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: 1531
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Jan 2019, 08:48

shark bait wrote:Selling off five brand new and real ships to buy four concept vessels to prop up a broke shipyard you fancy is real dumb. There is no way you can justify that.
Your view is clear. If the RB1's are securing the EEZ and Forth replaces Clyde what would you have the other 4 do?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1245
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Jan 2019, 09:48

shark bait wrote:Selling off five brand new and real ships to buy four concept vessels to prop up a broke shipyard you fancy is real dumb. There is no way you can justify that.


I agree we should now keep the B2 Rivers and I would be looking to replace them with MHPC class ships at the end of the build program which should be in 25 to 30 years time. I think it is harsh to say Appledore is a broken yard and I feel its staff have skill set to build any MHPC ship off the back of the Irish order I feel Appledore will just loss out to piss poor management and timing

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Jan 2019, 12:05

Poiuytrewq wrote:Your view is clear. If the RB1's are securing the EEZ and Forth replaces Clyde what would you have the other 4 do?


Fast forward two years and 3 for 3, 1 for 1 (Clyde; already sold, delivery date TBC?)
... the fifth?
- in dock (is once in 5 years too often? Call it once in 7, and you have some slack, to play with)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Jan 2019, 15:58

shark bait wrote:Selling off five brand new and real ships to buy four concept vessels to prop up a broke shipyard you fancy is real dumb. There is no way you can justify that.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Your view is clear. If the RB1's are securing the EEZ and Forth replaces Clyde what would you have the other 4 do?
Tempest414 wrote:I agree we should now keep the B2 Rivers and I would be looking to replace them with MHPC class ships at the end of the build program which should be in 25 to 30 years time. I think it is harsh to say Appledore is a broken yard and I feel its staff have skill set to build any MHPC ship off the back of the Irish order I feel Appledore will just loss out to piss poor management and timing
River B2 is significantly improved compared to River B1. It is
- 5 knots faster (25 vs 20 knots)
- has a flight deck AND a mission deck (RB1 only has a mission deck or a flight deck (Clyde) )
- armed with a stabilized 30 mm gun with optical FCS (a 20 mm gun with eyeball mk.1 "FCS")
- has a CMS-1 and also an accommodation space for 50 Soldiers
- while needing only 20% more crew to operate (36 vs 30 onboard. Adding rotation crew, it is ~60 vs ~50, as I understand).

For me, selling River B2 is OK if it is payed for its (native) costs (= excluding TOBA-related, I guess it is ~90M GBP per hull). But I cannot see good candidate navy to sell ALL 5 River B2 with 90M GBP/hull cost. This is simply because River B2 is very much optimized for RN tasks. If someone says "we need helicopter hangar for the task" then RN/RFA has many other ships to send. If need for more armaments, RN has escorts. But, there are many many tasks which DO NOT require neither a helicopter hangar nor good armaments, and cheap-to-operate River B2 can do it. (*1)

But, other smallish navies may need River B2 "Corvette" to do more. Hence we will need an intensive modernization of the already brand new hull. I do not think it is cost effective.

On this regard, River B1 is nice. The are reaching their mid-life, so an extensive upkeep maintenance will be anyhow needed. As River B1 is built to lower standard than River B2 (cheap to operate), River B1 will be easier for export. As such, they can be sold cheap, packaged with update refit (as did with Castle class OPV) to meet the new users' requirement.

(*1) :One candidate for "1-hull 90M GBP sales of River B2" will be Brazil, to replace their aging OPV "corvette Caboclo (V19)". As they already have 3 Amazonas (type-ship of River B2), a forth (quasi-)sister might be welcome. (I guess they are now aiming for HMS Clyde to do it). This will leave 4 River B2 in RN, which is the same number as the River B1/1.5 they are replacing.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 22 Jan 2019, 08:08

The Rivers aren't saleable, their value is about a third of what the MOD paid, so it'll never happen.

Perhaps if a T23 was sold a couple could be upgraded to an "interim light frigate" standard, for use on ASW patrols in the North?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Jan 2019, 08:30

shark bait wrote: value is about a third of what the MOD paid


True, but show me someone who can count the good money and the bad money from a wad... or five of them, mixed together

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Jan 2019, 09:22

Interesting analysis and worth a read.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/b ... china-sea/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Jan 2019, 10:24

Yes,
"Britain rethinks its foreign policy after Brexit. Taken together, these steps portend a partial reversal of the 1968 ‘East of Suez’ policy of withdrawing British forces from the from the Indo-Pacific region, which reached its apotheosis with the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China."
- obviously whoever wrote it was born after the Wilson ( a good man, but under pressure) decision?
- where is (Falklands aside, stupidos in the FO!) it that we have been fighting wars, ever since?

Michael Auslin got it right in the end, though:
"Extending Anglo-American defence cooperation to the Indo-Pacific could be a huge boost to the on-going naval partnership between America, Australia, Japan, and India. "

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Jan 2019, 14:26

Cross-post from T23 thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of the 13 T23s are:
[(c) =active with CAMM, (w)= active with Sea Wolf, (r/c) = refit coming back soon with CAMM, (r)=extended readiness or starting refit]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (c) HMS Argyll (T23GP1), has already CAMM.
- (r/c) HMS Lancaster (T23GP2) is yet to come back from her refit with CAMM (maybe soon).
- (r) HMS Iron Duke is now just going into refit.
- (w) HMS Monmouth (T23GP4) is actively steaming around with Sea Wolf.
- (c) HMS Montrose (T23GP5), has already CAMM.
- (c) HMS Westminster (T23ASW1) has already CAMM.
- (r/c) HMS Northumberland (T23ASW2) is yet to come back from her refit with CAMM (maybe soon).
- (r/c) HMS Richmond (T23ASW3) the same (maybe soon).

- (r) HMS Somerset (T23ASW4) has just gone into reserve on October 2018 (maybe for LIFEX refit).
- (w) HMS Sutherland (T23ASW5) is actively steaming around with Sea Wolf.
- (c) HMS Kent (T23ASW6) has already CAMM (just returned last year).
- (r) HMS Portland (T23ASW7) in extended readiness (with SeaWolf).
- (w) HMS St Albans (T23ASW8) is actively steaming around with Sea Wolf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of the 6 T45s are:
[ (a) =active, (r)=extended readiness or starting refit ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (r) HMS Daring, in extended readiness
- (r) HMS Dauntless, in refit (corrected)
- (a) HMS Diamond, alongside at Portsmouth
- (a) HMS Dragon, in Indian Ocean
- (a) HMS Defender, alongside at Portsmouth
- (a) HMS Duncan, active within TV show :D (alongside at Portsmouth?)

Many of the information, both of T23 and T45, are from its official twitter account. Some other news sources are used, when the twitter account is closed. (which in almost all cases meaning it is in extended readiness or in refit).
Note: Daring is claiming her crew of 260 (*1), Duncan 231 (*2), so it is NOT 191, as noted in the Wiki.

Just facts, for this post. :D

*1: https://www.forces.net/news/dedicated-h ... rseas-work
*2: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 12080.html

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 22 Jan 2019, 16:30

NavalNews pic, Xav's new site, reporting from SNA 2019 on the DRS HED for the new USCG ~3,750t OPC, PA44 permanent magnet motor/generator 625HP [466 kW] downrated to 450 hp for the OPC, 1,100 ft lbs @3,000rpm, 395 lbs, 1.6 lb per hp, surprised how really compact and lightweight, x2 EMs good for ~6 knots?, OPC was specified as a low cost cutter, think for relative cost of the PA44 should have specified higher power for ~ 12 knots as thru life costs more than paid back the extra cost as operating MDEs at low power and not optimum speed with higher fuel consumption and run possibility of coking/wet stacking. EM will be powered by OPCs MTU 12V 4000 series 1MW gensets.

DRS contracted to provide the HED systems for the first nine ships of the OPC program if all options exercised with a contract value $10.7 million, £1.2M per ship set, first due to be delivered this year, second order placed.

DRS possability for supplying EM for T31, their prices look competitive?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Digger22 » 22 Jan 2019, 18:14

Why isn't Daring having her propulsion sorted, rather than just being sat alongside dormant? Apologies if already discussed.

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cyrilranch » 22 Jan 2019, 18:50

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Cross-post from T23 thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of the 13 T23s are:
[(c) =active with CAMM, (w)= active with Sea Wolf, (r/c) = refit coming back soon with CAMM, (r)=extended readiness or starting refit]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (c) HMS Argyll (T23GP1), has already CAMM.
- (r/c) HMS Lancaster (T23GP2) is yet to come back from her refit with CAMM (maybe soon).
- (r) HMS Iron Duke is now just going into refit.
- (w) HMS Monmouth (T23GP4) is actively steaming around with Sea Wolf.
- (c) HMS Montrose (T23GP5), has already CAMM.
- (c) HMS Westminster (T23ASW1) has already CAMM.
- (r/c) HMS Northumberland (T23ASW2) is yet to come back from her refit with CAMM (maybe soon).
- (r/c) HMS Richmond (T23ASW3) the same (maybe soon).

- (r) HMS Somerset (T23ASW4) has just gone into reserve on October 2018 (maybe for LIFEX refit).
- (w) HMS Sutherland (T23ASW5) is actively steaming around with Sea Wolf.
- (c) HMS Kent (T23ASW6) has already CAMM (just returned last year).
- (r) HMS Portland (T23ASW7) in extended readiness (with SeaWolf).
- (w) HMS St Albans (T23ASW8) is actively steaming around with Sea Wolf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of the 6 T45s are:
[ (a) =active, (r)=extended readiness or starting refit ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (r) HMS Daring, in extended readiness
- (a) HMS Dauntless, in Persian Gulf
- (a) HMS Diamond, alongside at Portsmouth
- (a) HMS Dragon, in Indian Ocean
- (a) HMS Defender, alongside at Portsmouth
- (a) HMS Duncan, active within TV show :D (alongside at Portsmouth?)

Many of the information, both of T23 and T45, are from its official twitter account. Some other news sources are used, when the twitter account is closed. (which in almost all cases meaning it is in extended readiness or in refit).
Note: Daring is claiming her crew of 260 (*1), Duncan 231 (*2), so it is NOT 191, as noted in the Wiki.

Just facts, for this post. :D

*1: https://www.forces.net/news/dedicated-h ... rseas-work
*2: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 12080.html



I think Dauntless is still docked in Portsmouth, only Dragon is on op's

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Jan 2019, 23:55

cyrilranch wrote:I think Dauntless is still docked in Portsmouth, only Dragon is on op's
You are right. Thanks a lot. I corrected the original post.

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 23 Jan 2019, 12:16

Navantia will start build in May of its first of five new Fragata F110 class, 6,100t, 145m x 18m, CODELAG, diesel engines/GT and two electric motors, HED, cruise 17 knots, maximum speed 28 knots, Euro $4.3B/£3.8B, £760M per ship. The first ship of the new class is expected to be delivered in 2025 and the final one 2030/2031.

(Maybe using the Alconza 2,750kW electric motors, designed and manufactured with very restrictive noise emission and vibration requirements including compliance with the SILENT-R class of DNV-GLRRS as installed in RRS Sir David Attenborough)

Also this year Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) will start build of the first of two of four ships class 30FFM/DX, 3,900t light, 5,500t FLD 130m x 16m, CODAG, MAN 12V28/33D STC Diesels + RR MT-30 GT, 30 knots or more.
The Japanese MoD budget JPY92.2 billion / ~£650M, £325M per ship, fiscal year 2018 for the construction of the first two ships and are expected to be handed over to the JMSDF in March 2022. August 2018 the MoD requested JPY99.5 billion for the construction of the two remaining vessels, with delivery expected to take place in March 2023, understand the contract for these two ships has yet to be awarded.

Both frigates will use new generation GaN radars, as also specified for the USN FFG(X), French FTI and German F125.

Cost figures to be treated with extreme caution but would assume the low Japanese number a partial reflection of its position as the world's third largest ship builder and with its advanced production tech required to enable it to compete in world market as a high wage country.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Jan 2019, 12:38

Very interesting, but how does this relate to RN current and future escorts?

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 23 Jan 2019, 14:20

Lord Jim wrote:Very interesting, but how does this relate to RN current and future escorts?


Not to be parochial, looking at how rest of the world's navies are progressing, encourage discussion on recognising that RN with Type 26 and 31 class now falling into world's second division, or could you argue limitations will be compensated by relying on carriers Crowsnest to supply the necessary reconnaissance, that assumes T26 and T31 cannot operate independently in high threat environment.

A few highlights re the Japanese and Spanish frigates v. T26 & 31

No new generation GaN radar
No high definition band surface radar, X-band, for max advance warning of sea skimming anti-ship missiles, as will be fitted to Hunter.
No IRST for same mission when operating in EMCON mode.
Delivery timescale, Type 26 build started 2017, delivery fully operational to RN 2027, Japanese 30FFM, build start later this year 2019, delivery to JMSDF March 2022, not sure if fully operational standard but makes the length of Type 26 build pathetic, we know the reason as Treasury limiting release of funds, WHY?
WHY, my argument is the cost of T26 is too expensive for MoD/Navy budget under current funding limitations, obfuscated by the MoD/RN in refusing to disclose actual build costs so as to compare to rest of world's frigates and if not, what needs to be done to bring in line to make competitive so as RN can have more first rate frigates it desperately needs.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Jan 2019, 15:42

Here is the simple summary of RN escort status:
スクリーンショット 2019-01-23 23.54.48.png
スクリーンショット 2019-01-24 11.12.43.png
(T45 Sea Going Days data added, thanks to chinook88-san.)

In short, among the 19 escorts, only 11 (58%) are "ready". One T23 and one T45 are in extended readiness, while five T23 is in refit for LIFEX, and one T45 in (normal) refit.

I guess 2 of the 5 T23 in refit will be "normal" fraction. So, "3 more" are in refit "because of LIFEX" = not needing full crew. Therefore, I think RN escort fleet is lacking 2 + 3 set of crews = -26% shortage.

T23 sea going days was ~130 days/year/hull in 2010-2014, but is reduced to ~70 days/year/hull in 2016-2018. This is -44% reduction, which is 18% larger than the above number. So, even with 2 in extended readiness and 6 in refit, the remaining hull are not as active as they were in 2010-2014. If the T23s in LIFEX come back (ends the refit, around 2025?), ~3 hulls may find difficulty in finding their crew, (in addition to the 2 already in extended readiness). As T45 diesel-mod may require one hull in refit, giving one crew-set, "2" may go into yet another Extended Readiness. In short, even after banning two escorts, another "2" escorts may go into Extended Readiness, when the T23-LIFEX program ends.


Here I really think that, banning 2 T23GP without LIFEX must be a very good solution. Sell them to Brazil/Chilli, RN loses nothing, UK gains deeper diplomatic relation, and MOD gains the money saved (LIFEX cost and operational cost = equipment support).


Terrible, for what reason MOD is Life-Extending the T23 fleets? At least, stopping Iron Duke (now) and Montrose's (future) refit must be seriously considered. And, if the above calculation is correct, the whole T31 fleet is NOT needed, simply because there is no crew.

Shortage of crew is, at current minimum, 1 T45 (230) and 1 T23 (190) = 420, and in my calculation 1 T45 (230) and 4 T23 (760) = 990. To obtain 400 (or 1000) trained crew, we need 800 (or 2000) more man-power to RN. This is by far the top priority. And, I am happy to see escort number being 17, or even 16, if the saved money is spent on man-power increase.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Jan 2019, 17:45

NickC wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Very interesting, but how does this relate to RN current and future escorts?


Not to be parochial, looking at how rest of the world's navies are progressing, encourage discussion on recognising that RN with Type 26 and 31 class now falling into world's second division, or could you argue limitations will be compensated by relying on carriers Crowsnest to supply the necessary reconnaissance, that assumes T26 and T31 cannot operate independently in high threat environment.

A few highlights re the Japanese and Spanish frigates v. T26 & 31

No new generation GaN radar
No high definition band surface radar, X-band, for max advance warning of sea skimming anti-ship missiles, as will be fitted to Hunter.
No IRST for same mission when operating in EMCON mode.
Delivery timescale, Type 26 build started 2017, delivery fully operational to RN 2027, Japanese 30FFM, build start later this year 2019, delivery to JMSDF March 2022, not sure if fully operational standard but makes the length of Type 26 build pathetic, we know the reason as Treasury limiting release of funds, WHY?
WHY, my argument is the cost of T26 is too expensive for MoD/Navy budget under current funding limitations, obfuscated by the MoD/RN in refusing to disclose actual build costs so as to compare to rest of world's frigates and if not, what needs to be done to bring in line to make competitive so as RN can have more first rate frigates it desperately needs.


Almost everyone here will agree with what you have said regarding the T-26 programme for the Royal Navy, and how it has been managed. You just have to look to the variants planned for the RAN and RCN to see how the design could have been for the RN. But the ships are not yet in the water and they will have a long service life so who knows how they will be altered during this time.

matt00773
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby matt00773 » 23 Jan 2019, 18:24

NickC wrote:Not to be parochial, looking at how rest of the world's navies are progressing, encourage discussion on recognising that RN with Type 26 and 31 class now falling into world's second division, or could you argue limitations will be compensated by relying on carriers Crowsnest to supply the necessary reconnaissance, that assumes T26 and T31 cannot operate independently in high threat environment.

A few highlights re the Japanese and Spanish frigates v. T26 & 31

No new generation GaN radar
No high definition band surface radar, X-band, for max advance warning of sea skimming anti-ship missiles, as will be fitted to Hunter.
No IRST for same mission when operating in EMCON mode.
Delivery timescale, Type 26 build started 2017, delivery fully operational to RN 2027, Japanese 30FFM, build start later this year 2019, delivery to JMSDF March 2022, not sure if fully operational standard but makes the length of Type 26 build pathetic, we know the reason as Treasury limiting release of funds, WHY?
WHY, my argument is the cost of T26 is too expensive for MoD/Navy budget under current funding limitations, obfuscated by the MoD/RN in refusing to disclose actual build costs so as to compare to rest of world's frigates and if not, what needs to be done to bring in line to make competitive so as RN can have more first rate frigates it desperately needs.
Crowsnest supplies ISTAR capability for the carrier group. I wouldn't expect any of the support ships - T45, T26, T31 - to supply this. The US also have an equivalent capability supported through drones launched on the carrier.

S-band is fully capable of detecting sea skimming missiles as has been proven time and again through testing. You might want to refer to the ARTIST programme from which Artisan was developed to understand the full capabilities of this radar. T45 also can easily detect these missiles using S-band. You might also appreciate that T45 and T26 have their radars positioned much higher than fixed planar radars which gives an advantage with detection.

I don't think you can compare T26 with T31 - they're completely different ships - let alone both these with 30FFM and F110. The T26 is effectively a cruiser with global reach with loads of missions it can undertake. Plenty of room for growth over the life-cycle of the ship including extra weapons.

chinook88
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Location: Chile

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby chinook88 » 24 Jan 2019, 01:48

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Here I really think that, banning 2 T23GP without LIFEX must be a very good solution. Sell them to Brazil/Chilli, RN loses nothing, UK gains deeper diplomatic relation, and MOD gains the money saved (LIFEX cost and operational cost = equipment support). .


It is a very interesting proposal :thumbup:

by the way: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 03/169218/

Image

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jan 2019, 02:14

chinook88 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Here I really think that, banning 2 T23GP without LIFEX must be a very good solution. Sell them to Brazil/Chilli, RN loses nothing, UK gains deeper diplomatic relation, and MOD gains the money saved (LIFEX cost and operational cost = equipment support). .


It is a very interesting proposal :thumbup:

by the way: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publ ... 03/169218/
Thanks a lot. Plotted. (Also renewed my original post's plot)
Great thanks.
スクリーンショット 2019-01-24 11.12.43.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

chinook88
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Location: Chile

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby chinook88 » 24 Jan 2019, 02:40

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Thanks a lot. Plotted. (Also renewed my original post's plot)
Great thanks.

You're welcome,
btw .. here is an interesting article about the number of days spent at sea of the t23
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... -days.html

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jan 2019, 03:03

chinook88 wrote:You're welcome,
btw .. here is an interesting article about the number of days spent at sea of the t23
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... -days.html
Thanks, I read it last year. What Sir Humphrey says is quite reasonable, we cannot have all ship "at sea". So, I have no objection the average sea going days are 130-140 (as was in 2010-2014).

But, his article misses the fact of the clear decline of the sea going days, after 2015. It is now 44% less than what it was in 2010-2014. And, I am now focusing on it.

Thanks!

clinch
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby clinch » 24 Jan 2019, 07:13

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
chinook88 wrote:You're welcome,
btw .. here is an interesting article about the number of days spent at sea of the t23
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com ... -days.html
Thanks, I read it last year. What Sir Humphrey says is quite reasonable, we cannot have all ship "at sea". So, I have no objection the average sea going days are 130-140 (as was in 2010-2014).

But, his article misses the fact of the clear decline of the sea going days, after 2015. It is now 44% less than what it was in 2010-2014. And, I am now focusing on it.

Thanks!


Looking at the graph, the decline occurred much earlier than 2015. Looks like 2011-12. The result of the new Government's defence review in 2010?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3159
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Jan 2019, 10:58

Tempest414 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Not sure how viable this is. I don't think HMT would go for it. I think a simplified T26 with a reduced core crew allocation would be a better option. In effect a T26e to build on the export success of the full spec T26. A much more capable £350m-£450m T31 would also be a realistic option.
To take this and my post about the NSS on a bit the way I see it is if the UK got its act together around 3 yards all working to a 2 year drum beat with a agreed some of money work something like this

BAE Yard Govan Scotland = type 26 program 1 ship every 2 years at 450 million per year = 900 million per ship followed by next tier 1 ships
Babcocks yard Rosyth = 2 SSS followed by 4 200 meter Enforcer LPDs 1 ship every 2 years at 200 million per year = 400 million per ship
Cammell Liard Liverpool = type 31 program 1 ship every 2 years at 175 million per year = 350 per ship followed by the MHPC program

By building on a 2 year drum beat export ships ca be fitted between UK ships
abc123 wrote:
Repulse wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Only exception will be RNZN, which has no ship-building industry (they lost), and still looking for two frigates. But, only one candidate. And it is only a candidat
A better move would be to give RNZN a special financial deal on 2 T26s, forward base another RN T26 there and jointly man - this would be a good base for a Far East presence...


Could UK get the same "special deal" with the BAE pleeeease? :crazy:
PapaGolf wrote:I wonder if building 10 T26 and then selling on ships 1 & 2, after 10 years of use, to NZ (or someone else, Brazil?) would be economically viable. Few countries that can afford a brand new T26 will not want to build them themselves, the second hand market might be more lucrative?
SW1 wrote:It would be interesting to know what the business case or plan is for export of this vessel type.

If your looking to sell anything you would go to countries/people who have bought from you before and ask are you looking something new what would you like. In simply terms I would look at countries who have in the past bought type 22 and 23s from use. What would they like type 26? Maybe too expensive, 2nd hand type 23 or a type 31e. The question there might be is a second hand type 23 cheaper than a type 31 and which is the better vessel.
Tempest414 wrote:It is clear T23 will be cheaper to buy and in many ways is a better ship than T31 but how much will cost to keep it going and how longer will it be supported are the other maybe more important questions.

This is why I say before we can look to export we need our own house in order for NSS to work it needs to be in two parts first re-enforce UK ship building around 3 yards as I have put forward above and then approach Navys who we have sold to before as you say and ask what they want
I think this shall be continued in escort thread, not in NEWS thread, so I moved it here, before I comment anything.

If it is about RNZN, they do have ANZAC frigate, now being modified in Canada. It is similarly armed as T31e.
- CAMM (might be only 12), a 5in gun, 4x 12.7mm gun (2 on RWS), 1x SH2G helo, 2x triple AS turpedo tubes
- Smart-S Mk.2 radar, IRST, new chaff/flare, anti-ASM floating radar decoy
- Sea Sentor ship torpedo defence (decoy) system, a small hull sonar (Spheroin-B)
- long enough range and endurance (even longer than T31e).

Commissioned in 1997 and 1999, there is no hope replacing them with T23, which is even elder. Now modified, I understand they are planned to be replaced by 2030-2035 (~35 years old). These timeline matches well with T31 (right after UK 5-hull has been commissioned) and T26 (but build at where? Can we squeeze in 2 hulls in the middle of UK's 8 hulls build?).

I do not think RNZN will be interested in T26. With relative commonality of armaments and decoy kits, they might be interested in T31e.

Why not UK start consulting with RNZN when selecting T31e? I think it is worth taking time. Delaying T31e by 2-3 years has no impact on RN fleet; even if the first 2 T23GP are disbanded without replacement (say, "gapped"), there is no problem because of no crew.

They might be interested in
- Arrowhead 140 because it is larger,
- MEKO A200 because ANZAC is MEKO 200
- not sure about Leander, BUT we must note it's size is the same to MEKO A200 and ANZAC. Leander is NOT small.

But, the big IF is, will New Zealand ever be interested in UK built frigate? (I'm afraid not...., sorry to say....)

#Sorry, self destroying my own idea .... :sick:


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo, Bing [Bot], Jake1992, Rambo, sea_eagle, serge750 and 66 guests