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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Jun 2019, 20:28

Tempest414 wrote:....but could it be a good move for the RN to move to a mix of 76 mm and 40 mm for both the T-45 and the T-31 and do away with the 114 mm the 30 mm and Phalanx on these ships to have a armament like so
It would make long term financial sense but short-termism is getting in the way as usual.

The T26 is well rounded with the Mk45, CAMM, TLAM, Harpoon (or equivalent), Phalanx, (possibly ASROC) setup.

The T45 would benefit from those Mk41's but it looks increasingly unlikely to happen. A 57/76mm, 48 Aster30, 48 CAMM, 8 Harpoon (or equivalent) and Phalanx setup would seem acceptable and affordable going forward.

As for the T31, who really knows but personally I would like to see a 57/76mm option backed up by a 48 CAMM/VLS Spear3 mixed load out along with at least 4 Harpoon and a single Phalanx. This mixed load of CAMM and Spear3 could be tailored to each individual deployment with maybe a 24/24 mix if escorting a FLSS or a straight 48 CAMM if acting as goalkeeper for the CSG.

A Spear3 type option is often overlooked but I actually think it's more likely than a guided round capability on the T31 although its probably safe to assume that neither will be the end result.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3048
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Jun 2019, 22:36

A full spec Mk110 would give a lot of capability and flexibility to the T-31e, above to act as a CIWS, anti surface, anti air and even fire support with the range of advanced ammunition types either in service or being developed, but it is an expensive system though.

Installing three cell standalone ExLS for Sea Ceptor on the T-45, QE, T-31e and second batch of five T-26s should be serious looked at, though my preference for the T-26 is to increase the number of Mk41 VLS by adding two eight cell Standard length, adopting the ExLS four round inserts and remove the Mushrooms launchers.

I also believe we should place an initial order for the NSM and install say four on each T-23 and T-45, with eventually the number increasing to eight on the latter as well as the T-26 whilst the T-31e could possibly have four.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Jun 2019, 11:07

Interesting priorities. A few more T26's would help in the North Atlantic but they would have little effect for a decade at least. Additional P8's or giving the T31's a true ASW capability might be a better way to go if the improvement is to have an effect in the near furure.

Also, it looks likely that the future Commando Force will be facilitated at least in part in new or converted vessels rather than the current platforms. It's really just a case of what form they take and how many can be afforded. Hopefully sense prevails and additional commercially derived vessels are procured to ease the strain on the Bays so that they can be converted into the Amphibious Assault vessels that they have the potential to be.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 20 Jun 2019, 18:00

Lots of interesting views on this. The thing for me it is very unlikely that Type 45 or 31 will get the Mk-45 gun or Mk-41 VLS but as the gun on Type 31 is yet to be chosen which ever gun is fitted should then be fitted to Type 45 or we will have 3 gun types going forward. This then leads to the question do the RN want to keep a limited NGFS option on its escorts if it does then that rules out 57 mm as it has a max range of about 16 km where as the 76 mm with Vulcano rounds has a claimed range of 40 km meaning as I said before a T-45 or T-31 could sit 20 km's off the the coast and give guided NGFS up to 20 km's inland where as of now T-45 would have to sit 10 km's off the coast to give support up to 17 km's inland with its unguided Mk-8

SW1
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 20 Jun 2019, 18:09

Poiuytrewq wrote:nteresting priorities. A few more T26's would help in the North Atlantic but they would have little effect for a decade at least. Additional P8's or giving the T31's a true ASW capability might be a better way to go if the improvement is to have an effect in the near furure.


Surely the easiest and best way to achieve this is simply to prioritise your type 23 frigates with tails to operations in the North Atlantic. Those 8 vessels have 2 missions to prepare for operations in the North Atlantic and support to the carrier group.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 20 Jun 2019, 21:38

SW1 wrote:Surely the easiest and best way to achieve this is simply to prioritise your type 23 frigates with tails to operations in the North Atlantic. Those 8 vessels have 2 missions to prepare for operations in the North Atlantic and support to the carrier group.


True, but what is the effort to add another tail to a GP T23 or two? Would still love to see ultimately a couple more T26s combined with all the unmanned toys we are talking about.
"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: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Jun 2019, 21:52

SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:nteresting priorities. A few more T26's would help in the North Atlantic but they would have little effect for a decade at least. Additional P8's or giving the T31's a true ASW capability might be a better way to go if the improvement is to have an effect in the near furure.


Surely the easiest and best way to achieve this is simply to prioritise your type 23 frigates with tails to operations in the North Atlantic. Those 8 vessels have 2 missions to prepare for operations in the North Atlantic and support to the carrier group.
But we haven't been able to cope even without the added pressure of a full time CSG.

The P8's will help but 8 ASW frigates and 9 MPA's simply isn't enough. It needs to be a least 12 to 14 of both and the sooner HMG realise this and find the cash to make it happen all the better.

As Repluse suggests, adding 2 or 3 tails to the GP T23's would be a useful short term contribution but it also needs to be matched with a fully funded long term solution.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3048
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jun 2019, 22:16

SO the North Atlantic is the priority going forward then. Ok well where does that leave the Governments aspiration at deploying naval assets globally in order to achieve a global presence. If we struggle to even meets the needs of the North Atlantic with what we have now and plan to have moving forward it seems we are going to have to accept that we cannot do both. Yes we can send individual units and maybe a task fore to the far east for example but in dong so will have to renege on our commitments in the North Atlantic. Well given that NATO is our primary defence alliance, prioritising in the North Atlantic seems to be the logical way forward, even if this means we have to seriously reduce our global aspiration until additional assets are funded and deployed. But to get more funding we are going to have to have a FSL and CDS who will stand up to the Governments and tell them we cannot do what they wish without the extra resources, and have to do this publicly. Otherwise we will have the same old story of reverting to the can do situation and spreading out forces too thinly to have any effective grouping anywhere. We can wave the flag but will not be able to operate independently in any situation, relying on allied assets instead.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 20 Jun 2019, 22:32

Politician have uttered the words, but they have not carried out the required actions (Actions speak louder than Words). They will have to stump up the budget for what defence spending needs to be, rather than the relative pittance that they begrudgingly give at present. :idea:

SW1
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 20 Jun 2019, 22:33

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:nteresting priorities. A few more T26's would help in the North Atlantic but they would have little effect for a decade at least. Additional P8's or giving the T31's a true ASW capability might be a better way to go if the improvement is to have an effect in the near furure.


Surely the easiest and best way to achieve this is simply to prioritise your type 23 frigates with tails to operations in the North Atlantic. Those 8 vessels have 2 missions to prepare for operations in the North Atlantic and support to the carrier group.
But we haven't been able to cope even without the added pressure of a full time CSG.

The P8's will help but 8 ASW frigates and 9 MPA's simply isn't enough. It needs to be a least 12 to 14 of both and the sooner HMG realise this and find the cash to make it happen all the better.

As Repluse suggests, adding 2 or 3 tails to the GP T23's would be a useful short term contribution but it also needs to be matched with a fully funded long term solution.
and to repulse

It’s more than enough to cope. If it weren’t we wouldn’t be galavanting around the other side of the world. It is pointless adding more tails if you don’t have the specialists to operate and interpret that data and the budget to support it. The premise for 90% of the posts starts from we must have a bigger navy right let’s devise a strategy and set of circumstances that makes that happen. While the Russians are renewing antiquated equipment the are and will remain a fraction of there Cold War strength.

I for one think it a shame we stopped building type 23 when we did, continued modifications from lessoned learned, obsolete equipment replacement and upgrade, while disposal of oldest ships with a constant build rate should of happened. The same must happen with type 26 including using it to replace type 45.

The budget isn’t going to rise certainly not in any meaningful way, it’s already way over spent with to many programs and fanciful efficiency saving. It’s been a constant theme for 30 years spreading things to thin asking people to do far too much too often and getting in over our head on several occasions. The single biggest thing defence can do to improve its lot 10 fold and to transform itself is to do less with the same and it’s up to those in power and at top of the military tree to ensure that happens.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 20 Jun 2019, 23:02

It was also unforgivable that we sold some Type23s. Regarding Present day Frigate strength, the rot started there and then. The supposition that we did not need them and then the loss of the Type 22 batch 3's in parallel with the inadequate number of Type 45 Destroyers to replace the Type 42s have led to the crass supposition that "Less is More". The only way that would be true is in the Fiscal sense. with the costs of design and development shared by fewer vessels. In the physical sense Less is definitely not More. :idea:

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Jun 2019, 10:16

SW1 wrote:It’s more than enough to cope. If it weren’t we wouldn’t be galavanting around the other side of the world. It is pointless adding more tails if you don’t have the specialists to operate and interpret that data and the budget to support it. The premise for 90% of the posts starts from we must have a bigger navy right let’s devise a strategy and set of circumstances that makes that happen. While the Russians are renewing antiquated equipment the are and will remain a fraction of there Cold War strength.


I agree with most of this and as long as we can crew all the ships we have we will be taking a stepping forward. For me we need to make it as simple as we can for HMG when it comes to how we use the fleet which could be something like this

CASD
Carrier group 1 = 1 carrier , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-23 asw , plus RFA support ( globally deployable)
Carrier group 2 = as above
Amphib ready group = 1 x Albion , 1 x Bay , 1 x Point ( deployable with a carrier a group or rerolled escorts of the Home fleet)
Home fleet = 6 x SSN , 2 x T-45 , 4 x T-23 ASW , 2 x T-23 GP/ T-31 , 3 x B1 Rivers ( Ops to include , TAPS , FRE , Atlantic North, Med , EEZ)
East of Suez = 3 x T-23GP / T-31 , 1 x Bay , 1 x Wave ( forward deployed )
Patrol squadron = 5 x B2 Rivers ( globally deployable to cover the Falklands , ANP-N , Med and as seen fit )
MHC squadron = 10 x MCM , 2 x Echo , 1 x Scott , 1 x Magpie

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Jun 2019, 10:53

SW1 wrote:It’s more than enough to cope. If it weren’t we wouldn’t be galavanting around the other side of the world. It is pointless adding more tails if you don’t have the specialists to operate and interpret that data and the budget to support it.


But the UK wants (and IMO has a responsibility) to be a global partner it also has through its BOTs to provide security outside of the North Atlantic. As such, as you state 8 is not sufficient.

You have a point about resources and skills, but adding 2 additional TAS ASW Frigates should be well within the capabilities of the RN with its current budget with a few years to train up new people - it is about prioritisation and IMO the current T31 in its current form is the casualty.

Ultimately, the RN should be able to muster (with some notice) a credible sovereign globally deployable Maritime Task Force with a combination of Carrier, Amphibious and Land Strike with the associated protection. This is as much about deterrence as it is about harking back to the empire. The combination of a CBG (CVF, 2 T45s, 2 T26s, SSN, Tanker + FSS) and an ARG (LPH, 3-4 LPDs/LSDs, 2 T45s, 2 T26s, SSN, MCM capability, 2 Points + Tanker) is a credible force that will be the match for most nations. However, in my view we need 3 CBG/ARG groups to provide this capability 100% of the time) - requiring an Argus replacement or better.

I think what the RN does need to think hard about is what is needed in the North Atlantic and what global forward presence is actually required and appropriate for the UKs size and ambition.

For the North Atlantic and UK FRE requirement, I’d argue that 1 ASW T26 at sea plus 1 ready at short notice is needed, plus 3 SSNs, thus requiring a fleet of 3-4 T26s, plus @4 Fisheries/Security OPVs.

For global presence, with exception of the Gulf, a combination of presence Sloops (OPV with increased self defence) and large multi role (SF, HADR, MCM, Survey) motherships is sufficient IMO. For the Gulf, a forward base Frigate is probably the best solution (requiring 2 overall) In addition I’d like additional globe trotting SSNs but it’s not affordable currently.

Lastly, I’d like to see some real armed fast Patrol craft with teeth for all bases, as it’s only a matter of time IMO where an incident will occur and the current lightly armed / unarmed force will be found wanting.

I would as such re-org the current fleet in the next few years to have active:
- 7 SSNs
- 2 CVFs
- 2 LPDs
- 6 T45s
- 12 T23s (10 with TAS)
- 12 MCMs
- 5 Survey (Echo + Scott + Magpie + Protector)
- 9 OPVs (4 B1s/B1.5s + 5B2s)
- 24 Fast Patrol Boats (16 P2000s + 8 new armed craft)
- 3 LSDs
- 1 Aviation Support Ship / PCRS (Argus)
- 3 FSSs
- 6 Tankers
- 4 Points

Between now and the mid 2030s, replace the MCMs and Survey Ships (not Magpie nor Protector) with say 3 Bay Sized motherships plus 3 more “Sloops”. The T23s would be replaced one for one with T26s. The B1/B1.5 Rivers replaced on a one for one basis with “Sloops”. And lastly, Argus replaced with a Ocean sized LPH.
"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: 3048
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Jun 2019, 11:40

The Carrier group should by default be committed to operations in the North Atlantic. NATO will possibly only have a total of three carriers available in this theatre unless the US changes it policy of moving assets to the Pacific. These would be one USN, one RN and one French. NATO must be our top priority before we start going on world wide cruises. AS a consequence the Amphibious Group ( do not like anything with Littoral in the name) also needs to be committed here as it is out only means of rapidly reinforcing certain areas of NATO for which we are committed to doing so. Once you have allocated assets for all of the above and more NATO commitments then you can start looking for assets to dispatch around the world.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 22 Jun 2019, 11:59

The problem with all the arguments above is the politicians we’ve got and had for 2 decades all see defence as not worthy due to attracting few votes instead of the first responsibility. Due to this they have repeatedly cut defence to fund other areas while at the same time expecting more each year to look like they’re playing the part on the world stage with out funding this.
Some could argue the coalition had an excuse for cuts with the whole financial situation but the previous lab set up didn’t, making cuts while in an economic boom and running a every growing massive deficit. The problem is I can’t see this standard of politicians and their out look changing any time soon unless large scale war broke out.

For me the list of priorities for defence should go as such.

1 - Defence of the UK and BOT including trading lanes that the UK relies on.

2 - NATO ( this in part will over lap with the above but not in whole )

3 - Our obligation to the 5 powers agreement ( once again this over laps in part with point 1 )

4 - Keeping stability in the Gulf and mild east ( again this over laps with point 1 but to a lesser extent than the above )

5 - Global presence

Now what sort of force structure is needed for that heavily swings towards a larger navy but to do it all would require a large increase in funds. So what set up could be put in place with the “possible” ( I say that with hope and a pinch of salt ) modest increase to achieve the above requirements ?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 22 Jun 2019, 12:12

Don’t disagree in terms of NATO being a priority, but it’s at what level. The UK has no CBGs currently and a limited ARG, and contribute a few Escorts and MCMs to standing groups. Russia has lost its only Carrier and whilst it is vocal it’s power is local (like the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean) or SSN / SSK based. In short having more ASW frigates in the North Atlantic and the ability to muster a CBG and deploy the JEF is the only justifiable increase in commitment.
"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: 3048
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Jun 2019, 23:42

Providing a number of Escorts to NATO standing groups and as part of our eventual Carrier Group together with our MCM force and Amphibious Group are what we need to commit to NATO. The T-31e should be committed to acting as our presence in and around BOT and possibly one being out east with a Wave.

The issue that arises here is that any T-31e deployed out east or the Gulf will need to be more capable than the RFI baseline platforms used elsewhere in my opinion. It will need to have the same level of capability as the RAN's updated ANZAC class for example. This means any design chosen for the T-31e needs to have a decent core electronics and sensor package and have a scalable weapons and system fit dependant on where it is to operate. The modularity of the MEKO and Danish designs are more suited to this scenario then the Leader as a result.

This of course opens another can or worms regarding the link between the T-31e and the NSS and as to whether the choice of a foreign design could create a sustainable escort production facility in the UK. In my eyes in won't but then again I believe the NSS should either be torn up or Government funding should be used to allow to bolster the winning bidder for the T-31e to give it the security to develop its own designs and realise ay export opportunities out their, in line with what the French, Italians and Spanish do. In addition all vessels for the Royal Navy and RFA should be given to both this facility and BAe with again Government funding from departments such as the DTI to bring the cost down with regards to the MoD budget.

Whilst the Government seems to have realised we need to have a sovereign capability to design and build military hardware for our Armed Forces, it doesn't accept that to do so required serious financial support for the providers of said capabilities until such time they can stand on their own feet, and that some might never. The other part of the equation is that more orders need to be made for the platforms and systems that provide these capability and these have to be generated at a steady rate to give industry a chance to begin to stand on their own. All of this mean more investment in defence and industry by the Government, as relying on the Markets has proven to be a failure for the majority of the defence sector.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Jun 2019, 11:09

Lord Jim wrote:Providing a number of Escorts to NATO standing groups and as part of our eventual Carrier Group together with our MCM force and Amphibious Group are what we need to commit to NATO. The T-31e should be committed to acting as our presence in and around BOT and possibly one being out east with a Wave.


This is why I said in my last post we need to make sure we fully man the 19 escorts. And as I also said in my last post this would allow 8 escorts 4 x T-45 and 4 x T-23 ASW to support the Carriers and 8 escorts 2 x T-45 , 4 x T-23 ASW , 2 x T-31 to form the Home fleet. The role of the home fleet would be TAPS , FRE , SNMG-1/2 and other NATO tasks this would leave 3 T-31's and 5 River B2s. As I said in my last post Forward deploy the 3 T-31's East of Suez 1 in the Gulf and 2 in Singapore with a Bay and Wave class and send the B2's to cover the BOT's

Lord Jim wrote:The issue that arises here is that any T-31e deployed out east or the Gulf will need to be more capable than the RFI baseline platforms used elsewhere in my opinion.


At this time we don't know what T-31 will look like it has been said that everyone now know it will cost more but as I said if we ended up with a Leander like so

Artisan radar
BAE /CMS
good soft kll system
wildcat capable hangar and Merlin flight deck
24 x CAMM
1 X 76 mm capable of Vulcano rounds
2 x 40 mm with 3P
8 x RBS-15 Mk-3 ( I Know this one will not happen )

She would be a very nice ship able the carry out guided NGFS out to 40 km offer air cover up to 1000 km2 around the the ship ( i.e 25 km's 360 degrees) and strike surface and land targets up to 300 km. And when we look at the list above it now looks like from the new images Leander will get the first 5 items on the list the next 2 could be fitted for not a lot more money than a 57 mm and 30 mm and last one is along shot at best

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Scimitar54 » 23 Jun 2019, 12:17

We also need to stop the inappropriate "Double Crewing" of Escorts and MCMV. The extra Crews released could then be used to man other similar vessels. If push comes to shove every vessel counts. It is a great mistake to build fewer escorts than the number of Single Crews that you have to man them. If we had a fifth SSBN, maybe we would not need double crewing there either. :idea:

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 23 Jun 2019, 12:18

Lord Jim wrote:Providing a number of Escorts to NATO standing groups


How many do we provide today? My count is of the two standing Frigate/Destroyer groups we currently provide one Frigate to SNMG1 (HMS Westminster).

To maintain this level, plus TAPS plus FRE we are probably talking about a force of 4 T23s/T26s.

Yes, it would be good to contribute to SNMG2, but that could be done by an occasional CBG visit, or attached CBG escort, or a more permanent (pimped) B2 River.
"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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 23 Jun 2019, 12:22

If you accept that the B2s (with small modifications) can deliver the low level RN global presence role (with the exception of the Gulf) and the global “bite” will be via the CBGs (+ARG) then it looks to me for the want of a couple more T26s we are wasting money on an inferior mix which includes the T31.

P.S. I’m all for more RN focus on the increasingly important Far East region, but cannot see the value of a T31e to the broader mix versus a forward deployed B2 & RFA and frequent CBG/ARG/SSN visits (which will be less frequent if cash goes to the T31). The only other real option I can see is embedding permanently a T26 into the RAN or RNZN.
"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

SW1
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 23 Jun 2019, 14:51

Repulse wrote:But the UK wants (and IMO has a responsibility) to be a global partner it also has through its BOTs to provide security outside of the North Atlantic. As such, as you state 8 is not sufficient.


Apologies in advance a long post but one thing lead to another

This global mantra has grown out of a brexit PR blitz and I don’t really know for why the uk was, is and will remain a globally engaged country. Perhaps it’s more catchy than saying we can modify trade tariffs with countries outside of the EU unilaterally rather than thru the EU. We trades across the world have embassies across have people go on holiday across the world no matter if the navy has 4 frigates or 24.

There seems to be a strange narrative that being global means more navy I don’t know how that has come to be. Purely in defence terms each area of the world we operate in, is tri service. The army and Air Force have people deployed in the Far East in Brunei, Afghanistan, Cyprus, the Gulf, Eastern Europe, the Falklands, North America and a number of countries in Africa not to mention I’m sure a few places we don’t know about. That to me seems pretty global.

We do have interests outside the Atlantic and Nato area, none off our overseas territories have or will have direct military threats to them, possible exception being Cyprus in so far as it’s right beside a region of the world that seems in constant conflict.

Why prioritise the Atlantic well 100% of our trade has to go thru it and the surrounding area, near 90% off all our energy needs originate in countries that border it or the North Sea. Either thru our own physical offshore infrastructure, undersea pipelines or interconnectors, or tankers from North America, Caribbean, or west Africa. It’s also the hiding place of our ultimate protection.

Added to that a uptake in Russian activity from zero to having some kind of passage or surveillance about once a fortnight we should have something akin to a surface action group of around 2 type 45, 4 type 23, a tanker and a stores ship ideally fort Victoria should be able to support uk national interests and nato group 1.

Many years ago now the navy rightly or wrongly decided it combat power would be solely centred on the carrier group and in having 2 allows to an extent a constant deployable capability. 4 type 23 and 4 type 45 plus 2 tankers and 2 stores shipsare more than enough to support such a group in the highest form of conflict, that is an enemy able to attack simultaneously from air, surface or sub surface. If we face such an enemy this group deploys like the US does with its carrier groups and like them the group can undertake a number of tasks in any region it’s deployed to detaching an escort or to as and when required.

We then get to what else we wish to do and how to do it. Imo engagement, presence, control and security in support of allies it something that can and should happen and I think it should come in very different form and scale to most here but thats fine it’s only an opinion. It’s an area where persistence is key and intelligence of what’s going on in the whole domain is important. It’s a function to provide engagement with allies, early warning of trouble, and provide the logistics necessary to facilitate the arrival of the carrier group or air or ground force.

Each area will differ and each need different tools but having payloads of specialist troops, subsurface, surface, air vehicles able to preform a variety of intelligent gathering, communication, engineering, medical, security, hydrographic and mine clearance activities along with various disaster relief capabilities inherent to such payloads is to use a large vessel with good hotel facilities as a host. The recent use of the 3 bays being the best example, in gulf as a base for marines and mcm activities for extended periods, in the Caribbean as a both a disaster relief and maritime security vessel hosting us coastguard helicopters and small craft, and in the Baltic in full on amphibious war-fighting configuration. Same base platform who’s role changes depending on what is embarked imo the future of the non blue water fleet. Something along the lines of US navy LX (r) type vessel probably ideal in the long term around perhaps 6-8 vessels and priority investing in the specialist and payloads needed to make it happen and testing them with the present fleet.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 23 Jun 2019, 15:28

SW1 wrote:
Repulse wrote:But the UK wants (and IMO has a responsibility) to be a global partner it also has through its BOTs to provide security outside of the North Atlantic. As such, as you state 8 is not sufficient.

Each area will differ and each need different tools but having payloads of specialist troops, subsurface, surface, air vehicles able to preform a variety of intelligent gathering, communication, engineering, medical, security, hydrographic and mine clearance activities along with various disaster relief capabilities inherent to such payloads is to use a large vessel with good hotel facilities as a host. The recent use of the 3 bays being the best example, in gulf as a base for marines and mcm activities for extended periods, in the Caribbean as a both a disaster relief and maritime security vessel hosting us coastguard helicopters and small craft, and in the Baltic in full on amphibious war-fighting configuration. Same base platform who’s role changes depending on what is embarked imo the future of the non blue water fleet. Something along the lines of US navy LX (r) type vessel probably ideal in the long term around perhaps 6-8 vessels and priority investing in the specialist and payloads needed to make it happen and testing them with the present fleet.


This is the sort of vessel idea I put forward on the amphibious thread when discussing the Albion and Bay replacements.

I went for the idea of a common base hull ideally the BAE MARS SSS design ( if chosen for the SSS ) configured in 3 different formats

1 - the standard SSS that we see
2 - ab LPD format with a very similar set up to the Albion’s but with a large hanger
3 - and LSD set, think of a bay class with with a decent size hanger with a large flight deck to the rear and a large work deck with 2 large cranes forwards.

If a couple more of these bay formats could be brought to partly replace the MCMs and contribute towards the security role then we’d be in a nice place.

5 of a vessel that is what something like this would do nicely
200m by 30m
Twin merlin flight deck
Triple merlin hanger
Large reinforce work deck with 2 40t cranes
A 2 LCU well dock
4 dividends for LCVP size vessel maned or unmanned
Accommodation for 350 on top of the crew.

5 of these plus 2 LPD variant and 2-3 SSSv variants based on the common hull and basic design could give economy of scale, this if what the US of doing with the LX based on the San Antonio design.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3048
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Jun 2019, 16:42

I must agree that we would do better to go for two additional T-26 than the five T-31e and possible up gun the B" rivers for duty in areas where the latter may have been stationed other than the Gulf. Even better we should look upon the T-26 as an evolving platform, and I am going to be repeating myself here but I think the second batch of hulls four to eight should be a revised design with two additional Mk41vls and the "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor removed. The third batch of hulls nine and ten could either be a repeat of the Batch 2 or a further revised design based on lessons already learnt form vessels already in service. Yes this would mean a reduction in the number of Escorts available, but as has been pointed out a we do not use the Nineteen we already have so such a reduction may not have the impact many believe it would. I wouldn't stop there though, I would keep building vessels based on the T-26 platform beyond the ten mentioned above with their capabilities evolving over time as technology improves and this would include a replacement of the T-45. If the Batch 2 has five Mk-41 VLS that allows for 40 SM-2/3/6 and of the mission bay was reduced in an AAW variant you could possibly install at least another four standard Length Mk-41s increase the load out to 72 area SAMs or a combination of these and other weapons including Sea Ceptor. So in a nut shell I believe we need to double down on both the T-26 and Mk41 VLS as the future of the RNs Escort force.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 23 Jun 2019, 17:21

Lord Jim wrote:I must agree that we would do better to go for two additional T-26 than the five T-31e and possible up gun the B" rivers for duty in areas where the latter may have been stationed other than the Gulf. Even better we should look upon the T-26 as an evolving platform, and I am going to be repeating myself here but I think the second batch of hulls four to eight should be a revised design with two additional Mk41vls and the "Mushroom" launchers for Sea Ceptor removed. The third batch of hulls nine and ten could either be a repeat of the Batch 2 or a further revised design based on lessons already learnt form vessels already in service. Yes this would mean a reduction in the number of Escorts available, but as has been pointed out a we do not use the Nineteen we already have so such a reduction may not have the impact many believe it would. I wouldn't stop there though, I would keep building vessels based on the T-26 platform beyond the ten mentioned above with their capabilities evolving over time as technology improves and this would include a replacement of the T-45. If the Batch 2 has five Mk-41 VLS that allows for 40 SM-2/3/6 and of the mission bay was reduced in an AAW variant you could possibly install at least another four standard Length Mk-41s increase the load out to 72 area SAMs or a combination of these and other weapons including Sea Ceptor. So in a nut shell I believe we need to double down on both the T-26 and Mk41 VLS as the future of the RNs Escort force.


Why reduce or omit the mission bay for an AAW variant for the T45 replacement when off board system is the way things are going.

It would be pretty simple to add a mid ship plug of around 15m between the superstructure and the funnel, this gives you the extra space needed for the larger number of VLS for AAW but keeps the mission space that could become vital in the future, it’ll also allow greater growth margins.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Digger22, Rambo and 17 guests

 

 

cron