Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Over the time period (3-4 years) when those ships are most likely to be built, there is uncommitted budget in excess of £2.5b (thanks to @SB for quantifying exactly how much is available for purchase of new vessels etc).

To support BAE Govan/Scotstoun, Babcock Rosyth and H&W Belfast/Appledore around £1.2bn per annum is sufficient if the drumbeat is maintained. That amounts to just over 2% of annual UK defence spending. It is enough to fund all current shipbuilding commitments including the T32 at £2.5bn and MRSS at £2.4bn. The funding also allows for steady drumbeats within the official shipbuilding pipeline. Basically the funding, drumbeats and workshare distribution between yards all align with £1.2bn per annum.

If the funding is dissolving then it is clearly being used to plug holes elsewhere. If programs are being cancelled then funding is available for other programs and slots in the drumbeats are available to build it.

RN doesn’t need additional funding for shipbuilding, the priority is maintaining the drumbeats and making good, timely decisions.

Making the most of what is currently in the water should also be prioritised to ensure another decade isn’t lost whilst waiting on the new toys to arrive.

The 2% of the defence budget you keep quoting is creative accounting to make it sound small. The mod only spends a portion of the defence budget on purchasing new equipment the that’s quite a significant percentage of that.

[new guy]

The bar chart is all navy equipotent except submarines.

There is a spreadsheet that further breaks this down to just ships;
table.png

EPP & ESP?

[tomuk]

Well, if there were around £2.5b available (which seems to be a fairly common estimate of what might be available as a budget for T32) could we squeeze 2 x T26 and 3 x T31 (perhaps without Mk41) out of that? That would be a pretty straightforward path to 24 escorts (it would also give us 10 C1 & 8 C2 frigates, which sounds a bit familiar).

It doesn't free up any budget because the Type 32 has literally never had a budget. Absolutely nothing.

So precisely zero will be released for anything else.

Type 32 was thought up on the spur of the moment to bulk out the 2020 Integrated Review. Another Boris con job.

Why do you and other persist with this Boris nonsense. As testified by the now CDS the RN were going to pitch for some extra T31 during the IR process and decided T31 B2 was too boring so renamed the pitch T32 and sexed it up with some adaptability and autonomous mothership glitter.

[Caribbean]

T32 is just a placeholder for "more ships". I think most of us understand that and are speculating what form they could take, at what cost and is there any benefit to yet another class of frigate.

The basis of my comment (not particularly original, I admit) was simply to build more of the same currently in-build designs, taking advantage of economies of scale/current fixed costs to arrive at the hoped-for 24 escorts (6-8 DD & 16-18 FF), using money which could become available in future years to pay for 5 additional hulls

My back-of-a-fag-packet estimate is that it could be done for a fraction over £2.5b, excluding inflation and assuming baseline T31s w/o Mk 41.

[RichardIC]

Why do you and other persist with this Boris nonsense. As testified by the now CDS the RN were going to pitch for some extra T31 during the IR process and decided T31 B2 was too boring so renamed the pitch T32 and sexed it up with some adaptability and autonomous mothership glitter.

The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said:

We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pr ... 2-frigate/

Because the worst Prime Minister in British history had a habit of making things up and not giving a damn about the consequences (Reminder: he was sacked by his own MPs after half a term for lying and incompetence).

[Poiuytrewq]

The 2% of the defence budget you keep quoting is creative accounting to make it sound small. The mod only spends a portion of the defence budget on purchasing new equipment the that’s quite a significant percentage of that.

Simply can’t agree here. Allocating only 2% of the defence budget to shipbuilding per annum should be the bare minimum. The alternative is wasting unbelievable amounts of cash on worn out and unreliable vessels with extensive refits, LIFEX and propulsion upgrades etc.

Over a 25yr period that 2% amounts to £30bn on ships out of a budget of around £1500bn or £1.5trillion.

How much will the RAF spend on aircraft including GCAP over the same period?

[shark bait]

EPP & ESP?

I forget exactly what they standard for, one is equipment procurement project, and the other is equipment support project I think.

Important bit is;
EPP is buying new kit
ESP is servicing existing kit

[SW1]

The 2% of the defence budget you keep quoting is creative accounting to make it sound small. The mod only spends a portion of the defence budget on purchasing new equipment the that’s quite a significant percentage of that.

Simply can’t agree here. Allocating only 2% of the defence budget to shipbuilding per annum should be the bare minimum. The alternative is wasting unbelievable amounts of cash on worn out and unreliable vessels with extensive refits, LIFEX and propulsion upgrades etc.

Over a 25yr period that 2% amounts to £30bn on ships out of a budget of around £1500bn or £1.5trillion.

How much will the RAF spend on aircraft including GCAP over the same period?

There is a budget line within the overall defence budget that is for purchasing equipment across the board, your proposing spending a significant chunk of that buying ships it’s far more than 2%. That same budget also buys things like missiles and “pods” unmanned systems that’s goes into ships. Your adding in the budget lines for personnel and infrastructure to make your 2% figure sound reasonable.

That is not the alternative that is an option and not a particularly good option and not one they should be choosing.

I don’t know how much the RAF intends to spend on GCAP because it hasn’t defined what the program is yet.

[tomuk]

Why do you and other persist with this Boris nonsense. As testified by the now CDS the RN were going to pitch for some extra T31 during the IR process and decided T31 B2 was too boring so renamed the pitch T32 and sexed it up with some adaptability and autonomous mothership glitter.

The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said:

We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pr ... 2-frigate/

Because the worst Prime Minister in British history had a habit of making things up and not giving a damn about the consequences (Reminder: he was sacked by his own MPs after half a term for lying and incompetence).

So what if Boris was first to talk about it in statement updating parliament on the IR. Do you think Boris just made the statement up himself without any link to policy development within MOD?

The defence chiefs as part of the IR process had the opportunity to 'bid' for additional programmes. The RN and the 1st Sea Lord proposed T32. That is was the 1st Sea Lords testimony to the defence select committee. Or are you suggesting he was lying to the committee?

[mrclark303]

Why do you and other persist with this Boris nonsense. As testified by the now CDS the RN were going to pitch for some extra T31 during the IR process and decided T31 B2 was too boring so renamed the pitch T32 and sexed it up with some adaptability and autonomous mothership glitter.

The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said:

We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pr ... 2-frigate/

Because the worst Prime Minister in British history had a habit of making things up and not giving a damn about the consequences (Reminder: he was sacked by his own MPs after half a term for lying and incompetence).

So what if Boris was first to talk about it in statement updating parliament on the IR. Do you think Boris just made the statement up himself without any link to policy development within MOD?

The defence chiefs as part of the IR process had the opportunity to 'bid' for additional programmes. The RN and the 1st Sea Lord proposed T32. That is was the 1st Sea Lords testimony to the defence select committee. Or are you suggesting he was lying to the committee?

The problem is T32 is currently no more than a letter and a number....

It's a vague future project. For the foreseeable future, if we really do intend on operating both Carriers, one at the centre of an RN carrier strike group and the other as back up and relying on our partners to help generate a task group around it (and put USMC/ Italian jets aboard), then I can't see any uplift from 19 unfortunately.

There is no plan on increasing personnel, so unless the Admiralty is waiting for highly automated AI driven large escorts with a crew of 60, then it simply won't happen.

Perhaps that's what they are waiting for....

We all know the RN should never have dropped below 30 escorts, yet it's dropped to the absolute red line of 19.

If we sink below an operational number of 13, then the RN simply can't carry out its basic core responsibilities.

It seems for that matter like all our Armed forces have dropped to their red line points, no meat left to cut, unless we wish to remove capabilities entirely.

[shark bait]

highly automated AI driven large escorts with a crew of 60, then it simply won't happen.

That is what they're waiting for. The T31 has almost half the crew of the T23, and the T83 should target a third of the crew of the T45.

This is the most pressing issue the Navy needs to design for. Both the hardware and organisational design needs to be optimised around a smaller number of better treated personnel.

[Tempest414]

T32 is just a placeholder for "more ships". I think most of us understand that and are speculating what form they could take, at what cost and is there any benefit to yet another class of frigate.

The basis of my comment (not particularly original, I admit) was simply to build more of the same currently in-build designs, taking advantage of economies of scale/current fixed costs to arrive at the hoped-for 24 escorts (6-8 DD & 16-18 FF), using money which could become available in future years to pay for 5 additional hulls

My back-of-a-fag-packet estimate is that it could be done for a fraction over £2.5b, excluding inflation and assuming baseline T31s w/o Mk 41.

If we say that type 31 with 32 Mk-41 VLS would be about 360 million as along as it follows on from the current batch 1 ships and that BAE can build type 26 for 800 million then we could build say 2 of each for 2.32 billion or 3 T-31's and 2 T-26's for 2.68 billion

[Poiuytrewq]

This is the most pressing issue the Navy needs to design for. Both the hardware and organisational design needs to be optimised around a smaller number of better treated personnel.

The original T26 crew allocation increased substantially and the official T31 figure now stands at 105.

How many other 138m Frigates with 32x Mk41 cells, 57mm, 2x 40mm, embarked helo, 3/4 RHIBs and possibly 8x NSM to follow have a crew allocation of 105?

I fully expect it to be 120+ when they actually commission.

[Poiuytrewq]

This is the most pressing issue the Navy needs to design for. Both the hardware and organisational design needs to be optimised around a smaller number of better treated personnel.

The original T26 crew allocation increased substantially and the official T31 figure now stands at 105.

How many other 138m Frigates with 32x Mk41 cells, 57mm, 2x 40mm, embarked helo, 3/4 RHIBs and possibly 8x NSM to follow have a crew allocation of 105?

I fully expect it to be 120+ when they actually commission.

They discovered the same issues with the QE class and added an additional 100 odd personnel I believe....

It's one thing manning a virtual design and actually crewing a living warship in the real world, these things rapidly become apparent when the first of a new class starts it's workup.

To be fair, it must be an absolute nightmare working up the class leader of any warship, one hell of a lot easier for those that follow!

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
How many other 138m Frigates with 32x Mk41 cells, 57mm, 2x 40mm, embarked helo, 3/4 RHIBs and possibly 8x NSM to follow have a crew allocation of 105?

Small, small correction. The 105 figure is for a T31 WITHOUT Mk.41 VLS. Also, it does NOT include flight crew.

To my understanding, the ~190 figure of T23 DOES include flight crew.

I fully expect it to be 120+ when they actually commission.

For a T31 without Mk.41, and without flight, I agree it will be somewhere around 110-120. Including Wildcat flight, I agree it will be 125-135. Two thirds of a T23. Not so bad, I think.

[NickC]

I fully expect it to be 120+ when they actually commission.

Why do you think the RN crew number would be so high, the Danish Navy IH class which is a real AAW frigate, not a OPV as the T31, with its SM-2s, ESSM and associated radars, 76 mm guns, HMS, LWT etc operates with 120/123 crew excluding the air component. Understand the new Japanese 5,500t Mogami Frigate class crew is only 90.

[SD67]

The UK has a tight labor market and the Services don't have the easy option of importing their way around the problem. It's not going to change anytime soon.

[new guy]

I fully expect it to be 120+ when they actually commission.

Why do you think the RN crew number would be so high, the Danish Navy IH class which is a real AAW frigate, not a OPV as the T31, with its SM-2s, ESSM and associated radars, 76 mm guns, HMS, LWT etc operates with 120/123 crew excluding the air component. Understand the new Japanese 5,500t Mogami Frigate class crew is only 90.

Don't see anyone throwing the same amount of shit at the la Lafayette class for being non-vls.

[new guy]

Why do you and other persist with this Boris nonsense. As testified by the now CDS the RN were going to pitch for some extra T31 during the IR process and decided T31 B2 was too boring so renamed the pitch T32 and sexed it up with some adaptability and autonomous mothership glitter.

The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said:

We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pr ... 2-frigate/

Because the worst Prime Minister in British history had a habit of making things up and not giving a damn about the consequences (Reminder: he was sacked by his own MPs after half a term for lying and incompetence).

So what if Boris was first to talk about it in statement updating parliament on the IR. Do you think Boris just made the statement up himself without any link to policy development within MOD?

The defence chiefs as part of the IR process had the opportunity to 'bid' for additional programmes. The RN and the 1st Sea Lord proposed T32. That is was the 1st Sea Lords testimony to the defence select committee. Or are you suggesting he was lying to the committee?

The problem is T32 is currently no more than a letter and a number....

It's a vague future project. For the foreseeable future, if we really do intend on operating both Carriers, one at the centre of an RN carrier strike group and the other as back up and relying on our partners to help generate a task group around it (and put USMC/ Italian jets aboard), then I can't see any uplift from 19 unfortunately.

There is no plan on increasing personnel, so unless the Admiralty is waiting for highly automated AI driven large escorts with a crew of 60, then it simply won't happen.

Perhaps that's what they are waiting for....

We all know the RN should never have dropped below 30 escorts, yet it's dropped to the absolute red line of 19.

If we sink below an operational number of 13, then the RN simply can't carry out its basic core responsibilities.

It seems for that matter like all our Armed forces have dropped to their red line points, no meat left to cut, unless we wish to remove capabilities entirely.

Not too bad, I agree on T32 sofar only being a letter and a number, however you have a complete miss-understanding of the CSG formation.

It isn't:

one at the centre of an RN carrier strike group and the other as back up and relying on our partners to help generate a task group around it (and put USMC/ Italian jets aboard)

But actually 1 CSG, utilising 2 carriers for 1 constant availability.

[mrclark303]

Why do you and other persist with this Boris nonsense. As testified by the now CDS the RN were going to pitch for some extra T31 during the IR process and decided T31 B2 was too boring so renamed the pitch T32 and sexed it up with some adaptability and autonomous mothership glitter.

The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said:

We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pr ... 2-frigate/

Because the worst Prime Minister in British history had a habit of making things up and not giving a damn about the consequences (Reminder: he was sacked by his own MPs after half a term for lying and incompetence).

So what if Boris was first to talk about it in statement updating parliament on the IR. Do you think Boris just made the statement up himself without any link to policy development within MOD?

The defence chiefs as part of the IR process had the opportunity to 'bid' for additional programmes. The RN and the 1st Sea Lord proposed T32. That is was the 1st Sea Lords testimony to the defence select committee. Or are you suggesting he was lying to the committee?

The problem is T32 is currently no more than a letter and a number....

It's a vague future project. For the foreseeable future, if we really do intend on operating both Carriers, one at the centre of an RN carrier strike group and the other as back up and relying on our partners to help generate a task group around it (and put USMC/ Italian jets aboard), then I can't see any uplift from 19 unfortunately.

There is no plan on increasing personnel, so unless the Admiralty is waiting for highly automated AI driven large escorts with a crew of 60, then it simply won't happen.

Perhaps that's what they are waiting for....

We all know the RN should never have dropped below 30 escorts, yet it's dropped to the absolute red line of 19.

If we sink below an operational number of 13, then the RN simply can't carry out its basic core responsibilities.

It seems for that matter like all our Armed forces have dropped to their red line points, no meat left to cut, unless we wish to remove capabilities entirely.

Not too bad, I agree on T32 sofar only being a letter and a number, however you have a complete miss-understanding of the CSG formation.

It isn't:

one at the centre of an RN carrier strike group and the other as back up and relying on our partners to help generate a task group around it (and put USMC/ Italian jets aboard)

But actually 1 CSG, utilising 2 carriers for 1 constant availability.

That depends on how you view it, both carriers are concurrently operational and fully crewed at the moment, that means both will be ready for a refit about the same time.

If you were serious about 100% carrier availability, on the provided limited resources of 2023, you would run one, with the other in alongside maintenance or refit and swap over every three years.

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

The reality is the RN ( with its current constraints) will never be able to fully operate both ships at the same time.

I understand that trials are still underway, but in the longer term, we will have to concentrate on juggling to keep one at the spears tip....

I will Guarantee it will be one of the inevitable results of Labours first SDSR....

[inch]

Lucky if we even have carriers in a couple of years tbh , the next sdsr will probably say money spent on carriers and crew and ops/maintenance would be better spent on shells or integration with Europe ground forces,yes I can foresee more clueless unknowledgeable defence ministers and civil service making the remaining forces disappear up its own a#@e,the future is not bright especially with things as they are in the world and total leadership failure to grasp the situation unfolding and prepare to do something about it , hopefully I'm wrong and we do have a carrier force and suitable escorts in adequate numbers in future

[shark bait]

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability and should not be replicated for the flagship capability.

Both carriers need to be operational so one is always at very high availability. Without this, the billions of pounds and sacrifices made elsewhere in the fleet are wasted.

[new guy]

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability and should not be replicated for the flagship capability.

Both carriers need to be operational so one is always at very high availability. Without this, the billions of pounds and sacrifices made elsewhere in the fleet are wasted.

Exactly!

[shark bait]

The Royal Navy now operates the two silver bullets of naval power (nuke boats & super carriers). The Navy is quite rightly flexing that as much as possibly because it's costs them so much!

Two operational carriers to maintain one carrier group is pretty much none negotiable.

[SW1]

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit.

This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability and should not be replicated for the flagship capability.

Both carriers need to be operational so one is always at very high availability. Without this, the billions of pounds and sacrifices made elsewhere in the fleet are wasted.

Is that’s what is happening with the LPDs? I thought it was more a lack of crew, lack of operating budget and considerable stress with the support infrastructure and its workforce. A lot of which can be attributed to the decisions to procure two very big boats with little to no idea of how crew, equip or maintain them.