Roders96 wrote:Would it be beneficial for the RN to exchange 2 future T26 for 4 Up gunned T31 (with towed sonar) and another squadron of Merlins during the current review?
Interesting point. Although I think
- cost of 4 Up gunned T31 (with towed sonar, say T31B2) will amount as much as 2 more T26,
- and thus no more Merlins will come.
Anyway I think the comparison is not meaningless. (but not sure if it is fruitful). It will all depend on what level of ASW will be preferred. As 2 out of the remaining 6 T26 will do TAPS task, a CSG will on-average have only 1.33 T26 and 1.33 T31B2, in addition to 2 T45 (if the 5 original T31 be used for GP roles).
This means, CSG will have 4 escorts in 1 out of 3 deployments, and 5 escorts in 2 out of 3 deployments.
Am I right in thinking that the main benefits from the quiet hulled T26 are incurred when it is hunting subs at range from the CBG? If so, it's not likely both T26s will do this at the same time, and possibly not worth the extra cost.
Not sure, but as the 9 Merlins onboard QNLZ (or POW) themselves are a top-ranked ASW asset, I understand 2 T26 will be forward located, to enjoy quiet environment to hunt subs. The powerful "ping" of S2087 will be detectable from hundreds of miles away, so not locating T26 near the CVs is a better way to go, as well.
Anyway, T31B2 idea itself will be fine if ASW threat is low. But not if ASW is the key = depends on where to deploy.
Another aspect is that, we need BAE Clyde to survive until T45 replacements. Losing 2 T26 means ~4 years of gaps, in turn means Clyde needs ~£880M of investment (in ~2010 money, ref TOBA). "One more T26 unit" (not the average cost) will be less than this cost. So, in this case, the 4 more T31B2, at least 2 of them, must be built in Clyde. If not, Clyde will just disappear...