award, through a significantly compressed timescale compared to previous ship procurements. This required significant cross-department working, and ensured the necessary approvals were achieved to meet deadlines.

- in excel sheet:
The scheduled project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 28/02/30, due primarily to the following factors;
- Project closure is baseline for 2030, it is too early to predict any change to the forecast.
- The baseline date is based upon the delivery date of the final ship, with an additional programme of work post-delivery to account for acceptance, safety, sea trials and training activities.


Does the "an additional programme of work post-delivery" includes what? And, in any case, it takes more than 14 months? (if counted from 31/12/2028 to 28/02/2030).

I have no answer personally.

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 »

I also checked the T26 part in the 2019-2020 excel sheet. It states

<Type 26 Global Combat Ship Programme>

The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 01/05/35, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 01/05/35, due primarily to the following factors;

- Project closure is forecast for 2035, it is too early to predict any change to the baseline
- The project closure date was a broad estimate at time of Main Gate 2. A revised, risk adjusted estimate is expected to be available at the next full approval point once we seek to move to contract for batch 2. Main Gate was the MOD major investment decision point prior to contractual commitment with industry. Under the internal MOD MAID review in 2019, the process has been modified to align to wider government practice and future major investment decisions points will be known as Full Business Case (FBC) decisions.


So, officially, final ship delivery of Type-26 is STILL ON 2035, although highly subject to the Batch2 main gate.

As Type-26 hull-1 will be "delivered" on "late-2025", this means it plans to "deliver" 8 Type-26 within 10+ years. This means, the default plan still is to build them in 1.5 years drumbeat.

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 »

Simply comparing the "project closure date",
- project for 5 T31 are planned to be closed in 2030.
- project for 8 T26 are planned to be closed in 2035.

This is what the report states.

Of course, T26 Batch-2 contract is not yet held, so it differs. But, Francis Tusa-san's claim is fare, as I think.

If we think "T26 8th hull deliver is planned to be 2035", it must be compared with "T31 5th hull deliver is planned to be 2030", not 2028, I think.

For clarity, we can safely say "planned project closure date of 8 T26 is 2035, and that of 5 T31 is 2030". This sentence is correct, at least. :D

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4582
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Has anyone seen any update on the T31 design? I know the Whole Ship Preliminary Design Review has passed, but still have a few questions - for example, for the 6 TEUs can be stored in the mission bay under the flight deck, but how is it accessed?

It is going to take a lot for me to become a T31 fan, especially the threat it gives to uneducated politicians minds to the T26 numbers, but we are where we are so we need to maximise it.

Given the drive to tackle Cyber and Space threats within the defence budget on top of CASD, I cannot help but see the navy getting smaller not larger. Could be that a cut of in the order of 25% of the overall manned surface fleet is the only way to protect the valuable war fighting Carrier Strike Groups (including the escorting SSNs, T45s and T26s) and provide funds for the broader aims (especially unmanned systems). This means in my mind then means a single class (with unmanned systems) to meet the rest of the requirements (bar perhaps the Ice Patrol role).

Given the direction on the T31 and investment in a factory, will this become the Multirole ship? It would ultimately have to fulfil the MHPC role and also sadly the amphibious role. It will also need to be the “forward based” capable, and needs to be built in numbers (say 15) to replace the OPVs, MCMs and Echo class - so needs to be kept affordable and lean in manning.

Sadly IMO, the choice was to base the T31 on the Iver Huitfeldt-class, rather than the Absalon-class. However, my question is what Absalon features could be added at this late stage? Could the flight deck to be raised for example to add the Absalon style LCVP rig and rear loading ramp with a smaller flex deck where the TEUs would be stored?
”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

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Repulse wrote:Sadly IMO, the choice was to base the T31 on the Iver Huitfeldt-class, rather than the Absalon-class. However, my question is what Absalon features could be added at this late stage? Could the flight deck to be raised for example to add the Absalon style LCVP rig and rear loading ramp with a smaller flex deck where the TEUs would be stored?
I have to admit I've never "got" the Absalons. They're sort of a frigate and sort of a transport vessel but not very good at being either.

I've got severe reservations about the Type 31s, but one thing I do like about them is they're under contract, and that's a huge plus. A lot more than you can say about Type 26 4-8.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Repulse wrote:Has anyone seen any update on the T31 design? I know the Whole Ship Preliminary Design Review has passed, but still have a few questions - for example, for the 6 TEUs can be stored in the mission bay under the flight deck, but how is it accessed?
Iver Huitfeldt class can has capability to store 4 TEU's under its large flight deck, accessed by hatch in the deck, presume will be same for T31.

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 Danes are fitting a TASS to the Absalon Class and reclassifying them as ASW platforms.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The Danes are fitting a TASS to the Absalon Class and reclassifying them as ASW platforms.
I have seen the IH class are getting TAS but not seen anything about the Absalon class getting TAS when was that released

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:Yes I would agree that there is a geographical reason for the French patrol vessel bias. The mistral is a very gd capability to cost balance and when the two were up for sale I would of bought them.
The Russian Mistrals had been re-configured for Arctic Op's. I was always amazed that the Canadian's didn't have a look at them, particularly with the French angle.
Tempest414 wrote:Also for me the key for the RN will be MHC and for me I think we need to look to replace the 12 MCM , 2 Echo's and Scott = 15 ships with something like 10 x 100 meter Venari
The original Venator 90 would be ideal. But I don't think it would be a good idea to throw HMS Scott in the mix. Very different platform and really needs a dedicated, larger, replacement.
shark bait wrote:The French are fitting a derivative of the T23's sonar, so could be a capable ASW ship depending on how well they can dampen the basic propulsion system.
Are they actually going for the CAPTAS 4 Compact?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:I have to admit I've never "got" the Absalon's. They're sort of a frigate and sort of a transport vessel but not very good at being either.
They're too slow for a frigate. Built for a unique Danish requirement.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote:The original Venator 90 would be ideal. But I don't think it would be a good idea to throw HMS Scott in the mix. Very different platform and really needs a dedicated, larger, replacement.
May be right about HMS Scott however I just think with unmanned kit getting bigger a 100 ship is needed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Tempest414 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:The original Venator 90 would be ideal. But I don't think it would be a good idea to throw HMS Scott in the mix. Very different platform and really needs a dedicated, larger, replacement.
May be right about HMS Scott however I just think with unmanned kit getting bigger a 100 ship is needed
and the titchy little davits on the T31 look sillier and sillier...

Post Reply