Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

If the two frigates' crew is needed to man the two new frigates to come, T26-hull1 and T31-hull1, it is very natural. A frigate needs her full crew a few months before her delivery. And, delivery much earlier than commissioning, and IOC is further away. This is inevitable. When you introduce new class of warships, OF COURSE, your fleet strength becomes weak, temporarily.

If T26 hull-1 is to delivered to RN on 2026 (to be accepted into service on 2028), yes, RN needs 150 core crew for her from late 2025/early 2026. Fact.

If T31 hull-1 is to be delivered to RN on 2025 (to be accepted into service on 2027), yes, RN needs 100 core crew for her from late 2024/early 2025. Fact.

Only fear is, "to provide crew for new frigates" are just a lie, and further cuts were required when those 150 and 100 souls are needed.

Anyway, increase salary. If not basic salary, increase "special bonus". Give them pay which is comparable to the commercial market. If RN need to disband the two frigates to save this money, just do it. In current situation, people is the key, not the ship. Asking for "more frigates" means nothing now. It is a "future aim", not to be done now.

RN must ask for "more man-power". And this will increase the available escorts number. That's it.

[Ron5]

[EDIT] By the way, what are we arguing? I never said these 3P guns can hit sub-sonic air-crafts nor sub-sonic drones efficiently (they will, but not efficient). But, they are very efficient against slow moving drones, say 200-300 km/hr or less. They are slow and hence cheap.

I don't think 2 Bofors and a six pounder will be much good against any airborne threat. I think they are primarily to deal with surface threats. You and others disagree. That's fine, there's no real evidence either way.

Personally, if I thought these Amazon drones were a realistic threat, I would ditch the Bofors and get a couple Phalanx instead.

The rounds aren't just proximity fused, they are timed and impact fused too with each round being programmed as it leaves the barrel. That is vastly superior to their WWII antecedents.

Why would you want a Phalanx it just hasn't got the range?

The Bofors 3P has two programmable modes (out of six) that are relevant to Amazon drones: simple proximity and gated proximity.

Here's a BAE video conveniently showing proximity fusing operating against the kind of drones we are discussing.



As far as range is concerned, I can see longer range being useful against surface threats with stand off ability, but against these kind of drones?

Phalanx is indeed old, heavy, and expensive. On the other hand, it's all weather, fully automatic, proven, and in service with the RN.

The purely timed mode is also relevant against drones as it allows you to build a wall of shrapnel they can't fly through. For bigger drones the impact mode may also be of use.

Range is always a bonus increases the chances of a kill and reduces the chances of the enemy getting off their ordinance.

Why can't the 40mm or 57mm be used in all weathers? Radar is used with them for gun laying as well as EO.

According to Bae/Bofors, the timed mode is for surface targets and as I mentioned earlier, the radar guidance is also for surface targets only.

The wall of shrapnel sounds just like Biggle's Archie. Didn't shoot him down either

I'd rather have a system that reliably shoots down target than a system with less efficiency operating at a greater range. These drones have no standoff capability.

[Repulse]

No it isn't T32 are a second batch of T31. Listen to the CDS.

Then god help us.

Well that's the reality T32, autonomy, flexibility were just buzzwords to 'sex it up'.

The Pointless class.

What’s worse someone will come up with the cunning idea to forward base them to places where they aren’t required (where we haven’t had frigates for decades) with a double crewing approach further reducing the number of vessels that can be crewed and the RNs ability to surge real fighting ships.

Appreciate I’m banging the same drum but this is madness.

I think your drum beating would be better if your comments were not demonstrably and factually incorrect.

No one has suggested fwd basing frigates where they haven’t been for decades. The frigates being procured are real fighting ships and real world events have repeatedly demonstrated the utility of having fwd based warships that can be tasked to respond to international crisis and form part of coalition operations to maintain stability in there region of deployment.

They are only fighting if we pay for all the extra bits people are asking for, and even then they are not top tier.

If we are only going to forward base a T31 (and double crew) for Kipion then that’s fine. We can sell the other four.

Which is your opinion which is fine. That is different from your first comment which was factually incorrect.

Sorry, which bit is different and incorrect?

[SW1]

No it isn't T32 are a second batch of T31. Listen to the CDS.

Then god help us.

Well that's the reality T32, autonomy, flexibility were just buzzwords to 'sex it up'.

The Pointless class.

What’s worse someone will come up with the cunning idea to forward base them to places where they aren’t required (where we haven’t had frigates for decades) with a double crewing approach further reducing the number of vessels that can be crewed and the RNs ability to surge real fighting ships.

Appreciate I’m banging the same drum but this is madness.

I think your drum beating would be better if your comments were not demonstrably and factually incorrect.

No one has suggested fwd basing frigates where they haven’t been for decades. The frigates being procured are real fighting ships and real world events have repeatedly demonstrated the utility of having fwd based warships that can be tasked to respond to international crisis and form part of coalition operations to maintain stability in there region of deployment.

They are only fighting if we pay for all the extra bits people are asking for, and even then they are not top tier.

If we are only going to forward base a T31 (and double crew) for Kipion then that’s fine. We can sell the other four.

Which is your opinion which is fine. That is different from your first comment which was factually incorrect.

Sorry, which bit is different and incorrect?

“idea to forward base them to places where they aren’t required (where we haven’t had frigates for decades)”. Which is an incorrect statement.

“surge real fighting ships“ which implies that the proposed ships are not real warships which has been debunked so many times.

[Repulse]

No it isn't T32 are a second batch of T31. Listen to the CDS.

Then god help us.

Well that's the reality T32, autonomy, flexibility were just buzzwords to 'sex it up'.

The Pointless class.

What’s worse someone will come up with the cunning idea to forward base them to places where they aren’t required (where we haven’t had frigates for decades) with a double crewing approach further reducing the number of vessels that can be crewed and the RNs ability to surge real fighting ships.

Appreciate I’m banging the same drum but this is madness.

I think your drum beating would be better if your comments were not demonstrably and factually incorrect.

No one has suggested fwd basing frigates where they haven’t been for decades. The frigates being procured are real fighting ships and real world events have repeatedly demonstrated the utility of having fwd based warships that can be tasked to respond to international crisis and form part of coalition operations to maintain stability in there region of deployment.

They are only fighting if we pay for all the extra bits people are asking for, and even then they are not top tier.

If we are only going to forward base a T31 (and double crew) for Kipion then that’s fine. We can sell the other four.

Which is your opinion which is fine. That is different from your first comment which was factually incorrect.

Sorry, which bit is different and incorrect?

“idea to forward base them to places where they aren’t required (where we haven’t had frigates for decades)”. Which is an incorrect statement.

“surge real fighting ships“ which implies that the proposed ships are not real warships which has been debunked so many times.

I said “What’s worse someone will come up with the cunning idea to forward base them to places where they aren’t required (where we haven’t had frigates for decades)” - it was in relation to the T32 being an extension of the T31. The point of the T31 was that it was a cheap forward based frigate that could defend itself and escape.

Ok, I will call T31s tier two warships going forward, capable of offensive action if funds are diverted to pay for it - better?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Current "supposedly" active RN ships

=============================================
number x Class _________ Complement "as of now"
=============================================
2x Cutlass class _____ 6 x2 = 12
16x Archer class _____ (many are URNU) (ref 16 x12 = 192)
2x Sandown ________ 5 or 6 MCM teams in rotation? (34 x1* = 34) just assume 1 MCM team for Sandown (no ref)
6x Hunt ____________ the same (45x4 = 180) just assume 4 MCM teams for Hunt
=============================================
1x Scott ____________ 78
1x Protector _________ 88
3x River B1 _________ 30 x3 = 90 (assume x1.0 crewed)
5x River B2 _________ 60 x5 = 200 (assume 4 active, all x1.5 crewed (60 are assigned, 40 are onboard))
=============================================
11x T23
6x T45 _____________ 10 escorts are operational with 11 crew team 200x11 = 2200
=============================================
1+1x Albion _________ 325 x1 (only one active. But the news says "200 crew....". The other 125 is non-existing already?)
=============================================
2x CVF _____________ 800 x2 = 1600
=============================================

- Let's forget Cutlass and Archer. They are handling their tasks. MCMV fleet has about 200 souls. But, as USV-based MCM is man-power intensive (need to maintain not only the MCM gears, but also the USVs themselves) while giving higher availability (crews can take rest in rotation, because the mother ship is NOT in the mine field). All in all, keep them untouched.

- OPV fleet gives 290 souls.
- Scott and Protector has 160.
- escort fleet gives 2200 souls. We are sure this number is nearly impossible to meet now. But let's start with 2200.
- LPDs should have had 325, but the article says 200. But, let's keep 325 here.
- CV have 1600. The 679 crew figure on wiki is the old number to me understanding. So, 1600

If we believe the articles, and being "realistic",
- HMS Westminster and Argyl will be needed to provide the crew of the first 2 T26s. Although this means providing 130x2 = 260 souls from 200x2 souls, let's realistically think the 130 left is non-existing.
- From where the 1st T31s crew will come? I guess it is from the 90 souls of the 3 River B1 OPVs.

At this stage, it gives
- 4 active River B2 OPVs (another 1 in refit)
- 8 active escorts with 9 crew teams, and 2x T26s and 1x T31 in trial
- 1 Bulwark and 2 CVFs.
with Scott, Protector, patrol boats and MCMVs.

Then, what if RN disband both LPDs? On paper it shall give 325 souls, but the article says 200, so let's assume it is 200. It will increase the active escort from "8-hulls with 9 team" to "9-hulls form 10 team", while enabling the 2 T26s and 1 T31 under trial.

This is my view.

I am not sure if the other 125 to "fully" man Bulwark is already there or we need to cut yet another frigate to enable it.

Just my view....

[Anthony58]

Whatever the best solution for drone defence experience suggests you wouldn't want to rely on just one. If you do that and when it comes to the crunch it fails (electronic kit does that at the most annoying times) you are in trouble.

So you need layered defence even for ships operating on their own. Logic would then suggest you reduce cost and maximise utility by having a system that can defend against multiple types of threat as much as practical.

Cope cages? Sounds ridiculous but let's not rule them out until the data from Ukraine has been analysed. In any event they may not practical for radar equipment due to interference issues.

Ukraine will also tell us which type of 'simple gun type weapon' (GPMG etc) is most effective and they should be fitted/carried ASAP. In every conflict there is always a shortage of the high end weapons so combatants use what is available. We should prepare for that eventuality now and carry those arms as a matter of course.

I haven't seen much discussion of EW defence measures but presumably that is also going to be a significant topic.

Battleships are obsolete but there is merit in comparing photos from 1939 and 1945 to see how the reality of the air threat changed their appearance. In the end numbers always matter.

Numbers are just as important when it comes to RN personnel. It sounds like somebody from outside the armed forces, the MOD and Government needs to be asked to investigate and come up with a strategy for boosting recruitment/retention.

It's time to be brave and creative in coming up with solutions and, like Lord Fisher in the early 1900s, not be afraid of upsetting traditionalists.

I would start by looking at other Western navies that do better than us. We should also look at industries where employees have to be away from home for long periods or put up with challenging working conditions.

[Tempest414]

Current "supposedly" active RN ships

=============================================
number x Class _________ Complement "as of now"
=============================================
2x Cutlass class _____ 6 x2 = 12
16x Archer class _____ (many are URNU) (ref 16 x12 = 192)
2x Sandown ________ 5 or 6 MCM teams in rotation? (34 x1* = 34) just assume 1 MCM team for Sandown (no ref)
6x Hunt ____________ the same (45x4 = 180) just assume 4 MCM teams for Hunt
=============================================
1x Scott ____________ 78
1x Protector _________ 88
3x River B1 _________ 30 x3 = 90 (assume x1.0 crewed)
5x River B2 _________ 60 x5 = 200 (assume 4 active, all x1.5 crewed (60 are assigned, 40 are onboard))
=============================================
11x T23
6x T45 _____________ 10 escorts are operational with 11 crew team 200x11 = 2200
=============================================
1+1x Albion _________ 325 x1 (only one active. But the news says "200 crew....". The other 125 is non-existing already?)
=============================================
2x CVF _____________ 800 x2 = 1600
=============================================

- Let's forget Cutlass and Archer. They are handling their tasks. MCMV fleet has about 200 souls. But, as USV-based MCM is man-power intensive (need to maintain not only the MCM gears, but also the USVs themselves) while giving higher availability (crews can take rest in rotation, because the mother ship is NOT in the mine field). All in all, keep them untouched.

- OPV fleet gives 290 souls.
- Scott and Protector has 160.
- escort fleet gives 2200 souls. We are sure this number is nearly impossible to meet now. But let's start with 2200.
- LPDs should have had 325, but the article says 200. But, let's keep 325 here.
- CV have 1600. The 679 crew figure on wiki is the old number to me understanding. So, 1600

If we believe the articles, and being "realistic",
- HMS Westminster and Argyl will be needed to provide the crew of the first 2 T26s. Although this means providing 130x2 = 260 souls from 200x2 souls, let's realistically think the 130 left is non-existing.
- From where the 1st T31s crew will come? I guess it is from the 90 souls of the 3 River B1 OPVs.

At this stage, it gives
- 4 active River B2 OPVs (another 1 in refit)
- 8 active escorts with 9 crew teams, and 2x T26s and 1x T31 in trial
- 1 Bulwark and 2 CVFs.
with Scott, Protector, patrol boats and MCMVs.

Then, what if RN disband both LPDs? On paper it shall give 325 souls, but the article says 200, so let's assume it is 200. It will increase the active escort from "8-hulls with 9 team" to "9-hulls form 10 team", while enabling the 2 T26s and 1 T31 under trial.

This is my view.

I am not sure if the other 125 to "fully" man Bulwark is already there or we need to cut yet another frigate to enable it.

Just my view....

We already know that the first Type 31 has part of its crew and as the RN moves from type 23 to types 26 & 31 the pressure drops as both types need less crew

We need to push on now and make the rest of the fleet better so replace the LPD's with one LPH with say 260 crew the RB'2 , MCM and Scott should be replaced by 12 new 105 by 16 meter MHPC . The 3 RB1's and 16 Archer's should then be replaced by 4 new 60 meter OPV's and 10 new 25 meter fast inshore boats

[Caribbean]

We already know that the first Type 31 has part of its crew and as the RN moves from type 23 to types 26 & 31 the pressure drops as both types need less crew

We need to push on now and make the rest of the fleet better so replace the LPD's with one LPH with say 260 crew the RB'2 , MCM and Scott should be replaced by 12 new 105 by 16 meter MHPC . The 3 RB1's and 16 Archer's should then be replaced by 4 new 60 meter OPV's and 10 new 25 meter fast inshore boats

Agree with the idea of the simple LPH/LHD
Scott is most likely to be replaced by another, probably larger, MROS-type vessel - perhaps purpose-built (re-use the current chemical and mud tank volumes for more useful payloads, like a large survey sonar)
MCM replacement - more RFA Stirling Castle type - again, perhaps purpose-built
RB1s/ RB2s replacement - 5 x 105-115m, multi-role and labelled T32 (so, not for a while)
Archers - 5 x 50-60m IPV, plus 14 x 15/18m SEA-class for the UNRU/Coastal patrol

[Poiuytrewq]

The point of the T31 was that it was a cheap forward based frigate that could defend itself and escape.

Bravely run away was the original requirement although the lordships seem intent on changing that.

[Jdam]

[Ron5]

New mast too

[Jdam]

In a statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State has confirmed that HMS Richmond will join HMS Diamond and HMS Lancaster in the gulf region in response to the serious maritime security situation in the Red Sea.

[Ian Hall]

Follow up:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... -presence/

[Jdam]

Follow up:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... -presence/

Seen this in the comments.

“Subsequently, Grant Shapps has said HMS Richmond is going to replace either HMS Diamond or HMS Lancaster so there is “not an escalation”.

HMS Diamond maybe?

[SW1]

Follow up:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... -presence/

Seen this in the comments.

“Subsequently, Grant Shapps has said HMS Richmond is going to replace either HMS Diamond or HMS Lancaster so there is “not an escalation”.

HMS Diamond maybe?

[Repulse]

Appreciate everything is far from rosy, but given we’ve managed to surge three escorts to the region in a relatively short period, it’s not all bad.

[dmereifield]

Yeah but for how long can we sustain it and where are we short elsewhere as a result?

[SW1]

US Central Command

Houthi Attack on International Shipping

On Jan. 9, at approximately 9:15 p.m. (Sanaa time), Iranian-backed Houthis launched a complex attack of Iranian designed one-way attack UAVs (OWA UAVs), anti-ship cruise missiles, and an anti-ship ballistic missile from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen into the Southern Red Sea, towards international shipping lanes where dozens of merchant vessels were transiting.

Eighteen OWA UAVs, two anti-ship cruise missiles, and one anti-ship ballistic missile were shot down by a combined effort of F/A-18s from USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Laboon (DDG 58), USS Mason (DDG 87), and the United Kingdom’s HMS Diamond (D34). This is the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19. There were no injuries or damage reported.

On Jan. 3, 14 countries, including the U.S, issued a joint statement stating, "The Houthis will bear the responsibility for the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, or the free flow of commerce in the region's critical waterways."

[SW1]

[shark bait]

Awesome! A bit of real world data is highly valuable.

Fitting CAMM silos will be great for the long term sustainability of the destroyers. The extra depth and a cheaper missile available will be a highly welcome addition.

[Poiuytrewq]

How close did the targets get before being engaged with the T45’s guns?

30mm and Phalanx?

CAMM would definitely be preferable surely.

Another validation of the 57mm/40mm fit on the T31.

[Poiuytrewq]

Impressive.

Next recruitment ad ready to go.



Looks like it’s watch this space time.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grant-shapp ... sea-latest

[Phil Sayers]

How close did the targets get before being engaged with the T45’s guns?

30mm and Phalanx?

CAMM would definitely be preferable surely.

Another validation of the 57mm/40mm fit on the T31.

Probably but not necessarily. If 'guns' means the 4.5 inch it could be said to be a validation of having a longer-ranged gun than 57mm. The USN have engaged such drones with their 5 inch guns.

[SW1]