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.
Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 12 Nov 2018, 10:38

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:people will tend to compare Omega-class and FTI to T31e, even though T31e is clearly "one-rank or even two-ranks lower" assets compared to the former two.


Might be clear to you but not everyone else. Certainly not me. In my opinion you are putting too much weight into ships cost as a way of assessing capability.


Here here to that - Bravo Zulu in fact ! Ron has just hit the nail on the head. Far too much of the debate on here seems to be based around a few contributers who insist on defining a ships designation and capability based purely on its cost. If we were to follow that logic to its extreme then the Chinese 'Super Destroyers' that they are currently churning out by the dozen would in their eyes be defined as OPV's - this based simply on the fact that in real terms they probably cost about half the price of Donald's beloved FTI !

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 12 Nov 2018, 10:59

Pongoglo wrote:Here here to that - Bravo Zulu in fact ! Ron has just hit the nail on the head. Far too much of the debate on here seems to be based around a few contributers who insist on defining a ships designation and capability based purely on its cost. If we were to follow that logic to its extreme then the Chinese 'Super Destroyers' that they are currently churning out by the dozen would in their eyes be defined as OPV's - this based simply on the fact that in real terms they probably cost about half the price of Donald's beloved FTI !
At least, I never say so. I do not know about others here.

- I never compared Chinese ship building vs UKs. Labor cost, infrastructure, what is included in the contract, ship standard, ALL DIFFERS. Comparing Chinese Destroyers with their Frigates and Corvettes will be meaningful, I think. Comparing Chinese vs UK is pointless. So, this is unrelated to, at least, my comment.

- I also am only partly basing my assumption on cost ("NOT ALL"). My point is, if it is cheap, it has a reason = specification will tell so. For example, hull standard defines the cost a lot, and I am very much interested on it and discussion a lot about it.

- I think comparing T26, T45 and T31 will be meaningful. Also, looking into T26 and FREMM/FTI cost, I judge that the UK and French "cost" is similar, (actually I think French cost is cheaper for "similar" design).

All my point is, in both T45 and T26, they all say "innovative ship building will make these ships cheap" and totally failed. T45 and T26's cost is comparable to, or slightly more than, Horizon and FREMM. This is fact.

[EDIT] I am not saying their cost is bad. Simply, finally it turned out to be "normal" as an escort = comparable to French costs, which I think is very reasonable.

There is no basement to suggest Leander is better than FTI, even though it is half the price.

Note, I DO NOT like FTI (too densely equipped). Also, I like Leander. If you look at all my comment, it is clear.

The point is, I do not think they are in the same class. JMSDF Asahi-class DD is 75B yen/hull, 30FFM is 45M yen/hull. I will never claim that 30FFM must be better than Asahi-class DD.

[EDIT] The cost difference is larger in "FTI vs Leander" than "Asahi-class DD vs 30FFM".

Simple?

NickC
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 12 Nov 2018, 11:01

Ron5 wrote:
Utter bollox // Utter bollex // Utter bollex // You are a troll.


Are you OK, at times you come across in need of help, may be need to book yourself onto an anger management course to keep the blood pressure down.

Online
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1209
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 12 Nov 2018, 13:03

Pongoglo wrote:Does anybody know if any consideration has been given to using sonar bouys instead ? Lightweight, cheap, and we will soon have them in service again on the P8 ,I'm sure Ultra would be more than happy to come up with a Heli born rig ?


I took the quote from the T45 post. But I'm interested in others thoughts....

Given the Wildcats lack of a dipping sonar. And yes it has been added to Lynx in the past, and I believe the Phillipines and South Koreans will have it (and not getting into if Wildcat was the right helicopter....AW149 marinised seemed a better idea to me..) but it has a serious effect on endurance and range. Is there another solution?
Merlin is undoubtedly a great platform for a dipping sonar AND weapons. But given the increasing cost and complexity of sonobuoys, the latest multistatic ones from Ultra Electronics look eyewateringly expensive for example, is there an easier more effective solution. If we look at the Leonardo Hero RUAV does it not make sense to put the lastest sonobuoys on a winch and have the Hero deploy them in conjunction with Wildcat/Merlin. Essentially a mini-ASW helicopter. The SOnobuoy would continue to transpit its data to the vessel/ASW helicopter in the usual way. It stops the Sonobuoy being a consumable/finite store, aids in triangulation etc. There's no reason why a Type 26 or Type 31 couldn't have a couple of Hero's onboard to team with the Merlin for dipping/weapons/radar and the Wildcat for weapons/radar.

Could such a solution also take some of the pressure off the 8 Merlin needed to maintain continuous ASW coverage around a CSG? Note, I'm not saying stop the use of Sonobuoys in their disposable role, merely try and maximise a finite resources effectiveness and help the Wildcat equipped ships in an ASW role cheaply. Perhaps only use the Sonobuoys in their disposable, traditional role when a contact has been detected?

https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/sd150-hero-ruav

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1450
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Nov 2018, 13:40

Timmymagic wrote:There's no reason why a Type 26 or Type 31 couldn't have a couple of Hero's onboard to team with the Merlin for dipping/weapons/radar and the Wildcat for weapons/radar.
Just to understand you correctly.

Are you suggesting a vessel capable of embarking a Merlin, a Wildcat and 2x Hero's simultaneously ?

Online
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1209
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 12 Nov 2018, 13:50

Poiuytrewq wrote:Just to understand you correctly.

Are you suggesting a vessel capable of embarking a Merlin, a Wildcat and 2x Hero's simultaneously ?


No.
Merlin + 2 x Hero's on T26
Wildcat and 1-2 Hero's on T31 or T45

In the Merlin's case on T26 the Hero's would essentially act as relocatable sonobuoys to support the Merlins main Flash set, radar and torps/depth charges. In the Wildcat's case they would provide a modest dipping capability to assist the hull mounted sonar or towed sonar on the T45 or T31. The Wildcat would tote the torps/depth charges and support with its radar.

In a QE Class you could have as many Hero's as you like....but if you're sending a Merlin out on dipping duties it would make sense to have 2 Hero's accompanying it to spread the coverage and reduce the need to 'waste' sonobuoys.

The Hero's would obviously have the usual UAV roles using their E/O sensors as well, the principal aim would be to increase coverage and reduce helicopter usage in lower threat areas, as well as assist target localisation and detection affordably (because lets face it we'll never see T26 with 2 Merlin onboard) USV's towing a small TAS could also be used to add coverage.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5706
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 12 Nov 2018, 13:58

Are sonobuoys really that expensive?
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2055
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 12 Nov 2018, 14:17

NickC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Utter bollox // Utter bollex // Utter bollex // You are a troll.


Are you OK, at times you come across in need of help, may be need to book yourself onto an anger management course to keep the blood pressure down.


:lol:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2055
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 12 Nov 2018, 14:38

Caribbean wrote:So - do you think that we will build a piece of kit (the T26s) at great expense and then not equip it, or do you think it is more likely that another line of kit will simply be eliminated in its entirety, thus making better use of resources?

.


Considering that's UK MoDs long standing policy ( Type 45 without Harpoons initially, no cruise missiles, no torpedos, no sonar ), Astutes and Trafalgars without Sub-Harpoons, Type 26 without ASROCs, QE-carriers without CAMMs, F-35B without anti-shipping missiles, Typhoons without half the ordnance integrated for about 10-15 years after entering service, Wildcats without data-link, dipping sonar and torpedos, Merlins without anti-shipping missiles etc.- yes, I do think so. It would be 9th Wonder of the World if not so. :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1450
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Nov 2018, 15:14

Timmymagic wrote:Merlin + 2 x Hero's on T26
Wildcat and 1-2 Hero's on T31 or T45
Thank you.

I think this is a very interesting debate and as all aircraft are likely to become UAV's eventually it's just a matter of long it will take before ASW UAV's are widely introduced.

As for the sonobuoys, they are becoming more complex and therefore more expensive.

THALES Sonoflash
image.jpg
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... obuoy.html

How long will it be before the environmental impact precludes the widespread use of complex sonobuoys outside of a conflict situation? It might seem like a small consideration now but it may not be in the future.

How effective at ASW would a basic Frigate actually be if deploying 2 Merlin and 4 Hero's with dipping sonars? Or 1 Merlin and 3 or 4 Hero's ?

It's tempting to base all our decisions on the technology available today but it will be getting on for a decade before the first T26's start coming online. In this instance maybe a lot of foresight is needed.

Could ASW go the same way as MCM in the next couple of decades where the vessel is just a simple host to the complex unmanned off board systems and helicopters? If so today's Frigate designs might need to start building in a lot more hanger and flight deck space.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

NickC
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 12 Nov 2018, 15:17

The Navarantia built HNoMS Helge Ingstad, F313, AAW frigate collided with the Malta-flagged oil tanker Sola TS near the Norwegian Equinor Sture oil terminal, Helge Ingstad ~5300 tons, SolaTS ~ 62,000t

The frigate was conducting navigation training with other elements of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 in the fjord following the Nov. 7 conclusion of the Trident Juncture 2018 exercise. Norwegians trying to save Helge Ingstad from sinking into deep water just off the rocky edge of the fjord, after tugs from terminal pushed the frigate ashore to prevent the ship from sinking, the crew of 137 was evacuated.

It has been reported the collision tracking maps are said to show Helge Ingstad cutting right in front of the outbound tanker at about a 45 degree angle, Sola TS AIS data, the tanker had right of way, and Helge Ingstad was contacted with warnings on its dangerous course, not sure if verified as said Helge Ingstad AIS turned off.

Question should a well designed warship be compartmented to the extent that a single hole below the waterline can lead to immanent sinking when there is no explosion and fire, a warship is supposed to be built to absorb, mitigate, and control damage, or was this a result of a poor warship design. The US Navy floodable compartment standard is a continuous 15% of the waterline anywhere on ship open to the sea or two compartments on smaller ships, did the actual damage exceeded that level.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Online
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1209
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 12 Nov 2018, 15:45

Poiuytrewq wrote:How long will it be before the environmental impact precludes the widespread use of complex sonobuoys outside of a conflict situation? It might seem like a small consideration now but it may not be in the future.


Indeed. But for me the profligate use of sonobuoys wasn't really possible even in the Cold War when they were comparatively simple bits of kit. We would have run out very soon. With the increasing complexity and cost you have to wonder how many of them we actually have in stock...

Poiuytrewq wrote:How effective at ASW would a basic Frigate actually be if deploying 2 Merlin and 4 Hero's with dipping sonars? Or 1 Merlin and 3 or 4 Hero's ?


I would have thought to a sub driver that would be an absolute nightmare. Add in some simple USV's towing simple TAS (or even
just deploying a sonobuoy on a cable whilst it maintained station) and you'd dramatically complicate their life. Add in knowing that there was a T26 with a superb TAS and ASROC out there deploying these assets and they'd probably decide to get lost for the day.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Could ASW go the same way as MCM in the next couple of decades where the vessel is just a simple host to the complex unmanned off board systems and helicopters? If so today's Frigate designs might need to start building in a lot more hanger and flight deck space.


In a way yes. In the new world of multi-static sonar that is necessary to hunt ultra quiet AIP subs there needs to be a central processing hub to take all of the data and analyse it. T26 and Merlin provide that capability. And they provide the ability to kill any target. The key thing to enable this will be to get enough sensors in the water to make it happen. Thats not easy with 1 Merlin and very expensive disposable sonobuoys. Using Hero like RUAV's and USV's deploying sonobuoys on winches would be really cost effective and would enable rapid repositioning. It would be cheaper, more effective and in a world where enemy subs could start deploying IDAS style systems to engage helos, a whole lot less risky as well.

I think the T26 with its large flight deck and mission bay is probably better equipped for the future than any other escort vessel out there. But I do wonder if we'll be looking at the BAe UXV Combatant in 15 years time and wondering if that was a better concept overall, not I might add for the ski jumps and fixed wing UAV's, more for the size of the aviation facilities and moon pool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UXV_Combatant

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2055
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 12 Nov 2018, 17:14

NickC wrote:
Question should a well designed warship be compartmented to the extent that a single hole below the waterline can lead to immanent sinking when there is no explosion and fire, a warship is supposed to be built to absorb, mitigate, and control damage, or was this a result of a poor warship design. .


Presumably no, but also presumably that this event happened out of the blue ( because otherwise I fail to see how it happened at all ) and nobody wasn't expecting that to happen, so probably hatches weren't closed... And you don't need a lot to have water spreading from one compartment to another. On the other hand, nobody died, and that's more than previous US Navy colissions. Also, judging from the pictures, it's easily possible that engine rooms were flooded- so probably loss of power except for emergency systems.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 12 Nov 2018, 18:20

Timmymagic wrote:
Pongoglo wrote:Does anybody know if any consideration has been given to using sonar bouys instead ? Lightweight, cheap, and we will soon have them in service again on the P8 ,I'm sure Ultra would be more than happy to come up with a Heli born rig ?


I took the quote from the T45 post. But I'm interested in others thoughts....

Given the Wildcats lack of a dipping sonar. And yes it has been added to Lynx in the past, and I believe the Phillipines and South Koreans will have it (and not getting into if Wildcat was the right helicopter....AW149 marinised seemed a better idea to me..) but it has a serious effect on endurance and range. Is there another solution?
Merlin is undoubtedly a great platform for a dipping sonar AND weapons. But given the increasing cost and complexity of sonobuoys, the latest multistatic ones from Ultra Electronics look eyewateringly expensive for example, is there an easier more effective solution. If we look at the Leonardo Hero RUAV does it not make sense to put the lastest sonobuoys on a winch and have the Hero deploy them in conjunction with Wildcat/Merlin. Essentially a mini-ASW helicopter. The SOnobuoy would continue to transpit its data to the vessel/ASW helicopter in the usual way. It stops the Sonobuoy being a consumable/finite store, aids in triangulation etc. There's no reason why a Type 26 or Type 31 couldn't have a couple of Hero's onboard to team with the Merlin for dipping/weapons/radar and the Wildcat for weapons/radar.

Could such a solution also take some of the pressure off the 8 Merlin needed to maintain continuous ASW coverage around a CSG? Note, I'm not saying stop the use of Sonobuoys in their disposable role, merely try and maximise a finite resources effectiveness and help the Wildcat equipped ships in an ASW role cheaply. Perhaps only use the Sonobuoys in their disposable, traditional role when a contact has been detected?

https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/sd150-hero-ruav


Thank you for moving my post I agree it sits better here and I had not the knowledge or the means. Whilst I will happily admit to not being much of an SME, and whilst I accept that sonar bouys (like everything else) may be going up in price they must still be considered effective must they not? Otherwise logic would suggest that as unlike India's version our P8s will not be fitted with MAD, then they will be pretty much obsolete before they are even deployed - unless of course we are relying on radar or the observers using binoculars to be lucky enough to spot a scope !

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Nov 2018, 18:34

One can buy a "system of systems" and drive it around by joy stick, to get it drop sonobouys all around the place
"ARCIMS deployed active or passive sonar systems provide an
underwater surveillance capability at significantly lower cost
than traditional platforms.
The platform can deploy towed active and passive arrays,
dipping sonar or sonobuoy systems, from both ATLAS
ELEKTRONIK and other suppliers.
The sensor fit can be selected to meet the end-user needs
and deliver effective target detection within challenging
littoral environments. Surveillance solutions are offered for
monitoring the presence of underwater targets, including
submarines, midget submarines, diver delivery vehicles"

Might (?) still be operable from davits:
ARCIMS
Technical Specifications
Length—11.2m

Online
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1209
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 12 Nov 2018, 18:36

Pongoglo wrote:I accept that sonar bouys (like everything else) may be going up in price they must still be considered effective must they not?


I've no doubt the modern ones are effective. Particularly the multistatic versions that rely on active sonobuoys being used in conjunction with passive with complex processing on the deploying platforms. What I doubt is how many anyone actually has of these in stock...Ultra Electronics recently got a contract with the RN for sonobuoys, but its not going to buy thousands of new ones. In the Cold War each RAF fighter had 27 air to air missiles in stock, which on a Phantom was 3 full warloads, we know that in reality we could only put at most 1 full warload on our Typhoons today, if that. How many Amraam do we actually have in stock? If it was more than 300 I'd be amazed. I would expect the same situation exists for Sonobuoys. We need to make sure these limited, expensive assets are maximised. We just can't afford to chuck them out like it was Red Storm Rising.

Online
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1209
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 12 Nov 2018, 18:39

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Technical Specifications
Length—11.2m


I believe it will be operable from T26 mission bay handling. But how high a sea state can it run in? It's definitely part of the answer. A USV like the ARCIMS with a small towed sonar like a helicopter one or just deploying a sonobuoy on a winch would be useful. Stick a radar on it and a RWS and have it out on the horizon and it serves a valuable purpose. We might actually regret not making the T26 mission bay bigger down the line...

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1450
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Nov 2018, 19:52

Timmymagic wrote:I think the T26 with its large flight deck and mission bay is probably better equipped for the future than any other escort vessel out there. But I do wonder if we'll be looking at the BAe UXV Combatant in 15 years time and wondering if that was a better concept overall, not I might add for the ski jumps and fixed wing UAV's, more for the size of the aviation facilities and moon pool.
The BAE UXV Combatant is a bit radical even for me :D

I was thinking of something a bit more cost effective and potentially achievable through the T31 programme. Something like Absalon.
image.jpg
Generous flight deck and massive double Merlin capable hanger.
image.jpg
How many Hero's could you fit in there?
image.jpg
Lots of space for off board systems on the Flex Deck and deploying craft via the stern gantry crane is a pretty efficient process.
image.jpg
With 2 Merlins embarked, most of the available space in the hangers is used but a lift between the flight deck and the Flex Deck would transform the capability of an Absalon. The Flex Deck isn't really big enough to embark Merlin but Wildcats and UAV's would fit no problem.

Is a large double hanger and/or Flex Deck possibly the best way to give a £250m T31 a genuine ASW capability?

If a Merlin/Wildcat/ASW UAV combination does prove to be effective an Absalon type vessel looks to be pretty future proof and all for a pretty modest outlay.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Nov 2018, 19:58

And there are a few MBTs hiding behind that ramp marked with L16

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1131
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Nov 2018, 21:18

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:I think the T26 with its large flight deck and mission bay is probably better equipped for the future than any other escort vessel out there. But I do wonder if we'll be looking at the BAe UXV Combatant in 15 years time and wondering if that was a better concept overall, not I might add for the ski jumps and fixed wing UAV's, more for the size of the aviation facilities and moon pool.
The BAE UXV Combatant is a bit radical even for me :D

I was thinking of something a bit more cost effective and potentially achievable through the T31 programme. Something like Absalon.
image.jpg
Generous flight deck and massive double Merlin capable hanger.
image.jpg
How many Hero's could you fit in there?
image.jpg
Lots of space for off board systems on the Flex Deck and deploying craft via the stern gantry crane is a pretty efficient process.
image.jpg
With 2 Merlins embarked, most of the available space in the hangers is used but a lift between the flight deck and the Flex Deck would transform the capability of an Absalon. The Flex Deck isn't really big enough to embark Merlin but Wildcats and UAV's would fit no problem.

Is a large double hanger and/or Flex Deck possibly the best way to give a £250m T31 a genuine ASW capability?

If a Merlin/Wildcat/ASW UAV combination does prove to be effective an Absalon type vessel looks to be pretty future proof and all for a pretty modest outlay.


I'd love to have 5 Absalon type vessels as the T31s and believe it's give greatest flexiblity and bang for buck, but I think the main reason the RN hasn't gone this way is because the fear it's risk the Albions being cut big time

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1450
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Nov 2018, 22:04

Jake1992 wrote:...I think the main reason the RN hasn't gone this way is because the fear it's risk the Albions being cut big time
I can see your point but realistically the main value of the Albions (apart from the C&C) is the LCU capacity. How do you get an LCU in or on an Absalon?

The reality is if RN wants to keep an LCU capability of more than the 3 that can fit in the Bay's then the Albion(s) will have to be retained. This fact will not be affected by any number of Absalon type vessels. If the LCU's are no longer required then I would argue there is little point retaining the Albions anyway.

RN cannot keep making bad decisions because of the underlying fear of cuts. The RB2's are a prime example. Of all of the options available, ordering 5x RB2's for well over £600m was not the right one in my opinion. With the T31, RN/MOD/HMG must learn from the RB2 shambles and this time order the 5 very best vessels that the £1.25bn will provide.

I am not a fan of the T31 programme at its current budget level but if the budget really is sticking at £1.25bn, all things considered, I think an Absalon derived T31 would make more sense than Leander or the A140.

SW1
Member
Posts: 670
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 12 Nov 2018, 22:37

There’s an easier way, try the unmanned systems and the unmanned helicopters along with manned ones from the great big flight deck and well dock of the Albion class and use its large c & c capability to integrate them all and see were to go from there.

Rent them or trial them, on a pay by the hour contract from elbit (seagull), leonardo (hero) , atlas (arcims), Northrop (firescout), meteor (orca) or even CNIM LCX if one exists. If you didn’t want to divert Albion bring bulwark to readiness and trail on her in a realistic operational deployment to say the North Sea or med.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2924
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Nov 2018, 02:43

If it were possible going for the Absalon would bring great benefits to the RN. The fear of losing the LCUs is understandable, but can't they be used form the Bays? Could the Albions be run by the RFA with a reduced capability, as it is the well deck that the RN fears losing? This idea of not looking at certain options for fear of losing something else is idiotic. What would the RN use more, an Absalon in its many roles or an Albion? I will leave it there as going further moves the discussion into the Future Amphibious thread.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 820
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 13 Nov 2018, 03:26

Jake1992 wrote:I'd love to have 5 Absalon type vessels as the T31s and believe it's give greatest flexiblity and bang for buck, but I think the main reason the RN hasn't gone this way is because the fear it's risk the Albions being cut big time
This is rubbish.

The reason the bids have not gone this way is because the RN wants and requires 5 light frigates.

OMT were perfectly free to propose either their Absalon design or their Iver Huitfeldt frigate design. They looked at the RN requirements and proposed the Iver Huitfeldt frigate. This then went through the Value Management phase, with the RN providing feedback on what they wanted and different options. After this Babcock got together with OMT and proposed the Arrowhead 140, based on the Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

You and many others might disagree with the RN requirements, and think something like the Absalon would be better. But don't bother inventing fantasy conspiracies that the RN is avoiding the Absalon out of fear for cuts to Albions.

The RN is avoiding the Absalon because it doesn't think it needs it. The RN wants and requires 5 light frigates. It really is that simple.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Halidon » 13 Nov 2018, 04:59

NickC wrote:Question should a well designed warship be compartmented to the extent that a single hole below the waterline can lead to immanent sinking when there is no explosion and fire, a warship is supposed to be built to absorb, mitigate, and control damage, or was this a result of a poor warship design. The US Navy floodable compartment standard is a continuous 15% of the waterline anywhere on ship open to the sea or two compartments on smaller ships, did the actual damage exceeded that level.

We really must have more information to have this discussion with regards to F313.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests