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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 12:40

Poiuytrewq wrote: IP purchase

Has Babcock said they need another £250m to make it work? Are we effectively just setting the budget at a level to get the Arrowhead 140 after all?
You can pay for IP and get a lot of cervices/ support bundled in (and why would you not, from the folks who designed the hull and all things physical, to go with it, in the first place?)
- the frigates would still be "100% built" in the UK... down to the boot straps does not fit in with frigates :(
Caribbean wrote:Good point on GFE - it could well include book value of transferred equipment, refurbishment costs etc. Not sure about design/ IP acquisition costs, as you could make a fair case that they are "platform specific".
GFE, yes (now, about the book value of such things :D ...). Platform here stands for the ship, and what you do in design (using some parts "previously owned" by someone else in it) can be construed to be specific to the class, not individual ships, aka platforms

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 13:06

NickC wrote: a sad story and a reflection on the ineptitude of the MOD/RN as they took a gamble with an untried system when there was no need and it failed to deliver as promised.
this is an undisputed fact, not a tabloid story
Poiuytrewq wrote: the T45 is still one of the best, if not THE best AAW Destroyers in the world. :thumbup:
True, but for the estimated/ guesstimated bn we could have got almost two more.
matt00773 wrote:The problem with the WR-21 development was that it was done as a MOD project and not through industry
Enter "the (all-) electric ship mafia" who were going for glory in naval history, but now have gone to ground (can anyone even name one of the then-proponents?)
matt00773 wrote:you have to endure some pain to reap the benefits later.
This is true, but the pain should not be at the level of a whole production run. If not testing, then at least run the first of class thru rigorous & arduous "use cases".
- btw, as we are moving onto the next PWR design, it was deemed that the test facility did not need building as its US cousin (in design) has been in service without problems. This line of reasoning is, of course, only valid if (??) we didn't put any modifications in place

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Feb 2019, 13:25

---- Just cross post from QE CV thread, because more related to escorts ------

RetroSicotte wrote:And even if the Mistrals were put to the side, note that the upcoming French fleet has 15 ASW capable escorts, compared to the UK's 8. And all but two of them using the Captas 4.

They (French navy) have no problems with ASW.
Not sure. French navy has 15 ASW escorts? Yes and no.

French navy are going to have, 15 escorts
- 2 Horizon with only a hull sonar, normal hull.
- 6 FREMM ASW with CAPTAS-4, quiet hull.
- 2 FREDA AAW/ASW with CAPTAS-4, quiet hull.
- 5 FTI frigate with CAPTAS-4CI, normal hull.
- and 22 Atlantique-2 + 21 NH90 + 3 E-2C

RN will have
- 6 T45 with only a hull sonar, normal hull.
- 8 T26(or T23) with CAPTAS-4, quiet hull.
- 5 T31e, may have no sonar, normal hull.
- and 9 P-8A + 30 Merlin (~6 will be AEW)

On escorts, the only difference is the fact that French FTI has CAPTAS-4CI. If it is important, UK can easily add CAPTAS-4CI to all 6 T45s. Then, it will be equivalent to FTI in ASW.

On airplanes, shortage of MPA is the big problem in UK, but it is not zero now.

On CVTF ASW, QE CV capable of carrying ~9 ASW-Merlins will be a big advantage to French CVTF. (Mistral may be able to carry some more NH90s, but in that case RN can use the new Littoral Strike Ships and MARS-SSS to add more Merlin). Can this advantage cover the lack of "FTI-equivalent ASW escorts"? I guess yes.

However, RN do not need to "compare" with French MN. If more ASW is needed from operational research (OR) in RN, then UK will be needed to add CAPTAS4-CI to T45, or to T31e (or both). It is worth discussing.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 13:41

matt00773 wrote:https://www.rina.org.uk/Type_45_to_get_ ... blems.html

Edit: Added link to article on IEP for Type 45

A great read, thanks for that. From 2017 when the first mention of problems was on the NAO spreadsheet attachment to their yearly report, a year after the launch of first of class.
- now we know why this level of information has been deleted from the public domain (that's us :( )
". However, operating experience has revealed significant shortcomings in the IEP system, both with specific equipments and fragility in the overall system architecture. These issues have collectively resulted in numerous ship-wide power outages.

Evidence given at the House of Commons Defence Committee late in 2016 heard that the first problems with the propulsion system became evident soon after its introduction into service and it was noted that, between the launch of the first-of-class (HMS Daring) in February 2006 and the final Type 45 launch (HMS Duncan) in October 2010, approximately 50 design changes were necessary."

I wonder if the concluding sentence from the Defence Committee
"whether these funds were a separate addition to the Royal Navy’s equipment budget or were allocated from within it. As part of that explanation, we will require confirmation that no funds were transferred to the Type 45 from funding originally allocated to the Type 26 programme.”
was worded before or after the debacle of there being zero funding for the T31 in the EP (a NAO finding) and then, soon after, £500m disappeared from the near-years' T26 entries

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Feb 2019, 14:32

seaspear wrote:...I believe it was discussed that the Darings could not be fitted with the Captas 4 but possibly Captas 2 ?
CAPTAS-4 and CAPTAS-4CI differs a lot. It is not the same sonar, even sometimes many here forgets.

In short, CAPTAS-2 needs only 30% of the foot print of CAPTAS-4. But, CAPTAS-4 CI also needs "only" 54% of CAPTAS-4.

Apparently, CAPTAS-4CI is using the same VDS pinger, but has much more compact TASS array. For me, it looks much more a CAPTAS-2 with VDS replaced by 4-barrel version.

*Note the two numbers of CAPTAS-4 (84 m2 vs 10.2x6.4 m2) are inconsistent, so I only used the "ratio to CAPTAS-4" as a comparison.
Thales_announces_the_launch_of_its_new_compact_CAPTAS-4_towed_array_sonar_at_Euronaval_2016_001.jpg
314vujn.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2019, 16:15

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:You are misinformed, the budget has not changed, it remains 1.25b for 5 ships.

Nope, completely correct - the budget for the T31 project is £1.5b, of which £1.25b is the cost of the ships themselves and an additional £250m is for (so far not detailed - unless anyone has further information), "non-platform specific acquisition programme costs". Speculating, that could mean design costs, IP purchase, infrastructure expenditure, project office/ management costs etc. etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773891/20181126-EP18_FINAL_v2.pdf

"The other significant component is the £1.5bn funding received from Head Office to cover the purchase cost of the Type 31e Frigates 12"

"12 The Department is planning for a cost of £250 million per platform and a further allocation of £250 million for non-platform specific acquisition programme costs."

By implication, the additional £250m costs will not now need to be met from within the original £1.25b budget, maintaining the amount to be spent directly on each hull at the £250m level.

This was all previously reported on the T31 News thread (@Sharkbait, IIRC), so shouldn't be a subject for dispute


You said 1.5billion for 5 ships. You said that was an increase. You are wrong on both accounts: it's 1.25 billion for 5 ships. In other words, the contract with the winning shipbuilder will be for 1.25 billion to include all aspects of design, development, build, initial service & support.

I am aware of the 250 million extra you mention. It is not for any part of the ships. That's what "non-platform" means, not part of the costs of designing, building and supporting the ships.

There is zero implication that this 250m was to have been met from the original 1.25 b. The shipbuilders and everyone else in the world was told that the competition was to build 5 ships for 1.25b. That hasn't changed. It might but it hasn't yet.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2019, 16:24

NickC wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
NickC wrote: and had a unique and untried propulsion system that proved a lemon

That's a bit of an over-exaggeration really.


Destroyers need big power for high speeds, GTs are compact, power dense, quiet, fast acceleration and low start up time, but and very big but at lower rotational speed pressure of the compressed air drops and thus thermal efficiency so as power is decreased below 90%, efficiency drops dramatically, with abysmal fuel consumption and become gas guzzlers.

MOD/RN were seduced by the promise of the next great leap forward with the GT by using an intercooler and recuperator that would deliver low specific fuel consumption across the engine's operating range. Not only did MOD fund this leap forward, but not with a low power GT for proof of concept but took the fateful decision to fund the full fat Westinghouse/Rolls Royce 25MW WR-21.

My presumption is that WR-21 went way over budget, MOD under budgetary pressure took a gamble and terminated R&D development testing before complete and ordered into production with the not unexcepted result that under certain operating conditions WR-21 "degraded catastrophically". MOD/RN between a rock and hard place, replace the WR-21 or try to sort it out, now in the dreaded concurrency mode, operational system while still in R&D. MOD/RN had to fund RR Bristol to re-start R&D with the WR-21, said to have re-designed 2,000 components to replace in the WR-21 and though improved still not meeting spec as also having fund the March 2018 £160 million contract with BAE for the T45 Power Improvement Project (PIP) to fit more powerful diesel gensets to power ship in low speed mode which the improved WR-21 still not suitable (Burkes spend ~ 50% time at or below 13 knots).

As have seen no figures of MOD total funding for development costs of the WR-21 and its subsequent re-design plus the PIP costs would expect looking at £1B plus?, so yes in my eyes a lemon as thinking if conventionally powered say as Dutch 6,000t HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën AAW class - CODAG or even the 6,600t Danish Iver Huitfeldt AAW class CODAD, the Navy could have spent an additional billion fitting the additional VLS cells, updating radar with GaN etc, think everyone could make a list for updating the T45 if funding available.

So a sad story and a reflection on the ineptitude of the MOD/RN as they took a gamble with an untried system when there was no need and it failed to deliver as promised.


Why do you feel the need to invent your own history? A lot (most) of your guesswork is wrong.

The story of the T45 has been written in many places, read them and get yourself educated.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2019, 16:34

ArmChairCivvy wrote:debacle of there being zero funding for the T31 in the EP (a NAO finding) and then, soon after, £500m disappeared from the near-years' T26 entries


Sigh. The type 31 budget was held under Type 26 because that's how it all started: "we can't build 13 T26 for the money so how about build 8 t26 and 5 t31 with whatever is left over".

After the NAO pointed this out, the MoD just moved the money out and created a new T31 line. No money was added or subtracted. Basically accounting semantics.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 16 Feb 2019, 16:37

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
seaspear wrote:...I believe it was discussed that the Darings could not be fitted with the Captas 4 but possibly Captas 2 ?
CAPTAS-4 and CAPTAS-4CI differs a lot. It is not the same sonar, even sometimes many here forgets.

In short, CAPTAS-2 needs only 30% of the foot print of CAPTAS-4. But, CAPTAS-4 CI also needs "only" 54% of CAPTAS-4.

Apparently, CAPTAS-4CI is using the same VDS pinger, but has much more compact TASS array. For me, it looks much more a CAPTAS-2 with VDS replaced by 4-barrel version.

*Note the two numbers of CAPTAS-4 (84 m2 vs 10.2x6.4 m2) are inconsistent, so I only used the "ratio to CAPTAS-4" as a comparison.
Thales_announces_the_launch_of_its_new_compact_CAPTAS-4_towed_array_sonar_at_Euronaval_2016_001.jpg
314vujn.jpg


For the CAPTAS-4 variants, looks to me like they saved space by having smaller drums and presumably shorter tow lengths..

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Feb 2019, 17:22

So to sum up much of what has been stated above, if the RN/MoD/Government had not screwed things up through poor programme management and an unwillingness to think in the long term we would now have 8 T-45s and probably still have 13 T-26 on order. How many Astutes could we have had if the programme had properly flowed on from the T Class instead of the extended build gap? And people wonder why we don't seem to get as much for our money as other nations do when it comes to defence.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 18:32

Ron5 wrote:Sigh. The type 31 budget was held under Type 26 because that's how it all started: "we can't build 13 T26 for the money so how about build 8 t26 and 5 t31 with whatever is left over".
This is the real story, but can you quote one veritable source for it :D ?
Lord Jim wrote:we would now have 8 T-45s and probably still have 13 T-26 on order.
Agree with the first part, but how does the T-26 part follow??
Lord Jim wrote:How many Astutes could we have had if the programme had properly flowed on from the T Class instead of the extended build gap?
8
- if anyone thinks that the Astutes as such (the ones built) are expensive (for the capability they offer), just make a comparison with Virginia class
- the waste and confusion in the prgrm in unforgivable, regardless

serge750
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 16 Feb 2019, 18:39

Does seem like the Gov (all veriety) make such short term penny pinching rather than looking at the long term savings & capability, 8 x T45 & even 12 x T26 would of been great,

Was not the T26 decision taken a good 5 yrs later than planned ? & if the build was increased with the frigate factory would that not of saved on the t23 upgrade costs as they would not of needed to be in service longer than planned ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 16 Feb 2019, 18:47

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not sure. French navy has 15 ASW escorts? Yes and no.

French navy are going to have, 15 escorts
- 2 Horizon with only a hull sonar, normal hull.
- 6 FREMM ASW with CAPTAS-4, quiet hull.
- 2 FREDA AAW/ASW with CAPTAS-4, quiet hull.
- 5 FTI frigate with CAPTAS-4CI, normal hull.

RN will have
- 6 T45 with only a hull sonar, normal hull.
- 8 T26(or T23) with CAPTAS-4, quiet hull.
- 5 T31e, may have no sonar, normal hull.

Also note that all 15 French ships have torpedoes. Only the 8 T26s have (presumably) such an equivilent.

On escorts, the only difference is the fact that French FTI has CAPTAS-4CI. If it is important, UK can easily add CAPTAS-4CI to all 6 T45s. Then, it will be equivalent to FTI in ASW.

Incorrect. Horizon has torpedoes. Type 45 does not.

And they cannot "easily add" Captos 4 to Type 45. With what money? How long to refit? How long to retrain? Where's the ASW crew coming from? To engage with what weapons other than the helo?

FTI just flat out has that. T45 even if it wanted them would require cutting something else (and there's nothing left TO cut) and then probably half a decade to actually make it happen. War is over by that point.

However, RN do not need to "compare" with French MN. If more ASW is needed from operational research (OR) in RN, then UK will be needed to add CAPTAS4-CI to T45, or to T31e (or both). It is worth discussing.

With what money?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Feb 2019, 01:00

RetroSicotte wrote:Incorrect. Horizon has torpedoes. Type 45 does not.

And they cannot "easily add" Captos 4 to Type 45. With what money? How long to refit? How long to retrain? Where's the ASW crew coming from? To engage with what weapons other than the helo?
Fact first:
- T45 carries torpedoes, albeit it does NOT have on-ship launcher (MTLS).
- T45 has ASW crew, albeit small.
We remember T45 "lost" the ASW war against a Trafalgar class SSN. Quite natural result. SSN can overwhelm Horizon, T42, or T23GP easily. If not, the SSN will be called "very bad". But the fact that there was a war-game means, T45 has ASW crew.

"How long to refit?": French navy does NOT have FTI at this moment. Their La Fayette has currently no sonar, and only 2 of them are getting Kingklip hull sonar. If needed, adding CAPTAS-4CI to T45 can come in the same timeframe as building FTI.

"To engage with what weapons other than the helo?": Agree. T45 has only a Wildcat to deploy torpedo they carry.

"With what money?": T31e, is my proposal. It has 1.5Bn GBP (1.25 ship 0.25 others).

By saying "it is worth discussing", I meant SDSR2020.

T31e is currently focussed on "presence" in mid-threat environment, which is understandable. Many here calls for more ASW, which is also understandable. Pursuing BOTH is impossible with current budget. So, SDSR needs to "review" over there. As there are many discussion already done in this thread, I will not recall it.

But, the only important point I stress is, key decision point of T31e program must, very important to say again, must, done AFTER SDSR2020.

Making the "10 year wallet" empty BEFORE the review means, we will face severe cuts in SDSR with nearly 50% probability if other priorities are identified. Running a political chicken game is OK, but betting the whole UK defense on that race is, .... foolish.

Whatever they say, there are always two candidates;
A: significantly reducing amphibious resource (including RM cuts and LSD/LPDs).
B: putting 1 CVF into reserve, as RN does with the 2 Albion-class LPDs.
If you are Army or Air Force supporter, it is clearly evident.

# Adding a problem is, the LSS issue. "If they can deploy commando helicopters, do we need PoW?", "If they can provide HADR, can we ban another Bay or two?". Because of lack of info. it is not clear now, but these are very very natural questions RN need to answer in SDSR2020.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Feb 2019, 03:46

If the MoD is to procure everything in its Equipment Plan between now and 2030 it is going to need between 3 and 4 £Bn a year increase in the budget to cover the existing shortfall and cover the additional programmes that have been announced. In the speech given recently it was still seen as vital that the MoD continue to make efficiencies/cuts to close the gap, but I would rather wee this hole filled by the Treasury and any saving made then be added to the Budget to cover eventualities.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 17 Feb 2019, 08:54

donald_of_tokyo, By not building a 3rd FSS and replacing Argus aviation role with the two FLSS should free up the resources to make this change “cost” neutral. Now the PCRS capability will be reduced but IMO it’s down the pecking order given the U.K. is not in a fit state for a sustained sea based ground offensive.

The RN is playing the CSG game now with lower end forward presence (including the FLSS), to do this and remain relevant to the US then it needs to be a 100% capability, meaning two active CVFs. Having said that with USMC assets flying from the CVFs then what is a more obvious cost reduction is any plan for a significant increase of 48 F35Bs, maybe they will squeeze one more squadron out but that will be it.

The obvious money saver remains the T31e to me. Buying a nineth T26 in the 2030s, would allow 4 T26s (+4 T45s) to be allocated to the CBGs, leaving 5 T26s (+2 T45s) to operate with the EoS FLSS, Kipion and covering TAPS / FRE. In addition (with minor upgrades) we need to sweat the 9 River Class OPVs (inc keeping HMS Clyde).
"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: 1149
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 Feb 2019, 11:10

Of course there is a 3rd way and that is HMG stop lording the 2% GDP as some sort of great thing and gets on with a real budget with a real spending plan based on real costs. As said before the MOD/ HMG need to sit down and make a list of what it really needs and the best way forward.

I am starting to see the FLSS as a waste of time and money that will lead to a cut in the Bays or the Albion's. I keep seeing the words cheap pushed around when it comes to the LSS. I can't see what will be cheap about them sure the hulls can be built for 60 million but then you add flight deck , hangars , fuel storage , = 20 million next Boat handelling and landing craft another 10 million berths , messing , Medical , weapons storage , C&C another 50 million and then you need to crew them say 160 crew + 300 RM. Now you have this big barsket of eggs that needs protecting we will need to arm them say 2 Phalanx and 2 30mm it does not look so cheap to me.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 12:14

Tempest414 wrote:I am starting to see the FLSS as a waste of time and money that will lead to a cut in the Bays or the Albion's
I am still trying to work out how the LSG concept fits in with the wider strategy. Still a lot of unanswered questions.

One of the biggest is, why build 2 new LSS vessels and still leave a Bay marooned in the Gulf? Has anything been proposed to relieve the Bay in the Caribbean? Nope.

Two Points with very basic modifications could relieve the Bay's in the Gulf and the Caribbean extremely cost effectively allowing the 2 Bays to be converted into the LSS vessels. We all know how capable modified Bays could be.

I think the LSG concept is on the right track and modified Points could be fantastically capable but are they the right choice to form the basis of any new LSG? We need more info on future funding levels, escort and helicopter numbers along with an idea of how they fit into a larger Amphibious Task Group before reaching a considered view in my opinion.

With the information available today, it appears to me that forming multiple LSG's is the right strategy but with the Points and the Bay's the wrong way around. Meaning unless there is a very good reason not to, convert the Bay's into the LSS vessels and procure 2 cheap commercial vessels for APT(N) and Kipion.

Converted Bay's make a lot of sense, space for six Merlins is easily created along with 2 Chinook capable landing spots. Two mexeflotes for HADR deployments and space for a large number of LCAC's/LCVP's/CB90's on deck or via the Well Dock. Lots of potential for an extended superstructure to accommodate extra medical facilities and the additional medical and aviation personnel to enable the LSS concept. The existing accommodation for an EMF of around 350 would be unaltered.

I have given this a lot of thought and the only reason that I can see that invalidate the Bay's is their speed. With many commercial vessels now achieving 25 to 30 knots could high speed be an important requirement for the LSS concept? Not enough information to say at present.

The third modified Bay could form the basis of the ARG with an Albion and a Point. This would be a very capable force in its own right and with the addition of PoW it would be extremely potent. The big question remains, can we afford such a setup? I have yet to see a funding formula to suggest we can.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Feb 2019, 13:36

donald_of_tokyo wrote:- T45 carries torpedoes, albeit it does NOT have on-ship launcher (MTLS).

Then it does not have torpedoes. What if the helo is somewhere else? Maintenance? Repair? Sea state? Storm?

- T45 has ASW crew, albeit small.
We remember T45 "lost" the ASW war against a Trafalgar class SSN. Quite natural result. SSN can overwhelm Horizon, T42, or T23GP easily. If not, the SSN will be called "very bad". But the fact that there was a war-game means, T45 has ASW crew.

Irrelevant to the main point if it can't actually attack back.

"How long to refit?": French navy does NOT have FTI at this moment. Their La Fayette has currently no sonar, and only 2 of them are getting Kingklip hull sonar. If needed, adding CAPTAS-4CI to T45 can come in the same timeframe as building FTI.

Incorrect. FTI is already being brought to bear and is budgeted and being prepared for. Type 45 doesn't even have concept to go for any yet, let alone funding.

Also, the scope was "will have". Emphasis on the word "will". T45 isn't getting torpedoes anytime. FTI is reality. T45 torpedoes is fantasy.

"With what money?": T31e, is my proposal. It has 1.5Bn GBP (1.25 ship 0.25 others).

As I said, you have to cut something. So where are escort (or "escort") numbers going to come from then instead?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Feb 2019, 14:13

RetroSicotte wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:- T45 carries torpedoes, albeit it does NOT have on-ship launcher (MTLS).

Then it does not have torpedoes. What if the helo is somewhere else? Maintenance? Repair? Sea state? Storm?
No big objection, but T45 DOES have torpedo. Just lack ship-born launcher (MTLS).

My point is, T45 carries torpedo, has ASW crew, has sonar, and has ASW subsystem in its CMS. Therefore, adding MTLS is very cheap, because all the logistics and man-power already exists. It only need just the MTLS itself (a few million GBP?).

Even so, T45 do not carry MTLS. So clearly, it is NOT a matter of cost, it is just a matter of will. --> So I say SDSR2020, which will define the will.
...FTI is already being brought to bear and is budgeted and being prepared for. Type 45 doesn't even have concept to go for any yet, let alone funding.
Also no big objection. --> Again, so I say it is up to SDSR2020.
T45 torpedoes is fantasy.
Incorrect. T45 has torpedo. It just does not have MTLS. Very different. For example, Floreal does not have torpedo. No arsenal, no ASW sensor, no CMS ASW-system, no ASW crew. T45 has all of them, just lack the ship-born launcher.

But, I agree MTLS on T45 is fantasy, for now.
As I said, you have to cut something. So where are escort (or "escort") numbers going to come from then instead?
As I said, T31e is a good sacrifice. It is a fixed price contract, so after the contract, MOD cannot cancel it without big penalty. This "big penalty" will easily reach at least one T26 cost equivalent. Delaying T31e decision is very sensible option, I insist.

"19 escorts" WAS the number needed in 2010s = without CVTF. In SDSR2020, RN needs new rationale to define their number of escorts needed. All here (including myself) want "more than 19", but we also know "10Bn blackhole in 10 year budget" even with current very limited T31e program.

SDSR2020 will be very very tough fight, I'm afraid. RN must be prepared. If they do again the stupid chicken race (ordering something right before the "easily expected cuts to come", RN may lose something big. It is easily expectable, not a surprise.

Hoping/aiming for large is important, but "betting for large" is just foolish. This two are very different.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 14:42

As for T45 ASW, would adding the Mk41's along with ASROC not make more sense?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 17 Feb 2019, 14:53

If there is truly a 10 billion hole in the MOD budget it is time HMG explained what is the cause of if it. Is mostly down to a drop in the pound against the dollar and the euro then if so this is down to HMG for allowing brexit to happen if it down to pour management then it is down to HMG both ways it is down to HMG . My guess is HMT know this and will back fill the hole as needed as seen this year

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 17 Feb 2019, 15:27

Tempest414 wrote:My guess is HMT know this and will back fill the hole as needed as seen this year
Yup, keep throwing a £Bn at it every year and it will soon go away....

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 17 Feb 2019, 17:25

ArmChairCivvy wrote:if anyone thinks that the Astutes as such (the ones built) are expensive (for the capability they offer), just make a comparison with Virginia class


That comment can be applied to all classes of warship: for comparable capability, UK warship building is a lot cheaper than US.

The problem when comparing UK prices to say European warships, is that the capability is not comparable

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Feb 2019, 18:06

Ron5 wrote:The problem when comparing UK prices to say European warships, is that the capability is not comparable


In general I agree with that, but (classified info aside) the Virginias and the Astutes have been built for the same task, and both are world class, so...


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992 and 13 guests