Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Mission creep continues apace.

[tomuk]

I read the EU wanted to do something... but so many differing voices - so maybe wishful thinking that some EU may tag on to show solidarity - if this situation goes on longterm...

But the EU are already there represented by France operating outside the US led operation.

[Tempest414]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

IMO a joint US/UK CSG based around QE with both US/UK F35s is exactly what is required when it’s time to rotate the CVN.

The simple fact is that the U.K. can’t currently form a fully RN CSG in the Red Sea and maintain other commitments. That’s extremely embarrassing but why shy away from it?

Even without any kinetic exchanges proving the US/UK interoperability successfully in a high threat environment will be priceless for RN both politically and strategically.

We don't need to go that far to prove the worth of 2 carriers we could send QE up North with her escorts 12 F-35 , plus Merlin AEW & ASW and send POW south with 1 x Type 45 , 1 x Type 23 plus 3 or 4 Merlin ASW 6 x Wildcats and 20 USMC F-35 plus other allied escorts the fact the USN could replace a carrier BG with say 3 escorts and 20 F-35 is a big help

[Poiuytrewq]

We don't need to go that far to prove the worth of 2 carriers we could send QE up North with her escorts 12 F-35 , plus Merlin AEW & ASW and send POW south with 1 x Type 45 , 1 x Type 23 plus 3 or 4 Merlin ASW 6 x Wildcats and 20 USMC F-35 plus other allied escorts the fact the USN could replace a carrier BG with say 3 escorts and 20 F-35 is a big help

What if the US doesn’t want to play anymore?

[Caribbean]

Then, I guess, they build another carrier

[Poiuytrewq]

Then, I guess, they build another carrier

And if the clock started running in 2025 would that carrier be commissioned before 2040?

[SW1]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

IMO a joint US/UK CSG based around QE with both US/UK F35s is exactly what is required when it’s time to rotate the CVN.

The simple fact is that the U.K. can’t currently form a fully RN CSG in the Red Sea and maintain other commitments. That’s extremely embarrassing but why shy away from it?

Even without any kinetic exchanges proving the US/UK interoperability successfully in a high threat environment will be priceless for RN both politically and strategically.

Or we could just tell the Americans if you want to start yet another round of never ending hide and seek bombing of a Middle East country go right ahead we’re not interested. We will provide escort to UK flagged vessels and anyone who wants escort can reflag to the UK

[Scimitar54]

So how is AEW to be provided for PoW then ???

[SW1]

So how is AEW to be provided for PoW then ???

Or growler equivalent ew?

[Ron5]

So how is AEW to be provided for PoW then ???

Crowsnest? Why is this a question?

[Ron5]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

IMO a joint US/UK CSG based around QE with both US/UK F35s is exactly what is required when it’s time to rotate the CVN.

The simple fact is that the U.K. can’t currently form a fully RN CSG in the Red Sea and maintain other commitments. That’s extremely embarrassing but why shy away from it?

Even without any kinetic exchanges proving the US/UK interoperability successfully in a high threat environment will be priceless for RN both politically and strategically.

Or we could just tell the Americans if you want to start yet another round of never ending hide and seek bombing of a Middle East country go right ahead we’re not interested. We will provide escort to UK flagged vessels and anyone who wants escort can reflag to the UK

So just defend against missile & drone attacks without trying to cut off the source of the attacks? Like in WWII just intercepting V1's without bombing their launch sites? You are Neville Chamberlain and I claim my $5!

[SW1]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

IMO a joint US/UK CSG based around QE with both US/UK F35s is exactly what is required when it’s time to rotate the CVN.

The simple fact is that the U.K. can’t currently form a fully RN CSG in the Red Sea and maintain other commitments. That’s extremely embarrassing but why shy away from it?

Even without any kinetic exchanges proving the US/UK interoperability successfully in a high threat environment will be priceless for RN both politically and strategically.

Or we could just tell the Americans if you want to start yet another round of never ending hide and seek bombing of a Middle East country go right ahead we’re not interested. We will provide escort to UK flagged vessels and anyone who wants escort can reflag to the UK

So just defend against missile & drone attacks without trying to cut off the source of the attacks? Like in WWII just intercepting V1's without bombing their launch sites? You are Neville Chamberlain and I claim my $5!

How many UK flagged merchant ships have been attacked and or escorted?

[Scimitar54]

Ron5 wrote:-

Crowsnest? Why is this a question?

Perhaps you had not noticed, but Tempest414, in his suggested carrier deployments, sent Crowsnest Merlin’s on QNLZ to the Far North, and POW was to be deployed to the Red Sea with just 3-4 ASW Merlins AND NO CROWSNEST !!!

[Tempest414]

Ron5 wrote:-

Crowsnest? Why is this a question?

Perhaps you had not noticed, but Tempest414, in his suggested carrier deployments, sent Crowsnest Merlin’s on QNLZ to the Far North, and POW was to be deployed to the Red Sea with just 3-4 ASW Merlins AND NO CROWSNEST !!!

Given the deployment area i.e the Gulf of Aden land based aew could cover from Oman but also under max effort 2 Merlin AEW could be on each carrier

[donald_of_tokyo]

Moved across...

The UK and most other navies have classed ships as 1st Rate, 2nd Rate etc. to denote their capabilities, for hundreds of years. Tier 1, Tier 2 is just a modern version of that. Historically, ratings had a practical effect, as it governed whether a ship's captain could, with honour, decline battle with another ship. If anything, video games adopted the idea from the real world.

T45, T26 and Constellation class is in the same tier. Burke-class is one tier higher. Name it tier-1 or 2, I do not care.

RN is taking "specialist" approach, so the AAW capability of T45 is near that of the Burke-class, and ASW capability of T26 exceeds that of Burke-class. However, the mix of capability combined of the Burke-class make it higher tier than T45/26. On this regard, Constellation class is a perfect match to T45/T26 in its tier.

T31 (as is) is in lower tier, similar to LCS in USN. I think T31 "as is" is exactly the ship people here sometimes talk about "up-armed and enlarged River B2 with hangar". Also, if RN is to use this patrol asset in harms way, I think "frigate level damage control" makes sense. And, here comes "the GP frigate". (The same requirements sets as written in T31 RFI.) It is in those gray-zone warfare when you expect hit, because some sudden "un-fair" attack is anticipated. The GP frigate is required to survive those hits and even react/revenge.

Adding armaments to River B2 will not meet this requirement. OPVs are not a ship to be used in harms way. Or, just build a well-armed OPV with escort-level damage control = a corvette.

[Scimitar54]

Tempest414 wrote:-

Given the deployment area i.e the Gulf of Aden land based aew could cover from Oman but also under max effort 2 Merlin AEW could be on each carrier

What land based AEW ?

2 x Merlin AEW would likely be insufficient for the task and with bare bones Merlin ASW on board, insufficient to do both AEW and ASW.

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 wrote:-

Given the deployment area i.e the Gulf of Aden land based aew could cover from Oman but also under max effort 2 Merlin AEW could be on each carrier

What land based AEW ?

2 x Merlin AEW would likely be insufficient for the task and with bare bones Merlin ASW on board, insufficient to do both AEW and ASW.

Its not perfect by any means but as said POW could be covered by land based allied AEW & MPA's with the Merlin based units filling gaps

[Scimitar54]

OK, the solution would be for QNLZs AEW requirement to be met by NATO EWACS. It is in the NATO operational area after all.

PWLS AEW requirement could be met by the 4 x “Crowsnest” Merlins.

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:-

Crowsnest? Why is this a question?

Perhaps you had not noticed, but Tempest414, in his suggested carrier deployments, sent Crowsnest Merlin’s on QNLZ to the Far North, and POW was to be deployed to the Red Sea with just 3-4 ASW Merlins AND NO CROWSNEST !!!

I had totally missed that

[abc123]

How about the italians ? an escort & a few F35B.......or maybe the CdeG if she could be worked up in time....not a good situation but would show its not just the US & UK in a big way

IMO a joint US/UK CSG based around QE with both US/UK F35s is exactly what is required when it’s time to rotate the CVN.

The simple fact is that the U.K. can’t currently form a fully RN CSG in the Red Sea and maintain other commitments. That’s extremely embarrassing but why shy away from it?

Even without any kinetic exchanges proving the US/UK interoperability successfully in a high threat environment will be priceless for RN both politically and strategically.

Or we could just tell the Americans if you want to start yet another round of never ending hide and seek bombing of a Middle East country go right ahead we’re not interested. We will provide escort to UK flagged vessels and anyone who wants escort can reflag to the UK

So just defend against missile & drone attacks without trying to cut off the source of the attacks? Like in WWII just intercepting V1's without bombing their launch sites? You are Neville Chamberlain and I claim my $5!

How many UK flagged merchant ships have been attacked and or escorted?

Pathetic argument. How about estimating the value to Britain of safe passage. You could start with saving the insurance payouts from UK insurance companies.

[Poiuytrewq]

The sunlight is disinfecting daily now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... -missiles/ .

Britain’s warships have gym where land attack missiles should be…Type 45 destroyers did not procure the weapons due to lack of funds

The Type 45s ended up with a gym in a space designed to accommodate the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System

Royal Navy destroyers have been fitted with treadmills where land attack cruise missiles should be, prompting warnings that the Navy is falling further behind the United States.

The Type 45 warships were designed to accommodate the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System fitted in their bows, allowing them to fire cruise missiles.

However, the space has only ever been used as a gym for crew because the Navy did not procure the weapons due to a lack of funds.

It comes after The Telegraph revealed HMS Diamond cannot attack Houthi targets on land because it lacks the firepower, although the warship has had direct involvement in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea using its anti-air Sea Viper missile system.

The US has had to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF aircraft based 1,500 miles away.

The only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. The US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, however, the UK could only achieve such strikes through Typhoon fighter jets or submarines.

The Type 45s will be enhanced with 24 Sea Ceptor missile cells, anti-air warfare that will upgrade the vessels’ air and missile defence capabilities.


Last month, Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, warned that “given the near-term threats to the UK and US”, investments in the Royal Navy were “significantly important”.

Tobias Ellwood, former chairman of the defence select committee, said: “When advances in missile technology saw the phasing out of battleships with those mighty 16in guns that could strike targets at sea and on land, the Navy prioritised blue-water warfare, focusing only on defending against and striking air, surface and subsurface targets.

“It is now clear the UK should have followed the example of the US and fitted the Type 45s with Tomahawks rather than only placing them in our submarine fleet.”

Mr Ellwood has since written to the Defence Secretary recommending “consideration of short-term solutions for our destroyer fleet”, including adapting the latest model of guided multiple launch rocket system launchers.

“In the meantime we should immediately dispatch our carrier group armed with F-35s,” he added. “This is what it was built for.”

A defence source defended the installation of the gyms, saying that “space in any warship is at a premium” and that “available space is often used to house gym equipment that can easily be removed should that area be required for operational use”.

‘Subs can’t be everywhere’
Dr Phil Weir, a naval historian, said there had been a view that land attack was covered by nuclear attack submarines, so surface ships did not require them.

“The submarines can’t be everywhere,” he added.

“They also have other jobs to do in terms of things like intelligence gathering, so that’s not always conducive to popping up and firing missiles.

“This was an attitude we could get away with back in the glory days of early 2000s when there didn’t seem to be as much of a submarine threat from Russia.

“But with the uptick from Russia and increasing threat from China you need to develop other options.”

Pete Sandeman, director of Navy Lookout, said: “For years, many commentators and naval advocates have urged the Navy to add land attack capability to its surface ships.

“For the majority of other top-tier navies this is a standard feature of major surface combatants.

“Over the last 20 years, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with prioritisation of the carriers and assorted other pressures, have left this as an unfunded aspiration.

“Only with increased likelihood of peer conflict recognised in the last five years or so, has the Navy very slowly started to address its lack of offensive weaponry.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “The Type 45 destroyers are optimised for air defence and this capability is due to be further enhanced by the incorporation of the common anti-air modular missile.”

[Ron5]

Caribbean wrote: ↑02 Feb 2024, 07:48
The UK and most other navies have classed ships as 1st Rate, 2nd Rate etc. to denote their capabilities, for hundreds of years. Tier 1, Tier 2 is just a modern version of that. Historically, ratings had a practical effect, as it governed whether a ship's captain could, with honour, decline battle with another ship. If anything, video games adopted the idea from the real world.

Very useful for the next time a Constellation exchanges broadsides with a Type 31.

[Ron5]

Moved across...

The UK and most other navies have classed ships as 1st Rate, 2nd Rate etc. to denote their capabilities, for hundreds of years. Tier 1, Tier 2 is just a modern version of that. Historically, ratings had a practical effect, as it governed whether a ship's captain could, with honour, decline battle with another ship. If anything, video games adopted the idea from the real world.

T45, T26 and Constellation class is in the same tier. Burke-class is one tier higher. Name it tier-1 or 2, I do not care.

RN is taking "specialist" approach, so the AAW capability of T45 is near that of the Burke-class, and ASW capability of T26 exceeds that of Burke-class. However, the mix of capability combined of the Burke-class make it higher tier than T45/26. On this regard, Constellation class is a perfect match to T45/T26 in its tier.

T31 (as is) is in lower tier, similar to LCS in USN. I think T31 "as is" is exactly the ship people here sometimes talk about "up-armed and enlarged River B2 with hangar". Also, if RN is to use this patrol asset in harms way, I think "frigate level damage control" makes sense. And, here comes "the GP frigate". (The same requirements sets as written in T31 RFI.) It is in those gray-zone warfare when you expect hit, because some sudden "un-fair" attack is anticipated. The GP frigate is required to survive those hits and even react/revenge.

Adding armaments to River B2 will not meet this requirement. OPVs are not a ship to be used in harms way. Or, just build a well-armed OPV with escort-level damage control = a corvette.

Tiers are pointless, leave them to the Top Trumps/video gamers.

[Ron5]

The sunlight is disinfecting daily now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... -missiles/ .

Britain’s warships have gym where land attack missiles should be…Type 45 destroyers did not procure the weapons due to lack of funds

The Type 45s ended up with a gym in a space designed to accommodate the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System

Royal Navy destroyers have been fitted with treadmills where land attack cruise missiles should be, prompting warnings that the Navy is falling further behind the United States.

The Type 45 warships were designed to accommodate the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System fitted in their bows, allowing them to fire cruise missiles.

However, the space has only ever been used as a gym for crew because the Navy did not procure the weapons due to a lack of funds.

It comes after The Telegraph revealed HMS Diamond cannot attack Houthi targets on land because it lacks the firepower, although the warship has had direct involvement in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea using its anti-air Sea Viper missile system.

The US has had to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF aircraft based 1,500 miles away.

The only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. The US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, however, the UK could only achieve such strikes through Typhoon fighter jets or submarines.

The Type 45s will be enhanced with 24 Sea Ceptor missile cells, anti-air warfare that will upgrade the vessels’ air and missile defence capabilities.


Last month, Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, warned that “given the near-term threats to the UK and US”, investments in the Royal Navy were “significantly important”.

Tobias Ellwood, former chairman of the defence select committee, said: “When advances in missile technology saw the phasing out of battleships with those mighty 16in guns that could strike targets at sea and on land, the Navy prioritised blue-water warfare, focusing only on defending against and striking air, surface and subsurface targets.

“It is now clear the UK should have followed the example of the US and fitted the Type 45s with Tomahawks rather than only placing them in our submarine fleet.”

Mr Ellwood has since written to the Defence Secretary recommending “consideration of short-term solutions for our destroyer fleet”, including adapting the latest model of guided multiple launch rocket system launchers.

“In the meantime we should immediately dispatch our carrier group armed with F-35s,” he added. “This is what it was built for.”

A defence source defended the installation of the gyms, saying that “space in any warship is at a premium” and that “available space is often used to house gym equipment that can easily be removed should that area be required for operational use”.

‘Subs can’t be everywhere’
Dr Phil Weir, a naval historian, said there had been a view that land attack was covered by nuclear attack submarines, so surface ships did not require them.

“The submarines can’t be everywhere,” he added.

“They also have other jobs to do in terms of things like intelligence gathering, so that’s not always conducive to popping up and firing missiles.

“This was an attitude we could get away with back in the glory days of early 2000s when there didn’t seem to be as much of a submarine threat from Russia.

“But with the uptick from Russia and increasing threat from China you need to develop other options.”

Pete Sandeman, director of Navy Lookout, said: “For years, many commentators and naval advocates have urged the Navy to add land attack capability to its surface ships.

“For the majority of other top-tier navies this is a standard feature of major surface combatants.

“Over the last 20 years, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with prioritisation of the carriers and assorted other pressures, have left this as an unfunded aspiration.

“Only with increased likelihood of peer conflict recognised in the last five years or so, has the Navy very slowly started to address its lack of offensive weaponry.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “The Type 45 destroyers are optimised for air defence and this capability is due to be further enhanced by the incorporation of the common anti-air modular missile.”

Dear Danielle Sheridan strikes again.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Nice report from Xavier-san, on FDI for Saudi Navy.
Although not directly related to RN, the ship design, and the sales talks stresses compact and heavily armed. This is what the RN escorts avoid nowadays.

- T45 has large weight margin, can be added with 16-cell strike-length VLS, 8-16 NSMs, and still has large deck space on their waist and around the hanger. Its bow sonar dome is large but only carrying small sonar, and although its stern is not designed to carry CAPTAS4, I'm pretty sure it can carry its compact version CAPTAS4CI.

- T26 has bunches of internal redundant space, as well. It can improve its radar significantly, not as much as RAN Hunter class, but as good as FDI will be easy. 48 CAMM mushroom tubes can be replaced with ExLS stand-alone for 96 (12-ExLS forward, 12-amidship) or even 144 (18 forward, 18 amidship). It can carry 24 strike-length missiles in Mk41 VLS, and she has a redundant deck space to easily carry 8-16 NSM. Also she can carry 2 ARCIMS USVs in addtion to 2 RHIBs. The USV can carry ASW or MCM version. BAES patrol USV can be also carried.

- T31 as well. It can carry 32 strike-length missiles with Mk41VLS, and 8 NSM. Although no sonar dome is there, RN can add one if they want. The stern may not be large enough to carry full CAPTAS4, but CAPTAS4CI will be doable. Improving radar is also doable.

It is just the cost, and for future improvements, these margin are left and the ships are kept under-armed. Then, do we need "better armed but less number of escorts" or "be happy with under-armed escorts to keep the hull number"?

I personally think the latter is the aim.
[EDIT/ADD] In war time, navy needs to be expanded, but how?
Up-arming an escort is much more easy and faster than building new one. As we can see, all 3 types of escorts can almost "double" their fighting power if needed. Up-armed escort will need a bit more crew, but it will not be double.

The problem is,
1: when to execute its option. Now? Or not now?
2: don't we need a "template" design to enable such up-arming in hurry in future?