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.
Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 Apr 2019, 03:04

Poiuytrewq wrote: (It's Niels Juel by the way.)
thanks ...
Also interesting that Niels Juel reportedly sailed with a complement of 160. That's 60 more than Babcocks core 100 figure for Arrowhead 140.
Similarly, T45 is reportedly carrying 200-220 although its official number is 191. I think these real number is more important than official numbers. For example, the Iver Huitfeldt class with 160 crew is no surprise for me.
The visual comparison is useful, the Iver Huitfeldt class is clearly a much more modest vessel than a T45. I didn't expect it to look that small in comparison, Leander would look minute.
No Leander example, but Leander in its size is pretty much the same to that of MEKO 200. I think this comparison is also not that bad.
T45_and_MEKO200_2s.jpg
T45_and_MEKO2002s.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Apr 2019, 10:56

donald_of_tokyo wrote:thanks ...
Auto correct strikes again.... :D
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Similarly, T45 is reportedly carrying 200-220 although its official number is 191. I think these real number is more important than official numbers. For example, the Iver Huitfeldt class with 160 crew is no surprise for me.
Agreed, how realistic is Babcocks 100 figure? I realise The A140 is a simpler vessel than the IH but are we realistically looking at somewhere in between? Around 130 including the aviation personnel?

Going back to original photograph.
image.png
I think one of the A140's biggest assets is to give RN the ability to add extra AAW frigates to the fleet very cost effectively if required. Either acting as goalkeepers for the CSG or in a solo role perhaps in the Gulf they could be an attractive option at some point.

The height of Sampson and S1850M is very impressive, clearly the 21.2m beam really helps. It would be interesting to see what RN could do with a AAW Arrowhead140 variant and it's almost 20m beam. ASW is always mentioned as the critical weakness within the fleet but six T45's was never enough. Adding another 2 or 3 enhanced AAW A140's as a second batch of T31's might be a good option.

Obviously this wouldn't solve the lack of ASW frigates.

Genuine question for all our resident propulsion contributors.

If Arrowhead 140 will be able to achieve 16 to 18 knots on a single MTU 8000 M70 engine, although not ideal, how credible would it be to isolate and reduce the noise signature of this single engine/gearbox etc to improve ASW performance? Would this be the cheapest and most straightforward way to enhance ASW performance without a complete redesign to replace the CODAD system with a Hybrid Electric setup? Alternatively, would it be better to try to isolate and raft both engines in a single engine room and run with reduced revs to achieve a similar speed. It would never be as good as the T26 but could it match the performance of the FTI for a minimal outlay?

It would be interesting see what has been done to reduce noise levels in the FTI with its CODAD propulsion system and possibly look to apply the same improvements to the A140.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Online
User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pseudo » 14 Apr 2019, 17:31

donald_of_tokyo wrote:HMS Duncan at Cyprus, with Danish Frigate Daniel Juel.
Looks like a T45 and a T31e Arrowhead 140? :D
2019-04-14 0.07.13.jpg

I know there's a bit of perspective at play, but it's amazing the difference that fourteen meters makes. :D

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Apr 2019, 18:25

Poiuytrewq wrote: It would be interesting to see what RN could do with a AAW Arrowhead140 variant and it's almost 20m beam.

- we won't be seeing that as all that size growth that the T-26 went through would go to waste

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Apr 2019, 18:30

Agreed the RN's T-26 have a lot of growth potential, mainly from them being under equipped for a vessel of their size. This in its self is not a bad thing as it allow the RN to see what technologies and systems emerge in the near future and have space to incorporate them on the T-26, either the eight existing or possible future variants.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Apr 2019, 18:41

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: It would be interesting to see what RN could do with a AAW Arrowhead140 variant and it's almost 20m beam.

- we won't be seeing that as all that size growth that the T-26 went through would go to waste
I'm not suggesting a T45 replacement, more of a supplementary vessel to back up the T45 within the CSG. Adding something like 48 CAMM to a T31 goalkeeper might be more attractive to RN than having to refit the QE's or the T45's.

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 14 Apr 2019, 18:43

@Poiuytrewq 
Numerous options for silenced IH propulsion for ASW, may be one possible HED option for budget, remove the four 8MW MTU 8000 M70s max speed 29/30 knots, replace with only two 10MW MDEs, eg MAN20V38/33D STC, max speed will drop back to ~25 knots. Another simplification/cost saving would be with Renk MGRs having only to take one MDE, not two per shaft.

With money saved from installing only two MDEs, install more powerful silenced gensets, much less expensive than silencing the big and powerful MDEs (not sure if an option offered?). Currently IH uses two 1.4MW CAT 3512 gensets + two 0.9 MW CAT3508 gensets for electric power, the extra electric power needed to power two new electric motors, say the small and high power to weight permanent magnet motors DRS 1.5 MW, using a simple gearbox to drive the shaft, which would need silencing, give speed of ~12-15 knots without MDEs.

Would need a similar low cost system as that used by Damen to control the electric motors in their Sigma HED 10514s, they use Bakker Sliedrecht water-cooled variable-frequency drives with active front ends, the frequency drive connected to the vessel’s power grid, without the use of a transformer, saving weight, space and cost. Direct (conductive) coupling can cause unwanted effects on sensitive operational equipment connected to the grid, Bakker Sliedrecht bring their smart filter tech to mitigate the disturbance levels in order to comply with IEC and Navy regulations without use of a transformer, a selective earth fault detection is included.

Lastly will need FPP, designed for low cavitation/noise.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Apr 2019, 22:00

NickC wrote: say the small and high power to weight permanent magnet motors DRS 1.5 MW, using a simple gearbox to drive the shaft, which would need silencing, give speed of ~12-15 knots without MDEs.


China intends to build 60 such, specifically for ASW duties
"Chinese Navy Commissions New Warship For Anti-submarine ...
[Search domain www.defenseworld.net/news/18957/Chinese ... _China_Sea] www.defenseworld.net/news/18957/Chinese ... _China_Sea
. ... has conducted a trial run of the country's first permanent magnet propulsion motor "
- the free version of the article does not dive as deep as the permanent magnet arrangement :(

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 15 Apr 2019, 08:06

Poiuytrewq wrote:Would this be the cheapest and most straightforward way to enhance ASW performance without a complete redesign to replace the CODAD system with a Hybrid Electric setup?


I don't expect any tweaking will be worthwhile, Babcock are proposing a cheap and nasty architecture that will be difficult to make significant gains. The only viable option for noise reduction is going electric, and @NickC has already summed that up nicely.

It really iterates me this option is missing, this is suppose to be a futuristic frigate to sell all over the world but they propose propulsion from an old container ship. For a slightly larger cost they could produce a ship that's quiet at 12 knots and cheaper to run, sounds like a no brainier!

An electrically propelled Arrowhead with 32+ CAMM is the closest the RN could get to a true T23 replacement. Everything else is a downgrade.
@LandSharkUK

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 15 Apr 2019, 10:45

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: (It's Niels Juel by the way.)
thanks ...
Also interesting that Niels Juel reportedly sailed with a complement of 160. That's 60 more than Babcocks core 100 figure for Arrowhead 140.
Similarly, T45 is reportedly carrying 200-220 although its official number is 191. I think these real number is more important than official numbers. For example, the Iver Huitfeldt class with 160 crew is no surprise for me.
The visual comparison is useful, the Iver Huitfeldt class is clearly a much more modest vessel than a T45. I didn't expect it to look that small in comparison, Leander would look minute.
No Leander example, but Leander in its size is pretty much the same to that of MEKO 200. I think this comparison is also not that bad.
T45_and_MEKO200_2s.jpg
T45_and_MEKO2002s.jpg


What is that nearest the camera, isn't it a Pakistani Type 21 ? The Type 21 in terms of size and tonnage is pretty much an exact match for the Leander spec.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Apr 2019, 15:23

shark bait wrote:An electrically propelled Arrowhead with 32+ CAMM is the closest the RN could get to a true T23 replacement. Everything else is a downgrade.
No problem. T31e is (clearly from its budget) a downgrade from T23GP. It is crystal clear.

I'm actually rather surprised many here still saying for "T23 equivalent", which cannot happen for sure. One of the reason I am against calling T31e a frigate.

T31e is a cost cutting program of T23 replacement; cutting ASW (very expensive) and even cutting NGFS (rarely used) to make it cheap. The cost saved is used in building 8 T26s, which is much more capable than a T23ASW. I even thing those money has partly contributed to buy the 9 P-8As.
Pongoglo wrote:What is that nearest the camera, isn't it a Pakistani Type 21 ? The Type 21 in terms of size and tonnage is pretty much an exact match for the Leander spec.
Yes and no. Type-21 is significantly narrower than T31e/MEKO200. It was a ~3000t vessel as designed. It virtually became ~3600t because of ballasts because of its bad center-of-gravity.

T31 is significantly larger than T21.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Apr 2019, 15:41

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e is (clearly from its budget) a downgrade from T23GP. It is crystal clear.
What about any second batch?

The first batch may be cheap and cheerful but if RN is serious about growing the 'escort' fleet back up to 24 then the second batch will need to be substantially more capable than the first.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Apr 2019, 15:50

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e is (clearly from its budget) a downgrade from T23GP. It is crystal clear.
What about any second batch?

The first batch may be cheap and cheerful but if RN is serious about growing the 'escort' fleet back up to 24 then the second batch will need to be substantially more capable than the first.
Sorry I have no vision of T31e second batch.

If I have 1B GBP in 2030s, I will use it for up-arming T26 and T45 (not T31), increasing P-8A (not adding ASW version of T31), and F-35B (anything for strike).

And, of course, 1B GBP is the cost needed to build only 5 more T31e with the same equipment as T31e batch1, no up-arming applied.

And, I feel it is not easy to get this 1B GBP (which I will never use for T31e), but yet another 1B GBP needed to make T31B2 "capable" is, very difficult for me to imagine. (The only "hope" is selling PoW, ironically....)

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1197
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Apr 2019, 16:28

For me now if the RN /MOD want to grow the ecsort fleet it will have to be baby steps like add a T31 to the end of the order to make it 6 then do the same with the T26 to make it 9 and then order 8 T45 replacements

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Apr 2019, 16:35

I am not a fan of the T-31e but as long as the chosen design is capable to doing the tasks it is intended to do and frees up the T-23 and T-26 when they arrive, to do the high end tasks I am willing to accept them. I wonder how many RN senior Officers are regretting going for the absolute Rolls Royce solution that meant they only got eight? Are they regretting this and wishing they have been more willing to compromise on some of the T-26s capabilities like concentrating on the ASW and less of the Global Combat parts?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Apr 2019, 16:41

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sorry I have no vision of T31e second batch.
So what's what's the point of establishing a second non BAE escort production facility if it's only for 5 cheap hulls? If Cammell Laird get the contract for five 117m Leanders delivered by the mid 2020's what does the yard do after that? Letting CL go the wall hardly puts commercial pressure on BAE which is in reality the name of the T31 game.

If Rosyth gets the nod then there will be another gap before the Amphibs need replaced in the 2030's.

In my opinion if the T31 programme is only set up to produce five cheap frigate shaped vessels with no follow-on orders from RN then the programme should be scraped ASAP. It would be a pointless exercise but I think current planning may be slightly more ambitious than you suggest.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Apr 2019, 16:44

Lord Jim wrote:I am not a fan of the T-31e but as long as the chosen design is capable to doing the tasks it is intended to do and frees up the T-23 and T-26 when they arrive, to do the high end tasks I am willing to accept them. I wonder how many RN senior Officers are regretting going for the absolute Rolls Royce solution that meant they only got eight? Are they regretting this and wishing they have been more willing to compromise on some of the T-26s capabilities like concentrating on the ASW and less of the Global Combat parts?
Did it really need to be Chinook capable?

Removing the Chinook capability may have resulted in a vessel much closer in size to the T23 it is replacing as opposed to its now Destroyer like dimensions.

Isn't hindsight wonderful :thumbup:

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Apr 2019, 06:10

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sorry I have no vision of T31e second batch.
So what's what's the point of establishing a second non BAE escort production facility if it's only for 5 cheap hulls? If Cammell Laird get the contract for five 117m Leanders delivered by the mid 2020's what does the yard do after that? Letting CL go the wall hardly puts commercial pressure on BAE which is in reality the name of the T31 game.

If Rosyth gets the nod then there will be another gap before the Amphibs need replaced in the 2030's.

In my opinion if the T31 programme is only set up to produce five cheap frigate shaped vessels with no follow-on orders from RN then the programme should be scraped ASAP. It would be a pointless exercise but I think current planning may be slightly more ambitious than you suggest.
I totally agree to your point.

T31e follow on is not existing in current equipment budget, which is already short of 4.8-10B GBP within 10 years. And, even if there turned out to be additional 1B (for basic 5 more hull) or 2B (for "real" fighter) GBP, I want to spend it NOT on T31e. So many "holes" already in RN. (The money will be even coming from, "selling PoW" or "reducing T26 number", I'm afraid.)

Then, what if T31e end with only the 5 initial batch?

Leander : CL will be "busy" for ~10 years building the hull. Then, yes, they will look for new jobs, such as MHC and LPD/LHD. Complex system integration is on BAE, not CL. From the cost difference, I guess systems-integration work-load for 5 T31e will be similar to that of 1 T26. I think it is doable for BAE, which is working on 8 T26.

Arrowhead : Arrowhead hull is "even a Estonian ship builder can do" job. Not saying it is "low level", but much more Merchant-like than escort-like. (efficiency/cheapness is the key). So, H&W, A&P, and Rothys will just continue with LPD/LSD and/or MHC. Babcock is integrating T23 LIFEX in collaboration with BAES. Integrating TACTICOS with Thales will be not difficult. No idea about its future, but they will do it.

MEKO A200: No info.

I really think "exportability" will be very important in T31e. Oman navy's 2 Qahir-class corvette, commissioned in 1996/1997 is very important candidate. But it is very difficult to find other candidates. Also, if it is Arrowhead 140 or MEKO A200, the UK-built export possibility further weaken (why not in local merchant-vessel yards or German yards, respectively?).

Supporting "second escort ship builder" is very expensive. They say threaten BAE to make them bid cheaper, but seeing T26 design export success and Spanish 4 F110 frigate contracts (I agree direct comparison is not easy, but), T26 cost is not that bad. Surely cannot be "halved".

If the primary aim is to establish the "second escort ship builder", yes, T31e program must be terminated now.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 16 Apr 2019, 08:07

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But it is very difficult to find other candidates.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest Brazil, Chile and New Zealand as potential customers
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead hull is "even a Estonian ship builder can do" job.

the steelwork for most RN ships could be built by "an Estonian ship builder". The design and the integration are the more complex bits
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 16 Apr 2019, 08:56

Way off topic so I've moved it across,

Thanks Donald, I enjoyed reading your reply.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: "A basic Leander" is orders-of-magnitude more fighty than our Coast Guard OPVs. Even compared to US CG cutter, Leander is much more fighty for sure.
True, but is it 'fighty' enough? Few other nations would forward deploy a singleton frigate with such large gaps in its defensive armament.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:A basic T31e armed with, say, a 57mm gun, 12 CAMM, 2x 30mm guns and a Wildcat with ESM/chaff/flare kits is not "a floating target".
Maybe not but its not an escort either. I was much more relaxed about these under-armed T31's before the role of escorting the LSG came along and due to that I think they need to be a bit more competent.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:modern SSK is very expensive and the number of SSKs in hostile nation is NOT increasing
True but they aren't exactly scarce either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... in_service

Can a vessel without even a basic hull mounted sonar even be described as a Frigate? No, not for me.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:To sink a Japan Coast Guard OPVs, or a Danish Holland class OPV, Irish OPV, and of course a River B2, only a single old cheap SSM (Exocet, or even a Silkworm) is enough. It is order of magnitude cheaper than the assets needed to sink the "basic T31e".
Agreed but how often do the above vessels deploy to the worlds hotspots like the Gulf or regularly have to enforce sanctions on North Korea for example? Even cheap SSM's are much more common that they used to be and they will continue to proliferate going forward. We can't knowingly endanger the lives of the T31 crews for an extra 12 CAMM.

How embarrassing would it be to have a non-friendly SSK surface in the middle of a RN LSG because the 'escorts' didn't know it was there? The U.K. Press would have a field day. It would be a national embarrassment. If the T31's are now to be escorts, even in realitivly low threat environments the basic spec needs revised in my opinion.

Poiuytrewq wrote:An Arrowhead 140 with a Mk8, 24x CAMM, 24x VLS Spear3, 4x Harpoon, 2x 30mm's, Artisan, Phalanx and 2150 would probably be the middle ground between the RB2's and the T26's. Add a credible HED propulsion system from the outset with an option of adding 2087 later if required and the A140 would be as credible as any other Tier2 Frigate afloat.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I really hope this happen. But, to make this happen, I'm afraid RN need to sell PoW or cancel T26 at ~5, which I do not prefer.
Not necessarily. The simplest way to do it is to build the T31's in two batches of four hulls. Build the first two hulls with a basic spec at £250m each and second two hulls with an improved spec at £375m per hull, still maintaining the original £1.25bn budget. Then decide what spec the second batch should have. Only an additional £1.5bn in 8 to 10 years time to solve the escort crisis in the Royal Navy? Bargain.

Our current government is on life support and a new administration may bring with it a fresh approach. Keep the faith :thumbup:

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 16 Apr 2019, 09:03

As the Leander is ultimately an evolution from the River Class then Thailand has shown it is increasingly able to build these craft from BAE also.

This is the crucial point - does the U.K. intend to export complete ships or design/build/support services & kit. Personally, I see the latter and the current discussions with India on the CVF design and the RAN/RCN T26 wins prove this.

If the former (export complete ships) was the case the best the UK could do is build a ship factory and for the RN to have a large class (say a single class of 24 Utility Sloops) ditching individual T31/MHC designs.
"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

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Apr 2019, 09:09

Caribbean wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:But it is very difficult to find other candidates.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest Brazil, Chile and New Zealand as potential customers
Thanks. But Brazil has selected wide-hull MEKO A100-based corvette, which is as wide as MEKO A200. And they are building them locally.

Any export to Brazil will be the same, only design export and local build. But, in that case, there is no need to "export Danish design via UK", nor German design, which is a family of their home-built corvette, "via UK". Zero need, I'm afraid?

New Zealand will be a candidate, I agree. But, again, MEKO A200 will be built in Germany. Arrowhead 140 for RNZN might use UK shipbuilder, but why not more cheap shipyards? Integration may come to Babcock, yes, but, almost no steel work there. Leander may have some hope.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead hull is "even a Estonian ship builder can do" job.
the steelwork for most RN ships could be built by "an Estonian ship builder". The design and the integration are the more complex bits
Not sure for me. But, at least in Japan, France, Spain, Germany, USA, escorts' hulls are built in escort specific ship yards. I understand Arrowhead 140 is using a Merchant-like hull design (at Estonia), adding equipments and fighting systems later at Danes (using many Danish navy's man-power). This is/was the innovation in IH-class frigate, on which no other navies to date follows.

If we look at Mexican Damen 10514 frigate build, the main hull (presumably of OPV standard) is built in Mexico (They have lots of experiences building OPVs). The only hull-section built in Dutch was the bridge+mast part (the most "complex" part), which was shipped to Mexico and then welded together. If German/Danish company is to "install" their hull build process into UK's non-escort shipyards, the other country will also follow the same approach. I think building hull for export in UK shipyards is not easy.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 16 Apr 2019, 09:22

Poiuytrewq, The future war fighting capability of the RN will be either via a CSG or SSNs. The CSG will be an integrated CVF/T45/T26 group and yes T31/SSS/LPD/LSD/Tanker assets also. The T31e will not be a Singleton offensive warship like the T23 was - at best it will be used as a Littoral Escort under a protective CBG umbrella.

If there were more funds, then life would be different, but please god let’s not rob the scarce CBG assets to build “almost good enough” fully kitted Arrowhead frigates.

The T31e should be complimentary to the River OPVs to provide forward presence capable of defending themselves long enough to escape any fight. In addition to other defensive aids I’d say adding a Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system to the T31e was a must also.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 16 Apr 2019, 09:35

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The only hull-section built in Dutch was the bridge+mast part (the most "complex" part), which was shipped to Mexico and then welded together.

Have you got a source for this please?

The French are doing the same for the Egyptians and I must say its a fantastic example of a modern ship building strategy.
@LandSharkUK

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3053
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Apr 2019, 09:40

Poiuytrewq wrote:Way off topic so I've moved it across,

Thanks Donald, I enjoyed reading your reply.
Thanks!
donald_of_tokyo wrote: "A basic Leander" is orders-of-magnitude more fighty than our Coast Guard OPVs. Even compared to US CG cutter, Leander is much more fighty for sure.
True, but is it 'fighty' enough? Few other nations would forward deploy a singleton frigate with such large gaps in its defensive armament.
Depends. "fighty" is relative, not absolute. Even a T45 and T26 will not be fighty enough to steam in singleton around Cola peninsula. Even a RNZN ANZAC class frigate (which is LESS armed than T31e) is escorting US CVTF at Persian Gulf or in West Pacific. We also know French La Fayette class (which is similarly/less armed than T31e) regularly escorts French task force in the gulf. So, it depends on threat analysis and accompanying (other) escorts.
...I was much more relaxed about these under-armed T31's before the role of escorting the LSG came along and due to that I think they need to be a bit more competent.
As already discussed, we have very different view of LSG. For me, LSG will never be located in theater with modern at-sea threat. In such a case, full set of Amphibious Group, with LPD, escorts, RFAs and even CV itself, will be sent.
Can a vessel without even a basic hull mounted sonar even be described as a Frigate? No, not for me.
Actually I agree here. This is why I am proposing to call T31e a long-range corvette.
Agreed but how often do the above vessels deploy to the worlds hotspots like the Gulf or regularly have to enforce sanctions on North Korea for example? Even cheap SSM's are much more common that they used to be and they will continue to proliferate going forward. We can't knowingly endanger the lives of the T31 crews for an extra 12 CAMM.
In all cases, even a Merchant vessels is steaming around the area. South Korean corvette is always patrolling around the theater. Japanese Abukuma-class DE (corvette) as well. What is the problem? We are not doing war.

Also, T31 will be able to survive "cheap SSM's" attack with their 12 CAMM. Even over killing.
How embarrassing would it be to have a non-friendly SSK surface in the middle of a RN LSG because the 'escorts' didn't know it was there? The U.K. Press would have a field day. It would be a national embarrassment.
In my opinion, LSG will never deploy to such area. More importantly, even if a T31e has a hull sonar, the same will happen. Only when you have high-level of ASW assets (escorts, MPAs, helos) operating in high tempo, it could be stopped. In such integral ASW operations, T31e will cover her own local area to "fill the hole", and not actively hunting SSKs. (If with CAPTAS4CI, T31 will be able to "hunt" SSK. But, it will be still second to T26. )

And, I agree to Repulse-san, STDS is the priority.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brad1, donald_of_tokyo, Phil R and 17 guests