Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RetroSicotte]

If only there had been a survey ship ordered, built and entered into service recently that could have gone to Appledore instead...oh wait.

As always, it reeks of poor planning and not using the resources available to them.

[shark bait]

That's artificially creating a demand to support an industry, which is not the MOD's job. What is more, in 5 years time it will land you smack back in the same place artificially creating demand for Cammell Laird.

The simple fact is there is massive over supply, and its not the MOD's responsibility to sustain that.

[Poiuytrewq]

It leaves little reason for a navy to ask the UK for a light frigate, a world class ASW frigate on the other hand?

I take your point but I look at it differently. The UK has beaten the world with the Type 26 design. Tier1 ASW Frigate, clean sweep.

Now, why not build on that success? Why not take on the FTI and the PPA? Why not use the lessons learned with the T26 to build the most advanced Tier2 ASW/AAW/GP Frigate in the world at an FTI comparable price point? The RN need it and I think the rest of the world would buy it. HMG could do this if they wanted to. At present they appear to be preoccupied with the badly underfunded T31 programme.

Work also needs to start pretty rapidly with a Tier1 AAW T26 variant building on the superiority of both the T26 and T45 designs. This development work should be funded directly by HMG, not through RN's budget. This should be funded by any tax receipts from the T26 export success.

In my opinion this would be the best way to support British shipbuilding along with the UK's wider defence industry.

That looks like a huge over supply. Why would a business keep a patrol boat factory running in such a market? Then consider their main customer is currently taking delivery of 5 new patrol boats, and there's pretty much no hope for a small patrol boat factory.

Simple solution, sell the RB2's and let Appledore build some useful OPV's or send the RB2's directly to Appledore to have retractable hangers installed. Similar to what has been done with the Abu Dhabi class. https://www.fincantieri.com/en/products ... abi-class/

image.jpg

The Abu Dhabi class is smaller in every way to an RB2 so the conversion should be perfectly possible. This could happen immediately and would have the added benefit of taking the time pressure off the T31 programme. This would allow time to properly fund the T31 programme and give it every chance of successfully producing at least 5 credible Frigates.

With a Wildcat embarked, a 57mm/76mm added and Phalanx FFBNW, these modified RB2's might actually add something pretty useful to the fleet. From a maritime security standpoint, what could a Leander do that a modified RB2 could not? Seems like a solid option to me.

Hang on, it’s built Survey ships also in the not too distant past. In the next 20 years the HMG will be wanting 10-15 vessels under any MHC programme, plus next replacements for the OPVs.

Exactly, every effort should be made to save Appledore for this very reason.

Starting in a decades time.

Why wait 10 years? Don't bother refiting ageing mcmv's. Start building Venari's now.

[Repulse]

RetroSicotte, agree what’s the point in the NSS unless to have a meaningful strategy and plan.

[donald_of_tokyo]

- I guess the work-force will go to Plymouth, it will not be lost.

- The 4 Irish OPV order was only 40M GBP/year, which is only 2.5% of Babcock's 1.6B GBP revenue. This means, if it is just to maintain the ship yard, Babcock will need only 20-30M GBP/year. This is not small if we think it as directly damaging its profit (which will be ~10% or less of the revenue), but this is not large if considered as "investment".

Losing Appledore, Babcock-UK loses the prestige of "an active ship builder in UK". So, there must be a good reason they are doing so.

It shall include the idea that "Appledore does not worth even a "20-30M GBP/year" investment."

Although just guess, I think Babcock thought,
- shipbuilding strategy unreliable
- T31e program unreliable
- and Appledore's OPV business future unreliable

If so, putting HMG money will not be a good idea.

[RetroSicotte]

If so, putting HMG money will not be a good idea.

That's what galls me. Appledore was perfect for the MoD if they had gotten even one Gov that thought about more than next week ahead of time.

HMS Magpie could have easily been the follow up after the Irish OPVs, Gleaner spending a few more months in service would have been easy.

By the time that's done, Gibraltar was needing some new ships for the Gibraltar squadron.

After that, the MHC was just around the corner, not to mention whatever slots for cheaper OPVs/Border Force than the Rivers for post-Brexit that might have been used had the nonsense on the Clyde not happened due top (again) poor planning and constantly putting things off.

Just a little forethought and organisation could have easily saved the yard and created a steady, not overly ambitious drumbeat of projects without needing to artificially add anything on.

[NickC]

30th October FTI update from French Defence Ministry.

The lead ship of this class has been ordered, and should be delivered before 2023.The French Defense White Paper stipulated 15 frigates operational by 2030.

4,500t; 120 m; crew 120, able to accommodate 150; 2 RHIBs; NH-90 NFH helicopter and a drone; SEA FIRE MFR with fixed array panels; VLS for 16 Aster AA missiles; 8 Exocet MM40 Block 3C missiles; 76mm gun; HMS KINGKLIP Mk2; VDS CAPTAS-4-COMPACT; MU90 LWTs.

No mention of 'Mission Bay' which I find telling.

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, I agree that Babcocks move to shut Appledore is either a last gasp to get political sway or more likely their bid for the T31e is dead. I just hope the programme is dead.

If HMG had some balls they would lease Appledore themselves and pair with BMT and start to build the Venari, but they don’t.

[Lord Jim]

Yes ideally spacing out systems is a very good idea, but for some reason modern designers, especially those working on warships for the RN seem to like to put everything on one basket.

That's because its expensive. Look at the Burke class, where cost is less of an issue, and you'll notice they've had distributed solos for decades.

This is one of the great things about CAMM, its a non-intrusive launcher that can be placed almost anywhere at low cost, bringing distributed silos into the RN's price bracket.

I would very much like to see a midship CAMM silo on the T45, but they have other problems to fix first.

Just for the sake of asking how can a silo that is sunk in to the deck of a ship be non-intrusive? I haven't seen any T-31e proposals with six foot canisters sticking up on top of the deck.

[Tempest414]

For me the RN and MOD/HMG are not seeing the bigger picture and are to busy running around building the wrong ships for the future threat and not leaving the right amount of future scale and if we take a look at the way we going now which is

6 AAW destroyers = all needed for Carrier group ops
8 global combat ASW frigates = 4 to 5 for carrier ops + 2 for taps leaves 1
5 global patrol corvettes = 5 ships for mid to low end threat deployments

what this works out to is we are a one shot pony i.e we have a carrier group. But for a bit of side ways thinking or a little more money we could be in a better place. Right now we are looking to build a cheap light GP frigate ( Heavy corvette) that we might be able to make into a ASW platform later that in real terms has no place in our Navy and we have world class frigate (T26) that is far to good to be only carrying out carrier group ASW tasks . Now if we take a different view and say if we build 5 simple ASW as I out lined before

130 meters long
19 meters beam
Artsian radar
CAPTAS-4 TAS
full width hanger for 2 Merlin's
2x Boat houses ( No Mission Bay)
1 x 57mm - 2 x 30mm - 1 x Phalanx - 24 cell VLS for 32 CAMM + 16 ASROC with extra torpedo's and other weapons deployed from the Merlin's

As said before these ships would only work as part of the carrier group this would in turn free up the Type 26s to undertake blue water ASW out side of the Carrier group or to be deployed to the Asian - Pacific or anywhere we like with more confidence . and if we want a second batch of cheaper GP frigate we could remove the ASW kit and 16 VLS from the ship above this along with the fact these would be ship 6 to 9 would mean a hope for saving of 100 to 150 million per ship

[Ron5]

I understand that but that would mean the T-23 was one of the worst designed escorts in the history of naval warfare as one hit could take out the Mk8, the VL Sea Wold and the Harpoon and the T-45 is not much better. Yes ideally spacing out systems is a very good idea, but for some reason modern designers, especially those working on warships for the RN seem to like to put everything on one basket.

And the Type 26 rectifies that shortcoming. To a degree.

[shark bait]

Just for the sake of asking how can a silo that is sunk in to the deck of a ship be non-intrusive?

Relatively non-intrusive. Compared to a bigger launcher with hot gas management and containment for non-insensitive munitions the CAMM launcher is easy to locate, it's one of its best features.

[Lord Jim]

The stand alone ExLS is no more intrusive that the "Mushroom" launcher as it does need a hot gas management system to operate the current load outs available, using a cold launch system for Sea Ceptor (obviously), RAM Block 2 and interesting NLOS. The added benefit is that the Sea Ceptor four round canisters can easily be fitted into both the stand alone launcher and the Mk41 (of any type)
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... -Sheet.pdf

[donald_of_tokyo]

It leaves little reason for a navy to ask the UK for a light frigate, a world class ASW frigate on the other hand?

I take your point but I look at it differently. The UK has beaten the world with the Type 26 design. Tier1 ASW Frigate, clean sweep.
Now, why not build on that success? Why not take on the FTI and the PPA? Why not use the lessons learned with the T26 to build the most advanced Tier2 ASW/AAW/GP Frigate in the world at an FTI comparable price point? The RN need it and I think the rest of the world would buy it. HMG could do this if they wanted to. At present they appear to be preoccupied with the badly underfunded T31 programme.
Work also needs to start pretty rapidly with a Tier1 AAW T26 variant building on the superiority of both the T26 and T45 designs. This development work should be funded directly by HMG, not through RN's budget. This should be funded by any tax receipts from the T26 export success.

I think there are 3 problems here.
1: BAES design team must be busy preparing for Australia and Canada. They will have time maybe from 2020 onwards?
2: "tax receipts from the T26 export success" is not Navies' money. If you do so, many of the tax is NOT directly related to navy (e.g. finical sector) and RN will starve with money.
3: FTI is NOT good as ASW. It is CODAD ship, and it was specifically designed follwoing the concept of "(if the cost is the same) non-quiet hull with big sonar is better than quiet-hull with small sonar" trade-off French Navy did. "Leander if added with CAPTAS4CI" will be better, because it has electric drive mode up to 15 knots, thanks to its smaller size.

... But for a bit of side ways thinking or a little more money we could be in a better place. Right now we are looking to build a cheap light GP frigate ( Heavy corvette) that we might be able to make into a ASW platform later that in real terms has no place in our Navy and we have world class frigate (T26) that is far to good to be only carrying out carrier group ASW tasks . Now if we take a different view and say if we build 5 simple ASW as I out lined before

130 meters long
19 meters beam
Artsian radar
CAPTAS-4 TAS
full width hanger for 2 Merlin's
2x Boat houses ( No Mission Bay)
1 x 57mm - 2 x 30mm - 1 x Phalanx - 24 cell VLS for 32 CAMM + 16 ASROC with extra torpedo's and other weapons deployed from the Merlin's

As said before these ships would only work as part of the carrier group this would in turn free up the Type 26s to undertake blue water ASW out side of the Carrier group or to be deployed to the Asian - Pacific or anywhere we like with more confidence . and if we want a second batch of cheaper GP frigate we could remove the ASW kit and 16 VLS from the ship above this along with the fact these would be ship 6 to 9 would mean a hope for saving of 100 to 150 million per ship

How about a 3700t ship
-----
* 117 meters long
* 14.6 meters beam
Artsian radar
* CAPTAS-4CI (not CAPTAS-4) TAS
* a single NH90 capable hangar (if in CVTF, Merlin will come from CVs).
2x Boat houses ( No Mission Bay)
* 1 x 57mm - 2 x 30mm - 1 x Phalanx - 12 CAMM - 8 VL-ASROC
* CODOE propulsion (electric mode up to 15knots)
------
As you see, this is a slightly modified Leander, actually more like the original Cutlass.

I agree the issue with Leander is, not enough growth margin. But, you can see I simply omitted mission bay, which is not important in a 2nd-tier ASW ship steaming with CVTF (so much "mission bays" all around). This will bring good margins.

Another issue is, I've added CAPTAS-4CI and 8-cell Mk.41 VLS for VL-ASROC. How can we make this money?

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the "hope for" future 2nd-tier ASW escort. Governing factor is man-power, not hull-number.

- Type23 will start decommission from 2023, 1 per year. 5 T23GP, and then 8 T23ASW. The last one will decommission on 2035.
- The 1st T26 will be accepted to RN around 2025, not 2027. "Accept" means RN crew is needed. So, T26-1's crew will be provided by T23GP3, not T26ASW1.
- Let's assume T26 comes in every 1.5 years.

< current plan >
2023 T23GP1 T31-1 accepted to RN.
2024 T23GP2 T31-2 accepted
2025 T23GP3 T26-1 accepted to RN, and T31-3 accepted.
2026 T23GP4 T31-4 accepted
2027 T23GP5 T26-2 accepted, and T31-5 accepted
2028 T23ASW1 T26-3 accepted
2029 T23ASW2
2030 T23ASW3 T26-4 accepted
2031 T23ASW4 T26-5 accepted
2032 T23ASW5
2033 T23ASW6 T26-6 accepted
2034 T23ASW7 T26-7 accepted
2035 T23ASW8
2036 T26-8 accepted
-------------------

Problem is,
- T31 too much in hurry, while do not have crew until T23GP3 is disbanded.
- BAE design team is busy on T26, and cannot spend time of Leander. Babcock has changed direction so frequently, and Arrowhead 140 presumably needs a bit more time to be matured.
- SDSR 2020. If T31e is already had a contract and running, and still a big cut us forced (not thinking of this possibility is totally foolish), only program to be cut is T26 (or LPD-Rs). But, if it is T26, to keep the work force until T45 replacement, more slowing down will be forced, causing more cost = less number.

Those 3 issues are "un healthy" aspects of the current T31e program.

-------------------
I here propose one trick, to solve these "problems"

- "Regrattably" disband 3 T23 now, "to be gapped until T31e comes in". As 2 escort does not have crew, this will give us 180 crew.
- To "partly fill the gap", keep 4 River B1, to be manned by 30x1.5x4 = 180 crew.
- Uparm River B2 a little, (say, 1x ISO-container UAV hangar and 1x CIWS) and state, "with 4 EEZ patrol OPV kept in service, 5 River B2 temporary up-armed for constabulary tasks will fill the gap of 3 escorts for the time being".
- Reform T31e program to start 3 years later to enable more designing. This will significantly "relax" the situation. For example, T26 design team will be "back" on work, and will be able to do some good modification of Leander design. For example, making it more suitable for ASW. Arrowhead 140 will have a time to reform the team structure.
- We can wait for SDSR2020, before starting the build of T31e.

I think this is low risk, nothing-lost (2 escorts are already lost now), flexible to future cut, and also flexible to future "good news" (no problem we can find many good items to spend; more T31, 1 or 2 more T26, more P-8A and F35Bs, 3rd LSS and so on).

< proposal >
2019 Disband T23GP1/2, keep 4 River B1, up-arm 2 River B2s
2020 Disband T23GP3, up-arm 3 River B2s
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025 T23GP4 T26-1 accepted to RN
2026 2 River B1 disband, 2 River B2 down-armed for EEZ
____ _________ ____________ T31-1 accept (+3 yr)
2027 T23GP5 T26-2 accepted,
2028 T23ASW1 T26-3 accepted,
____ 2 River B1 disband, 3 River B2 down-armed for EEZ
____ _________ ____________ T31-2 accept (+4 yr)
2029 T23ASW2 _____________ T31-3 accept (+4 yr)
2030 T23ASW3 T26-4 accepted,
2031 T23ASW4 T26-5 accepted, T32-4 accept (+5 yr)
2032 T23ASW5 ____________ T32-5 accept (+5 yr)
2033 T23ASW6 T26-6 accepted
2034 T23ASW7 T26-7 accepted
2035 T23ASW8
2036 _______ T26-8 accepted

[ArmChairCivvy]

The 1st T26 will be accepted to RN around 2025, not 2027. "Accept" means RN crew is needed

Handover and 'in-service' are two different things, esp.for the 1st of class - trials might even see her "sent back" like an OPV recently, or more seriously - a super expensive German frigate; Minister informed on this on 23 April and Save The Royal Navy committed the answer to print (more widely than just in the Hansard):
"
Why will the Royal Navy not have its first Type 26 frigate operational until 2027?
Defence Procurement Minister, Guto Bebb stated in Parliament on 23rd April that the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. "

[donald_of_tokyo]

So HMS Glasgow needs her crew when?
I think at least on2025, or even one year earlier.

T31 and T26 is competing for their crew. Zero need to hurry T31.

[Aethulwulf]

On the "hope for" future 2nd-tier ASW escort. Governing factor is man-power, not hull-number.

- Type23 will start decommission from 2023, 1 per year. 5 T23GP, and then 8 T23ASW. The last one will decommission on 2035.
- The 1st T26 will be accepted to RN around 2025, not 2027. "Accept" means RN crew is needed. So, T26-1's crew will be provided by T23GP3, not T26ASW1.
- Let's assume T26 comes in every 1.5 years.

< current plan >
2023 T23GP1 T31-1 accepted to RN.
2024 T23GP2 T31-2 accepted
2025 T23GP3 T26-1 accepted to RN, and T31-3 accepted.
2026 T23GP4 T31-4 accepted
2027 T23GP5 T26-2 accepted, and T31-5 accepted
2028 T23ASW1 T26-3 accepted
2029 T23ASW2
2030 T23ASW3 T26-4 accepted
2031 T23ASW4 T26-5 accepted
2032 T23ASW5
2033 T23ASW6 T26-6 accepted
2034 T23ASW7 T26-7 accepted
2035 T23ASW8
2036 T26-8 accepted
-------------------

A few points...

1. For the first T31 to be accepted in 2023 is now incredible ambitious, given this year's delay to the programme. If it does meet 2023, it's highly likely to be the end of the year. Whereas the OSD for each T23 is mid year. So there will be at least a 6 month gap between a T23GP going out of service and a T31 coming into service (probably more).

2. You can't just take people from T23s and redistribute them to the Rivers. Each crew is made up of Marine Engineers, Weapon Engineers, Logistics, Operations specialists, etc. Different ships will require different numbers of each specialists. The recruitment, training and promotion within each of these talent pools is managed across the fleet. You can not magically turn a AAW weapon engineer into a marine engineer, just because Rivers need more of the latter and less of the former.

3. By your estimate of the current plan, total escort numbers will temporarily increase to 20 in 2025, to 21 in 2027, before dropping back. I'm sure the RN are aware of this and will be seeking to increase the pool of the critical trades to cover for these periods - much as they have for QE, PoW and Ocean as new ships come into service and old ones are kept working hard up to their OSD. This normal business for the RN.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A few points...

Thanks.

2. You can't just take people from T23s and redistribute them to the Rivers. Each crew is made up of Marine Engineers, Weapon Engineers, Logistics, Operations specialists, etc. Different ships will require different numbers of each specialists. The recruitment, training and promotion within each of these talent pools is managed across the fleet. You can not magically turn a AAW weapon engineer into a marine engineer, just because Rivers need more of the latter and less of the former.

Agreed. So, the man-power balance will be fleet-wide. Finding 180 to keep River B1, and distributing 180 of T23GP-3 to many escorts for their promotion. It is not 1 by 1 replacement, agree.

3. By your estimate of the current plan, total escort numbers will temporarily increase to 20 in 2025, to 21 in 2027, before dropping back. I'm sure the RN are aware of this and will be seeking to increase the pool of the critical trades to cover for these periods - much as they have for QE, PoW and Ocean as new ships come into service and old ones are kept working hard up to their OSD. This normal business for the RN.

Uhh, no. My date is "delivery date", not "commission". Former is the day RN need to allocate crew. The latter is when RN accepts it can be located in "normal cycle of escort maintenance/training/deployment". Commissioned escort will not exceed 19, I think.

I agree it is "normal business for the RN". The problem is, within the "current normal cycle", already (at least) 2 escorts are out of service (almost officially). If we look at the T23 sea-going days on 2012 vs 2018, it is more big reduction, nearly 4 T23 equivalent.

Although guess, this is because RN is struggling to provide commissioned/commissioning crew of QNLZ and PoW. What is worse, the core crew turned out to be ~800, 130 more than the planned 670. We know PoW is not yet delivered, but almost full crew is taken up.

[Aethulwulf]

To fully man every ship in the current RN fleet requires just over 8000 personnel. The RN has around 32,000 regulars (inc. RM), to support this frontline force.

While there are certainly big difficulties with manpower, particularly within engineering, the idea that the only way to cope with the problem is to pay off T23 frigates early is not credible.

[Caribbean]

And how many civilians to cover functions that used to be the purview of the services themselves? And how many in the MOD?

[Poiuytrewq]

Thanks Donald.

1: BAES design team must be busy preparing for Australia and Canada. They will have time maybe from 2020 onwards?

I don't think it's acceptable to hang around for two years waiting for BAE. The clock is ticking...

2: "tax receipts from the T26 export success" is not Navies' money. If you do so, many of the tax is NOT directly related to navy (e.g. finical sector) and RN will starve with money.

I don't really understand what you mean but my point is, the investment in the Type 26 has paid off. RN need a Tier2 Frigate to back up the T26, the UK shipbuilding sector also need a boost so why not invest again in a T26 derived design to achieve these objectives at a price point comparable with the FTI. This would be a much more effective way of supporting British shipbuilding than the NSS.

3: FTI is NOT good as ASW. It is CODAD ship, and it was specifically designed follwoing the concept of "(if the cost is the same) non-quiet hull with big sonar is better than quiet-hull with small sonar" trade-off French Navy did. "Leander if added with CAPTAS4CI" will be better, because it has electric drive mode up to 15 knots, thanks to its smaller size.

When did Leander increase its electric drive speed up to 15knts? It's 12knts.

I agree that with a very ordinary CODAD propulsion system the French are building to a budget but the FTI is a very well rounded design with lots of attributes apart from ASW.

The T45 is much better than Horizon, the T26 is much better than FREMM and I believe the UK could do it again with a £500m Tier2 Frigate derived from the T26.

I agree the issue with Leander is, not enough growth margin. But, you can see I simply omitted mission bay, which is not important in a 2nd-tier ASW ship steaming with CVTF (so much "mission bays" all around). This will bring good margins.

I find Leander's misson spaces baffling, almost tying to copy the T26 but without the beam dimensions to make it work. I agree Leander doesn't need it but I don't think it needs to be 117m/120m either. BAE tell us Leander comes in 4 different sizes, 99m/102m/117m/120m. I actually think the Leander makes more sense at around 102m-105m than it does at 117m. All of the space for 12/24 CAMM, 8x ASM, 8x Mk41 cells, 2x 30mm's and Phalanx is retained and space is also available for 3 RHIB's or 2 RHIB's and an ISO.

image.jpg

If T31 has to happen, why not build 4 or 5 102m-105m Leander's with simple 25knt CODAD propulsion with everything FFBNW apart from the medium calibre gun and 2x 30mm's and Artisan? They should cost little more than £150m each. The £500m/£650m saved could be used to development a credible UK Tier2 Frigate or fed into the T26 programme to try and squeeze out another hull.

Uparm River B2 a little, (say, 1x ISO-container UAV hangar and 1x CIWS) and state, "with 4 EEZ patrol OPV kept in service, 5 River B2 temporary up-armed for constabulary tasks will fill the gap of 3 escorts for the time being".

I would add a medium caliber gun and a retractable hanger but in essence we are proposing the same thing. Retain the RB1's and use the RB2's to fill the gaps until the T31 programme can actually deliver credible frigates with an acceptable growth margin to future proof the class.

The other option is to build some basic Leanders to achieve the same outcome.

- Reform T31e program to start 3 years later to enable more designing. This will significantly "relax" the situation. For example, T26 design team will be "back" on work, and will be able to do some good modification of Leander design. For example, making it more suitable for ASW.

The only attraction to Leander as I can see it is that it requires very little redesign or modification and due to this the budget can stretch a bit further when compared to other designs. If the MOD BAE to go away and redesign Leander the programme will bog down and costs will spiral as they always do. I would suggest a simplification of the T26 design would be much better value for money in an effort to make a Tier1 design cheaper rather than an OPV derived design more expensive.

If Leander was stretched out to 130m and the beam widened to 16m+ then maybe would have a genuine FTI competitor but at present there seems little likelihood of that.

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, I agree with a lot of what you say, given the recent stats on days at sea, dropping 3 GP T23s will have no real impact other than a dented political pride. Also adding TAS etc to the 2 GPs will increase RN ASW capability.

I have to say that for the surface fleet the future of ASW should be a mixture of T26 and Venari style MHC assets - everything else is wasting money. Piling our money into 1-2 more T26s rather than a half arsed T31 has to be the best idea given this is where investment from the Oz and Canadian navies will be over the next 20 years.

I’d also go for keeping the 4 B1 Rivers, to be replaced in the short term by 3 stretched B3 Rivers - maybe BAE already knew this when they came up with the Avenger Class.

[ArmChairCivvy]

So there will be at least a 6 month gap between a T23GP going out of service and a T31 coming into service (probably more)

Considering the remixing of trades and refresher training needed(?) on new/ different kit, would that not fit the 'bill' perfectly?
- with SSNs it is a full year
- too long, but one less boat will need manning until the 7th A-boat is handed over... when would that be (= a while)

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks

I don't think it's acceptable to hang around for two years waiting for BAE. The clock is ticking...
...the investment in the Type 26 has paid off. RN need a Tier2 Frigate to back up the T26, the UK shipbuilding sector also need a boost so why not invest again in a T26 derived design to achieve these objectives at a price point comparable with the FTI. This would be a much more effective way of supporting British shipbuilding than the NSS.

I agree there is not enough time. This is the reason I am proposing to delay T31e. On the My point of "investment", who are paying for the it? Concept can be done by industry-level (see BMT), but detailed design needs HMGs investment. From where the cost comes?

When did Leander increase its electric drive speed up to 15knts? It's 12knts.

Sorry you are right, it is 12 knots.

The T45 is much better than Horizon, the T26 is much better than FREMM and I believe the UK could do it again with a £500m Tier2 Frigate derived from the T26.

T45 was expensive than Horizon, T26 is expensive than FREMM. But, do UK has money to build "2nd-tier" escort which shall be expensive than FTI? I think NO. Cost is the sole point, I am not hoping for such a frigate to come.

I agree Leander doesn't need it (mission bay) but I don't think it needs to be 117m/120m either. BAE tell us Leander comes in 4 different sizes, 99m/102m/117m/120m. I actually think the Leander makes more sense at around 102m-105m than it does at 117m.
...If T31 has to happen, why not build 4 or 5 102m-105m Leander's with simple 25knt CODAD propulsion with everything FFBNW apart from the medium calibre gun and 2x 30mm's and Artisan? They should cost little more than £150m each.

Floreal-like ship. Yes, I like it. Actually it should have been there in place of 5 River B2.

Optimistic hope, "not to degrade 19 escorts", made 5 River B2 OPVs to come not 3 Khareef-based Floreal-like surveillance frigate. It was a political dance, lack of decision, lack of vision, lack of responsibility, inclined for optimistic thin hope = completely a waste of money.

Note, River B2 itself is nothing bad as EEZ patrol ship. What was bad was RN/MOD/HMG.

Uparm River B2 a little, (say, 1x ISO-container UAV hangar and 1x CIWS) and state, "with 4 EEZ patrol OPV kept in service, 5 River B2 temporary up-armed for constabulary tasks will fill the gap of 3 escorts for the time being".

I would add a medium caliber gun and a retractable hanger but in essence we are proposing the same thing. Retain the RB1's and use the RB2's to fill the gaps until the T31 programme can actually deliver credible frigates with an acceptable growth margin to future proof the class.

Yes. My point is, making everything "resettable". Canistered add-on, such as 20mm CIWS. If we take it off, the River B2 will again become an efficient (economical) EEZ patrol ship, to open the way for T31e.

The only attraction to Leander as I can see it is that it requires very little redesign or modification and due to this the budget can stretch a bit further when compared to other designs. If the MOD BAE to go away and redesign Leander the programme will bog down and costs will spiral as they always do.

I'm not saying more modification. I mean, the current Leander design is still in concept phase. Cost tells so. It's detailed design is yet to be done. Why not use the well-experienced team to do that, by shifting the program by 2-3 years. It will reduce the trouble in later phase, further train the team to make up a center of excellence.

I would suggest a simplification of the T26 design would be much better value for money in an effort to make a Tier1 design cheaper rather than an OPV derived design more expensive.

For FTI-level 2nd-tier frigate, I agree Khareef-based design is not good starter. But, I have no hope a ~500M GBP unit-cost frigate has a future in RN. No money and no man-power. I also think shortening T26 is the baddest idea. It shall be just completely new design. Making a design larger is much much easier than shorter.

For me, T31e shall be 1-level lower than FTI design, with smaller unit-cost and smaller design load. With unit-cost ranging from 250-350M GBP.