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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 05:34

The end of this vid

must present the time of the collision
- we do know from discussions over the radio that the frigate was intending to adjust course after a certain point. What point could that have been as the neutral line (also marked) is well clear on all sides?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 05:51

This one has also the after collision movements: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/9 ... qTYCEGCwbk

Frigate says that cannot take the course advised as would get too close to the rocks. The movements of other ships close to the scene may be the key.
- The projected lines must be course without correction (for all ships that were headed out of the fjord).

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, 07:31

I don't think the RN "Wants" five light Frigates, it wants thirteen T-26 but is having to accept the fact that that was unaffordable with the funding available so if it wanted thirteen new hulls in the water it would have to accept the idea of the T-31e and go with the PR campaign the Government started with SDSR 2015.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1127
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Nov 2018, 07:58

Aethulwulf wrote:
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.


No what the RN wants is 5 proper frigates not 5 coverts which in effect it will be getting.
Do you really think the RN would look at it and say yes 5 Leander covers will be more useful to us than 5 Absalon style vessel, I very much doubt that.

Cuts to big ticket iteams are normal taken by politians ( the threat to the QEs for example ) no by the service persay, and when it comes to matters like this politians are no exactly the brightest bulbs. If the see that others vessels can do amphibious job ( no matter how limited ) they will look at them look st the bay's and say well why are the Albions needed especially the one always sitting at dock.

The RN doesn't always have to just think about what's best for the service but also what politians will go with, the whole T31 project it political and not what the service wants.
As for the Absalon not being but fowards I would say it is more due to what the require have had to be set at due the the rediculsly low budget set by politians, I'd think built in Britain today an Absalon style vesel would cost at least £350-£400m each

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 13 Nov 2018, 08:09

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


No, the politicians want to pretend they're growing the Royal Navy, so they need some patrol frigates to make the Wikipedia page look good.
@LandSharkUK

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1461
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 13 Nov 2018, 08:11

Jake1992 wrote:No what the RN wants is 5 proper frigates not 5 coverts which in effect it will be getting.
Do you really think the RN would look at it and say yes 5 Leander covers will be more useful to us than 5 Absalon style vessel, I very much doubt that.

Cuts to big ticket iteams are normal taken by politians ( the threat to the QEs for example ) no by the service persay, and when it comes to matters like this politians are no exactly the brightest bulbs. If the see that others vessels can do amphibious job ( no matter how limited ) they will look at them look st the bay's and say well why are the Albions needed especially the one always sitting at dock.

The RN doesn't always have to just think about what's best for the service but also what politians will go with, the whole T31 project it political and not what the service wants.
As for the Absalon not being but fowards I would say it is more due to what the require have had to be set at due the the rediculsly low budget set by politians, I'd think built in Britain today an Absalon style vesel would cost at least £350-£400m each

And yet, back in 2005, the RN/ MOD suggested the C1, C2, C3 plan (for hulls in the c. 6000t/ 4-5000t/ 2-3000t ranges - sound familiar?). Prior to that it had the "Global Corvette" idea. Now it's struggling with enough personnel to crew the ships that it has and wants a new class with smaller crews. The single-class frigate navy is a historical aberration, not the norm.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1127
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Nov 2018, 08:15

Caribbean wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:No what the RN wants is 5 proper frigates not 5 coverts which in effect it will be getting.
Do you really think the RN would look at it and say yes 5 Leander covers will be more useful to us than 5 Absalon style vessel, I very much doubt that.

Cuts to big ticket iteams are normal taken by politians ( the threat to the QEs for example ) no by the service persay, and when it comes to matters like this politians are no exactly the brightest bulbs. If the see that others vessels can do amphibious job ( no matter how limited ) they will look at them look st the bay's and say well why are the Albions needed especially the one always sitting at dock.

The RN doesn't always have to just think about what's best for the service but also what politians will go with, the whole T31 project it political and not what the service wants.
As for the Absalon not being but fowards I would say it is more due to what the require have had to be set at due the the rediculsly low budget set by politians, I'd think built in Britain today an Absalon style vesel would cost at least £350-£400m each

And yet, back in 2005, the RN/ MOD suggested the C1, C2, C3 plan (for hulls in the c. 6000t/ 4-5000t/ 2-3000t ranges - sound familiar?). Prior to that it had the "Global Corvette" idea. Now it's struggling with enough personnel to crew the ships that it has and wants a new class with smaller crews. The single-class frigate navy is a historical aberration, not the norm.


Yet the RNs idea of a C2 design was the T27 a stripped down basic T26 not a covert and the C3 was meant to the then MHCP which could still happen.

The T31 as it sits is a way for HMG to be able to say we've kept 13 frigates as cheap as possible with no thought to the operational requirements.

If the budgets is to stick as low as it is I belive 3 Absalon style vessels would offer a more useful tool.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 08:21

Caribbean wrote:The single-class frigate navy is a historical aberration, not the norm.


Yes. We tried to go for that with T-22 (evolved into an excellent frigate, after a few baby steps).
- too expensive
- along came the T-23 (the El Cheapo of its day)
- and then the Financial Crisis... which gave us a single-class frigate navy, by accident!)

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Nov 2018, 10:48

As I have said in the past the problem we face with the RN right now is that programs are dictated by a effort to keep other programs i.e type 31 can't be a proper cheap ASW frigate as this could lead to a cut in type 26 numbers. For me we need to stop this hopeless circle and look at what C1 , C2 and C3 ships the fleet needs to undertake the tasks for years ahead which for me in simple terms are .

Carrier group escort
ASW in support of CASD , NATO and other allies
Freedom of Navigation and patrol of key areas
MCM
Hyrographic

with this in mind I think this is what we should looking for

6 x type 45 for carrier group AAW with 2 attached to each Carrier leaving one for NATO duties and in refit /maintenance

8 x type 26 for ASW and global freedom of navigation patrols in support of NATO and other Allies with 3 ships undertaking global patrols 2 for TAPS and 2 for NATO support or FRE 1 in refit

5 x Type 31 for carrier group ASW with 2 attached each carrier and 1 in refit or FRE

14 x 100 m Multi-mission MHPC sloops tasked as seen fit

this would allow a true global presence and real fight with in a compact fleet by freeing up the type 26s to do the job they have been designed for and not wasted being tired to the carrier group

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 13 Nov 2018, 10:56

The Helge Ingstad may be a constructive total loss (CTL) as beyond economical repair.

The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported the situation has gone from bad to worse and only skilled and heroic actions by local tugboats prevented the frigate from capsizing and sinking.  Videos shows the tugs pushing the wrecked frigate solidly on to the rocks, not something one would do if there was any hope of saving the ship (hull plate only ~ 9mm thick?) and efforts are aimed towards preventing environmental damage from oil released by the ship’s fuel tanks than saving the frigate,

Normally the first action in an emergency is to establish a flooding perimeter, a ring of locked and sealed watertight doors around the damage to stop water from spreading throughout the hull, failure to establish a flooding perimeter means that water can spread very fast, progressive flooding, once progressive flooding starts, it is almost impossible to stop.

Reported that recordings show that Helge Ingstad had numerous warnings of imminent collision, but said to be concerned would hit rocks if it changed course? Also mention made collision took place collision at ~3 am.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 13 Nov 2018, 11:30

Its a shell only now, all the electronics are screwed and that's the expensive bit.

Starting to look like a write off.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 11:32

This one has also the after collision movements: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/9 ... qTYCEGCwbk

Frigate says that cannot take the course advised as would get too close to the rocks.


I quoted the above early in the morning. If I can (??) read the symbolism as projected, the moment when Sola alone, by an abrupt turn, could have averted the collision passes by at 2 mins into the recording
... then that conversation (mutual adjustments) follows.

Conversation does not cover (but the images do) what was on Sola's right?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2979
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Nov 2018, 11:43

NickC wrote:The Helge Ingstad may be a constructive total loss (CTL) as beyond economical repair.
Day by day, it is deeper in water. So, the ship might be drifting to deep water from shallow water.

Norway has a man-power issue, and as I understand only 3 of the 5 Nansen class is active. I guess they will go on with the remaining four.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 13 Nov 2018, 11:56

Tempest414 wrote:with this in mind I think this is what we should looking for


That would be a fleet fit for purpose in the carrier group future, and the only immediate action required is uprating the T31 to an ASW spec, a true T23 replacement.

To achieve that I suggest shelving the third FSS and invest that budget in the T31.
@LandSharkUK

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, 12:26

What we need is a Government that actually gives Defence the resources it needs in peacetime, because any future conflict is going to be fought with what we have not what we can build or purchase through UORs.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Nov 2018, 13:27

Tempest414 wrote:we need to stop this hopeless circle and look at what C1 , C2 and C3 ships the fleet needs to undertake the tasks for years ahead
C1/C2/C3 looks to be the right way forward but it's the budget getting in the way. Current planning is basically a fire fighting exercise and as ever RN will make it work. It must be remembered that 8x T26's as far as RN is concerned is non negotiable, it is the core that must be protected. This maybe could change if the C2 option was T26 based or a very capable Frigate design in its own right. At this point that prospect looks very unlikely.

The 'endless circle' is members trying to make an inadequate budget stretch to what looks like a credible fleet. Unfortunately inadequate and credible don't easily go together.
Tempest414 wrote:Carrier group escort
ASW in support of CASD , NATO and other allies
Freedom of Navigation and patrol of key areas
MCM
Hyrographic
I agree with your core objectives but I would also raise the prospect of combining the Amphibious support vessels and the general patrol vessels. I believe major savings and a larger, stronger and more coherent fleet could be the result. HADR is the key for RN to make new friends at home and abroad, the importance of which should not be underestimated.
Tempest414 wrote:6 x type 45
8 x Type 26 ASW
5 x Type 31 ASW
14 x 100 m Multi-mission MHPC sloops
Apart from the sloops this looks remarkably like current planning. Let's be honest if the money was available to do this who would argue against it? Not many.

Leaving the sloops to one side, I would think giving the T31's a credible ASW capability would cost an extra £500m to £1bn. This is the simple solution. Find an extra £500m to £600m and the escort fleet is sorted for the next 2 to 3 decades. Simple and straightforward, and I am at a loss as to why this hasn't been sorted as a priority.

I too don't believe RN wants 5x Leanders in much same way as it didn't want 5x RB2's. If RN wanted to join the Corvette club there has been plenty of chances in the past and none were taken. Why now? On the other hand does RN want a 6000t Danish AAW frigate? I'm not convinced that's the right fit either. Maybe it's time for someone somewhere to make some tough choices and difficult decisions and put RN procurement back on track.

My preferred option is to cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's £1.25bn totalling roughly £3bn. I would then ask BAE to build 6x T26 lite's or possibly an even simpler Frigate based on the T26 hull for £500m each. If the magical extra £600m did appear that would give the unit price a boost up to around £600m per hull, firmly in T26 lite territory.

My preferred option.
6x T45
6x T26
6x T26 lite

The major advantage of the T26 lite option is the ability to ungrade them up to the full T26 spec if necessary in the future. We have spent years developing the finest Frigate hull in the world. I would like to see RN get the chance to make the most of it.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2979
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Nov 2018, 15:08

Poiuytrewq wrote:My preferred option is to cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's £1.25bn totalling roughly £3bn. I would then ask BAE to build 6x T26 lite's or possibly an even simpler Frigate based on the T26 hull for £500m each.
£3bn for 6 hull is £500m average cost. If so, T26's average cost is £1bn. I think "using the same hull" is totally out of scope. (In unit cost, it is £375m vs £750m (£860m in your calculation). More than double...)

But, £375m unit-cost light frigate will be interesting, I agree.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2979
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Nov 2018, 15:19

Alternative idea: secure "8 T26", and live with £1.25bn budget for light frigates, but with different scope.

Current T31e requirement is focusing on standing deployments, and not on ASW. Thus, T31e needs
- long range (deploy)
- mission bay (HADR and constabulary ops.)

If we focus on CVTF ASW escort and TAPS, but not on standing deployments, both can be omitted.
- short range is OK. TAPS is near, CVTF has Oiler. How about 4500nm range?
- no mission bay needed because HADR is not their task.
By this, we can make the ship smaller. How about a ship 108m long x 14.6m wide (only 9m enlarged Khareef)?

Losing length, helicopter operation efficiency will degrade. But,
- TAPS has P-8A in the sky
- CVTF has Merlin from CVF in the sky
In both cases, there are air-cover, and helo operation is not needed for ASW. Of course, no need for Merlin capable hangar. We have plenty of such hangars in CVTF (CVF, T26 and T45), and in British water P-8A can do it.

By making the ship smaller (+1000t for +18m, so +500t for +9m) 3200t FLD, the hull cost will decrease. It is NOT "cheap steel and free air", it is a NATO frigate standard hull, which costs a lot. The "+9m" will be "+6m amidship" for more range and endurance (but still 4500nm and 28 days), and "+3m" for CAPTAS-4CI astern (and a larger flight deck, as a bi-product).

To keep the hull small, decrease the crew number, and to do so, decrease the armaments.
- No mid-cal gun nor 20mm CIWS. Both are complex mechatronics, and so-so man-power intensive.
- Increase CAMM from 12 to 24. (here I assume "12 CAMM system" and "24 CAMM system" is not much different in man-power).
As a result, my proposal T31-lite-ASW will carry
- 3x 30mm gun
- 24 CAMM
- CAPTAS-4CI + MFS3000 hull sonar + torpedo defense system + Wildcat-helo
- Artisan 3D + ESM/chaff/flare
- 108m long x 14.6m wide, 3200t, 4500nm range, 28 days endurance.

I think this ship will cost the same to the current T31e. (average cost £250mn, or unit cost £210mn).

Finally, I will do a trick to decrease the hull number from 5 to 4. This will enable more complete hull quietization. This may even enlarge the hull a little (say, 112m long x 14.6m wide, 3400t). In general, quiet hull is said to be 30% expensive than normal hull. Making 5 to 4 is only 20%, so maybe not as quiet as T23/T26, but more quiet than current Leander. Similary, because all this "20% money" is spent on quitization, armament will not be improved for sure.

Here comes ASW specialized "light-light frigates" (or "long-range corvettes"), built with £1.25bn for 5 or 4 hulls.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 13 Nov 2018, 15:30

Poiuytrewq wrote:My preferred option is to cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's £1.25bn totalling roughly £3bn.

You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Current T31e requirement is focusing on standing deployments, and not on ASW.

The RN is getting out of the business of standing deployments, and it rebuilding as a carrier group navy. It will be a profound change to how the RN works, so specing frigates based on the pre-carrier era misses the mark.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2979
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Nov 2018, 15:45

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Current T31e requirement is focusing on standing deployments, and not on ASW.

The RN is getting out of the business of standing deployments, and it rebuilding as a carrier group navy.
I know. But, T31e RFI is talking about standing deployments, as I read. If not, no need for long range.

They might be correct. ASW threat may cease again (Russian economy break?), and main enemy shall remain to be terrorists, in which case currently planned T31e will be much more useful than ASW-focused light-light frigates. We cannot predict everything.

Ironically, Norwegian Nansen-class frigates were blamed for being ASW oriented (although 2nd-tier in RN standard), on the era ASW was not the main threat but terrorists were. Now, their "ASW" flavor will be good (and therefore losing one is very sad thing).

But, when T31s are to be commissioned in mid-to-late 2020s, ASW will be the priority? Or, another Islamic-state like organization might be the major threat on world-trade (sea-lanes)? Not sure.

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, 17:15

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:The Helge Ingstad may be a constructive total loss (CTL) as beyond economical repair.
Day by day, it is deeper in water. So, the ship might be drifting to deep water from shallow water.

Norway has a man-power issue, and as I understand only 3 of the 5 Nansen class is active. I guess they will go on with the remaining four.

Its not drifting, the bar or more likely rocky shelf it's sitting on is collapsing under the weight of the ship.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SKB » 13 Nov 2018, 18:28

Maybe we can salvage it and rename it T31e :mrgreen:

Digger22
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 13 Nov 2018, 19:29

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:we need to stop this hopeless circle and look at what C1 , C2 and C3 ships the fleet needs to undertake the tasks for years ahead
C1/C2/C3 looks to be the right way forward but it's the budget getting in the way. Current planning is basically a fire fighting exercise and as ever RN will make it work. It must be remembered that 8x T26's as far as RN is concerned is non negotiable, it is the core that must be protected. This maybe could change if the C2 option was T26 based or a very capable Frigate design in its own right. At this point that prospect looks very unlikely.

The 'endless circle' is members trying to make an inadequate budget stretch to what looks like a credible fleet. Unfortunately inadequate and credible don't easily go together.
Tempest414 wrote:Carrier group escort
ASW in support of CASD , NATO and other allies
Freedom of Navigation and patrol of key areas
MCM
Hyrographic
I agree with your core objectives but I would also raise the prospect of combining the Amphibious support vessels and the general patrol vessels. I believe major savings and a larger, stronger and more coherent fleet could be the result. HADR is the key for RN to make new friends at home and abroad, the importance of which should not be underestimated.
Tempest414 wrote:6 x type 45
8 x Type 26 ASW
5 x Type 31 ASW
14 x 100 m Multi-mission MHPC sloops
Apart from the sloops this looks remarkably like current planning. Let's be honest if the money was available to do this who would argue against it? Not many.

Leaving the sloops to one side, I would think giving the T31's a credible ASW capability would cost an extra £500m to £1bn. This is the simple solution. Find an extra £500m to £600m and the escort fleet is sorted for the next 2 to 3 decades. Simple and straightforward, and I am at a loss as to why this hasn't been sorted as a priority.

I too don't believe RN wants 5x Leanders in much same way as it didn't want 5x RB2's. If RN wanted to join the Corvette club there has been plenty of chances in the past and none were taken. Why now? On the other hand does RN want a 6000t Danish AAW frigate? I'm not convinced that's the right fit either. Maybe it's time for someone somewhere to make some tough choices and difficult decisions and put RN procurement back on track.

My preferred option is to cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's £1.25bn totalling roughly £3bn. I would then ask BAE to build 6x T26 lite's or possibly an even simpler Frigate based on the T26 hull for £500m each. If the magical extra £600m did appear that would give the unit price a boost up to around £600m per hull, firmly in T26 lite territory.

My preferred option.
6x T45
6x T26
6x T26 lite

The major advantage of the T26 lite option is the ability to ungrade them up to the full T26 spec if necessary in the future. We have spent years developing the finest Frigate hull in the world. I would like to see RN get the chance to make the most of it.


We can't cancel hull 8. After all we have named her :shock:
Like the idea though, but not keen to see anything less than 19 units. A ship can't be in two places at once etc....... We need to get back to 24 hulls somehow.

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, 20:07

I have a feeling that the MDP will result in the RFI for the T-31e being altered to bring it more into the Fleet as a whole. As stated the RN is going to be a one or two trick pony in future with the CVBG and the ARG and that is about it give or take a single one vessel deployment. The Gulf will probably be reduced to a MCM presence and everything else will be passed to other NATO nations to pick up the slack. So we could see the RFI changes to produce a platform that can be integrated into both the CVBG and ARG. What changes this would involve is up for debate, but I think the MDP will show that what the current RFI will result in is of little use to the future navy and we may even see a small increase in the budget. Until the MDP is published nothing is set in stone regardless of what the PR departments have been releasing.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 20:39

Lord Jim wrote: be a one or two trick pony in future with the CVBG and the ARG and that is about it give or take a single one vessel deployment.

- those two things, of course, being more than 'joined in the hip'... 50% overlap in assets, to make it happen


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bobminder, Rambo and 15 guests