Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Jdam]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

This will depend on weather T-31 gets 8 - 16 -24 or 32 Mk-41 as it could then carry 32 - 64 -96 or 128 CAMM

Go to the type 31 thread and you will see how many Mk-41 launchers HMS Venturer will have at launch (spoiler none)

[Repulse]

I am not sure if it is only "tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence". A T31 with 24 CAMM can cover the Red Sea task, as much as HMS Richmond (T23 GP) can. I think this is important task.

Actually, in the context of the need to ween ourselves off of Gulf fossil fuels and Chinese cheap goods, I think it is an increasingly less critical priority. Yes, there are other things that will need to be traded, but perhaps a simpler answer is to secure the route around the Cape of Good Hope - even then the answer is not a T31 it’s about having enough T26s.

But, the build of T31 is progressing, and selling them will never give us back all the resources already spent there.

Selling them will bring cash, both in terms of immediate and the ability to divert maintenance/operational costs. However, the most important is freeing up at-least 550 trained crew.

Even in hot war, T31 has many tasks to do.
- Who are escorting RFA fleet from long-range ASM attack? = T31.

The replenishment RFAs will be servicing the carriers and their task groups, yes if they were navigating independently from port to the group they would need protection, but it’s a less frequent requirement than before, not one to justify dedicated ships for this purpose IMO.

- Who are filling the gap, stop the enemy corvettes prevail that theater? = T31. Note Russia has many many corvettes.

Russian corvettes will be restricted to the Mediterranean and Baltics, there are enough allied assets to counter these already.

- ASW? P-8A will do it. More ASW? Just order more SeaGuadian (ASW UAVs).

Yes, more P8s and UAVs and XLUUVs, but minor warships also as none of these could defuse a mine or effectively counter the spectrum of underwater threats in all the expected areas (including Littorals) IMO.

- AAW? T31 is as good as T23 in AAW.

Assuming it gets 32 CAMM (not a given) then it’s not, but I would be arguing the case for T23s for their ASW capabilities not AAW.

- How can UK improve military capability on short notice, say 3-4 years? Building new warship will not meet the schedule. Up-arming the 5 T31 will.

Definitely looking at the T31 as a stop gap way of increasing AAW ship numbers has to be part of the plan, but again we need to maximise our efforts of top tier platforms, not just making up numbers.

[SW1]

The type 26's are as capable as T23 GP but we switched to the Type 31 because they were cheaper, no other reason, they may meet that criteria of a type 23 GP but that's a pleasant bonus.

All the official render of the type 31 have 12 mushroom, when was the last time the compliment of missiles wasn't known or announced before the launch of a ship for the Royal Navy? The first type 31 will hit the water this year (hopefully) and we still don't know. It doesn't inspire confidence.

The reason I bring it up is I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a ship with 12 missiles off the coast of Yemen right now, at least the type 23 has the compliment to deal with what is looking to be the largest threat to our ships in the next few years.

Other have. They are largely shooting down drones not ballistic missile. Also defence building something to a set budget is something defence doesn’t do normally and gets in self in a right mess as a result.

I go back to this piece from 2012

https://warshipsifr.com/features/type-2 ... n-minimum/

“A number of factors enabled the cost of the Type 23s to remain tightly under control (in a programme running from the 1980s to the end of the 1990s, the first completed in 1989 and last in 2001). The final batch of Type 23s cost £100 million each, which was less than the lead ships had cost some 15 inflationary years earlier. A look at ships similar to the Type 26 in service reveals widely differing costs. Denmark’s Absalon Class cost £180m each, a Zeven Provinciën Class frigate of the Royal Netherlands Navy costs £525m while Álvaro de Bazán Class frigates built in Spain are about £650m each. The cost price of the Type 26 must be at the lower end of this spectrum, or the Royal Navy can expect the Type 23s to be replaced by a far smaller number of Type 26s. The present estimate of the cost of the Type 26 falls within a band of £250m to £350m.”

[Tempest414]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

This will depend on weather T-31 gets 8 - 16 -24 or 32 Mk-41 as it could then carry 32 - 64 -96 or 128 CAMM

Go to the type 31 thread and you will see how many Mk-41 launchers HMS Venturer will have at launch (spoiler none)

And how many did Glasgow have at launch let me think no no one moment ho ya it was none

[Tempest414]

The type 26's are as capable as T23 GP but we switched to the Type 31 because they were cheaper, no other reason, they may meet that criteria of a type 23 GP but that's a pleasant bonus.

All the official render of the type 31 have 12 mushroom, when was the last time the compliment of missiles wasn't known or announced before the launch of a ship for the Royal Navy? The first type 31 will hit the water this year (hopefully) and we still don't know. It doesn't inspire confidence.

The reason I bring it up is I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a ship with 12 missiles off the coast of Yemen right now, at least the type 23 has the compliment to deal with what is looking to be the largest threat to our ships in the next few years.

Other have. They are largely shooting down drones not ballistic missile. Also defence building something to a set budget is something defence doesn’t do normally and gets in self in a right mess as a result.

I go back to this piece from 2012

https://warshipsifr.com/features/type-2 ... n-minimum/

“A number of factors enabled the cost of the Type 23s to remain tightly under control (in a programme running from the 1980s to the end of the 1990s, the first completed in 1989 and last in 2001). The final batch of Type 23s cost £100 million each, which was less than the lead ships had cost some 15 inflationary years earlier. A look at ships similar to the Type 26 in service reveals widely differing costs. Denmark’s Absalon Class cost £180m each, a Zeven Provinciën Class frigate of the Royal Netherlands Navy costs £525m while Álvaro de Bazán Class frigates built in Spain are about £650m each. The cost price of the Type 26 must be at the lower end of this spectrum, or the Royal Navy can expect the Type 23s to be replaced by a far smaller number of Type 26s. The present estimate of the cost of the Type 26 falls within a band of £250m to £350m.”

Did you mean Type 31

[Tempest414]

The last know price for Type 31 was 268 million I think it will end up at 320 million with extras

[SW1]

The type 26's are as capable as T23 GP but we switched to the Type 31 because they were cheaper, no other reason, they may meet that criteria of a type 23 GP but that's a pleasant bonus.

All the official render of the type 31 have 12 mushroom, when was the last time the compliment of missiles wasn't known or announced before the launch of a ship for the Royal Navy? The first type 31 will hit the water this year (hopefully) and we still don't know. It doesn't inspire confidence.

The reason I bring it up is I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a ship with 12 missiles off the coast of Yemen right now, at least the type 23 has the compliment to deal with what is looking to be the largest threat to our ships in the next few years.

Other have. They are largely shooting down drones not ballistic missile. Also defence building something to a set budget is something defence doesn’t do normally and gets in self in a right mess as a result.

I go back to this piece from 2012

https://warshipsifr.com/features/type-2 ... n-minimum/

“A number of factors enabled the cost of the Type 23s to remain tightly under control (in a programme running from the 1980s to the end of the 1990s, the first completed in 1989 and last in 2001). The final batch of Type 23s cost £100 million each, which was less than the lead ships had cost some 15 inflationary years earlier. A look at ships similar to the Type 26 in service reveals widely differing costs. Denmark’s Absalon Class cost £180m each, a Zeven Provinciën Class frigate of the Royal Netherlands Navy costs £525m while Álvaro de Bazán Class frigates built in Spain are about £650m each. The cost price of the Type 26 must be at the lower end of this spectrum, or the Royal Navy can expect the Type 23s to be replaced by a far smaller number of Type 26s. The present estimate of the cost of the Type 26 falls within a band of £250m to £350m.”

Did you mean Type 31

I did not in 2012 that was the target price for type 26, 250-350m pounds missed that by a mile

[Poiuytrewq]

For me it looks very much low standard in damage control. The NGOPV in military mode requires a crew of 150. Vard 7 125 OPV requires 50, with similar hull.

That is exactly the point. An OPV can operate with a core crew of around 50 even with a 125m LOA. It is a non combatant under normal circumstances but must have good levels of self defence in an increasingly uncertain world.

Adding reinforced bulkheads, better compartmentalisation, blast proof doors, protected magazines and multiple redundancies in wiring, pumping, propulsion and electrical systems does not make an OPV a Frigate but it does add up to extra survivability if it takes a hit.

[Tempest414]

The type 26's are as capable as T23 GP but we switched to the Type 31 because they were cheaper, no other reason, they may meet that criteria of a type 23 GP but that's a pleasant bonus.

All the official render of the type 31 have 12 mushroom, when was the last time the compliment of missiles wasn't known or announced before the launch of a ship for the Royal Navy? The first type 31 will hit the water this year (hopefully) and we still don't know. It doesn't inspire confidence.

The reason I bring it up is I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a ship with 12 missiles off the coast of Yemen right now, at least the type 23 has the compliment to deal with what is looking to be the largest threat to our ships in the next few years.

Other have. They are largely shooting down drones not ballistic missile. Also defence building something to a set budget is something defence doesn’t do normally and gets in self in a right mess as a result.

I go back to this piece from 2012

https://warshipsifr.com/features/type-2 ... n-minimum/

“A number of factors enabled the cost of the Type 23s to remain tightly under control (in a programme running from the 1980s to the end of the 1990s, the first completed in 1989 and last in 2001). The final batch of Type 23s cost £100 million each, which was less than the lead ships had cost some 15 inflationary years earlier. A look at ships similar to the Type 26 in service reveals widely differing costs. Denmark’s Absalon Class cost £180m each, a Zeven Provinciën Class frigate of the Royal Netherlands Navy costs £525m while Álvaro de Bazán Class frigates built in Spain are about £650m each. The cost price of the Type 26 must be at the lower end of this spectrum, or the Royal Navy can expect the Type 23s to be replaced by a far smaller number of Type 26s. The present estimate of the cost of the Type 26 falls within a band of £250m to £350m.”

Did you mean Type 31

I did not in 2012 that was the target price for type 26, 250-350m pounds missed that by a mile

more like 600 million miles per ship

[Jdam]

And how many did Glasgow have at launch let me think no no one moment ho ya it was none.

Really, is that the route you are going?

We have ordered them for the type 26's and we now have Babcock saying "Type 31 frigates could get Mk 41 during future capability insertion periods"

[new guy]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

No. Everything from 12 to 128 CAMM, + or - NSM.

[Tempest414]

And how many did Glasgow have at launch let me think no no one moment ho ya it was none.

Really, is that the route you are going?

We have ordered them for the type 26's and we now have Babcock saying "Type 31 frigates could get Mk 41 during future capability insertion periods"

The point being that dependant on what is fitted to type 31 and when they could end up with any number of missiles but what we should be looking for from type 31 is 60% of the capability of T-26 for half the price so something like

Type 26 = 48 CAMM & Type 31 = 24 CAMM ,
T-26 = 24 Mk-41 & T-31 = 16 Mk-41

And so on but for me Mk-41 is messing up Type 31 as said we should be pushing for 40 CAMM and 16 NSM plus a VDS this would make Type 31 a really good global patrol frigate

[Pte. James Frazer]

My issue is that I do not see which of the priorities is the T31 actually addressing. The priority is not a GP ship, it’s to either to tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence.

The discussion around a T32 is interesting, but unless it’s another batch of T31s, which does not align to priorities, it will be a new class which wouldn’t deliver anything till after 2035. More T26s really is the only thing in town that makes sense from a FF/DD perspective.

I am also quite nervous from going too far with OPV+s - sure you can add CAMM for local area defence like the Venator 90 design had, but my view is that the priority is three fold; free up T45s/T26s from low level duties, provide additional platforms to operate unmanned systems and ASW sensors from and keep the cost / crew size to a minimum.

Without a near term improvement in recruitment/retention (of especially MEs) all talk of new (underarmed) hulls is asinine because new hulls (i) take time to deliver; (ii) need proportionately more ME crew; and (iii) cost £££s more.

Without the luxury of a magic wand (to solve limited financial budgets and ME resources) all these are arguments against prioritising new hulls in the near term (pre 2030) rather than adding additional, incremental capability quickly to existing/on order hulls (assuming enough WEs).

T31 looks well on the way to being a strong choke point policeman+ - read on - (thereby freeing T45, T23/26) from these taskings. Prioritise giving them Peregrine (alongside Wildcat), USV Pacific 24 RHIB, 8-16 NSM, but most importantly a full fit 32 cell Mk41 VLS with ExLS.

Hey presto you 'could' have a load out of 128 CAMM/CAMM-ER in extremis. No more talk of 'lack of magazine depth' on T45s or logistical/port of call/RFA headaches. Other missile combinations exist if you want to add a deep strike land attack capability. Having that loadout capacity and flexibility is a huge asset.

NS110 is easily good enough for local area defence.

With 57mm/40mm this fit would also make a highly complimentary 'goalkeeper' for the HVUs (i.e. carrier) in a CSG freeing up the T45s to use their Asters for what they were/should be intended for....higher value/more complex wide area threats.

Better use of a modest near budget bonus ~ £1bn over 5 hrs? We can then wait for the fabled LDEW developments...

A stretched A140 with mission bay and rear ramp allows a 'self escorting' T32 littoral ASW/MCM mothership combatant (using USVs), maybe even FCF/SF insertion capability. Keeps Rosyth ticking along in the 2030s.

Ideally + 1 T26, before an evolution of that hull into T83 (with RAN) for the Clyde yards.

The Bays soldier on and Belfast gets MRSS in the 30s..

[Pte. James Frazer]

* 5yrs

[new guy]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

No.

George in twitter said 24 planned, as I remember. But that is far from official statement.

George?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

No.

George in twitter said 24 planned, as I remember. But that is far from official statement.

George?

Allison. UK defense journal.

[new guy]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

No.

George in twitter said 24 planned, as I remember. But that is far from official statement.

George?

Allison. UK defense journal.

though so, wasn't too sure.

[serge750]

Is there a good chance of finding out how many CAMM this quater as it is the budget soon also the general elelection ? wont be easy for the next lot to cut the number without tabloid outrage of "underarmed RN battleship"

[Ron5]

Clearly many are repelled by the thought of more OPVs for RN ...

Dam straight junior!

[Ron5]

Even if RN did not order 5 T31s, it would have provided only 2.5 more T26

Surely 3?

[Ron5]

. but as capable as T23GP

Not a Type 31 requirement.

[Ron5]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

No.

George in twitter said 24 planned, as I remember. But that is far from official statement.

At least 12 CAMM.

[tomuk]

Changing the topic and moving over the "scaling" discussion from the River Class (OPV) thread, I think we need to move the conversation from a vague one about scaling and size of the RN, to something that is actually aligned to priority requirements grounded in reality.

If the threat of war is as dire and serious as senior politicians and military officials have stated recently, then we need to get real now. We need to look at what can be done in the short term (2030) and medium term (2035) that secures the defence and security of the UK and our BOTs, and do this is in the context of tight finances and the loss of personnel and need to focus money in this area, not just new kit. We also need to look at this in terms of increase efforts in energy security using more domestic or near shore sources.

When we talk about threats (from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) whilst we would contribute to any conflict in the IndoPacific region - the threat to the UK is Russia. Russia does not nor will anytime soon pose a significant surface threat - it's threat is primarily sub surface, along with long range hypersonic / ballistic missiles and UAVs.

Focusing purely on the surface fleet, but ignoring carriers, amphibious ships, auxiliaries and small patrol craft, currently we have:

-2024 (30 ships): 6 ASW T45s, 7 ASW T23s, 3 GP T23s, 5 B2 Rivers, 3 B1 Rivers and 6 Hunt MCMs

If nothing changes the plan looks like the following:

- 2030 (24 ships): 6 AAW T45s, 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

- 2035 (24 ships): 6 AAWT45s, 8 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (maybe with MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

Comparing this against the threats, we've done nothing to improve the AAW/ASW position - if anything we've gone backwards as scale (and ability to scale in the future) has dropped.

With a modest increase in funds and a slow improvement in recruitment / retaining personnel, I would say the following is realistic, and actually starts to address the need to counter the threat.

- 2030 (33 ships): 6 AAW T45s (with TLAM & CEC), 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 2 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS), 3 AAW T31s (with 48 CAMM / NSM & CEC), 5 B2 Rivers and 9 new 90m MHPCs (UUV/USV mothership with AWS TAS)

- 2035 (35 ships): 6 AAWT45s (with TLAM & CEC), 9 (+1) ASW T26s, 1 ASW/AAW T26 (new radar and additional VLS replacing the mission bay), 3 AAW T31s (with new long range radar, 48 CAMM / NSM & CEC) and 16 new 90m MHPCs (UUV/USV mothership with AWS TAS)

2 of the T31s would be put up to to sell to the likes of the RAN / RNZN / RCN in the early 2030, with an increased tempo on the T26 build to increase the current order by 1, and to extend the design to increase AAW capabilities (in partnership with the RAN) which then would replace the T45 / T31 AAW ships.

I'm sure everyone will have their own take - but we need to relate this back to the immediate threat, and less focused on the 90's/00's thinking of nation building and policing the world.

[Ron5]

The type 26's are as capable as T23 GP but we switched to the Type 31 because they were cheaper, no other reason, they may meet that criteria of a type 23 GP but that's a pleasant bonus.

All the official render of the type 31 have 12 mushroom, when was the last time the compliment of missiles wasn't known or announced before the launch of a ship for the Royal Navy? The first type 31 will hit the water this year (hopefully) and we still don't know. It doesn't inspire confidence.

The reason I bring it up is I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a ship with 12 missiles off the coast of Yemen right now, at least the type 23 has the compliment to deal with what is looking to be the largest threat to our ships in the next few years.

Other have. They are largely shooting down drones not ballistic missile. Also defence building something to a set budget is something defence doesn’t do normally and gets in self in a right mess as a result.

I go back to this piece from 2012

https://warshipsifr.com/features/type-2 ... n-minimum/

“A number of factors enabled the cost of the Type 23s to remain tightly under control (in a programme running from the 1980s to the end of the 1990s, the first completed in 1989 and last in 2001). The final batch of Type 23s cost £100 million each, which was less than the lead ships had cost some 15 inflationary years earlier. A look at ships similar to the Type 26 in service reveals widely differing costs. Denmark’s Absalon Class cost £180m each, a Zeven Provinciën Class frigate of the Royal Netherlands Navy costs £525m while Álvaro de Bazán Class frigates built in Spain are about £650m each. The cost price of the Type 26 must be at the lower end of this spectrum, or the Royal Navy can expect the Type 23s to be replaced by a far smaller number of Type 26s. The present estimate of the cost of the Type 26 falls within a band of £250m to £350m.”

Did you mean Type 31

I did not in 2012 that was the target price for type 26, 250-350m pounds missed that by a mile

Can I play this game too? Let's look up the first cost estimates for Typhoon ... yup, missed by 20 miles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The point being that dependant on what is fitted to type 31 and when they could end up with any number of missiles but what we should be looking for from type 31 is 60% of the capability of T-26 for half the price so something like

Doesn't work that way for warships. For them, you get 30% of the capability for half the price,