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
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Dec 2018, 14:23

Tempest414 wrote:As I have said in the past for 1.1 billion a year over 15 years you could get[.....]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
Let's be honest it's all a bit of fantasy but it is the time of year for wish lists :D

Obviously we all have our preferred priorities if the MoD were to be provided with an extra £8bn per annum but I think the important point here is that this statement is coming from a government defence minister. The head of the Defence Select Committee is also calling for an increase in overall defence spending to around 3% of GDP which would be an increase of around £15 to £20bn. A massive increase which is very unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

If we take the £8bn that Mr Ellwood is calling for which would amount to roughly 2.5% of GDP what is the strategical thinking behind it? What does the MoD want to do that it can't afford to right now? It's an intriguing thought and £80bn over the next decade is much bigger than any structural deficit contained in the MoD finances so I suspect many are aiming on undoing a lot of the damage since 2010.

Rather than focusing on individual platforms and capabilities I am primarily interested in the strategy behind the requested £8bn increase. How would this amount be broken down? Would it be realistic to assume that RN/RM/RFA, RAF and the Army would each receive around £2bn extra per annum with the remaining £2bn left for Cyber, counter terrorism, space and plugging the black hole? It's a bit simplistic but it might not be far away.

How would this extra £2bn per annum alter RN's outlook? It would do a lot more than stopping any future cuts and sorting out the T31/T26 shenanigans. It may lead to an entirely different strategy.

A few possible outcomes,

1. Increase manpower back to pre 2010 levels.
2. Increase T26 numbers and build Frigate factory
3. Increase T31 numbers and also raise the unit price
4. Increase Astute numbers and enlarge Barrow
5. Introduce an SSK programme
6. Build a third CVF
7. Scrap the Albions and build LHD's in the 2020's
8. Fast-track the MH(P)C programme
9. Upgrade the T45 with CAMM and extra MK41's
10. Transfer F35b's across to FAA permanently
11. Add more Merlins and marinised Chinooks
12. Add V22 Ospreys

Added to this list could be giving Merlins a ASuW capability, adding Wildcat datalink, T45 BMD, CVF AEW and CAMM, CB90's, the list could go on forever.

What I am interested in is assessing is how RN's future direction would change if the black hole was filled plus RN/RM/RFA received an extra £2bn per annum.

Feel free to help me out.....

Rambo
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Rambo » 22 Dec 2018, 17:11

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:As I have said in the past for 1.1 billion a year over 15 years you could get[.....]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
Let's be honest it's all a bit of fantasy but it is the time of year for wish lists :D

Obviously we all have our preferred priorities if the MoD were to be provided with an extra £8bn per annum but I think the important point here is that this statement is coming from a government defence minister. The head of the Defence Select Committee is also calling for an increase in overall defence spending to around 3% of GDP which would be an increase of around £15 to £20bn. A massive increase which is very unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

If we take the £8bn that Mr Ellwood is calling for which would amount to roughly 2.5% of GDP what is the strategical thinking behind it? What does the MoD want to do that it can't afford to right now? It's an intriguing thought and £80bn over the next decade is much bigger than any structural deficit contained in the MoD finances so I suspect many are aiming on undoing a lot of the damage since 2010.

Rather than focusing on individual platforms and capabilities I am primarily interested in the strategy behind the requested £8bn increase. How would this amount be broken down? Would it be realistic to assume that RN/RM/RFA, RAF and the Army would each receive around £2bn extra per annum with the remaining £2bn left for Cyber, counter terrorism, space and plugging the black hole? It's a bit simplistic but it might not be far away.

How would this extra £2bn per annum alter RN's outlook? It would do a lot more than stopping any future cuts and sorting out the T31/T26 shenanigans. It may lead to an entirely different strategy.

A few possible outcomes,

1. Increase manpower back to pre 2010 levels.
2. Increase T26 numbers and build Frigate factory
3. Increase T31 numbers and also raise the unit price
4. Increase Astute numbers and enlarge Barrow
5. Introduce an SSK programme
6. Build a third CVF
7. Scrap the Albions and build LHD's in the 2020's
8. Fast-track the MH(P)C programme
9. Upgrade the T45 with CAMM and extra MK41's
10. Transfer F35b's across to FAA permanently
11. Add more Merlins and marinised Chinooks
12. Add V22 Ospreys

Added to this list could be giving Merlins a ASuW capability, adding Wildcat datalink, T45 BMD, CVF AEW and CAMM, CB90's, the list could go on forever.

What I am interested in is assessing is how RN's future direction would change if the black hole was filled plus RN/RM/RFA received an extra £2bn per annum.

Feel free to help me out.....


I would be happy if an annoucement was made to simply increase the T26 build to 10 and increase the T31 budget 350m per ship. This would give us extra ASW capability as the current 8 planned T26 will be stretched and also make the T31 more credible. To me this would go a long way to reversing the continual decline of our escort fleet.

Manpower - yes a big one
Increase Astute build? never going to happen.
Introduce SSK? - unlikely but i like the idea
LHD? - probably not being looked at yet
Build a third CVF - no need.
Upgrade T45 - possibly but Mk41 is probably low priority if new money was available.

serge750
Member
Posts: 244
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 22 Dec 2018, 17:30

Pretty much what Rambo said,
After getting the manpower shortages sorted & a good payrise to help retention!

Thee SSK idea would be useful for closer to home patrols, Med & training crews but probably not going to happen.

CAMM & BMD for the T45 would be high up on my list also,

Get all the merlins out of mothballs !!!

Definatly increase the individual budget of the T31, maybe as suggested more ASW focussed?

Idealy some F35b for navy only service would be good but would that cuase more problems for the JFL?

Not to mention what all the other services need, I think if that much money was forthcoming it would go mainly just to fill the cuts that have come about since 2010. maybe in 5-10 years replace the Albion's etc

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Dec 2018, 17:57

Agree with focusing an increase in funds on maximising what we have, including keeping the B1 Rivers in service longer, activating all the Merlins, activating & manning (maybe with RFA) both LPDs and additional VLS for the T45s - plus investing in training and weapon stocks.

If there are funds left I would also scrap the T31e and build 5 T26s and build a 3rd flattop - 4bn net spread over 10 years.
"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

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 782
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Dec 2018, 11:16

So for me if the navy got an extra 2 billion per year for 15 years I would look to increase the new ship budget to 1.35 billion per year and push on with updating the fleet for the future with

7 x Type 26 1 built every 2 years cost 1 billion each (Plus look to keep tier 1 escorts on this drum beat for 30 years)
8 x Type 31 1 built every year cost 500 million each ( current plans dropped new plan to build a 130 meter ASW frigate to replace T23 built years 1 to 8)
15 x 100 meter Multi-mission sloops 1 built every year cost 150 million each
3 x SSS 1 built every 2 years cost 400 million each ( built years 1 to 6
3 x Batch 2 Bay 1 built every 2 years cost 300 million each ( built years 7 to 12
2 x LHDs 1 built every 2 years cost 1 billion each ( built years 9 to 12 )

total planned budget across 15 years 20.25 billion total cost of above 17. 35 billion leaving 2.9 billion in this spending plan . This would also Leaving 23.25 billion in the same time frame for fleet support

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 23 Dec 2018, 12:48

Looks like sorting the T26/T31 issue is top of most lists :thumbup:

Having gone back and refreshed my memory of the disaster that was SDSR 2010 it is clear that most but certainly not all of the £8bn Mr Ellwood is calling for would be needed to reverse the cuts.

If the manpower levels were returned to pre 2010 levels and the black hole eradicated in the MoD finances it would leave around £1.4bn per annum to start to rebuild the fleet. That's assuming RN was allocated a quarter of the funding increase which would seem plausible.

It's also immediately apparent when re-reading SDSR 2010 that there was a big push towards further intergration with the French armed forces and a realisation that due to the cuts imposed, the UK would lose its sovereign ability to take unilateral military action if necessary. This military intergration with Allies was simply a way of pretending the cuts didn't matter and the loss of capacity and capability could be filled by other Nations. Has there now been a realisation that this policy change was a mistake and the UK should once again pay more to reintroduce our sovereign capability to act independently if required? To call for an increase of £80bn over the next decade it appears that this is likely to be a primary motive.

I can see no other reason why such a large increase in funding could be justified. Simply stating that extra funding is required to fulfil an aspiration, that the UK remains a Tier 1 military power, is not a good enough excuse for any government in this climate to allocate an extra £80bn over the next decade. I would suggest if a nation can't act independently if required then it isn't a Tier 1 military power anyway regardless of how many SSBN's you possess.

A few considerations,

Does RN actually need an increase in manpower of 5000 or would 3000 now be enough?

What extra assets does the UK need to permanently solve the North Atlantic problem?

If the long term plan is to provide RN with a core of 2x CVF's, 1 or 2 LHD's, 4x SSBN's and 7 SSN's, what is the correct number of RN escorts to ensure that Allies are reinforcing UK Task Groups not providing the main body of the escort screens?

If Argentina was to rearm in the next 10 to 20 years possibly with the help of China what additional assets would RN require in the South Atlantic?

How many vessels is RN/RFA likely to forward base over the next decade? Gulf, Caribbean, Singapore, Gibraltar, Falklands?

How high is RN's presence likely to be in the Western Pacific over the next decade if tensions continue to rise?

Are current submarine numbers simply unacceptable? Is an SSK program now the only solution before the 2030's?

With a move to 2.5% GDP it would be possible to rebalance the fleet and undo all of the shortsighted cuts in 2010. The priority would be to have a long term coherent plan that was fully costed and built on solid financial foundations that didn't involve any future efficiency savings.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8745
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Dec 2018, 19:00

Poiuytrewq wrote: there was a big push towards further intergration with the French armed forces and a realisation that due to the cuts imposed, the UK would lose its sovereign ability to take unilateral military action if necessary.

A couple of dozen times I have been sounding out on this (here) and the MoD comms policy of ' not talking about it' seems to have been so successful that no one (save for Frenchie... happpy Xmas! We haven't heard from you for a little while :wave: ) wants to talk about it.
Poiuytrewq wrote: I would suggest if a nation can't act independently if required then it isn't a Tier 1 military power anyway regardless of how many SSBN's you possess.

Quite.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 Dec 2018, 23:55

If this is true it may be time for a rethink....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ary-bases/

Probably the most important passage:

Mr Williamson is working on plans for two new UK bases in Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific region so Britain can project her influence militarily after Brexit.

Britain already has permanent joint operating bases in Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

A source close to Mr Williamson said the new bases could be sited in Singapore or Brunei in the South China Sea, or Montserrat or Guyana in the Caribbean "within the next couple of years".

He says: "I am also very much looking at how can we get as much of our resources forward based, actually creating a deterrent but also taking a British presence. We are looking at those opportunities not just in the Far East but also in the Caribbean as well."

The bases would have service and maintenance staff, supply ships and equipment sited there.

If this goes ahead will we even need a Bay in the Caribbean?

A forward base in the Singapore area would probably require at least one T23?

Looks like ambitious stuff and virtually impossible without an increase in funding.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5435
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 30 Dec 2018, 00:18

Who says it's a naval base?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8745
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Dec 2018, 00:50

Joint can come in different forms:
- Ascension was missing from the list (US operated)
- also, the new Bahrain base is economically feasible as it has been set up "within US wire"

The current Singapore "base" is just a jetty for refuelling and loading up... again secured within "somebody else's" base area.

Guyana is an odd one out:
- we currently run two jungle warfare schools
- the French run one, jointly with the Dutch, in... Guyana! (OK, there's three of those, so which one did our Gavin refer to?) But having the cost of the one on Western Hemisphere shared might not be a bad idea?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1258
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 30 Dec 2018, 00:52

Montserrat seems an odd choice - population of less than 5000, an active volcano and more than half the island covered by an exclusion zone because of the danger of pyroclastic flows? Only a small airport and almost no harbour to speak of, as well. I think that Guyana is a more likely choice. It might also be a good site for a satellite launch facility :D
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2110
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Dec 2018, 07:10

Aren't their secure port facilities already in Guyana as part of the ESA operation, protected by French Foreign Legion personnel and French naval assets?

This whole idea of the UK re-establishing overseas bases is pushing the truth a little bit. To call them bases infers a far larger establishment then we are planning which in reality are simply minimum scale logistics supply facilities. None of them require the presence of a RN warship on any permanent basis and should be seem as a sovereign petrol stations and MOT garages overseas rather than naval bases. The last thing we can afford to do is start deploying single Escorts or RFAs to the four corners of the globe. This would seriously reduce the ability of the RN to carry out its core tasks.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 30 Dec 2018, 08:41

I welcome the ambition of having further forward bases, however small. Having resources that aid not only military operations but also humanitarian ones, allows the UK to react and sustain forces globally which will be needed to act independently or with lesser capable allies given the current question marks over our US and EU relations.

With the exception of Singapore, the Gulf and Gibraltar there is not a need to position Frigates / Destroyers IMO, but ISR assets based around a MHPC (OPV Patrol Sloop) style vessel would be relevant.

Why no base in Africa?
"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

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 30 Dec 2018, 08:54

is it likely that the Far East establishment would likely tie in with the previous indication of forward basing a GP T23?
And, if we are keeping the River B1s perhaps a B2 might now be based in the Caribbean?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8745
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Dec 2018, 09:53

Repulse wrote:With the exception of Singapore, the Gulf and Gibraltar there is not a need to position Frigates / Destroyers IMO [...]

Why no base in Africa?


Why would we need a frigate in Gib? It is about as deep in the NATO area as is possible (considering the Tropic South of Gib is the area delimiting naval ops in NATO's name and still some distance from Gib)

As for (the rest of) Africa, HMS Clyde has been popping into Simonstown on commercial contract(s) basis, and that fulfills the basing need on the scale that LJ set out above.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 30 Dec 2018, 10:15

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why would we need a frigate in Gib?


Twofold - first to have a ready vessel in an Sea that will become increasingly contested and remains key to the flow of goods to and from the UK and also to Russia containment. Admittedly, Cyprus would be a better location bar the lack of a good deep harbour at one of the two sovereign bases.

Second, to show very clear intent to the Spanish. Gibraltar offers the UK many assets for defence and is considered a critical part of our foreign policy not to be given up.
"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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2110
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Dec 2018, 10:57

All of the above is great for beating ones chest and playing Land of Hope and Glory, but the RN is going to be a Carrier Group and one or two UK based Escorts. Overseas deployments are going to be support vessels and RFA assets. These are more then adequate to wave the flag and are actually more useful than a warship.

AS for honouring our treaties out in the far east, well sending a squadron of Typhoons would be more valuable than a single warship and sending the Carrier Group would be a case of last resort if the USN had lost one of theirs to enemy fire. The UK Government and RN aspire to a lot of things and regularly state these in press releases, just like the Army with its commitment to deploy a Division in a major conflict. Like the Army we could send a RN Task Force east but it would leave the cupboard totally bear everywhere else.

We need to return to the Cold War aspirations with respect to our Military with limited areas of responsibility and base these on our commitments to NATO. Our aspirations of global intervention really died when the 1997 SDR was not funded but Gordon Brown and the nail in the coffin was the 2010 SDSR. If we scrape the barrel we can still do it but should we, in my opinion no.

SW1
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 30 Dec 2018, 11:23

According to some we have insufficient assets to hold back the Russian hords banging at the back fence once or twice a year. Now it would seem we have such a glut of ships we can spread them to the 4 corners of the globe! we’ve been told for years by those naval supporters the benefit of a navy is no need for host nation support.......

Mounts bay is in the Caribbean for 2 years and Gurkhas and others in Brunei how much more do we need. Or to put it another way add ISR assets to the bay in the Caribbean and enablers to the Brunei garrison to allow them to be more useful/deployable thru the region. Or do an mv ocean trader type conversion to the waves and send them to the Far East.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8745
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Dec 2018, 12:16

Lord Jim wrote:would be a case of last resort if the USN had lost one of theirs to enemy fire.
We've lent them one before... they brought the airwing :D
Lord Jim wrote:we could send a RN Task Force east
Been tried before... many lessons learnt (about the need for a balanced force)
Lord Jim wrote: Our aspirations of global intervention really died when the 1997 SDR was not funded but Gordon Brown and the nail in the coffin was the 2010 SDSR. If we scrape the barrel we can still do it but should we, in my opinion no.
I agree about the past. But not the future. It is no coincidence where the sharp (or was it swift) sword exercises are held.
SW1 wrote:Mounts bay is in the Caribbean for 2 years and Gurkhas and others in Brunei how much more do we need. Or to put it another way add ISR assets to the bay in the Caribbean and enablers to the Brunei garrison to allow them to be more useful/deployable
Quite agree with the sentiment. Two observations, though
- we have a base not called a base (but a joint facility) in Oman. Some force protection (a Coy's worth, on rotation) might match the strategic value of it... you only find the real value once you've lost the use of "it"... here "the facility"
- as for Brunei, all you need to do is to sail some amph. shipping (with helos... maybe shrink wrapped for the duration :) of the voyage) there, with a further Bn onboard
[RAN/ Malesian/ Singaporean surface vessels can do the ship sinking... they are better fitted out for that purpose than ours, too]

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 782
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Dec 2018, 12:16

for me right now the best way to have a naval foot print in the Asian-Pacific is to keep the 2 Wave class with a bear minimum reworking to allow for a company of RM and a Helicopter crew plus up arm it by replacing 1 of the Phalanx with SeaRam and have them do 6 monthly deployments to the region and as the escort fleet is rebuilt up to a point where all of them are crewed then they can join the Waves later

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 30 Dec 2018, 13:30

Lord Jim wrote:AS for honouring our treaties out in the far east, well sending a squadron of Typhoons would be more valuable than a single warship


Firstly, if you think the RN has a problem with spare assets then that’s nothing compared to the problems the RAF has between ensuring the QRA requirement and delivering Operation Shader. Secondly, why? Please explain this logic as when the biggest threat is China restricting the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Yes the RAF did send a squadron East in 2017 but it was as much to do with selling kit as anything else.

Lastly for all those wanting to use RFA ships as globe trotting flag poles, as we all know the force is as stretched as the RN. The assets we are referring to are essential to the CSG and ARG plans. Also, think about what they will do when they are there - I get the Caribbean HADR requirement but not the same for any other region apart for a DfID funded hospital ship for Africa maybe.

Our forward assets should either be T26s (which we should buy more and scrap the T31e) and ISR platforms (River OPV Sloops or a new MHPC Class).
"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

wurzeldub
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 12:56
Location: Ireland

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby wurzeldub » 30 Dec 2018, 13:56

Funding for port development is already in place for Montserrat.
I have no idea if this is relevant/useful but thought it was interesting.

https://www.themontserratreporter.com/g ... ontserrat/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2110
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Dec 2018, 15:22

Repulse wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:AS for honouring our treaties out in the far east, well sending a squadron of Typhoons would be more valuable than a single warship


Firstly, if you think the RN has a problem with spare assets then that’s nothing compared to the problems the RAF has between ensuring the QRA requirement and delivering Operation Shader. Secondly, why? Please explain this logic as when the biggest threat is China restricting the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Yes the RAF did send a squadron East in 2017 but it was as much to do with selling kit as anything else.

Lastly for all those wanting to use RFA ships as globe trotting flag poles, as we all know the force is as stretched as the RN. The assets we are referring to are essential to the CSG and ARG plans. Also, think about what they will do when they are there - I get the Caribbean HADR requirement but not the same for any other region apart for a DfID funded hospital ship for Africa maybe.

Our forward assets should either be T26s (which we should buy more and scrap the T31e) and ISR platforms (River OPV Sloops or a new MHPC Class).


In theory everything said above makes perfect sense but we either have our fleet supporting NATO or we have them in the east supporting friendly nations against Chinese expansion, we cannot do both. Simple having a token vessel be it a T-26 or an OPV is not going to make any difference except to provide a show of solidarity, and it deprives the actual important parts of the navy the CSG and ARG of a valuable escort in the case of the former.

Our Navy is good and will have some very capable vessels but not enough of them. It is going to take a real step change in funding to increase the size of the Navy such as increasing the Defence Budget to a minimum of 2.5% GDP or even 3% and that is going to take a major event to take place like the Chinese invading a country or Russia going after the Baltics or the rest of Ukraine.

Everybody on here know the Navy needs more assets but under current plans we are going to only have 14 true escorts, 5 high endurance patrol vessels and that is about it,

Look at it this way, forward basing single ships is like sending General Gordon to Khartoum, we wait until our plucky ship is threatened by an overwhelming hostile force. With public opinion behind them the Government sends the fleet, but whilst this is in transit, our brave vessel is attacked, it fights gallantly for a few minutes and then is sunk by a mass volley of AShMs from two Chinese Destroyers. The fleet arrives too late, but teams up with the USN and other allies and gets involved in a huge naval battle. We win but lose two more escorts and out carrier is damaged.

Whilst all this is going on Russia see that the eyes of the world are on the far east and so decides to subvert the rest of Ukraine with lots of "Little Green Men", driving T-90s and BMP-3s into Kiev. Caught by surprise NATO scrambles its so called Rapid Reaction Force to its eastern borders and especially the Baltics, but Russia doesn't attack just sabre rattles across the border. Instead it moves into northern Norway to secure the Peninsular from air and sea attack and then as, with the exception of Norwegian units, there is little NATO resistance as the latter's forces are elsewhere. Our reserve of 3 Commando held back for such a situation cannot get to Norway without risking major losses as the Russian Northern Fleet and air assets now based in northern Norway are making the seas and coastlines in the region contested at best, hostile at worst. The mostly USN is committed elsewhere and most of NATOs other available assets are in the Baltic or Med...….

I could go on quoting the scenario covered by numerous works of military alternative history fiction and so on, but to sum up we will only have one Carrier group available to us, not two, one. We have enough escorts to protect it and police UK waters to some extent. At a push we can escort the ARG at the same time for a limited period with help. That is going to be it going forward.

(Apologies for all the grammatical and spelling mistakes there are bound to be above.)

NickC
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 30 Dec 2018, 15:40

November Daewoo Shipbuilding and Engineering awarded a $558M/~£440M contract to build the fifth and sixth FFX-II Daegu class frigates for South Korea’s navy, December Hyundai Heavy Industries contracted to build the last two of the eight Daegu class frigates for $563M/~£440 million order. Total programme budget reported to cost $2.7B/~£1.6B, ~£200M per frigate. The first of class launched by DSME June 2016 and delivered Feb. 2018, last to be delivered 2023, eight ships to be delivered in six years.

Daegu frigates 122m LOA, 14m beam, depth moulded of 7.4m, draught 4.15m. The standard and full-load displacements are 2,800t and 3,600t respectively. Ships will be CODLOG hybrid-electric drive for quietness, same propulsion system as T26, powered by a single RR MT30 36-40MW and two shaft mounted 1.7 MW DRS Permanent Magnetic Motors powered by 4 x MTU 12V 4000 M53B 1,650 kW gensets (as in T23 update), cruise 17/18 knots; max 30 knots; range: 4,500 nm; complement: 120.

Armament: 1 × 5 inch Mk-45 Mod 4 L62 ; 1 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS; 2 × 3 K745 Blue Shark LWT, flight deck/hanger for 10t helicopter.

Missiles: 16 cell K-VLS; Cheolmae-2 MR-SAM, max. range 40 km; Haegung short range K-SAAM (4 per cell); Haeseong II supersonic Tactical Land Attack & Anti-Ship Missiles; Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) ASROC ; 2 × 4 SSM-700K quad deck launched Haeseong sub-sonic anti-ship missiles.

Sensors: SPS-550K air search 3D radar; SPG-540K FCR; SQS-240K HMS; SQR-220KA1 TAS; SAQ-540K EOTS; Hanwha Systems IRSTs; Naval Shield Integrated CMS; LIG Nex1 SLQ-200(V)K Sonata EWS; SLQ-261K torpedo acoustic counter measures; MASS decoy launchers.

IF, if budget costs are accurate, it shows the order of magnitude of how more efficient South Korean shipyards are and by implication Chinese shipyards as they are the world's largest builders of commercial ships, makes the T31 budget look positively generous.

PS - HHI planning & design for follow-on FFX Batch III class of six started in December 2016 will be ~200 standard tons larger, 125m LOA, beam 15m, draught 5m, range 8,500nm @ 15 knots, endurance 40 days, variously reported budget as £333M /~£430M each

The main update will be the anti-air/BMD mission role, include a new MFR GaN-AESA flat panel dual polarised radar (same tech as in the new LM radars) S & X band plus four IRST sensors with the 'Sea Bow' M-SAM, said to be ABM capable system, a longer range and larger interceptor version than the land based Sky Bow SAAM.

The six FFX Batch III are set to be built by 2026, delivered by 2028?, to be followed by six Next Generation destroyers KDDX.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8745
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Dec 2018, 15:48

Lord Jim wrote:Whilst all this is going on Russia see that the eyes of the world are on the far east and so decides to subvert the rest of Ukraine with lots of "Little Green Men", driving T-90s and BMP-3s into Kiev.
I like this '56 scenario replay: if it happened then, why not now (as long as a NATO country in is not involved... this is where the script deviates).
Lord Jim wrote:and police UK waters to some extent. At a push we can escort the ARG at the same time for a limited period with help. That is going to be it

- the bolded part does not seem to get much attention. Sure there is the UKNL amph. force and the NL navy is v capable. Add Norway (busy up North, though), Denmark (their frigates have an AD role also for the country, nicely condensed in its area) and half of Germany's (as they will be busy in the Baltic, too).


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests