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: 1688
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 18 May 2019, 08:32

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yes. It means one hull per 1.5 years drumbeat with ~30 years life assumed in this table. Not efficient at all.

Furthermore, large ship building may not be able to survive between FSS on 2025, and LPD/LSDs on 2035-40.

So combining these two will be more pragmatic.


I’d say that selling on RN warships on after 15 years service is a good approach. Historically, these types of ships have always sold easily (sometimes gifted by HMG) but good money could be made from a refit as part of the sell and ongoing support services for UK PLC. A drumbeat of 2 vessels a year, would allow for a more efficient build (maybe with some export opportunities such as ROI).

Agree on the second part, and hope the words of the new Defence Minister is a solid first step.
"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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 18 May 2019, 09:29

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Please note 24 more Land attack missiles on 8 hulls means at least 200 more missiles. This will easily amount to 800M GBP which can kill one T26. I don’t like it.

The reason why I propose to just replace the mushrooms with the same amount of CAMM, and no mention of Mk 41.

But I agree ExLS will make it very easy, if RN intend to add CAMM to T45 and CV (for example when T31 program collapse).


They don’t need to always be filled but it is a lot easier to simply fit the missiles as and when needed than fit extra Mk41s, it’s a matter of flexibility and maximising the use of the design.

For example if the were fitted with 12-15 ExLS mid ship this would give them the 48-60 CAMM / CAMM-ER, if then 40 Mk41s were fitted forward they could be fitted with a max of of say mix as such - 16 ASROC, 20 SPEAR 3 and 18 future AShW/landstrike but would not need to carry this at all times ( you have to think the 18 future AShW is the equivalent of 9 AShW and 9 land strike today but just allowing greater flexibility )

NickC
Member
Posts: 481
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 18 May 2019, 11:03

Damen showcasing their Crossover at IMDEX Asia 2019 for the Singapore MRCA, Multi Role Combat Vessel, upcoming competition, new frigates planned to replace their Victory corvettes from approx 2025.

130m; 19.6m; 5,300t; 28 knots; crew 108 to 128, accommodation ~ 250

The scale model on display fitted with a 76mm main gun, 2x Millenium CIWS, 8x anti-ship missiles and an integrated mast featuring a radar with four fixed panels.

The stand out feature of the Damen CROSSOVER design is not the sensor or weapon suite but its X-DECK, a dedicated deck below flight deck from appox mid to stern to store, operate and deploy mission equipment, fast RHIBs, landing craft, USV, UUV and UAV. Crossover dates from 2014 and as yet not sold.

Similar in design concept to Absalon with its X-deck and same displacement as Babcocks Team 31 Arrowhead proposal for T31e.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/imdex-asia-2019/2019/05/imdex-2019-damen-to-answer-singapores-mrcv-requirement-with-fit-for-purpose-crossover-design/>

>1:40


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 18 May 2019, 13:53

Isn't Sea Ceptor a cold launch weapon with the motor igniting after it is ejected form the launcher?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 18 May 2019, 14:05

I not sure about the joint Italian/Russian programme for the S1000 Submarine. Seems to be a great way for Russia to get a look at German Submarine technology as the Italians have been building German vessels under licence. I am surprised the programme is still running.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2986
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 May 2019, 15:05

Jake1992 wrote:They don’t need to always be filled but it is a lot easier to simply fit the missiles as and when needed than fit extra Mk41s, it’s a matter of flexibility and maximising the use of the design.

For example if the were fitted with 12-15 ExLS mid ship this would give them the 48-60 CAMM / CAMM-ER, if then 40 Mk41s were fitted forward they could be fitted with a max of of say mix as such - 16 ASROC, 20 SPEAR 3 and 18 future AShW/landstrike but would not need to carry this at all times ( you have to think the 18 future AShW is the equivalent of 9 AShW and 9 land strike today but just allowing greater flexibility )
If not carrying it in most cases, we do not need it. 24 cell is strike length Mk 41 and 48 CAMM is not bad. There are many other places needing moe urgent investments in RN.

For example, 24 more cells = 3 8-cell unit of mk 41 will easily pay for increasing the CAMM load in T31 from 12 to 24, increasing SSM canisters on escorts and more. “More VLS on T26” can be done after these more urgent options are filled.

In other words, if RN abandone T31 and decide to improve the remaining assets, yes it will be a good candidate.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 18 May 2019, 15:27

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:They don’t need to always be filled but it is a lot easier to simply fit the missiles as and when needed than fit extra Mk41s, it’s a matter of flexibility and maximising the use of the design.

For example if the were fitted with 12-15 ExLS mid ship this would give them the 48-60 CAMM / CAMM-ER, if then 40 Mk41s were fitted forward they could be fitted with a max of of say mix as such - 16 ASROC, 20 SPEAR 3 and 18 future AShW/landstrike but would not need to carry this at all times ( you have to think the 18 future AShW is the equivalent of 9 AShW and 9 land strike today but just allowing greater flexibility )
If not carrying it in most cases, we do not need it. 24 cell is strike length Mk 41 and 48 CAMM is not bad. There are many other places needing moe urgent investments in RN.

For example, 24 more cells = 3 8-cell unit of mk 41 will easily pay for increasing the CAMM load in T31 from 12 to 24, increasing SSM canisters on escorts and more. “More VLS on T26” can be done after these more urgent options are filled.

In other words, if RN abandone T31 and decide to improve the remaining assets, yes it will be a good candidate.


Oh I agree that there is more important things that’s need to come first, this was mainly in response to an earlier comment on us building what appears to be the budget version of the T26 ( which I agree we are ) and what the design could really be if only funding was there.

Saying if we don’t fill them most of the time then we don’t need them is a nonsensical argument, it’s like saying we won’t have 40 odd F35Bs on the carriers most of the time so we don’t need the space for them.
In today’s RN with our much reduced SSN numbers and only small strike aircraft numbers our surface fleet will need to pick up the slack of land strike and AShW which requires the RN to move away from the thinking of only needing a small offensive missile load out.
The problem seems to be that the RN is still in the mind set of AShW and land strike will be done by SSN and CAW with out realising that the fleet structure has reduced so much in these areas.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 18 May 2019, 18:42

Would be good to see our F35 get the JSM soon, even if it is externally carried, would be a capability that we urgently need, when was the sea eagle scrapped.... maybe we could also get NSM interim to replace the harpoon aswell.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 19 May 2019, 20:55

Lord Jim wrote:If the Royal Navy went for the three cell stand alone ExLS launcher as a start, it could open up a lot of options going forward. Its installation would bring benefits to both the T-26 and T-31e, with the former being able to carry all 48 Sea Ceptor amidships freeing up room up front for additional Mk41s, and obviously having the T-31e FFBNW two ExLS allows flexibility as to when and how many Sea Ceptor car carrier.

The nature of the stand alone ExLS also allows the rapid replenishment of warships in port, even under austere conditions if an RFA is Present.

Moving forward the adoption of this systems would make it a obvious option if it were decided to equip the Carriers with Sea Ceptor and opens the possibility of equipping vessels with an air defence capability that would not normally be so.

Finally if the stand alone systems is in place with the necessary support infrastructure, it would only be a small leap to adopt the Mk41 insert variant for other platforms in future. This would be where having the remaining five T-26 built to a similar layout to the Australian and Canadian variants, where the number of Mk41s is increased and all Mushrooms removed. The space amidships is available for other roles as needed. In the RNs case the other existing systems would remain the same on their T-26 and the initial three vessels could be changed to this design during a future refit if desired. In theory the T-26 could have up to six Mk41s installed dependant on the type used in which location. Having say two Strike length, two Standard length and two Self Defence Length would give each T-26 far great firepower and flexibility, over the current design.


Agree about one thing, T31 or T26, the 'mushrooms' need to go . Fine for T23, made sense to re-use the old Sea Wolf tubes and saved some bucks, and 32 is fine, but on new ships it's a real break on achieving the full potential of CAMM - which has got to be quad pack.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 20 May 2019, 12:50

Repulse wrote:
We disagree, and probably always will between a larger hi-low mix and a hi-mid-low mix, my view is clear the budgets do not support multiple class types. And is better to have more T26s + River Sloops than a new class of T31s.

Your point on the River design and supporting services being a success is correct, and agree Damen has done well in this area also. What Damen also does is also build the complex blocks for other customers also.

Your view on the lack of a C3 demand is linked to your view on the need for a hi-med-low mix. As I said above is that this IMO leads to a dead end for the “mid” given current RN budgets and the money would be better spent on getting the “low” factory up and running, starting with a River B3 order.


Which also just happens to be the RN's view. Whilst the decision to retain the B1 Rivers was welcom as it frees up the B2's for other tasks there is absolutely no appetite for any more. The RN's position has always been that the T31 must be a 'credible frigate' and that is still the requirement today.

Even the decision to build the five B2's is regarded with sceptism by many in the service not least because of their cost but there are also very serious concerns about quality control. The B1's were perfectly adequate for the task and have many years of service life left, they could eventually have been replaced by MHPC.

Even Brexit and a potential extension to the EEZ (unikely in any event) doesn't justify the B2 purchase and we often overlook the role played by the five Vigilant class cutters where tasks often overlap. Effectively we already have 14 capable OPV's and the last thing we need are more.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 May 2019, 14:56

I understand the Royal Navy's desire for the T-31e to be a credible Frigate but will it be under the current budget? Could we see in the 2020 SDSR the number of T-26 being reduced to 6 and the money saved being moved to the T-31e programme to build seven or eight 21st century T-23s? yes their would still be some additional funding required both of the above programme and to probably keep one or more T-23s running for longer, but would the RN be willing to go down this route?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1142
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 May 2019, 17:47

Lord Jim wrote:Could we see in the 2020 SDSR the number of T-26 being reduced to 6 and the money saved being moved to the T-31e programme to build seven or eight 21st century T-23s?


If this was to happen and the Type 31 program got a budget of 3 billion then a build of two batches of four with the first batch built for 320 million each and the second batch at 430 million could see some nice ships however for me we can't lose any more T-26's I think right now the best way to go is to build 4 Type 31s for 310 million each I think the bidders would prefer to build 4 good ships than 5 half baked ones

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 20 May 2019, 18:25

Pongoglo wrote:The RN's position has always been that the T31 must be a 'credible frigate' and that is still the requirement today.


Then HMG needs to stop talking crap and put money where the requirement is. Plus we should stop dreaming that the T31 will be anything but a UK only small batch design that will ultimately end up costing close to a T26 but with half the capability.
"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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1452
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 May 2019, 19:57

Pongoglo wrote:Even Brexit and a potential extension to the EEZ (unikely in any event) doesn't justify the B2 purchase and we often overlook the role played by the five Vigilant class cutters where tasks often overlap. Effectively we already have 14 capable OPV's and the last thing we need are more.
I am among the RB2's biggest critics, not because they are poorly designed (they aren't) but because RN doesn't need them (at present) and they are badly un-balancing the fleet IMO.

Ideally I would like to see the RB2's sold and the RB1's retained but realistically it isn't going to happen. Pity.

Everything seems up in the air at present and momentum is clearly building for an expanded T26 order. The T31 in its current form appears to be losing the argument but I think it still has a role to play - if only to bridge the gap when the T23's start to decommission in the 2020's. With the political situation in flux and widespread support for an increase in Defence spending, what is now the most likely outcome? It's hard to call but I think it is acceptable to be a little less pessimistic than we may have been previously, cautiously optimistic perhaps.

Personally I would proceed with the T31 programme and increase the budget slightly to allow for a sixth hull. I would aim to procure six basic 105m Leanders with,

76mm
2x30mm's
12 CAMM
Artisan
KingKlip
Captas 2

8x Harpoon and Phalanx FFBNW

Aim for a core crew of around 60 not including aviation and any EMF.

These Leanders could be forward based with 2 remaining in the UK as permanent FRE vessels. I would designate these Leanders as maritime security vessels instead of the T31. Unlike OPV's they would be built to fight if required.

The RB1's could be sold when the Leanders come online and all 5 RB2's could be kept for UK EEZ patrol.

In addition to the Leanders RN would need to procure another 12 Frigates to hit the 24 'escorts' target. Lots of ways to achieve it but extra funding will be needed. Realistically I think it's going to cost somewhere between £2bn and £3bn extra to hit the 24 escort target. To do it for less will reduce the credibility of the frigates.

Obviously ordering 12 Type 26's is the best option but I think a broad beamed Leander Mk2 is also an attractive option. Something in the region of 130mX16.5m. With a target price of £400m they could be just what RN needs and also give the FTI stiff competition in the export market.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5706
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 21 May 2019, 08:03

Pongoglo wrote:The RN's position has always been that the T31 must be a 'credible frigate' and that is still the requirement today.

More importantly, it has to be cheap.

Cheap != Credible
Lord Jim wrote:Could we see in the 2020 SDSR the number of T-26 being reduced to 6 and the money saved being moved to the T-31e programm

No. The MOD can't make money time travel from 2035 to 2025.

Poiuytrewq wrote:and increase the budget slightly to allow for a sixth hull

What are the Navy going to cut to fund it?
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 21 May 2019, 10:53

shark bait wrote:No. The MOD can't make money time travel from 2035 to 2025.


It doesn't require the MoD the "Time travel", funds back in time. Yes it would require the MoD to re priorities programmes and spending, and accept a reduction in escort numbers for a period of time as the balance between T-23s retiring and replacements entering service. How this wold be done down I the weeds is as they say Above my pay grade though. My main point was what if the MoD decided to announce these changes in the 2020 SDSR and then have fifteen years to sort it out. Possibly accelerate the production of the forth, fifth and sixth T-26 and delay the introduction of the T-31e to the late 2020s? Push back the Dreadnought programme by five years? They Mod has all sorts of options if they decide to change to currant programmes. Little is set in stone.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1452
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 May 2019, 20:17

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:and increase the budget slightly to allow for a sixth hull

What are the Navy going to cut to fund it?
Nothing. What I am proposing is to proceed with the T31 programme virtually as planned but accept that they will never be credible Frigates at £250m per hull. Accept also that £250m will only allow for a decently capable Corvette sized vessel and build 5 as planned with an option to order a sixth around 2024/2025 if the programme has been deemed a success. If RN can't stomach the idea of Corvettes then change the name to maritime security vessels or something similar to ensure they are not confused with credible Frigates. The important thing is to settle on a final design that will meet the simple low threat security tasks as envisaged for the T31 programme but with as small a crew allocation as possible. I would set the core crew target as low as sixty. As these 105m Leanders would be primarily forward based the reduction in range and endurance shouldn't matter and the reduction in hull length would also allow for an extra £125m to £150m to be spent on the five hulls to include a basic hull mounted sonar and Captas 1 or 2 to maximise effectiveness.

I think it's a solid option and would allow HMG/MOD and RN a bit more breathing space to either fund extra T26's or embark on a credible UK Tier2 Frigate programme around 2022/2023.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 21 May 2019, 22:01

Alternative plan - build 3 Al Khareef’s with RN systems to forward base (Med, Gulf & Singapore), globally deploy the B2 Rivers (FIGS, WIGS and APT(S)) and put all 5 GP T23s in reserve - spending £600mn max. Spend the rest on additional automation and build improvements to the T26 production line and aim for 12 via additional funds and accelerating the build.
"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: 2940
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 22 May 2019, 02:15

We are really going round and round in circles hear, including myself, bringing yup the same old ideas time after time, when we have no idea of even what the T-31e proposals look like. This thread is going a bit stale.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 22 May 2019, 04:29

Well here is a slightly different tack to start you off again.

Is it felt that 2 x Type 45s and 2 Type 26s are really adequate for Escorting a QEC Carrier?
Of course they could (and probably should) be accompanied by an SSN as well.

Other Navies are currently planning significantly larger Air Defence "Escorts" that are more like Heavy Cruisers than Light Cruisers. Despite being of "Light Cruiser size, is the Type 45 compromised to some degree as an Air Defence "Escort" by the presence of a Hangar & Helicopter. Could the space occupied by the Hangar have been better utilised as a site for a a second VLS and possibly even a second Turret?

Sea-Viper may indeed be a very effective weapon, but can a T45 as currently configured carry anything like enough of them?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 May 2019, 04:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:decently capable Corvette sized vessel and build 5

Every time a warship class is designed for just one role then one lesson hasn't been taken on board, viz. that whenever this has been done, the ships concerned have always ended up doing something completely different.
- moreover, what is in common between the Burkes and the Dukes? Not just long service, but after repeated upgrades, critical buoyancy issues... i.e. too small a hull for the job (that itself has grown! Ohh - nothing stands still, what a world :) )
Poiuytrewq wrote:change the name to maritime security vessels
... like BAM (translated)
Poiuytrewq wrote: I would set the core crew target as low as sixty.
... which is where Holland class ended up, despite not being frigates. Once it was realised that the planned 32 crew could only navigate the ship and man the sensors, but not defend the ship against boarding attempts, not do damage control on any meaningful scale (and helicopter crew plus support was always optional and over and above that planned figure) - then 50+ is where the crew number ended up. Add a boarding party (at times). - and there's your 60.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5706
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby shark bait » 22 May 2019, 08:01

Poiuytrewq wrote: The important thing is to settle on a final design that will meet the simple low threat security tasks as envisaged for the T31

If that's the objective, it has already achieved through the River B2, Bay class and the proposed LSS. Why do the RN need another 5?

Scimitar54 wrote:Is it felt that 2 x Type 45s and 2 Type 26s are really adequate for Escorting a QEC Carrier?


This is a little larger than the French group operating right now, and an little smaller than the usual American group. If our peers are operating at a similar level its likely to be the right number for the RN across 90% of scenarios.

I'll be amazed if the RN can routinely generate and sustain a large combat mass like this. A lot needs to change to make that happen.

Scimitar54 wrote:Could the space occupied by the Hangar have been better utilised as a site for a a second VLS and possibly even a second Turret?

It could, but is it worth loosing the hanger for? Especially with space reserved up front for more cells, plus the possibility for some mid-ship cells like the T26?
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 22 May 2019, 09:12

Scimitar54 wrote:Well here is a slightly different tack to start you off again.

Is it felt that 2 x Type 45s and 2 Type 26s are really adequate for Escorting a QEC Carrier?
Of course they could (and probably should) be accompanied by an SSN as well.

?


I'm afraid that 90% of time you will have just one T45 and one T26/23 in escort, with two as surge numbers. Same thing with SSN. And for peace time tasks (90% of time) that will be perfectly sufficient.
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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1452
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 May 2019, 10:09

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Every time a warship class is designed for just one role then one lesson hasn't been taken on board
The flip side is trying to achieve everything and ending up with a £1bn T26. Generous growth margins aren't free, it's a trade off between build standards, armament, sea keeping qualities, range and endurance etc. The T31's budget is far from generous to fund a credible frigate programme but it is sufficient to fund a maritime security vessel programme. A modest fleet of basic Leanders would likely give sterling service for RN at a very reasonable cost. Affordability is key.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:... like BAM (translated)
They might look similar but Leander is superior in virtually every regard. Configured as suggested they would be highly capable vessels for a wide range of security tasks and also possess the ability to act as a consort escort to the Bay's, Albion's and FLSS etc.
I think it's an ideal setup for 21st century maritime security taskings.
76mm
2x30mm's
12 CAMM
Artisan
KingKlip
Captas 2
8x Harpoon and Phalanx FFBNW
ArmChairCivvy wrote:... which is where Holland class ended up, despite not being frigates
The Hollands are a great example. The 105m Leanders that I am proposing would be even more capable but the Hollands are a good benchmark for a 21st century maritime security vessel. The important thing is recognising that they aren't Frigates. This is the reason why the T31 programme in its current form makes little sense. They should never have been designated as Frigates in the first place.
shark bait wrote:If that's the objective, it has already achieved through the River B2, Bay class and the proposed LSS. Why do the RN need another 5?
The RB2's are lightly armed OPV's so completely different. Keep them in the UK EEZ or sell them. Outside the EEZ the 105m Leanders would be better in every way.

The Bay's and FLSS vessels are incredibly versatile platforms but we simply won't have enough of them. Combining properly configured, forward based Leanders with a FLSS and Tide combo would make for a reasonably effective LSG. Extra Frigates could be added if necessary. Additional Bays and FLSS hulls won't help RN hit the 24 escort target. A balanced approach is more likely to be successfully funded in the end. Something along the lines of,

5x RB2's
6x Leander MSV's
12x Frigates
6x Type 45's

Whatever option is chosen it will take an additional £2bn to £3bn over the 15 years for HMG to sort out the fleet properly.

inch
Member
Posts: 538
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby inch » 22 May 2019, 10:23

I just hope if there's a new prime minister and Hammond out also there might be a better outlook for the royal navy and more t26 ordered ,fingers crossed eh


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests