Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

Crew, equivalent to those of the first 2 T23GP (decommission in 2023 and 2024), is non existing (2 escorts in extended readiness). Also, many T23s in LIFEX will come back soon, because "the LIFEX season" ends before T31 entrance date. Their crew is also non existing (which is up to 3, I guess).

Then, on 2025, the 1st T26 will be handed over to RN. Even though she commissions only on 2027, the crew is 100% needed from 2025 (actually even earlier). So, 3rd T31 has no crew, either.

It is only after most of the T23ASW are replaced with T26, when the crew for T31e become available.

At least, there is no risk in disbanding 2 T23 GP now, and also make the 1st T31e commissioning date AFTER the 1st T26 is handed over.

Also, T26 hull-2 will be handed over on 2026, I guess. As such, even if the 1st T31 comes in 2027, not 2023, there is NO problem.

This is my point.

[Caribbean]

The only trouble with selling Ocean to Brazil is that we first had to give them £80m, as aid, so that they could then pull the money out of that budget into the defence budget to pay for Ocean. I suspect that something similar will happen with the T23's if we sell them. Any financial gain will be small to vanishing. The loss of capability will not be.
Any plan that seeks to reduce the number of frigates even further is foolish in the extreme. Sorry - don't mean to be rude, but that's my opinion on the matter.
Recruitment is apparently improving, albeit slowly, HMG allowed an additional 400 posts to be recruited a couple of years ago, which is only just flowing through the system (a friend who joined around that time got his first posting onto QNLZ for Westlant 18) and there is an ongoing policy of reducing surplus senior ranks to pay for more junior ranks. The manning crisis is being addressed, so basing future fleets on yesterdays manning levels is not the best policy to my mind.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Your point on manning is understandable, but it is very very slow. On 2018, I understand RN has zero increase in man-power, albeit budgeted for 400 more. They are struggling to stop the reduction, which looks like almost stoped. Good work.

And, it is not "yesterday". We need more than 2-3 years to make them an escort crew to solve the issue. And, within 4 years, the 1st T23 will decommission. If we do not have +400 by the end of this year, it will not meet the T23 decommission date. Also, I think you agree that, to have 200 more crew, you need 400 more man-power. RN member is NOT always assigned to a warship.

[EDIT] in other words, even if +400 happens, still one escort will be in extended readiness among the 2 in extended readiness now. In addition, the T23s coming back from LIFEX desperately needs crew. I think RN needs 400-500 or even more crew (only for escorts), which means 800-1000 or even more man-power. I cannot foresee this happening, (if not banning another RM commando).

Also, the 2 escorts in extended readiness, to my mind, has zero capability, so disbanding two has zero impact. Ship without her crew is non existing. Compared to "just existing on paper", "non-existing" is actually much better, because it does not eat money. Precious money RN needs elsewhere.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The only trouble with selling Ocean to Brazil is that we first had to give them £80m, as aid, so that they could then pull the money out of that budget into the defence budget to pay for Ocean. I suspect that something similar will happen with the T23's if we sell them.

I see only positive here? What is the problem? UK commits to 0.7% ODA. ODA cannot be spent on military, but they can "swap" it. If Brazil is swapping ODA into military to buy T23s, it is only good news for RN? Sorry, I am totally missed here...

[Repulse]

The manning crisis is being addressed, so basing future fleets on yesterdays manning levels is not the best policy to my mind.

No, but trying to base future fleets on budget that has a £7bn CAPEX hole over 10 years and a few billion OPEX hole per annum isn’t smart either. As has been pointed out by constantly overspending and then having to introduce short term spend adjustments is crazy.

Also, I’d fundamentally say that the global position has changed - there is very limited need for a T31 IMO. The RN doesn’t need a medium tier of ship for global presence - what it needs is the a few high end forward based platforms with the ability to project power via UK based CSGs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

RN/ RM outflow and intake have been in balance since mid-2016 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 18_SPS.pdf and in the outflow the share of people who simply decide to leave is the lowest amongst all of the Services.

with selling Ocean to Brazil is that we first had to give them £80m, as aid
Any financial gain will be small to vanishing.

What! OK, so the gain was from the refitting and upgrading work in UK yard(s)?
- funny that, we pay another navy for the CAPEX but -at best- we pay our own for OPEX (Defra/ Aid/ Home Office)

there is an ongoing policy of reducing surplus senior ranks to pay for more junior ranks. The manning crisis is being addressed, so basing future fleets on yesterdays manning levels is not the best policy

- yes, the fresh billets was +400 and conversion from officer billets another 300
- the sum comes within a touching distance of " very lean complement of 733 carrier's ship's company + there is a lot of space left for aircrew and an embarked military force (EMF) of least 250"
- and, time wise, so do the two decisions: to operate both carriers and add the above mentioned 700 sailor billets

[Caribbean]

I have yet to see confirmation that it came out of ODA, though I hope that is what happened. The more major point is that there is unlikely to have been any benefit to the RN, though it did facilitate the transaction and also allow UK companies to get the refurbishment contracts. overall, yes, it's a win, but not, I believe at the scale that one might have hoped for.

[Caribbean]

lso, I’d fundamentally say that the global position has changed - there is very limited need for a T31 IMO.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree over that one.

what it needs is the a few high end forward based platforms with the ability to project power via UK based CSGs.

Which we are getting (though I would clearly support more T26s being built and more than 6 destroyers)

[Poiuytrewq]

lso, I’d fundamentally say that the global position has changed - there is very limited need for a T31 IMO.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree over that one.

I would say there is very little need for a T31 that is a £250m pretend frigate. As a £250m (or less) multipurpose global patrol vessel it could be a real winner.

An Absalon type T31 would be the perfect compromise.

The T31 programme as currently configured is trying to have it both ways. It's very cheap compared to the T26 but it's also vastly less capable. The fact that it may get substantially upgraded at its first major refit around the 15 year mark is the carrot on the stick. The fact that the T31's are also due to be decommissioned at the same 15 year point shows that they have little chance of being upgraded under current planning unless a major threat emerges in the meantime.

The whole programme is a contradiction, mainly due to being underfunded from the outset. A classic case of political interference resulting in Defence on the cheap.

what it needs is a few high end forward based platforms with the ability to project power via UK based CSGs.

Which we are getting (though I would clearly support more T26s being built and more than 6 destroyers)

That in my opinion must be the priority.

12 Frigates (Tier1) and 8 Destroyers would be a good target to aim for. If managed correctly it should be both affordable and achievable.

[Repulse]

Which we are getting (though I would clearly support more T26s being built and more than 6 destroyers)

I would support another T26 and so does I think a 2% budget - now if we move to a 2.5-3% budget I’d say let’s have a few more in reserve and another CSG, after we’ve paid for some more SSNs

[shark bait]

there is very limited need for a T31 IMO.

The RN absolutely needs another frigate. Only 14 escorts to protect two carriers and an amphibious group is ridiculous. If that happens the RN really will have bet everything on the carriers and gone bust.

I would clearly support more T26s being built

Meanwhile back in reality; the T26 costs too much to replace the Dukes one to one, thus an alternative is required.

[Caribbean]

Meanwhile back in reality; the T26 costs too much to replace the Dukes one to one, thus an alternative is required

That was my point - they are clearly preferable, but not achievable within the current constraints

[Poiuytrewq]

Meanwhile back in reality; the T26 costs too much to replace the Dukes one to one, thus an alternative is required

That was my point - they are clearly preferable, but not achievable within the current constraints

What's more useful, five Leanders or two more T26's?

It all depends on the makeup of the T31 but I would suggest 2 real frigates like the T26 would be much better at protecting the CSG and ARG than 5 pretend frigates like a £250m Leander.

[Caribbean]

There are currently 8 ASW frigates, 6 SSKs and 6 destroyers available to protect the single CSG/ARG that the RN is proposing to deploy. By the time it is ready for active deployment, there will probably be an additional SSK, 9 Maritime patrol aircraft (and quite possibly a number of unmanned patrol aircraft) and around 15-20 F35B available (increasing over time to 48). Seems pretty decent to me. The 5 current GP frigates will be replaced by 5 GP frigates and the 4 current OPVs have been/ will be augmented/ replaced by another 5 - that seems fair. The only part of that fleet that is under "threat" is the GP frigate fleet, in that we need to build replacements before the current vessels reach OSD - that is what the T31 is for, with their £1.5b budget and cross-decked systems.

[shark bait]

What's more useful, five Leanders or two more T26's?

Doesn't matter, that's not whats on offer.

The issue is replacing the T23's as quickly as they drop out of service. Adding a couple of extra units to the end of the T26 production run does not solve that issue. The RN need a product that can be delivered in 4 years.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The only part of that fleet that is under "threat" is the GP frigate fleet, in that we need to build replacements before the current vessels reach OSD - that is what the T31 is for, with their £1.5b budget and cross-decked systems.

True,
while noting that the SSN part of the fleet was under threat, and the threat has been realised (numbers dropping, not staying level or going up). Again, we have not been told the full story; The reason was not (only) budgetary, but the reactor troubles - real troubles that then brought a bout a rescheduling of the production line.
- luckily, these troubles have now been solved, but the catch-up will take time

Also,
note how the cross-decking quietly slid from the T-26 prgrm to the T-31s
- nothing wrong with that; just another example of the "pulling wool over the eyes" Comms Policy of the MoD

Poiuytrewq wrote:
What's more useful, five Leanders or two more T26's?


Doesn't matter, that's not whats on offer.

The issue is replacing the T23's as quickly as they drop out of service. Adding a couple of extra units to the end of the T26 production run does not solve that issue. The RN need a product that can be delivered in 4 years.

Fully agree

[Tempest414]

and for me this is where we missed out with TOBA had we built 3 115 meter Khareef we could now be looking at replacing 2 T23s early with out life-ex and a follow on order for 3 Batach 2 Leander and 1 more T26 at the end of the build run

[ArmChairCivvy]

had we built 3 115 meter Khareef

- globally deployable? That's what the customer need is (has been expressed so)
- not intimately aware of the design, except for what family tree it belongs to

[Poiuytrewq]

What's more useful, five Leanders or two more T26's?

Doesn't matter, that's not whats on offer.

The issue is replacing the T23's as quickly as they drop out of service. Adding a couple of extra units to the end of the T26 production run does not solve that issue. The RN need a product that can be delivered in 4 years.

Fully agree

My point is should we be replacing these frigates in such a hurry? If two T23's were sold tomorrow we wouldn't notice the difference.

I think it would be much better to get all the Waves, Bays and Albions fully operational and pump the remaining budget into the T26 programme. If we stand to have a 3 vessel shortfall around 2025, let Wave Ruler, Wave Knight and Bulwark fill the gap.

It will achieve the same outcome, have lower operating costs compared to current planning and result in 10 T26's rather than 8. All RN has to do then is figure out a way to fund 2 cost effective TAPS vessels in the early 2030's before moving on to the T45 replacements.

It's clearly a better and more sustainable outcome than building more frigates than we can crew and leaving them tied up in extended readiness.

If SDSR 2020 was to raise overall defence spending and fund an additional 1000 to 1500 manpower increase then I might reconsider, until then I think current planning in on the wrong track. Primarily due to nonsensical political interference.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If SDSR 2020

Have you heard (seen) even a whisper expressed in soft voice about it being planned
- whereas MDP is running again (under a cloak, and with no name)

[Pseudo]

and for me this is where we missed out with TOBA had we built 3 115 meter Khareef we could now be looking at replacing 2 T23s early with out life-ex and a follow on order for 3 Batach 2 Leander and 1 more T26 at the end of the build run

That would have required the government to recognise the implications of TOBA during the 2010 SDSR and commence a detailed design programme to be laid down in 2016. I think that if the government had recognised the implications of TOBA they'd have been better off moving the Type 26 order up a couple of years and spending a bit more money.

Though obviously, that would have gone completely against the entire ethos of the 2010 SDSR, but not much more so than commencing a detailed design programme on a light frigate would have.

[Tempest414]

I think if we are going to make a big change to how the fleet looked then maybe we should go for a fleet something like

6 x type 45s = core crew 195
10 x type 26s all full fat ASW = 130 core crew room 210
10 x Venari 95 Multi- mission ships = 50 core crew + room for 50 extra off board systems crew
10 x low level PSV = core crew 30 per + room for 50 extra off board systems crew

All these ships apart from T45 would be able to operate the off board systems which could be

10 x unmanned MCM kits
4 x Hydrographic kits
6 x unmanned littoral ASW kits
UAVs

[Poiuytrewq]

If SDSR 2020

Have you heard (seen) even a whisper expressed in soft voice about it being planned
- whereas MDP is running again (under a cloak, and with no name)

I don't mind what they call it as long as it achieves the correct outcomes.

The post Brexit spending review will probably have the biggest influence on what comes after, whether that turns out to be an SDSR or a follow-on MDP.

[Poiuytrewq]

6 x type 45s = core crew 195
10 x type 26s all full fat ASW = 130 core crew room 210
10 x Venari 95 Multi- mission ships = 50 core crew + room for 50 extra off board systems crew
10 x low level PSV = core crew 30 per + room for 50 extra off board systems crew

Interesting balance.

How do you see the proposed PSV's slotting in?

[shark bait]

3 vessel shortfall around 2025, let Wave Ruler, Wave Knight and Bulwark fill the gap.

No matter how much you want it, takers and LPD's will not fill the escort gap.

As it stands the RN is about to loose 5 sub hunters whist submarine activity is on the rise globally including right in our back yard.