Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across,

How can you ensure the safety of the Amphibious Task Group if your T45's are 200nm away with the CSG?

this is why I feel it is important to fit the carriers with CAMM then up T45s missile load out to 100+ missiles

This is the obvious way forward and I believe it could actually save money by reducing the number of Aster15. A mix of Aster30, CAMM and possibly CAMM-ER could be a very effective and well balanced load. Detailed analysis of the performance of Aster 15 compared with CAMM/CAMM-ER is crucial to assess if Aster15 can be removed altogether.

Personally I think the amidships location is the most likely for adding extra CAMM cells.

image.jpg

build 5 carrier group only ASW frigates to release the type 26s which if needed could escort the amphib group plus offer NGS and land attack when the group starts it off loading

Completely agree about the ASW escort frigates but realistically I think we need more of these vessels than fully loaded T26's. If we had 6 to 8 such vessels then we could probably get away with 4 to 6 fully loaded T26's. This is why my preferred outcome is to build 6 fully loaded T26's and 6 much more basic escort frigates that are optimised for ASW and based on the T26 hull. Sadly this outcome looks extremely unlikely. This is my preferred option but there are other options that could still achieve a good outcome.

When assessing the structure of any future UK CSG I think we have got the ASW and AAW elements sorted. It will require a large proportion of our destroyers, frigates and a precious Astute but we can cover it. The problem is apart from TAPS we realistically can't do much else. We are very much becoming a one trick pony.

Effectively this leaves few if any escorts for any Amphibious Task Group. We simply don't have the numbers now to escort a CSG and an Amphibious Task Group simultaneously at short notice or for an extended period. By going down the double CVF route a conscious decision has been taken to remove the UK's Sovereign ability to conduct both Carrier Strike and Amphibious operations simultaneously. I don't believe that removing this capability was planned, it has come about due to a realisation that due to current financial constraints, this is the best we can do. I think it's totally unacceptable.

The solution is simple. Either completely bin or generously upgrade the T31 programme. Effectively, instead of "growing the Royal Navy", the T31 programme is removing our ability to act alone if required. It is tying our hands and making the UK completely reliant on Allies. Balancing budgets is one thing but removing our Sovereign capability to act alone if required for less than £2bn spread over the next 5 to 10 years is completely irresponsible. A solution must be found.

[Tempest414]

As for the throw of CAMM there is a video of CAMM firing and dog legging around to the rear on youtube at 2.30 in the video what can the RN sea ceptor missile do

[ArmChairCivvy]

This

we also think the Atles is going for A200 design

was in the T31 News thread, and I am just wondering why they would not build on the ThyssenGroup A124 design, dumb it down (from its AA specialisation) to gain endurance and thus meet that criterion without major changes?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Too large crew size?

[Tempest414]

Completely agree about the ASW escort frigates but realistically I think we need more of these vessels than fully loaded T26's. If we had 6 to 8 such vessels then we could probably get away with 4 to 6 fully loaded T26's. This is why my preferred outcome is to build 6 fully loaded T26's and 6 much more basic escort frigates that are optimised for ASW and based on the T26 hull. Sadly this outcome looks extremely unlikely. This is my preferred option but there are other options that could still achieve a good outcome.

When assessing the structure of any future UK CSG I think we have got the ASW and AAW elements sorted. It will require a large proportion of our destroyers, frigates and a precious Astute but we can cover it. The problem is apart from TAPS we realistically can't do much else. We are very much becoming a one trick pony.

I think the way I would like to see it go would be like this. Build 6 Carrier group ASW frigates ( Type XX) and 15 x 100 meter by 16 meter MHPC multi mission sloops to allow something like this

Carrier group 1) HMS QE , 2 x T45 HMS Duncan & Defender AAW , 2 x TXX HMS Fearless & Faithful ASW ( using a little licence here)

Carrier group 2) HMS POW , 2 x T45 HMS Dragon & Daring AAW , 2 x TXX HMS Foresight & Fortitude ASW

these ship would deploy together at all times allowing them to under go maintenance and so on when not deployed. This would now leave 2 T45 + 10 frigates 2 x TXX , 8 x T26 and 15 Multi mission sloops to work something like this

2 x TXX HMS Fortune & Friendship for TAPS
8 x T26s & 2 T45 for global deployments or to act as escorts to the Amphib group
15 x MHPC to clover all other duties

[tomuk]

I think the way I would like to see it go would be like this. Build 6 Carrier group ASW frigates ( Type XX) and 15 x 100 meter by 16 meter MHPC multi mission sloops to allow something like this

Carrier group 1) HMS QE , 2 x T45 HMS Duncan & Defender AAW , 2 x TXX HMS Fearless & Faithful ASW ( using a little licence here)

Carrier group 2) HMS POW , 2 x T45 HMS Dragon & Daring AAW , 2 x TXX HMS Foresight & Fortitude ASW

these ship would deploy together at all times allowing them to under go maintenance and so on when not deployed. This would now leave 2 T45 + 10 frigates 2 x TXX , 8 x T26 and 15 Multi mission sloops to work something like this

2 x TXX HMS Fortune & Friendship for TAPS
8 x T26s & 2 T45 for global deployments or to act as escorts to the Amphib group
15 x MHPC to clover all other duties

Is this a fantasy thread? Or based somewhat in reality?

If either the CSG or Aphib group needs ASW that is the purpose of the Type 26 not some theoretical not quite so good Type XX.

Also if the RN was doing an amphibious assault it would be very odd for them not to have the carriers there in support.

[Tempest414]

Firstly Type 26 is a big exspenive ship to just tie to a Carrier group and pedal up and down on TAPS duty and anyone there thinks that the 8 T26s are going to do anymore than that think again. They will not be released to carry out NGS or any other duties due to the need keep the Carriers and CASD safe.

When I look at Type 26 I see a ship that has been designed and built to be the best singleton it can be able to conducted Carrier group ops , ASW and patrols anywhere in the world ( This why the RAN & RCN want it ) and when we were getting 13 of them it made sense. But now we are only getting 8 and they are going to be tied to the two duties above they are to big and over complicated for the job they will do. When we look at the job of TAPS and Carrier group ops what is needed and what has T26 got

Type 26 is 150 meters long and has a beam of 20 meter and also has a Mission bay , Chinook capable flight deck , fully automated 5" gun , 48 CAMM , 24 cell Mk-41 , 2 x Phalanx all great for a singleton that will be sent all over world. But complete over kill for a ship carrying out TAPS or tied to a carrier group for ASW duties so what I am saying is we should let T26 get on with the job it is built for which is global singleton duties. And build a new type designed for Carrier ops and TAPS all the thing I have listed above do not make T26 the best ASW platform in the world they just add to the singleton role it will not be allowed to do. A new ship built for ASW that is

120 meters long
14.5 meters beam
with Artisan radar
CAPTAS sonar
Merlin fight deck
1 x 57 mm , 2 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 30 CAMM , 16 Mk-41 cells

Can be as good at ASW as T26 just without all extras that cost

[Tempest414]

Also if the RN was doing an amphibious assault it would be very odd for them not to have the carriers there in support.

And said carrier would be 100 to 150 miles away with its T45s and T26s leaving the Amphib group to get on with it with T31 as it was in the Falklands with T21 as the RN can not and will not be able to lose a single T26 to such a risk as to to so will kill it CSG

[SW1]

The RN made a choice to get out of single deployments and return to taskgroup deployments with the introduction of the aircraft carriers, it made the choice to trade off escort numbers for them.

Type 26 size in part has been driven by the range, endurance combat persistence requirements to operate with the carriers. Not to mention ocean going quiet asw operations to support the ssbns. Why Canada and aus wanted it are long and varied with what was offered in terms of tech transfer and industrial considerations just as, if not more important than just pure capability.

Ultimately the long and short is type 23 is the sweet spot for the capabilities the RN requires we’ve added things and made its replacement much bigger for a variety of reasons that has meant we are we are. We do also have a tendency to over egg the capabilities of the opposition some times. Yes they have updated missiles ect but they have the same issues we have when they modernise there forces it costs more they can afford less on less platforms and have issues getting them all to works as advertised.

[Poiuytrewq]

Firstly Type 26 is a big expensive ship to just tie to a Carrier group and pedal up and down on TAPS duty and anyone there thinks that the 8 T26s are going to do anymore than that think again. They will not be released to carry out NGS or any other duties due to the need keep the Carriers and CASD safe.

Exactly. The T26 is a fantastic design but my main concern is the overall balance of the fleet. A fully loaded T26 is not required for TAPS. A T26 lite with 8 CAMM, 4 ASROC, 76mm, 2x 30mm's, Artisan, 2150/2087, Phalanx FFBNW and a Merlin would be more than enough. Up the CAMM load to 24 and it would also make one of the best escort frigates in the world. The added bonus is they could be upgraded to full spec in the future if necessary.

When I look at Type 26 I see a ship that has been designed and built to be the best singleton it can be able to conducted Carrier group ops and patrols anywhere in the world ( This why the RAN & RCN want it ) and when we were getting 13 of them it made sense.

Agreed, this is what happens when proper planning based on clear strategic logic meets financial reality. The outcome is usually non strategic reductions in capacity and capability. In this instance it's called the T31.

But now we are only getting 8 and they are going to be tied to the two duties above they are to big and over complicated for the job they will do.

And the outcome is that the UK will lose its sovereign ability to conduct carrier strike and amphibious operations simultaneously at short notice or for extended periods without help from Allies. It's the wrong policy and it needs a radical rethink in my opinion. The amount of money saved isn't enough to warrant the vast reduction in capability.

That doesn't mean the T31 programme is a bad idea, it just means reducing RN's proper frigate fleet to 8 is irresponsible in my opinion.

Type 26 is 150 meters long and has a beam of 20 meter and also has a Mission bay , Chinook capable flight deck , fully automated 5" gun , 48 CAMM , 24 cell Mk-41 , 2 x Phalanx all great for a singleton that will be sent all over world. But complete over kill for a ship carrying out TAPS or tied to a carrier group for ASW duties so what I am saying is we should let T26 get on with the job it is built for which is global singleton duties. And build a new type designed for Carrier ops and TAPS all the thing I have listed above do not make T26 the best ASW platform in the world they just add to the singleton role it will not be allowed to do.

I agree with your analysis so how many escort frigates does the UK actually need? I would suggest a minimum of 6 plus 2 dedicated TAPS vessels, making a total of eight, firmly in line with current planning.

Could we have this the wrong way around? Should the five T23 GP's have actually been replaced with 5 fully loaded T26's and the eight T23 ASW's actually be replaced with 8 escort frigates ideally based on a T26 lite configuration? Have we been too ambitious again? Luckily it isn't too late too sort this, regardless of the future direction of the T31 programme.

Changing direction to five fully loaded T26's and eight T26 lite's would cost around £1bn extra if the T31 programme was binned. Small change if spread over a ten year period. Even if the T31 programme was to proceed unchanged it would only cost an £150m per year over the next 15 years. Retaining the ability to act independently if necessary is worth a lot more than that. Of course procurement costs is one thing, operating costs and manpower would be the biggest hurdles but a modest reduction in light infantry numbers would easily balance the books.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Firstly Type 26 is a big exspenive ship to just tie to a Carrier group and pedal up and down on TAPS duty and anyone there thinks that the 8 T26s are going to do anymore than that think again. They will not be released to carry out NGS or any other duties due to the need keep the Carriers and CASD safe

Exactly (there was already one agreement on this... but the 'story' continues)

Ultimately the long and short is type 23 is the sweet spot for the capabilities the RN requires we’ve added things and made its replacement much bigger for a variety of reasons that has meant we are we are. We do also have a tendency to over egg the capabilities of the opposition some times.

Yep (with habitability & survivability modifications... to keep up )

non strategic reductions in capacity and capability. In this instance it's called the T31.

Yep

the outcome is that the UK will lose its sovereign ability to conduct carrier strike and amphibious operations simultaneously at short notice or for extended periods

No (not necessarily); This is the challenge that will need to be met by planning and budget rebalancing in the 2027-2035 part of the "future". EP not being "the" future, with its 10-yr horizon.

a modest reduction in light infantry numbers would easily balance the books.

This currency is easily minted, but does not stem from any balanced threats assessment.

[Poiuytrewq]

No (not necessarily); This is the challenge that will need to be met by planning and budget rebalancing in the 2027-2035 part of the "future".

The problem is by 2027 RN will be down to 8 or 9 proper frigates and we will already have lost the ability to act unilaterally. It's a political decision to save money, pure and simple.

There is still plenty of time to realise it's a mistake and change direction....

[ArmChairCivvy]

a political decision to save money, pure and simple.

sure is

The problem is by 2027 RN will be down to 8 or 9 proper frigates

all ASW capable, properly, though

we will already have lost the ability to act unilaterally

Not so. Referring back to my 2 flanking and 4 diamond (one of the 4 can be an SSN), we can easily arrive (with the 2/3s available formula) to the 1.5 capabilities beyond CASD that the RN aims to have:
- the whole of 1 is the carriers (1 or 2); takes 2+4 escorts
- the half is LittOp(s) that would sail with the above, but split when "closer up"
- out of (the 2/3s) still 2 T45s left, but none (.66 x 7) of ASW

... I hope this illustrates why
1. NGFS "gun line" will consist mainly of T31s, and
2. T31s should have a littoral ASW capability. Merlins from the CTF and/or other decks can be covering the gap that may or may not be there; between "blue water" and littoral (green, as subs do not do "brown")

still plenty of time to [...] change [or ever so slightly adjust] direction

[SW1]

No (not necessarily); This is the challenge that will need to be met by planning and budget rebalancing in the 2027-2035 part of the "future".

The problem is by 2027 RN will be down to 8 or 9 proper frigates and we will already have lost the ability to act unilaterally. It's a political decision to save money, pure and simple.

There is still plenty of time to realise it's a mistake and change direction....

Against what opposition do you think we have the ability to act unilaterally now? We couldn’t act unilaterally against Libya for example. A couple of extra frigates ain’t gonna change that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Against what opposition do you think we have the ability to act unilaterally now? We couldn’t act unilaterally against Libya for example.

Project mgt wisdom, derived (among many examples) from the TSR technical excellence paired with capability delivery failure:
- don't try to manage the past, or sunk costs
- make the best of what is already there (paid for!) and add the capabilities that the existing ones could help to leverage in a best fit with future, not past, wars
= 2+2 makes 5

[SW1]

Against what opposition do you think we have the ability to act unilaterally now? We couldn’t act unilaterally against Libya for example.

Project mgt wisdom, derived (among many examples) from the TSR technical excellence paired with capability delivery failure:
- don't try to manage the past, or sunk costs
- make the best of what is already there (paid for!) and add the capabilities that the existing ones could help to leverage in a best fit with future, not past, wars
= 2+2 makes 5

I’m sorry acc I have no idea what your trying to say. The uk across the board doesn’t have the ability to act unilaterally against much of an opposition due to significant capability gaps and scale. Adding a couple of frigates won’t change that.

I use Libya as a recent conflict against a limited capability enemy that all of europe combined struggle to command and operate without significant US help. Beyond a serria leone sized operation we are contributory nation and depending how far up the opposition scale we go and that’s not even at Syria level only the US has the ability to lead in Western Europe.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The uk across the board doesn’t have the ability to act unilaterally against much of an opposition due to significant capability gaps

... that are being 'plugged'

a limited capability enemy that all of europe combined struggle to command and operate without significant US help

... under the self-constrained rule of "no fatalities on our side"

I hope that " the significant help" that was actually needed has helped in analysing what needs to be done (by ourselves, jointly and severally) not to be in the same position again
... it has been a while, by now!

[SW1]

The uk across the board doesn’t have the ability to act unilaterally against much of an opposition due to significant capability gaps

... that are being 'plugged'

I fear most are even being talked about, before we even get to the sophistication of what’s happening in Syria we’ll take the capabilities the US plugged in odyssey dawn, 110 tomahawk on the first night (double the UKs entire inventory, b2 and b1b against dozens of hardened a/c shelters EP3 Elint ac, growlers, multiple e3 and e8 a/c ( we’re attempting to bin our equivalent), EC-130s, AC-130s, global hawks, u2, multiple reapers, 40 odd strike a/c, uss mount witney command vessel, ssgns significant space based targeting capability not to mention more than 20 tankers a/c, stores vessels and supply of munitions when european inventories ran low. This was for a modest operation not to mention the ability to sustain this kind of effort.

The uk has capable vessels to defend itself and to provide a contribution to a larger force in all three domains even fill in occasionally if other assets are required elsewhere, it has limited capacity to act independently and I see nothing that will change that.

[Lord Jim]

I still strongly believe that with other priorities both the T-31e programme should be scrapped and the NSS torn up. As currently planned the T-31e is a ship the RN doesn't want or really need. As mentioned singleton deployments are a thing of the past, with the new function of the RN being to sail its shiny new Carrier Group around the World's oceans and seas. What the need to do is two fold.

Firstly accelerate the T-25 programme to have the first ship in the water by 2023 and operational by 2025. Secondly we need to keep building T-26s past the current eight planned. It will be 2035 until the last of these is launched under the current building rate so any funding for additional ships would come in the 2035 to 2045 equipment plan, Now obviously with the draw down in the T-23 fleet there is going to be a drop in escort numbers, but if the second to forth T-26 were further accelerated to have one entering the water every twelve months the effects would be reduced. BAe have stated they can build the vessels faster then the current eighteen months a while ago. Building a further four to six batch 2 T-26s with the last launched around 2040 would bring the escort fleet up to the numbers currently deemed necessary.

Now continuing production of the T-26 allows the UK to maintain a viable Naval ship building capability and could possibly generate further export orders down the road. The design has proven to be adaptable to other users needs and the cost per unit, especially to the RN will come down as BAe identifies ways to streamline producing and so on.

By the time the last T-26 B2 is launched, the MoD and BAe should have finalised the design of the platform to replace the T-45, possibly using the same hull and machinery. Just imagine how many Strike length Mk41 VLS could be fitted in the space currently occupied by the Mission Bay. Again this will mean savings in production and running costs for this platform and the T-26 fleet as a whole.

Keeping things simple with regards to design and construction will only improve our ability to provide the RN with the platforms it needs. If the Government has the will at least one other shipyard culd be kept viable building support vessels for the RN ranging for River B3s to smaller patrol vessels for the Customs and Border Agency to large platforms for he RFA. By will I meam a willingness to provide funding to the yard(s) to allow them to compete on a level playing field with oversea competion if the Government decides some or all of these vessels do not come under the catagory of Warship and so must be tendered internationally by glodal regulation.

The Uk must think longer term with its ship building capability. It must avaoid the previous Stop/Start aproach which is costly and inefficient. Have a constant production programme has been shown by other nations as the way to maintain an effective capacity and it is a lesson we must learn going forward.

[ArmChairCivvy]

b2 and b1b against dozens of hardened a/c shelters

Impressive inventory, but with without a clear political goal (NOT-something is not a goal) the whole thing adds up to just fireworks.
- let's throw in a Churchill quote, for good measure:
" it must be remembered that an army is not a field upon which persons with Utopian ideas may exercise their political theories, but a weapon for the defence of the State"

The quoted part reminded me, though,
that the RAF never stopped talking about DeepStrike even though the means at their disposal have been just for battlefield interdiction
- I guess here we can find common ground in that "it is very dangerous if our politicians believe our own propaganda"?

So, here comes DeepStrike, right on cue:

By the time the last T-26 B2 is launched, the MoD and BAe should have finalised the design of the platform to replace the T-45, possibly using the same hull and machinery. Just imagine how many Strike length Mk41 VLS could be fitted in the space currently occupied by the Mission Bay.

- or, is the strike length required for ABM? In which case we would be filling them with an Aster missile?

[Scimitar54]

If you build ships more quickly without increasing the number ordered, you are going to end up with a Stop/Start programme. 10 x T26 (plus 6 x T45) will not give the number of Escorts "currently deemed necessary". That would require 13! Even the "19" are grossly inadequate. The only solution is an increase in the size of the navy (both manning and vessels) so that:-
a) The Fleet can be the size that it needs to be. b) The number of ships ordered (and the build rate) match those needs. One can only take reductions in Crew size so far.

[ArmChairCivvy]

One can only take reductions in Crew size so far.

True, and a repeating theme that the reductions have been taken too far, and then crew increased again once experience has "said so": LCS, the Holland Class, our "future" carriers, T-26 (no experience yet)

[shark bait]

Detailed analysis of the performance of Aster 15 compared with CAMM/CAMM-ER is crucial to assess if Aster15 can be removed altogether.

There is little value writing Aster 15 off the books. The only different part on 30 is a scaled up booster, everything else is common. Since the smaller booster will be supported for a long time by MBDA the Royal Navy saves very little by dropping it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Royal Navy saves very little by dropping it

Agreed; horses for courses. Both Aster 15 and Seaceptor are extremely manoeuvreable (so are modern AShMs, too, in their end manoeuvres)
- the difference is the flexibility in locating the missiles, afforded by Seaceptor's launch method; being sensor-agnostic and applicable quickly and (more) cheaply across many platforms is not something to be sniffed at, either

[shark bait]

The uk across the board doesn’t have the ability to act unilaterally against much of an opposition due to significant capability gaps and scale.

Yes there are gaps, and every time the British armed forces have been called into action there has been gaps. The gaps create more operational constraints, they do not preclude operations altogether.

Politics will prevent unilateral action, not equipment.