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.
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2563
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Jan 2020, 16:38

donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, if T21 was an escort, T31 is an escort. (complete lack of ASW in T31 vs very limited ASW in T21 is offset enough by a brand new but limited AAW capability (12-24 CAMM on T31) vs completely obsolete ones (small number of out of date (even in 1980 standard) SeaCat SAM on T21)).

But anyway not a Tier-1.

The difference was that Type 21 had plenty of other escorts in the fleet already at that time which were capable, it didn't need to BE a major escort. Whereas right now that's what the navy needs more of.

dmereifield wrote:We don't know the final T31 spec, yet

Unless there is a very significant change (Adding 76mm or bigger gun, sonar(s), AShM, at least 1 CIWS AND more than 12 SAMs at the very least) then I doubt it's going to be much more to meet that standard for the Royal Navy.

Either make a proper escort, or just admit it's only big OPV and arm it accordingly, and stop wasting money on "for show only" extra weapons for a scenario it would never dare enter just so BoJo can say "13 frigates" in PMQs. Spend that saved money from not needing to give it CAMM, Artisan, or such a big hull, on the T26/T45's fittings having capability gaps.

I'd say either be:

5,000t+ (Iver hull most likely) with:
- 8x AShM
- 32x CAMM
- 8-16 Mk41 (Depending on whether AShM goes in VLS or not, 16 if so, 8 if not)
- Hull Sonar
- Artisan
- 76mm gun
- 2x DS30M
- 1x Phalanx
- Merlin Hangar
- Mission Bay/Boat

OR

2-3,000t (Probably stretched River) with:
- 40 or 57mm
- 2x DS30M
- Wildcat Hangar
- Stored Boat

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Jan 2020, 16:43

As said before T-31 has number of quick upgrade options open to it after it enters service

1 . towed sonar this is being fitted to the 3 Danish IH class starting this year and will be proven in service by the time T-31 comes in
2 . the model is shown with 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm the Navy has a pool of these which can be fitted as needed
3 . extra CAMM this is a question of money only
4 . anti-ship / land attack missile once one has been picked

and I think we need to look at T-31 as a global patrol frigate

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 22 Jan 2020, 17:24

RetroSicotte wrote:Given the Type 31 is an escort on paper only, it's going from 19 to 14 regardless anyway.


Isn't it amazing how quickly some people have come to accept the Type 31 is on a par with Type 23's, Type 45's & Type 26's when it comes to assessing capability.

"Look we're getting more escorts she cried, pointing at the Type 31's".

Next week it will be: "Look we are getting more tanks pointing at Ajax".

Week after, "Look we are getting more bombers, pointing at Protector"

"Boy" George Osborne's cynicism rewarded.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 22 Jan 2020, 17:31

dmereifield wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Given the Type 31 is an escort on paper only, it's going from 19 to 14 regardless anyway.


We don't know the final T31 spec, yet


Oh but I think we do, it's just some are still in denial :-(

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Jan 2020, 17:37

RetroSicotte wrote:5,000t+ (Iver hull most likely)

2-3,000t (Probably stretched River)
I think RN need both.

Considering the cost deference between each option, if RN really is to increase vessel numbers it is highly likley that it will be with OPV's rather than Frigates IMO, although possibly based more on Leander than the Rivers.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Jan 2020, 17:38

Ron5 wrote:Isn't it amazing how quickly some people have come to accept the Type 31 is on a par with Type 23's, Type 45's & Type 26's when it comes to assessing capability.


Who has accepted that Type 31 is on a par with T-23 , 26 and 45

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 22 Jan 2020, 18:12

Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Isn't it amazing how quickly some people have come to accept the Type 31 is on a par with Type 23's, Type 45's & Type 26's when it comes to assessing capability.


Who has accepted that Type 31 is on a par with T-23 , 26 and 45


Baroness Goldie, Minister of State for Defence

serge750
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 22 Jan 2020, 18:38

At the expense of the T45 replacements and/or T26's?[/quote]

I hope not, just think the build rate on the T26 is so slow that if the intention of increasing frigate ( light ) the cheaper/quicker way to do it is the T31 production line, ok you could speed up T26 production but does that mean re-negotiation/a lot more money, ok the T31 is not as good as a T23/26 but...maybe a second batch will be better equipped than the first bum basic batch, even mk 41vls & a TAS would be a major gain ???

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6043
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 22 Jan 2020, 21:44

Image
(@NavyLookout) 21st January 2020
NOTE: Active warship numbers appear low right now but a some ships are regenerating after lengthy deployments last year - expect to see increase in activity in coming weeks.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3436
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jan 2020, 12:36

Sorry X-post from T31 thread.
jonas wrote:This is rather interesting, though under the heading 'Deliverability' the date given for ship 1 seems rather ambiguous

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 31_AOA.pdf
Thanks!

Ship 1 will be in the water in 2023, with all ships accepted off-contract by the end of 2028. The IAC has approved the In Service Date of Ship 1 for May 2027

So this means,
- first T31 will be "in service" on 2027, not 2024 nor 2025.
- also, it means ALL 5 T31 will be handed over to RN ("accepted off-contract") by the end of 2028.

So, the first T31 will be in service at the same year the 1st T26 will commission.

So the famous movie GIF here "https://twitter.com/DefenceInsight/status/1219939495816069122" was wrong....
T31 is written as of "handed over", while T26 as of "commission", I'm afraid?
If everything be written on "handed over", the 1st T26 must appear on 2025 (official announcement).

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Jan 2020, 15:44

Moved over here from the Italian thread

Lord Jim said
My issue with the T-26 programme is that the programme in its various incarnations has been going on for over 30 years and we still have to wait another seven of the first ship to be completed. By then the Italians will have all their FREMM in service and will probably be launcher at least one of their new Anti Air Destroyers and be well into their light frigate programme. WE may have one or more of the T-31 in service but the differences is indefensible. The T-26 is basically a good design, but in the UK's case hamstrung by Governmental interference, resulting in the country that designed the vessel will end up with the least capable version and with the fewest in service. As I joked in the past we should let the Italian Navy run our naval procurement programme and let their shipbuilder manage our shipyards. BAE is not interested in providing the best platform it can to the UK, but rather getting the biggest mark up it can. Just look at the negotiations that took place over the contract or the two carriers, as highlighted in the excellent book, White Flag. I recommend people read it.


For the most part you are right however with the move to not replace the type 22's there was nothing to replace until now yes the first Type 26 should be in the water now. As for BAE feast and fam dose this i.e make money when you can as anyone would what has been needed and is needed now is a Frigate fleet built on a 2 year drum beat with each ship serving 25 years

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2563
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Jan 2020, 16:26

Tempest414 wrote:what has been needed and is needed now is a Frigate fleet built on a 2 year drum beat with each ship serving 25 years

Drumbeat is a horrendous way to make ships though. All it means is you get less ships, for more cost, over a longer period. It completely erases the efficiency gained from subsequent builds.

In the end , these 8 T26s will likely cost as much as the 13 T26s would have been if they had just been built normally, and then you're still paying for another five (and I use this word loosely) "frigates" to make up numbers.

At the very least, 13 T26 + a bunch of cheap OPVs from Babcock or someone likely woulda been cheaper than this 8x stretched 'drumbeat' T26 + 'suddenly £400m before it even gets a half decent weapon' T31.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Jan 2020, 17:07

You right but for your way to work we would need a fleet of 30 escorts built in classes of 10 over 30 years but we only have 19 built on a stop go system which costs more as yards gear up build some ships and then sit around with their thumbs up arse waiting for the next order letting skilled staff go

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Gabriele » 28 Jan 2020, 17:47

Drumbeat is a horrendous way to make ships though. All it means is you get less ships, for more cost, over a longer period. It completely erases the efficiency gained from subsequent builds.


That is the British drumbeat. Drumbeat makes perfect sense, if you set it to a timeline that makes sense.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2563
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Jan 2020, 17:53

Gabriele wrote:That is the British drumbeat. Drumbeat makes perfect sense, if you set it to a timeline that makes sense.

True.

Tempest414 wrote:You right but for your way to work we would need a fleet of 30 escorts built in classes of 10 over 30 years but we only have 19 built on a stop go system which costs more as yards gear up build some ships and then sit around with their thumbs up arse waiting for the next order letting skilled staff go

And yet here we see France, Italy etc not having any issues despite smaller fleets.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6043
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 28 Jan 2020, 17:54

Sorry. 'British' and 'Drumbeat' was mentioned. Its simply bad manners not to....


Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Jan 2020, 18:41

RetroSicotte wrote:And yet here we see France, Italy etc not having any issues despite smaller fleets.


They just so happen to be building now with small fleets what do they do next carry on building and start replacing the FREMMs that are 15 to 20 years old ? no they stop building

also the first French FREMM was laid down in 2007 the last is due in 2022 that is 15 year to build 8 ship for the French Navy

serge750
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 28 Jan 2020, 19:38

I think we are all just annoyed over the indecision on the T26 running late, could of gone better, if the project & numbers given the go ahead 5 years ago we might have the first one ready for QE maiden deployment ! was it just because of the gov not wanting to spend money until it had to ? due to the getting to grips with gov borrowing or a mix of issues....short term saving & not thinking long term, which seems key in defence issues.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jdam » 28 Jan 2020, 19:51

Hopefully some of you can enlighten me.

I was readying Navy lookouts article on the SDSR 2020,

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/sdsr-2020-which-direction-for-the-royal-navy/

Where the article said "HMS Monmouth laid up in Devonport awaiting her life extension refit that would see her serve until at least 2026. As one of the oldest frigates, she might be a candidate for scrapping early to save the cost of refit"

Surely the investment isn't worth it for 6 year, considering some of that 6 years will be in dry dock getting overhauled we wont ever get 6 full years out of her. Wouldn't the money be better spend speeding up the Type 26 to replace here?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1737
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby bobp » 28 Jan 2020, 20:56

Jdam wrote:Surely the investment isn't worth it for 6 year, considering some of that 6 years will be in dry dock getting overhauled we wont ever get 6 full years out of her. Wouldn't the money be better spend speeding up the Type 26 to replace here?


The MOD has history. Upgrade before scrapping. Spend the money on more Sailors.

SD67
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 28 Jan 2020, 21:51

Jdam wrote:Hopefully some of you can enlighten me.

I was readying Navy lookouts article on the SDSR 2020,

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/sdsr-2020-which-direction-for-the-royal-navy/

Where the article said "HMS Monmouth laid up in Devonport awaiting her life extension refit that would see her serve until at least 2026. As one of the oldest frigates, she might be a candidate for scrapping early to save the cost of refit"

Surely the investment isn't worth it for 6 year, considering some of that 6 years will be in dry dock getting overhauled we wont ever get 6 full years out of her. Wouldn't the money be better spend speeding up the Type 26 to replace here?


I've been thinking this for a while, the whole T23 Lifex program is a waste of time and money IMHO. Spend the money on speeding up deliveries of 26 and 31.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11491
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jan 2020, 23:14

SD67 wrote: the whole T23 Lifex program is a waste of time and money IMHO. Spend the money on speeding up deliveries of 26 and 31

Well, we would take a 'navy holiday' without, but the tail end of it perhaps could be cut... get our Liberty ships rolling 'off the line' !
- oops! It is the "line" that is currently under construction

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2563
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 29 Jan 2020, 01:10

Tempest414 wrote:They just so happen to be building now with small fleets what do they do next carry on building and start replacing the FREMMs that are 15 to 20 years old ? no they stop building

No, they keep building. Because they have a shipbuilding industry that the government supports, gets exports for, and has simple, confident programs that join up, and will have done from 2002 all the way until nearly 2030 with no random OPV interruptions or "2 year drumbeats".

also the first French FREMM was laid down in 2007 the last is due in 2022 that is 15 year to build 8 ship for the French Navy


Disingenuous. 15 years to build 10 FREMM, of two variants (FREMM and FREDA) including two exports. While also finalising the two Horizon frigates. And starting on FTI. In the same yard. Faster building, more consistent.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3436
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Jan 2020, 01:17

RetroSicotte wrote:
Gabriele wrote:That is the British drumbeat. Drumbeat makes perfect sense, if you set it to a timeline that makes sense.
True.
Tempest414 wrote:You right but for your way to work we would need a fleet of 30 escorts built in classes of 10 over 30 years but we only have 19 built on a stop go system which costs more as yards gear up build some ships and then sit around with their thumbs up arse waiting for the next order letting skilled staff go
And yet here we see France, Italy etc not having any issues despite smaller fleets.
I think it is the "WILL" for export (and its outcome).

See how France tried hard to keep their shipyard active.

They even sold their own navy's (to be) brand new FREMM right before the delivery, to Egypt, very cheap. FREMM for Morrocconian navy was very very cheap, as well. Of course many stuffs are ripped off, but still I think Naval shipyard has gain very little profit from it.

I understand they are doing exports to "keep the work force active" and "increase the experience of the ship builder to keep them competitive". In other words, exactly in aim of what the famous "TOBA" applied to both BAE Clyde yard and Babcock LIFEX yard.

I guess they are not expecting getting back the development investment cost from exports. Looks like just requiring the "unit cost" (genuine cost to add "1 more hull" in the production line), not the "average cost" (including development, detailed design and initial lack of learning curve).

On the other hand, when they are to export their technology, like Australian SSK, they become very very cost "harsh" = expensive. Very clear and reasonable tendency.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3436
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Jan 2020, 04:48

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:They just so happen to be building now with small fleets what do they do next carry on building and start replacing the FREMMs that are 15 to 20 years old ? no they stop building

No, they keep building. Because they have a shipbuilding industry that the government supports, gets exports for, and has simple, confident programs that join up, and will have done from 2002 all the way until nearly 2030 with no random OPV interruptions or "2 year drumbeats".
also the first French FREMM was laid down in 2007 the last is due in 2022 that is 15 year to build 8 ship for the French Navy


Disingenuous. 15 years to build 10 FREMM, of two variants (FREMM and FREDA) including two exports. While also finalising the two Horizon frigates. And starting on FTI. In the same yard. Faster building, more consistent.
Summary.

<DCNS-Naval Lorient yard>
La Fayette hull-1 : launched 1992 --- commission 1996
La Fayette hull-2 : launched 1993 --- commission 1997
La Fayette hull-3 : launched 1994 --- commission 1997
La Fayette hull-4 : launched 1997 --- commission 1999
La Fayette hull-5 : launched 1999 --- commission 2001
*Al Riyadh hull-1 : --- commission 2002
*Al Riyadh hull-2 : --- commission 2004
*Al Riyadh hull-3 : --- commission 2004
*Formidable hull-1 : start 2002 --- commission 2007
Horizon hull-1 : start 2002 --- commission 2008
Horizon hull-2 : start 2003 --- commission 2009
FREMM hull-1 : start 2007 --- commission 2012
*FREMM Morocco-1 : start 2008 --- commission 2014
*FREMM Egypt-1 : start 2009 --- commission 2016
FREMM hull-2 : start 2010 --- commission 2015
FREMM hull-3 : start 2011 --- commission 2016
FREMM hull-4 : start 2012 --- commission 2018
FREMM hull-5 : start 2013 --- commission 2018
FREMM hull-6 : start 2014 --- commission 2019
*Gowing-2500 Egypt-1 : start 2015--- commission 2017
FREMM hull-7 : start 2016 --- commission 2021
FREMM hull-8 : start 2017 --- commission 2022

26 years (counted by "commission") of building 22 frigates/corvettes. 1.2 years per hull.

Among the 22, 7 are for export, 32%. Without, it will be 1.73 years per hull.

In other words, 32% of export order is helping a lot. Domestic one is not much different from UK/RN.

Another difference is that, FREMM is much simpler/smaller than T26, and hence can be build in more number. (actually what they did is shift the money to the 5 FTI frigates (3.3M GBP), which is ~twice as expensive as the 5 T31 (1.98B or 1.5B GBP, not clear yet). What is more, they are building FTI in the same yard, contributing a lot to keeping and enhancing the work force there.

UK is building 5 T31 in a yard different from that building T26. Very inefficient way UK has selected. So, the results we see. I simply think it was a stupid decision, sorry. (I am anti- "anti-BAE" saga. If BAE is not good, MOD must correct it, not punish it).

Its not only HMG nor Treasury, it (= T31 program) was supported by MOD as well (I do not know how RN think about it).


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Nimonic and 20 guests