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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Dec 2018, 10:52

Repulse wrote:I’d argue that a OPV/Survey Ship hybrid would be perfect for a ship based in Singapore
I think you could make the same argument for the Caribbean, Falklands and Gibraltar. They should also be much cheaper to buy and run than even a T31.
Caribbean wrote:hurricane or earthquake relief needs the ability to shift a lot of material fast.....but the vehicles and supplies would have to be stored, and a system would have to be in place to get appropriate personnel, in-region, at relatively short (2-4 days) notice
Interesting, it sounds like a forward base that can be surged if required that is backed up by some relatively cheap RN/RFA vessel(s) could be the way forward.
Tempest414 wrote:If we need a new class of ship then we should build ships we need and will be part of the future fleet. and I feel if there was a need we could have MHPC in 5 years and a mix of RB1 & RB2 should do until then
Absolutely and something like a Venari 95 would be a hot favourite but Damen also has an equivalent.
image.jpg
https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... 5_2016.pdf

https://www.damen.com/~/media/New-Corpo ... _2016.ashx

WORLDWIDE, LITTORAL AND OCEAN 3600 tonnes – 85 x 16 x 5.0 metres

"Intended for worldwide service, the capacity of the largest vessel in the range – the MRAV 3600 – allows for more than one specific mission during a deployment. Capable of hydrographic operations both in littoral and deeper waters, this vessel also has a helideck and substantial storage capacity for other mission configurations, equipment and cargo. Furthermore, the MRAV 3600 can serve as a base for more extensive operations such as disaster relief and at sea naval taskgroup training support. There is accommodation for 14 core and 45 additional mission crew and enough space on board to provide emergency hospital services
for up to 50 people."

Clearly there are a lot of positives about these vessels, likewise the almost identical Venari 85 but they have a few negatives too. The lack of a hanger is a big omission but a 20m stretch would sort that and also add another 300sqm to the garage capacity.

The hybrid propulsion system is ideal for survey and littoral ASW but the top speed would need to be increased to around 21knts for patrol duties. Is the simple solution to have an 85m MCM variant at 16knts and a 105m Patrol variant at 21knts. Doesn't seem too complicated.

I'm not suggesting the Damen option is better than Venari, what applies to one applies to the other but it's interesting what Damen believe this vessel is capable of.

No need for a protracted MHPC programme, these vessels could be constructed almost immediately.
Lord Jim wrote:Going forward though unless there is a step change in funding we are going to have to work with what is currently planned and organised out deployments accordingly.
We can't do anything more without additional funding. Bigger Ambition, Bigger Budget, Simple.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Against China or Russia, its modest fighting power is not a problem, even a T45 or a T26 is "nothing" in their vicinity
Sorry, can't agree with that. In the same way Allies are always delighted to see a T45 coming, potential adversaries generally have the opposite reaction.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Against fast boats, T31e is as good as T26/T45
With a 57mm/76mm potentially it could be better.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:APT-N shall be something optimized for "Coast Guard" or "HADR" and Gib can be an OPV.
Agreed, Gibraltar needs something a bit bigger on a permanent basis to try and curtail these incursions, ideally with a reinforced bow :D
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Dec 2018, 10:58

As for Gibraltar, I would just lease a North Sea supply ship equipped with bloody great big fire fighting water jets. Any ship that causes trouble gets a free wash.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 31 Dec 2018, 11:00

Ron5 wrote:
NickC wrote: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.


Before criticizing UK shipbuilders you need to see what is and is not included in Korean warship contracts.

I've commented before on your juvenile habit of assuming all contacts are equal. You need to grow up.

Admin requested to refrain from adversarial comments, but as admin has not taken your post down I feel free to reply.

I do not understand why you add more of your usual infantile comments, if you had bothered to read my post I said "IF, if budget costs are accurate" and so agree all contracts are not equal, murky area.

We don't know if figures quoted are accurate (though taken from respected sites i.e. Navy Recognition - Xav), we have no one on this board with the necessary knowledge/background of the Korean defence budget to confirm/clarify figures.

What we do know is the Koreans able to win contracts to build warships for export e.g. HHI currently building two frigates for the Philippine Navy, export was the stated aim with the T31e, BAE Leander failed to make the Brazilian shortlist.

It's a cause for concern that if UK costs are higher we need to see if any further lessons can be learned from Koreans to drive down costs so more ships or capable ships built for the RN within their very limited budget.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 31 Dec 2018, 11:29

The more I think about it the more I think a joint force with the RNZN makes sense as a forward RN presence coupled with close working with the RAN and RSN. Perhaps with joint funding the joint RN/RNZN navy could get 2-3 T26/Hunter vessels jointly manned. Maybe even help them operate a Bay when we choose to update our fleet.

Additionally add a MHPC (with 57mm and Phalanx CIWS) operating out of Singapore and really stretching it perhaps another out of Brunei.

This with SSN and CSG visits to the region (including joint exercises with Japan) would be a good balance Far East RN capability IMO.
"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
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 31 Dec 2018, 12:01

As thing stand will have in 2020

4 SSBN, 6 SSN, 2 Carriers, 16 active escorts , 2 Albions , 5 to 9 OPVs , 2 echos , 12 MCM , 4 Tides, 2 Waves , 3 Forts , 3 Bays

so how best to use them going forward for me I would go for something like

SSBN- CASD

1 x Carrier group with 1 carrier, 1 SSN , 2 T45 , 2 T23 , 1 Fort , 1 Tide at sea or ready to deploy second carrier ready as a LPH

Home waters squadron to cover TAPS , FRE , EEZ with 2 T23 , 3 B1 River , 1 B2 River , 2 MCM

AP-N with 1 Bay , 1 B2 River forward deployed

Kipion 1 T23 , 1 Bay , 3 MCM forward deployed

Asian-Pacific - 1 Wave forward deployed + 1 escort & 1 echo on 6 month deployments

Gib & Med - 1 SSN , 1 T45 , 2 B2 Rivers , 2 MCM , 2 fast patrol boats

FIGS & AP-S 1 B 1.5 River + 1 Wave undertaking 2 2 month deployments a year

all other ships to be deployed as seen fit

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 Dec 2018, 12:58

Poiuytrewq wrote:...Absolutely and something like a Venari 95 would be a hot favourite but Damen also has an equivalent. https://products.damen.com/-/media/Prod ... 5_2016.pdf
WORLDWIDE, LITTORAL AND OCEAN 3600 tonnes – 85 x 16 x 5.0 metres "Intended for worldwide service, the capacity of the largest vessel in the range – the MRAV 3600 – allows for more than one specific mission during a deployment. Capable of hydrographic operations both in littoral and deeper waters, this vessel also has a helideck and substantial storage capacity for other mission configurations, equipment and cargo. Furthermore, the MRAV 3600 can serve as a base for more extensive operations such as disaster relief and at sea naval taskgroup training support. There is accommodation for 14 core and 45 additional mission crew and enough space on board to provide emergency hospital services for up to 50 people."
...but the top speed would need to be increased to around 21knts for patrol duties. Is the simple solution to have an 85m MCM variant at 16knts and a 105m Patrol variant at 21knts. Doesn't seem too complicated.
I also very much like this and Venari 85. But I think "speeding up" will totally destroy its goodness and beauty. MHC must not be a fast ship. RN already have five 25 knots ships, River B2s, which almost perfectly matches the "P" requirement. I think there is only a little needs left for "P" tasks.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Against China or Russia, its modest fighting power is not a problem, even a T45 or a T26 is "nothing" in their vicinity
Sorry, can't agree with that. In the same way Allies are always delighted to see a T45 coming, potential adversaries generally have the opposite reaction.
May be. Yes, they need only 4 fighters to sink T31, but may need 12 fighters for T45. My point is, "12 fighters" is very easy for China and Russia. But, I understand your point.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 31 Dec 2018, 14:00

Perhaps a splitting of any MHPC programme is a good approach, but not in the way suggested (“P” vs “MHC”). Instead, have two classes - one slower, cheaper and less warship “MHC” like (e.g. like the Venari) which would be easier to forward base or operate from local U.K. ports and be less threatening, and another which is full “MHPC” quicker with a higher level of self defence (e.g. based on the River) which can operate as the FIGS, FRE or with the CSG. 8 of each would be a good start.
"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: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 31 Dec 2018, 16:50

Tempest414, In reference to your 2020 force structure, my vote would go for a three Task Group structure being rotated between refit, training / UK reserved and global deployment. These would consist of the following:

Group A) 1 x CVF, 2 x T45s, 2 x T23 ASW, 1 x Fort I, 1 x Tide

Group B) 1 x CVF, 2 x T45s, 2 x T23 ASW, 1 x LPD, 1 x Fort I, 1 x Tide

Group C) 1 x LPD, 2 x T45s, 2 x T23 ASW, 1 x Argus, 1 x Fort II, 1 x Tide

Group C would ultimately get a Flat-top but in the meantime with RFA Argus and RFA Victoria still be able to operate 8 helicopters.

The remaining 2 ASW T23s would cover TAPS and 2 GP T23s supporting one being forward based in the Gulf for Kipion.

I would scrap the 3 remaining T23s to make sure the remainder of the fleet has the necessary crew including long term 8 OPV levels and 2 active LPDs.
"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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 31 Dec 2018, 17:42

I think we need to recognise when we head to Far East we are minor players, we need to ask our partners who are leading nations in the region what they’d like us to provide that helps contribute to increasing their security. It’s much like the Australians coming to Europe and telling us what we need of there’s.


Repulse

I would configure like this

A high and low readiness carrier group consisting off
1 carrier , 1 lpd, 2 destroyers 2 frigates 1 stores and 1 tanker

Then an asw task group for operation in the northern Atlantic
4 frigates and fort Victoria.

What ever is left after balancing the budget can be offered for defence engagement and resilience.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Jan 2019, 12:00

SW1 wrote:I think we need to recognise when we head to Far East we are minor players,


this is why I think sending a Wave class fleet tanker with a small refit to change the radar to a Scanter 4100 plus be able to accommodate 40 RM and FAA helicopter team is a good fit in the Pacific . To me it would offer a real asset to allies in the region and as said before could undertake freedom of Nav tasks plus stop and search using its helicopter and RM in ribs as boarding parties they already come with a good armament 2 x Phalanx 2 x 30mm plus small arms

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Jan 2019, 12:17

Repulse wrote:Perhaps a splitting of any MHPC programme is a good approach, but not in the way suggested (“P” vs “MHC”). Instead, have two classes - one slower, cheaper and less warship “MHC” like (e.g. like the Venari) which would be easier to forward base or operate from local U.K. ports and be less threatening, and another which is full “MHPC” quicker with a higher level of self defence (e.g. based on the River) which can operate as the FIGS, FRE or with the CSG. 8 of each would be a good start.


For me I would still go for one class of 15 ships based on the Venari 95 as said before laid out as so


98 meters long
16 meters beam
top speed 18 to 20 knots
core working crew 30 ( accommodation for 80 system operators )
Scanter 4100 2D radar
hull mounted sonar
wildcat capable hangar
1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , FFBNW Phalanx/ SeaRam

Off board systems

Unmanned MCM
Littoral ASW
Hydrographic
Hero UAV
CB-90

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Jan 2019, 14:05

SW1 wrote:Then an asw task group for operation in the northern Atlantic
4 frigates and fort Victoria.


It’s a good option, but also see the need to maximise the ability to provide 24/7 ASW helicopter coverage which is why RFA Argus should give additional aviation support. Longer term, replace Argus with a (CVL/LHA/LPH/LHD) flattop.
"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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 01 Jan 2019, 14:33

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:Then an asw task group for operation in the northern Atlantic
4 frigates and fort Victoria.


It’s a good option, but also see the need to maximise the ability to provide 24/7 ASW helicopter coverage which is why RFA Argus should give additional aviation support. Longer term, replace Argus with a (CVL/LHA/LPH/LHD) flattop.


If you needing lots of helicopters for such an operation you simple deploy the carrier group to the area needed. Numbers of helicopters are much more limited than ships to put them on.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 01 Jan 2019, 14:35

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I think we need to recognise when we head to Far East we are minor players,


this is why I think sending a Wave class fleet tanker with a small refit to change the radar to a Scanter 4100 plus be able to accommodate 40 RM and FAA helicopter team is a good fit in the Pacific . To me it would offer a real asset to allies in the region and as said before could undertake freedom of Nav tasks plus stop and search using its helicopter and RM in ribs as boarding parties they already come with a good armament 2 x Phalanx 2 x 30mm plus small arms


Possibly if that’s what they want, the Australians have been keen on a second bay ship we might offer one of them

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 01 Jan 2019, 15:38

27 Chinese Navy surface ships launched in 2018, would expect larger fleet than USN not far off at this build rate, though equivalent carrier fleet further in the future.

3x Type 055 class cruisers ~13,000t, 112/122? VLS cells, first of the new class the Nanchang started sea trials August, said eight in build
3x Type 052D class destroyers, ~7,500t, 64 VLS cells, latest variant of Type 052, total now 15 'D'- Luyang III.
1x Type 054A class frigate ~4,000t, 34 VLS cells, said to be last of 30, new frigate class expected in 2019.
10x Type 056 corvettes, ~1,500t of the improved Type 056A with VDS from 2015, carry 2 x dual YJ-83 sub-sonic AShM, four shipyards building, to date 54 in class.
1x Type 081A ~1,000t, mine countermeasure class, 9th.
2x Type 071 LPD, 25,000t, ,amphibious transport dock, 7th.
1x Type 815A sigint/spy ship class, ~6,100t, 9th
1x Type 903A replenishment ship, ~23,000t, 9th
2x Type 910A weapon testing ships, ~6,000t, to join two Type 909/909A for surface equipment testing, radars, missile systems and two existing Type 910s for submarine weapon system testing.
2x Type 927 ~6,000t, equivalent to USNS T-AGOS class, use very powerful long range low frequency active towed-array sensor system (SURTASS) equipment to track submarines. Looks like a copy of the USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23) with its SWATH hull.
1x Ocean Tugboat ~6,000t, 2nd of 3?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Jan 2019, 17:54

SW1, Agree on the need of a real flat-top for ASW operations, hence the desire for a third carrier.

SW1 wrote:Possibly if that’s what they want, the Australians have been keen on a second bay ship we might offer one of them


Forward basing a Bay is an option, possibly combined with a small RM force for cross training and improving integrated operations. I still think part funding / manning RNZN T26s/Hunters is another as is a couple of Survey/ISR MHPCs forward based.

Whilst I agree that we should agree/consult with regional allies, this is a matter of mutual interest - having up to date charts and having seedcorn in theatre assets allow the U.K. to have a voice in events that will impact us only. This isn’t the UK coming to the rescue or some kind of Empire 2.0.
"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
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Jan 2019, 18:16

SW1 wrote:Possibly if that’s what they want, the Australians have been keen on a second bay ship we might offer one of them


Where would you take said Bay from Kipion or Caribbean and what would you replace it with. just for me having 2 Bays East of Suez full time will make it very hard to get them back if needed

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 01 Jan 2019, 18:31

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Possibly if that’s what they want, the Australians have been keen on a second bay ship we might offer one of them


Where would you take said Bay from Kipion or Caribbean and what would you replace it with. just for me having 2 Bays East of Suez full time will make it very hard to get them back if needed


I would take it from the gulf. I wouldn’t replace it with anything we can’t be everywhere make the choice.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 01 Jan 2019, 18:39

Repulse wrote:SW1, Agree on the need of a real flat-top for ASW operations, hence the desire for a third carrier.

SW1 wrote:Possibly if that’s what they want, the Australians have been keen on a second bay ship we might offer one of them


Forward basing a Bay is an option, possibly combined with a small RM force for cross training and improving integrated operations. I still think part funding / manning RNZN T26s/Hunters is another as is a couple of Survey/ISR MHPCs forward based.

Whilst I agree that we should agree/consult with regional allies, this is a matter of mutual interest - having up to date charts and having seedcorn in theatre assets allow the U.K. to have a voice in events that will impact us only. This isn’t the UK coming to the rescue or some kind of Empire 2.0.


There’s only enough merlins for 1 carrier let alone 2 never mind 3 and it’s questionable if there’s a full complement on the carrier ie 16 then there’s unlikely to be any for the escorts.

The Australians in particular are moving into unmanned systems in a big way maybe we should develop more cooperation in there employment.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Jan 2019, 19:13

Is the Bay in the Gulf needed anymore now that the Bahrain base is open?
"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: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Jan 2019, 19:59

SW1 wrote:There’s only enough merlins for 1 carrier let alone 2 never mind 3 and it’s questionable if there’s a full complement on the carrier ie 16 then there’s unlikely to be any for the escorts.


The UK has 80+ Merlin / RN Wildcats, add to that 48+ F35Bs and 140+ Chinooks, Army Wildcats and Apaches. Now not all those will be in service or on naval service, but out of a fleet of what will be almost 300 a/c capable of naval operations or would be part of an amphibious operation, then I think that there is enough to go on 3 Carriers, 14-20 escorts/OPVs and max 10 RFAs.
"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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 01 Jan 2019, 20:36

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:There’s only enough merlins for 1 carrier let alone 2 never mind 3 and it’s questionable if there’s a full complement on the carrier ie 16 then there’s unlikely to be any for the escorts.


The UK has 80+ Merlin / RN Wildcats, add to that 48+ F35Bs and 140+ Chinooks, Army Wildcats and Apaches. Now not all those will be in service or on naval service, but out of a fleet of what will be almost 300 a/c capable of naval operations or would be part of an amphibious operation, then I think that there is enough to go on 3 Carriers, 14-20 escorts/OPVs and max 10 RFAs.


Well I was specifically talking around asw merlins but if you wish to expand it to all the helicopter fleets fair enough. I’d be surprised if the deployable fleet of grey merlins and this is one off not sustained ect outside of the uk is above 14 likewise the green merlin fleet I’d be surprised if it’s above 10.

Your then assuming there is no other deployments of the aircraft fleets other than putting them on ships but max efforts are probably for the chinook fleet no more than 20 the apache fleet more than 16 the puma fleet more than 10 and who knows with wildcat but again above 20 would be unlikely. As for the f35 fleet well we don’t know what it will end up at but if it’s 48 and for this I’ll asume it is I’d say 18 deployed will be stretching it and that’s yonks away.

And that would be considered deploying the entire uk armed forces aviation capability if you think my numbers are pessimistic then I would add that from all the helicopter fleets and harrier force you mentioned less apache we deployed around 85 a/c to operation telic classed as a maximum effort and we’ve got much smaller since then.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1681
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 01 Jan 2019, 22:13

SW1, I think it is fair to be pessimistic about a/c numbers, but I think with one carrier deployed, one ramping up / ready in and around the UK plus one in maintenance then similar cycles would apply.

With support from the USMC, I’d say typically a CSG (with 2 T45, 2 T26, LPD, SSS and Tanker) would have a combined Air Group of 12-24 F35Bs, @12 Merlins, 4 Wildcats and a couple of Chinooks.
"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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5704
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 01 Jan 2019, 23:25

Repulse wrote:It’s a good option, but also see the need to maximise the ability to provide 24/7 ASW helicopter coverage which is why RFA Argus should give additional aviation support. Longer term, replace Argus with a (CVL/LHA/LPH/LHD) flattop.

Crazy idea... how about attaching wings to the ASW aircraft to increase their sphere of influence ten fold, and operating from Scotland to save the expense of another carrier.

There is no justification to prioritise Merlin over P8 in the North Atlantic, it's more expensive and less effective.

NickC wrote:2x Type 927 ~6,000t, equivalent to USNS T-AGOS class, use very powerful long range low frequency active towed-array sensor system (SURTASS) equipment to track submarines. Looks like a copy of the USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23) with its SWATH hull.

Think they could build the Royal Navy a couple? More sensors in the water without the expense of a full fat frigate would be nice.
@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 » 01 Jan 2019, 23:59

Repulse wrote:Is the Bay in the Gulf needed anymore now that the Bahrain base is open?


Yes, if you do "sustained" in the Strait of Hormuz, that is 600 km away
- you would probably need to fly Wildcat cover from Oman... don't know where to measure that distance from (and the LMMs are not on them yet?); Apaches for starters (as we don't have any of these: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/80 ... mall-boats)

We think this is all theoretical, but history could easily repeat itself: "Over the course of a series of operations between 1987 and 1988, American sailors and aviators sunk and damaged number of enemy vessels, including diminutive FIACs and larger corvettes and mine layers, which threatened international oil shipments and their U.S. escorts. The term “Boghammar,” the name of a Swedish boat manufacturer that had supplied some craft to Iran, quickly became synonymous with a whole category of IRGCN vessels." from that linked article

And since the '80s, things have moved on: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/77 ... drone-boat


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RB211 and 10 guests