Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[RetroSicotte]

Not a bad proposal, Donald. While I will forever reiterate and remind that the navy requires 13 such ships, and the budget/manpower to support them, it is likely a superior option to what IS happening.

I would disagree on the need for a 5 inch gun on the T31s though. If we're just going low end with them, then that gun itself is a confusing addition. Either it has ammo that requires it to sail so close it can't defend itself, or it needs even more money for the on board infrastructure/training to launch guided rounds. It feels a bit like putting a tank gun on a buggy.

If it's going to be a "large OPV", I'd rather it save that money for something smaller, and could almost fit another ship out of it. Mk45 Mod 4s are pretty heckin' expensive! Might actually be cheaper to give them 12x CAMM and ensure surface attack capability than to give and support a Mk45.

4 what has Bae systems done in the radar field for the last 12 years sice that order (which was paid for by taxpayers, no company money use there.).

6 I would like T26 to have what Aussies are putting on their mast and with the Canadian ships, we get these systems alot cheaper due to more built is cheaper then a few.plus they will be more efficient and uptodate.

4 - Aye, exactly. The UK has not even produced a single fixed facing AESA design yet for a ship, let alone get one manufactured for a 2027 entry. No wonder they were looking at CEAFAR.

6- Same here. It's a sting to pride, but Artisan really is not a 2030 and out radar for a frontline escort that has to be a fleet backbone. CEAFAR would be a much better choice. I would look to keep it British, but there simply is no other option thats homegrown. CEAFAR, Kronos, Seafire, they're all good.

[Tempest414]

This will leave 400M GBP. As to compensate T31e program cancel, I think this 400M GBP shall be used in "other UK ship yards" to build 3 "Floreal-like" large OPVs, i.e. a 3000t ship with a helo hangar, a CIWS, and maybe a 5 ing gun. (Call it T32.) Or, any other ships.

Also, to compensate the other 1.1Bn GBP going into T26 program, I think "other UK ship yards" must join T26 build program, such as building funnel, bow, or hangar sections. Even as a sub-contractor, a steady flow of welding job sustained until 2036 will be much more fruitful for those shipyards, compared to a sudden 1.5B GBP investment with nothing coming later.

I feel that if the T31 program was to be cancelled and the artificially slow build rate of T26 was speeded up I feel we should push for 10 T26's from the 9.5 billion with a av cost of 950 million each and then start the MHPC program in 2027 under the new budget to build 15 Venari 95 Multi mission ships with a helo hangar , 57mm , CIWS and off board MCM , ASW , Hyrograthic , UAV's to give us a fleet of 16 escorts and 15 100 meter multi mission ships

Edit : Maybe the 15 Multi mission ships could be fitted with the Artisan sets so they would not go to wast

[dmereifield]

This will leave 400M GBP. As to compensate T31e program cancel, I think this 400M GBP shall be used in "other UK ship yards" to build 3 "Floreal-like" large OPVs, i.e. a 3000t ship with a helo hangar, a CIWS, and maybe a 5 ing gun. (Call it T32.) Or, any other ships.

Isn't the T31 (Leander) shaping up to be pretty much that, only 25% larger

Disappointing to read that informed commentators rate the T26 as second division

[Ron5]

Only rotating at 30RPM is a very dangerous flaw for those sorts of speeds.

You are forgetting that Artisan is also AESA so there's two scans going on at the same time, one mechanical and one digital. The combined refresh rate is much higher than the mechanical rotation rate. Then add that to the fact that Artisan projects more power in a single direction, and is mounted higher enabling greater radar horizon.

Secondly to say that there's no evidence that Artisan software is superior to others is a might disingenuous. Nobody is going to release that kind of information. Just like nobody releases RCS. But it is very true that these days, software is king and will decide a digital radars effectiveness more than any other single factor.

Thirdly, it's plain daft to day the Australian Type 26's are "better". The Australians added a requirement for area AAW that will be very expensive to meet. AEGIS is expensive, SM's are expensive, the radars are expensive.

The UK instead spent money on two 70k ton aircraft carriers providing a shedload more AAW than any destroyer/frigate. The T26 primary role is proving ASW defense to these titans.

More effective in war my ass. Put a UK CVG against the Aussie navy and tell me the Aussies are going to win that fight. I think not. And I have the utmost respect for their navy.

[Poiuytrewq]

To replace we have enough work keep 3 ship yards working for 15 years with 2 of them going on for 30 years like so

BAE Govan ) tier 1 escorts 1 every 2 years 8 x type 26 followed by the 6 to 8 T45 replacements = 30 + years work
Cammell Laird ) 5 x type 31 1 ship every 2 years followed by 15 MHPC ships = 25 years work
Babcock Rosyth ) 2 x SSS followed by 4 200 meter Enforcer LPDs 1 ship every 2 years followed by a LHD built over 3 years = 15 years work

This would be a good approach but I would be concerned about the long term strategic logic of basing so much of the UK's naval shipbuilding capacity north of the border. I would take a wider UK based approach based on a 4 yard strategy.

1. Submarine centre of excellence at Barrow.
2. State of the art Frigate Factory at Scotstoun building all RN escorts.
3. Combined commercial enterprise between Cammell Laird and H&W to build all Auxiliary/Logistic/Amphibious vessels.
4. OPV, MHPC and Corvette centre of excellence at Appledore.

This approach spreads the work share more evenly across the UK resulting in following benefits,

1. The frigate factory at Scotstoun would be able to produce more frigates faster, lowering build costs and resulting in more escorts hitting the water.

2. The commercial enterprise between CL and H&W would enable both yards to support each other and float blocks across the Irish Sea as required. The combined output of these yards would be able to easily cope with the future build schedule of RFA and RN vessels. Industrial action at either yard would also have less of an impact using this combined build approach.

3. Appledore could build a business model around a drumbeat of OPV, MHPC and Corvette orders enabling these smaller RN vessels to be built in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

Rosyth would lose out but only in terms of actual shipbuilding. I would adapt Rosyth's role to act as the primary location for RN's non frigate/destroyer maintenance and refit work including the QE's. Rosyth could bid for the RFA maintenance and refit contracts along with other UK yards.

Proposed Frigate factory at Scotstoun:

image.jpg

image.jpg

The Mission Bay is (as far as I'm aware?) connected to the Hangar. If they wanted, they could fit more than 2 helos in there. Merlin + 2 Wildcats is certainly doable. Might be a bit clumsy to operate, but the mere allowance permits some very projection from a single escort.

The space is large enough to embark 2 Merlins AND 2 Wildcats but not with maintenance clearances. The question is, why would you want to? With only 1 landing spot, the fact that a T26 can embark more than 2 helicopters is pretty much academic. If the hull was stretched out to around 180m and a second landing spot was to be created that would be a different story.

Partly inspired by the discussion "how to improve T26"....

Personally I think the current priority should be to make the T26 more numerous, not more expensive...

3: Cancelling or re-formatting T31e, to gain free money of 1.5B GBP.

With a boost of £1.5bn to the T26 programme I believe things would be very much back on track. What would be possible if the frigate factory was built and the build schedule accelerated?

- add 1 more T26. [allocate 650M GBP (750M - 100M efficiency savings)] :

Sounds plausible but we should be aiming for more than nine?

- improve T26 fleet [allocate 450M GBP]

I would rather improve the T45's rather than the T26's. Personally I think it's more of a priority at this point.

This will leave 400M GBP. As to compensate T31e program cancel, I think this 400M GBP shall be used in "other UK ship yards" to build 3 "Floreal-like" large OPVs, i.e. a 3000t ship with a helo hangar, a CIWS, and maybe a 5 ing gun. (Call it T32.) Or, any other ships.

Three large Global Patrol Vessels is very tempting but the fleet is top heavy with OPV's at this point. I would rather concentrate on getting 10 frigates plus 2x TAPS vessels in the water and properly manned before spending any more money on OPV's. The larger Auxiliary/Logistic and Amphibious vessels could help fill the gaps in the general patrol deployments until the escort manning crisis is stabilised.

[Poiuytrewq]

...Venari 95 Multi mission ships with a helo hangar , 57mm , CIWS and off board MCM , ASW , Hyrograthic , UAV's to give us a fleet of 16 escorts and 15 100 meter multi mission ships

Edit : Maybe the 15 Multi mission ships could be fitted with the Artisan sets so they would not go to wast

If done correctly, a vessel such as you describe, in conjunction with the T26's, would virtually remove the requirement for any £250m T31's.

Given the current lack of available manpower, should we really be looking at introducing these modestly manned vessels sooner rather than later?

[RetroSicotte]

You are forgetting that Artisan is also AESA so there's two scans going on at the same time, one mechanical and one digital.

Unless the radar can detect out of its backplate, that makes no difference in that it will always have a gap on each rotation.

Then add that to the fact that Artisan projects more power in a single direction

Source on its power output in comparison to Seafire, CEAFAR, the new Kronos, SPY-6? It's a much smaller radar than any of these, with smaller physical components and less electrical power running into it, with software written many years before any of them. Any logic would dictate that it is on Artisan to prove that it somehow breaks this trend.

Additionally, I still have never seen a single official source confirming that the in service result of the program is an AESA. Only ever vague theories about a possible future technology, and not what actually got made. Which essentially means nothing as far as proof goes. It'd be like using Sampson's original spec as a PESA to prove its not an AESA.

Secondly to say that there's no evidence that Artisan software is superior to others is a might disingenuous. Nobody is going to release that kind of information. Just like nobody releases RCS. But it is very true that these days, software is king and will decide a digital radars effectiveness more than any other single factor.

Thats an inversion of the point. Someone made a statement that it's just better at X and Y and noting something that basically all new radars have as listed capability, and implying its some Artisan only thing. There is no evidence to support that only Artisan can do this.

Thirdly, it's plain daft to day the Australian Type 26's are "better". The Australians added a requirement for area AAW that will be very expensive to meet. AEGIS is expensive, SM's are expensive, the radars are expensive.

The UK instead spent money on two 70k ton aircraft carriers providing a shedload more AAW than any destroyer/frigate. The T26 primary role is proving ASW defense to these titans.

More effective in war my ass. Put a UK CVG against the Aussie navy and tell me the Aussies are going to win that fight. I think not. And I have the utmost respect for their navy.

This is a huge non-sequitor and essentially irrelevant to the point that was being made and discussed.

[Tempest414]

So given Donald's brake down of how he sees the RN crewing problem would we be better to try and push for escort / patrol fleet something like this

6 x Type 45 with 40 CAMM added to give a missile load out of 88 missiles and upgrade to BMD standard

10 x Type 26 with 60 CAMM and 30 cell Mk-41 VLS

15 x Venari 95 100 meter Multi mission ships with

Core crew 50 plus space for 60 off board systems crew
Scanter 4100 radar
BAE CMS
Hull mounted Sonar
helicopter Hangar
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , Fitted for Phalanx / SeaRam

Off Board systems
Unmanned MCM
Unmanned littoral ASW
Hydrograthic
Wildcat
UAVs
RM raiding craft
Phalanx / SeaRam ( 6 of each to be pooled across all 15 ships )

[Lord Jim]

Given how our equipment plan is shaping up regarding the composition of our vaunted Carrier Group and I would put my money on the RAN, given they would be the home team and operate under air cover provided by the RAAF.

[Jake1992]

So given Donald's brake down of how he sees the RN crewing problem would we be better to try and push for escort / patrol fleet something like this

6 x Type 45 with 40 CAMM added to give a missile load out of 88 missiles and upgrade to BMD standard

10 x Type 26 with 60 CAMM and 30 cell Mk-41 VLS

15 x Venari 95 100 meter Multi mission ships with

Core crew 50 plus space for 60 off board systems crew
Scanter 4100 radar
BAE CMS
Hull mounted Sonar
helicopter Hangar
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , Fitted for Phalanx / SeaRam

Off Board systems
Unmanned MCM
Unmanned littoral ASW
Hydrograthic
Wildcat
UAVs
RM raiding craft
Phalanx / SeaRam ( 6 of each to be pooled across all 15 ships )

Sounds spot on to me of what is needed, the only to point I'd make.

In regards to the CAMM on the T45s you'd be best to use ExLS due to its compactness in turn this would mean either 36 or 48 CAMM due to the fact ExLS comes in blocks of 3 quad packable.

On the mk41s on the T26 you'd be looking at 32 not 30 as they come in blocks of 8, if the mid ship CAMMs were replaced with 15 ExLS cells this would allow the removal of the front CAMM launchers freeing up space for the same lay out of 32 mk41s we see on the Canadian desgin.

I'd like to see more of the multi mission sloops if we could as I believe these would be the back bone of the RN fleet doing everything out side of high engagement situation.
1 - mcm
2- hydro graphics
3 - littoral ASW
4 - low end security ( counter pirrecy around Africa the med and Caribbean, gaurd ship at gib and Falklands )

To do all these roles you'd need the following IMO

1 - mcm, 2 x gulf, 2 x NATO, 1 x home waters

2 - hydrographic, 2 to deploy where needed

3 - littoral ASW, 3 to deploy where needed

4 - low end sercurity, 1 x Africa, 1 x med, 1 x Caribbean, 1 x Falklands ( maybe 1 x gib )
That mean 14-15 would need to be avalible at all times

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not a bad proposal, Donald. While I will forever reiterate and remind that the navy requires 13 such ships, and the budget/manpower to support them, it is likely a superior option to what IS happening.

I would disagree on the need for a 5 inch gun on the T31s though. If we're just going low end with them, then that gun itself is a confusing addition. Either it has ammo that requires it to sail so close it can't defend itself, or it needs even more money for the on board infrastructure/training to launch guided rounds. It feels a bit like putting a tank gun on a buggy.

If it's going to be a "large OPV", I'd rather it save that money for something smaller, and could almost fit another ship out of it. Mk45 Mod 4s are pretty heckin' expensive! Might actually be cheaper to give them 12x CAMM and ensure surface attack capability than to give and support a Mk45. ...
Three large Global Patrol Vessels is very tempting but the fleet is top heavy with OPV's at this point. I would rather concentrate on getting 10 frigates plus 2x TAPS vessels in the water and properly manned before spending any more money on OPV's. The larger Auxiliary/Logistic and Amphibious vessels could help fill the gaps in the general patrol deployments until the escort manning crisis is stabilised.

Isn't the T31 (Leander) shaping up to be pretty much that, only 25% larger
Disappointing to read that informed commentators rate the T26 as second division

Thanks. Building 3 "Floreal-like" with 400M GBP was my proposal. It is actually a little "less than" a Floreal, because of its cheapness. They will lack SSM, will only have Scanter 4000 radar, and with a 6000 nm range, not 10000 nm of the original Floreal. With a 3000t hull, a 5inch gun, a CIWS, basic ESM/Chaff/flare and a Wildcat-capable hangar, it will be cheap.

The "Floreal-like" is to fight in low threat environment, like Sierra Leone, and not against peer. They can fire the 127mm gun in anger with little risk. We can get 3 such ships with 3/4 of the cost for 1 T26, and each ship's sea going days will be significantly longer than a T26 (less maintenance). I guess 3 Floreal-like can cover 1 deployment (e.g. Med) and 1 FRE, while 1 T26 can only provide 1/3 year (4 months/year) ave. deployment.

I said 5inch gun because there will be only 3 to be built and hence common logistic will be important. I also think the 5inch gun turret itself is not much expensive, if with classic manual load. There is no need for high rate of fire, so no need for the expensive robotic arsenal onboard T26. But, I agree other options may work. (e.g. 57mm with common maintenance agreement with USA and/or Canada).

... With a boost of £1.5bn to the T26 programme I believe things would be very much back on track. What would be possible if the frigate factory was built and the build schedule accelerated?

Not interesting for me. In long term, UK do not have enough future order of escorts to be built them faster.

I would rather improve the T45's rather than the T26's. Personally I think it's more of a priority at this point.

Good point. But, may be using the "450M GBP" for all 15 hi-end escorts, 30M GBP per hull?

Three large Global Patrol Vessels is very tempting but the fleet is top heavy with OPV's at this point. I would rather concentrate on getting 10 frigates plus 2x TAPS vessels in the water and properly manned before spending any more money on OPV's. The larger Auxiliary/Logistic and Amphibious vessels could help fill the gaps in the general patrol deployments until the escort manning crisis is stabilised.

Understandable, but I have a different point of view. River OPV and my Floreal OPV (50% more expensive) are in different class. EEZ/fishery patrol specialist vs presence specialist. (Yes, we can heavily modify River B2 to make it a presence ship, but now I am talking about the original ones). But, yes, it is just a candidate proposal and your option is also worth considering, I agree.

I feel that if the T31 program was to be cancelled and the artificially slow build rate of T26 was speeded up I feel we should push for 10 T26's from the 9.5 billion with a av cost of 950 million each..

As with RetroSicotte-san's same comment, I think it is no bad as another alternative.

...and then start the MHPC program in 2027 under the new budget to build 15 Venari 95 Multi mission ships with a helo hangar , 57mm , CIWS and off board MCM , ASW , Hyrograthic , UAV's to give us a fleet of 16 escorts and 15 100 meter multi mission ships

Do not agree here. MHC with such an equipment will not be cheap. May be only 8 hull will be possible with 1B GBP, and another 1-1.5B GBP is desparately needed for developing/buying drones, which will never be cheap.

This would be a good approach but I would be concerned about the long term strategic logic of basing so much of the UK's naval shipbuilding capacity north of the border. I would take a wider UK based approach based on a 4 yard strategy.

1. Submarine centre of excellence at Barrow.
2. State of the art Frigate Factory at Scotstoun building all RN escorts.
3. Combined commercial enterprise between Cammell Laird and H&W to build all Auxiliary/Logistic/Amphibious vessels.
4. OPV, MHPC and Corvette centre of excellence at Appledore.

This approach spreads the work share more evenly across the UK resulting in following benefits,

1. The frigate factory at Scotstoun would be able to produce more frigates faster, lowering build costs and resulting in more escorts hitting the water.

2. The commercial enterprise between CL and H&W would enable both yards to support each other and float blocks across the Irish Sea as required. The combined output of these yards would be able to easily cope with the future build schedule of RFA and RN vessels. Industrial action at either yard would also have less of an impact using this combined build approach.

3. Appledore could build a business model around a drumbeat of OPV, MHPC and Corvette orders enabling these smaller RN vessels to be built in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

I think item-3 and 4 must be merged, to secure continuous investment for foreseeable future (say, 30 years from now). I do not think there is enough money to support 3 yards (H&W. CL, Appledore) with RFA, MHC and LPD-R. As such, (sorry to say but) Appledore dropping out is not bad. CL/H&W can build any of them, but Appledore cannot RFA vessels.

[Repulse]

This will leave 400M GBP. As to compensate T31e program cancel, I think this 400M GBP shall be used in "other UK ship yards" to build 3 "Floreal-like" large OPVs, i.e. a 3000t ship with a helo hangar, a CIWS, and maybe a 5 ing gun. (Call it T32.)

I think BAE thought this was always an option all along with the Avenger design. Another T26 and 3 Patrol Sloops (FIGS, WIGS and GiGS) been my favourite for a while, and remains so.

[serge750]

Has there ever been a price mentioned for the "Avenger" class or is it "we will sell you 5 for the 1.25 bn" ? I really think if the gov wants 5 x T31 ( to keep the numbers up on paper) this boat built in various uk yards is going to be the one, I would prefer 4 better armed ships though..

[ArmChairCivvy]

the home team and operate under air cover provided by the RAAF.

In carrier games, you just move Australia (the continent) - shhimpples

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think BAE thought this was always an option all along with the Avenger design. Another T26 and 3 Patrol Sloops (FIGS, WIGS and GiGS) been my favourite for a while

Just leaving GIB out, for the two on station that would be 6 ships (OK, 5 if you allow for short, unannounced gaps or using another type of asset when a hurricane - or two - hits).

I would look for presence near SLOC gaps (and some forward basing) as the primary tasking and then some of the mentioned could be "slotted in".

[Poiuytrewq]

Not interesting for me. In long term, UK do not have enough future order of escorts to be built them faster.

If we want to build more than 8 T26's we will have to accelerate the build schedule or the T45 replacement timetable will slip.

I think item-3 and 4 must be merged, to secure continuous investment for foreseeable future (say, 30 years from now). I do not think there is enough money to support 3 yards (H&W. CL, Appledore) with RFA, MHC and LPD-R. As such, (sorry to say but) Appledore dropping out is not bad. CL/H&W can build any of them, but Appledore cannot RFA vessels.

I think the commercial partnership that I have proposed between CL and H&W should be just that, commercial. I believe this is important to ensure competitiveness going forward. The drumbeat of MOD orders is crucial but shouldn't become life support like it has on the Clyde. Cammell Laird has enjoyed a bumper time recently with the RFA maintenance contracts and the RRS SDA build. Harland & Wolff has successfully diversified into the wind energy sector and is now starting once again with commercial vessel refits including cruise ships. This commercially viable business model is vital. It will maintain efficiency and competitiveness in the future which should ensure the RN/RFA get the ships they need at a price the UK taxpayers can afford.

As for Appledore, I think it is a pity HMG didn't fight harder to save it but the yard has seen hard times before, maybe the last chapter hasn't been written yet. The location of the OPV/MHPC/Corvette yard isn't that important, but I would like to see it somewhere on the south coast. Too much has been moved to Scotland already and to move more in the current climate would be strategically nonsensical.

Scotland should get the frigate factory as promised and I am proposing a similar investment into a OPV/MHPC/Corvette factory on Englands South Coast. This should be designed from the start as a scalable development, one that could easily be reconfigured and adapted into a full blown frigate factory if Scotland ever did vote to leave the Union. I believe this makes solid strategic sense.

This Warship and Small Vessel facility would specialise in building all OPV's and MCM/Survey vessels for RN, the coastguard cutters for the border agency as well as all of the UK's fisheries protection vessels. It should be modestly sized with a small but highly skilled workforce together with modest overheads to match. This facility should be viable with a regular drumbeat of orders from HMG. Exports must not be relied upon and with proper planning they shouldn't be necessary.

I think BAE thought this was always an option all along with the Avenger design. Another T26 and 3 Patrol Sloops (FIGS, WIGS and GiGS) been my favourite for a while, and remains so.

The Avenger design has a lot of potential but I think Leander would make a better basis for such a configuration. It's interesting that when BAE first floated the Avenger concept, the reception it received was almost entirely negative.

If RN was to change tracks and go down the Global Patrol Vessel route I would like to see it being much bigger than the 111m Avenger. I would like to see it being Enforcer based and built mainly to commercial standards, around 150m X 24m and with a 1000sqm deck garage, 2 Chinook capable landing spots and a crew allocation of around 60 with accommodation for an additional 350. I would replace the well dock with a steel beach/ramp and make it LCM/LCVP/CB90 and LCAC capable.

- 6 x Type 45 with 40 CAMM added to give a missile load out of 88 missiles and upgrade to BMD standard
- 10 x Type 26 with 60 CAMM and 30 cell Mk-41 VLS
- 15 x Venari 95 100 meter Multi mission ships with

As ever, a great list but I would go in a slightly different direction.

- 6 x Type 45

I would aim to fully maximise the T45 platform by introducing both a BMD and a TLAM capability. I would give serious consideration to deleting ASTER 15 all together and replacing with amidships CAMM and/or CAMM ER.

Something like this,
48x ASTER 30
48x CAMM (Amidships)
16x TLAM/BMD

- 10 x Type 26

At this point I would not look to upgrade the entire T26 fleet further. Instead I would introduce a split build of 4x enhanced T26's, 6x downgraded T26's and 2x severely downgraded T26's as dedicated TAPS vessels.

Something like this,

Four Enhanced T26's (GCS):
32x TLAM/ASROC
48x CAMM
No other changes

Six Downgraded T26's (Escort):
24 CAMM
Mk45 and auto mag removed
57/76mm fitted
TLAM capability removed
8x Mk41 cells for ASROC
Mission Bay simplified
Crew allocation reduced
No other changes

Two Severely downgraded T26's (TAPS):
12 CAMM
Mk45 and auto mag removed
57/76mm fitted
TLAM capability removed
8x Mk41 cells for ASROC
Mission Bay and hanger removed
Replaced with double Merlin hanger and 2 Merlin spot flight deck
Crew allocation reduced further
No other changes

The GCS version would be the cruiser that many think the T26 could and should be.

The Escort version would be the frigate that RN really needs to retain its sovereign capability to escort its own task groups.

The TAPS version would be a dedicated sub hunter. Firmly at home in the North Atlantic and economical enough to increase numbers if deemed necessary. This very basic T26 might be appealing to a different sector of the export market.

- 15 x Venari 95

Again with the MH(P)C platform I would look to introduce a split build.

Donald is correct in saying that increasing cost will reduce hull numbers and a large proportion of the budget will be required for the development and procurement of the off board systems. This produces a bit of a dilemma. Do you go higher spec and accept lower hull numbers or keep the spec low and maximise hull numbers?

Why not both?

If the MHC vessels ends up something like a Venari 85/95 it will probably have a beam around 16m and a top speed of no more than 18 to 20knots. Great for MCM and survey work but not ideal for patrol duties. Could the solution be to design a Venari type vessel that can accept an additional 15m to 20m central block containing another engine room, deck garage and hanger extensions, additional EMF accommodation, and additional medical facilities?

This would result in 115m to 120m vessel with a top speed of around 22/24 knots, a large hanger with a Chinook capable landing spot. A 500sqm deck garage plus a LCVP/CB90/LCAC capable working deck. Add in an extensive medical facility and an EMF of around 60 to 80, it would one very useful and cost effective addition to the fleet.

Whatever the MHC produces, it's unlikely to ever be deemed a serious combatant, but even so, it could still prove to be a very important part of achieving a well rounded and truly balanced fleet.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not interesting for me. In long term, UK do not have enough future order of escorts to be built them faster.

If we want to build more than 8 T26's we will have to accelerate the build schedule or the T45 replacement timetable will slip.

I propose add only one. In this case, we just need to use "learning curve", and stop artificially slowing down the build rate. Also, I am not optimistic of T45 replacements. If the ships are more capable, the number of hull shall be even less than 6, even 4. In future, the warship will be less reliant to the ship itself. I am not surprised if the T26 will be used for 40 years or even more. In other words, replacement escort number will inevitably decrease, and not increase. The large frigate factory will never be filled.

I think item-3 and 4 must be merged, to secure continuous investment for foreseeable future (say, 30 years from now). I do not think there is enough money to support 3 yards (H&W. CL, Appledore) with RFA, MHC and LPD-R. As such, (sorry to say but) Appledore dropping out is not bad. CL/H&W can build any of them, but Appledore cannot RFA vessels.

I think the commercial partnership that I have proposed between CL and H&W should be just that, commercial. ...

Agree on here. CL and H&W will continue bidding for commercial order, and ALSO apply for MOD bids.

...This Warship and Small Vessel facility would specialise in building all OPV's and MCM/Survey vessels for RN, the coastguard cutters for the border agency as well as all of the UK's fisheries protection vessels. It should be modestly sized with a small but highly skilled workforce together with modest overheads to match. This facility should be viable with a regular drumbeat of orders from HMG. Exports must not be relied upon and with proper planning they shouldn't be necessary.

MCH will be 8-hulls with so-so grade hull, and anyway much less than 15. Anyway, the cost for these hull is ~1B GBP. Adding cutter and other OPVs, it will be in total 1.5B GBP (those OPV must be simple and cheap, much cheaper than River B1). Distributing it for 25 years, the build rate will be very low. At least, they must spend more than 16 years to build the "8" MHC which is 2/3 of the total budget = 2 years drum beat.

Building the relative simple MHC design for 16 years without any design change, is not a good way to go, I think.

If all "other than escorts and Subs" orders were merged, MHC program will be about a quoter of the total, meaning all "8" ships can be built within ~8 years. Surely, this "fast-build MHC ships" will be cheaper and can enjoy commonality, than "slowly built MHC".

[Repulse]

Just leaving GIB out, for the two on station that would be 6 ships (OK, 5 if you allow for short, unannounced gaps or using another type of asset when a hurricane - or two - hits).

I would expect the normal 1:3 ratio not to apply. The principle being that these ships will need to be forward based with a 80% availability (but not all at sea), to do this the gun may need to be smaller (self contained 57mm) and/or the radar downgraded (Scanter 4200) - whilst the design would support it I’d say no to a VLS day one just the ability to fit later if ever needed.

Poiuytrewq, These Patrol Sloops will be targeted specifically to the role given, which would be there in a conflict or not, so I see no need to over do it nor make them into a multi role Enforcer design. Keep the cost as small as possible (say £150mn) to buy another T26 and also affordable as an export option for customers already with similar ships like Brazil.

What feels achievable given the current funding is:

- 6 T45s
- 9 T26s (full fat versions)
- 3 Patrol Sloops
- 5 OPVs
- 12 MHC (UUV, USuV, UAV motherships)

Any money left over should probably go on submarines.

[SW1]

I think it’s right to say the Australian hunter class are much more rounded escort vessels than what the type 26 will initially deliver. I think the tonnage difference between the too vessels is purely the RN trying to downplay how big they are as there size became inextricably linked to there cost in the contract negotiations.

Essientally these have ended up at a size cost and complexity of what the RN has always coveted a uk arelight burke. It’s just as so often happens they run out of money to fully equip them.

Now that we are where we are perhaps 12 vessels fitted out to the levels seen in hunter class as our sole high end escort and 6 large fwd deployed mother ship vessels built for sea security and control along the crewing lines of hms Clyde and the survey vessels is perhaps were we end up with the river class vessels providing that sea control capability around the uk.

[Repulse]

perhaps 12 vessels fitted out to the levels seen in hunter class as our sole high end escort and 6 large fwd deployed mother ship vessels

Understand where are going with and aligned with some of the discussions on Think Defence about 10 years ago. I’d argue though that if the MOD could avoid wasting money on going down dead ends or constantly changing build schedules due to cash flow, a target fleet of 15 first rate warships is well within reach of even our current fianancial constraints - built to a rhythm of one every 18 mths (and shorter RN lifespans).

The thing I do disagree with is that everything else can be done by large simple motherships. That would be okay(ish) if the UK only needed to operate in the North Atlantic, but it doesn’t and we need “fast” smaller (war)ships to operate in coastal waters where larger ships would not be able to operate effectively - basically we need to retain a balanced manned fleet complemented by off board and aviation assets.

[ArmChairCivvy]

aligned with some of the discussions on Think Defence about 10 years ago.

By then I had lost the count of 'resets' in Obama Administrations effort to do a 'Kissinger' with Russia (as opposed to the 'original one' with China) and thereafter Trump has tried to do the same - with a very different style.
- both/ all attempts have failed
- the likelihood of peer-to-peer conflict has gone up, and the need to be able to deter (on the same lines) has done likewise

A 'ship that is not a frigate' has become much less useful (if that was the reference, back in time). Ron made a v good comment upthread about our fleet composition.
- or may be it was on carriers thread; could not find it
- anyway, on the lines " we have just invested in shit-loads of AAW in the form of our carriers, and the shaping of the escort fleet capabilities should be done/ prioritised in the light of that fact"

[serge750]

I know it's a long way of but what would the pros & cons of using the T26 hull to replace the T45 ?
ok they are slightly smaller but is the hull design appropriate for the AAW mission ?

Maybe delete the mission bay & put the viper replacement missile silos there? delete the midship CAMM,retain the forward 24 x CAMM & lower the mk 41 to 8 or 16 for SSM.

Since the OZ T26 are more rounded would it be worth going down this route to replace the T45...

[Repulse]

serge750, I agree; there are two counter arguments not to do this, the first will be not knowing what will be needed 15-20 years hence and also the need to keep UK ship design skills current and effective. My view however, is that ships have pretty much been similar for the past 30-50 years and whilst the onboard systems may change the training / support cost benefits of a common platform remain. Also, by saying to BAE now we want 15 ships (where the onboard systems could evolve) over the next 25 years then we would get a better unit price as everyone can invest in factories etc with better certainty.

[matt00773]

Agree X-band has normally much shorter range than S-band for ships as size of long range X-band antenna arrays large, but for surface search for a sea skimming missile horizon is what 20nm depending on height, so having separate X-band fixed panel radars dedicated to that role with their higher definition plus longer dwell times and a S-band for volume air search is the choice of Australia, Japan and Spain for their new frigates as mentioned.

Artisan is mounted much higher than the radar panels so not sure about the 20nm range you stated. I've never seen a report on Artisan as far as sea skimming detection goes, but SAMPSON is able to detect sea-skimming missiles at 120kms.

As have said previously you need to be able to operate in EMCON mode, radar silence due to threat from anti-radiation missile attack from land, air or sea, immunity to jamming and passive operation makes it extremely important in an electronically degraded environment. Would expect the Chinese and Russians AShM seekers to have or developing exactly same capability as LRSAM which has the ability to target active ship radar emissions, you can normally detect radar emissions at one and half to two times range ship radar able to pick up target, then LRASM will drop down in sea skimming attack mode.

I'm not sure what you're stating here. I'm sure there are missile threats that can detect heat and emissions from surface vessels - this has been the case for decades.

PS You can have long range X-band radars though normally unsuitable for ships as normally too large, the TPY-2 has 9.2 sq. mtrs array, whose range varies from ~500 to 3,000 km in forward base mode, with performance degrading the longer the range, at 870 km said to track target with a RCS of 0.01 sq. mtrs; dwell time, time the radar spends on each beam position, for each target of 0.1 sec and a S/N ratio for detection of 20. Infers that the radar can track 10 targets with one measurement on each target every second, or alternatively 100 targets every ten seconds. Why dwell time so important if under attack by sea skimming AShM that only in range of radar at 20nm, especially when supersonic, reaction time measured in seconds.

I think you're assumption on the 20nm radar limit for detection of sea skimming missile is misguided. This may be true of low mounted fixed planar arrays, but not the case with Artisan and SAMPSON which are mounted twice as high.

[Jake1992]

I know it's a long way of but what would the pros & cons of using the T26 hull to replace the T45 ?
ok they are slightly smaller but is the hull design appropriate for the AAW mission ?

Maybe delete the mission bay & put the viper replacement missile silos there? delete the midship CAMM,retain the forward 24 x CAMM & lower the mk 41 to 8 or 16 for SSM.

Since the OZ T26 are more rounded would it be worth going down this route to replace the T45...

Wouldn't it be a better and just as easy way forward to put a 10m-15m plug midship between the mission bay and superstructure.

Use this same to add the nessisary VLS while keeping the same VLS space up front. IMO it'd make a lot more sence to go all mk41s and pay the cost of qualifing aster 30 for thrm than keeping 2 kinds of VLS especially on a single vessel.

Say something along these lines based on the T26 hull -
Length - 160-165m
Beam -21m
Displacement - 9000-10,000tn
Speed - pushing 30knots
Range - 7,000nm
Endurance - 60 days
Core crew - 150
Accommodation - 250
Weapons fit - 1 x 5" auto mag, 2 x 30mm, 2 x phalanx, 1 x dragonfire, 72-96 mk41s, hand full of GPMG and mini guns, the usual soft kill

The changes to the basic T26 design by adding a plug will be not greater than striping away the mission bay to add VLS and on the plus side the vessels would be more flexible.
I'd look at removing rafting and other quieting messures as these would not be needed on an AAW platform