Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[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

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

Because not everything needs to be done by a warship as is currently being proved. Second, if you have offensive weapons such as NSM then expect others to see you as a threat and you better be ready to use them and win - this is not the T31.

[Bring Deeps]

I am sure someone here has said before that forward deployed Rivers are just for flag showing and providing humanitarian aid. Let's ignore the Falklands as that's a special case.

If they are for flag showing then the ships only need enough defensive weapons to avoid embarrassment from an asymmetric threat.

Anything more would just be a distraction from the RN's core strategic roles, which it already struggles to fulfil. AKA a complete waste of time and resource.

Perhaps their secondary role should actually be giving RN sailors the chance to see the world (and not just the cold bits) and so boost recruitment. More frequent rotations would help with the numbers.

You may scoff but why is it we are now seeing pictures of assistance dogs on RN ships deployed away from home?

[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?

Because not everything needs to be done by a warship as is currently being proved. Second, if you have offensive weapons such as NSM then expect others to see you as a threat and you better be ready to use them and win - this is not the T31.

We are discussing fwd deployed warship's on a future escorts thread not royal fleet auxiliaries!

If you fly the white ensign in areas of the world with actors that would rather not obey the rule of law then you will be seen as a threat, weapons or no weapons. So you better be able to defend yourself.

[Repulse]

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.

They didn’t they were forced into a RFP because of anti BAE and cost pressures introduced because of a deliberate decision to delay and not commit to a larger order. The RN wanted more T26s, there is no discussion to be had on that.

The roles are already there and defined - EEZ protection, maritime security of the North Atlantic, global engagement, ability to surge credible warfighting capabilities to high threat regions and the provision of specialist capabilities such as MCM.

The T31 could add to the security of the North Atlantic with specific upgrades but only as part of integrated force - there is no need to have more than 5 in this role and probably then could be done with 3.

Everything else the T31 is either ill suited due to its design, too expensive for lower threat roles and not suited for high threat war fighting when compared to the T26/T45.

[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

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

Because not everything needs to be done by a warship as is currently being proved. Second, if you have offensive weapons such as NSM then expect others to see you as a threat and you better be ready to use them and win - this is not the T31.

We are discussing fwd deployed warship's on a future escorts thread not royal fleet auxiliaries!

If you fly the white ensign in areas of the world with actors that would rather not obey the rule of law then you will be seen as a threat, weapons or no weapons. So you better be able to defend yourself.

Then talk about warships that are designed to fight and win - T26s, not some kind of cut priced fantasy. We’ve just signed an agreement with South Korea to help patrol waters near North Korea - what a joke a T31 would be with its 24 CAMM, NSM, no sonar and the promise of a MK41 VLS would be compared to what they have already.

[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?

Because not everything needs to be done by a warship as is currently being proved. Second, if you have offensive weapons such as NSM then expect others to see you as a threat and you better be ready to use them and win - this is not the T31.

We are discussing fwd deployed warship's on a future escorts thread not royal fleet auxiliaries!

If you fly the white ensign in areas of the world with actors that would rather not obey the rule of law then you will be seen as a threat, weapons or no weapons. So you better be able to defend yourself.

Then talk about warships that are designed to fight and win - T26s, not some kind of cut priced fantasy. We’ve just signed an agreement with South Korea to help patrol waters near North Korea - what a joke a T31 would be with its 24 CAMM, NSM, no sonar and the promise of a MK41 VLS would be compared to what they have already.

The type 31 is a warship that can fight and win. In the case of patrols with South Korea it is comparable to the frigates the South Korean navy operate and are bringing into service.

[SW1]

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.

They didn’t they were forced into a RFP because of anti BAE and cost pressures introduced because of a deliberate decision to delay and not commit to a larger order. The RN wanted more T26s, there is no discussion to be had on that.

The roles are already there and defined - EEZ protection, maritime security of the North Atlantic, global engagement, ability to surge credible warfighting capabilities to high threat regions and the provision of specialist capabilities such as MCM.

The RN shot itself in the foot with prevarication over specing and blowing the budget out of the water on its escort replacement program. No one else.

They are to provide engagement, maritime security and deterrence.

[Repulse]

The type 31 is a warship that can fight and win. In the case of patrols with South Korea it is comparable to the frigates the South Korean navy operate and are bringing into service.

It’s a frigate that was selected as part of a light frigate RFP. It works for the Danish in NATO because they are part of wider NATO groups. Let’s not be naive if you are planning to fight you fight to win, we do not have a numerical superiority against potential foes, it has to be based on having the best kit, top tier frigates like the T26 - if you can’t afford the ships to do it, then don’t do it.

The reality is the UK cannot afford it, which is why focusing on carrier groups deployed when required backed by cheap low level presence non war fighting ships is the optimal offering to world security (outside of top tier SSNs)

[Repulse]

They are to provide engagement, maritime security and deterrence.

Yes they can do the first two, albeit at a higher cost than other platforms. For it to do the latter, it has to be a credible offensive force, without such a glaring Achilles heel, it needs to be better than what else is there already in region, or at least as good. That is not the T31.

[SW1]

The type 31 is a warship that can fight and win. In the case of patrols with South Korea it is comparable to the frigates the South Korean navy operate and are bringing into service.

It’s a frigate that was selected as part of a light frigate RFP. It works for the Danish in NATO because they are part of wider NATO groups. Let’s not be naive if you are planning to fight you fight to win, we do not have a numerical superiority against potential foes, it has to be based on having the best kit, top tier frigates like the T26 - if you can’t afford the ships to do it, then don’t do it.

The reality is the UK cannot afford it, which is why focusing on carrier groups deployed when required backed by cheap low level presence non war fighting ships is the optimal offering to world security (outside of top tier SSNs)

Hate to break this to you but we are in the same nato groups as Denmark and we are in coalition groups in the Indian Ocean. We are not planning to fight alone.

It’s not carrier groups it’s a single carrier group there is only one air group.

cheap non warfighting vessels are not required in the Royal Navy

[new guy]

The type 31 is a warship that can fight and win. In the case of patrols with South Korea it is comparable to the frigates the South Korean navy operate and are bringing into service.

It’s a frigate that was selected as part of a light frigate RFP. It works for the Danish in NATO because they are part of wider NATO groups. Let’s not be naive if you are planning to fight you fight to win, we do not have a numerical superiority against potential foes, it has to be based on having the best kit, top tier frigates like the T26 - if you can’t afford the ships to do it, then don’t do it.

The reality is the UK cannot afford it, which is why focusing on carrier groups deployed when required backed by cheap low level presence non war fighting ships is the optimal offering to world security (outside of top tier SSNs)

Hate to break this to you but we are in the same nato groups as Denmark and we are in coalition groups in the Indian Ocean. We are not planning to fight alone.

It’s not carrier groups it’s a single carrier group there is only one air group.

cheap non warfighting vessels are not required in the Royal Navy

Hate to break it to you, but cheap non war fighting units have been doing important roles for the RN for centuries and guess what doing it right now.

I have no problem, if equipped properly, that the T31s can do a role as part of NATO groups if supported. I’ve said it.

What I do have a problem is that you think:

a) these ships are required in low threat regions, they aren’t
b) they offer anything of real value as war fighting ships outside of NATO groups, they don’t

We have two carriers and plans to complement F35Bs with UAVs and allied assets - these offer real value and we need to get these available to work with our allies a thousand times more than light frigates of which there are plenty and what’s more much superior to the T31.

[SW1]

The type 31 is a warship that can fight and win. In the case of patrols with South Korea it is comparable to the frigates the South Korean navy operate and are bringing into service.

It’s a frigate that was selected as part of a light frigate RFP. It works for the Danish in NATO because they are part of wider NATO groups. Let’s not be naive if you are planning to fight you fight to win, we do not have a numerical superiority against potential foes, it has to be based on having the best kit, top tier frigates like the T26 - if you can’t afford the ships to do it, then don’t do it.

The reality is the UK cannot afford it, which is why focusing on carrier groups deployed when required backed by cheap low level presence non war fighting ships is the optimal offering to world security (outside of top tier SSNs)

Hate to break this to you but we are in the same nato groups as Denmark and we are in coalition groups in the Indian Ocean. We are not planning to fight alone.

It’s not carrier groups it’s a single carrier group there is only one air group.

cheap non warfighting vessels are not required in the Royal Navy

Hate to break it to you, but cheap non war fighting units have been doing important roles for the RN for centuries and guess what doing it right now.

I have no problem, if equipped properly, that the T31s can do a role as part of NATO groups if supported. I’ve said it.

What I do have a problem is that you think:

a) these ships are required in low threat regions, they aren’t
b) they offer anything of real value as war fighting ships outside of NATO groups, they don’t

We have two carriers and plans to complement F35Bs with UAVs and allied assets - these offer real value and we need to get these available to work with our allies a thousand times more than light frigates of which there are plenty and what’s more much superior to the T31.

You may not want an escort vessel in the Atlantic patrol task north and south role that’s fine you can disagree and you can get rid of the task but the government still wants to do it and need vessels appropriately equipped for it.

Of course they offer real warfighting capabilities. They offer the ability to conduct maritime security and escort tasks within a nato task group, a coalition task group outside of the nato area or a national tasking. It’s what’s they are equipped to do.


We have 2 carriers to ensure one is available we are working too have an airgroup to equip that sole available carrier that’s your lot. At present we are leaning on allies to support that single carrier and air group.

[Tempest414]

For me the balance of Global OPV's and Global GP frigates will be key and if or when T-31 gets their 32 MK-41 VLS they will more than cover the global frigate role as for the global OPV this needs to be a balancing act in and of its self so for me something like what I have been calling for

110 by 16 meters built to high end OPV standard
Crew 45 ( 60 in 1.5 ) plus 70 other bunks for mission package crews
NS50 4D radar
good CMS
Hangar for a SH-60 & flight deck for Merlin
25 meter covered mission space leading onto a 25 meter open working deck with a 25t crane
Armament 2 x 40mm and 4 x 12.7mm ( maybe containerized CAMM using the 4D radar if needed )

As for the RB2's I would upgrade them with NS50 4D radar and 1 x 40mm plus 4 x 12,7mm for me keeping these ships globally deployable if needed will also be very important

[donald_of_tokyo]

RN lacks man-power for foreseeable future. RN lacked man-power for these three decades. Always less than needed. So, we shall not assume there will be more man-power in future. If yes, just think it as a bonus and start "double-crewing" the assets.

- RN has 6 AAW destroyers, T45. Their PIP working nice, and they will eventually get 24 CAMM added. Not bad.
- RN is building 8 ASW frigates, T26. Good ASW frigates.
- RN is building 5 GP frigates, T31. Lower-end GP frigates (before they get any Mk.41), but has an excellent endurance and range.
- RN has 5 River B2 OPVs. It is a bit high-end for EEZ patrol, and lower-end (can-do) global patrolling (as HMS Spey and Tamar do).
- RN has 3 River B1 OPVs. It is a typical EEZ patrol OPV.
- Amphibious, RN/RFA has RFA Argus (130), HMS Bulwark (325), and 3 Bays (~70) = 5 hulls for amphibious tasks (One of the Bay's task is now an MCMV mother ship, but will be replaced by MHC LSV). Then, RN/RFA is thinking of getting 6 MRSS to replace them.

Note that RN is now only manning 10 escorts (each with 200 souls), and one double-crewed = 2200 souls of crew (including flight).

In future, RN shall man (I wish),
4 T45 (200) = 800 souls (all single crewed)
6 T26 (150) = 900 souls (all single crewed)
4 T31 (120) with 5 crew-teams = 600 souls (one-hull be double-crewed).
In total, 2300 souls. Already short of 100 souls.

3 River B1s will provide ~100. Done. In short, we have no other crew.

Actually, in the above plan, I am proposing to man 14 escorts, so it is already 40% more escorts available. It is a very bright future even without any more escorts. In other words, I think the T31s can replace the 2 River B2 OPVs' tasks, reflecting the increasing manned escort number.

On the other hand, OPV numbers are decreasing from 8 to 5 (38% loss).

Then, if RN expect something "self-defensible vessel with OPV standard hull (not escort)", it can only be the 6-MRSS. They will take away all the 130+325+70*3 = 665 souls of RN/RFA. Actually, the 2nd FSS needs 130 souls (even with 3rd FSS in extended readiness), so there will be only 535 souls remaining for the MRSS.

I think the discussion shall move to amphibious thread, but I think the way forward is
- 3 of the long discussed OPV+ (like Vard 7 313 added with "integrated well-dock" of Vard, ~8000t FLD) (70 x2 = 140 (one in extended readiness))
- and 3 "flat-top" LSDs (Osumi-mod-like, ~18000t FLD) (200x2 = 400 (one in extended readiness))
...kind of.... (again, shall be discussed in the amphibious thread).

Sorry for long post, but in short,
- although enlarged OPV looks very attractive and interesting to discuss,
- I strongly think it is more an "OPV-LSD-mix" type of MRSS (as the Dutch navy might be thinking of).
and hence, I am more interested on " Vard 7 313 added with integrated well-dock" type of ships, here. Not the enlarged OPV.

Just one thought (not saying enhanced OPV discussion is not needed here).

[Repulse]

Note that RN is now only manning 10 escorts (each with 200 souls), and one double-crewed = 2200 souls of crew (including flight).

In future, RN shall man (I wish),
4 T45 (200) = 800 souls (all single crewed)
6 T26 (150) = 900 souls (all single crewed)
4 T31 (120) with 5 crew-teams = 600 souls (one-hull be double-crewed).
In total, 2300 souls. Already short of 100 souls.

3 River B1s will provide ~100. Done. In short, we have no other crew.

Or you don’t double crew the T31, base them in the UK (all single crewed) and crew three and keep the 8 OPVs and some head space. Makes a hell of a lot more sense - requires the UK to withdraw from Kipion, but atleast then we have something sustainable.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Note that RN is now only manning 10 escorts (each with 200 souls), and one double-crewed = 2200 souls of crew (including flight).

In future, RN shall man (I wish),
4 T45 (200) = 800 souls (all single crewed)
6 T26 (150) = 900 souls (all single crewed)
4 T31 (120) with 5 crew-teams = 600 souls (one-hull be double-crewed).
In total, 2300 souls. Already short of 100 souls.

3 River B1s will provide ~100. Done. In short, we have no other crew.

Or you don’t double crew the T31, base them in the UK (all single crewed) and crew three and keep the 8 OPVs and some head space. Makes a hell of a lot more sense - requires the UK to withdraw from Kipion, but atleast then we have something sustainable.

One idea, I agree. Actually, we may not need to throw away Kipion, because even in this plan, number of manned escorts are 13, 30% more than now RN has.

Genuine question. I propose 3 smallish MRSS (of the total of 6 MRSS), and that is exactly "a lower-tier assets" you like to be used in RN. So, I am NOT reducing the number of such assets, just stealing it from the amphibious fleet.

Is this not good?

[Repulse]

Genuine question. I propose 3 smallish MRSS (of the total of 6 MRSS), and that is exactly "a lower-tier assets" you like to be used in RN. So, I am NOT reducing the number of such assets, just stealing it from the amphibious fleet.

Is this not good?

Without going too much into the amphibious thread, it is good as with recent personnel news and the facts on the table the two LPDs as is are unaffordable. I would say though I am gravitating more towards replacing what we have now - three simple “LPDs” but RN crewed (from the current LPD) and a RFA ASS. A MHPC class is up there for me also, but feels like that will need to be a one for one replacement for the OPVs over time.

[wargame_insomniac]

RN lacks man-power for foreseeable future. RN lacked man-power for these three decades. Always less than needed. So, we shall not assume there will be more man-power in future. If yes, just think it as a bonus and start "double-crewing" the assets.

- RN has 6 AAW destroyers, T45. Their PIP working nice, and they will eventually get 24 CAMM added. Not bad.
- RN is building 8 ASW frigates, T26. Good ASW frigates.
- RN is building 5 GP frigates, T31. Lower-end GP frigates (before they get any Mk.41), but has an excellent endurance and range.
- RN has 5 River B2 OPVs. It is a bit high-end for EEZ patrol, and lower-end (can-do) global patrolling (as HMS Spey and Tamar do).
- RN has 3 River B1 OPVs. It is a typical EEZ patrol OPV.
- Amphibious, RN/RFA has RFA Argus (130), HMS Bulwark (325), and 3 Bays (~70) = 5 hulls for amphibious tasks (One of the Bay's task is now an MCMV mother ship, but will be replaced by MHC LSV). Then, RN/RFA is thinking of getting 6 MRSS to replace them.

Note that RN is now only manning 10 escorts (each with 200 souls), and one double-crewed = 2200 souls of crew (including flight).

In future, RN shall man (I wish),
4 T45 (200) = 800 souls (all single crewed)
6 T26 (150) = 900 souls (all single crewed)
4 T31 (120) with 5 crew-teams = 600 souls (one-hull be double-crewed).
In total, 2300 souls. Already short of 100 souls.

3 River B1s will provide ~100. Done. In short, we have no other crew.

Actually, in the above plan, I am proposing to man 14 escorts, so it is already 40% more escorts available. It is a very bright future even without any more escorts. In other words, I think the T31s can replace the 2 River B2 OPVs' tasks, reflecting the increasing manned escort number.

On the other hand, OPV numbers are decreasing from 8 to 5 (38% loss).

Then, if RN expect something "self-defensible vessel with OPV standard hull (not escort)", it can only be the 6-MRSS. They will take away all the 130+325+70*3 = 665 souls of RN/RFA. Actually, the 2nd FSS needs 130 souls (even with 3rd FSS in extended readiness), so there will be only 535 souls remaining for the MRSS.

I think the discussion shall move to amphibious thread, but I think the way forward is
- 3 of the long discussed OPV+ (like Vard 7 313 added with "integrated well-dock" of Vard, ~8000t FLD) (70 x2 = 140 (one in extended readiness))
- and 3 "flat-top" LSDs (Osumi-mod-like, ~18000t FLD) (200x2 = 400 (one in extended readiness))
...kind of.... (again, shall be discussed in the amphibious thread).

Sorry for long post, but in short,
- although enlarged OPV looks very attractive and interesting to discuss,
- I strongly think it is more an "OPV-LSD-mix" type of MRSS (as the Dutch navy might be thinking of).
and hence, I am more interested on " Vard 7 313 added with integrated well-dock" type of ships, here. Not the enlarged OPV.

Just one thought (not saying enhanced OPV discussion is not needed here).

It was nt clear (at least to me) if the crew for the 5*River Batch 2s were included within the 2200 current RN crew. I have assumed that you intend to retire the 3*River Batch 1s (thereby saving their 100 crew), but keep the 5*River Batch 2s - i.e hence no change in their crew requirements??

I agree that I would have personally liked the River Batch2's wjen built to have been stretched enough to have a hangar (big enough in short term to take a Wildcat and in long term for UAV). But given they are as they are, I would want only minor upgrades to keep their crew requrements as low as possible abd their number of days at sea as high as possible. A cheap UAV for ISTAR would certainly help their patrolling and anti-smuggling tasks. Maube upgrade their gun only if the RN / RFA are scrapping ALL their 30mm guns and upgrading to 40mm as the standard secondary gun for larger ships and the standard primary gun for smaller ships. Otherwise any other improvements would have to be containerised so that can be utilised only for specific missions.

The T31's with modest upgrades can be useful for several missions. Including escorting both LRG (N) and (S), participating in NATO SNMG 1&2, as well as patrolling shipping lanes in Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. I personally like the idea of adding 8*NSM, increased number of CAMM, and adding a Sonar (even if just a containerised TAS). I am less convinced about more significant upgrades such as adding Mk41 VLS, unless this can be chaly be done earlier in the construction phase. Their bebefit is that they are sigificantly cheaper than T26 and require less crew. If we add too much to T31 then we lose these two advantages without gaining the high end capabilities of the T26.

Its all about the overall balance of the fleet - we need that mixture between Tier One (T45/T26), Tier Two (T31) and Tier Three (River Batch 1s & 2s).

[Poiuytrewq]

Is this not good?

Good post.

The overall fleet balance is crucial and without considering the MCM element the balance can’t be fully formed. The 3x LSV’s are just a placeholder IMO.

The HiCap OPVs such as the Vard 7 313 and mini LPDs such the Enforcer 14428 are fantastically capable RB1 replacements but the overlap with the MRSS is clear. They are also going to approach or even exceed the basic T31 unit cost. They will work but further fleet shrinkage to fund such a purchase must be resisted as a priority.

[donald_of_tokyo]

…
Note that RN is now only manning 10 escorts (each with 200 souls), and one double-crewed = 2200 souls of crew (including flight).

In future, RN shall man (I wish),
4 T45 (200) = 800 souls (all single crewed)
6 T26 (150) = 900 souls (all single crewed)
4 T31 (120) with 5 crew-teams = 600 souls (one-hull be double-crewed).
In total, 2300 souls. Already short of 100 souls.

3 River B1s will provide ~100. Done. In short, we have no other crew. ….

It was nt clear (at least to me) if the crew for the 5*River Batch 2s were included within the 2200 current RN crew. I have assumed that you intend to retire the 3*River Batch 1s (thereby saving their 100 crew), but keep the 5*River Batch 2s - i.e hence no change in their crew requirements??

Exactly. Thanks for clarity.

I agree that I would have personally liked the River Batch2's wjen built to have been stretched enough to have a hangar (big enough in short term to take a Wildcat and in long term for UAV). But given they are as they are, I would want only minor upgrades to keep their crew requrements as low as possible abd their number of days at sea as high as possible. A cheap UAV for ISTAR would certainly help their patrolling and anti-smuggling tasks. Maube upgrade their gun only if the RN / RFA are scrapping ALL their 30mm guns and upgrading to 40mm as the standard secondary gun for larger ships and the standard primary gun for smaller ships. Otherwise any other improvements would have to be containerised so that can be utilised only for specific missions.

Agree.

The T31's with modest upgrades can be useful for several missions. Including escorting both LRG (N) and (S), participating in NATO SNMG 1&2, as well as patrolling shipping lanes in Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. I personally like the idea of adding 8*NSM, increased number of CAMM, and adding a Sonar (even if just a containerised TAS). I am less convinced about more significant upgrades such as adding Mk41 VLS, unless this can be chaly be done earlier in the construction phase. Their bebefit is that they are sigificantly cheaper than T26 and require less crew. If we add too much to T31 then we lose these two advantages without gaining the high end capabilities of the T26.

Its all about the overall balance of the fleet - we need that mixture between Tier One (T45/T26), Tier Two (T31) and Tier Three (River Batch 1s & 2s).

I also agree here. I think Mk41 on T31 as bonus. 2 or 3 T31P without Mk41 but with NSM and 20-36 CAMM as tier two patrol frigates, and 3 or 2 T31S with 32-cell Mk41 VLS as “strike” assets, (partly) tier one, if there be such money, is my proposal here.

[edit]
In T31 strike, especially if it is 2 hulls (3 T31P and 2 T31S case), I shall even arm the T31S as
- a 57 mm gun
- single 40 mm gun (on the hangar)
- 24 CAMM forward
- 8 NSM
- 32-cell Mk41 (strike length)
- small LF-TASS, common with ARCIMS SeaSense. or even CAPTAS-4 CI.
It will be a tier one asset. Also, heavily armed, it will be a good showcase for export promotion.

Humm, many options there will be…

[Poiuytrewq]

Humm, many options there will be…

Making the T31 better and better is easy. The main consequence however is that filling the role originally intended for the T31 gets harder.

The RB2 is not capable enough for a multi role forward based vessel.

The T31 is too expensive and not capable enough for a multi role forward based vessel. Adding more weapons won’t help. The configuration is wrong.

The MRSS will likely be too expensive for a multi role forward bass vessel in meaningful numbers.

Therefore the ideal forward based multi role vessel for RN must be a stripped out and reconfigured T31 or a stretched out, long range/endurance OPV.

The target unit cost should be £150m with 65 crew including flight. I don’t think any T31 derivative can achieve that even if the VLS silo is removed and the amidships area is simplified like the MRCV.

IMG_1395.png

A 115m OPV with 3x 40mm’s, Artisan or NS110, embarked Wildcat, 4x RHIBs, 25knt maximum sustained speed, long range/endurance with a generous amidships mission space with 6x TEU capacity and 25t crane ticks all the boxes. Having a capacity of 24x or 32x AShM would also be attractive for the export market.

IMG_1396.jpeg

At £150m with 65 crew including flight it’s a procurement and operational bargain for HMT. It could also be an export goldmine for Babcock if developed from a non BAE hull form.

Much is dependent on the direction of MRSS but regardless, the OPV MAX would be the vastly cheaper option. It’s exactly what RN need to increase presence and reach without compromising the core priorities.

[SW1]

[quote=Poiuytrewq post_id=160513. It’s exactly what RN need to increase presence and reach without compromising the core priorities.
[/quote]

This is where the problem is, what is the reason for fwd presence?

If the reason for that presence is to work with allies to ensure the free movement of trade and information at sea then for a trading nation it should be a core priority not something to play lip service too.

[Poiuytrewq]

This is where the problem is, what is the reason for fwd presence?

What is the reason for the 24 escort requirement?

[SW1]

This is where the problem is, what is the reason for fwd presence?

What is the reason for the 24 escort requirement?

I’ve no idea there has been many numbers for escort numbers these past 20 odd years all as variable as the next.

Just a symptom of continuous drift no National strategy and so no idea in how the military should support it

[Poiuytrewq]

Just a symptom of continuous drift no National strategy and so no idea in how the military should support it

All the more reason for a plausibly affordable fleet balance. This must be the number one priority. Anything else is just picking favourites.

IMO RN needs independent, self sufficient groups to slot into NATO’s overall posture. Sending a CVF and a AAW Destroyer and relying on allies to form the rest of the CSG is acceptable in peace time but in a conflict RN needs to have the escorts to protect its own fleet.

If RN is intending to operate a CSG and ARG simultaneously that’s 24x escorts with nothing left for taskings. It’s already bare minimum.