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.
Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Dec 2018, 11:18

the RN could operate 3 task groups if it did nothing else as far as the escorts go

task group 1) HMS QE , 2 x T45 , 2 x T23

task group 2) as above with POW

task group 3) HMS Albion 2 x T45 , 2 x T23

leaving 4 T23s for TAPS & FRE ( given 2 to 3 of the 13 T23s are laid up ) of course as the T23s are replaced by the currently planned T31s this option will be lost

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 19 Dec 2018, 11:38

they could, but will they?

There is a pivot towards a group oriented navy, but do we expect the RN will drop all auxiliary tasks?
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Dec 2018, 15:01

shark bait wrote:but do we expect the RN will drop all auxiliary tasks?


Some on here do

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2495
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Dec 2018, 17:58

The RN has made its choice, its main contribution to NATO will now be a Carrier Group followed by the Amphibious Group. The NATO tasks the RN allocated single ships to will now have to be covered by other member states.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 19 Dec 2018, 18:12

If that were the case why would they start forward basing frigates just as there about to give up single ship task's?
@LandSharkUK

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 19 Dec 2018, 23:31

Tempest414 Wrote:-
[quote][/quote]the RN could operate 3 task groups if it did nothing else as far as the escorts go.

It could only operate 2 of the 3 at the same time. The centre of the Task Group and 33% of the Type 45's & Type 23/Type 26's in Re-fit at any one time. This only leaves 2 additional Type 26 for FRE & TAPS. A good illustration of why the Type 31 must be able to incorporate an adequate ASW capability.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby R686 » 20 Dec 2018, 03:04

Scimitar54 wrote:Tempest414 Wrote:-
the RN could operate 3 task groups if it did nothing else as far as the escorts go.

It could only operate 2 of the 3 at the same time. The centre of the Task Group and 33% of the Type 45's & Type 23/Type 26's in Re-fit at any one time. This only leaves 2 additional Type 26 for FRE & TAPS. A good illustration of why the Type 31 must be able to incorporate an adequate ASW capability.


Yep and that’s in a low risk environment, the building blocks are going to get bigger the higher the risk, which may only mean one task group if acting independently

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 Dec 2018, 09:49

[quote="Tempest414"
]6 x T45 AAW Destroyers
8 x T26 Global combat frigates
6 x TXX ASW frigates
15 x MHPC 100 meter Multi-mission sloops

This would give us a new fleet of 35 ships across 4 classes able to carry out a host of operations across the world as so

2 x Carrier groups operating in rotation 1 x Carrier , 2 x T45 AAW , 2 x Txx ASW , 1 or 2 NATO escorts
2 x Txx on TAPS
2 x T45 & 8 x T26 able to undertake global standing patrols + FRE and TAPS if needed ( and would also form the escort group for the Amphib group)
15 x 100 meter Multi-mission sloops able to undertake MCM , Littoral ASW , Hyrographic and Patrol including UK EEZ , FIGS , AP-N[/quote]

To be clear this what I think the RN escort and Multi-mission sloop fleet should look like. As said above the carrier groups would work in rotation and there escorts and support ship would be fixed allowing them to deploy together and be maintained together. As for the the remaining 10 escorts as you see above I have included 1 or 2 NATO escorts in the carrier group these could be replaced by the same from this pool of ship. However I have always said I would like to see a Commonwealth standing group in the Asian- Pacific and now the RAN and RCN are to have T26 for me a three ship T26 squadron would be a powerful force in the region.

NickC
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 20 Dec 2018, 12:01

NickC wrote:The U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command announced $149.4 million contract award Friday to the Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of their SM-2 Block IIIC missile for surface warships, based on the RIM-66 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) with active radar seeker as used on the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM. Understand the driver is the planned use on the new FFG(X).

June 2017 Paris, Raytheon announced restart of the SM-2 production line, for SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles for the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan and Australia, $650M for 280 missiles, $2.32M ea. In July 2018 State Department authorised sale of 46 SM-2 Block IIIA to Denmark plus 4 test missiles with their MK 13 MOD 0 VLS canisters for $152M/$3.04M ea. The SM-2 Block IIIA and IIIB missiles use the older tech semi-active radar seeker head.


Update,

The active radar seeker head comes from AIM-120 AMRAAM, as used on the SM-6 ERAM, to be incorporated into the SM-2 to create the SM-2 Block IIIC

The relatively short range over which the active seeker head is used, its active for only <4–6 seconds prior to impact to minimise the target a/c warning time to activate its ECM and facilitates the burn through.

What can be informative is that US military contracts have to specify where spend occurs (not supplied by UK Government as it would cause too much political backlash due the high foreign spend), with the Raytheon $149.4M contract for the EMD phase what find intriguing is 6% / $9M to be spent in Wolverhampton, anyone know which company? Would not be surprised if that is a higher UK content than in the French/Italian Aster 15 & 30 missiles.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Dec 2018, 12:30

NickC wrote:SM-2 Block IIIC missile for surface warships, based on the RIM-66 Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) with active radar seeker as used on the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM. Understand the driver is the planned use on the new FFG(X).


Sounds like NASAMS, on the waves?
- for the missiles part, only

NickC wrote: Would not be surprised if that is a higher UK content than in the French/Italian Aster 15 & 30 missiles.

- at least that is the case between Gripen (40%) vs. Typhoon (25%?)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Dec 2018, 12:32

NickC wrote: US military contracts have to specify where spend occurs


This was of course designed to support the lawmakers, proving their pork-barrelling efforts a success :)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2495
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Dec 2018, 01:19

shark bait wrote:If that were the case why would they start forward basing frigates just as there about to give up single ship task's?


But how many of the forward deployments are based on politics not military need. If the Politicians decree that we are to base our Carriers in the Gulf the MoD will have to do so. It doesn't have to make sense, so although we will only have sufficient true escorts to properly cover the Carrier Group and CASD there is nothing stopping the Government from demanding one or more are deployed elsewhere as singletons.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 07:23

Lord Jim wrote:one or more are deployed elsewhere as singletons.


One in Bahrain and one in Oman (a third reserved for the rotation at what - 9 mth? - intervals) does not singletons them make
- lots of US assets in Bahrain
- lots of Omani Khareefs ( et al) in Oman
+ our visiting guest star (the CTF, or is it MTF?) making an appearance every now and then. Just like you don't have to fast all through the year, to declare your 'faith'.

BTW, where else would you forward base T-31s
- Falklands threat picture met with an R B2
- Caribbean rotation has its own special seasonality so no single flavour will meet "all days" of the year (i.e. wht's needed)

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Dec 2018, 08:48

Maybe one in Singapore for the Asian-Pacific as we have had ships in the region for the past 18 months and are set to keep one there for some time

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 21 Dec 2018, 08:58

Tempest414 wrote:Maybe one in Singapore for the Asian-Pacific as we have had ships in the region for the past 18 months and are set to keep one there for some time


Not the best demonstration of support to allies in the region if the T31 turns out to be as ill equipped as currently envisaged

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Dec 2018, 09:21

Type 31 as it is planned will ill equipped to support anyone anywhere

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Dec 2018, 13:59

Tempest414 wrote:Type 31 as it is planned will ill equipped to support anyone anywhere
I have a different point of view.

RN was absent from Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) for years. This was a clear message that RN is not an active contributor to FPDA. (only this year, RN resumed). Nothing. Zero. Non-exiting.

French Navy is joining RIMPAC every time. This is a clear message French is a Pan-Pacific nation and has a will to contribute to regional security. Every time, always, clear presence.

Big difference.

Even if T31 is only equipped with a 57 mm gun and 12 CAMM, it is much better than Floreal of French Marine National.

Nothing is zero (no RN ship on FPDA for years). Every time is every time, even though it is a ship just a little better than an OPV. Here comes the merit of Presence ship.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Dec 2018, 14:25

I do agree with these points and maybe if we were looking to keep the Wave class we could send a Type 31 and a Wave class as the latter could prove very useful if not more useful in this region

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2495
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Dec 2018, 17:10

I was ignoring the T-31e when making my observation, think more about the T-26 and T-45 and how those are probably only going to be available for "singleton" operations when no carrier is available for or on deployment.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Dec 2018, 17:40

Even if RN and RFA only got £2bn to £3bn of this increase a year it would transform the UK's naval capability going forward.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8031045/d ... ssion=true

£20bn to 30bn over 10 years would do a lot.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 Dec 2018, 17:45

donald_of_tokyo, understand the point you are making but would argue:

- it’s all down to priorities, FDPA presence is probably equally important as presence in the Gulf now to the U.K.
- if the T31e is just a fancy flag pole base, then forget it and just send a B2 River - the influence projected will amount to pretty much the same.
- the French has significant territory to defend so for them a Patrol ship makes sense. IMO the UKs objective is to project real influence and power to be able to help shape the regional situation to what the U.K. wants.
- if a CSG or forward based T26 is not an option then send other real 1st tier assets - e.g. Survey / MCM ships or an amphibious platform.
"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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9675
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 18:15

Repulse wrote: then send other real 1st tier assets


Like Typhoons, or maintain an acclimatised ready-reserve in the area (a bn + a jungle warfare school for rotations).

It is not all about ships (I note the headline for the thread - but the comments did not). Singapore (and Malaysia, raising their game rapidly) have plenty of capable ships in the area... and Australia is not that far (if the RAF haven't :D moved it again).

It is notable that the same area is not of insignificant interest to some other parties, like evidenced by "This [2017] year’s Malabar exercise is notable on several fronts. First, it’s the first naval exercise between the three countries to involve carriers from each navy. The Indian Navy has dispatched INS Vikramaditya, its modified Russian-made Kiev-class carrier that was commissioned in 2013. The United States has sent the USS Nimitz supercarrier to the exercises. Meanwhile, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force sent JS Izumo, which left Japan earlier this spring for a multiple-month-long deployment to Southeast Asia before arriving in the Indian Ocean for Malabar 2017."
- Australia and Singapore have earlier taken part as well [ Singapore takes part in large scale exercises in Australia... there must be a fiscal limit to how many major exercises you can be present at]

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Dec 2018, 11:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- Australia and Singapore have earlier taken part as well [ Singapore takes part in large scale exercises in Australia... there must be a fiscal limit to how many major exercises you can be present at]


This is why I think it is time for a Commonwealth Standing group in the Pacific if the core group was made up of Australian , Canadian and UK frigates it could be joined by ships from Singapore , India , New Zealand , South Africa and so on from time to time with the aim of having 4 ships all year round and projecting real power. These ships could also join a UK carrier group or Canberra class lead Amphib group to for increased power for some parts of the year or join exercises as a red team

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 22 Dec 2018, 11:54

https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... p-program/

Given the Brazilian fondness for ex-RN vessels and UK designed or built vessels in general, plus their operation of River Class vessels (from the Trinidad contract), quite surprised that River Class, Khareef or T31 hasn't been put forward for this..

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Dec 2018, 12:12

Poiuytrewq wrote:Even if RN and RFA only got £2bn to £3bn of this increase a year it would transform the UK's naval capability going forward.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8031045/d ... ssion=true

£20bn to 30bn over 10 years would do a lot.


As I have said in the past for 1.1 billion a year over 15 years you could get ( plan A )

7 x Type 26 GCS coat 500 million per year ( year 1 to 15 )
6 x Type XX ASW cost 250 million per year ( year 1 to 12 )
15 x 100 meter Multi-mission sloops cost 150 million per year ( year 1 to 15 )
3 x SSS cost 200 million per year ( 1 to 6 )
3 x Batch 2 Bays cost 150 per year ( 7 to 12 )
1 x LHD cost 450 million per year ( year 13 & 14 )

if the budget went up to just 1.35 billion we could still get all this but now do away with type XX and have 14 type 26 ( plan B )

Also at this time our current budget plan is 19 billion over 10 years if we say that 9 billion is for new ships this works out at 900 million a year so a increase 200 million a year you can have plan A or for a increase of 450 million a year you can have plan B


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cyrilranch, warspite and 15 guests