Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Interesting question from that article in relation to UAV and swarm drones and the use of the 5' guns.

Could we see a return of the twin mount guns in a similar role as our WWII predecessors and perhaps more AA guns on escorts or perhaps aircraft carriers themselves?

Is 4x DS30M Mark 2 enough for the QEC or the 4x CWIS enough on T26/45 and what of the future T83?

Firstly what is the Mk45 now going to be used for?

If all usage is covered by other systems then the Mk45 is pointless, especially when considering the high cost.

IMO there is a strong argument for 4x 40mm on the escorts now allowing maximum VLS in the A position.

Perhaps even the Amphibious vessels now require 4x 40mm to replace DS30M and Phalanx.

A single 40mm should be the bare minimum on the OPVs.

That would allow RN to standardise around 40mm, NSM, CAMM and ASTER30. How much money would that save? The reduced logistic burden alone may justify the switch and creating and maintaining stockpiles would be hugely simplified.

It would allow both the T45 and T26 to maximise VLS cells. Perhaps another 32x Mk41 on T26 and 48x on the T45.

If the T31 removed the 57mm how many Mk41 cells could slot into the A position? If it is 32x then the amidships silo could be completely removed allowing a T26 style mission area to be created. A game changer for RN and very exportable.

If enhancing lethality is a top priority then deleting the Mk45, Mk8 and 57mm may be the best way to achieve it due to the money saved and the possibilities that arise.

As the 127mm now has range close to 100km's it still has a NGF role as a ship like T-26 could carry 200+ rounds this is still a good to have option as for the 40mm yes it should now replace the 30mm in service however for me the Carriers should now get 4 x 57mm . The T-31 with its 57mm and 2 40mm's is a very good gun fit for a GP frigate

Has some new program appeared to give the bae 5” gun that range?

[Tempest414]

Interesting question from that article in relation to UAV and swarm drones and the use of the 5' guns.

Could we see a return of the twin mount guns in a similar role as our WWII predecessors and perhaps more AA guns on escorts or perhaps aircraft carriers themselves?

Is 4x DS30M Mark 2 enough for the QEC or the 4x CWIS enough on T26/45 and what of the future T83?

Firstly what is the Mk45 now going to be used for?

If all usage is covered by other systems then the Mk45 is pointless, especially when considering the high cost.

IMO there is a strong argument for 4x 40mm on the escorts now allowing maximum VLS in the A position.

Perhaps even the Amphibious vessels now require 4x 40mm to replace DS30M and Phalanx.

A single 40mm should be the bare minimum on the OPVs.

That would allow RN to standardise around 40mm, NSM, CAMM and ASTER30. How much money would that save? The reduced logistic burden alone may justify the switch and creating and maintaining stockpiles would be hugely simplified.

It would allow both the T45 and T26 to maximise VLS cells. Perhaps another 32x Mk41 on T26 and 48x on the T45.

If the T31 removed the 57mm how many Mk41 cells could slot into the A position? If it is 32x then the amidships silo could be completely removed allowing a T26 style mission area to be created. A game changer for RN and very exportable.

If enhancing lethality is a top priority then deleting the Mk45, Mk8 and 57mm may be the best way to achieve it due to the money saved and the possibilities that arise.

As the 127mm now has range close to 100km's it still has a NGF role as a ship like T-26 could carry 200+ rounds this is still a good to have option as for the 40mm yes it should now replace the 30mm in service however for me the Carriers should now get 4 x 57mm . The T-31 with its 57mm and 2 40mm's is a very good gun fit for a GP frigate

Has some new program appeared to give the bae 5” gun that range?

No you know full well that BAE Volcano 127mm has a stated range of 90Km and the USN in its test said it had gone beyond that so there for if using Volcano rounds the 127mm has that stated range

[Poiuytrewq]

As the 127mm now has range close to 100km's it still has a NGF role as a ship like T-26 could carry 200+ rounds this is still a good to have option as for the 40mm yes it should now replace the 30mm in service however for me the Carriers should now get 4 x 57mm . The T-31 with its 57mm and 2 40mm's is a very good gun fit for a GP frigate

Is it a priority? Where would it actually be used? That’s my point.

If the Mk45 and associated auto loading magazine was to be deleted and replaced by 32x Mk 41 cells giving the T26 the ability to embark 16x NSM, 56x TLAM and 48x CAMM with 4x 40mm acting as CIWS whilst retaining the full use of the mission area RN would have a seriously capable Frigate with full ASW capabilities intact.

Is the 57mm really required on the T31? Would 4x40mm be better? Moving the 32x Mk41 silo to the A position adds massive flexibility to the T31 mission area. It would be the cheapest way to give RN a T32 multi role capability to a follow on batch of T31. Lots of tangible benefits compared to the negligible benefit of the 57mm.

This approach isn’t revolutionary.

IMG_1394.jpeg

[Poiuytrewq]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

Anyone know the length and beam of these ships and how do they really stack up against a RB2 if they were fitted with a 40mm

Big standout for the new French ship will be its 4D radar

It looks like an adapted Kership OPV hull, therefore the beam dimension will be virtually identical to the RB2. The LOA looks to be in the 90m-100m range.

Clearly the French can see a use for such vessels.

[SW1]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

Anyone know the length and beam of these ships and how do they really stack up against a RB2 if they were fitted with a 40mm

Big standout for the new French ship will be its 4D radar

It looks like an adapted Kership OPV hull, therefore the beam dimension will be virtually identical to the RB2. The LOA looks to be in the 90m-100m range.

Clearly the French can see a use for such vessels.

There use will be similar to our uk based river vessels. “ The new OPVs will replace the Estienne d’Orves class of type A69 Avisos and OPV54-class patrol boats. They will operate in French littoral waters, primarily across the continental shelf to depths of 200m and continental slope and rise to depths of 1,000m.”

[Tempest414]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

Anyone know the length and beam of these ships and how do they really stack up against a RB2 if they were fitted with a 40mm

Big standout for the new French ship will be its 4D radar

It looks like an adapted Kership OPV hull, therefore the beam dimension will be virtually identical to the RB2. The LOA looks to be in the 90m-100m range.

Clearly the French can see a use for such vessels.

There use will be similar to our uk based river vessels. “ The new OPVs will replace the Estienne d’Orves class of type A69 Avisos and OPV54-class patrol boats. They will operate in French littoral waters, primarily across the continental shelf to depths of 200m and continental slope and rise to depths of 1,000m.”

The new French ships with there compact 4D radar 40mm main gun and hangar are moving towards Sloops

how would the RB2's be changed if they got the NS50 4D radar and the 40mm Bofors main gun

[Poiuytrewq]

….how would the RB2's be changed if they got the NS50 4D radar and the 40mm Bofors main gun

It would be an improvement but possibly too much and not enough.

The hull really needs a stretch with a hanger added to start to release the full potential for forward basing around the globe.

[Tempest414]

….how would the RB2's be changed if they got the NS50 4D radar and the 40mm Bofors main gun

It would be an improvement but possibly too much and not enough.

The hull really needs a stretch with a hanger added to start to release the full potential for forward basing around the globe.

Why? if they got a good UAV capable of OTH search and track then this close the gap

[new guy]

used for mainland french patrol and nuclear deterrence missions.

[SW1]

Further to recent OPV discussions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ench-navy/

7 new French 2400t OPVs for €900m or £112m unit.

A stretched River to 115m LOA and around 2500t at £125m unit certainly looks plausible in comparison.

Anyone know the length and beam of these ships and how do they really stack up against a RB2 if they were fitted with a 40mm

Big standout for the new French ship will be its 4D radar

It looks like an adapted Kership OPV hull, therefore the beam dimension will be virtually identical to the RB2. The LOA looks to be in the 90m-100m range.

Clearly the French can see a use for such vessels.

There use will be similar to our uk based river vessels. “ The new OPVs will replace the Estienne d’Orves class of type A69 Avisos and OPV54-class patrol boats. They will operate in French littoral waters, primarily across the continental shelf to depths of 200m and continental slope and rise to depths of 1,000m.”

The new French ships with there compact 4D radar 40mm main gun and hangar are moving towards Sloops

how would the RB2's be changed if they got the NS50 4D radar and the 40mm Bofors main gun

The situational awareness capabilities offered by those systems would be gd for a uk based eez patrol but rivers remain fundamentally flawed for anything further with the inability to embark a helicopter. The french vessel is moving into the Holland class territory but details remain sketchy.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why? if they got a good UAV capable of OTH search and track then this close the gap

Simple threat assessment.

The Rivers are fine in Littoral areas with helo coverage provided by land based options. Once they start to roam the globe through more dangerous zones they are completely defenceless.

RN needs a cheap but capable global patrol vessel that isn’t a Frigate. Multiple options but the next-gen River is one of the top contenders IMO.

If money was no object just build more T31’s but….

[Tempest414]

Why? if they got a good UAV capable of OTH search and track then this close the gap

Simple threat assessment.

The Rivers are fine in Littoral areas with helo coverage provided by land based options. Once they start to roam the globe through more dangerous zones they are completely defenceless.

RN needs a cheap but capable global patrol vessel that isn’t a Frigate. Multiple options but the next-gen River is one of the top contenders IMO.

If money was no object just build more T31’s but….

but with 4d radar a camcopter with I-Master radar and a 40mm with 3P its situational awareness and self defence goes to the next level how far would like to go and for what reason

[Poiuytrewq]

….but with 4d radar a camcopter with I-Master radar and a 40mm with 3P its situational awareness and self defence goes to the next level how far would like to go and for what reason

Firstly I wouldn’t do a thing to the RB2’s. IMO when the RB1’s are decommissioned they should be replaced in the U.K. EEZ with 3x RB2’s and the other 2x RB2’s future should be carefully considered.

IMO the RB2’s deployed outside the UK EEZ should be replaced with a vessel that is much more capable but with no offensive capabilities beyond the embarked Wildcat. However the defensive capability should be considerably upgraded. This may require 2x or even 3x 40mm to ensure the safety of the crew. A provision for containerised CAMM should also be added.

This upgrade is very much in line with the original T31 specification. Something along the lines of 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12x CAMM with one embarked Wildcat, Merlin capable flight deck and 3 or 4 RHIBs.

RN has lots of options to achieve this. The easiest one is to build the first 3x T31 hulls as basically as originally intended. Forget the Mk41 cells and NSM. Fit 12x CAMM, 57mm, 2x 40mm and NS110 and call it good. Inevitably they will eventually get upgraded and RN will be back to square one. Even stripped out the basic T31 will be in the £300m range, it’s too much for an upgraded RB2 replacement.

Although unpopular the stretched RB2 has lots of potential although the individual design isn’t as important as adopting a vessel with such attributes.

Starting with the RB2’s inherent stability due to a low centre of gravity, useful maximum sustained speed of 25knts, modest crew allocation and useful EMF provision of around 50 it’s a solid foundation.

Adding Artisan, 3x 40mm, a Wildcat hanger and 4x RHIBs gives a RB3 real purpose. This requires a LOA of around 95m-100m and a repositioning of the deck crane.

However IMO a further stretch is required to fully release the potential and give RN a world class next-gen OPV design. Increasing the LOA to 115m allows an amidships working deck to embark up to 6x TEU. The extra hull volume could be used to add additional fuel tanks and refrigeration to exceed 10,000nm and 60 days. A useful Role2 medical facility could be added and a stern mission area could be formed to allow for a containerised TAS to be embarked without interfering with flight deck operations. The deck crane could also be upgraded from the RB2’s 16t to the RB1’s 25t SWL. This would allow the operation of XLUUV and multiple USVs.

This basic vessel should cost in the region of £125m but with Artisan, the 40mm’s and other upgrades it may take the cost up to around £150m. In procurement terms an absolute bargain and exactly what RN need to increase mass in an affordable way. Perhaps such a vessel should satisfy the T32 requirement at least for the next 10-15 years until RN fully fund what the requirement dictates. A class of 5x would cost £750m and be constructed in around 3-4 years start to finish.

RN would end up with a vessel capable of 25/26 knots. A range/endurance of 10,000nm and 60 days. Excellent weapons and sensors for effective self defense and more than capable of efficiently slotting into larger grouping with allies if required. The overall dimensions would be comparable to a broad beamed Leander but with the range and endurance doubled and only 1/4 of the crew allocation. Lots to like.

The River class need not form the starting point of such a vessel but an improved RB2 would suffice. At half of the cost of a T31 and with half of the crew the unavoidable financial and headcount realities may combine to ensure such a vessel is actually procured in the end.

[SW1]

….but with 4d radar a camcopter with I-Master radar and a 40mm with 3P its situational awareness and self defence goes to the next level how far would like to go and for what reason

Firstly I wouldn’t do a thing to the RB2’s. IMO when the RB1’s are decommissioned they should be replaced in the U.K. EEZ with 3x RB2’s and the other 2x RB2’s future should be carefully considered.

IMO the RB2’s deployed outside the UK EEZ should be replaced with a vessel that is much more capable but with no offensive capabilities beyond the embarked Wildcat. However the defensive capability should be considerably upgraded. This may require 2x or even 3x 40mm to ensure the safety of the crew. A provision for containerised CAMM should also be added.

This upgrade is very much in line with the original T31 specification. Something along the lines of 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12x CAMM with one embarked Wildcat, Merlin capable flight deck and 3 or 4 RHIBs.

RN has lots of options to achieve this. The easiest one is to build the first 3x T31 hulls as basically as originally intended. Forget the Mk41 cells and NSM. Fit 12x CAMM, 57mm, 2x 40mm and NS110 and call it good. Inevitably they will eventually get upgraded and RN will be back to square one. Even stripped out the basic T31 will be in the £300m range, it’s too much for an upgraded RB2 replacement.

Although unpopular the stretched RB2 has lots of potential although the individual design isn’t as important as adopting a vessel with such attributes.

Starting with the RB2’s inherent stability due to a low centre of gravity, useful maximum sustained speed of 25knts, modest crew allocation and useful EMF provision of around 50 it’s a solid foundation.

Adding Artisan, 3x 40mm, a Wildcat hanger and 4x RHIBs gives a RB3 real purpose. This requires a LOA of around 95m-100m and a repositioning of the deck crane.

However IMO a further stretch is required to fully release the potential and give RN a world class next-gen OPV design. Increasing the LOA to 115m allows an amidships working deck to embark up to 6x TEU. The extra hull volume could be used to add additional fuel tanks and refrigeration to exceed 10,000nm and 60 days. A useful Role2 medical facility could be added and a stern mission area could be formed to allow for a containerised TAS to be embarked without interfering with flight deck operations. The deck crane could also be upgraded from the RB2’s 16t to the RB1’s 25t SWL. This would allow the operation of XLUUV and multiple USVs.

This basic vessel should cost in the region of £125m but with Artisan, the 40mm’s and other upgrades it may take the cost up to around £150m. In procurement terms an absolute bargain and exactly what RN need to increase mass in an affordable way. Perhaps such a vessel should satisfy the T32 requirement at least for the next 10-15 years until RN fully fund what the requirement dictates. A class of 5x would cost £750m and be constructed in around 3-4 years start to finish.

RN would end up with a vessel capable of 25/26 knots. A range/endurance of 10,000nm and 60 days. Excellent weapons and sensors for effective self defense and more than capable of efficiently slotting into larger grouping with allies if required. The overall dimensions would be comparable to a broad beamed Leander but with the range and endurance doubled and only 1/4 of the crew allocation. Lots to like.

The River class need not form the starting point of such a vessel but an improved RB2 would suffice. At half of the cost of a T31 and with half of the crew the unavoidable financial and headcount realities may combine to ensure such a vessel is actually procured in the end.

I would say the NSM should be a must for fwd deployed vessels this coupled with the camm family of missiles and the 40mm cannon is the baseline in weapons the ships should have. It’s then up to the capt about which missiles he carries for each deployment.

As for sensors I really don’t know where bae naval radars is going, is it being invested in is there a development pipeline. The scalable Thales radars seem more suited the future needs.

As for crew it really depends on what your asking the ship to be capable off. If they need to use defence watches then crew numbers will be higher. The Dane’s have mentioned with their frigate travelling from port to port they need only 15 sailors on duty as that moves to 2nd degree readiness it’s 60 and 1st 120.

[new guy]

Hey, that sounds an awful lot like the BAE leander...
which costs the same as a AH140...

[SW1]

Hey, that sounds an awful lot like the BAE leander...
which costs the same as a AH140...

This is the thing, the Dane’s have produced a design that it extremely cheap to build and extremely capable and we are benefitting from it I struggle to see how we start again and get something cheaper for what needs to go into it.

[R686]

As the 127mm now has range close to 100km's it still has a NGF role as a ship like T-26 could carry 200+ rounds this is still a good to have option as for the 40mm yes it should now replace the 30mm in service however for me the Carriers should now get 4 x 57mm . The T-31 with its 57mm and 2 40mm's is a very good gun fit for a GP frigate

Is it a priority? Where would it actually be used? That’s my point.

Ever heard of five inch Friday?

It was naval gunfire in support of the British-led 40 Commando Royal Marine assault on the Al Faw Peninsular 2003

If the Mk45 and associated auto loading magazine was to be deleted and replaced by 32x Mk 41 cells giving the T26 the ability to embark 16x NSM, 56x TLAM and 48x CAMM with 4x 40mm acting as CIWS whilst retaining the full use of the mission area RN would have a seriously capable Frigate with full ASW capabilities intact.

What you are really asking if Naval guns still matter
Lieutenant Andrew Wiley Miller, U.S. Navy

The naval gun is a compact, easily supported, proven weapon. Just as war on land will always require rifles and boots on the ground, war in the littorals will always require heavily armed ships in the area of conflict inflicting violence on the enemy on land and at sea. The most cost-effective and reliable way to arm ships is the gun.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... ill-matter

Is the 57mm really required on the T31? Would 4x40mm be better? Moving the 32x Mk41 silo to the A position adds massive flexibility to the T31 mission area. It would be the cheapest way to give RN a T32 multi role capability to a follow on batch of T31. Lots of tangible benefits compared to the negligible benefit of the 57mm.

This approach isn’t revolutionary.
IMG_1394.jpeg

Its role dependent there most likely is a case for such ship escorting high vale target such as aircraft carriers or troop ships from swarms of UAV/drones

You are more likely to run out of missiles than gun XO. drones are the kamikaze pilots of WWII

[tomuk]

This approach isn’t revolutionary.

What is the relvance of the horizon class? the gun fit is slightly different between French and Italian vessels but it is 2-3 76mm and 2-3 20/25mm (ignoring the missile fit). Not sure that is equivalent to a 57mm and 40mm mix.

[donald_of_tokyo]

….but with 4d radar a camcopter with I-Master radar and a 40mm with 3P its situational awareness and self defence goes to the next level how far would like to go and for what reason

Firstly I wouldn’t do a thing to the RB2’s. IMO when the RB1’s are decommissioned they should be replaced in the U.K. EEZ with 3x RB2’s and the other 2x RB2’s future should be carefully considered.

IMO the RB2’s deployed outside the UK EEZ should be replaced with a vessel that is much more capable but with no offensive capabilities beyond the embarked Wildcat. However the defensive capability should be considerably upgraded. This may require 2x or even 3x 40mm to ensure the safety of the crew. A provision for containerised CAMM should also be added.

This upgrade is very much in line with the original T31 specification. Something along the lines of 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12x CAMM with one embarked Wildcat, Merlin capable flight deck and 3 or 4 RHIBs.

RN has lots of options to achieve this. The easiest one is to build the first 3x T31 hulls as basically as originally intended. Forget the Mk41 cells and NSM. Fit 12x CAMM, 57mm, 2x 40mm and NS110 and call it good. Inevitably they will eventually get upgraded and RN will be back to square one. Even stripped out the basic T31 will be in the £300m range, it’s too much for an upgraded RB2 replacement.

I (almost) totally agree to the argument here. T31 is there to do this job. Use it.

Although unpopular the stretched RB2 has lots of potential although the individual design isn’t as important as adopting a vessel with such attributes.

Starting with the RB2’s inherent stability due to a low centre of gravity, useful maximum sustained speed of 25knts, modest crew allocation and useful EMF provision of around 50 it’s a solid foundation.

Adding Artisan, 3x 40mm, a Wildcat hanger and 4x RHIBs gives a RB3 real purpose. This requires a LOA of around 95m-100m and a repositioning of the deck crane.

However IMO a further stretch is required to fully release the potential and give RN a world class next-gen OPV design. Increasing the LOA to 115m allows an amidships working deck to embark up to 6x TEU. The extra hull volume could be used to add additional fuel tanks and refrigeration to exceed 10,000nm and 60 days. A useful Role2 medical facility could be added and a stern mission area could be formed to allow for a containerised TAS to be embarked without interfering with flight deck operations. The deck crane could also be upgraded from the RB2’s 16t to the RB1’s 25t SWL. This would allow the operation of XLUUV and multiple USVs.

This basic vessel should cost in the region of £125m but with Artisan, the 40mm’s and other upgrades it may take the cost up to around £150m. In procurement terms an absolute bargain and exactly what RN need to increase mass in an affordable way. Perhaps such a vessel should satisfy the T32 requirement at least for the next 10-15 years until RN fully fund what the requirement dictates. A class of 5x would cost £750m and be constructed in around 3-4 years start to finish.

RN would end up with a vessel capable of 25/26 knots. A range/endurance of 10,000nm and 60 days. Excellent weapons and sensors for effective self defense and more than capable of efficiently slotting into larger grouping with allies if required. The overall dimensions would be comparable to a broad beamed Leander but with the range and endurance doubled and only 1/4 of the crew allocation. Lots to like.

The River class need not form the starting point of such a vessel but an improved RB2 would suffice. At half of the cost of a T31 and with half of the crew the unavoidable financial and headcount realities may combine to ensure such a vessel is actually procured in the end.

If it is all without CAMM and associated CMS upgrade, I agree it can be a candidate.

The big difference between OPV and escort is its "standard", predominantly in damage control.
1: Normal merchant ship standard (I understand most of the Vard7 origin OPVs are actually in this stage)
2: OPV standard (I guess River B2 is here. Also, most of the corvettes exported is in this level)
3: frigate standard (T31 is here)
I think RN shall better not send ships in "merchant" or "OPV" standards to "fight". And this cost money (and man-power) a lot, which is, to my understanding, the reason why T31 is ~£300M figure while OPVs are ~£100M level.

Self defense is "fire and retreat". War fighting is "fire and charge, and fire and charge and ...". An order of magnitude difference in probability of getting hit = needs for better hull standard. Using Wildcat (and armed UAVs) for "fighting" is a good approach because the hull then do not need the "frigate standard".

"Ships in OPV standard heavily armed" is very good for export as a Corvette (or alike), but may not be "useful" in RN use. I see French navy is intentionally building "ships in OPV standard which can be easily heavily armed", like the Patrouilleurs Hauturiers OPVs, in view of Export. But, they rarely actually arm them heavily. See Floreal class frigates, which even lost its Exocet and did not get Mistral-MANPADs which were originally "planned". But, saying "can carry" is important for export.

If any kind of "River B3" be planned, I think they shall not carry CAMM nor NSM in UK version. Carry just one to three 40mm gun(s), Wildcat hangar, and container space (mission deck). But, say, "the hull can adopt 57mm gun, 12-24 CAMM, 8-16 NSM, and a 20mm CIWS, if needed" for export sales talk.

[Repulse]

If money was no object just build more T31’s but….

If there’s no money then buying more T31s isn’t the answer - we need something for half the price and requires half the crew, for which there are options no matter what those who fantasise over the T31 here believe.

[Repulse]

I would say the NSM should be a must for fwd deployed vessels this coupled with the camm family of missiles and the 40mm cannon is the baseline in weapons the ships should have.

Utter nonsense

[Repulse]

Hey, that sounds an awful lot like the BAE leander...
which costs the same as a AH140...

This is the thing, the Dane’s have produced a design that it extremely cheap to build and extremely capable and we are benefitting from it I struggle to see how we start again and get something cheaper for what needs to go into it.

There are other established platform's that are cheaper and better suited to do roles that the UK actually needs to be done.

The T31 won an RFP as a light frigate whose role was not to fight, but to deter and stay afloat long enough to run away. Given its heritage it could be converted to do a AAW role and possibly ASW if supported by other assets, which limits it use to a UK/NATO role.

If the UK does want more of small fleet of imperial gun boats, rather than a larger fleet of (MHPC) multi-role patrol ships which would be more useful and appropriate, then let’s have a RFP evaluation - but the answer will not be the T31, it would be a platform capable of protecting itself and able to fight in high threat environments, it would be a Global Combat Ship. If only the government actually looked at the role - oh hang on…

[donald_of_tokyo]

A good read, and a timely reminder that the RN has bigger problems to solve than just adding more escorts.

https://tinyurl.com/2dyfcc7f

[SW1]

I would say the NSM should be a must for fwd deployed vessels this coupled with the camm family of missiles and the 40mm cannon is the baseline in weapons the ships should have.

Utter nonsense

Why is it utter nonsense that escort/patrol ships fwd deployed should be able to defend themselves?

[SW1]

Hey, that sounds an awful lot like the BAE leander...
which costs the same as a AH140...

This is the thing, the Dane’s have produced a design that it extremely cheap to build and extremely capable and we are benefitting from it I struggle to see how we start again and get something cheaper for what needs to go into it.

There are other established platform's that are cheaper and better suited to do roles that the UK actually needs to be done.

The T31 won an RFP as a light frigate whose role was not to fight, but to deter and stay afloat long enough to run away. Given its heritage it could be converted to do a AAW role and possibly ASW if supported by other assets, which limits it use to a UK/NATO role.

If the UK does want more of small fleet of imperial gun boats, rather than a larger fleet of (MHPC) multi-role patrol ships which would be more useful and appropriate, then let’s have a RFP evaluation - but the answer will not be the T31, it would be a platform capable of protecting itself and able to fight in high threat environments, it would be a Global Combat Ship. If only the government actually looked at the role - oh hang on…

What roles do you think the RN need done?

They already did an evaluation the arrowhead 140 was selected because it offered more flexibility and future proofing.