Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Great discussion today, taken me ages to read through which is good, Glad the FSS is now a goer
As been said, probably not a lot of dosh for new suff, but atleast the black hole should get lighter...
Would it be possible to speed up the build of the T26 ( now money is a bit more certain ) say 1 per year? then slot in the T31 ? whatever it is ( fingers crossed ASW focussed ) then start on the T45 replacement
Sorry if its been suggested ( I might of missed it, D'oh )
As been said, probably not a lot of dosh for new suff, but atleast the black hole should get lighter...
Would it be possible to speed up the build of the T26 ( now money is a bit more certain ) say 1 per year? then slot in the T31 ? whatever it is ( fingers crossed ASW focussed ) then start on the T45 replacement
Sorry if its been suggested ( I might of missed it, D'oh )
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I'm all for speeding up delivery of T26, but only if the shipyard remains busy until T4X.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
“multi-role research vessels” - what are these? My bet is on the low end USV/UUV motherships - would be a perfect job for Appledore. An Echo II class anyone?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Can think of two main role options for a T32:
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
Or
- A Multirole Amphibious Support Frigate (Absalon class MkII) to support Littoral and RM operations
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
Or
- A Multirole Amphibious Support Frigate (Absalon class MkII) to support Littoral and RM operations
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
That was my immediate thought for the Type 32, a Type 31 with a big mission bay for USV's and the like that would look more along the lines of the Absalon class. Since the Iver Huitfeldt was developed from the Absalon, doing the reverse surely shouldn't be too difficult.Repulse wrote:Can think of two main role options for a T32:
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
Or
- A Multirole Amphibious Support Frigate (Absalon class MkII) to support Littoral and RM operations
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
especially asPoiuytrewq wrote:Regardless of what forms the basis of the T32 if I were Babcock I would be working hard to give HMG an alternative for the T4X programme.
SD67 wrote: frankly you're[, er someone,] never going to build a 150 metre ship efficiently in a 100 metre hall.
Looking at you, Ron. Not a 'lego ship' at all (most would say).Poiuytrewq wrote:the A140 is more than most expected at the outset.
David Davis asked the question (he was in remote) and the BBC cut off half of the answer; Boris was saying something about setting up a unit...(?)RichardIC wrote:we don't know how cobbled together today's announcement has been in usual Borisesque chaos mode.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?rhodes76 wrote: 2 more T26 bringing the total to 10
or will any speeding up just keep the door open to interleave or totally move over to the production of AAW destroyersRoders96 wrote:I'm all for speeding up delivery of T26, but only if the shipyard remains busy until T4X.
- should Babcock's offer be judged 'inferior'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
My first thought was a new polar ship because Borris wanted projects ready to start immediately which could would be possible with a derivative of the research ship.Repulse wrote:“multi-role research vessels” - what are these? My bet is on the low end USV/UUV mothership
I used to really like this idea, however I've since moved away from it because “home waters ASW" would be the perfect role to introduce some large unmanned boats to the Navy. The RN should defined use this opportunity to produce a demonstrator vehicle. The Navy needs to be bigger, but it isn't going to manage that if all the ships have a crew.Repulse wrote:Can think of two main role options for a T32:
- A “home waters” ASW frigate.
My bet, it's a ploy to give the MOD a better negotiating stance on the T31 batch 2.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Home Waters (in this context) is; THE NORTH ATLANTIC! I do not think it appropriate to give the slightest consideration to an unmanned vessel in such a place, unless you want them to fall victim to Great Whites (Icebergs that is, of course).
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
What? You think a computer cant navigate around an Iceberg?
Regardless of that, in the context of the North Artlantic I would suggest putting those boats underwater.
Regardless of that, in the context of the North Artlantic I would suggest putting those boats underwater.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
1 - Not sure but we're definitely still on track for 8. They won't stop talking about a 24 escort fleet, that won't happen if it's 5 for 2.ArmChairCivvy wrote:was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?rhodes76 wrote: 2 more T26 bringing the total to 10or will any speeding up just keep the door open to interleave or totally move over to the production of AAW destroyersRoders96 wrote:I'm all for speeding up delivery of T26, but only if the shipyard remains busy until T4X.
- should Babcock's offer be judged 'inferior'
2 - Babcock's offer comes in greater numbers, the main priority for the fleet. Numbers has a quality all of its one, it's called redundancy.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The PM said SIX T26's in answer to Anne Marie Trevelyan's question.ArmChairCivvy wrote:....was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It is all very well talking about a 24 escort fleet, however that will be pointless if the majority of those 24 ships are under armed and in particular lacking in ASW capability.
If the 5 (Batch 1?) Type 31 only come fitted with 12 CAMM, 1 x 57mm, 2 x 40mm and a Wildcat, then it is stretching credibility to call them escorts.
If the 5 (Batch 1?) Type 31 only come fitted with 12 CAMM, 1 x 57mm, 2 x 40mm and a Wildcat, then it is stretching credibility to call them escorts.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thank you!Poiuytrewq wrote:The PM said SIX T26's in answer to Anne Marie Trevelyan's question.ArmChairCivvy wrote:....was the 6 quoted in this thread a misquote?
So what I penned as further thoughts is valid.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Right now the the UK has 13 frigates and 6 Destroyers = 19 escorts the RN wants 24 meaning we need 5 more for me we should double down on what have and go for 1 more Type 26 and 4 more Type 31 and then start design work on type 4X. however if it a new design then for me it should be a carrier group only ASW design to free up type 26 something like
125 x 15 meters
good radar
good CMS
top sonar kit
Merlin capable flight deck and hangar
2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 , 8 NSM
This could allow a carrier escort group of 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-32 and a T-26 freeing up say 4 T-26 to work in pairs along UUV's in North Atlantic ASW hunting packs
125 x 15 meters
good radar
good CMS
top sonar kit
Merlin capable flight deck and hangar
2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 , 8 NSM
This could allow a carrier escort group of 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-32 and a T-26 freeing up say 4 T-26 to work in pairs along UUV's in North Atlantic ASW hunting packs
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I’d definitely double down on what we’ve got in the way you suggest, I’m not sold on the idea of a 4th escort class it just makes little sence IMO to have 4 small runs or different classes.Tempest414 wrote:Right now the the UK has 13 frigates and 6 Destroyers = 19 escorts the RN wants 24 meaning we need 5 more for me we should double down on what have and go for 1 more Type 26 and 4 more Type 31 and then start design work on type 4X. however if it a new design then for me it should be a carrier group only ASW design to free up type 26 something like
125 x 15 meters
good radar
good CMS
top sonar kit
Merlin capable flight deck and hangar
2 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , 24 Mk-41 , 8 NSM
This could allow a carrier escort group of 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-32 and a T-26 freeing up say 4 T-26 to work in pairs along UUV's in North Atlantic ASW hunting packs
Having said that to me if a “new” design is needed I’d go for a shrunk down T26, take the design lay out a great ASW hull form in to a smaller hull.
I’d go with something like this ( keep in mind T26 hull form and lay out )
Length - 130m
Beam - 18-19m
Displacement - 5,500t
Merlin flight deck
Merlin hanger
Divedents for 2 Rhibs / unmanned
Hull + tow sonar
6 ExLS
16 Mk41
Triple 57mm
Something of this set up with a T26 hull form could sell well for smaller navies like RNZN, Brazil, Singapore, Greece.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
For me we need to keep it simple one extra T-26 and four T-31's would give the RN 6 x AAW Destroyers , 9 x Global Combat frigates and 9 x Global Patrol frigates . My other preferred option would have been 14 Multi mission sloops at a cost per ship of 140 million = 2 billion
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1756
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Does anyone actually have an official source for this "24" escorts figure?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Felt like it came from one of those news articles on it rather than the Gov announcement.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I suspect 24 comes from 13 type 23, 6 type 45 and 5 river 2 and a hope to replace the 5 river 2 with a frigate at a later date. There is a danger of this turning into a navy equivalent of the army vehicle fleets of fleets and a maintenance and logistical nightmare 10 years down the line. A continual drum beat and evolution of type 31 and type 26 would seem appropriate as both designs have plenty of room to spare. Though I fear with shopping lists coming out we are repeating the same mistakes and serving up ever greater problems dwn the line.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Surely it has to be 6 x t45, 8 x t26 and 10 x t31 derivatives; and if T4x is a t26 stretch derivative as rumored then we are basically on a sustainable path with two platforms, two yards on a steady drumbeat out to 2040+. Good result all round IMHO
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Sounds good, but can see why they want to make T32 a competitive procurement programme rather than hand it on a platter to Babcock. Having said that, one would assume that the most cost effective approach would be a T31 derivative, unless BAE come up with something reasonable based on their prior designs (Leander, Cutlass, River B3, mini T26 etc) in the right price range.SD67 wrote:Surely it has to be 6 x t45, 8 x t26 and 10 x t31 derivatives; and if T4x is a t26 stretch derivative as rumored then we are basically on a sustainable path with two platforms, two yards on a steady drumbeat out to 2040+. Good result all round IMHO
We'll see what it is that the RFI for T32 specifies in due course I guess...and in the meantime we might get an inkling from the IR when it's finally released in the new year. I still have some doubts that it will happen, but hope to be wrong, and if we can get all of the additional 5 T26 and 5 T32 contracted by 2024 I'll be happy (and surprised)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Babcock's offered a Danish ship to be built in blocks all over the UK and plugged together in Rosyth.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Looking at you, Ron. Not a 'lego ship' at all (most would say).
Being an intelligent and witty individual, I named the ship the Lego frigate.
You, not being either, have never understood the joke.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
All boats can go underwater, some more than onceshark bait wrote:What? You think a computer cant navigate around an Iceberg?
Regardless of that, in the context of the North Artlantic I would suggest putting those boats underwater.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I'm not sure why that would be a goal.dmereifield wrote:5 T32 contracted by 2024
How about a well thought out set of requirements, a specification that matches, and preliminary design work by then?
And regarding requirements, it will be hard to do that until the requirements and subsequent changes are nailed down for the T26 Batch II. I suspect we may see some significant changes.