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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 18 Mar 2019, 14:41

Tempest414 wrote:with this HMG lead move to the Far East and a more Global navy which i am happy with as long as it is done with proper planning and good ships. So with this in mind I feel we need a move to

6 x T-45
8 x T-26
8 x T-31
5 x B2 Rivers
3 x B1 Rivers

We should have
2 x Carrier groups with 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide ( with one ready or at sea and other in maintenance or refit)
2 x T-26 on TAPS
4 x T-31 forward deployed 3 EoS and one on AP-N (with this task in mind I would go for A140's as the T-31 with a Wave class also forward deployed EoS in support )
4 x T-31 Home fleet / NATO Europe tasks ships ( i.e FRE , SNMG-1&2 )
3 x B2 Rivers forward deployed 1 in the Falklands , 2 in the Med
3 x B1 Rivers Home waters


You’ve missed two T45s which combined with the two non regular CSG T26s will cover FRE, TAPS and non permanent NATO contributions.
"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

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 18 Mar 2019, 17:29

Repulse wrote:Lastly, whilst it would not be cheap to buy a SSK stop gap, I’d like to see the breakdown of the $3bn to buy 3-4 subs which I wouldn’t care if were built in a Scandinavian yard or in the UK under licence.


Considering that purchases of similar ships were in region of 600 mil. USD per sub, that's somewhere about 2,4 bln. Plus a couple hunderts of millions in initial costs ( training, spare parts, support infrastructure etc. ) the whole cost could easily be even over 3 bln. USD.
If you want licence production in the UK yards, well, that adds at least 50% more cost.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Mar 2019, 17:49

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:with this HMG lead move to the Far East and a more Global navy which i am happy with as long as it is done with proper planning and good ships. So with this in mind I feel we need a move to

6 x T-45
8 x T-26
8 x T-31
5 x B2 Rivers
3 x B1 Rivers

We should have
2 x Carrier groups with 1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide ( with one ready or at sea and other in maintenance or refit)
2 x T-26 on TAPS
4 x T-31 forward deployed 3 EoS and one on AP-N (with this task in mind I would go for A140's as the T-31 with a Wave class also forward deployed EoS in support )
4 x T-31 Home fleet / NATO Europe tasks ships ( i.e FRE , SNMG-1&2 )
3 x B2 Rivers forward deployed 1 in the Falklands , 2 in the Med
3 x B1 Rivers Home waters


You’ve missed two T45s which combined with the two non regular CSG T26s will cover FRE, TAPS and non permanent NATO contributions.


No not really there are already 2 T-26 covering TAPS and the 4 Home fleet T-31s would cover FRE duties in the list above. One of each T-45 and T-26 would be in refit leaving one of each spare to cover any problems with CSG Escorts or join allied Ex,s

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Mar 2019, 20:19

Tempest414 wrote:6 x T-45
8 x T-26
8 x T-31
5 x B2 Rivers
3 x B1 Rivers
I think you are right in line with current planning and if anything the T31 number might be a bit low. I think 10 could be a reasonable possibility.

My question would be do we really want up to ten T31's at the expense of four or five Type 26's? I suppose it all depends on what the T31's end up looking like.

Tempest414 wrote:...with this task in mind I would go for A140's as the T-31....
It the T31 numbers are expected to be raised with a follow-on more capable second batch, the choice between Leander and the A140 becomes even more complicated in my opinion.

If we look forward to what a higher spec T31 would look like which concept offers more?

In some ways the Arrowhead 140 could be as capable than a T26. Up to 16 Harpoon can be carried, along with 32x Mk41 cells plus plenty of extra space for CAMM on the weapons deck. A Mk8 or Mk45 medium gun could be fitted along with 2 Phalanx if required. All this and still space for a Merlin, 4 RHIBS and 3 ISO's plus 2087 if required.

Taken to extreme that could be,
Mk45
24x TLAM
48x CAMM (and/or Spear3)
16x Harpoon
2x Phalanx
2x 30mm's
Artisan
2150 and 2087
Merlin capable flight deck and hanger

Combined with the 30knt top speed and 9000nm range its looking hard to beat. Realistically though it highly unlikely any T31's would ever get a TLAM capability or 16x Harpoon but why not future proof a design just in case?

How much would a vessel as listed above cost if added as a subsequent batch to an initial build of five? If the basic A140 can be built in the UK for around £250m around £400m could be plausible. That's a lot of frigate for a lot less than the cost of an FTI.

All hypothetical at this stage but if a higher spec follow-on batch is planned for I think weighting up the pros and cons of Leander vs A140 is worthy of discussion.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Mar 2019, 20:42

Stiring the pot regarding a hypothetical purchase of SSKs by the UK, if these were for a Far East Flotilla and in theory based in Singapore, why not buy the same design as they are currently doing and jointly fund the maintenance and support facilities? Alternatively we could look at doing a reverse T-26 programme and buying four Short Fin Barracudas, built in Australia, and operate them with the RAN using one of the naval Bases they intend to operate theirs from. WE have built and operated classes of warship in a regional specific manner before and it would really show our intent to have a presence in the area. As for escalating things, I do not believe in letting one side being free to do what it wants, and flout international law. Having between 20 and 24 highly capable and advance SSKs in the region operated by a defensive alliance is a deterrent against the actions of others and in some ways like with SSNs not knowing where they are at aby given time becomes a force multiplier. This becomes more so when you factor in that one of the PLAN's main weaknesses is ASW whilst it in some ways surpasses he West and its neighbours when it comes to AShMs. All fantasy fleet stuff but fun to think about.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 18 Mar 2019, 21:32

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think you are right in line with current planning and if anything the T31 number might be a bit low. I think 10 could be a reasonable possibility.


Possibly, but I do not see any justification to have 8 T31s on top of 8 Rivers if neither are any good at the MHC role. Given the limited funds would still go 12 Rivers (B1, B2 and B3) and a similar 12 ship class of MHC Venari style.
"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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 18 Mar 2019, 22:19

Repulse wrote:Possibly, but I do not see any justification to have 8 T31s on top of 8 Rivers if neither are any good at the MHC role. Given the limited funds would still go 12 Rivers (B1, B2 and B3) and a similar 12 ship class of MHC Venari style.

Personally, I doubt there will be any further specialist MHC designs. We also need more frigates, not more OPVs
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 18 Mar 2019, 22:22

As we are billions short of affording what we’ve currently on order I don’t know where the even more billions are coming from for what people are adding numbers on top of that again. The most optimistic forecast would be we keep what we’ve got, in reality I think they will reduce further.

Mind you people are basing so many ships overseas now it makes you wonder what we need devonport and Portsmouth for as there will be barely any ships in them.

As we are struggling to get an opv we already build in service 4 years after it was ordered I think type 31 has a cat in hells chance on being delivered in 2023.

SW1
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 18 Mar 2019, 22:24

Caribbean wrote:
Repulse wrote:Possibly, but I do not see any justification to have 8 T31s on top of 8 Rivers if neither are any good at the MHC role. Given the limited funds would still go 12 Rivers (B1, B2 and B3) and a similar 12 ship class of MHC Venari style.

Personally, I doubt there will be any further specialist MHC designs. We also need more frigates, not more OPVs


I would agree, have you seen that Belgium and Holland have selected the French mothership design for there future mcmv fleet?. I could see the sandown class disappearing at the next review.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Mar 2019, 09:34

Poiuytrewq wrote:My question would be do we really want up to ten T31's at the expense of four or five Type 26's? I suppose it all depends on what the T31's end up looking like.


I think with forward deploying 8 T-31s would be enough for now as for a spec for these ships as I have said I would go for A140 for one reason if we are going to globally deploy ship to two of the biggest oceans they need to be large and have legs. as for weapons fit I would be happy for a A140 with

1 x Main gun
2 x 30mm
1 x phalanx
24 x CAMM
8 x Haphoon

SW1 wrote:As we are billions short of affording what we’ve currently on order I don’t know where the even more billions are coming from

As we have seen over the last two years HMT know this and has released extra money ( some 2 billion pounds) as needed. We also now know that there is a pot of money in HMT which could close the hole if it wanted

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 19 Mar 2019, 11:24

Caribbean wrote:We also need more frigates, not more OPVs


Yes, ideally we would have more frigates, but unless either the current balance of UK defence funding is skewed towards the RN or there is more money (both which I would support) then we have to stop talking that the T31e will be any more than a glorified OPV called a Frigate with a price tag halfway between the two.

The reality as I see it is that the UK has settled on its naval war fighting capability around a scaleable / flexible CSG, this they have calculated needs 6 AAW Destroyers and 8 ASW Frigates.

In addition, they have committed to having a forward presence globally to build local relationships, protect at a low level UK interests and state that the UK is a global player. This is what everyone seems to be touting the T31e for.

Unless there is a budget reallocation or increase in funds, the best we can hope from the T31e is that it can be quick enough and protect itself long enough to retreat from any serious threat. The problem is because it’s called a Frigate someone stupid may try and actually put it in harms way.

My view is simple, expand out a global patrol Sloop fleet (OPVs) which are clearly only there for low level threat activities, and focus the money on the UK CSG big stick, rather than waste it on the half arsed T31es. Also, rather than build more frigates, build something (e.g. SKKs) to free up as many of the world beating SSNs to sail with the CSG.
"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 » 19 Mar 2019, 11:58

When you talk about a B3 River what are you hoping to get and at what price

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RichardIC » 19 Mar 2019, 12:18

Tempest414 wrote:As we have seen over the last two years HMT know this and has released extra money ( some 2 billion pounds) as needed. We also now know that there is a pot of money in HMT which could close the hole if it wanted


Which is being held as a Brexit no deal contingency. And if the Treasury ever did decide to let the brakes off even a tad every other department would be clamouring for a slice of the extra spend, and with justification.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Mar 2019, 12:28

RichardIC wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:As we have seen over the last two years HMT know this and has released extra money ( some 2 billion pounds) as needed. We also now know that there is a pot of money in HMT which could close the hole if it wanted


Which is being held as a Brexit no deal contingency. And if the Treasury ever did decide to let the brakes off even a tad every other department would be clamouring for a slice of the extra spend, and with justification.


correct but as said HMT have released an extra 2 billion over the the last 2 years which means they are filling any holes as they come up lets remember the top figure for the Black hole is across the full 10 years of the budget and not just this year

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 19 Mar 2019, 12:42

March 18th NavalNews coverage of Thales Nederland (nee Hollandse Signaalapparaten) presentation on their new generation CMS, AWWS, Above Water Warfare System, no doubt building on their experience with TACTICOS (Babcock T31/A140?), for the new multi-purpose Dutch/Belgium frigate.

AWWS necessary because above-water threats are growing exponentially in terms of complexity due to numbers, diversity, decreasing size, coordination and speed “We are dealing with threats 3 times the speed of sound, by 2020 this could increase to 5 times speed of sound”.

Current technologies are insufficient to make use of all the new sensor and weapon systems to counter these threats in the future. A human operator will no longer be able to schedule and plan the right defensive priorities effectively and efficiently when faced with scenarios of several different threats arriving simultaneously and employing complex behaviours. This new system continuously generates the best solution to counter any incoming threats, whatever the environmental conditions or threat complexity. This maximizes the chance of survival, while the crew stays in control.

This system uses the latest sensor technology from Thales to detect and monitor all above-water threats, including the next-generation, fully digital dual-band X/S radar suite: an integral combination of Active Phased Array Radar (APAR) and Sea Master 400 radar technologies.

Would expect the new frigate to use the underwater CMS APPAD developed by TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, for use with LFAPS and HELRAS, discussed recently.



From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/03/video-thales-awws-for-the-future-dutch-and-belgian-frigates/>

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Mar 2019, 13:32

Tempest414 wrote:I think with forward deploying 8 T-31s would be enough for now as for a spec for these ships as I have said I would go for A140 for one reason if we are going to globally deploy ship to two of the biggest oceans they need to be large and have legs. as for weapons fit I would be happy for a A140 with

1 x Main gun
2 x 30mm
1 x phalanx
24 x CAMM
8 x Haphoon
I agree with all of the above. Importantly the A140 could be as effective as a T26 in ASuW if it was ever necessary. I think this future proofing could be important down the line. Look how the T23's started and where they are expected to finish for example.

ASW is clearly the A140's achilles heel. Does anyone know what ASW improvements were proposed for the Iver Huitfeldt in the Australian Frigate competition? Whatever they were, clearly not enough to make it to the last three.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 19 Mar 2019, 15:29

Tempest414 wrote:When you talk about a B3 River what are you hoping to get and at what price


An Avenger Class with a 57mm gun, 2 x 30mm Seahawk SIGMA with LMM, CIWS, hangar for a Wildcat and Artisan. £180m max - FFBNW VLS.

Image
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Mar 2019, 22:33

Can someone clarify this for me. IF we have the following units in the future how many would actually be available for operation not including a WWIII scenario;
2x Queen Elizabeth class CV
6x Daring class DG
8x City class FFG
5x T-31e (Tribal) class FF
7x Astute SSN
4x B" River class OPV
2x Albion class LPD
3x Bay class LSD
2x FLSS (Fearless) class

I am interested as I always though the rule of three still counted, where for every three units one was at high readiness, one along side and one was in maintenance/overhaul. If that is still the case we would have at most;
1x Queen Elizabeth class CV
2x Daring class DG
3x City class FFG
2x T-31e (Tribal) class FF
2x Astute SSN
2x B" River class OPV
1x Albion class LPD
1x Bay class LSD
1x FLSS (Fearless) class

From that we would form a Carrier Group of;
1x Queen Elizabeth class CV
2x Daring class DG
2x City class FFG
1x Astute SSN

As we plan to form an LSG, this would involve;
1x FLSS (Fearless) class
2x T-31e (Tribal) class FF

This leave the RN with the following units to cover all other tasks;
1x City class FFG
1x Astute SSN
2x B" River class OPV
1x Albion class LPD
1x Bay class LSD

So how far off the mark am I here. Obviously if the idea is now for 50% readiness to deploy things would be far better if the crews are available. So what is it?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 19 Mar 2019, 22:37

Type 31 Tribals?

Seem unlikely in these PC days.

How about Weapons?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Mar 2019, 23:35

Lord Jim wrote:Can someone clarify this for me. IF we have the following units in the future how many would actually be available for operation not including a WWIII scenario;
2x Queen Elizabeth class CV
6x Daring class DG
8x City class FFG
5x T-31e class FF
7x Astute SSN
4x B" River class OPV
2x Albion class LPD
3x Bay class LSD
2x FLSS class

I am interested as I always though the rule of three still counted, where for every three units one was at high readiness, one along side and one was in maintenance/overhaul. If that is still the case we would have at most;
1x Queen Elizabeth class CV
2x Daring class DG
3x City class FFG
2x T-31e class FF
2x Astute SSN
2x B" River class OPV
1x Albion class LPD
1x Bay class LSD
1x FLSS (Fearless) class
B2 River availability is significantly higher than 33%, I guess 70% even in long term (including mid-life refit). So their number will be 3. Then, I think

a Carrier Group of;
1x Queen Elizabeth class CV
1x Daring class DG
2x City class FFG

an LSG of;
1x FLSS
1x B2 River OPV

Which will leave units for all other tasks;
1x City class FFG
2x Astute SSN
2x T-31e class FF
2x B2 River class OPV
1x Albion class LPD
1x Bay class LSD


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Mar 2019, 05:29

Interesting, thanks for the feedback. The Carrier Group proposed would be fine peace time deployments, but surely a second Daring and an Astute would be needed when things get hot. With Carriers the size of the Queen Elizabeths I really think we need to be taking nots on how the USN operates their Carrier Groups rather than how we protected the Illustrious calls of the French the CdG.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 Mar 2019, 08:47

For me with the move to Carrier group ops we need to change how we do business and I feel we need to move to having 2 Carrier groups as so

1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide .

When a group is at sea there should be 1 T-45 , 1 T-26 and 1 Tide at readiness to cover escort failure the other group would be along side in maintenance or refit as a group

If we are to have only one T-45 with the carriers then they will need a big weapons upgrade to take say 48 CAMM to double there missile load out

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 20 Mar 2019, 12:20

Lord Jim wrote:Interesting, thanks for the feedback. The Carrier Group proposed would be fine peace time deployments, but surely a second Daring and an Astute would be needed when things get hot. With Carriers the size of the Queen Elizabeths I really think we need to be taking nots on how the USN operates their Carrier Groups rather than how we protected the Illustrious calls of the French the CdG.
Tempest414 wrote:For me with the move to Carrier group ops we need to change how we do business and I feel we need to move to having 2 Carrier groups as so
1 x Carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tide .
When a group is at sea there should be 1 T-45 , 1 T-26 and 1 Tide at readiness to cover escort failure the other group would be along side in maintenance or refit as a group
If we are to have only one T-45 with the carriers then they will need a big weapons upgrade to take say 48 CAMM to double there missile load out
I understand we are talking about routine deployment of "UK-lead CVTF" (not UK-only CVTF). And therefore I think 1 T45 is enough for AAW asset, because French/Italian Horizon, Dutch/German/Danish APAR, and US and Spanish AEGIS ships will join the TF. Another ASW frigate will also join.

If it is single UK-only deployment, then it is "surge" = UK will not be restricted to "1 vs 3" ratio, but about half ("1 vs 2").

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Mar 2019, 15:08

I wasn't considering a NATO Carrier Group, but in that case having one of the Dutch AAW Escorts would fill the position of the second T-45 very nicely as would any of the other members ASW platforms or Fleet auxiliaries. I concentrated on the UK only aspect as this is often mentioned as a core sovereign capability and was interested in how this would affect our ability to carry out other missions at the same time.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 Mar 2019, 17:25

donald_of_tokyo wrote:because French/Italian Horizon,


They only have 2 each so will need them for there own carriers as it is the French carrier group has a T-45 with it at this time


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests