Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

Why will the type 31 need more crew as I keep saying the IH class a full fat AAW frigate has a crew of 118 not including the aircrew

Can proper damage control be achieved on a 138m Frigate with less than 118 crew!

Just my opinion but I am expecting the allocation to be around 130 plus specialists for all the off-board systems etc. Something like a reduction of around 25% compared to a T23GP.

Nowhere near enough to crew a new class of five T31B2 or T32.

[Tempest414]

Why will the type 31 need more crew as I keep saying the IH class a full fat AAW frigate has a crew of 118 not including the aircrew

Can proper damage control be achieved on a 138m Frigate with less than 118 crew!

Just my opinion but I am expecting the allocation to be around 130 plus specialists for all the off-board systems etc. Something like a reduction of around 25% compared to a T23GP.

Nowhere near enough to crew a new class of five T31B2 or T32.

When the Danish navy undertook FOST the first time with a IH class they tuned up with a crew of 105 it was found that a crew of 118 was need to fight the ship and control damage

But you still have not told me why more crew will be needed for a AH-140 based T-32 over a T-31

[Poiuytrewq]

But you still have not told me why more crew will be needed for a AH-140 based T-32 over a T-31

Do you mean a T31 Batch 2?

[Tempest414]

But you still have not told me why more crew will be needed for a AH-140 based T-32 over a T-31

Do you mean a T31 Batch 2?

what I mean is the the model that Babcock put out of a AH-140 with missions bays

[Poiuytrewq]

what I mean is the the model that Babcock put out of a AH-140 with missions bays

Core is core but I think the point that is often missed is that core is a baseline that will always be added too. The modular and off-board systems will require specialists to operate them plus an EMF to utilise them which will continually enlarge the allocation.

If the T32 is ultimately an enhanced AH-140 with the added mission space and containerised TAS then core + flight + specialists + EMF could easily be ballpark 200.

[Tempest414]

what I mean is the the model that Babcock put out of a AH-140 with missions bays

Core is core but I think the point that is often missed is that core is a baseline that will always be added too. The modular and off-board systems will require specialists to operate them plus an EMF to utilise them which will continually enlarge the allocation.

If the T32 is ultimately an enhanced AH-140 with the added mission space and containerised TAS then core + flight + specialists + EMF could easily be ballpark 200.

Yes but this not the ships crew. the ships crew is the ships crew the number of crew needed to fight the ship and control any damage the specialist teams will move on and off the ship as needed weather this is MCM , EMF , helicopter , UAV's , and so on these people come from other parts of the Navy so helicopter and UAV crews come form the FAA the EMF from the RM and so on

[Poiuytrewq]

Yes but this not the ships crew. the ships crew is the ships crew the number of crew needed to fight the ship and control any damage the specialist teams will move on and off the ship as needed weather this is MCM , EMF , helicopter , UAV's , and so on these people come from other parts of the Navy so helicopter and UAV crews come form the FAA the EMF from the RM and so on

I accept your point but I’m not sure it matters what they are called or where they come from. They all count towards the overall headcount and they cost money. That affects the budget especially as pay and conditions continue to improve faster than the budget is increased.

I agree that the core number continues to be pushed as a justification to build more ships but the core is only a foundation and the specialists will be the most expensive element of the crew.

[Tempest414]

Yes but this not the ships crew. the ships crew is the ships crew the number of crew needed to fight the ship and control any damage the specialist teams will move on and off the ship as needed weather this is MCM , EMF , helicopter , UAV's , and so on these people come from other parts of the Navy so helicopter and UAV crews come form the FAA the EMF from the RM and so on

I accept your point but I’m not sure it matters what they are called or where they come from. They all count towards the overall headcount and they cost money. That affects the budget especially as pay and conditions continue to improve faster than the budget is increased.

I agree that the core number continues to be pushed as a justification to build more ships but the core is only a foundation and the specialists will be the most expensive element of the crew.

It is not about pushing anything it is about knowing where specialists are coming from the specialists will be there weather the ship is or not

It is like the talk of the Echo's and Hunts they have gone but there specialists have moved to the new RFA's and land based Unmanned systems to do there jobs

[Poiuytrewq]

It is not about pushing anything it is about knowing where specialists are coming from the specialists will be there weather the ship is or not

It is like the talk of the Echo's and Hunts they have gone but there specialists have moved to the new RFA's and land based Unmanned systems to do there jobs

I agree with you but much of the Hunt/Echo allocation will be transferred to Sterling Castle, 2x MROSS and the 3x LSVs in time.

What we don’t know is whether the deletion of the LPDs were due to provide the crew for the mission spaces in the T32s. If so the 6x MRSS direction of travel begins to look more coherent if still highly questionable.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Yes but this not the ships crew. the ships crew is the ships crew the number of crew needed to fight the ship and control any damage the specialist teams will move on and off the ship as needed weather this is MCM , EMF , helicopter , UAV's , and so on these people come from other parts of the Navy so helicopter and UAV crews come form the FAA the EMF from the RM and so on

I accept your point but I’m not sure it matters what they are called or where they come from. They all count towards the overall headcount and they cost money. That affects the budget especially as pay and conditions continue to improve faster than the budget is increased.

I agree that the core number continues to be pushed as a justification to build more ships but the core is only a foundation and the specialists will be the most expensive element of the crew.

It is not about pushing anything it is about knowing where specialists are coming from the specialists will be there weather the ship is or not
It is like the talk of the Echo's and Hunts they have gone but there specialists have moved to the new RFA's and land based Unmanned systems to do there jobs

Where are those specialists now? We see many MCM specialist waiting on their bench for the other 6-sets of MCM USV and 3-4 LSV coming? Currently they have nothing to do (because these assets are yet to come), so why not operate HMS Enterprise and Echo?

Neither is happening.

I understand there is not enough specialist there. The remaining "6-sets of MCM USV and 3-4 LSV (of MCH-blk2)" requires the remaining Hunts' crew. And, current 6-sets of MCM USVs (of MCH-blk1), not fully operational yet, is requiring all Sandowns to be decommissioned. In other word, even if T31 or T26 are to operate something from their mission bay and/or flight deck, they need to find the crew to do it.


When HMS Trent and Forth are in repair, why not RN used HMS Enterprise to cover patrol?
When surplus escort crew is there, why not RN form another "double-crewed" escort to relax the burden of the RN escort crews to make their life easy?

I understand there is not enough crew there. Only 11-sets of escort crew team can be formed now. A year before, I understand RN was manning 11 escorts, with 12 escort crews. Now it is 11 escort crew-teams, and no other ships are "coming back". This is what we observe.

[Tempest414]

The 2 Echos specialist's are now going to RFA Proteus as you say the remaining Hunt and Sandown crews will work up on new MCM kit as it comes on line

All helicopter Bobs are specialist crews in this term

As the MCM and hydrographic will be in teams these teams can work from host ships weather that is a OPV a Castle class or a T-26 / 32 this is not that hard to get a grip of

the same will happen with UAV teams and so on with the idea that any team can work from any ship that can support them

So no the Echos could not have covered for the B2 in the Caribbean

[Tempest414]

Also the RN are nursing the T-23's the end no need to double crew them it would only kill them off quicker the fact is at this time with these ships we don't need more crew teams as there are no ships to put them on

[wargame_insomniac]

Why will the type 31 need more crew as I keep saying the IH class a full fat AAW frigate has a crew of 118 not including the aircrew

Can proper damage control be achieved on a 138m Frigate with less than 118 crew!

Just my opinion but I am expecting the allocation to be around 130 plus specialists for all the off-board systems etc. Something like a reduction of around 25% compared to a T23GP.

Nowhere near enough to crew a new class of five T31B2 or T32.

I certainly agree that we can't afford the 5*T31B2 / T31, both in terms of current lack of budget available to build them, and the current lack crew to man them. So I think 24 escorts is an unlikely pipedream for this decade - unlikely before mid 2030s if not longer.

I am concerned about resilience - I believe that in the long term 19 escorts is too tight (even though we are well below that number of escorts now operational in the short term due to PIP / LIFEX / other maintenance). I think that you have suggested in earlier posts in both Escorts thread and Amphib thread that we should assume that we are in a position where 1 or 2 ships from each Class are out of action with planned or unplanned maintenance (hopefully less for the newer ships as they have not yet been run ragged by being pushed beyond their planned service dates).

So if 24 escorts is too ambitious, and 19 escorts is too tight in the long term (when factoring in not just refits, service and maintenance but also to cover potential combat losses if global tensions continie to escalate (and we have to plan cautiously and in that long term viewpoint because these ships take so long to build and then commission), then IMO having even 21 escorts would help give us a bit more resilience. I have said before that if the RN got additional funds, then I would be happy if we could add even one additional ship to both th T26 and T31 orders, to give 9 and 6 respectively.

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers). If we could upgrade even half of my hoped for six T31 hulls, these three upgraded T31 would be useful, with one ship covering each of FRE, LRG (N) and LRG(S), thus freeing up the T26 and T45 to focus on their ideal ASW / AAW missions.
Then any un-upgraded T31 IMO would still prove useful in the Persian Gulf, and either Gulf of Oman or Med, contributing to patrolling with our allies to keep these important global sea-lanes clear (with one assumed to be potentially in refits, service and maintenance).

[Digger22]

Following T45 PIP, you would imagine they should be capable of pulling 35+ years service.
3 T31 Batch 2 with a commitment to To 8 AAW Destroyers would give us a mix Of 8 of each Tier. Three 5 ship Escort groups with 9 in Refit/Maintenance/Training or individually tasked, would give Balance to the Surface fleet. IMO.

[Tempest414]

Why will the type 31 need more crew as I keep saying the IH class a full fat AAW frigate has a crew of 118 not including the aircrew

Can proper damage control be achieved on a 138m Frigate with less than 118 crew!

Just my opinion but I am expecting the allocation to be around 130 plus specialists for all the off-board systems etc. Something like a reduction of around 25% compared to a T23GP.

Nowhere near enough to crew a new class of five T31B2 or T32.

I certainly agree that we can't afford the 5*T31B2 / T31, both in terms of current lack of budget available to build them, and the current lack crew to man them. So I think 24 escorts is an unlikely pipedream for this decade - unlikely before mid 2030s if not longer.

I am concerned about resilience - I believe that in the long term 19 escorts is too tight (even though we are well below that number of escorts now operational in the short term due to PIP / LIFEX / other maintenance). I think that you have suggested in earlier posts in both Escorts thread and Amphib thread that we should assume that we are in a position where 1 or 2 ships from each Class are out of action with planned or unplanned maintenance (hopefully less for the newer ships as they have not yet been run ragged by being pushed beyond their planned service dates).

So if 24 escorts is too ambitious, and 19 escorts is too tight in the long term (when factoring in not just refits, service and maintenance but also to cover potential combat losses if global tensions continie to escalate (and we have to plan cautiously and in that long term viewpoint because these ships take so long to build and then commission), then IMO having even 21 escorts would help give us a bit more resilience. I have said before that if the RN got additional funds, then I would be happy if we could add even one additional ship to both th T26 and T31 orders, to give 9 and 6 respectively.

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers). If we could upgrade even half of my hoped for six T31 hulls, these three upgraded T31 would be useful, with one ship covering each of FRE, LRG (N) and LRG(S), thus freeing up the T26 and T45 to focus on their ideal ASW / AAW missions.
Then any un-upgraded T31 IMO would still prove useful in the Persian Gulf, and either Gulf of Oman or Med, contributing to patrolling with our allies to keep these important global sea-lanes clear (with one assumed to be potentially in refits, service and maintenance).

You would clearly want a full fat ASW Type 26 which at today's price is 846 million with questions over who is paying for supply and fit of the second hand TAS and Radar but we can safely say one extra T-26ASW wont move the dial on cost.

We need to find the sweet spot on Type 31 which for me would be a Type 31 fitted with 20 CAMM , 16 Mk-41 , 8 x NSM , and a S2150 HMS. If we say that CAMM is included in the 268 million unit cost of T-31 then we are looking at adding 16 MK-41's = 20 million , 8 x NSM =20 million and a HMS = 10 million which would bring the cost of Type 31+ to 316 million

This would mean the cost of the two ships would be 1.16 billion . I see a need for no less than 7 T-31's so I would push for 2 extra with the last 4 ships being fitted to T-31+ standard and the first 3 ships being upgraded to have 32 Mushroom CAMM and 16 NSM plus a HMS at there first refit giving a escort fleet of 22

[NickC]

Following T45 PIP, you would imagine they should be capable of pulling 35+ years service.
3 T31 Batch 2 with a commitment to To 8 AAW Destroyers would give us a mix Of 8 of each Tier. Three 5 ship Escort groups with 9 in Refit/Maintenance/Training or individually tasked, would give Balance to the Surface fleet. IMO.

Not so sanguine as you, tech moves on at ever faster pace, the recently announced Mid Life Upgrade of the French and Italian Horizon AAW Frigates, exactly same era as T45 and they think it worth the expense to replace its 20 year old gen radars, the Thales/Marconi S1850M (based on the SMART–L) and Leonardo EMPAR C-band (developed with Marconi) with the new generation AESA and GaN radars, the Thales SMART–L MM/N and Leonardo Kronus Grand Navy C-band and also its Combat System Modernization (Anti Air Warfare integration, new electronic warfare, new communication, new combat management system, upgrade and obsolescence treatment, new optronics) & also platform modernization.

As understand the T45 will not be replacing the legacy Marconi/Thales S1850M (SMART-L) with the new gen SMART-L MM/N as on the MLU Horizon frigates and the BAE AESA Sampson will not be updating its T/R modules from GaAs to the much more powerful and efficient GaN modules, though MoD recently did place contract with BAE for its RN radars, S1850M, Sampson and Artisan which included £50 million for upgrades, no details given.

PS Sweden has just awarded a contract for the land based Thales SMART-L MM radars (no numbers quoted) to value of one billion kroner ~£72 million.

[shark bait]

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers).

This is too much. The T31 is clearly a second tier escort, which means it needs to balance being cheap to run with being useful at the same time. The current design, plus the expected Mk41 VLS, is close to optimal for the second tier. It's big and has a good suite of guns making it a good security frigate, and the VLS elevates it to a proper combat frigate.

The sonar is a bit of a let down, but I'm beginning to see it as reasonable because it keeps it firmly in the second tier, which keeps the ship cheap to run. In extenuating circumstances, aircraft should be the solution to the sonar problem, but day to day the T31s must be un-intensive to run, enabling lots of days at sea, and more focus on the top tier carrier group.

[Poiuytrewq]

I certainly agree that we can't afford the 5*T31B2 / T31, both in terms of current lack of budget available to build them, and the current lack crew to man them. So I think 24 escorts is an unlikely pipedream for this decade - unlikely before mid 2030s if not longer.

If RN is going to shred the Amphibious fleet and RM to achieve it then it’s not worth it. I think 24 escorts is a good ambition when properly funded, not before.

Downgrading the fighting strength of the Royal Marines is ludicrous for a country with an expeditionary armed forces. Its runs contrary to the stated aims and ambitions and therefore it should not be attempted.

Basing the UKs maritime strategy around a CSG is sound but not at the expense of everything else.

I am concerned about resilience - I believe that in the long term 19 escorts is too tight (even though we are well below that number of escorts now operational in the short term due to PIP / LIFEX / other maintenance). I think that you have suggested in earlier posts in both Escorts thread and Amphib thread that we should assume that we are in a position where 1 or 2 ships from each Class are out of action with planned or unplanned maintenance (hopefully less for the newer ships as they have not yet been run ragged by being pushed beyond their planned service dates).

Resilience takes many forms but the one that is often forgotten in long periods of relative peace is attrition. To a certain extent NATO is to blame because politicians can run the argument of allies always overcoming the UK deficiencies.

The “Pacific Tilt” changes all that because NATO must not get involved in that region. Therefore AUKUS is a self reliant group that needs to get its ducks in a row and fast. If it goes kinetic in the Indo-Pacific will any other European country get involved? I wouldn’t bet on it so the UK needs to once again plan for peer on peer attritional conflicts where self reliance is paramount whilst continuing to operate with allies.

What is the UK actually able to contribute in the Indo-Pacific? THAT is why LRG(S) is so important because the UK can do little else apart from occasional singleton Frigates/OPVs and a CSG once every 2-3years. An Amphibious Group operating primarily in the Indian Ocean and East Africa with the ability to push further East if required would be a massive boost to allies in the region.

So if 24 escorts is too ambitious, and 19 escorts is too tight in the long term (when factoring in not just refits, service and maintenance but also to cover potential combat losses if global tensions continie to escalate (and we have to plan cautiously and in that long term viewpoint because these ships take so long to build and then commission), then IMO having even 21 escorts would help give us a bit more resilience. I have said before that if the RN got additional funds, then I would be happy if we could add even one additional ship to both th T26 and T31 orders, to give 9 and 6 respectively.

The balance is important but in some respects the T31 is now potentially more capable than the T26 for 50-60% of the cost. Albeit the ASW capability will never be comparable.

If configured correctly a T31B2 could embark:

- One Merlin or Two Wildcat.
- 32x Mk41 cells
- 48 CAMM in B position
- 16x NSM
- 2150 and 2087 sonars
- 2x 15m craft
- 2x RHIBs
- Accommodation for 100+ EMF and/or specialists.

This would be one of the most capable Frigates afloat.

Therefore IMO the most prudent way to proceed is,

8x T26
8x T31B2
6x T45 followed by 8x T83

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers). If we could upgrade even half of my hoped for six T31 hulls, these three upgraded T31 would be useful, with one ship covering each of FRE, LRG (N) and LRG(S), thus freeing up the T26 and T45 to focus on their ideal ASW / AAW missions.
Then any un-upgraded T31 IMO would still prove useful in the Persian Gulf, and either Gulf of Oman or Med, contributing to patrolling with our allies to keep these important global sea-lanes clear (with one assumed to be potentially in refits, service and maintenance).

Exactly, forward basing at Duqm puts LRG(S) almost equidistant between two major choke points in the region. Properly funded RN could have a sizeable force EoS for example, within 2 years RN could forward deploy:

1x LPD
1x Bay
Argus
1x T23
2x RB2
2x Waves
1x LSV (for Kipion)

It would only take political will which appears to be in short supply. Regardless of all the other considerations of which there are many, the UK can do a lot more, very rapidly, if HMG pulled the funding lever.

[SW1]

I certainly agree that we can't afford the 5*T31B2 / T31, both in terms of current lack of budget available to build them, and the current lack crew to man them. So I think 24 escorts is an unlikely pipedream for this decade - unlikely before mid 2030s if not longer.

If RN is going to shred the Amphibious fleet and RM to achieve it then it’s not worth it. I think 24 escorts is a good ambition when properly funded, not before.

Downgrading the fighting strength of the Royal Marines is ludicrous for a country with an expeditionary armed forces. Its runs contrary to the stated aims and ambitions and therefore it should not be attempted.

Basing the UKs maritime strategy around a CSG is sound but not at the expense of everything else.

I am concerned about resilience - I believe that in the long term 19 escorts is too tight (even though we are well below that number of escorts now operational in the short term due to PIP / LIFEX / other maintenance). I think that you have suggested in earlier posts in both Escorts thread and Amphib thread that we should assume that we are in a position where 1 or 2 ships from each Class are out of action with planned or unplanned maintenance (hopefully less for the newer ships as they have not yet been run ragged by being pushed beyond their planned service dates).

Resilience takes many forms but the one that is often forgotten in long periods of relative peace is attrition. To a certain extent NATO is to blame because politicians can run the argument of allies always overcoming the UK deficiencies.

The “Pacific Tilt” changes all that because NATO must not get involved in that region. Therefore AUKUS is a self reliant group that needs to get its ducks in a row and fast. If it goes kinetic in the Indo-Pacific will any other European country get involved? I wouldn’t bet on it so the UK needs to once again plan for peer on peer attritional conflicts where self reliance is paramount whilst continuing to operate with allies.

What is the UK actually able to contribute in the Indo-Pacific? THAT is why LRG(S) is so important because the UK can do little else apart from occasional singleton Frigates/OPVs and a CSG once every 2-3years. An Amphibious Group operating primarily in the Indian Ocean and East Africa with the ability to push further East if required would be a massive boost to allies in the region.

So if 24 escorts is too ambitious, and 19 escorts is too tight in the long term (when factoring in not just refits, service and maintenance but also to cover potential combat losses if global tensions continie to escalate (and we have to plan cautiously and in that long term viewpoint because these ships take so long to build and then commission), then IMO having even 21 escorts would help give us a bit more resilience. I have said before that if the RN got additional funds, then I would be happy if we could add even one additional ship to both th T26 and T31 orders, to give 9 and 6 respectively.

The balance is important but in some respects the T31 is now potentially more capable than the T26 for 50-60% of the cost. Albeit the ASW capability will never be comparable.

If configured correctly a T31B2 could embark:

- One Merlin or Two Wildcat.
- 32x Mk41 cells
- 48 CAMM in B position
- 16x NSM
- 2150 and 2087 sonars
- 2x 15m craft
- 2x RHIBs
- Accommodation for 100+ EMF and/or specialists.

This would be one of the most capable Frigates afloat.

Therefore IMO the most prudent way to proceed is,

8x T26
8x T31B2
6x T45 followed by 8x T83

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers). If we could upgrade even half of my hoped for six T31 hulls, these three upgraded T31 would be useful, with one ship covering each of FRE, LRG (N) and LRG(S), thus freeing up the T26 and T45 to focus on their ideal ASW / AAW missions.
Then any un-upgraded T31 IMO would still prove useful in the Persian Gulf, and either Gulf of Oman or Med, contributing to patrolling with our allies to keep these important global sea-lanes clear (with one assumed to be potentially in refits, service and maintenance).

Exactly, forward basing at Duqm puts LRG(S) almost equidistant between two major choke points in the region. Properly funded RN could have a sizeable force EoS for example, within 2 years RN could forward deploy:

1x LPD
1x Bay
Argus
1x T23
2x RB2
2x Waves
1x LSV (for Kipion)

It would only take political will which appears to be in short supply. Regardless of all the other considerations of which there are many, the UK can do a lot more, very rapidly, if HMG pulled the funding lever.

Downgrading the Royal Marines and the rest of the fleet at the expense of the carrier program has been the RN process for 15 years now.


How much would the Uk get involved in a “kinetic” Pacific conflict? a limited ssn involvement would be our main contribution maybe a ship attached to a us task group can’t see much more tbh. More likely the US would request increased presence in the Atlantic or gulf to free US assets.

AUKUS is not a military alliance it is an industrial/technology program to supply Australia with an SSN capability.

Between the US, Japan, Korea, Canada and Australian there is more capability in the region than arguably European NATO provides so a “tilt” doesn’t really change anything from an attrition point of view.

[shark bait]

How much would the Uk get involved in a “kinetic” Pacific conflict?

The Navy has to do it. The value of a Navy is going and staying anywhere in the world at short notice.

Neither the RAF or the Army can't do that, so the Navy has to demonstrate it's USP and stay relevant in the eyes of the government.

[SW1]

How much would the Uk get involved in a “kinetic” Pacific conflict?

The Navy has to do it. The value of a Navy is going and staying anywhere in the world at short notice.

Neither the RAF or the Army can't do that, so the Navy has to demonstrate it's USP and stay relevant in the eyes of the government.

Really the army has been permanently garrisoned in the Asia Pacific for decades the navy hasn’t.

And the airforce can be anywhere in the world in 48hrs from the UK.

[shark bait]

It would take well over a year for a combat ready Army to deploy somewhere like Vietnam for example.

The RAF could move one squadron quickly, but only with the permission of other nations.

The Navy is the only one that can move quickly, and totally independently. That's the reason why the Navy exists.

[SW1]

It would take well over a year for a combat ready Army to deploy somewhere like Vietnam for example.

The RAF could move one squadron quickly, but only with the permission of other nations.

The Navy is the only one that can move quickly, and totally independently. That's the reason why the Navy exists.

The Gurkha unit in Brunei took turns in Afghanistan. It can take turns elsewhere too.

You think we are going to be operating in the pacific without being hosted by a friendly country?
I’ve as much chance of winning the lottery as U.K. has of operating independent of a friendly country in the pacific.

I go further if we are not deploying in support of a friendly country we shouldn’t be going anywhere.

The navy exists to provide maritime security and to deny they security to others.

[wargame_insomniac]

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers).

This is too much. The T31 is clearly a second tier escort, which means it needs to balance being cheap to run with being useful at the same time. The current design, plus the expected Mk41 VLS, is close to optimal for the second tier. It's big and has a good suite of guns making it a good security frigate, and the VLS elevates it to a proper combat frigate.

The sonar is a bit of a let down, but I'm beginning to see it as reasonable because it keeps it firmly in the second tier, which keeps the ship cheap to run. In extenuating circumstances, aircraft should be the solution to the sonar problem, but day to day the T31s must be un-intensive to run, enabling lots of days at sea, and more focus on the top tier carrier group.

I disagree with you on upgrading some of the T31s.

Realistically the two carriers will require 2*T45 + 2*T26 asssigned to each of them so that they form a semi-permanent carrier group. i.e.the 4 escorts assigned to POWLS should assume that they have downtime for training refits and maintenance as for when their carrier is doing so.

Once T45s have undergone PIP, and that T26s have replaced the ageing T23s, then maybe we will have 1 or 2 T45s and hopefully 3 or 4 T26s available for other missions. Ideally you would want the T26s concentrating on the ASW focussed missions that they are optimised for.

Tempest has previously quoted rough purchase costs for adding Sonar, NSM Containers and CAMM and/or Mk41 VLS to upgrade the T31s. I believe the costs are low enough (even bearing in mind the higher crew costs to operate these upgrades) to make them good all-round GP Frigates with some ability against ASuW, ASW & AAW, even if for the latter two they are not as good as their more expensive dedicated escorts.

So I think such upgraded T31s will be great at helping out on missions such as FRE and escorting both LRG, able to deal with variety of threats.

Then any un-upgraded T31s will still be useful as the cheap Patrol Frigates, assisting our allies in keeping the global SLOC open for commercial shipping, their weaponry ideally suited to dealing with small boat or drone swarms, which are the likely biggest dangers from pirates or regional adversaries.

Now I think you can validly argue firstly about how many T31s get upgraded, and secondly, based on the assumption that T32 get cancelled in favour of T31B2s, how many more T31B2s should be built.

I am in favour of adding one ship at the end to both T26 and T31 builds. I believe 1 extra ship will keep both shipyards busy with work until we have a clearer idea what to follow.Also add some resilience to cover ships being not available for a active service for refits, maintenance etc. But also cheap enough to be affordable if RN uses the budget of 5*T32.

But I am not bothered if 21 or 22 escorts is the likely sweet spot, if 19 is too tight and 24 is too optimistic.

[wargame_insomniac]

I certainly agree that we can't afford the 5*T31B2 / T31, both in terms of current lack of budget available to build them, and the current lack crew to man them. So I think 24 escorts is an unlikely pipedream for this decade - unlikely before mid 2030s if not longer.

If RN is going to shred the Amphibious fleet and RM to achieve it then it’s not worth it. I think 24 escorts is a good ambition when properly funded, not before.

Downgrading the fighting strength of the Royal Marines is ludicrous for a country with an expeditionary armed forces. Its runs contrary to the stated aims and ambitions and therefore it should not be attempted.

Basing the UKs maritime strategy around a CSG is sound but not at the expense of everything else.

I am concerned about resilience - I believe that in the long term 19 escorts is too tight (even though we are well below that number of escorts now operational in the short term due to PIP / LIFEX / other maintenance). I think that you have suggested in earlier posts in both Escorts thread and Amphib thread that we should assume that we are in a position where 1 or 2 ships from each Class are out of action with planned or unplanned maintenance (hopefully less for the newer ships as they have not yet been run ragged by being pushed beyond their planned service dates).

Resilience takes many forms but the one that is often forgotten in long periods of relative peace is attrition. To a certain extent NATO is to blame because politicians can run the argument of allies always overcoming the UK deficiencies.

The “Pacific Tilt” changes all that because NATO must not get involved in that region. Therefore AUKUS is a self reliant group that needs to get its ducks in a row and fast. If it goes kinetic in the Indo-Pacific will any other European country get involved? I wouldn’t bet on it so the UK needs to once again plan for peer on peer attritional conflicts where self reliance is paramount whilst continuing to operate with allies.

What is the UK actually able to contribute in the Indo-Pacific? THAT is why LRG(S) is so important because the UK can do little else apart from occasional singleton Frigates/OPVs and a CSG once every 2-3years. An Amphibious Group operating primarily in the Indian Ocean and East Africa with the ability to push further East if required would be a massive boost to allies in the region.

So if 24 escorts is too ambitious, and 19 escorts is too tight in the long term (when factoring in not just refits, service and maintenance but also to cover potential combat losses if global tensions continie to escalate (and we have to plan cautiously and in that long term viewpoint because these ships take so long to build and then commission), then IMO having even 21 escorts would help give us a bit more resilience. I have said before that if the RN got additional funds, then I would be happy if we could add even one additional ship to both th T26 and T31 orders, to give 9 and 6 respectively.

The balance is important but in some respects the T31 is now potentially more capable than the T26 for 50-60% of the cost. Albeit the ASW capability will never be comparable.

If configured correctly a T31B2 could embark:

- One Merlin or Two Wildcat.
- 32x Mk41 cells
- 48 CAMM in B position
- 16x NSM
- 2150 and 2087 sonars
- 2x 15m craft
- 2x RHIBs
- Accommodation for 100+ EMF and/or specialists.

This would be one of the most capable Frigates afloat.

Therefore IMO the most prudent way to proceed is,

8x T26
8x T31B2
6x T45 followed by 8x T83

Focussing on the T31, then if they can be given even modest upgrades (I am still hoping for a sonar, 8 NSM containers each and adding either more CAMM or Mk41 VLS launchers). If we could upgrade even half of my hoped for six T31 hulls, these three upgraded T31 would be useful, with one ship covering each of FRE, LRG (N) and LRG(S), thus freeing up the T26 and T45 to focus on their ideal ASW / AAW missions.
Then any un-upgraded T31 IMO would still prove useful in the Persian Gulf, and either Gulf of Oman or Med, contributing to patrolling with our allies to keep these important global sea-lanes clear (with one assumed to be potentially in refits, service and maintenance).

Exactly, forward basing at Duqm puts LRG(S) almost equidistant between two major choke points in the region. Properly funded RN could have a sizeable force EoS for example, within 2 years RN could forward deploy:

1x LPD
1x Bay
Argus
1x T23
2x RB2
2x Waves
1x LSV (for Kipion)

It would only take political will which appears to be in short supply. Regardless of all the other considerations of which there are many, the UK can do a lot more, very rapidly, if HMG pulled the funding lever.

I still feel the main thing we can do for USN is to protect the North Atlantic and up into Norwegian Sea with carrier group, SSN, T45s providing BMD, and the combination of T26s, shipbased helicopters and landbased P8 MPA and Sea / Sky Guardian drones on ASW duty.

We can also back up Australia with a more limited presence in Indian Ocean. Especially once we base an Astute SSN in Perth on rotstional duty.

But I believe Singapore is the realistic limit for which we can regularly cover. We don't have the resources of sending anything other than a token force into South China Sea. And if tensions do continue to escalate, I fear a token RN force in SCS will end as badly as the last time we attempted it, this time overwhelmed by the variety and quantity of PLAN ASuW missiles.

USN will have to rely on their bilateral treaties with Phillipines and especially Japan and South Korea and Australia to meet the main PLAN threats. But if we can help cover the Atlantiv and indian Oceans, that should allow the USN to focus on their more immediate threats.