Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5805
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 10:42
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 09:59 https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 7.jpg.webp

For me when I look at this and it is what we should be aiming for we should be looking to build this ship and spend every penny of the design money on a new radar set up for this ship
Before jumping in with both feet.
  • Why is the tail to be deleted?
  • Does the UK need that many Mk41 cells and if not could an amidships silo of CAMM-ER/MR be installed and the tail be retained?
  • Is 32x Aster30 and 128x CAMM ER/MR plus 16x NSM enough for the UK’s next-gen AAW Destroyer?
  • Should the Mk45 be deleted and replaced by 4x 40mm and 64x Mk41 cells plus 128x CAMM ER/MR in the amidships silo?
  • If the tail has to go can the propulsion and quietening enhancements be downgraded to save more cash?
A UK version will have different priorities than the RAN’s seemingly insatiable appetite for Mk41 cells but a UK version with the potential for 64x Mk41 plus 128x CAMM ER/MR combined next-gen Sampson and 2087 looks more than good enough.

A super cruiser capability without the super cruiser budget blowout?
If you simply had 64 cells with with cells split 32, 16 and 16 with aster, camm mr and camm you would be at 128 missile in the ship, missile requirements of more that probably the entire current uk stock of missiles nearly in a single task group. Stock costs huge

Another option is to spread the cells across the fleet type 26 and type 31 and have the higher powered radar only on certain ships. Both ship designs the RN are building have plenty of options to offer no need to start again.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 10:42 Should the Mk45 be deleted and replaced by 4x 40mm and 64x Mk41 cells
Yes. Both the smaller guns, and new VLS, are more usable than a 5 inch gun.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 10:42 If the tail has to go can the propulsion and quietening enhancements be downgraded to save more cash?
I'm sceptical that would save anything. Ships are built around the propulsion system, it's difficult to change one without the other.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4108
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 10:57 If you simply had 64 cells with with cells split 32, 16 and 16 with aster, camm mr and camm you would be at 128 missile in the ship, missile requirements of more that probably the entire current uk stock of missiles nearly in a single task group. Stock costs huge

Another option is to spread the cells across the fleet type 26 and type 31 and have the higher powered radar only on certain ships. Both ship designs the RN are building have plenty of options to offer no need to start again.
Thats exactly my point.

If the design is over qualified, with lots of potential for future growth margins where is the rationale for a clean sheet or heavily adapted and therefore costly redesign?

Whether RN actually wants a UK Arleigh Burke when adopting FADS is a totally different question altogether especially when the five T31’s are now going to have 32x Mk41 cells.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
SW1

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5805
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 12:38
SW1 wrote: 09 Nov 2023, 10:57 If you simply had 64 cells with with cells split 32, 16 and 16 with aster, camm mr and camm you would be at 128 missile in the ship, missile requirements of more that probably the entire current uk stock of missiles nearly in a single task group. Stock costs huge

Another option is to spread the cells across the fleet type 26 and type 31 and have the higher powered radar only on certain ships. Both ship designs the RN are building have plenty of options to offer no need to start again.
Thats exactly my point.

If the design is over qualified, with lots of potential for future growth margins where is the rationale for a clean sheet or heavily adapted and therefore costly redesign?

Whether RN actually wants a UK Arleigh Burke when adopting FADS is a totally different question altogether especially when the five T31’s are now going to have 32x Mk41 cells.
I would agree, the uk has gone a different path in the missile side of things to Australia with camm and tbh we have more mature and refined radars than Australia has for this task. I have not seen any rational for a new clean sheet design other than from the usual vested interests. We deliberately selected large designs to set into production for a reason both are perfectly acceptable to continue development and production off. We have done the hard bit they should now be milking the success not starting over again it has a whiff of the army in 2003 and boxer.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5632
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I think keep the type 26 design and spend the money on designing and make the best radar and CMS we can to go on it with 64 VLS as the base line. However if we were to fit 16 NSM's it would take it from 64 to 80 cells

And if we really wanted to we could fitt 48 VLS to type 31 with 32 midships and 16 in place of B turret's 40mm plus 16 NSM you are looking at 64 cells so both have plenty of groth

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

For the FADS ships I want to see basically numerous FFBNW ships, with plenty of growth margin.

Bit like how T23 is: initially just a towed array pulling ship, evolved.

One fear I have with the distribution of FADS system into many ships is that they may be built too small with no growth room; this being even more apparent with the Australian tier 2 programme: many corvette designs (ignoring their inappropriate range) like the prepose Tasmanian class, have no growth room: Have they not learned from ANZAC class?

The ships procured need to have room to spare, both literally and not so.

My Idea is a literal FFBNW ship, facilitating placements for other types of warfare systems as well as future advancements and growth.

Also have a linked mid ship weapons area and Multi Mission Bay. Want to expand the VLS count? go into the large MMB from it having a small initial fit out for maintenance of high numbers. flexible.

zavve
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 24 May 2022, 19:36
Sweden

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zavve »

This is a bit of a topic but does anyone know what docks in Devonport can fit a T26? From what I understand only 8 dock will be large enough since 10 dock will be refitted for submarine work and the Frigate Refit Complex is too small.

User avatar
Jensy
Moderator
Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

zavve wrote: 10 Nov 2023, 16:28 This is a bit of a topic but does anyone know what docks in Devonport can fit a T26? From what I understand only 8 dock will be large enough since 10 dock will be refitted for submarine work and the Frigate Refit Complex is too small.
Should also fit in the combined No.11/12 dock / the lock next to No.10 Dock. Though I'm not sure if it's been used in a while.

Also curious what future the Refix Complex has, as even a Type 31 will be pushing it in beam. Though in length they're not far off a Batch 3 Type 22.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4108
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Another excellent article and now a regular columnist for the Telegraph.

Great to get journalism of this quality in the mainstream media.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/1 ... -carriers/

Particularly interesting to compare with what a RN CSG or ESF could actually achieve in the same scenario.

The Houthis have become a dangerous rogue nation. The US Navy could crush them
Marines, SEALs and hundreds of thousands of tons of haze gray steel are in the Red Sea

Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower transits the Suez Canal into the Red Sea on Nov 4. The Ike is in the area as part of the US response to the Israel-Hamas war, and may be paying special attention to Iran's proxy, the Houthis
Six days ago, the US aircraft carrier Dwight D Eisenhower – Ike – transited the Suez Canal southbound and headed into the Red Sea as part of her pre-planned but accelerated deployment to the Gulf Region. En route she joined USS Ford and her carrier battle group in the Eastern Med for some interoperability training and the obligatory formation photo.

It is impossible to say for certain that this overt display of around two hundred thousand tons of nuclear-powered naval firepower – to say nothing of all the escorts – is what has kept Hezbollah relatively quiet over the last few weeks but it’s bound to have influenced their thinking. It is also risky to say that this effect will endure, but for now, it appears to be a win for carrier-based deterrence. Given how many predicted a region-wide escalation by now, this is one piece of good news alongside the horror of Gaza.

Aside from sporadic attacks on US troops inland in Iraq and Syria, there is one other Iranian-backed terrorist group in the region which hasn’t got the memo yet, and that’s the Houthis. They overthrew the legitimate government of Yemen in 2014, and Saudi Arabia and her allies have been engaged ever since trying to restore some semblance of order there with varying degrees of success. That the Saudis are often painted as the villain of this piece baffles me, although that is an article for another time. This year at least has seen fighting in Yemen slowing with talks between Saudi and Iran, mediated by the Chinese, apparently making some progress despite al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)’s best efforts to derail them.

However, as one would expect of Iranian proxies who see disruption and fear as endstates in themselves, the Houthis didn’t wait long after the Hamas incursion to start firing missiles up the Red Sea at Israel. USS Carney intercepted four in one go but there have been more since, forcing the US and Israeli navies to station destroyers and corvettes to intercept further firings.

What is clear is that Saudi and US efforts to prevent Iranian-supplied arms from entering Yemen over the last few years haven’t entirely worked and that the Houthis are still able to move and fire them without being detected and destroyed prior to launch.

But it’s possible that this might be about to change.


A straight-line Red Sea transit at 18 knots takes three days. Clearly a carrier at flank speed could reduce this but either way, that the Ike hasn’t appeared through the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and into the Gulf of Aden yet, suggests that she and her task group are spending some time in the Red Sea.

The Red Sea, and in particular the part at the bottom between Yemen and both Eritrea and Djibouti, is not a particularly nice place to hang around. Quite apart from the menace of Houthi missiles it narrows to just eight miles in the Bab-el-Mandeb itself – the “Gate of Tears” indeed – and it is riddled with small boats scuttling back and forth with various cargoes. They are fast, unlit, sit low in the water and are made of wood which makes them hard to see and detect on radar. Determining whether they are smuggling, people trafficking, about to go fishing, engaged in a bit of piracy, minding their own business or packed with explosives and coming for you is hard. If you can only detect them at, say, four nautical miles, and they are doing 30 knots, you only have a handful of minutes before they are on you, and worse still if there are twenty of them.

I took my Royal Navy warship through at night once because we were under time pressure to get to the next place, and it was no fun at all. Admittedly I only had one helicopter to provide overwatch and not a carrier air wing.

In any case as a Western naval vessel, you don’t want to hang around down there unless you have to. And there are only a few reasons why you might.

Interoperability exercises with the USS Bataan and Carter Hall, also in the Red Sea but possibly heading through Suez northbound in the coming weeks is one. Presence/reassure operations for Saudi Arabia and other allies is another. Shaping operations to ensure safe passage through the Bab El Mandeb is a third although that wouldn’t take this long.

That leaves the interesting one – activities in and around Yemen to prevent the Houthis from continuing to launch missiles up the Red Sea (or anywhere come to that). A few days ago it was reported here that an Ohio class SSGN submarine had just transited Suez headed south as well. You’ll always be told that these boats can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. It’s not always mentioned that they can also carry 60+ special warfare operators, typically frogmen from the US Navy’s elite SEAL teams, and mini-submarines that can take the SEALs inshore while the mother sub remains safely in deep waters.

It might not be the best time, as a Houthi terrorist, to go for a walk on the beach down there right now: you might get dragged into the sea and wake up under interrogation somewhere.

OK, I’m really speculating now but if you look at what the Houthis have been up to recently, this starts to seem like an opportunity for the US to finally put an end to them as a regional threat/irritant. It would get the Saudis back on side and back on a trajectory towards rapprochement with Israel. Right now in the Red Sea the US has a carrier group with its more or less total air-sea-missile umbrella and strike power equivalent to a medium-ranking national air force. It also has most of a Marine Expeditionary Unit and probably a task unit or two of SEALs, plus hundreds of Tomahawks and other land-attack weaponry.

And the Houthis really have been very irritating. They aren’t just trouble for the Saudis and the Israelis: they are always trying to acquire the ability to interdict shipping through the Bab-el-Mandeb, which is by far the quickest way to the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean and Europe from just about anywhere all the way to the China coast. Yes you can go south around the Cape, but it’s an awful lot further. They’ve also just shot down a US Reaper drone off the coast, another indication that the US may be contemplating action in the vicinity.

Carney is not the first US warship to shoot down Houthi missiles in the Red Sea in recent years: but she just might be the last, if all that US firepower gets put to some use shortly.

Or the Ike could just emerge through the Bab-el-Mandeb into the Arabian Sea, join up with the Japanese Murasme class Destroyer ‘Ikazuchi’ which is heading purposefully her way and take up station in the Gulf of Oman to continue the general ‘deter Iran’ mission. Time will tell. But as ever with the US Navy, the range of capabilities and options they offer their policymakers is remarkable.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5805
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 11 Nov 2023, 10:08 Another excellent article and now a regular columnist for the Telegraph.

Great to get journalism of this quality in the mainstream media.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/1 ... -carriers/

Particularly interesting to compare with what a RN CSG or ESF could actually achieve in the same scenario.

The Houthis have become a dangerous rogue nation. The US Navy could crush them
Marines, SEALs and hundreds of thousands of tons of haze gray steel are in the Red Sea

Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower transits the Suez Canal into the Red Sea on Nov 4. The Ike is in the area as part of the US response to the Israel-Hamas war, and may be paying special attention to Iran's proxy, the Houthis
Six days ago, the US aircraft carrier Dwight D Eisenhower – Ike – transited the Suez Canal southbound and headed into the Red Sea as part of her pre-planned but accelerated deployment to the Gulf Region. En route she joined USS Ford and her carrier battle group in the Eastern Med for some interoperability training and the obligatory formation photo.

It is impossible to say for certain that this overt display of around two hundred thousand tons of nuclear-powered naval firepower – to say nothing of all the escorts – is what has kept Hezbollah relatively quiet over the last few weeks but it’s bound to have influenced their thinking. It is also risky to say that this effect will endure, but for now, it appears to be a win for carrier-based deterrence. Given how many predicted a region-wide escalation by now, this is one piece of good news alongside the horror of Gaza.

Aside from sporadic attacks on US troops inland in Iraq and Syria, there is one other Iranian-backed terrorist group in the region which hasn’t got the memo yet, and that’s the Houthis. They overthrew the legitimate government of Yemen in 2014, and Saudi Arabia and her allies have been engaged ever since trying to restore some semblance of order there with varying degrees of success. That the Saudis are often painted as the villain of this piece baffles me, although that is an article for another time. This year at least has seen fighting in Yemen slowing with talks between Saudi and Iran, mediated by the Chinese, apparently making some progress despite al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)’s best efforts to derail them.

However, as one would expect of Iranian proxies who see disruption and fear as endstates in themselves, the Houthis didn’t wait long after the Hamas incursion to start firing missiles up the Red Sea at Israel. USS Carney intercepted four in one go but there have been more since, forcing the US and Israeli navies to station destroyers and corvettes to intercept further firings.

What is clear is that Saudi and US efforts to prevent Iranian-supplied arms from entering Yemen over the last few years haven’t entirely worked and that the Houthis are still able to move and fire them without being detected and destroyed prior to launch.

But it’s possible that this might be about to change.


A straight-line Red Sea transit at 18 knots takes three days. Clearly a carrier at flank speed could reduce this but either way, that the Ike hasn’t appeared through the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and into the Gulf of Aden yet, suggests that she and her task group are spending some time in the Red Sea.

The Red Sea, and in particular the part at the bottom between Yemen and both Eritrea and Djibouti, is not a particularly nice place to hang around. Quite apart from the menace of Houthi missiles it narrows to just eight miles in the Bab-el-Mandeb itself – the “Gate of Tears” indeed – and it is riddled with small boats scuttling back and forth with various cargoes. They are fast, unlit, sit low in the water and are made of wood which makes them hard to see and detect on radar. Determining whether they are smuggling, people trafficking, about to go fishing, engaged in a bit of piracy, minding their own business or packed with explosives and coming for you is hard. If you can only detect them at, say, four nautical miles, and they are doing 30 knots, you only have a handful of minutes before they are on you, and worse still if there are twenty of them.

I took my Royal Navy warship through at night once because we were under time pressure to get to the next place, and it was no fun at all. Admittedly I only had one helicopter to provide overwatch and not a carrier air wing.

In any case as a Western naval vessel, you don’t want to hang around down there unless you have to. And there are only a few reasons why you might.

Interoperability exercises with the USS Bataan and Carter Hall, also in the Red Sea but possibly heading through Suez northbound in the coming weeks is one. Presence/reassure operations for Saudi Arabia and other allies is another. Shaping operations to ensure safe passage through the Bab El Mandeb is a third although that wouldn’t take this long.

That leaves the interesting one – activities in and around Yemen to prevent the Houthis from continuing to launch missiles up the Red Sea (or anywhere come to that). A few days ago it was reported here that an Ohio class SSGN submarine had just transited Suez headed south as well. You’ll always be told that these boats can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. It’s not always mentioned that they can also carry 60+ special warfare operators, typically frogmen from the US Navy’s elite SEAL teams, and mini-submarines that can take the SEALs inshore while the mother sub remains safely in deep waters.

It might not be the best time, as a Houthi terrorist, to go for a walk on the beach down there right now: you might get dragged into the sea and wake up under interrogation somewhere.

OK, I’m really speculating now but if you look at what the Houthis have been up to recently, this starts to seem like an opportunity for the US to finally put an end to them as a regional threat/irritant. It would get the Saudis back on side and back on a trajectory towards rapprochement with Israel. Right now in the Red Sea the US has a carrier group with its more or less total air-sea-missile umbrella and strike power equivalent to a medium-ranking national air force. It also has most of a Marine Expeditionary Unit and probably a task unit or two of SEALs, plus hundreds of Tomahawks and other land-attack weaponry.

And the Houthis really have been very irritating. They aren’t just trouble for the Saudis and the Israelis: they are always trying to acquire the ability to interdict shipping through the Bab-el-Mandeb, which is by far the quickest way to the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean and Europe from just about anywhere all the way to the China coast. Yes you can go south around the Cape, but it’s an awful lot further. They’ve also just shot down a US Reaper drone off the coast, another indication that the US may be contemplating action in the vicinity.

Carney is not the first US warship to shoot down Houthi missiles in the Red Sea in recent years: but she just might be the last, if all that US firepower gets put to some use shortly.

Or the Ike could just emerge through the Bab-el-Mandeb into the Arabian Sea, join up with the Japanese Murasme class Destroyer ‘Ikazuchi’ which is heading purposefully her way and take up station in the Gulf of Oman to continue the general ‘deter Iran’ mission. Time will tell. But as ever with the US Navy, the range of capabilities and options they offer their policymakers is remarkable.
Author must of slept thru the last 20 odd years of Middle East and east Asia adventures and all those regimes the us military have crushed the mind boggles

zavve
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 24 May 2022, 19:36
Sweden

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by zavve »

Jensy wrote: 10 Nov 2023, 22:46 Also curious what future the Refix Complex has, as even a Type 31 will be pushing it in beam. Though in length they're not far off a Batch 3 Type 22.
Since T26 has been confirmed to be based in Devonport I thought T31 would be based and maintained in Portsmouth.
I did find a quote from Kevin Russell-Young, Babcock's programme director, infrastructure projects in which he said: "We are developing 11 and 12 Docks for the new type frigates, and secondary facilities too.” This confirms that the 11/12 Dock will be used for T26 maintenance.
These users liked the author zavve for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyowargame_insomniac


Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4108
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Interesting here that the First Sea Lord prioritises additional OPVs and the Amphibious replacements over additional escorts.

Jump to 14:25.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/9 ... n=14:25:05
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Repulse

Online
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1564
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 17:15 Interesting here that the First Sea Lord prioritises additional OPVs and the Amphibious replacements over additional escorts.

Jump to 14:25.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/9 ... n=14:25:05
On the OPVs it is disappointing to hear the lack of ambition. The Admiral seems resigned to the fact that the escort fleet isn't going to grow anytime soo, actually shrink, so the OPVs are the only option to keep up appearances.

On the amphibians the Navy seem to be using new vessels as a way to increase the profile of the Marines when their future role still seems ambiguous and the vessels don't need replacing.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 17:53 On the OPVs it is disappointing to hear the lack of ambition. The Admiral seems resigned to the fact that the escort fleet isn't going to grow anytime soo, actually shrink, so the OPVs are the only option to keep up appearances.
That’s what you wanted to hear, but not what he said.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
new guy
”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

Online
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1564
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:06
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 17:53 On the OPVs it is disappointing to hear the lack of ambition. The Admiral seems resigned to the fact that the escort fleet isn't going to grow anytime soo, actually shrink, so the OPVs are the only option to keep up appearances.
That’s what you wanted to hear, but not what he said.
He said
I would look at the most successful, most productive parts of the Navy at the moment, and at broadly doubling up on those. There is fantastic utility coming out of the offshore patrol vessels in terms of delivering United Kingdom presence around the world in a very cost effective manner. High commissioners and ambassadors around the world regularly report diplomatic telegrams about the impact that those ships are having.
I posted my response to what he said. What is the problem with that?
If the Admiral does genuinely think that hosting a few cockers p with the local dignitaries is a good measure of productivity without the context of the escort issues then I think we have a problem.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
SW1Jensy

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4108
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:27
Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:06
Interesting but I took it a bit differently.

It sounded to me that there is now an expectation that another class of OPV’s will be required to fill the gaps as the two new Frigate classes start to come online. It also seemed likely that more T23’s wouldn’t reach their respective OSD from what was said, this will be a major issue especially if the T26 commissioning dates start to slip. Perhaps the increased capacity at Govan is designed to accelerate the program back to where it should be rather than ahead of schedule.

Clearly the Amphibious replacements are also a priority as the Albions are just not needed as currently configured.

Looks likely that Rosyth will be building OPV’s or Amphibs from 2026 onwards rather than T32’s.

IMO the FSL is prioritising the right areas at this point but in an ideal world I suspect his priorities would be elsewhere.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
new guy

Online
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1564
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 19:21
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:27
Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:06
Interesting but I took it a bit differently.

It sounded to me that there is now an expectation that another class of OPV’s will be required to fill the gaps as the two new Frigate classes start to come online. It also seemed likely that more T23’s wouldn’t reach their respective OSD from what was said, this will be a major issue especially if the T26 commissioning dates start to slip. Perhaps the increased capacity at Govan is designed to accelerate the program back to where it should be rather than ahead of schedule.

Clearly the Amphibious replacements are also a priority as the Albions are just not needed as currently configured.

Looks likely that Rosyth will be building OPV’s or Amphibs from 2026 onwards rather than T32’s.

IMO the FSL is prioritising the right areas at this point but in an ideal world I suspect his priorities would be elsewhere.
Why if there is a shortage of escorts do we need to build more OPVs? Surely Rosyth should be building more T31 to fill the gap off a hot production line in 2026 not switching to some unknown OPV or Amphibious ship that isn't even on the drawing board.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
SW1

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:27
Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:06
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 17:53 On the OPVs it is disappointing to hear the lack of ambition. The Admiral seems resigned to the fact that the escort fleet isn't going to grow anytime soo, actually shrink, so the OPVs are the only option to keep up appearances.
That’s what you wanted to hear, but not what he said.
He said
I would look at the most successful, most productive parts of the Navy at the moment, and at broadly doubling up on those. There is fantastic utility coming out of the offshore patrol vessels in terms of delivering United Kingdom presence around the world in a very cost effective manner. High commissioners and ambassadors around the world regularly report diplomatic telegrams about the impact that those ships are having.
I posted my response to what he said. What is the problem with that?
If the Admiral does genuinely think that hosting a few cockers p with the local dignitaries is a good measure of productivity without the context of the escort issues then I think we have a problem.
What he said was that OPVs have provided excellent value for money and has received very positive feedback - nothing about a shrinking Navy if you put in the context of the question “what else would you want apart from speeding up delivery of the T26s / T31s on order”. It is clear to me that he saw immense value in these ships regardless of the number of T26s/T31s.

Something a number of people on this forum probably didn’t want to hear.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
new guywargame_insomniac
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5805
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 20:07
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:27
Repulse wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 18:06
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 17:53 On the OPVs it is disappointing to hear the lack of ambition. The Admiral seems resigned to the fact that the escort fleet isn't going to grow anytime soo, actually shrink, so the OPVs are the only option to keep up appearances.
That’s what you wanted to hear, but not what he said.
He said
I would look at the most successful, most productive parts of the Navy at the moment, and at broadly doubling up on those. There is fantastic utility coming out of the offshore patrol vessels in terms of delivering United Kingdom presence around the world in a very cost effective manner. High commissioners and ambassadors around the world regularly report diplomatic telegrams about the impact that those ships are having.
I posted my response to what he said. What is the problem with that?
If the Admiral does genuinely think that hosting a few cockers p with the local dignitaries is a good measure of productivity without the context of the escort issues then I think we have a problem.
What he said was that OPVs have provided excellent value for money and has received very positive feedback - nothing about a shrinking Navy if you put in the context of the question “what else would you want apart from speeding up delivery of the T26s / T31s on order”. It is clear to me that he saw immense value in these ships regardless of the number of T26s/T31s.

Something a number of people on this forum probably didn’t want to hear.
He has to see immense value in them at present when the rest of his ships are falling apart and you can’t get them out of dry dock or he would be in serious trouble right now otherwise.

He would dearly love his new type 26 and 31 ships sooner but as the VCDS said the next day Glasgows ISD has now gone right to late 2028.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Dobbo »

Shouldn’t we get some design indications for T83 in the next year or so?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4108
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 19:59 Why if there is a shortage of escorts do we need to build more OPVs? Surely Rosyth should be building more T31 to fill the gap off a hot production line in 2026 not switching to some unknown OPV or Amphibious ship that isn't even on the drawing board.
If the 1SL needs more ASW Frigates then more T31’s are no more use than a OPV with a hanger and the OPVs will be built three times faster, require half the crew and provide many more days at sea. They will also cost 30% or 40% of the cost of a T31. They are the perfect gap filler than can be easily disposed of when required.

As for the Amphib, if it’s a Damen design it will have been on someone’s drawing board for a long time.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
new guywargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Dobbo wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 21:30 Shouldn’t we get some design indications for T83 in the next year or so?
If the RAN take up BAE Australia's proposal for a Hunter Class Batch 2 AAW variant, then I would say that is a front-runner fot RN's T83 design.

Although I would still like to see at least one more T26 ASW added to current Govan build queue first as RN's first priority has to remain focussed on dealing with Soviet Northern fleet's subs.

BAE Australia claim that their Hunter Batch 2 AAW Frigates will have 85% commonality with their Hunter Batch 1 ASW Frigates. What is unknown how much commonality there is between either of the Hunter designs and RN's own T26. But thre should still be enough commonality there that after building (hopefully more than) the current ordered 8*T26, then BAE staff at Govan should be well placed to efficiently build similar such AAW variant for RN.

And that is realistically the only way that in the medium-long term that RN can afford to grow the escort numbers back up from the dangerously thin current numbers. So if BAE can amend the Hunter Batch 2 AAW variant to RN requirements and desired systems & sensors, then should be relatively cheap in terms of design costs, and if they can also keep build costs tightly controlled too......

(Obviously all of my comments above firstly assume that RN have additional funds on ongoing basis for both crew recruitment and retention so that we can actually afford any such new escorts in the first place).

Online
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1564
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 21:49
tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 19:59 Why if there is a shortage of escorts do we need to build more OPVs? Surely Rosyth should be building more T31 to fill the gap off a hot production line in 2026 not switching to some unknown OPV or Amphibious ship that isn't even on the drawing board.
If the 1SL needs more ASW Frigates then more T31’s are no more use than a OPV with a hanger and the OPVs will be built three times faster, require half the crew and provide many more days at sea. They will also cost 30% or 40% of the cost of a T31. They are the perfect gap filler than can be easily disposed of when required.

As for the Amphib, if it’s a Damen design it will have been on someone’s drawing board for a long time.
You could fit a tail and HMS on T31 (design work is being done for the Polish version plus Danish experience) and it could cover ASW work. It wouldn't be as good as a T23\T26 but would be better than an OPV.

Alternately you could use the T31 to cover non TAPS\CSG tasks i.e. SNMG1\2 keeping the T23ASW for 'Sunday Best'.

Three times faster build than T31 with the production line hot? What about procurement, design etc. for an undecided OPV potentially dropped into a new yard. Forth took three years to come into service from steel cut. Venturer won't take 9 years.

T31 has more efficient crewing than previous\alternate vessels and will have more days at sea\require less maintenance it might not beat an OPV on those measures but the capability is much greater.

Costs. What were the Batch 2s £130m each? So this 'Batch 3' River or equivalent with hangar built at Rosyth to fill the after the recent period of inflation will be a bargain? I can't see it.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
new guy

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2822
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Batch 2s were only "£130m each" (actually more than that, I think) because of TOBA
The Irish OPVs built at Appledore were EUR 71.9m each. A River B3 would probably be around 2500t and £90-95m, allowing for recent inflation
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply