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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5712
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 15 Nov 2018, 08:25

Poiuytrewq wrote:Are you suggesting that the MOD budget is now fixed out to 2030? No possible divergence at all?

The budget could change, but you suggested "cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's". That's very different, and impossible because the money for boats 7 and 8 does not exist.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2993
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Nov 2018, 09:00



T23 ASW many times carries NOT Merlin but Wildcat. Nothing bad when not conducting ASW ops.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 16 Nov 2018, 00:09

That's only because we haven't got enough Merlin HM2. Wildcats should be fitted with a dipping sonar like the ones sold to South Korea. Also while we are at it Sea Venom and Martlet should be fitted to Merlin.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2993
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Nov 2018, 01:13

I think this article, related to T31e, is worth reading.

https://wavellroom.com/2018/11/15/some- ... -conflict/

Right before the "conclusion", the person says:

The Type 31e therefore offers an attractive compromise in this kind of environment, releasing other units to important tasks such as the defence of a carrier strike group. This type of vessel has frequently been criticised as having utility only in low end or constabulary operations, and of very limited utility in high end conflict. If we accept the conclusions of Global Strategic Trends (GST) that this operating environment is likely to be more prevalent throughout the spectrum of conflict, then there is a lesson that small capable frigates have a key place in Navies who need to project power globally. This includes their use in high end conflict, where these ships can operate closer inshore (either alone or in groups) to contain threats and prevent risks to larger assets such as carrier strike groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a lot we can learn from the events off the coast of Yemen. Firstly, our often used (but somewhat lazy) assumption that terrorists, rebels, and non-state actors will be able to operate in an unconstrained and unrestrained way is not always valid, reinforcing the wider lesson that assumptions need to be questioned and re-examined regularly. Secondly, we shouldn’t think of the advanced (and expensive) capabilities of our warships as only being useful in conflict with a peer enemy, they are necessary for non-state threats as well. Modern operations require a mix of high and low end capability. The Type 31e is sometimes derided, but will (if properly equipped) be ideal for the future maritime operating environment.


--------------------------------------------------------
1: As I read, the Houthi forces are not "do anything" terrorists, but just fighting their war to win and has strong restriction what to do = well controlled. And this is imposed by USN (and others) counter-attack in the past. So, by committing to such "war", RN can "control" the theater to keep the district safe for trade.

I agree here.

2: If the threat like "the Houthi forces" will continue to increase, T31e will be a good option to cover it in the days of lack of money for MOD. On the other hand, if ASW threats grew, RN needs something to do ASW.

It is a matter of choice. Or, how to view the future.

Here we MUST take into account that ASW oriented ship is much expensive than GP-only ship = it is not for free. Build smaller number of ASW capable ship, or larger number of GP escorts. In current budget, we can foresee only 5 GP "light-light frigates". If the budget increases, we can have more or add "ASW" capability. If budget is not increasing AND ASW is needed, we need to reduce the number (or reduce the size = more focussed ASW "corvette", as I proposed a few days before).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2962
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Nov 2018, 05:37

Yes that is a good article but the phrase "If properly equipped", is the key here. San we with the current budget which is to cover everything in and on the T-31e build it so equipped?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Nov 2018, 05:40

tomuk wrote:Also while we are at it Sea Venom and Martlet should be fitted to Merlin.

Agree about Sea Venom (and who knows, it will be 2020 before even the helicopters carried for ASuW will get them). Martlet is not really a stand-off weapon, and I would question the use of a scarce resource, costing about £50 mln apiece, in a gunship role.

have a key place in Navies who need to project power globally. This includes their use in high end conflict, where these ships can operate closer inshore (either alone or in groups)

- we have had quite a few comments here, to the same effect

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Gabriele » 16 Nov 2018, 09:37

I hope one day someone will explain why to operate closer inshore you have to be less equipped, not more. You are basically going up threat, exposing yourself to even more potential dangers, but going in with less instruments to return fire effectively.

How is that not a contradiction?

I find certain affirmations simply laughable when not entirely dishonest. A Type 31 with the same (or less) sensors of a Type 23 and less weapons than a 23 and possibly less aviation capability than a Type 23 is "ideal for the future maritime operating environment"? How? For fuck's sake, how is that possible?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Nov 2018, 10:57

Gabriele wrote:How is that not a contradiction?


As the USMC is part of the Dept of Navy, and as that Dept thought they had no peers to contend with, they went with the modern-day 'monitor' ie. the Zumwalts
- stealth, huge range for continued shore bombardment

We, as the poor cousins, will have to make do with guns (to be) lifted from retiring T-23s and form a gun line from units that are available, but not absolutely necessary for the MTF to be protected, while OTH, from air and missile threats (AAW) and from subsurface (which these days can launch supersonic missiles from much further away than torpedo range).

One more scenario where "the best" is the enemy of "good enough".
- and if good enough turns out not to be good enough, then obviously we will have to use our handful of F-35s in the way the USMC is planning to do: both a coordinating and persistent (numbers!?) ISTAR asset and a CAS (moving the mud) asset.
- without context it is hard to say which, as such, higher priority missions will have to be delayed/ cancelled

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Nov 2018, 11:16

Gabriele wrote:I find certain affirmations simply laughable when not entirely dishonest. A Type 31 with the same (or less) sensors of a Type 23 and less weapons than a 23 and possibly less aviation capability than a Type 23 is "ideal for the future maritime operating environment"? How? For fuck's sake, how is that possible?


I agree and this is why for me type 31 needs to be a ASW frigate for the Carrier group

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 16 Nov 2018, 12:08

Agree with Gabrielle
October 2016 Houthi hit the UAE Swift with an AShM, said to be an old Chinese C-802 or Iranian copy.
USNI reported retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson stated the damage on Swift appears to be from the warhead used in a Chinese-built C-802 anti-ship missile (NATO reporting name CSS-N-8 Saccade). The C-802 is based on Cold War-era French technology.

Houthi's have shot down Saudi F-15 and USAF MQ-9 Reapers, thought they might have used Russian ground launched air to air missiles.

Wavell Room "By virtue of its smaller size, it will be able to operate much further inshore than the Type 45, but if it carries the Sea Ceptor missile will be able to defend itself (and probably other ships close to it) from missile attack.  It is likely to have much better defence against a small boat threat than MCMVs, not least through its ability to carry a helicopter such as the Wildcat and its more advanced sensors and weapons"

From <https://wavellroom.com/2018/11/15/some-maritime-lessons-from-the-yemen-conflict/>

"able to operate much further inshore" LOL- Would have thought Houthis will use T31 and its Wildcat for target practise.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Nov 2018, 12:21

As a side note for me if we go for a Carrier group capable frigate in type 31 we could if the need comes up and we need GP frigates build a down graded version this ship by removing the ASW kit and 16 of the 24 VLS . This being said within my vision of the fleet I see a 100 meter multi-mission MHPC sloop fitted with 1 x 57 mm , 2 x 30mm , and a mount for Phalanx / Sea'ram undertaking many roles of a GP frigate/ Corvette

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2962
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Nov 2018, 12:42

The discussion here is basically going round and round, repeating the same arguments. I think we need to take a break until some actual news emerges regarding the T-31e. Carry on regarding the next generation that follows the T-26 or T-45 by all means but the T-31e discussion is getting kind of boring.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2993
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Nov 2018, 13:32

Gabriele wrote:I hope one day someone will explain why to operate closer inshore you have to be less equipped, not more. You are basically going up threat, exposing yourself to even more potential dangers, but going in with less instruments to return fire effectively.

How is that not a contradiction?

I find certain affirmations simply laughable when not entirely dishonest. A Type 31 with the same (or less) sensors of a Type 23 and less weapons than a 23 and possibly less aviation capability than a Type 23 is "ideal for the future maritime operating environment"? How? For fuck's sake, how is that possible?
I like to see "2 T26" than "5 T31", and not a strong fan of T31e. But, I can understand the rationale.

"Near ashore" is doable only if the threat is low. And if the threat is low, T31e can do it. If the threat is high, neither T45 nor T26 can do it.

Compared to "+2 T26 fleet", "+5 T31e" can at least add one standing commitment. So the issue is, "to be or not to be". In other words, if the threat is low, a T31e can be there. If the threat is high, T31e cannot go. If with "+2 T26" fleet, there will be nothing regardless of the threat level.

The reason I prefer "2 T26" than "5 T31" is not because there is not job for T31e. But because I think, growing 2nd escort ship yard is a stupid idea (inefficient = waste of money) and I'm afraid man-power shortage will not allow "19 escort" fleet.
Lord Jim wrote: The discussion here is basically going round and round, repeating the same arguments. I think we need to take a break until some actual news emerges regarding the T-31e. Carry on regarding the next generation that follows the T-26 or T-45 by all means but the T-31e discussion is getting kind of boring.
Agreed. Sorry for that, as I am one of the players here...

What we need to discuss here now is, however, "have your say" to MDP and SDSR2020. My "say" is, do not contract T31e before SDSR 2020., to and secure "8 T26" first.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2339
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 16 Nov 2018, 14:35

Lord Jim wrote:The discussion here is basically going round and round, repeating the same arguments. I think we need to take a break until some actual news emerges regarding the T-31e. Carry on regarding the next generation that follows the T-26 or T-45 by all means but the T-31e discussion is getting kind of boring.

Pretty much!

So just for a little change of pace, here's a proposal just in theory. I'm not saying I necessarily support this, or aim for this, but just to see what discussion makes of it.

If they were to cancel T31e entirely, and invest that money into the 6x Type 45s and 8x Type 26s, what would add to their designs to make a better quality but smaller fleet of 14 only?



Leave out talk of OPVs, Minehunting, what have you. Just focus on that core element. If there was 1.5b to spend on only existing/ordered 26/45...what could be added to make them more well rounded for that money?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2962
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Nov 2018, 18:23

First thing I would do is build our 8 T-26 to the same design as the Australian's and use ExLS in 8 of the Mk41 cells for Sea Ceptor, fit launchers for 8 NSM amidships leaving the remaining 24 Mk41 for VL-ASROC and whatever else might be needed be it more Sea Ceptor and so on.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 16 Nov 2018, 19:13

RetroSicotte wrote:If they were to cancel T31e entirely, and invest that money into the 6x Type 45s and 8x Type 26s, what would add to their designs to make a better quality but smaller fleet of 14 only?


Upgraded Sonar and Mk41 VLS for TLAM on the T45 and BDM capability on all platforms.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 16 Nov 2018, 19:16

Is naming the 8th T26 the RNs way of making harder to cancel?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

SDL
Member
Posts: 609
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SDL » 16 Nov 2018, 19:18

not really as they can just cancel the unnamed ones

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby R686 » 16 Nov 2018, 21:25

An interesting article on bring back the PT boats aka corvettes

https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceeding ... tte-hornet’s-sting

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Nov 2018, 22:18

R686 wrote:An interesting article on bring back the PT boats aka corvettes

https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceeding ... tte-hornet’s-sting


The author's sketch here https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ha ... ORM=VRDGAR turned into a 235 t package of stealth (also water spraying to reduce IR signature), networking, frigate class sensors, a 12 km AD bubble around it and punch to sink anything up to a destroyer at 100 km range. LEP adding lw anti-sub torps, too
- all yours for a mere $100 mln
- Defencetalk has named their pages dedicated to the class aptly: "Finnish Hamina : how to fit a FFG in a 50 metre ship"

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 17 Nov 2018, 10:29

My proposal:

Build 3 more River B2 patrol ships for most peaceful roles (WI, SA)- about 300 mil. GBP?

Buy about 150 NSMs for Type 45 and Type 26- about 150-200 mil. GBP

Buy 100 ASROCs for Type 26- cost, maybe 250 mil. GBP?

Buy 150 land attack cruise missiles for Type 26 and Type 45- about 300 mil. pounds?

Buy 6 Mk41 VLS for Type 45- about 150 mil. GBP.

That's about 1,25 bln. GBP. In fact 100 mil. less, that's contingency money, if some above-mentioned figures are wrong.
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…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 Nov 2018, 12:08

RetroSicotte wrote:Leave out talk of OPVs, Minehunting, what have you. Just focus on that core element. If there was 1.5b to spend on only existing/ordered 26/45...what could be added to make them more well rounded for that money?


type 45) As I have said before remove Aster 15 and convert to CAMM aim for a load out of 64 CAMM in 16 cells with 32 Aster 30 in the remaining 32 cells giving AAW load out of 96 missiles next fit 8 cell strike length Mk-41 vls to hold TLAM. This should be quite easy as MBDA say they can quad pack CAMM into A50 and type 45 is FFBNW space for a Mk-41 system

type 26 ) swap the 48 mushrooms for 2 x A50 VLS systems as per the type 45 above load 64 CAMM the remaining 24 Mk-41 cells loaded out as seen fit for task job done

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 17 Nov 2018, 12:50

Tempest414 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Leave out talk of OPVs, Minehunting, what have you. Just focus on that core element. If there was 1.5b to spend on only existing/ordered 26/45...what could be added to make them more well rounded for that money?


type 45) As I have said before remove Aster 15 and convert to CAMM aim for a load out of 64 CAMM in 16 cells with 32 Aster 30 in the remaining 32 cells giving AAW load out of 96 missiles next fit 8 cell strike length Mk-41 vls to hold TLAM. This should be quite easy as MBDA say they can quad pack CAMM into A50 and type 45 is FFBNW space for a Mk-41 system

type 26 ) swap the 48 mushrooms for 2 x A50 VLS systems as per the type 45 above load 64 CAMM the remaining 24 Mk-41 cells loaded out as seen fit for task job done


Why not the full 16 mk41s on the T45s as designed to allow BMDA and TLAM 8 of each ?

Why add A50 cells to T26 when stand alone ExLS would be cheaper and more compact. A50 would need ExLS inserts to convert to CAMM use so stand alone would make more sence to me.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 17 Nov 2018, 13:03

Destroyer and Frigate Fleet Numbers

"At 19 ships, compared with 35 in 1997, the Royal Navy’s frigate and destroyer fleet is way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it." The House of Commons Defence Committee Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy Third Report of Session 2016–17 Report,15 November 2016

The other main point they made in the report was the RN needed fully capable warships, not a downgraded T31 OPV.

The MOD is too embarrassed to disclose T26 build cost, we can speculate anything from ~ £750M to a £1B, all we do know Treasury rationing the spend per year so from cutting first steel to in operational service is 10 years, just pathetic.

Question where does the money come from, so its back to my mantra the T26 is just too costly and class should be terminated after the first three ships as its cost crippling fleet numbers and make a new start, we could all make suggestions and think of what's possible for maybe £400M to £500M ? per ship.

I don't think it will happen and T26 will carry on soaking up the majority of available funding and the numbers of RN fully capable frigate and destroyer fleet will become ever smaller.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 17 Nov 2018, 13:59

Tempest414 wrote:swap the 48 mushrooms for 2 x A50 VLS systems as per the type 45

A50 VLS? That implies Aster 15/30 (doubt you want VL Mica or Crotale :D ), which brings the need for PAAMS, Sampson and the S1850 with it (though the UK implementation may work without the S1850, IIRC). Probably better to go for the "Self-defence" Mk41 (roughly the same dimensions as A50), to allow quad-packing CAMM and access to the much larger range of Mk41 compatible missiles.

For the T45, complete the BMD trials and add whichever VLS is needed to support the chosen missile system and allow another 16-24 missiles. Pretty agnostic as to which flavour, TBH, though bear in mind the cost of integrating Mk41 and non-Aster/CAMM missiles into PAAMS. Add CAMM/ CAMM-ER wherever it will fit, in the most compact launcher.

For the T26. Buy into CAMM-ER, ASROC, Smart/ extended range ammunition, Torpedo hard-kill.

For both - select a heavy ASuW missile that has both surface and helicopter-launched variants and integrate onto Wildcat (not sure about Merlin - that needs to stay focussed on ASW, but if it can be done without compromising that, then why not?).

Pick a rotary UAV that can co-exist with Merlin/Wildcat on both T45 and T26. Good endurance (6h?) and capable of carrying 2 x Sea Venom ( and Martlet), though obviously that would impact endurance.

Is it too late to want 57/76mm CIWS and CAMM on the carriers?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

 

 

cron