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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 20 Mar 2019, 17:41

I would of thought if the UK Carrier group was doing a Uk only operation she would have 2 x T45 etc, but as said I could see that if it was NATO specific she would have 4 or 5 escorts including from a few other nations aswell, If she sails with USMC F35b would the American supply a escort or 2 ?

It will be an awesome sight to see :clap:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 20 Mar 2019, 21:47

The French have the Cassards as well (due to be replaced with FREMM AAW) and the Italians have the Durand de la Penne (for now)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Mar 2019, 09:44

My view is that if we are sending our carrier to sea on operations any escorts sent with it need to match the capability we could put together i.e any AAW asset needs to match or better that of T-45 and the same goes for T-23 at this time we owe this to men and women sent to sea on the carrier and the tax payer

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 21 Mar 2019, 09:54

Tempest414 wrote:My view is that if we are sending our carrier to sea on operations any escorts sent with it need to match the capability we could put together i.e any AAW asset needs to match or better that of T-45 and the same goes for T-23 at this time we owe this to men and women sent to sea on the carrier and the tax payer

For AAW thats you looking at:

- Horizon/FREDA/FTI (France)
- Horizon (Italy)
- De Zeven Provincien (Netherlands)
- Sachsen (Germany)
- Iver Huitfeldt (Denmark)
- Alvaro de Bazan (Spain)
- Hobart/Hunter (Australia)
- Arleigh Burke/Ticonderoga/Zumwalt (US)
- Maya/Atago/Kongo (Japan)
- Sejong the Great (Korea)

Plenty of options to fill in.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Mar 2019, 10:17

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:My view is that if we are sending our carrier to sea on operations any escorts sent with it need to match the capability we could put together i.e any AAW asset needs to match or better that of T-45 and the same goes for T-23 at this time we owe this to men and women sent to sea on the carrier and the tax payer

For AAW thats you looking at:

- Horizon/FREDA/FTI (France)
- Horizon (Italy)
- De Zeven Provincien (Netherlands)
- Sachsen (Germany)
- Iver Huitfeldt (Denmark)
- Alvaro de Bazan (Spain)
- Hobart/Hunter (Australia)
- Arleigh Burke/Ticonderoga/Zumwalt (US)
- Maya/Atago/Kongo (Japan)
- Sejong the Great (Korea)

Plenty of options to fill in.


It is a good list of ships some I would put a question mark against but as said a good list. To be clear my point is that any assets sent to sea with our carriers should match or better T-45 and T-23 and not that T-45 and T-23 can not be matched

Also I have said many times that I would be happy to use POW as the centre of a NATO / Allied carrier group

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 21 Mar 2019, 13:04

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:My view is that if we are sending our carrier to sea on operations any escorts sent with it need to match the capability we could put together i.e any AAW asset needs to match or better that of T-45 and the same goes for T-23 at this time we owe this to men and women sent to sea on the carrier and the tax payer

For AAW thats you looking at:

- Horizon/FREDA/FTI (France)
- Horizon (Italy)
- De Zeven Provincien (Netherlands)
- Sachsen (Germany)
- Iver Huitfeldt (Denmark)
- Alvaro de Bazan (Spain)
- Hobart/Hunter (Australia)
- Arleigh Burke/Ticonderoga/Zumwalt (US)
- Maya/Atago/Kongo (Japan)
- Sejong the Great (Korea)

Plenty of options to fill in.


But why would these countries ( with maybe exception of the Netherlands and Denmark ) send their scarce resources ( AAW ships ) to protect British carriers instead of their own?
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 21 Mar 2019, 13:11

abc123 wrote:But why would these countries ( with maybe exception of the Netherlands and Denmark ) send their scarce resources ( AAW ships ) to protect British carriers instead of their own?

France and the UK already supply escorts to one another's taskforces, and have it in writing to continue doing so.
The Netherlands is already doing this for QE's first major voyage.
Almost all the others have at some point sailed with a taskforce of an ally.

Depends on the journey, the destination, the mission. But NATO escorts escorting another nation's group is very common.

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Location: Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Meriv9 » 21 Mar 2019, 21:38

Caribbean wrote:The French have the Cassards as well (due to be replaced with FREMM AAW) and the Italians have the Durand de la Penne (for now)


And this will be the substitutes, as posted in the Italian section
Image

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 » 21 Mar 2019, 22:58


1: SNMG1 https://mc.nato.int/snmg1.aspx
[i]Flagship - USS Gravely United States Navy
DDG 107 - Destroyer Arleigh Burke Class

FGS Spessart German Navy
A1442 - Rhon Class Tanker

ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski Polish Navy
272 - Oliver Hazard Perry Class Guided-Missile Frigate

HMS Westminster Royal Navy
F237 - Type 23 Frigate

HDMS Absalon Royal Danish Navy
L16 Absalon-class Command and support ship[i]

--> Looks like any of the T31e design can contribute to SNMG1.

2: SNMCMG1 https://mc.nato.int/snmcmg1.aspx
Now with Flagship - HDMS Thetis (Royal Danish) F357 - Thetis class Multi-role frigates.

I understand Thetis is equivalent to Floreal, but in arctic design. Interesting, there could be many options here for RN to contribute.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Mar 2019, 10:21

For me SNMG-1 & 2 is one of the jobs T-31 should be doing there by freeing our tier 1 ships for carrier group ops. This why I said up thread I would like to see 7 or 8 T-31's deployed as so

3 x Forward deployed EoS ( supported by a Wave class out of Singapore)
1 x Forward deployed AP-N
4 x Home fleet with duties to be tasked as seen fit ( FRE, SNMG-1 & 2, AP-S )

This being said I think we should as a base point build a all UK carrier group around QE with 2 T-45, 2 T-23, 1 SSS and 1 Tide and then allow POW to deploy with a mixed NATO/ Allied group with 1 T-45 and 1 or 2 T-23 , 1 SSS and 1 Tide. This could maybe allow a T 45 & T-23/26 to join the Home fleet

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1823
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby dmereifield » 22 Mar 2019, 10:37

Tempest414 wrote:For me SNMG-1 & 2 is one of the jobs T-31 should be doing there by freeing our tier 1 ships for carrier group ops. This why I said up thread I would like to see 7 or 8 T-31's deployed as so

3 x Forward deployed EoS ( supported by a Wave class out of Singapore)
1 x Forward deployed AP-N
4 x Home fleet with duties to be tasked as seen fit ( FRE, SNMG-1 & 2, AP-S )

This being said I think we should as a base point build a all UK carrier group around QE with 2 T-45, 2 T-23, 1 SSS and 1 Tide and then allow POW to deploy with a mixed NATO/ Allied group with 1 T-45 and 1 or 2 T-23 , 1 SSS and 1 Tide. This could maybe allow a T 45 & T-23/26 to join the Home fleet


Sorry to go off on a slight tangent, but what is deployed on PoW? It seems to me that we don't have enough F35Bs for one let alone both carriers, even in rotation

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Mar 2019, 10:48

At this time we are looking at have 24 F35's fit for carrier ops by 2025 the current thinking is HMS QE will deploy in 2021 with a hoped 12 UK and 12 USMC jets meaning POW could then deploy in rotation with 12 UK jets and again maybe backed up by USMC jets

A big if but if the Italians and the Spanish still have there Harriers in 2022/23 we could have POW deploy with 12 UK F-35,s and 6 Harriers each from Italy and Spain

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 22 Mar 2019, 12:08

Tempest414 wrote: and 6 Harriers from Spain


Better to avoid Gibraltar then... :roll:
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…

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Mar 2019, 12:43

abc123 wrote:Better to avoid Gibraltar then... :roll:

Would be enormously childish, but sitting QE in British waters asking the pilot to confirm his takeoff location and destination, and denying launch until the pilot confirms would be somewhat hilarious.

In a more serious tone, I'd love to see a Harrier land on QE. Just to say she's had one do it. I will shamelessly admit to enjoying seeing QE "collecting" aircraft types on her.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 22 Mar 2019, 13:43

RetroSicotte wrote:
abc123 wrote:Better to avoid Gibraltar then... :roll:

Would be enormously childish, but sitting QE in British waters asking the pilot to confirm his takeoff location and destination, and denying launch until the pilot confirms would be somewhat hilarious.

In a more serious tone, I'd love to see a Harrier land on QE. Just to say she's had one do it. I will shamelessly admit to enjoying seeing QE "collecting" aircraft types on her.


Reminds me about a hillarious scene from Torrente... :clap: :lol:

But I presume that the Spanish would pull a stunt like: "Pass the newspapers, please..." ;)
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…

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 » 22 Mar 2019, 14:45

Tempest414 wrote:For me SNMG-1 & 2 is one of the jobs T-31 should be doing there by freeing our tier 1 ships for carrier group ops. This why I said up thread I would like to see 7 or 8 T-31's deployed as so
Increasing 5 T31e to 8 will simply kill 1 T26, I'm afraid?
This being said I think we should as a base point build a all UK carrier group around QE with 2 T-45, 2 T-23, 1 SSS and 1 Tide and then allow POW to deploy with a mixed NATO/ Allied group with 1 T-45 and 1 or 2 T-23 , 1 SSS and 1 Tide. This could maybe allow a T 45 & T-23/26 to join the Home fleet
Why do we need "an all UK carrier group"? I have no idea, just for fun? UK will never fight against Russia nor China alone. Impossible. If it happens, it already means UK's diplomacy has seen a big failure, losing soft power, losing influence to the globe.

UK will also never fight enduring long war against, say, Iran or other "mid-level" nations alone. Again, impossible.

But, UK may fight a war against emerging threats alone, as did in 1982. In this case, a surge capability will be the key.

Anyway, the availability ratio of CV shall be the same as those for escorts (1/3 in high readiness). So, for the 2 CVs, we only need 4 T45 and 4 T23/26s, 2 SSS and 2 Tides, even with your proposed "all UK carrier group" design. Surely, about 1/3 of the time, none of QNLZ nor PoW will be deploying. This will leave 2 T45 and 4 T23/26 for "other tasks" for sure. Because it is in total 6, 2 of them can "join the Home fleet" at high readiness at any time (while some of them will be used as TAPS), assuming all the other tasks shall be covered with T31e, Bays, LSS, and Rivers.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Mar 2019, 15:01

donald_of_tokyo, agree completely, though it does show that the RN way of operating (Global Singleton deployments vs CSG deployments) will change completely and it will be an adjustment for us all to get our heads around. A few flag pole T31 Frigates (Sloops) will not change this.
"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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Mar 2019, 15:01

abc123 wrote:Reminds me about a hillarious scene from Torrente... :clap: :lol:

But I presume that the Spanish would pull a stunt like: "Pass the newspapers, please..." ;)

Well, just depends how long said pilots are happy to hold their bowels in a cockpit. :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 23 Mar 2019, 11:51

Xav/NavalNews has a write up on the Dutch upgrade of their four 6,000t/40 VLS cell De Zeven Provinciën-class AAW frigates, commissioned 2002-5 with upgrade completion due 2024.

The highlight is the replacement of the existing SMART-L radar with the new generation GaN SMART-L MM radar, AESA with higher definition dual axis multibeam receiver, the long wave band radar capable of detecting stealth fighter aircraft and surveillance and tracking of ballistic missiles up to 2,000 km / 1,100 nm while simultaneous maintaining the normal air defence capability.

No mention that the APAR X-band radar will be updated with the latest new generation Block 2 GaN version or the updated Scout X-band Low Probability of Intercept Radar.

The Dutch were part of a multi-nation buy of 280 SM-2 IIIA/B missiles June 2017 and will be replacing the ESSM Block I with the active homing Block II, mention has been made of procuring the BMD exo-atmosphere SM-3, would be surprised as the most capable IIA is said to be expensive ~ $40M per missile.

A new anti-ship missile will be procured to replace the existing Harpoon

Lastly the existing 127mm Leonardo Oto Melaras will be replaced as those are over 50 years old and were acquired second hand from the Canadian Navy, both Leonardo and BAE Inc are expected to bid with their respective gun systems, along with their smart, guided ammunition.

The Dutch are upgrading of the De Zeven Provinciën-class whilst they have contracted to buy two new frigates, six minehunters and a combat supply ship.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/03/thales-smart-l-mm-radar-installed-on-hnlms-de-zeven-provincien-frigate/>
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Mar 2019, 13:09

Has NATO ever discussed integrating a common Co-operative Engagement Capability across its various navies and sharing the cost? Sort of the naval equivalent of the AWACS multinational programme. Ok the USN systems would be the obvious choice, but could it be done without individual nations wanting their own input and so on?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 25 Mar 2019, 13:39

A question: Do RN major ships ( like frigates, destroyers, SSNs, LPDs etc. ) have a medical doctor ( or a dentist ) on board during deployments?
If not, how do they solve major medical issues?
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…

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5712
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 25 Mar 2019, 13:50

@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Mar 2019, 19:59

abc123 wrote:If not, how do they solve major medical issues?


Rum + Ibuprofin :D

Clive F
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Clive F » 26 Mar 2019, 09:35

Posted this on T31 news post by mistake so have deleted and moved.

ref 57/76mm vs 4.5". If the 4.5" is fitted from day one and is a "free transfer", thus getting it in the water for less; and the new ship is designed correctly, I would have thought changing to the 57/76mm at refit or when sold should be relatively simple. Again assuming is it designed correctly from the start to do that. Having said that we purchased aircraft carrier that could "easily" be converted to Cats and traps.

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 » 26 Mar 2019, 10:33

From T31 NEWS thread....
shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Simply they deploy to theater in which "even Floreal can easily survive".

Yes, the same regions we can expect the Rivers, Bays and LSS to operate in. The RN already has 10 ships for those roles, job done!
No. A theater Floreal can survive, a La Fayette can survive, and Georges Leygues DD can survive ALL differ. Similarly, T31e can survive in a theater LSS nor River B2 cannot. Simple.
Repulse wrote:The 5 B2 Rivers plus the 5 Avenger Class B3s will be the globe trotting / forward based flag poles plus a low level Littoral Consort for the FLSS
Where is this coming from? The US do not routinely escort their sea bases, and the RN does not routinely escort its amphibious ships (Bay class in the gulf, Albion in south china sea).

I see nothing that indicates the LSS will have an escort, and the RN doesn't have the resources to provide one even if it wanted. It's going to be a cheap ass civilian ship, build to operate in simple environments where the enemy has little to no ability to alter events at sea.
Here, I partly agree to SharkBait-san. But I do think River B2 can "escort/consort" LSS and is meaningful. "Little to no ability" and "a little ability" differs a lot.

LSS is a sitting duck with very limited damage control. Easy to hit because of BIG size, low agility (large), and almost no stealth feature. Carry many combustibles = is a "match box". A boat carrying a few ATGM is a serious threat. And in modern theater, terrorists pretending fishermen is "the most expected threat". Locating a matchbox near such suspects is not a good choice, and to avoid it, having a vessel to consort makes big difference, I think.
If anything the LSS will be better equipped than the patrol vessels, making it more akin to the escort carriers from the old days, providing protection to the rivers!
Disagree. For me, you are like saying CVF with F35 and Merlin will never need T45 nor T26 as an escort. Yes, they do need.

If there is little threat, yes LSS can go singleton.
If there are some fast boats threat, a River B2 or two, or a T31e will make it.
If a small fleet of gun boat is expected, a T31e or two, or a T26 will make it.
If a fleet of missile boats and corvettes are expected, a few T26/T45, or a CVTF will make it.

You tend to see things like black or white. But I think there are many levels of "gray" in between. :D

Anyway, my whole point is, there are many "grays" T31e well fits. Using precious hi-end assets there is one option. But, in a theater which needs T31e, LSS nor Bay cannot survive.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests