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.
Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 28 Feb 2020, 00:42

So some clever?? MOD bod/ Armchair Political Advisor thinking about the replacement of the T23 Frigate by T26 Frigate:
Well we currently have 13 x T23 at 4,900 Tonnes each!
Now let us see, that equals 63,700 Tonnes of “Frigate” in total. We want to follow standard practice and round this up,to the nearest “Thousand” so let us say 64,000 Tonnes.
The problem is solved then, the Navy can have 8 x 8000 Tonne Type 26 Frigates = 64000 Tonnes in total.
If we give them 5 x T31 as well, then we will have increased the size of the Frigate force by 45%.
These people are supposed to be “Running our Defences” not “Ruining our Defences”!

A humorous example maybe, but you can just see the “ridiculous” claim being made in the future. :mrgreen:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 Feb 2020, 03:33

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... s.html?m=1

Good summary.

Main report https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Equipment-Plan-2019-to-2029.pdf.

In short,
- 3-13B GBP shortfall in 10 years equipment budgets
- in addition, relying on 4.7B GBP efficiency saving (2.3B INCREASE in efficiency saving compare the last year)
- even with this, pay-rise and MCM kits is not budgeted.

It is apparent that the equipment plan is based on
- (foolish) optimism that ~6B GBP shortfall within 4 years will be filled somehow (Figure 1 (p.14) and Figure 6 (p.26))
- while in reality, just slowing down everything (Figure 2(p.16) means "constant delay of pay")
by which we all know the total cost will rise. What is worse is, even with this plan, MOD is assuming significant amount of efficiency saving 4.7B GBP. Going backward to the fact they made it 2.2B GBP last year.

All of them means, the current MOD budget is unaffordable. No surprise FSSS, Worrier mod., MBT mod. all stops. T31 looks like going ahead is surprise, actually.

The shortage peaks at 2021-22 and 22-23. It was 2020-21 and 21-22 last year. Apparently, it is "tomorrow we will decide, but for Today, we will just delay everything" approach.

Even if MOD postpones the 6B GBP gap by 2024 with 3B surplus (assuming all efficiency saving goes well), the delay means higher cost and gap-filler costs and surely the "6B" will rise to 7 or even 8B GBP.

I again think, T31 must have been cancelled. The 2B GBP will be enough to be presented as "the sacrifice from RN". As RN lost that opportunity, what else can be cut? FSSS, and what?

Anyway, both T31 and T26 might see further delay. Astutes will also see much delay, while T-boat life extension may not take place = just gapped. Of course, no RFA Argus replacement and FLSS is just an illusion (both not even budgeted). No money is no money.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 28 Feb 2020, 07:28

Depressing

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4138
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Feb 2020, 07:56

Sir Humphrey's post is a very good summary that the MoD is financially up the creek financially. It has not modernised its approach to procurement and is instead still using its same old practices of delay and promising "Efficiencies", all the while building up an increasing bow wave of insufficient funding, out of date equipment, and increased costs for urgently needed new and replacement equipment. Where I disagree is putting all the blame on the MoD for the unaffordability of the Equipment Plan.

The "Strategic" component of the on going review is the key part, but this may also be the hardest for the Politicians to accept, especially given the current Government's aspiration for the UK to become a bigger player on the world stage in all areas including defence. To say however that the review will not focus on equipment is a bit of a fallacy as once it has been decided what our role in the world should be and what we want the Armed Forces need to be able to do to support this, we than have to have the equipment to do it, and it is here that past reviews have come off the rails with the Treasury largely refusing to fully fund these requirements, instead asking the MoD to find a substantial amount of savings in order to make the numbers add up. The MoD for its part has in the past been all too willing to accept these targets for savings in order to get its shiny new toys and has then had to try and usually fail to meet these targets.

But the blame cannot be levelled totally at the MoD exactly because of the above. If the Treasury fully funded the Equipment Programme for example, and the cost for this had been realistically calculated by the MoD then many of the existing problems would not exist. This would undoubtedly led to a number of programmes not being taken forward, but only those that were not essential to meeting the capability requirements to meet the Governments plans/aspiration.

It is fine to say the MoD must cut its cloth to meet its resources, but if the Government repeatedly asks the MoD to carry out tasks for which it is not equipped or has the personnel to undertake with out needing a substantial bodge factor, a capability the Armed Forces are historically famous for, then the size of the cloth needs to be larger and that means both more funding and a deemphasis of in year budgeting and a move to multi year financial deals, especially on major projects.

So once again it will be what the Government decides it needs the Armed Forces to do and their willingness to fund them so that are able to do so that will be the key result that is needed from the on going review. The two need to be joined up, and also flexible. The Treasury for example needs to accept that the MoD does not possess a crystal ball and so cannot predict cost increases that are beyond their control such as currency changes. The MoD for its part needs to be able to and willing to halt programmes that incur cost increases beyond what can be seen as reasonable rather than put in ever increasing funds or reducing the quantity purchased to a level where the quantity delivered will not provide both the capacity as well as the capability demanded. If necessary the MoD must also be allowed to go outside the UK for even major equipment purchases, not insisting on items being manufactured in the UK if those costs are part of the programmes cost. It is up to other Government Departments to provide funding to attract foreign companies to build manufacturing infra structure related to MoD programmes not the MoD's budget, but these also need to be joined up and this is something the ongoing review should also look at. For example if we want the RFA's new Solid Stores Ships to be built in the UK, the MoD should only pay what the best price was offered by all competitors. If the ships are to be built by the winner in the UK, any the cost difference between what it would cost to build say in Italy compared to the UK must be covered by funding from departments other than the MoD such as the Department for Trade and Industry.

From the MoD's stand point, each branch must come up with say six key essential capabilities it will need to meet the Government 's Strategic plan as well as the capacity needed to maintain these. These Programmes must have guaranteed funding over their life from the Treasury until they are delivered. The MoD must also produce detailed Through Life plans for the equipment delivered by these programmes and an accurate as possible cost for this. Again this must be fully funded by the Treasury.

The MoD is going to take some very hard knocks with the on going review, but so are the Government's aspiration as to where they see the UK's standing moving forward unless additional resources are given to the MoD. Procurement is not an exact science but the MoD must be more realistic about what programmes are likely to cost. So both the MoD and Government are going to have to cut their cloth to meet the resources and aspiration.

As a part shot however, within the MoD I believe most of the flak should be directed to wars the Royal Navy And Royal Air Force, due to their ownership of the majority of the Departments big ticket programmes. The cost increases that have afflicted their programmes have been responsible partly, of the delays in the Army's much needed recapitalisation of its AFV fleet. It has been the lack of secure and sufficient funding that has often held back programmes and has also made the TLBs within the Army overly cautious in committing what funds they have. This has led the Army to still have AFVs over 60 years old being part of its front line units with no actual replacements funded even now.

Finally this really should move to the SDSR 2020 thread.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Feb 2020, 08:31

It's pretty obvious really.

There's nothing left you CAN cut. We said this all back in 2010 that they were already cut to the bone, there was nothing left you could feasibly lose.

The ONLY solution in this case short term is more money in the budget, and getting rid of whatever idiots can't keep to a simple, confident, long term plan that lets costs fly out of proportion due to inaction and indecision. The culture of "No no no, wait wait...uh...test it again?" is the death of efficient procurement.

Support industry, make a choice, stick to it, fund it. It's the ONLY way things improve.

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 28 Feb 2020, 10:02

S M H wrote:
NickC wrote:wonder why if the 150m/8,000t T26 beam at 20.8m is 9.3m wider than the 75m/1,400t Leeds Castle which could land a Chinook
The castle class had nearly vertical side plating from transom to round bilge knuckle on the hull. Given the hull profiles with the modern practice of radar reduction hull forms. One would presume that the aft plating would be wider at deck level and narrower at water line. The hull profile reduces the radar return. Given the beam of the hull the transom is not excessive when considering the type 26s size.


Checked and found driver for the T26 flight deck 50% larger than the T23 was the gold plating requirement for the Chinook to take-off and land longitudinally so as to be able to use the Chinook rear landing ramp for speeding the ingress and egress of troops in Amphib ops.

Fallon said in Oct 2014, all part of meeting the T26 Global Combat Ship design requirement with "flexibility and adaptability at its core", fundamental to the design was that adaptability specified as one of 17 KUR's that define the high level shape of the ship (2014 was the year Type 26 design reverted to 6,900t light/8,000t FLD/8,800t EOL ship from the earlier 5,400t light/~6,300t FLD/~6,900 EOL option so as to accommodate the gold plating required for the GCS ship.

Thirteen months later Nov 2015 SDSR cut the number from 13 to eight.

PS The RN/Babcock design of the T31 includes a flight deck to take the Chinook :crazy:

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Feb 2020, 10:20

NickC wrote:PS The RN/Babcock design of the T31 includes a flight deck to take the Chinook


Maybe that is because it already had one i.e the IH class deck is large enough for a Chinook. Babcock's have not made the ship longer or the Hangar shorter so it is a by product of picking this design

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1328
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 28 Feb 2020, 10:35

RetroSicotte wrote:It's pretty obvious really.

There's nothing left you CAN cut. We said this all back in 2020 that they were already cut to the bone, there was nothing left you could feasibly lose.

The ONLY solution in this case short term is more money in the budget, and getting rid of whatever idiots can't keep to a simple, confident, long term plan that lets costs fly out of proportion due to inaction and indecision. The culture of "No no no, wait wait...uh...test it again?" is the death of efficient procurement.

Support industry, make a choice, stick to it, fund it. It's the ONLY way things improve.


If you give them more money it will only be another sticking plaster and a bigger hole 5 years down the line it’s quite clear there are incapable of running a budget. Or estimating what anything will cost, there making it up as they go along to ensure they get there favourite sacred cow on contract and attempting to cut pay/conditions and maintenance and support to cover it.

It’s quite simple everything that was added at sdsr 2015 was pretty much unaffordable within the budget agreed by all, it was based on fictional efficiencies and little to no budget risk contingency for the unexpected. If you want a default it is to revert to sdsr2010 force structure. The fact they’ve stuck there head in the sand screamed we need more money and failed to take any decisions should that tactic not work is exactly why they are this mess which keeps growing for as long as that tactic remains in play. You can have a force structure that much more aligns to a coherent strategy than what sdsr2010 produced but it certainly won’t be a bigger one.

As for backing industry I’m all for that and it should have been done much better than it has but there has been very much a buy American attitude in mod for a number of years along with much salivating over creating a mini US armed forces it needs to stop.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Feb 2020, 10:40

SW1 wrote:If you give them more money it will only be another sticking plaster and a bigger hole 5 years down the line it’s quite clear there are incapable of running a budget.

Which would be why the rest of my post said to get people who can.

The fact they’ve stuck there head in the sand screamed we need more money and failed to take any decisions should that tactic not work is exactly why they are this mess which keeps growing for as long as that tactic remains in play.

This isn't a zero sum one or the other game. Even with competent procurement much better than the one right now, the current budget would STILL be too low. They are justified in saying they need more.

As for backing industry I’m all for that and it should have been done much better than it has but there has been very much a buy American attitude in mod for a number of years along with much salivating over creating a mini US armed forces it needs to stop.

The Tory party at current despises the armed forces, so its no wonder they've spent 10 years trying to dismantle as much of it it and the supporting industry as much as they can.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12152
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Feb 2020, 11:09

Ron5 wrote:And bribes. Lots of bribes.
Any of our businesses doing that might find the CEO banished to Kazakhstan?

Though they have a fine national airline and a massive sovereign fund (... to manage), those positions have been taken. Uzbekistan is next door though: despite this presidential successor https://www.gulftoday.ae/-/media/gulf-t ... 58F33154E7 ending up in jail, the 12 years younger sister is available. And in that part of the world, dynasties live on for longer than the ones we have seen emerging in the US

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 28 Feb 2020, 12:18

Tempest414 wrote:
NickC wrote:PS The RN/Babcock design of the T31 includes a flight deck to take the Chinook


Maybe that is because it already had one i.e the IH class deck is large enough for a Chinook. Babcock's have not made the ship longer or the Hangar shorter so it is a by product of picking this design


Thanks for your info, I was surprised as never seen record of IH operating with a Chinook, the IH flight deck and hanger designed for the ~ 15t Merlin, on checking the IH specs for flight deck its stressed to take max load of 20t, Chinook MTOW 22.7t (thought it was heavier) so as you say should be no problem operating Chinook off flight deck with reduced payload and/or fuel.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4138
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Feb 2020, 13:30

We must not forget the great deal the MoD did with the Treasury in past where it was able to reduce the cuts they were going to have to make. There was much back slapping within the MoD that they had saved many programmes from cuts and/or cancellations. What did the Treasury get out of it, well quite simple they got the MoD to agree to take the Trident Replacement Programme into its budget. Anyone else think the MoD has the skills necessary to run its budget with the people it has at the top?

As for the future of the Escort fleet, well we have so far only contracted for three T-26 and five T-31 and a promise not to reduce the fleet below nineteen. If no more money is forthcoming and the MoD has to find savings from all three services, what can the Navy do. Suggestions on a post card.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1328
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 28 Feb 2020, 14:13

RetroSicotte wrote:
SW1 wrote:If you give them more money it will only be another sticking plaster and a bigger hole 5 years down the line it’s quite clear there are incapable of running a budget.

Which would be why the rest of my post said to get people who can.

The fact they’ve stuck there head in the sand screamed we need more money and failed to take any decisions should that tactic not work is exactly why they are this mess which keeps growing for as long as that tactic remains in play.

This isn't a zero sum one or the other game. Even with competent procurement much better than the one right now, the current budget would STILL be too low. They are justified in saying they need more.

As for backing industry I’m all for that and it should have been done much better than it has but there has been very much a buy American attitude in mod for a number of years along with much salivating over creating a mini US armed forces it needs to stop.

The Tory party at current despises the armed forces, so its no wonder they've spent 10 years trying to dismantle as much of it it and the supporting industry as much as they can.


It is a zero sum game when a budget is finite. We spend around $50billion on defence ever year that is plenty to defend the UK it’s considerably more than most. If that means we do less expeditionary then that’s what it means, if it means we don’t do things the same way as we used to do things then that’s what it means. If it means we take on different roles using different equipment then that is what it means. It’s mean you make a choice to do less.

I don’t think anyone despises the armed forces that sounds hyperbole to me.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1328
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 28 Feb 2020, 14:19

Lord Jim wrote:We must not forget the great deal the MoD did with the Treasury in past where it was able to reduce the cuts they were going to have to make. There was much back slapping within the MoD that they had saved many programmes from cuts and/or cancellations. What did the Treasury get out of it, well quite simple they got the MoD to agree to take the Trident Replacement Programme into its budget. Anyone else think the MoD has the skills necessary to run its budget with the people it has at the top?

As for the future of the Escort fleet, well we have so far only contracted for three T-26 and five T-31 and a promise not to reduce the fleet below nineteen. If no more money is forthcoming and the MoD has to find savings from all three services, what can the Navy do. Suggestions on a post card.


Polaris was paid out of the defence budget so why not trident? It’s part of defence if that’s where we want to spend the money then that’s the choice, should tornado of been paid out of treasury funds because its was designed around carrying tactical nuclear strike?

On escorts we were told for years you could swap crews on escorts didn’t work despite others doing it. Yet hear we are. We were told you couldn’t use opv’s overseas there was no use for them while others did yet here we are.

The UK has 2 requirements for escorts, protection to a carrier group and to support CASD the rest is optional.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Feb 2020, 15:36

SW1 wrote:It is a zero sum game when a budget is finite. We spend around $50billion on defence ever year that is plenty to defend the UK it’s considerably more than most. If that means we do less expeditionary then that’s what it means, if it means we don’t do things the same way as we used to do things then that’s what it means. If it means we take on different roles using different equipment then that is what it means. It’s mean you make a choice to do less.

I don’t think anyone despises the armed forces that sounds hyperbole to me.

Even with efficient spending (see the rates France pays and suchlike) the current budget would not be enough to raise the forces back to where they need to be prior to the 2010 scale of cutting that started this whole mess in any practical time (plus filling the gaps that already existed then). For one because you'd need to spent a metric ton on recruitment incentives.

The Government certainly does. Denote the ongoing amounts of Tories who openly stated they wanted to cancel the carriers entirely, who needed mass public action to get Gurkhas equal pay, and to take any action against lawyers chasing serving members, the "we have to innovate more flexible agile forces" crowd in governance who are just trying to find ways to say "less capable" that sounds like a position, the horrific accommodation, the horrific pay (neither of which see any sign of chance while the Tories bump their MPs pay higher and higher...) and so on and so on. The moment they even got one Minister who called them on their BS, they trumped up accusations to get him fired to instate someone who would toe the line and argue for cuts instead.

Their attitude to defence is disgusting.

serge750
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 28 Feb 2020, 17:44

1 x QEC going for 2bn pounds + save enough crew to man a couple more escorts? maybe get a flat top LHD to replace the albions in the 2030's.... more T31 to be built in Glasgow after the 3 x T26...tough choice for the RN,

Could the T31 be made quieter for ASW duties? also add mk41 & TAS ?

Or the government could put OUR money where their mouth is pay for a global Britain navy ! in the grand scheme of things it's not that much money compared to GDP,

I say plug the lower shortfall & if they cannot get their house in order by the end of the parliament ( & the cons get in ) then make the tough choices....

All these short term delay decisions are costing a fortune! really needs a long term cross party strategy that all partys sign up to !!! but then they all seem to back track :thumbdown: :evil: :cry:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1328
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 28 Feb 2020, 17:54

RetroSicotte wrote:
SW1 wrote:It is a zero sum game when a budget is finite. We spend around $50billion on defence ever year that is plenty to defend the UK it’s considerably more than most. If that means we do less expeditionary then that’s what it means, if it means we don’t do things the same way as we used to do things then that’s what it means. If it means we take on different roles using different equipment then that is what it means. It’s mean you make a choice to do less.

I don’t think anyone despises the armed forces that sounds hyperbole to me.

Even with efficient spending (see the rates France pays and suchlike) the current budget would not be enough to raise the forces back to where they need to be prior to the 2010 scale of cutting that started this whole mess in any practical time (plus filling the gaps that already existed then). For one because you'd need to spent a metric ton on recruitment incentives.

The Government certainly does. Denote the ongoing amounts of Tories who openly stated they wanted to cancel the carriers entirely, who needed mass public action to get Gurkhas equal pay, and to take any action against lawyers chasing serving members, the "we have to innovate more flexible agile forces" crowd in governance who are just trying to find ways to say "less capable" that sounds like a position, the horrific accommodation, the horrific pay (neither of which see any sign of chance while the Tories bump their MPs pay higher and higher...) and so on and so on. The moment they even got one Minister who called them on their BS, they trumped up accusations to get him fired to instate someone who would toe the line and argue for cuts instead.

Their attitude to defence is disgusting.


Who says they have to be raised back to pre 2010 levels? As armed forces around the world become more professional, introduce more specialist and technology advanced equipment as they have have the world over tended to become smaller. With employment in the uk being very high there is not a large pool of people to recruit and as such will constraint ultimate the size the armed forces can become, unless you plan for reinstating conscription or national service.

Views on a specific piece of equipment are purely subjective to what someone champions as the best, it has little to do with being disgusting to defence. As such I would suggest that if you had the ability to start with a clean sheet the shape and configuration of the armed forces would not likely look like what it does today. Things change and definitions such a being agile or flexible or more or less capable is like everything a play on words. Ultimately the end result is what is the likely opposition and what we are employing to counter it. That may or may not look like what it did 50, 30, 20 or 10 years ago. The constant is people and need for them trained and ready.


As for the rest a lot of it subjective and extremely complicated and I don’t think more emotive language is helpful, I don’t believe your view to be correct but your entitled to it. There are decisions taken over many years that have resulted in where we are. Ultimately recruitment and retention will be the barometer of individuals deciding if the offer is worth it or not.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2601
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Feb 2020, 17:58

Edit - Moved it over to a more fitting topic for this direction :)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12152
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Feb 2020, 18:23

Ohh - like where?

RetroSicotte wrote: who openly stated they wanted to cancel the carriers entirely, who needed mass public action to get Gurkhas equal pay, and to take any action against lawyers chasing serving members, the "we have to innovate more flexible agile forces" crowd in governance who are just trying to find ways to say "less capable" that sounds like a position, the horrific accommodation, the horrific pay (neither of which see any sign of chance while the Tories bump their MPs pay higher and higher...) and so on and so on. The moment they even got one Minister who called them on their BS, they trumped up accusations to get him fired to instate someone who would toe the line and argue for cuts instead.
quite persuasive... add how long they had Rory as the Defence Committee chair, before being moved to be a minister -too many of those - we are voting for MPs, not ministers. One that would have held many feet close to the fire got "a promotion" plenty quick :!:

While this is true:
SW1 wrote:Ultimately the end result is what is the likely opposition and what we are employing to counter it.

SD67
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 28 Feb 2020, 19:51

Ok here’s my suggestion on the back of a postcard :

- cancel the t23 Lifex s and allow escort numbers to dip temporarily in the mid 2020s
- get a grip on successor. If needed nationalise Barrow and lease it back to Bae in return for strict cost control.
- have a simplified fsss built in Korea
- if push comes to shove sell an LPD to Brazil

Protect at all costs astute carriers and 8xt26

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4138
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Feb 2020, 08:53

Ron5 wrote: CAMM VLS doesn't exist


Well it does if you count the ExLS system which is cleared to use Sea Ceptor and in its "Insert" form fitted in a Mk41 VLS cell. It might not actually be in service with any Navy but the design and integration work has been completed. As for the T-45, it would be simpler to install three or four stand alone three cell ExLS on the ship giving it between thirty six and forty eight Sea Ceptor. As pointed out, because of the soft launch ability it is mainly a case of finding the space with above or believe deck. The same system would also be a better option fo the remaining five T-26 instead of the existing "Mushroom" launchers as well as the T-31.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2191
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 29 Feb 2020, 10:45

SW1 wrote:The UK has 2 requirements for escorts, protection to a carrier group and to support CASD the rest is optional.


I’d expand slightly and say defence of U.K./BOT EEZ , the (joint NATO) Sea Control in North Atlantic, CEPP and CASD.

This means the 2 CVFs, 7 SSNs, 6 T45s, 8-10 T26s, a few Support RFAs, plus a number of OPVs and MCMs (or MHPCs).

Optional layer A, is low forward based presence: HADR RFA assets plus some presence MCMs / OPVs (or MHPCs).

Optional layer B, is limited ability for global intervention to support U.K. interests: More Support RFAs and SF platforms (my view is that we have two LPDs for this already, both of which should be active).

Optional layer C, (Contribution to) Sea Control in a number of global SLOCs: Requires more Frigates (T26 or T31s) and SSNs, some of which can be forward based.

Optionally layer D, ability to intervene at a significant level globally: Requires more LPDs/LHDs/LSDs, RFAs, escorts and SSNs.

It goes on but even at D it is beyond the UK defence budget, even with an unimaginable 10% increase. Feels like we are aspiring somewhere between B and C, but closer to B IMO.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RichardIC » 29 Feb 2020, 10:48

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I again think, T31 must have been cancelled.


Afraid they're under contract. You could cancel them but you'd still have to pay for them. Save on operational costs mind.

RetroSicotte wrote:The moment they even got one Minister who called them on their BS, they trumped up accusations to get him fired


'Cept they weren't trumped up.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Mar 2020, 11:20

For me we still need one more Type 31 and to have a Home fleet and a East of Suez fleet plus if possible get the second LPD up and running

Home fleet

2 x Carriers , 6 x type 45 , 8 x type 26 , 2 x type 31 , 1 x LPD , 2 x Bay's , OPV fleet , MCM fleet

EoS Fleet

4 x type 31 , 1 x LPD , 1 x Bay , 4 x MCM , 1 x Wave

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4138
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Mar 2020, 21:03

With current funding, the whole "East of Suez" aspiration needs to be seriously dialled back. We have other far greater priorities and commitments that need concentrating on. just covering NATO and the BOTs will take up the majority of our resources.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests