UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1322
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 23 Aug 2019, 03:13

Sincde the discussion is to include AAW capabilities I would ask since there is not a proven counter to hypersonic missiles that can be deployed from ships ,and that even there is a difficulty detecting these because of electrical interference caused by the plasma bubble during their high speeds , this may even require the upgrading of the present radars to have a much longer range .
Should future AAW ships have a high end sensory capability ,the provision of satellities with thermal detection capability to provide further data to the ships and development of techniques to avoid or destroy such threats ,building ships otherwise are just targets

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3216
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Aug 2019, 04:57

Not sure in detail about the plasma stealth, but as a person learned physics in University, plasma stealth looks only valid for a specified frequency band. For low frequency radar (like meter), plasma is a good reflector. Plasma cloud will actually generate larger radar signal. For (very) high frequency radar (like mili-meter), plasma is equivalent to "nothing" = isolator, such as the air itself.

Long-range survey will be relatively easy; the ship shall just use low and high frequency radar combined. No plasma stealth can work in meter-wave and micro-wave, at the same time. Low frequency radar will also be important against conventional stealth aircrafts/missiles.

Short-range guidance with radar is a bit different. As the AAW missile must be compact, it cannot use low-frequency radio. In very high frequency (FIR), water starts to absorb the signal. In optical-band, cloud is a good "smoke". There are many options available, I think, but surely some development work will be needed for sure.

One thing to reming is that, "speed is very expensive". Also, "speed with range is very very very expensive" (drag-force is typically velocity to the third = v^3 = v*v*v). So, "a hyper-sonic missile with good range" will be very large and thus expensive system. This means, "anti-hypersonic AAW missile" could also be expensive.

In RN, it will be modified ASTER (or its successor) for handling ballistic missiles and hyper-sonic missiles (which are both very expensive missiles), while CAMM will be handling super-sonic ASM (so-so expensive) and sub-sonic ones (cheap), while LMM will be handling cheapest drones. A good layered defense, I think? :D

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1322
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby seaspear » 23 Aug 2019, 08:16

Hi Donald
I quoted plasma being developed from these missiles based on this report and others
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 7e04b62c00
certainly the article presnts as pessimistic in relating to countering this threat
I would also be interested if the Sampson radar is itself due for the upgrade as per the Dutch navy to increase its range to assist in providing extra time

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3216
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Aug 2019, 08:59

seaspear wrote:Hi Donald
I quoted plasma being developed from these missiles based on this report and others
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 7e04b62c00
certainly the article presnts as pessimistic in relating to countering this threat
I would also be interested if the Sampson radar is itself due for the upgrade as per the Dutch navy to increase its range to assist in providing extra time
Thanks a lot! I've read it.

I agree it is big threat. My point is, I still do not understand they keep saying it is invisible to radars (the plasma stealth part). It will be invisible for some radars (for example, X-band radars), but more longer wavelength radars will not be affected. I think it is more about the "under the horizon" effect, which is yes a big issue. Also I read they are discussing about defending a large area, not point defense = like ship. Developing AAW missile and its fire control will be very challenging, but not I personally think just a matter of cost, not physics = "not physically impossible".

And, Hyper sonic missile is very very very expensive. So, to counter it, very very very expensive AAW system will be needed.

This is what I understand, to now.

Of course, I might be wrong, though.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Aug 2019, 10:32

Tying together a lot of threads, it is clear that:
- CEPP will require an allocation of 5 T45s & 5 T26s; allowing a very short period surge of 7-8 Escorts
- CEPP will utilise the CVF & LPD - there will not be a separate ARG
- FRE/TAPS & the UK’s contribution to SNGM1/2 will take up the remaining T45 & T26

In addition the UK has the following surface commitments:
1) UK Fisheries / EEZ Patrol / FRE Support / UK MCM duties
2) SNMCMG1/2
3) FIGS
4) APT(S)
5) WIGS/APT(N)
6) Antarctic Patrol
7) Gibraltar Squadron
8) Kipion (MCM and forward based Escort)
9) Operation Atalanta
10) Globe trotting survey and Diplomacy
Plus the ambition for:
11) Forward based Escort in Singapore

My view is that of these only 8 and 11) require an Frigate/Destroyer, and if forward based then maybe given close management of assets, maybe only another 3 would be required.

#6 is covered by HMS Protector

For #1 and #7 (plus any need to stand up a Cyprus Squadron), we should be ordering @8 of what ever is chosen for Gib (in addition to the 12 URNU).

Of the rest I believe a common Venator type (or River variant) class of @18 ships could easily accommodate (with ultimately replacements for the B2s).

Each needs to be capable of doing its role, and the RN would shrink from a current (major 500t+ ship) fleet of 44 to 40 but money should into capability IMO.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 24 Aug 2019, 10:54

There’s much hysteria around hypersonics, and I suspect much of it nonsense, having in the past been involved with high speed aerodynamics the complexities of dealing with such speeds at altitude are enormous having a controllable missile at low level doing it, I doubt the tech is currently available or even close to a production level readiness. Any weapon achieving such speeds will likely be ballistic in nature. But radar will hardly matter in tracking it the IR signature will be a mile wide.

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 24 Aug 2019, 11:52

Repulse wrote:- CEPP will utilise the CVF & LPD - there will not be a separate ARG
Where do the proposed Littoral Strike Groups fit in?
Repulse wrote:My view is that of these only 8 and 11) require an Frigate/Destroyer
Do you mean a T26 or T31 in Singapore?
Repulse wrote:For #1 and #7 (plus any need to stand up a Cyprus Squadron), we should be ordering @8 of what ever is chosen for Gib (in addition to the 12 URNU).
IMO we need OPV's for general UK EEZ patrol, somewhere in the region of 80m to 90m and they should be distributed all over the UK. For fisheries enforcement alone the patrol fleet needs to literally treble in numbers and that includes the Scottish vessels. The Rivers are perfect for this even if the RB2's have a higher weapons and sensor fit than is really required. Also investing in UAV's deployed from land and the OPV's will be crucial as it is the persistent and discreet surveillance that will catch the wrong doers and increase the chances of a successful prosecution.

Personally I would transfer all UK EEZ fisheries and border force patrol duties to an enlarged and much better funded (and armed) UK coastguard. As fisheries enforcement is a devolved matter care would need to be taken to get the sensitivities right but it is eminently possible. Transferring the Rivers across would help RN's budgetary woes in a meaningful way and allow RN to build better equipped OPV's with embarked aviation more suitable for global deployments. This would also give an Appledore sized yard a continuous drumbeat of work going foward.
Repulse wrote:Of the rest I believe a common Venator type (or River variant) class of @18 ships could easily accommodate (with ultimately replacements for the B2s).
Why Venator?
Repulse wrote:RN would shrink from a current (major 500t+ ship) fleet of 44 to 40
We really need to stop shrinking the fleet. It's time it stabilised and maintained a minimum number of hulls.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 13:15

Repulse wrote:Tying together a lot of threads, it is clear that:
- CEPP will require an allocation of 5 T45s & 5 T26s; allowing a very short period surge of 7-8 Escorts
- CEPP will utilise the CVF & LPD - there will not be a separate ARG
- FRE/TAPS & the UK’s contribution to SNGM1/2 will take up the remaining T45 & T26

In addition the UK has the following surface commitments:
1) UK Fisheries / EEZ Patrol / FRE Support / UK MCM duties
2) SNMCMG1/2
3) FIGS
4) APT(S)
5) WIGS/APT(N)
6) Antarctic Patrol
7) Gibraltar Squadron
8) Kipion (MCM and forward based Escort)
9) Operation Atalanta
10) Globe trotting survey and Diplomacy
Plus the ambition for:
11) Forward based Escort in Singapore
Wrong...

- CEPP will require an allocation of 6 T45s & 6 T26s;
- CEPP will utilise the CVF & LPD - there is not a separate ARG
- TAPS will take up the remaining T26

In addition the UK has the following surface commitments:
1) FRE
2) SNGM1/2
3) UK Fisheries / EEZ Patrol / FRE Support / UK MCM duties
4) SNMCMG1/2
5) Falkland Island Patrol Task
6) APT(S)
7) APT(N)
6) Antarctic Patrol
7) Gibraltar Squadron
8) Faslane Patrol Boat Sqn
9) Kipion (MCM and forward based Escort)
10) Operation Atalanta / CTF150 / CTF151
11) Globe trotting survey and Diplomacy
Plus the ambition for:
12) Forward based Escort, in Singapore?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Aug 2019, 13:28

Poiuytrewq, in order:

- I do not count a LSG as a primary capability for the surface fleet. I would add two JSBLs that could act independently or with others or as part of CEPP, but in terms of LSG it’s no more than RFA Argus / RFA Victoria could do now (with the exception of a small well-dock and a few LCVP type craft).
- For the sake of 3 more frigates, why have a new class, it makes no sense in terms of costs but also means more craft are needed, as forward based crew need to be trained before they are deployed etc.
- The Rivers (B1,B1.5 and B2s) are the key to transforming the fleet, so selling them should be furthest from our minds. The B2s are superior for EEZ patrols and there is an argument more of the fisheries work should go to another government department, but they are much more capable for the FRE and anti piracy/terrorist roles, so reduces the stress on the DDs/FFs.
- I said Venator type, but a lot of the mission bay and layout characteristics of the design is pertinent to what is required IMO.
- I also would like to see a growing fleet, but above all I want a fleet that could (if needed) fight and win a war.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Aug 2019, 13:51

Aethulwulf wrote:Wrong...

- CEPP will require an allocation of 6 T45s & 6 T26s;
- CEPP will utilise the CVF & LPD - there is not a separate ARG
- TAPS will take up the remaining T26


It’s all down to the rate of CEPP deployments IMO, it’s tight but a 5+5 allocation plus generate a 2+2 CBG, but with a higher % of time for the active CBG to be in UK waters.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 13:54

Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Wrong...

- CEPP will require an allocation of 6 T45s & 6 T26s;
- CEPP will utilise the CVF & LPD - there is not a separate ARG
- TAPS will take up the remaining T26


It’s all down to the rate of CEPP deployments IMO, it’s tight but a 5+5 allocation plus generate a 2+2 CBG, but with a higher % of time for the active CBG to be in UK waters.
As normal, your opinion is wrong.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3216
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Aug 2019, 14:44

Allocating 2 T45 and 2 T26 for each CVF is good enough, I think. In peace time, the number could be even less (supplemented by NATO frigates), looking at French CVTF. Operated in the same rotation, 4 T45 and 4 T26 is what is needed for 2 CVF. (I think availability of CV will be the same to those of escorts. Both are very complex assets = need good training and maintenance).

# note, I assume one CVTF will deploy 8 months (+1 month on travel) a year, while another is in rest and training whole the year, preparing for for next year's deployment. In other words, 4 months a year, there will be no CVTF in action (but one could be in training).

As 2 T26 will be needed for TAPS, 4 high-end escorts (2 T45 and 2 T26) remains to cover FRE, NATO-fleet, and the two forward deployed tasks (Baḥrayn and Singapore). Surely this is impossible, so these tasks should be either gapped, or 5 (or at least 4) T31e should be needed. So, "more T26" and/or "sticking to 5 T31e" idea itself is very important, I agree.

BUT, this works ONLY IF those escorts are fully manned (including 3-4 hulls always in long maintenance, but none in extended readiness) and fully operational (seagoing days to go back to 180 days/year for active hulls, 40-50% increase than current value). If these two issues are not solved, either tasks will be inevitably gapped for sure. These two issues are by far the top priority to solve.

serge750
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 24 Aug 2019, 15:21

ref T26 news thread

If the T31 was canned & T26 was increased by 2 or speeded up, Would it be possible for the UK to include in the Legal contract for a follow on batch of T26 that they have to be built in the UK on time and if the scot's leave any relocation costs of transferring the build are paid for in full by BAE ?

Obviously the down side is a drop in escort numbers in the short term but may help with crew shortage issues...

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Aug 2019, 15:22

Aethulwulf wrote:As normal, your opinion is wrong.


I bow to your knowledge and vastly superior wisdom and intellect.

I’ll also ignore recent government requirements for ASuW missiles for five ASW frigates to protect the always available carrier task group, and past rumours that the 6th T45 was for the chopping block as it was not key.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 15:39

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Allocating 2 T45 and 2 T26 for each CVF is good enough, I think. In peace time, the number could be even less (supplemented by NATO frigates), looking at French CVTF. Operated in the same rotation, 4 T45 and 4 T26 is what is needed for 2 CVF. (I think availability of CV will be the same to those of escorts. Both are very complex assets = need good training and maintenance).
It is quite simple understand...

One carrier group (inc. 2 T45 & 2 T26/23) is either deployed or at very high readiness for 12 month period (probably inc. ~6 month deployment).
2nd carrier group (inc. 2 T45 & 2 T26/23) is at medium-to-high readiness for 12 months, and then swaps to very high readiness group.

To maintain 2 T45 at very high readiness/deployed and 2 T45 at medium/high readiness requires 6 T45 in total.
To maintain 2 T26/23asw at very high readiness/deployed and 2 T26/23asw at medium/high readiness requires 6 T26/23asw in total.

The other 2 T26/23asw will be required to ensure 100% availability of TAPS.

Holding ships at medium/high readiness (i.e. 20 to 30 days notice) consumes resources and means these ships are not available for other tasking. For example, it means these ships have either undertaken FOST, or are fully trained up so that they could undertake and pass FOST in <20-30 days.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 15:46

Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:As normal, your opinion is wrong.


I bow to your knowledge and vastly superior wisdom and intellect.
Good. You should.

I find you fantasy opinions on how to run a navy very tedious.

Have you considered the possibility how a fleet of 5 ASuW missiles might need to be managed and swapped across the 6 ASW ships supporting carrier ops, considering at least one of those ships will be in refit at any given time.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Aug 2019, 15:50

Aethulwulf wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:As normal, your opinion is wrong.


I bow to your knowledge and vastly superior wisdom and intellect.
Good. You should.

I find you fantasy opinions on how to run a navy very tedious.

Have you considered the possibility how a fleet of 5 ASuW missiles might need to be managed and swapped across the 6 ASW ships supporting carrier ops, considering at least one of those ships will be in refit at any given time.


I don’t think there’s any need for the arrogant tone but that aside can I ask why you think 6 T26s would be needed in support of 2 CSG genuinely curious ?

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 16:02

Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:As normal, your opinion is wrong.


I bow to your knowledge and vastly superior wisdom and intellect.
Good. You should.

I find you fantasy opinions on how to run a navy very tedious.

Have you considered the possibility how a fleet of 5 ASuW missiles might need to be managed and swapped across the 6 ASW ships supporting carrier ops, considering at least one of those ships will be in refit at any given time.


I don’t think there’s any need for the arrogant tone but that aside can I ask why you think 6 T26s would be needed in support of 2 CSG genuinely curious ?
6 is the minimum.

For the carrier group to maintain a underwater operational awareness 100% of the time will require at least 2 ASW frigates.

To maintain 2 ASW frigates either deployed or at very high readiness, requires 6 frigates as they move through their normal readiness cycle. Within the group of 6, there are 2 deployed/very high readiness, 2 at medium/high readiness (attached to second carrier group) and 2 at low readiness in basic training or refit.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 24 Aug 2019, 16:02

Aethulwulf wrote:Good. You should.

I find you fantasy opinions on how to run a navy very tedious.


Don’t worry the feeling is mutual - not sure what role you play elsewhere but hope you are proud with the current state of affairs you are part of.

Aethulwulf wrote:Have you considered the possibility how a fleet of 5 ASuW missiles might need to be managed and swapped across the 6 ASW ships supporting carrier ops, considering at least one of those ships will be in refit at any given time.


I have, if six ships are needed then I take your word for it and hope that someone with a big IQ has done all of the sums and impact on all this chopping and changing, rather than just buying six sets. Time will tell.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Aug 2019, 16:11

Aethulwulf wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:As normal, your opinion is wrong.


I bow to your knowledge and vastly superior wisdom and intellect.
Good. You should.

I find you fantasy opinions on how to run a navy very tedious.

Have you considered the possibility how a fleet of 5 ASuW missiles might need to be managed and swapped across the 6 ASW ships supporting carrier ops, considering at least one of those ships will be in refit at any given time.


I don’t think there’s any need for the arrogant tone but that aside can I ask why you think 6 T26s would be needed in support of 2 CSG genuinely curious ?
6 is the minimum.

For the carrier group to maintain a underwater operational awareness 100% of the time will require at least 2 ASW frigates.

To maintain 2 ASW frigates either deployed or at very high readiness, requires 6 frigates as they move through their normal readiness cycle. Within the group of 6, there are 2 deployed/very high readiness, 2 at medium/high readiness (attached to second carrier group) and 2 at low readiness in basic training or refit.


Would the CSGs be operated as fixed groups though so if you have 2 deployed / very high readiness with one CSG the other CSG will be in for its maintenance or train with 2 more T26s doing the same as part of that group.

My understand of how these 2 groups will operate will be one will be deployed or at VHR while the other will be either training or maintenance ( training and maintenance will not be done at the same time )

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 16:20

Read my post above at 15:39, all is explained.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Aug 2019, 16:53

Iv read your post above and your using the normal 3-1 ratio for single vessels but with it going to 2 pre defined CSG this will change, the T26s you allocate for training and refit above would not be so as the T26s for CSG1/2 will be in a different refit training cycle. If planing is done right you will not be sending the spare 2 T26s in for refit training at the same time as one of your CSGs. In effect what’s most likely to be done is the T26 fleet split in to 2 different operating cycles, 4 attached to the CSGs in one cycle the other 4 in there own cycle to allow 1 always for TAPs and another free.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 24 Aug 2019, 17:44

Maintaining the two carriers in a non-standard readiness cycle will be challenging and will force a fundamental change in the approach to maintenance and training.

Switching all the ships in the carrier group to a similar readiness cycle would be too difficult and too high a risk. The training programmes for the weapons specialists, engineers, navigators, logistics, etc, personnel would then be different for the ships in the carrier group compared to the rest of the escort fleet. The maintenance support contracts for the carrier escorts would also need to be different to the maintenance contracts for the rest of the fleet.

Maybe at some point in future such a change would be possible, but all navies find the "normal" 3 in 1 deployment ratio hard enough to achieve let alone exceed.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1645
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby bobp » 24 Aug 2019, 18:29

Repulse wrote:past rumours that the 6th T45 was for the chopping block as it was not key.


This may be true as we have heard that one t45 has been gutted to keep the others afloat.

With respect to our experts above, I believe that 2 ASW cruisers, and 2 AD Cruisers is more than adequate as escorts. The one weakness being ASuW missiles. The posts above don't include the Merlin Helicopters attached to the Carrier, or the Astute that is probably lurking nearby and of course the RFA and T31 which could be nearby.
The two main weaknesses are insufficient crew members for the ships we have, plus skills shortages and money( to build all the fantasy fleets needed in this discussion forum). The ASUW missile contract mentions 5 sets for the T23, I suspect the requirement will be for more but again its a money issue.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3278
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Aug 2019, 18:34

The availability of the Carriers is going to be the key driver for the tasking of RN escorts and for the numbers required. Unless WWIII breaks out we are only going to be operating a single Carrier Group requiring two T-26 and two T-45. To ensure that these are available and going by the current service doctrine we need six of each allocated to the role. Of course if the operational doctrine changes and we may be able to maintain two of each at high readiness with less platforms, but until that happens two thirds of the T-26 and all of the T-45 need to be earmarked for the Carrier Group. That leaves, under current plans at most one T-26 and two T-31 to cover all over roles requiring a warship that are beyond the capabilities of the Rivers of other RN/RFA assets. It is the same with the Submarines, with one probably going to be with the Carrier Group leaving one available for other duties.

IF WWII breaks out then I assume all efforts would be put into getting as many platforms at sea as possible and deploying all aviation assets including the pilots and platforms from the relevant OCU/OEUs, but this is only going to happen in the most extreme case, such as that suggested.

This availability does make the Government's global aspirations appear to be somewhat hollow, as the achieve them we will have to take assets away form truly core roles in order to provide a capability that is really only a good photo call rather than a effective and influential force. The Government needs to get the basics fit for purpose before committing the RN to additional roles and that is going to take a long term approach involving additional and new money allowing for increases assets both human and material, extra days at sea, more spares and war shots the list goes on.

The RN is at the bare minimum at present with little flexibility. To meets almost any new tasking requires a case of robbing peter to pay Paul. Reintroducing Carrier Strike has drastically reduced the flexibility the UK has in the deployment of its naval assets as such a large proportion of these must he allocated to the Carriers for them to be effectively escorted and the single Carrier Group fit for purpose.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Poiuytrewq and 20 guests